Chapter 8 - A Physical Model to Connect Some Major Parameters to be Considered in the Bologna Reform

This essay explores the cost of higher education and the inequality of educational resources distribution in China and America. As both nations grapple with the challenges posed by rising tuition fees and the uneven distribution of educational resources, understanding these dynamics becomes crucial for policymakers, educators, and students alike. In China, the rapid expansion of higher education has led to huge differences in resource allocation, and the educational resources in urban centers are much richer than those in countryside areas. In America, where elite institutions in the education industry attract the most funding and resources, family income greatly affects the quality and resources of education available. This paper examines the governmental and economic factors that influence the cost and resource allocation of higher education, which have contributed to the widening of equality and opportunity gap in higher education. By comparing China and America, the analysis highlights the need for targeted policy interventions to promote a more equitable education environment. This essay aims to explore the current state of higher education and provide perspectives for addressing the high cost and inequality of higher education

This essay explores the cost of higher education and the inequality of educational resources distribution in China and America. As both nations grapple with the challenges posed by rising tuition fees and the uneven distribution of educational resources, understanding these dynamics becomes crucial for policymakers, educators, and students alike. In China, the rapid expansion of higher education has led to huge differences in resource allocation, and the educational resources in urban centers are much richer than those in countryside areas. In America, where elite institutions in the education industry attract the most funding and resources, family income greatly affects the quality and resources of education available. This paper examines the governmental and economic factors that influence the cost and resource allocation of higher education, which have contributed to the widening of equality and opportunity gap in higher education. By comparing China and America, the analysis highlights the need for targeted policy interventions to promote a more equitable education environment. This essay aims to explore the current state of higher education and provide perspectives for addressing the high cost and inequality of higher education

