Running head: COUNTERING HIGHER EDUCATION COST 1

Countering Higher Education Cost Perception

Andrew Johnson

Western Carolina University

COUNTERING HIGHER EDUCATION COST 2

The rising costs of higher education, particularly at traditional four year residential

campuses, have become a staple in contemporary debates. Those debates discuss if cost increases

are necessary, where and when those increases begin, and who or what is to blame. This paper

will discuss one avenue of blame, the increase in the college campus luxury and consumption

expenses, and how those expenses are viewed by the public and the student body. This paper will

not discuss the rising cost of higher education beyond using that information as a reference point,

but will instead focus those expenses and the perceptions of them.

Addressing the Issue

To a certain extent, there appears to be a college cost paradox when regarding educational

costs beyond true instruction spending. If, as a society, we are to continue only viewing higher

education as an instruction only entity, then it can be argued that any spending beyond that is

unnecessary. However, it is difficult to separate residence halls, meal plans, and student services

from the higher education package. The quasi-paradox exists when there is a lack of

understanding of what the actual expenses are, where they come from, and if they are even

necessary. The paradox is then perpetuated when the costs are not communicated to the students.

This paradox idea is not only confined to the student body or publics perceptions. In

2013, the National Bureau of Economic Research published the article, College as Country

Club: Do Colleges Cater to Students Preferences for Consumption? (Jacob, McCall, & Stange,

2013). The title alone reflects the notion that there may exist gratuitous spending on college

campuses. Their research found that most students do value college consumption luxuries and

amenities, which, for the purpose of their research, focused on student activities, sports, and

dormitories/residence halls. The only group of students shown not to favor that value were high

achieving students, who were found to value perceived expenses on instruction, and it was
COUNTERING HIGHER EDUCATION COST 3

suggested that some colleges who spend more on instruction could actually harm their

enrollment (Jacob et al., 2013). So this idea of what constitutes necessary spending goes beyond

a populous perception, but rather tangible outcomes or consequences for the institution.

Professors at the College of William and Mary questioned whether dorms and food plans

are to blame for the increase of college costs (Archibald & Feldman, 2011). Their research

focused on William and Mary and analyzed meal plans, as well as the evolution of their

dormitories, and the cost associated with upgraded quality and size of the dorms. Again, the title

plush dorms and fancy food plans suggests a particular perception. They discovered, however,

that while there had been a substantial increase of cost and quality of college dormitories, it was

not beyond the increase of the accepted societal standard of living (Archibald & Feldman, 2011).

Their research showed that the average dorm has increased in size and quality, to accommodate

such features as central heating and air and lounge spaces. The average size of the American

home has also increased while, the average family size has decreased (Archibald & Feldman,

2011).

It is important to understand the increase of cost to this point. Though the focus of this

paper is not strictly on why costs have increased, the Delta Data Cost Project did release

important information on college spending (Desrochers & Hurlburt, 2014). The project showed

that across the board for all public and private institutions, the cost of education and related

expenses (excluding dormitories) increased. Institutional subsidies, including but not limited to

state and local support, endowment income, and private gifts, had declined during this time. This

particularly hurt public institutions more than private due to their dependence on state and local

support (Desrochers & Hurlburt, 2014). The understanding from this is that the overall cost of
COUNTERING HIGHER EDUCATION COST 4

education increased, and in general shifted more required financial pressure to the student,

though accounting for consumption costs such as dormitories.

Ultimately, it would be beneficial to begin devaluing the rhetoric that a major reason the

cost of college has gone up is due to residence halls, student activities, entertainment, and other

luxury or consumption expenses. The notion has been found in scholarly research, but also exists

on the prospective student level as part of the college search process (Jacob et al., 2013;

Archibald & Feldman, 2011). In my role as a college admissions counselor, I spoke about how

our residence halls are suite style (an increase in perceived quality) to prospective students.

That drew a response from their college advisor at the school declaring that luxury is why the

cost of college has gone up. However, we know now that has mostly paralleled overall cost of

living, and that room and board sometimes is not the only increase of cost (Archibald &

Feldman, 2011).

