An Alternative to Net Price

Over the last two decades, many institutions of higher education have experienced admissions-related problems due to fluctuations in student enrollment and the increasing need for institutional financial aid. Because of this, administrators need tools that can help them modify policy as the market changes. The purpose of this research was to develop a tool for a private, more selective institution that would answer the following questions: (1) what is the probability of enrollment for each admitted student, and (2) how would changes in the financial aid package affect this probability? The model in this research was based on both economic theory and the results of other empirical work, and was refined through statistical analysis. Its goal was to develop the best predictive model using the data collected by the institution and available to it at the time admission and financial aid decisions are made. The methodology was carried out in three steps. First, an enrollment probability model was estimated using three years (1998-2000) of admissions data from the institution, using both logistic and probit regression. The model included a unique set of explanatory variables, including religious affiliation and distance from home, showing the ease at which institutions can look at the variables that are important for their goals, policies, and practices. The second step was a tem poral validation against additional data. The model was tested for predictive accuracy against the admissions data for 2001. After rerunning the model for all four years, the final step in the methodology was to simulate the effects on enrollment of various changes in the tuition and financial aid policy, and to calculate price sensitivity. The results of this study, for the most part, confirm ed economic theory and general empirical findings. The signs and significance of most coefficients were as expected. A unique finding was that a linear, constantly decreasing functional form for net price was not the best fit for the data. Rather, a cubic relationship between net price and enrollment probability provided a better fit. Classification accuracy within each model and predictive accuracy for 2001 were all near 70%. Sensitivity to price was calculated differently in this research than in other existing research. Due to mathematical shortcom ings discussed in the study, delta-Ps and student price response coefficients (SPRC) were not used. Rather, sensitivity to a $1,000 decrease in net price was calculated for each student. The mean sensitivity to a

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.

Since the 1980s, the Chilean Higher Education System has been characterized by continuous government policies for marketization (somewhat nuanced after the return to democracy in the 1990s) and a marked, unchallenged hierarchal relationship between vocational and academic qualifications and institutions. Vocational Education and Training (VET), in particular, has relied heavily on human capital theory as its conceptual foundation with a clear focus on preparing students to participate in the labour market by providing them with skills demanded by employers. However, during the 2014–2018 presidential cycle, major reforms were implemented by the government in both K-12 and post-secondary education, intending to establish a system based on quality, equality and free access to education. For VET, this meant the enactment of a series of public policies that attempted to shift its theoretical approach from human capital approach to a rights-based one, aiming to support both educational and labour trajectories of VET students. These efforts reached its tipping point in early 2018 with the enactment of a new Law on Higher Education which formally recognized Vocational Higher Education (Educación Superior Técnico-Profesional) as a distinct subsector of the higher education system, suggesting an epistemological differentiation from universities that contrasted the previous hierarchical distinctions. Hence, previous hierarchical differentiations in Chile’s higher education system (where VET is positioned in the lower stages of vertical structure) coexist with a more horizontal epistemological approach (which focuses on the distinction between VET’s applied knowledge and universities’ academic knowledge). This chapter discusses the implications of recent changes in Chilean educational policies for the relationship between Vocational Higher Education Institutions and universities. In doing so, it uses a theoretical background based on the distinction of different approaches to theoretical foundations of VET (human capital, rights-based education and human capabilities), VET identities (hierarchical, epistemological, teleological and pragmatic) and higher education systems typologies (vertical and horizontal). The analysis is based on a review of public policies for Vocational Higher Education in Chile, identifying major social and political phenomena affecting its development, including an analysis of the implications of various soft and hard laws enacted during the 2014–2018 presidential period and the paradoxes that appear at contrasting them with previous Higher Vocational Education policies (especially with those which are still in force). As a conclusion, it argues that major regulatory changes are needed to reinforce the shift from a hierarchical to an epistemological differentiation between the two sectors of Chilean higher education.