Previous articleNext article No AccessOn Tuition and the Costs of Higher Education: Prolegomena to a Conceptual FrameworkMarc NerloveMarc Nerlove Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Political Economy Volume 80, Number 3, Part 2May - Jun., 1972Part 2: Investment in Education: The Equity-Efficiency Quandary Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/259995 Views: 32Total views on this site Citations: 26Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1972 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Jaekyung Lee, Taeyoung Kim, Mengchen Su Reassessing school effectiveness: Multi-objective value-added measures (MOVAM) of academic and socioemotional learning, Studies in Educational Evaluation 68 (Mar 2021): 100972.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100972Bernhard Eckwert, Itzhak Zilcha Improvement in information and private investment in education, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 34, no.44 (Apr 2010): 585–597.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2009.10.012Rita Asplund, Oussama Ben Adbelkarim, Ali Skalli An equity perspective on access to, enrolment in and finance of tertiary education, Education Economics 16, no.33 (Sep 2008): 261–274.https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290802338102Zafer D. Ozdemir, Kemal Altınkemer, John M. Barron Adoption of technology-mediated learning in the U.S., Decision Support Systems 45, no.22 (May 2008): 324–337.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.01.001Zafer D. Ozdemir, Jason Abrevaya Adoption of Technology-Mediated Distance Education: A longitudinal analysis, Information & Management 44, no.55 (Jul 2007): 467–479.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.04.006Carlo Salerno Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Improve Estimates of Higher Education Institution’s Per‐student Education Costs 1, Education Economics 14, no.33 (Sep 2006): 281–295.https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290600777485B. Jacobs, F. van der Ploeg Guide to reform of higher education: a European perspective, Economic Policy 21, no.4747 (Jul 2006): 536–592.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2006.00166.xMichael S. McPherson, Morton Owen Schapiro Chapter 24 US Higher Education Finance, (Jan 2006): 1403–1434.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0692(06)02024-1Macki Sissoko, Liang-Rong Shiau Minority Enrollment Demand for Higher Education at Historically Black Colleges and Universities from 1976 to 1998: An Empirical Analysis, The Journal of Higher Education 76, no.22 (Nov 2016): 181–208.https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2005.11778910Bas Jacobs, Sweder van Wijnbergen Capital Market Failure, Adverse Selection and Equity Financing of Higher Education, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2005).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.701222Miguel Palacios Lleras, Nicholas Barr Investing in Human Capital, 7 (Jan 2010).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511585982Peter J. Sloane The Impact of Research Assessment and Teaching-Quality Exercises on the UK University System, (Jan 2004): 109–126.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522657_5David D. Dill An Institutional Perspective on Higher Education Policy: The Case of Academic Quality Assurance, (Jan 2003): 669–699.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0137-3_12Vani K. Borooah Modelling institutional behaviour: A microeconomic analysis of university management, Public Choice 81, no.1-21-2 (Oct 1994): 101–124.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053268Robert C. Dolan, Robert M. Schmidt Modeling institutional production of higher education, Economics of Education Review 13, no.33 (Sep 1994): 197–213.https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(94)90008-6Paul Miller, Paul Volker SOCIOECONOMIC INFLUENCES ON EDUCATIONAL Attainment: EVIDENCE And IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TERTIARY EDUCATION FINANCE DEBATE, Australian Journal of Statistics 31A, no.11 (Jun 2008): 47–70.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.1989.tb00974.xJulie Hope, Paul Miller Financing Tertiary Education: An Examination of the Issues, The Australian Economic Review 21, no.44 (Jun 1988): 37–57.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8462.1988.tb00566.xJames C. Hearn, David Longanecker Enrollment Effects of Alternative Postsecondary Pricing Policies, The Journal of Higher Education 56, no.55 (Nov 2016): 485–508.https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1985.11778714Michael L. Tierney The impact of institutional net price on student demand for public and private higher education, Economics of Education Review 2, no.44 (Sep 1982): 363–383.https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(82)90025-5Richard J. Murnane New evidence on the relationship between mother's education and children's cognitive skills, Economics of Education Review 1, no.22 (Mar 1981): 245–252.https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(81)90046-7P. G. Hare, D. T. Ulph Imperfect capital markets and the public provision of education, (Jan 1981): 103–129.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7398-5_10P. G. Hare, D. T. Ulph Imperfect capital markets and the public provision of education, Public Choice 36, no.33 (Jan 1981): 481–507.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128732Paul Davenport La disponibilité des diplômés universitaires sur le marché du travail québécois, Cahiers québécois de démographie 10, no.33 (Oct 2008): 427–451.https://doi.org/10.7202/600861arStephen A. Hoenack, David J. Berg The roles of incentives in academic planning, New Directions for Institutional Research 1980, no.2828 (Jan 1980): 73–95.https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.37019802806Moheb Ghali, Walter Miklius, Richard Wada The demand for higher education facing an individual institution, Higher Education 6, no.44 (Nov 1977): 477–487.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132530L.R. Maglen Higher Education: Externalities, The Public Purse and Policy**An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the Fifth Conference of Economists, Brisbane, August 25–29, 1975. I am indebted to Mark Blaug, Colin Clark, Ross Parish and Yew Kwang Ng for their helpful commrnts., Economic Analysis and Policy 6, no.44 (Sep 1976): 27–43.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(76)50018-X

This paper summarizes recent research into the cost of higher education, and specifically the effects of growing student debt loads. It explores the utility of debt related to access to degree programs, entry into the job market, and economic impact in later life. It is not an economic analysis of higher education financing, but a consideration of the costs and benefits of education financing today. The central ethical consideration of “who benefits” applied to the current state of play in higher education financing leads to the questions: With constantly rising debt loads for individual students and the general population, is higher education still worth it? What are some of the issues that school debt creates and what impact do they have on diverse student and graduate populations? Finally, what are some potential areas for further research that can positively affect the cost vs. benefit of higher education for students and the state, while respecting prevailing social, economic, and political realities? The research shows while going into debt for a college degree is still “worth it” for the average student, as debt rises the payback of obtaining a degree is delayed. Debt loads have a negative disparate effect on vulnerable populations and a negative impact to the states as debt load drives some students away from careers that could benefit populations. Finally, there is a need for improved financial literacy and an opportunity to research and implement less costly financing options for students pursuing higher education.

