United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

August 1996 HIGHER EDUCATION

Tuition Increasing

Faster Than Household

Income and Public

Colleges’ Costs

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/HEHS-96-154

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-271081 

August 15, 1996

Congressional Requesters

As you requested, we have studied the history of increases in college and university tuition and

other related postsecondary education costs (names of requesters are listed at the end of this

letter). Our report discusses the increase in college tuition and related fees at 4-year public

colleges and universities from school year 1980-81 through 1994-95 and schools’ expenditures

over the same period. The report also discusses variations in tuition charges among states in

school year 1995-96 and initiatives that some states and colleges have undertaken to hold down

tuition increases, make paying for college easier, and streamline processes to help keep total

charges lower.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Education, appropriate congressional

committees, and other interested parties. If you have any questions about this report, please call

me at (202) 512-7014. Other major contributors are listed in appendix III.

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Education and

 Employment Issues
B-271081 

List of Requesters

The Honorable Richard M. Burr

The Honorable Stephen E. Buyer

The Honorable Chaka Fattah

The Honorable Martin Frost

The Honorable Gene Green

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra

The Honorable Andrew Jacobs, Jr.

The Honorable Tim Johnson

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur

The Honorable Sue W. Kelly

The Honorable Scott L. Klug

The Honorable Frank A. LoBiondo

The Honorable William P. Luther

The Honorable Edward J. Markey

The Honorable William J. Martini

The Honorable Andrea H. Seastrand

The Honorable Christopher Shays

The Honorable Nick Smith

The Honorable Robert A. Underwood

The Honorable Gerald B.H. Solomon

The Honorable Dave Weldon

The Honorable Dick Zimmer

House of Representatives

The Honorable Carol Moseley-Braun

United States Senate

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
B-271081 

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Executive Summary

Purpose Paying for a college education, even at public 4-year colleges and

universities, now ranks as one of the most costly investments for

American families. A 1995 survey of college freshmen found that concern

about college affordability was the highest it has been in the last 30 years.

The escalation in college tuition (including related fees) has affected not

only students and their parents, but also American taxpayers at both the

federal and state levels. Federally supported student financial aid

increased from $11.8 billion in fiscal year 1980 to $31.4 billion in 1993.

During the same period, annual state funding for higher education grew

from $19.2 billion to $39.8 billion.

Even with these funding increases, some experts in the higher education

community are concerned that the nation’s colleges and universities are

rapidly approaching or are already in a fiscal crisis. For example, many

schools have a substantial backlog of deferred physical maintenance that

may be getting harder to ignore. Others may need to expand their capacity

or limit enrollment to deal with projected increases in student demand.

State legislatures, on the other hand, are increasingly appropriating funds

to meet other social needs, such as Medicaid, prisons, and elementary and

secondary education programs, and are not inclined to increase state taxes

to meet public colleges’ and universities’ financial needs.

Twenty-three Members of Congress asked GAO for information on (1) the

extent to which tuition levels have changed relative to increases in

consumer prices and families’ ability to pay; (2) the extent to which

schools’ increased expenditures for instruction, administration, research,

and other expenditures have contributed to the increase in schools’ overall

expenditures; (3) how tuition levels at public colleges and universities vary

among the states and what factors help account for the differences; and

(4) the kinds of actions states and institutions have taken to deal with

affordability issues. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed the

literature; interviewed various school officials and other people

knowledgeable about college finance and policy issues; and analyzed data

on school revenues, expenditures, and tuition levels. For purposes of this

report, GAO focused its study on schools that most students attend—public

4-year colleges and universities.

Background Of the approximately 9 million students enrolled in 4-year colleges and

universities each year, about two-thirds attend state-supported schools.

Their education is supported partly by tax dollars and partly by tuition. In

school year 1993-94, the states’ appropriations to public colleges and

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Executive Summary

universities provided about 42 percent of revenues; the students’ share

was about 23 percent; and the remainder came from other sources, such as

endowments, grants, gifts, and contracts.

Results in Brief From school year 1980-81 through 1994-95, tuition at 4-year public colleges

and universities increased 234 percent. In contrast, median household

income, a measure of families’ ability to pay for tuition, rose 82 percent.

This increase in tuition also substantially exceeded the 74-percent increase

in the cost of consumer goods—as measured by the Consumer Price Index

(CPI)—that families use their incomes to purchase.

The two factors most responsible for the increase in tuition were the rise

in schools’ expenditures and schools’ greater dependency on tuition as a

source of revenue. Schools’ expenditures per student increased

121 percent from school year 1980-81 through 1993-94, half again as much

as inflation. Increases in instruction, administration, and research

expenditures accounted for more than two-thirds of this increase. The

increased spending for instruction was driven largely by increases in

faculty salaries, which rose 97 percent during the period. Also during this

period, the share of schools’ revenues provided by tuition rose from

16 percent to 23 percent, as the share of revenue provided by state

appropriations declined by 14 percentage points.

Moving from nationwide statistics, GAO found wide variation in tuition

charges among states in school year 1995-96. Although the nationwide

average tuition for in-state students at 4-year public schools was $2,865,

the state averages ranged from $1,524 to $5,521. The explanation, in part,

for these variations is states’ level of support (that is, how much money

per student a state appropriates for its 4-year public schools).

To deal with students’ increasing financial burden, colleges have

undertaken a variety of initiatives, including holding down tuition

increases, making paying for college easier, and streamlining students’

progress to graduation to keep their total charges lower. Because some of

these efforts are in the early stages of planning and implementation, little

has been done to analyze or evaluate their effectiveness.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Executive Summary

Principal Findings

College Has Become Less

Affordable

From school year 1980-81 through 1994-95, tuition at 4-year public colleges

and universities has risen nearly three times as much as median household

income, making attendance less affordable for many students. The

increase in tuition is primarily related to two factors: schools’

expenditures have risen substantially in the last 15 years, and states’

funding of higher education has not kept pace with these rising

expenditures.

Moreover, increases in grant aid—primarily federal Pell grants—have not

kept up with tuition increases at 4-year public colleges and universities. As

a result, in addition to paying higher prices, college students and their

parents are having to rely more heavily on loans and personal finances.

For example, in fiscal year 1980, the average student loan was $518; in

fiscal year 1995, it rose to $2,417, an increase of 367 percent.

Tuition Has Provided a

Larger Share of Schools’

Revenues as Schools’

Expenditures Have

Increased

From school year 1980-81 through 1993-94, 4-year public colleges and

universities increased their spending by 121 percent—an increase of about

$7,900 per student. During the same period, the portion of schools’

revenues provided by tuition increased from 16 percent to 23 percent.

The primary factor fueling the growth in schools’ expenditures was an

increase in schools’ largest cost component—instruction expenditures.