Reviewed by: Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives Kelly Ward and Meghan Levi Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, edited by Elizabeth Allan, Susan Van Deventer Iverson, & Rebecca Ropers-Huilman. Routledge, 2009. 272 pp. $145.00 (cloth). ISBN 978-0-415-99776-8. What is feminist poststructuralism? Why is it important? How can it be useful to advance policy conversations related to higher education? Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, a volume edited by Elizabeth Allan, Susan Van Deventer Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman, addresses these and other questions related to advancing the creation, implementation, and use of policy conversations. The book is a valuable resource for administrators, policy makers, researchers, and students wanting to think in new and different ways about policy affecting colleges and universities. For readers not familiar with feminist poststructuralism (FPS) and policy analysis, the book is foundational and informative. In Chapters 1 and 2, the editors provide a reminder about some of the core concepts related to policy and they address how feminist poststructuralism can be used to problematize "what has come to be taken-for granted as 'normal' everyday practice" (p. 2). Chapter 2 authored by Elizabeth Allan is particularly helpful for readers to understand FPS and all the other "posts" bantered about in higher education circles. Because the tenets of FPS are so clearly laid out as a tool of analysis, readers can use this knowledge to examine situations common to higher education that are threaded throughout the remaining chapters. The approach to policy analysis put forth by the editors widens the audience and is a guide for those new to the study of FPS and higher education policy. The book is particularly useful to analyze gender in contemporary policy discourses yet it is not limited to people interested in gender. FPS as a tool of analysis is far reaching. Part 1 of the book entitled Productions of Power through Presence with Absence includes three chapters that critically analyze the dominant, neoliberal narrative prominent in higher education. This part of the book presents historical and macroscopic perspectives of policy, discourse, and FPS in higher education. In Chapter 3 Jana Nidiffer offers FPS as a "corrective" agent to view the history of higher education by asking, "Who benefits from the story being told in this particular way and what are the consequences of having knowledge framed in this manner?" (p. 44). Her work brings forth the silent narrative of the female student suffragist movement all but missing from higher education history texts. In Chapter 4 Tatiana Suspitsyna questions the contemporary articulations of the purpose of higher education by using Foucault's (1972) view [End Page 460] of discourse and power as productive not repressive. Through an analysis of documents from the Department of Education, almost entirely authored by Secretary Margaret Spelling, Suspitsyna deconstructs the purpose of higher education. The results strongly suggest that a neoliberal market discourse reinforces the hegemonic masculine status quo in contemporary higher education. The same notion of man as ideal consumer of higher education is also present in the discourse surrounding leadership in higher education. In Chapter 5 Gordon, Iverson, and Allan use The Chronicle of Higher Education to examine the how dominant notions of femininity and masculinity were used to "produce gendered images of leaders" (p. 82). Not surprisingly, female leaders were portrayed as "caretaker" and "vulnerable" leaders among other labels. The authors provide several examples used in their analysis that provide further context for "the double bind" conflict female professionals at all levels experience (p. 90). Part 2, Subjects and Objects of Policy, is focused on students and is likely to be of particular interest to those who work with students. The chapters help readers see how policy works discursively for students on paper, but against students in action. In Chapter 6, Susan Talburt used the idea of "becoming" to show how the university rhetoric of "involvement" actually creates what Foucault (1977) described as, "normalizing judgment" (p. 183). In the case of LGBT students, Talburt explores the tensions between a discourse of victimization and the roles of student as both active subject and passive object of university policy created for and by...

A country’s societal and economic growth needs well-planned, dedicated, open, and technological advancements in education systems and learning policies (Archer, 2013). Since ancient times, India has dominated education, and university education is widespread there. Before and after independence, India’s education system had many improvements. The current research critically explores the influences of English teaching and learning pedagogies and enhancement strategies in higher education under the Indian National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The research employed a descriptive-quantitative approach that collected quantifiable information for statistical analysis of the population sample. Moreover, the study uncovers challenges, curriculum, approaches, opportunities, and implementations under the NEP 2020. The study used a questionnaire to randomly collect data from 200 students to investigate the implicit impact of executing English language teaching and learning programs. The impact was evaluated across four categories: high, medium, neutral, and low, and the analysis of the data showed the high impact of implementing the NEP in India. This study is a preliminary analysis of a policy document that will be used as a starting point for future studies using empirical methods to examine the effects of the NEP once it is fully implemented. Focusing on changes in higher education, the paper has elucidated the holistic, transformative understanding of NEP and highlighted the significance of technology interventions for innovative teaching and learning. This article can be considered as a reference to the policy implementation of English language pedagogical enhancement policies in higher education by the NEP 2020 teams of the Government of India.