Introduction. In the 21st century, there is an active involvement of universities in inclusive processes; however, against the backdrop of increasing diversity, new types of inequality arise in higher education. The processes of transformation of organisational cultures in universities and their research agenda under the influence of inclusion need to be studied.The aimof the present research was to analyse the convergence of concepts of academic and inclusive excellence in foreign universities of the world level, the impact of convergence on their missions, the values expressed in official strategies, the research agenda and the infrastructure of scientific collaborations.Methodology and research methods. The authors conducted a content analysis of three strategies of world-class University associations (the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the Association of Universities in Canada, the League of European Research Universities), nine strategies for the development of universities in the USA and Canada, the European Union, and Australia. A scientometric analysis of Web of Science metadata was performed using the VOSViewer software.Results and scientific novelty. The current research confirms the convergence of values of academic excellence and inclusion in research universities. It is revealed that the concept of inclusive excellence of the university is an enriched version of its academic excellence and denotes a set of university strategies and practices aimed at achieving the best results in training, research and services through maintaining diversity and inclusive processes. The world's leading universities are actively involved in the process of creating an inclusive friendly environment and services, which are accessible to all members of the educational process, regardless of their social status and development characteristics. When universities reach academic heights, they recognise inclusion as the next level of their development. In turn, inclusion becomes a factor in the movement of the university towards academic excellence. The key characteristics and contradictions of the convergence of the concepts of inclusive and academic excellence of universities are identified. The local models of inclusive excellence of universities and the contexts, which influence these models, are described. The gaps between educational policies and research agendas of leading universities are revealed. The clusters of international studies on inclusive processes in higher education are highlighted.Practical significance. Russian universities, which implement the federal programme for improvement of international competitiveness based on the values of academic excellence, are developing in accordance with global trends. Therefore, the model of inclusive excellence of the university can be used in practical terms to implement inclusive strategies and overcome social inequality both at the university and outside of it within the framework of a new educational initiative of Russia on academic leadership.

The present article discusses the question of how to share the cost of higher education between the benefitting individual and the public optimally when labour income is taxed. Building on some previous work on the efficiency effects that income taxation has on human capital investment, the article demonstrates that in the presence of progressive income taxation a strong case can be made for the public to assume a fair share in the cost of higher education. The mix of private and public financing is shown to be efficient when the public share just neutralizes the negative effect that income taxation has upon the willingness to invest in higher education. The article then examines the efficient pattern of cost sharing in more detail. The article argues in favour of a two-part cost sharing scheme. The first part requires that the public subsidizes the cost of higher education to such an extent that the disincentive effect of progressive income taxation is neutralized. The second part requires that all remaining private expenditures are granted tax deduction against the income earned after studying. A particular virtue of the proposed two-part cost sharing scheme is that it gives individuals proper incentives to deploy effectively the stock of human capital acquired by studying.

Hidden costs are a relevant issue in the financial planning of institutions. In the context of higher education, this relevance serves to ensure stability, efficiency, and excellence in the development of institutional activities. The study’s objective was to analyze the patterns of publication, collaboration, and evolution of research on hidden costs in higher education. A bibliometric methodology was used, with the search for documents in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. This search resulted in a total of 152 documents published from 2015-2023. The evolution of the production, the most cited authors, the countries with the highest production, the co-occurrence of keywords, and an author network analysis were identified. The results show that the distribution of documents is 44.73% for Scopus and 55.27% for WoS. The scientific production increased from 5 publications in 2015 to 23 in 2023. The United Kingdom is the country with the largest amount of research and Europe stands out as the continent with the largest contribution in this area. The authors with the most publications are Armstrong, N., Kleijnen, J., and Worthy, G. The constant increase in scientific production linked to hidden costs in higher education is evident. Such growth translates into a significant increase in publications and citations, thus reflecting the relevance and interest in the subject.