Cause for Recourse

I support an increase of opportunities for increased financial literacy starting (but not

ending) even before college orientation; however, within those educational moments, we should

also add the general breakdown of the institutional financial structure. It can be convoluted and

confusing, but it could create a culture of transparency and a general understanding of how the

institution spends its resources. For example, at NC State, students protested and expressed

concern that library hours were being cut and tuition was increasing, but there were also new

construction projects on campus (Porter, 2014). There should be opportunities and a general

understanding for students to recognize, typically, library service hours are budgeted differently

from construction projects.

COUNTERING HIGHER EDUCATION COST 5

Moos (1979) indicated that student behavior stems from the environmental perception. If

an institution can create a transparent environment when regarding their financial structure it

should reflect more positive responses from the student body. The college would be better off

creating opportunities for student understanding by working with students regarding their

financial struggles before protests and negative reactions.

The negative reaction from students at University of California Berkeley seemed

expected then when administration was not overly concerned discussing student organization

spaces that were competing with the for-profit campus bookstore. At meetings regarding new

placement for the organizations, students were told the Associate Vice Chancellor for Student

Affairs and Dean of Students would be present. The administrators were not present, and the

space change was denied (Barreira & Lynn, 2016). Obviously, the complete lack of active

communication is not conducive in challenging the perception of cost or institutional priorities.

Implications for Practice

This inability to communicate, or lack of effort, is an overall issue of higher education. It

has even become the backdrop of satire regarding college identity in Jean Korelitzs novel (2017)

The Devil and Webster, regarding student protests and how a president struggles to create

dialogue. In a constantly changing age of communication styles, how can higher education

maintain transparent and progressive communication methods that properly inform students? It is

especially important when trying to convey a positive message on the cost when it is negatively

perceived before a student even enters college.

A new question then emerges in the best practices of how to communicate the financial

structure of an institution for its students. When a student is shown the cost compared to their

financial aid award, there moments for some where they question if they should pay for some
COUNTERING HIGHER EDUCATION COST 6

services and not others. Recent articles have already shown the effect of transparency, or lack

thereof, towards college faculty and staff (Woodhouse, 2015). Where are the strategies though

for communicating with students, who continue to carry more and more of the higher education

expense?

Conclusion

There will be instances where hard financial choices have to be made by the institution,

and regardless of their response and no matter how transparent the process, it may still be

perceived negatively by the student body. By implementing and molding the campus

environment towards financial structure and literacy by at least opening new communication

channels, it can encourage a positive relationship between students and administration and help

eliminate potential illusions of consumption or over spending. Going forward, higher education

needs to learn to begin communication with a positive, transparent, and personal attitude to

create an environment in which students can react by promoting constructive criticism and ideas,

as opposed to protesting and uninformed actions. An ultimate working relationship should go

beyond transparency, but also welcoming of student input. In my experience, the more open and

sincere the institution is in listening to students, the more likely equal understanding

compromises can be made.

COUNTERING HIGHER EDUCATION COST 7

References

Archibald, R., & Feldman, D. (2011). Are plush dorms and fancy food plans important drivers of

college cost? Change, 43(1), 31-37.

Barreira, A., & Lynn, J. (2016, October 24). Student groups block sather gate in latest protest for

relocation. The Daily Californian. Retrieved from

http://www.dailycal.org/2016/10/23/student-groups-block-sather-gate-latest-protest-

relocation/

Desrochers, D., & Hurlburt, S. (2014). Trends in college spending: 2001-2011. A delta data

update. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.deltacostproject.org

Jacob, B., McCall, B., & Stange, K. (2013). College as country club: Do colleges cater to

students preferences for consumption? The National Bureau of Economic Research,

Working Paper No. 18745. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w18745

Korelitz, J. H. (2017). The Devil and Webster. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing.

Moos, R. (1979). Evaluating education environments: Procedures, measures, findings, and

policy implications. San Francisco: Jassey-Bass.

Porter, J. (2014, October 23). N.C. State students protest tuition, construction, shortened library

hours. Indyweek. Retrieved from

http://www.indyweek.com/news/archives/2014/10/23/nc-state-students-protest-tuition-

construction-shortened-library-hours

Woodhouse, K. (2015). Communication an issue for college administrators and faculty during

era of financial change. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/28/communication-issue-college-

administrators-and-faculty-during-era-financial-change