Faculty salaries represented most of the 106-percent increase in

instruction expenditures during the period. Some of the cost growth,

according to existing research, was the result of schools’ competition with

one another and with industry for high-quality scholars and researchers. In

addition, average salaries have increased as schools’ faculties have grown

older and a greater part of this workforce has reached the full professor

level. Other instruction expenditures contributing to the increase in this

cost component were attributed mostly to growth in spending for faculty

fringe benefits and instructional supplies and equipment.

A second major factor driving the increase in school expenditures was the

131-percent increase for administrative activities. Although available data

were insufficient to determine what caused administrative expenditures to

increase, researchers suggest a number of reasons, including an increase

in the costs of complying with federal laws, such as hazardous waste

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Executive Summary

disposal laws and title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which

prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or

activities (including collegiate sports).

Schools’ expenditures for research increased 157 percent during the

14-year period. Some analysts maintain that the funds schools received for

research grants and contracts were insufficient to cover their research

expenditures, especially indirect costs, and that state appropriations or

tuition were used to subsidize a portion of research costs. Other analysts

maintain that increased expenditures for research did not contribute to

increases in tuition and state appropriations. Nationwide data on colleges’

research expenditures and revenues were not sufficient to determine the

validity of either position.

Another important factor contributing to the rise in tuition from school

year 1980-81 through 1993-94 was the increase in the portion of schools’

revenues paid for by tuition, which rose from 16 percent to 23 percent.

This occurred, in part, because state appropriations fell from 56 percent to

42 percent of schools’ revenues, and increased school revenue from other

funding sources financed only about half of this decline. Had the portion

of school revenues from each funding source remained constant at the

1980-81 level, tuition could have been 30 percent lower than it was at the

end of this period.

Tuition Varies Widely

Among States

Tuition levels at the nation’s 4-year public colleges and universities for

undergraduate in-state students ranged from $1,524 to $5,521 in school

year 1995-96. The nationwide average was $2,865. In general, schools with

the highest average tuitions were in the northeastern states, and schools

with the lowest average tuitions were in states in the South and the West.

GAO’s analysis showed that four factors were associated with 78 percent of

the variation in average state tuition levels, although these factors are not

necessarily causes of tuition being high or low. Specifically, states with

lower tuitions generally had relatively low state and local tax rates, low

median household incomes, low college expenditures per student, and

relatively high per capita state appropriations for higher education.

Varying Approaches Taken

to Easing the Financial

Burden

States and 4-year public schools are taking or planning a variety of actions

to address the financial burden of paying for college. Some of these

initiatives focus directly on charges students incur and on alternative ways

of paying for them. For example, some states and schools are limiting

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Executive Summary

tuition charges, offering tuition prepayment and other savings plans, or

arranging for tuition payments to be spread over the school year.

Other initiatives address students’ costs indirectly by attempting to

expedite students’ progress towards completing their degree requirements.

These approaches commonly focus on ways to facilitate students’

transferring credits from one school to another (including credits for

college-level courses taken by high school students); reducing the number

of credits that programs require for a degree; improving academic

counseling to help students both avoid unnecessary delays in choosing a

major and more efficiently sequence their courses; and advising high

school juniors of courses they should take during their senior year to

become better prepared for college-level work.

Recommendations GAO is making no recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments The Department of Education reviewed a draft of this report and had no

comments.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Contents

Executive Summary 4

Chapter 1 

Introduction

14

Public Higher Education: Many Students, Multiple Funding

Sources

15

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 16

Chapter 2 

College Has Become

Less Affordable Since

1980

18

Tuition Has Risen Nearly Three Times More Than Household

Income

18

As Schools’ Expenditures Have Increased, Tuition Has Provided a

Larger Share of Schools’ Revenues

20

Grant Aid to Students Has Not Kept Pace, Causing Greater

Reliance on Loans

22

Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing

to Increases in School

Expenditures

25

Amount Schools Spent on Goods and Services Increased More

Than Inflation

25

Three Major Components Had Largest Impact on Increasing

School Expenditures

28

Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year

Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

36

Average Tuition Levels Range Widely Among States 36

State Characteristics Closely Correlated to Tuition Differences 39

Chapter 5 

States and Schools

Take Varying

Approaches to Easing

the Cost Burden

47

Limiting Tuition Increases 47

Lowering Total Costs for College by Speeding Academic Progress 48

Alternative Ways of Helping Students to Pay 57

Chapter 6 

Conclusions

61

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Contents

Appendixes Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 62

Appendix II: Analysis of Statistical Relationships Between States’

Average Tuition and Various State Characteristics

66

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 69

Bibliography 70

Related GAO Products 76

Tables Table 4.1: Average In-State, Full-Time Undergraduate Tuition at

4-Year Public Colleges, School Year 1995-96

37

Table 4.2: Comparison of the Percentage of Public College

Revenue From State Appropriations With Revenue From Tuition,

School Year 1993-94

41

Table 4.3: Estimated Average 1993-94 Public College

Education-Related Expenditures per FTE Student Compared

With Average 1993-94 Tuition

44

Table 5.1: Programs Providing Accelerated College Credit 54

Table 5.2: Major Types of Tuition Prepayment Plans 58

Table II.1: Correlation Statistics Between Independent Variables

and Average State Tuition

67

Table II.2: Results of Step-Wise Multiple Linear Regression

Analysis of Average State Tuition in Relation to Selected State

Variables

68

Figures Figure 1.1: Sources of Revenue for 4-Year Public Colleges, School

Year 1993-94

16

Figure 2.1: Comparative Increases in Tuition, Median Household

Income, and Consumer Prices, School Years 1980-81 to 1994-95

19

Figure 2.2: Comparison of Revenue From Major Funding Sources

for 4-Year Public Colleges, School Years 1980-81, 1985-86,

1990-91, and 1993-94

21

Figure 2.3: Comparison of Increases in Annual Tuition and Loan

and Grant Amounts at 4-Year Public Colleges, School Years

1980-81 Through 1995-96

24

Figure 3.1: Comparison of Increases in Per-Student Expenditures

at Public Colleges With Increases in HEPI and CPI, School Years

1980-81 Through 1993-94

27

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Contents

Figure 3.2: Components’ Shares of the $7,984 Increase in 4-Year

Public Colleges’ Costs per FTE Student, School Year 1980-81 to

1993-94

29

Figure 4.1: Average In-State Undergraduate Tuition at 4-Year

Public Colleges by Geographic Region, School Year 1995-96

39

Abbreviations

AP advanced placement

CPI Consumer Price Index

FTE full-time-equivalent

HEPI Higher Education Price Index

IB International Baccalaureate

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

PASS Proficiency-Based Admissions Standard System

SHEEO State Higher Education Executive Officers Association

SUNY State University of New York

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Average tuition1 for a resident undergraduate student to attend a public

4-year college or university (referred to throughout this report as a “public

college”) rose from $804 per year in school year 1980-81 to $2,689 in

1994-95, an increase of 234 percent. During approximately the same

period, the median household income rose 82 percent. This was a reversal

from the 1970s, when the cumulative percentage increase in the Consumer

Price Index (CPI) exceeded that of the percentage increase in college

tuition.