The main topic of this article is to consider the role of the State in providing higher education in Portugal, paying attention to the fact that the privatisation of higher education has been in place since the eighties (Amaral 1999) and also that it is difficult for students and their families to find the monetary resources needed for attendance at university (Cabrito 1999). The discussion focuses on the funding of higher education in a quasi-market situation (Le Grand et al. 1993), as Portugal hasn't escaped the universal trend towards privatisation of education (Whitty et al. 1998). In the last decade, the relationship between State, universities and students has been changing rapidly (Acherman et al. 1989; Barr et al. 1993; Williams 1990; Henkel et al. 1999), and some arguments are presented that equity in access to higher education must be guaranteed (Mora 1997; UNESCO 1998; Williams 1992). In this connection, the need is argued for free attendance on higher education and State subsidies to students to cover the costs of education. Firstly, the economic and social condition of university students is presented. Using data from two periods, one academic year from the 60s and one from the 90s, the increase in the degree of equity that the university system had known in recent decades can be verified. According to the analysis, the Portuguese population in general is better represented in the university student body nowadays, than in the 60s. Therefore, it is possible to discuss the maintenance of a low degree of equity in the Portuguese university system. For this, the economic and social condition of university students is compared with – that of the Portuguese population in the 90s. Secondly, the expectations of the students of higher education are presented, in order to understand the value attached by them to a university degree, which explains the social demand for education. Finally, the costs of higher education, both private and public, are evaluated. From this evaluation, it is possible to conclude that the principal source of funding of higher education costs is the student and his/her family and to discuss the need for a more interventionist State in higher education financing.

One consequence of the hype around globalization and education and debates on global political actors such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO—is that there has not been sufficient attention paid by education theorists to the development of a rigorous set of analytic categories that might enable us to make sense of the profound changes which now characterize education in the new millennium. 1 This is not a problema confined to education. Writing in the New Left Review, Fredric Jameson observes that debates on globalization have tended to be shaped by “…ideological appropriations— discussions not of the process itself, but of its effects, good or bad: judgements, in other words, totalizing in nature; while functional descriptions tend to isolate particular elements without relating them to each other.” In this paper we start from the position that little or nothing can be explained in terms of the causal powers of globalization; rather we shall be suggesting that globalization is the outcome of processes that involve real actors—economic and political—with real interests. Following Martin Shaw, we also take the view that globalization does not undermine the state but includes the transformation of state forms; “…it is both predicated on and produces such transformations.”3 Examining how these processes of transformation work, however, requires systematic investigation into the organization and strategies of particular actors whose horizons or effects might be described as global.