Most research on student price response was conducted on students who entered college before the Pell Grant program was implemented in fall 1973. This study uses the High School and Beyond Sophomore cohort, the High School Class of 1982, to analyze the effects of the amount of tuition charged and aid offered on student enrollment decisions. The findings include (1) all forms of financial aid—grants, work, and loans—were effective in promoting enrollment; (2) one hundred dollars of aid (any type) had a stronger influence on enrollment than a one-hundred-dollar reduction in tuition; (3) low-income students were more responsive to increases in grant aid than to increases in loans or work study; and (4) high-income students were not responsive to changes in aid amounts.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsTimothy C. CaboniTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.John M. BraxtonTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Molly Black DeusterhausTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Meaghan E. MundyTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Shederick A. McClendonTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Stephanie D. LeeTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Higher education sector in the Slovak republic has been subject to a series of fundamental challenges in the past decade. Constantly growing number of universities and decreasing number of secondary education graduates cope with many challenges. Higher education institutions need an appropriate strategy, a necessity reflected in numerous calls for research on strategy in the higher education sector. It is important to realize, that the university in the emerging market is striving to gain sustainable competitive advantage. This paper makes an attempt to study university marketing communication. It presents multiple statistics indexes which are developed in different time periods. It is understood that the choice which university makes in selecting the right way of marketing communication determines the success. Universities with targeted marketing communication demonstrated higher chances of gain competitive advantage. Drawing from these trends, paper describes the main critical attributes that the slovak universities have to challenge. The competition strategy is presented by the case study from the University of Zilina, where sustainable steps have to be realized to keep competitive position at the higher education market. Drawing from these trends, three core challenges are identified, that higher education institutions will face and these have fundamental implications for the research and practice: first, the need to enhance prestige and market share. The paper describes the significance of criterias, accoarding to which potential student make decision when choosing an university. Potential student face a number of criterias: how to select the university that is best for him/her, how is the university reputation, what is the consistence of programs with potential student values and careergoals, conducive environment etc. Potential student determines the order of criteria importance. In a process of selecting, potential student has certain information obtained from various sources, and no each source have the same importance and gravity for this student. Each university have different marketing communication. The paper also answers one of the research questions-which form of marketing communication reach the target group of potential student the most. The paper compare and evaluate the importance of information about the university with potential student expectations. Paper further describes changes in marketing communication with secondary education graduates as well as the changes in demand attributes. Secondly, the necessity to embrace an entrepreneurial mindset — education used to be considered a public good, provided by nonprofit organizations that were unexposed to market pressure and had clear societal missions. Now, education is becoming a global service delivered by quasi-companies in an ever-more complex and competitive knowledge marketplace. This article's purpose is to contribute to this discussion by providing prescriptive quidance to higher education managers in areas of competiton strategy and sustainability of higher education. Paper also describes key trends that will impact higher education in the short to medium terms as well.

Reviewed by: Breaking Through the Access Barrier: How Academic Capital Formation Can Improve Policy in Higher Education Noah D. Drezner Breaking Through the Access Barrier: How Academic Capital Formation Can Improve Policy in Higher Education. Edward St. John, Shouping Hu, and Amy Fisher. New York: Routledge, 2010, 296 pages, $44.95 (softcover) In a very interesting and informative book, Edward St. John, Shouping Hu, and Amy Fisher look at different educational interventions intended to improve college access for first-generation and/or low-income, working class students. Breaking Through the Access Barrier: How Academic Capital Formation Can Improve Policy in Higher Education focuses on three programs that support socioeconomically disadvantaged students’ entrance into college. Each of the three programs, Gates Millennium Scholars, Twenty-First Century Scholars, and Washington State Achievers, use a combination of interventions including academic support and financial assistance. It should be noted that the Gates Millennium Scholars program focuses their support on African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American, and Hispanic American students across the country and allows students to attend any college or university along with support for graduate school in the areas of computer science, education, engineering, library science, mathematics, public health or science. The Twenty-First Century Scholars program is geared toward low-and moderate-income families in Indiana who attend a public college or university within the state. Finally, the Washington State Achievers program, also funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, targets low income students at 16 Washington state high schools and, similar to the Twenty-First Century Scholars program, supports participants’ attendance at in-state colleges and universities. Noting their interest in these three programs for their “exemplary” status, St. John, Hu, and Fisher focus on how these interventions combine opportunities for ongoing support services for families that promote understanding about the benefits of college and possibilities for funding college beginning earlier than many other precollege programs. St. John, Hu, and Fisher do a very good job in introducing the concept of Academic Capital Formation (ACF). They developed this new theory by building upon social processes in human capital theory (Becker, 1975), social capital theory (Coleman, 1988), and social reproduction theory (Bourdieu, 1972). Academic Capital Formation is a set of social processes that allows a first-generation college student and, notably, their family to develop new levels of educational attainment and success. Using quantitative and qualitative methodologies to support their theory development, St. John, Hu, and Fisher expand the definition of academic success beyond degree attainment and professional employment to a definition that includes “a commitment to cross-generational uplift, to enable subsequent generations to have the opportunity to achieve academic and career success” (p. 171). As such, the authors examine six components of academic capital formation: (a) concerns about college costs; (b) social networking; (c) trust; (d) information; (e) cultural capital; and (f) abitual patterns, through an “explicit focus on the academic and civic aspects of the capital formation” (p. 171). [End Page 482] Breaking Through the Access Barrier is a well written, self-proclaimed, textbook that will be valuable in both courses specifically focusing on college access issues as well as more general higher education policy courses. The mixed method approach to understanding current initiatives and possible future policy implications is very valuable. The extensive data, collected from multiple sources, provides a comprehensive look at college access intervention programs, which can help both intended college students and their families. Qualitative data gathered from one-on-one interviews and focus groups with students and parents participating in the Gates Millennium Scholars, Twenty-First Century Scholars, and Washington State Achievers programs are well paired with statistical data on a number of outcomes. St. John, Hu, and Fisher go beyond sharing the best practices of the exemplar programs and show how different social processes and social-psychological factors are used to improve college access. As such, they find that information about college is more likely to be used when it comes from a source that the intended student and family deem to be “trusted.” Further, St. John, Hu, and Fisher suggest that the college access process does not simply end upon matriculation but should include major selection and perhaps...

Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsEdward P. St. JohnEdward P. St. John is associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations at the University of New Orleans.

Applied Anthropology provides a new perspective on today’s higher education environment. Volatile and unpredictable forces affect research and instruction across many sectors and levels, and global dynamics are among the strongest drivers of change. Further, within American higher education, daunting complexity and multiple layers of activity weave a rich tapestry of environment, structure, and culture.This book provides three complementary anthropological perspectives as a framework for analyzing the ground-shifting changes underway in higher education — the higher education mindset, political and policy perspectives, and instruction and learning. These domains intersect with many operational dimensions of higher education — research, health care, athletics, economic development, fiscal management, planning, and faculty roles/challenges — another way of framing the complexity of the situation we are addressing. Book chapters also provide a set of implications for higher education policy. The book concludes with a vision of next steps in research and practice to further anthropology’s contribution to higher education policy and practice.The intended audience includes both academic and professionals–e.g., faculty and students in departments of higher education, anthropology, and education policy. Higher education leaders, administrators, governing board members, and many others will find the book helpful in providing insight into today’s challenges. The book will also be of use to professionals outside higher education who work on policy issues, on meeting the needs of employers, and on preparing students for careers in public service.

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

Tuition and fees for higher education have increased at a rate much higher than inflation over the past 40 years. Although the amount students pay has risen much less than listed tuition, net price also continues to increase faster than inflation. Taxpayer-funded subsidies to higher education have also increased substantially during this period. The Bennett hypothesis states that tuition will increase in response to subsidies. We review the variety of government programs subsidizing higher education and summarize the existing evidence on the Bennett hypothesis. The evidence on the Bennett hypothesis remains mixed, providing some evidence that the effectiveness of the subsidies in increasing college enrollment is diminished to the degree that taxpayer moneys are diverted to the institutions of higher education.

Over the quarter century from 1950 to 1978 the number of tertiary-level students studying in foreign countries increased from 107,589 to 842,705-nearly eight times.' Between 1968 and 1978, the most recent 10-year period for which data is available, the increase was nearly 250 percent. If a straight-line projection is fitted to past numbers, overseas students will number nearly 21/2 million by the year 2000. From a quantitative standpoint, studying overseas has become important only since World War II. During the early postwar years, the number of overseas students remained constant and was a modest proportion of the total number of students in the world's rapidly expanding higher educational institutions. However, in recent years, while the rate of increase in numbers of overseas students has been high, the rate of increase in numbers of places in the world's higher educational institutions has begun to level off. Thus, since the early 1970s, the number of overseas students as a percentage of all students in the world has increased somewhat: from 2.0 percent in 1968 to 2.3 percent in 1978. Though many observers have commented on the rapid postwar increase in the number of overseas students, few have tried to explain that increase, and no serious attempts have been made to explain the considerable national differences in the numbers of students from other countries in