The rising cost of college continues to be an issue of widespread concern.

Studies and polls show fears about being able to afford a college

education—and, in particular, about the debt that students and their

families must often incur to pay for college. A 1995 survey of college

freshmen, for example, found that 71 percent of the students surveyed

expressed concern that they might not be able to pay for the schooling

required for their intended careers.2

Research indicates that the reasons for this concern show no sign of

abating in the near future. In a 1995 survey, a majority of the heads of state

legislative higher education committees said that their states’ current

funding level for public colleges was inadequate to meet higher

education’s future needs and that legislatures were unlikely to increase

funding for higher education in the next 3 to 5 years.3

 Only 9 percent said

that increasing state taxes was a likely option for providing more funds for

state colleges. Given this, the states’ continuing demands for social

services, and limited state revenue, states may shift even more of the

college cost burden to students and their parents.

Although college students may be paying significantly more for their

education than their predecessors did 10 or 15 years ago, the earnings

advantage of college graduates over those not getting college degrees has

also grown substantially. According to a recent analysis of U.S. Census

Bureau data by an economist with the University of Chicago, a graduated

college student in 1980 earned about 43 percent more per hour than a

1

Throughout this report, “tuition” refers to in-state (state resident), full-time undergraduate tuition and

required fees; it does not include charges for room and board, which may be significant at some

schools.

2

Alexander W. Astin, William S. Korn, Kathryn M. Mahoney, and Linda J. Sax, The American Freshman:

National Norms for Fall 1995 (Los Angeles: Cooperative Institutional Research Program, American

Council on Education, and University of California, 1995).

3

Sandra S. Ruppert, The Politics of Remedy: State Legislative Views on Higher Education (Washington,

D.C.: National Education Association, 1996).

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 1 

Introduction

person with a high school diploma. By 1994, this earnings advantage had

increased to 73 percent.

Public Higher

Education: Many

Students, Multiple

Funding Sources

State-supported 4-year colleges and universities are a substantial public

enterprise. During the 1993-94 school year, for example, they served about

5.9 million students and had expenditures totaling about $94 billion.

Federal student financial aid support that year for all schools totaled about

$31.4 billion, including about $12 billion in grants and federally guaranteed

loans for students enrolled in public colleges. While private colleges and

universities also have a major role in American higher education, public

colleges have the lion’s share of students—about two-thirds of the

students in 4-year schools.

Although tuition and related fees may be the most visible cost of higher

education to students, tuition pays for only about one-fourth of

educational and general expenditures at public colleges. On average, the

nation’s public colleges’ expenditures totaled over $14,000 per student

during the 1993-94 school year.4

 Tuition funded about 23 percent of this

amount (see fig. 1.1). Almost twice as much, 42 percent, came from state

general funds. The remainder came from a variety of other sources, such

as endowments, grants, gifts, and contracts.

4

At the time we conducted our work, the 1993-94 school year was the most recent year for which

comparative information on college costs was available.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Sources of Revenue for

4-Year Public Colleges, School Year

1993-94

23% • Tuition

35% • Other

•42%

State appropriations

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

This study, undertaken at the request of 23 Members of Congress, provides

information that should be of help in understanding rising tuition levels

and the increasing costs of operating public colleges as the Congress

begins its deliberations on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act

of 1965, as amended. Although private college tuition has also risen

dramatically and some of these schools have tuition exceeding $20,000 per

year, we focused our review on public colleges because a majority of

students attend these schools. As a result of discussions with requesters’

staffs, we focused our work on these questions:

• To what extent have tuition levels at public colleges changed over time

relative to increases in consumer prices and families’ ability to pay?

• To what extent have instruction, administration, research, and other

expenditures each contributed to the schools’ rising costs?

• How do tuition levels vary among states, and what factors help explain the

differences?

• What kinds of actions have states and public colleges taken to deal with

affordability issues?

Our analysis of tuition, college and university expenditures, and states’

efforts to make college more affordable is based on data maintained by the

U.S. Department of Education and other sources, contacts with state and

school officials, and discussions with representatives of higher education

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 1 

Introduction

organizations and individuals familiar with higher education issues.

Appendix I describes our objectives, scope, and methodology in more

detail.

We provided the Department of Education a draft copy of this report. The

Department had no comments.

Our work was conducted from October 1995 to July 1996 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 2 

College Has Become Less Affordable Since

1980

During the last 15 years, tuition at public colleges has risen almost three

times more than household incomes have. This rise reflects two main

trends: public college expenditures have generally risen more than

inflation, and states have paid a lower portion of expenditures with

appropriated funds. During this same period, growth in grant aid to

students has not matched the increase in tuition. As a result of these

factors, many students and their families have borrowed more to finance

the cost of college.

Tuition Has Risen

Nearly Three Times

More Than Household

Income

From school year 1980-81 through 1994-95, increases in tuition at public

colleges considerably outpaced increases in both median household

income and inflation.5

 From school year 1980-81 through 1994-95, the

average tuition for full-time, in-state students increased from $804 per year

to $2,689, or 234 percent. During approximately the same period, median

household income rose 82 percent, from $17,710 to $32,264,6

 and the cost

of living—as measured by CPI—rose 74 percent. Computed on an

annualized basis, the rates of increase were about 9.0 percent for tuition,

4.4 percent for median household income, and 4.0 percent for CPI.

Figure 2.1 compares the cumulative percentage increase in tuition, median

household income, and consumer prices over the 15-year period beginning

with school year 1980-81. As figure 2.1 shows, the cumulative percentage

increase in tuition was almost 3 times more than the percentage increases

in household income and consumer prices. The rate of increase has been

especially pronounced since 1990.

5

In our analysis of students’ costs, we focused on tuition, which included related fees. We excluded

certain other costs, which can be substantial, that students incur while attending college, such as room

and board, books and supplies, and transportation. Data on these kinds of costs were not consistently

included in the readily available databases we used in our analysis.

6

These median household income figures are for calendar years 1980 and 1994, respectively.

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 2 

College Has Become Less Affordable Since

1980

Figure 2.1: Comparative Increases in Tuition, Median Household Income, and Consumer Prices, School Years 1980-81 to

1994-95

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

School Year Beginning

Cumulative Percentage

Tuition and Fees

Median Household Income

Consumer Prices

Note: Median household income figures are for calendar years. A median household income

figure was not available for 1995.