Many people have complained that our higher education system moves too slowly. Richard Cyert, president of Carnegie Mellon University, complains that we teach classes today the same way as our ancestors, without innovation or change. Ken King, the previous president of EDUCOM, half-facetiously points out that it took ten years to get the overhead projector from the bowling alley to the classroom. It is true that the peace of change in higher education has been geologic is some ways. But perhaps that is one of the strengths that has made it the envy of the world--not jumping too fast to adopt fads and sticking to the basics have been good formulae for success. On the other hand, things are changing quickly today. To be successful in the future, organizations and institutions must either predict or invent the future. Higher education is doing neither. Just as IBM ignored the clear signals that the world was changing and got blindsided by its competition, higher education is equally vulnerable to experiencing the same disaster. It is obvious that higher education is pricing itself out of the market. But higher education's costs continue to mount. Just as IBM's bloated bureaucracy reduced its flexibility to make timely decisions and added layers of costs to its products, higher education likewise continues to cling to a collegial form of governance that may no longer serve its best interests. William Massy of Stanford University has observed that this governance system has shifted vast university resources from teaching to research.[1] This has resulted in teaching loads falling from about 12 contact hours per semester in the 1960s to about six hours in most universities today. At the same time that teaching loads are falling, higher education must spend huge amounts of money to deal with hundreds of compliance issues, an increasingly litigious society and work force, and massive amounts of reporting to satisfy accountability requests. Because of these factors plus inflation, the cost of higher education has been increasing at double the consumer price index. Just as IBM believed that the high quality of its product sufficiently differentiated it from its competitors, universities and research institutions also believe that their high quality will insulate them from less sophisticated competitors. However, when the cost differential becomes too great, customers shift suppliers, as IBM learned the hard way. When the students simply don't show up it will be too late to adapt gracefully to this new world. Consequently, many people within the higher education community have been busily developing creative multimedia courseware to try to change the paradigm. Is multimedia a way out? Maybe, maybe not. This paper explores the factors that have inhibited widespread use of multimedia instructional courseware in U.S. higher education as well as the factors that are necessary to allow multimedia to thrive. The Three Revolutions Higher education has witnessed three different revolutions over the past 20 years. The first was the advent of television; it was to change the very foundations of education by bringing the world to the classroom and providing more interesting and innovative material to the student. It didn't happen. Although higher education spent millions of dollars producing films and videotapes, there was never widespread adoption. Some say that the NIH syndrome (not invented here) was responsible. Nevertheless, we spent greast sums of money trying to change the teaching paradigm. It is ironic that television radically changed every facet of our society except education. Television has transposed forever our political system, our youngsters, our perceptions of the world around us and even the teaching of religion. Higher education alone escaped unscathed. The second revolution was the microcomputer; it was to change the very foundations of education by bringing the world to the classroom and providing more interesting and innovative material to the student. …

What Does Globalization Mean for Educational Change? A Comparative Approach

This article discusses the cost- sharing experiences of 73 Tanzanian female undergraduates who took part in a 1997 study. It also integrated views and suggestions of the 2007 students from the University of Dar es Salaam and Sokoine University of Agriculture, Mazimbu campus. The University of Dar es Salaam was closed in 2007 because First Year students boycotted classes to protest the government’s policy that required them to pay 40% for their higher education. I advocate for partnership in student financing and the introduction of graduate tax for recovering higher education students’ loans. Cet article traite les expériences du partage des coûts de 73 tanzaniennes du premier cycle qui ont pris part à une étude en 1997. Il a également intégré les avis et les suggestions des étudiants de 2007 venant de l’Université de Dar es Salaam et de l’Université d’agriculture Sokoine du campus de Mazimbu. L’Université de Dar es Salaam a été fermée en 2007 car les étudiants de première année ont boycotté les cours afin de protester contre la politique du gouvernement qui leur a exigé de payer 40 % des frais pour l’enseignement supérieur. Je préconise un partenariat de financement des étudiants ainsi que l’introduction d’un impôt gradué afin de recouvrir les prêts des étudiants de l’enseignement supérieur.

Among explanations for the escalating cost of higher education in the United States, two economic theories predominate: the revenue theory of cost and cost disease theory. Since its formulation in the 1960s, distinguished economists have concluded that cost disease theory has convincingly been proven to explain cost escalation in higher education. This article examines three historical dimensions of the cost disease in higher education from the 1870s to the 2010s. First, we explain how the scholarship on the cost disease in higher education has developed over the past 50 years. Second, we concurrently analyze the historical data and the reasoning presented by economists in support of the view that cost disease theory explains cost escalation in higher education. This analysis concludes that the scholarship over the last 50 years provides little validation for that explanation. Finally, we present historical research on cost trends in US higher education from 1875 to 1930. This formative period in US higher education witnessed enormous growth in the national economy. Due to the growth in productivity, cost disease theory would expect costs in higher education, a personal services industry, to rise sharply relative both to costs generally and to the national income. But this historical research reveals that the per capita cost of higher education grew very slowly over this period. These findings consist with our analysis of cost disease scholarship. We therefore conclude that there is little validation that cost disease theory explains cost escalation in US higher education from the 1870s to the 2010s, though it may explain some periods within that span.