As a result of these increases, paying for tuition now takes about twice the

proportion of household income as it did in 1980. As a proportion of

median household income, average tuition cost has grown from

4.5 percent in school year 1980-81 to 8.3 percent in 1994-95.

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 2 

College Has Become Less Affordable Since

1980

As Schools’

Expenditures Have

Increased, Tuition Has

Provided a Larger

Share of Schools’

Revenues

The two factors most responsible for the 234-percent increase in tuition

from school year 1980-81 to 1993-94 were (1) an increase of 121 percent in

schools’ expenditures and (2) an increase from 16 percent to 23 percent in

the portion of schools’ funding provided by tuition.

School Expenditures Have

Increased Significantly

School expenditures have significantly outpaced inflation. In school year

1980-81, the nation’s public colleges spent an average of $6,540 per

full-time-equivalent (FTE) student.7

 By 1993-94 (the last school year for

which comparative data were available), FTE expenditures had grown to

$14,483, an increase of 121 percent. During the same period, CPI rose

69 percent.

Possible reasons, other than inflation, for this rise in schools’ expenditures

are many and varied. Chapter 3 further discusses schools’ expenditures,

and chapter 4 discusses the correlation between states’ average costs and

state tuition levels.

Tuition Has Provided a

Larger Share of Public

Colleges’ Revenue

From school year 1980-81 through 1993-94, tuition funded a progressively

larger portion and state appropriations funded a diminishing portion of

public colleges’ revenues. Even though state appropriations increased

96 percent during the period, schools’ revenues from tuition and other

sources rose more rapidly. Figure 2.2 shows how funding sources were

split among tuition, state appropriations, and other sources of funding8

during 4 school years: 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, and 1993-94.

7

Throughout chapter 2, the cost data include graduate students as well as undergraduate students. The

available databases did not permit the two to be separated.

8

Other sources of funding include research and other grants and contracts, sales of educational

services, endowment income, and local and federal appropriations.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 2 

College Has Become Less Affordable Since

1980

Figure 2.2: Comparison of Revenue From Major Funding Sources for 4-Year Public Colleges, School Years 1980-81,

1985-86, 1990-91, and 1993-94

1980-81 1985-86 1990-91 1993-94

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage of Funding

Tuition and Fees

State Appropriations

Other Sources

Major Sources of Revenue

Note: Not included are Pell grant receipts from the federal government, auxiliary enterprise,

independent operation, and hospital revenue.

As a proportion of schools’ revenues, state appropriations fell from

56 percent in school year 1980-81 to 42 percent in 1993-94. During this

same period, the portion of school revenue provided by tuition rose from

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 2 

College Has Become Less Affordable Since

1980

16 percent to 23 percent, and the portion provided by other funding

sources rose from 28 percent to 35 percent. Had the portion of schools’

revenue provided by each funding source remained at 1980-81 levels,

tuition levels would have been 30 percent lower than they actually were at

the end of the period because tuition would have provided 30 percent less

of school revenues (that is, 16 percent instead of 23 percent).

One factor researchers say affects the level of state support is the

competition for state funds from other state programs, most notably

elementary and secondary education, health care, prisons, and welfare.

Spending on these four areas is largely mandated by federal and state

laws, court orders, and voter initiatives. Higher education funding is

considered discretionary spending and is, therefore, more vulnerable to

funding reductions than spending for these items.

This vulnerability has been particularly evident when economic downturns

have put stress on state finances. Tuition increases since school year

1980-81 have generally been the greatest when national economic

conditions were poor and the states were more limited in their ability to

generate tax revenues. For example, following the 1981-82 and 1990-91

recessions, tuition at public colleges increased annually by 8 percentage

points more than consumer prices, as measured by CPI. In contrast, in

better economic times, such as the mid- and late-1980s, states increased

their financial support for higher education, and annual tuition increases

tended to exceed consumer price increases by 2.4 to 5 percentage points.

Grant Aid to Students

Has Not Kept Pace,

Causing Greater

Reliance on Loans

Grant aid available to students and their families has not kept pace with

tuition increases. One of the largest sources of this aid is federal Pell

grants, which are awarded to students who meet certain tests of financial

need. In school year 1994-95, the average Pell grant per FTE student was

$409, an increase of 72 percent over 1980-81.9

 However, tuition rose more

than three times as fast during the same period.

To pay for rapidly rising tuition and other college expenses, students and

parents have increasingly relied on loans to finance college educations.

The volume of loans provided to students at public colleges by the

Department of Education’s major student loan programs rose 435 percent

during the 15-year period, from an estimated $2.2 billion in fiscal year 1980

to an estimated $11.5 billion in fiscal year 1995. While part of the increase

resulted because more students were taking out loans in 1994-95 than in

9

The average Pell grant per FTE student at 4-year public colleges was $1,571 in school year 1994-95.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 2 

College Has Become Less Affordable Since

1980

1980-81, much of it was the result of the increased size of loans. The

annual average student loan at 4-year public schools rose from $518 per

FTE student in fiscal year 1980 to $2,417 in fiscal year 1995, an increase of

367 percent. But since not all students had student loans, the average loan

amount was higher—$3,282—and some borrowers received more than one

loan.

Figure 2.3 shows the relationship between the average amount of federal

student loans, Pell grants per FTE student, and tuition levels at public

colleges in school years 1980-81 through 1995-96. Using 1980-81 as a base

year, average federal student loan amounts showed larger percentage

increases than tuition beginning in 1986, while the rate of Pell grant

increases lagged behind both in recent years.

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 2 

College Has Become Less Affordable Since

1980

Figure 2.3: Comparison of Increases in Annual Tuition and Loan and Grant Amounts at 4-Year Public Colleges, School

Years 1980-81 Through 1995-96

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

-100

0

100

200

300

400

School Year Beginning

Cumulative Percentage

Tuition and Fees

Pell Grants

Federal Student Loans

Note: A figure for Pell grants was not available for 1995-96. Federal student loan figures are for

federal fiscal years, not school years.

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

From school year 1980-81 through 1993-94, public colleges increased their

spending on a per-student basis by 121 percent, due largely to a 90-percent

increase in the amount spent on the goods and services they purchased,

such as computer expenditures and instructors’ salaries.10 The three types

of expenditures that accounted for over two-thirds of all college

expenditures in 1980-81—instruction, administration, and research—also

accounted for over two-thirds of the increase in expenditures during the

1980-81 to 1993-94 period.

Although state appropriations and tuition payments are the primary

funding sources for most public colleges’ instruction and administrative

expenditures, research expenditures are largely funded by government

and private grants and contracts. However, the degree to which state

appropriations and tuition receipts are used to fund research cannot be

readily determined on a national level with existing data, and the influence

of these expenditures on tuition levels is the subject of much debate.

Amount Schools

Spent on Goods and

Services Increased

More Than Inflation

From school year 1980-81 through 1993-94, public colleges increased their

expenditures from about $6,500 per student to nearly $14,500, or by about

121 percent. This increase was about 30 to 50 percentage points higher

than inflation, depending on the price index used.

Schools’ expenditures increased 52 percentage points more than the

69-percent increase in CPI during the 1980-81 to 1993-94 period. One reason

why schools’ expenditures rose more than CPI is that schools spend their

funds on a different group of components than is measured by CPI:

Whereas CPI measures increases in the prices of such items as food,

clothing, housing, and health care, schools spend their monies on such

items as faculty and administrator salaries, fringe benefits, and library

materials.

Some researchers believe a better measure of school cost increases is the

Higher Education Price Index (HEPI)—an index specifically designed to

measure changes in the prices of goods and services commonly purchased

by higher education institutions. Items that HEPI measures include faculty

and administrators’ salaries, fringe benefits, communication and data

processing services, supplies and materials, library acquisitions, and

utilities.

10Our calculations were based on FTE students, to whom we refer as “students” in this chapter.

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

The HEPI measurement includes 2-year and 4-year public and private

colleges and universities and, therefore, the expenditures of public

colleges may have increased somewhat more or less than the expenditures

for all schools. Nonetheless, many researchers believe that HEPI is a better

measurement of the increases in prices of the types of goods and services

purchased by public colleges than is CPI, which measures the increase in a

market basket of consumer goods. As shown in figure 3.1, the increases in

HEPI consistently outpaced increases in CPI from school year 1980-81

through 1993-94, with HEPI rising 90 percent compared with CPI’s

69-percent increase. Also, the HEPI increase is equivalent to about

three-fourths of the 121-percent increase in schools’ expenditures during

the period.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

Figure 3.1: Comparison of Increases in Per-Student Expenditures at Public Colleges With Increases in HEPI and CPI,

School Years 1980-81 Through 1993-94

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

School Year Beginning

Cumulative Percentage

College/University Expenditures

Higher Education Price Index

Consumer Price Index

The 31-percentage point difference between the increase in public

colleges’ expenditures and the increase in HEPI can be attributed to either

an increase in the volume of goods and services schools purchased or a

more expensive mix of goods and services purchased—for example, more

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

computers and fewer adding machines. While about three-fourths of

schools’ overall increases in expenditures were due to higher prices paid

as reflected in HEPI, data were insufficient to analyze the reasons for the

increases in the remaining expenditures.

Three Major

Components Had

Largest Impact on

Increasing School

Expenditures

To gain a better understanding of why increases in school expenditures

have outpaced increases in inflation, we analyzed changes in the individual

components of schools’ expenditures. In general, we found that three

components—instruction, administration, and research expenditures—

were the most influential in driving up school expenditures (see fig. 3.2).

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

Figure 3.2: Components’ Shares of the

$7,984 Increase in 4-Year Public

Colleges’ Costs Per FTE Student,

School Year 1980-81 to 1993-94

37.1% • Instruction

16.2% • Administration

18.1%•

Research

•

6.8%

Scholarshipsb

•

6.2%

Physical planta

•

5.0%

Student services

•

10.5%

Other

aIncludes plant operations and maintenance.

bIncludes scholarships and fellowships, but not Pell grants.

Increase in Instruction

Expenditures Was a Major

Factor in Growth of School

Expenditures

In terms of expenditures per student, school spending for instruction was

the largest single factor contributing to the increase in school

expenditures from school year 1980-81 through 1993-94. During this

period, public colleges increased their spending from $2,719 to $5,669 per

student—an increase of $2,950, or 108 percent. The largest component of

instructional expenditures was the increase in salaries and wages.11 The

average salary for faculty at public colleges increased by $23,646

(97 percent), from $24,373 in 1980-81 to $48,019 in 1993-94.

11In 1993-94, $3,994 (about 70 percent) of the $5,669 average per-student instruction expenditures were

for salaries and wages.

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

According to the literature we reviewed, average faculty salaries have

increased, in part, because schools have been competing with one another

and industry for high-quality scholars and researchers. The average salary

has also increased because the faculty workforce has been aging. A greater

proportion of faculty are at the full professor level, and this has resulted in

a gradual increase in the average salary over the last 10 to 15 years.

However, some higher education policy analysts have pointed out that the

increase in faculty salaries during the 1980s and 1990s has merely returned

salary levels to where they were in the early 1970s, in real terms. Faculty

salaries did not keep up with inflation from 1973 to 1982 and did not start

to experience any real growth until 1983.

The literature we reviewed also suggested another reason for the increase

in instructional costs: the decline in faculty productivity in terms of

teaching workload. Faculty are spending less time in the classroom and

more doing research and, partly as a consequence, colleges and

universities are hiring more faculty. This additional hiring drives up

instructional costs, which in turn results in higher tuition. Some believe

the underlying cause of this phenomenon is the reward system that values

research over teaching, particularly with regard to granting tenure. To

address this issue, a number of states have conducted or initiated studies

on faculty workload and productivity. To review these studies and more

thoroughly evaluate this complex issue was beyond the scope of our work.

In addition to the increases in faculty salaries, other factors have

contributed to the increase in instructional expenditures. For example,

faculty fringe benefits have increased substantially—by 162 percent from

1980-81 to 1993-94. Schools are also spending more for instructional

supplies and equipment. A modern science curriculum, for example, calls

for the use of more sophisticated laboratory equipment, such as electron

microscopes, and this equipment is more costly to purchase and maintain

than the equipment used in the past.

Growth in School

Administrative

Expenditures Outpaced

Inflation

Increased administrative expenditures was another significant factor

causing school expenditures to outpace inflation from school year 1980-81

through 1993-94. During this period, these expenditures grew about

131 percent, or 41 percentage points more than HEPI increased. School

administrative expenditures increased $1,284 per student, from $979 in

1980-81 to $2,263 in 1993-94.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

Although the literature contains no consensus on what constitutes

administrative expenditures, the Department of Education defines them as

institutional and academic support expenditures, excluding expenditures

for libraries.12 Institutional support includes expenditures for such items

as general administrative services, executive direction and planning, legal

and fiscal operations, and public relations/development. Academic support

includes expenditures for museums, galleries, audiovisual services,

academic computing support, ancillary support, academic administration,

personnel development, and course and curriculum development.

According to Department of Education data, approximately 56 percent of

administrative expenditures in 1993-94 were for salaries and wages.