Higher education plays an important role in improving the quality of life of families and supporting economic and social development. However, the high cost of education is an obstacle for MSME families, so that the main business income becomes the main factor in financing the education of family members. This study aims to analyze the potential household income of MSMEs in rural areas of Jambi Province, Indonesia, to support higher education costs at the University of Jambi. Using a quantitative descriptive method, this study involved 23 MSME families. The analysis was carried out by comparing the cost of higher education with the income allocated from the main and additional businesses. The results show a ratio of income to education costs of 0.4, meaning that income from the main business is not enough to finance family education. If income from additional businesses is calculated, the ratio increases to 1.08, indicating the family's potential to meet the cost of higher education. This finding emphasizes the importance of business diversification and increasing family income to be able to support higher education sustainably. It is recommended that MSME families develop businesses in other fields to increase income, while the government is expected to provide entrepreneurship training, access to financing, and business assistance. These efforts are expected to increase access to higher education for MSME families significantly and sustainably.

1. IntroductionThe substantially greater than inflation increases in college tuition during the late 1980s and first half of the 1990s ignited considerable discussion of the costs of higher education by both academics and nonacademics. The general discussion covered such issues as how much tuition has risen, why college costs so much (Ehrenberg 2000), the extent to which tuition fully covers costs (Winston 1998; NACUBO 2002), and what colleges are doing to cut costs (Strosnider 1998). Indeed, concern over rapidly increasing tuition spurred Congress to establish a National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education in 1997; the Commission conducted a review of college costs and issued recommendations for holding costs down.To economists, discussion of cost-cutting generally boils down to a simple question: What is the efficient organization of production? In a market economy, competitive pressures force profit-maximizing firms constantly to strive to produce more efficiently. Thus, information about the efficient organization of production can be deduced by observing organizations that survive and prosper (Stigler 1958). However, in the context of higher education, the answer is not so simple, for at least three reasons: (i) colleges are not profit-maximizing entities, thus market-driven pressures to minimize costs are, essentially, absent; relatedly, (ii) tuition/prices paid by students/customers do not cover the full cost of their educational experience (Winston 1998); and (iii) colleges typically produce multiple products, not just undergraduate education.Supposing that the individuals who run institutes of higher education (IHEs) have an interest in minimizing costs, how should they structure production to achieve this? That is, what should they produce and how much of it should be produced? Should colleges specialize and produce only undergraduate education, or produce multiple outputs, as so many currently do? Should colleges be small or large, in terms of student enrollments and/or grant research?These are complex questions in their own right. For example, take the question about the optimal mix of outputs to produce. Forgetting about the implications for revenues, there are a host of related empirical issues to investigate: What are the unit costs of producing different levels of only undergraduate education, graduate education, athletics, research, extension, or public services? What then, in comparison, are the unit costs of producing different levels of alternative combinations of two or more of these outputs? Knowing the answers to specific questions like these provides an essential foundation for informed decision making about the efficient organization of production in higher education.Estimating the cost of producing academic outputs is complicated by the fact that many, if not most, IHEs produce multiple products. Typically, the products include undergraduate and/or graduate instruction and research.1 In addition to these basic outputs, the state land-grant institutions also produce extension services. Many institutions also produce public services such as medical services, business assistance programs, museums of various sorts, theater productions, and the like. And, of course, IHEs produce both intramural and extramural athletics. Thus, for purposes of estimating unit costs, it is essential to treat IHEs as multiproduct firms.Further, it seems highly likely that the production of certain outputs affects the unit cost of producing others. For example, production of graduate instruction requires the administrators of an IHE to hire faculty with more extensive training and ability than is required to teach at the undergraduate level. Doctorally qualified faculty are more expensive to hire than non-doctorally qualified faculty, ceteris paribus. To the extent that the set of faculty providing graduate instruction and the set of faculty providing undergraduate instruction are mutually exclusive, the provision of the former has no cost spillover to the latter. …