Because we were unable to obtain nationwide data on the numbers of

administrative personnel or their salaries for 1980-81, we could not

determine how much of the increase in administrative expenditures could

have been attributed to increased staff, as distinguished from higher

salaries. However, the administrative and institutional services personnel

component of HEPI increased by 108 percent from 1980-81 to 1993-94,

which indicates that a large portion of the growth in administrative costs

was likely due to an increase in salaries.

The literature we reviewed offered a number of reasons for the increase in

administrative expenditures, including additional expenditures for

recruiting students, expanded student financial aid programs, and

administrative computing services. Another reason cited in the literature

was that schools have increased their administrative budgets to ensure

compliance with such federal statutes as hazardous waste disposal laws;

the Equal Employment Opportunity Act; title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972 (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in

educational programs or activities, including collegiate sports for women);

and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (which prohibits

discrimination on the basis of disability in public services, programs, or

activities).

Research Expenditures

Rose Substantially, but

Their Effect on Tuition Is

Unclear

Research expenditures at public colleges increased $1,439 per student

(157 percent), from $914 in school year 1980-81 to $2,353 in 1993-94. It is

unclear whether the growth in research expenditures contributed to the

increase in net college research expenditures (research expenditures that

exceeded amounts received from research grants and contracts). In any

12Some of the literature we reviewed also includes student services as a part of administrative

expenditures. For our calculations, we used the Department’s definition.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

case, whether increased net research expenditures contributed to the

increase in tuition prices is a matter of debate within the higher education

community. We could not determine the extent that net college research

expenditures may have changed on a nationwide basis because such

information was not readily available from the Department of Education.

Schools receive funds from government and private grants and contracts

to pay for specific research projects. For example, federal government

research contracts pay for direct costs specifically identified with a

particular research project as well as for certain indirect costs for

associated administrative and facilities expenses. For every dollar spent

for the direct costs of colleges’ research, subject to certain exclusions, the

government pays an additional amount to cover its share of the colleges’

indirect costs. Since 1991, schools have been limited to a 26-percent cap

on federal reimbursements for certain indirect costs. Previously, the level

of reimbursement for indirect costs varied among institutions, with some

having overall rates greater than 60 percent.13

The extent to which colleges and universities use their own funds to pay

for research is a matter of controversy within the higher education

community. Some contend that schools are not collecting sufficient grant

or contract monies to fully pay for their expenditures on research projects,

especially for indirect costs, and that, therefore, tuition and state

appropriations are being used to subsidize research.

Although there is anecdotal information on this issue, neither side of this

controversy has presented comprehensive, factual data in support of its

position. Furthermore, nationwide data collected by the Department of

Education through its Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

(IPEDS) surveys are aggregated at too high a level to be useful in settling

this issue.

Most Other School

Expenditures Also Rose

Significantly

In addition to instructional, administrative, and research expenditures, a

number of other types of school expenditures have also risen faster than

the rate of inflation. These expenditures include scholarships and

fellowships, student services, and plant operation and maintenance. While

the average dollar-per-student increases for each of these categories are

relatively small, collectively they account for about one-fourth of the total

per-student increase in school expenditures.

13We have conducted several studies on various issues regarding indirect research costs; these reports

are listed at the end of this report.

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

Scholarships and Fellowships Expenditures by public colleges for scholarships and fellowships

(excluding Pell grants) experienced the fastest rate of growth of all

expenditure items in terms of percentage increases. In school year

1980-81, schools spent $219 per student; in 1993-94, this amount had grown

to $759, an increase of $541 per student, or 247 percent.

Expenditures for scholarships and fellowships include funds the school

gives in the form of outright grants, trainee stipends, and tuition and fee

waivers. Also included are federal grant programs for which the recipients

and award amounts are determined by the school, such as Supplemental

Educational Opportunity Grants and State Student Incentive Grants;

monies expended for scholarships and grants from funds provided by state

and local governments and private sources; and institutional funds,

including matching funds for federal, state, or local grant programs.

Scholarships and fellowships are like research in that, to the degree they

are funded by outside revenue sources, they do not increase colleges’ net

expenditures. As in the case of research expenditures, we could not

determine the extent that net expenditures for scholarships and

fellowships may have changed on a nationwide basis, because such

information was not readily available from the Department of Education.

Although these expenditures had the largest percentage increase from

school year 1980-81 through 1993-94, the $541 per-student increase in

spending represented only about 7 percent of the $7,944 total increase in

per-student spending for the period. In addition, although these

expenditures are included in our calculation of schools’ expenditures, the

increase in schools’ net expenditures for scholarships and fellowships is

reduced by the funds received from the federal government and private

sources for scholarships and fellowships.

Student Services School spending on student services more than doubled from school year

1980-81 through 1993-94. Total expenditures for student services increased

from $322 per student in 1980-81 to $723 in 1993-94, an increase of $401 or

125 percent. As in the case of institutional and academic support, a

significant portion (53 percent) of the expenditures for the student

services function consists of salaries and wages.

Student services include funds expended for admissions, registrar

activities, career guidance, counseling, financial aid administration,

student health services, and any other activity that contributes to students’

emotional and physical well-being and to their intellectual, cultural, and

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

social development outside the context of the formal instructional

program.

The literature we reviewed offered a number of reasons for the growth in

spending for student services. One reason given is that student

demographics have been changing. A growing number of students

attending college are older, and many of them attend on a part-time basis.

These students tend to need more remedial services, counseling, and

administrative support. Another reason offered is that students in general

appear to want and expect more personal counseling, tutoring, and

mentoring, all of which require more support staff and facilities.

Plant Operation and

Maintenance

Expenditures for operating and maintaining physical plants include funds

spent for the operation and upkeep of grounds and facilities used for

general and educational purposes, utilities, fire protection, property

insurance, and similar functions. School expenditures for plant operation

and maintenance increased by $495 (72 percent) per student, from $684

per student in school year 1980-81 to $1,179 in 1993-94.

School expenditures for operation and maintenance grew at a slower rate

than HEPI (a 72-percent increase versus a 90-percent increase) during this

period. However, if the findings of a report issued in 1989 are still valid,

school expenditures on plant operation and maintenance may become a

much larger factor fueling tuition and cost increases in the future.14

According to this study, the 209 institutions surveyed deferred $4 of

needed maintenance for every $1 spent in 1988, and repairs and

renovations considered “priority” or “urgent” totaled an estimated

$20.5 billion through 1988.15 This study was being updated at the time of

our review, and an official participating in the study said that deferred

maintenance had grown to about $26 billion.

Other Cost Components Other items on which schools spend money include libraries; public

service; debt service on academic and administrative buildings; monies

deposited into institutional loan funds; transfers into endowment funds;

and additions, renewals, and replacements of plants (land, buildings,

machinery, and furniture). Institutional expenditures for these kinds of

items, which we termed “other cost components” for our analysis,

14Sean C. Rush and Sandra L. Johnson, The Decaying American Campus: A Ticking Time Bomb

(Alexandria, Va.: Association of Physical Plant Administrators of Universities and Colleges and the

National Association of College and University Business Officers, 1989).

15The schools in this study included both public and private colleges and universities.

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 3 

Factors Contributing to Increases in School

Expenditures

increased by $835 per student (119 percent), from $703 in school year

1980-81 to $1,538 in 1993-94.

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

Nationwide, average tuition for resident, undergraduate full-time students

at public colleges was $2,865 for school year 1995-96, but tuition levels

varied considerably by state, ranging from $1,524 in Hawaii to $5,521 in

Vermont. These variations reflected both fiscal and demographic

characteristics of the states and their public schools.

We identified four economic characteristics that were closely related to

state tuition levels: in-state students were likely to incur lower tuition

charges if, relative to other states, the states in which they lived had low

tax rates, high per-student appropriations for higher education, low

per-student college expenditures, and low median household income.

These four characteristics were associated with 78 percent of the variation

in tuition levels among states.

Average Tuition

Levels Range Widely

Among States

The average tuition levels at public colleges for in-state undergraduate

students varied widely among states in school year 1995-96. In four states

(Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts) tuition

levels were 40 percent or more above the national average tuition of $2,865

for the year, while in Hawaii, North Carolina, and Idaho, tuition levels

were 40 percent or more below the national average. (See table 4.1.)

However, major increases have been approved for tuition at the University

of Hawaii’s 10 campuses for school year 1996-97. For example, tuition for

full-time, resident undergraduate students at the University of Hawaii’s

flagship campus in Manoa will increase from $1,534 to $2,832 a year, or

85 percent.

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

Table 4.1: Average In-State, Full-Time

Undergraduate Tuition at 4-Year Public

Colleges, School Year 1995-96

State Average tuition

Vermont $5,521

Pennsylvania 4,693

New Hampshire 4,537

Massachusetts 4,177

Virginia 3,965

Delaware 3,962

New Jersey 3,848

Connecticut 3,828

Michigan 3,789

New York 3,697

Ohio 3,664

Rhode Island 3,619

Maryland 3,572

Maine 3,562

Illinois 3,388

Oregon 3,241

Minnesota 3,108

South Carolina 3,103

Indiana 3,040

Missouri 3,007

California 2,918

U.S. average 2,865

Washington 2,726

Iowa 2,565

Wisconsin 2,555

South Dakota 2,549

Alaska 2,502

Colorado 2,458

Mississippi 2,443

Montana 2,346

Nebraska 2,294

Alabama 2,234

North Dakota 2,211

Kentucky 2,160

Louisiana 2,139

Kansas 2,110

Georgia 2,076

Arkansas 2,062

(continued)

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

State Average tuition

Utah 2,007

Wyoming 2,005

Tennessee 2,001

West Virginia 1,992

Arizona 1,943

New Mexico 1,938

Texas 1,832

Nevada 1,830

Florida 1,790

Oklahoma 1,741

Idaho 1,714

North Carolina 1,622

Hawaii 1,524

Note: These figures are weighted by the estimated number of in-state, full-time undergraduates

enrolled at each 4-year public school in fall of 1994. We did not validate the data used to

calculate these estimates. Data used in our calculations came from either the College Board or

the institutions.

Tuition charges tended to vary by geographic region, as illustrated in

figure 4.1. For example, most of the states with the highest in-state tuition

levels were in the Northeast. In contrast, the 10 states with the lowest

tuition were in the southern and western states.

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

Figure 4.1: Average In-State Undergraduate Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges by Geographic Region, School Year 1995-96

More than $3,500 

More than $2,500; but not more than $3,500 

$2,500 or less 

State Characteristics

Closely Correlated to

Tuition Differences

We analyzed various characteristics common to states to determine how

much each of them helped account for the differences in tuition levels

among states. We found that, collectively, four of these characteristics

accounted for 78 percent of the state differences in tuition levels. Using

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

the methodology discussed in appendix II, we found that states tended to

have lower tuition if they had

• relatively low state and local taxes as a percentage of the state’s tax

capacity,

• larger per-student state appropriations to public colleges,

• lower per-student expenditures by public colleges, and

• lower median household income.

Though our analysis shows there is significant correlation between these

four characteristics and state tuition levels, these characteristics cannot be

said to cause tuition levels to be high or low in any state. However, a

discussion of the correlations can provide help in understanding the

variations in tuition levels among states.

Most of the other characteristics we considered did not relate as closely to

the differences in tuition levels among states as the four listed above. Also,

we eliminated from our analysis several state characteristics we judged to

be most probably the result of in-state undergraduate tuition levels, even if

they were highly correlated—for example, undergraduate tuition for

out-of-state students. See appendix II for a detailed description of the

correlation between the four characteristics.

High Tuition Often

Accompanies High State

Taxes

There is a strong correlation between high composite tax rates and high

tuition levels.16 For example, 9 of the 10 states with the highest composite

tax rates had tuition levels above the 50-state average, and 9 of the 10

states with the lowest composite tax rates had below-average tuition

levels. This might seem counterintuitive at first. But if tuition is considered

a “use tax or fee” for attending a state-supported college or university,

then it might be expected that this tax or fee tends to be high in states

where other taxes are high.

Tuition Levels Are Highly

Related to the Level of

State Support

The variation in tuition levels among states is also related to differences in

the levels of state support for higher education. Tuition tends to be lower

in states that provide high levels of per-student financial support to their

public colleges. To some degree, the amount of state support, in turn, is a

function of the states’ tuition philosophies.

16The composite tax rate is the weighted average of 27 commonly used state, county, and local tax

rates, including tax rates on income, sales, real property, gasoline, tobacco, and alcohol.

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

On a nationwide basis, state appropriations provided on average about

42 percent of public college revenues, and tuition, about 23 percent, in

school year 1993-94 (see table 4.2). However, in the 10 states in which

state appropriations provided 50 percent or more of public schools’

revenues, the average tuition was about $2,000, or 21 percent below the

national average of $2,525 for the year. Conversely, in the eight states in

which state appropriations provided 35 percent or less of public colleges’

revenues, the average tuition was about $3,500, or about 38 percent above

the national average that year.

Table 4.2: Comparison of the

Percentage of Public College Revenue

From State Appropriations With

Revenue From Tuition, School Year

1993-94 State

State

appropriations as

a percentage of

revenuea

Tuition as a

percentage of

revenueb

Average full-time

resident

undergraduate

tuitionc

Vermont 13 44 $5,167

New Hampshire 23 38 3,850

Delaware 26 36 3,620

Colorado 27 26 2,246

Pennsylvania 31 31 4,280

Oregon 34 16 2,844

Washington 35 15 2,329

Virginia 35 20 3,637

Utah 36 12 1,854

Rhode Island 36 32 3,184

Michigan 36 22 3,431

Ohio 37 25 3,259

North Dakota 38 18 2,088

Montana 41 20 1,889

Maryland 41 24 3,100

Minnesota 41 15 2,748

Louisiana 41 18 2,176

Wisconsin 42 17 2,289

New Mexico 42 9 1,721

California 42 15 2,528

U.S. average 42 23 2,525

Indiana 43 21 2,616

Maine 43 24 3,156

Alabama 43 13 1,986

Arizona 43 21 1,817

Missouri 43 22 2,454

(continued)

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

State

State

appropriations as

a percentage of

revenuea

Tuition as a

percentage of

revenueb

Average full-time

resident

undergraduate

tuitionc

Massachusetts 44 32 4,066

Illinois 44 17 3,027

Iowa 44 12 2,352

Mississippi 45 16 2,355

South Carolina 45 16 2,888

Nevada 45 15 1,503

South Dakota 46 23 2,228

Texas 46 13 1,509

Kansas 47 16 1,856

Connecticut 48 28 3,480

Wyoming 49 13 1,648

West Virginia 49 24 1,855

Oklahoma 49 15 1,640

Kentucky 50 16 1,912

Idaho 50 16 1,503

New York 51 18 2,899

Tennessee 51 14 1,802

New Jersey 51 14 3,087

Nebraska 51 13 1,954

Arkansas 52 14 1,803

Florida 52 14 1,782

North Carolina 52 12 1,405

Georgia 53 15 1,881

Alaska 54 13 1,930

Hawaii 63 8 1,455

aThese figures represent state appropriations to 4-year state colleges and universities (excluding

revenue from grants and contracts received from state governmental sources) as a percentage of

current fund revenue, excluding Pell grant receipts from the federal government, auxiliary

enterprise, hospital, and independent operation revenue.

bThese figures are for tuition for out-of-state and graduate students, as well as for in-state

undergraduates, as a percentage of current fund revenue, excluding Pell grant receipts from the

federal government, auxiliary enterprise, hospital, and independent operation revenue.

cThese averages are weighted by the estimated number of state-resident, full-time

undergraduates enrolled at each state 4-year college in the fall of 1993. We did not verify the data

used to calculate these estimates. The source of data used to compute these figures was IPEDS.

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

Differences in states’ tuition subsidy levels relate to a number of factors,

one of which involves the states’ general philosophies regarding tuition. A

1993 survey of state higher education financial officers on state tuition

policies found that a majority of states followed one of several basic

philosophies in making decisions about tuition levels, although the states

varied in the type of philosophy they followed.17 For example, eight states

subscribe to a “low tuition” philosophy in order to maximize student

access to public college. The state constitutions of two of these states,

Arizona and Wyoming, specify that university instruction be as nearly free

as possible. In contrast, five states reported following a “high tuition”

philosophy in the belief that students who have the ability to pay should

bear a larger proportion of their education expenditures. Under this

policy, some of the tuition revenues are used to provide financial aid to

students with lesser financial means to help ensure that the high tuition

does not adversely affect access.

Seven states set their tuition at levels comparable to tuition charged by

similar institutions (such as a research university comparing itself with

another research university rather than a teachers college) or they index

their schools’ tuition to various economic variables, such as HEPI or

personal income levels. For example, South Dakota’s policy is to index

resident tuition and fees to the prior year’s HEPI. Alaska’s tuition levels are

indexed to the average HEPI over the last 3 years.

The remaining states said they either had a “moderate tuition” philosophy

of trying to maintain a proportional sharing of expenditures between the

state and student, had no underlying statewide philosophy for setting

tuition, or left these decisions up to the individual schools.

Correlation Between

Tuition Levels and Schools’

Per-Student Expenditures

We found a significant positive correlation between states’ average tuition

levels and expenditures per enrolled student at public colleges. In other

words, the less a state’s schools spent per college student, the lower the

tuition was likely to be. For example, the seven states with the lowest

expenditures per student had tuition below the national average during the

1993-94 school year. (See table 4.3.)

17Charles S. Lenth, The Tuition Dilemma—State Policies in Pricing Higher Education (Denver, Colo.:

State Higher Education Executive Officers, 1993).

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

Table 4.3: Estimated Average 1993-94

Public College Education-Related

Expenditures Per FTE Student

Compared With Average 1993-94

Tuition State

Educationrelated

expenditure per

FTE studenta

Average 1993-94

in-state tuition

Tuition as a

percentage of

expenditures

South Dakota $5,604 $2,228 40

Oklahoma 5,836 1,640 28

Montana 5,942 1,889 32

Louisiana 5,989 2,176 36

West Virginia 6,229 1,855 30

Utah 6,625 1,854 28

Georgia 6,965 1,881 27

New Hampshire 6,991 3,850 55

Idaho 7,035 1,503 21

Arkansas 7,122 1,803 25

North Dakota 7,263 2,088 29

New Mexico 7,404 1,721 23

Nebraska 7,416 1,954 26

Connecticut 7,878 3,480 44

Missouri 7,988 2,454 31

Colorado 8,051 2,246 28

Kentucky 8,109 1,912 24

Wisconsin 8,115 2,289 28

Virginia 8,141 3,637 45

Florida 8,190 1,782 22

Maine 8,226 3,156 38

Mississippi 8,229 2,355 29

Arizona 8,236 1,817 22

Illinois 8,328 3,027 36

Kansas 8,455 1,856 22

Alabama 8,460 1,986 23

Minnesota 8,566 2,748 32

Rhode Island 8,662 3,184 37

Oregon 8,678 2,844 33

Ohio 8,816 3,259 37

U.S. averageb 8,892 2,525 28

Indiana 8,921 2,616 29

Tennessee 8,940 1,802 20

Nevada 8,955 1,503 17

Michigan 9,052 3,431 38

Massachusetts 9,126 4,066 45

(continued)

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

State

Educationrelated

expenditure per

FTE studenta

Average 1993-94

in-state tuition

Tuition as a

percentage of

expenditures

North Carolina 9,168 1,405 15

South Carolina 9,225 2,888 31

Wyoming 9,234 1,648 18

Texas 9,249 1,509 16

Iowa 9,543 2,352 25

New York 9,671 2,899 30

Maryland 9,778 3,100 32

New Jersey 9,795 3,087 32

Alaska 9,890 1,930 20

Vermont 10,302 5,167 50

Washington 10,303 2,329 23

Pennsylvania 10,749 4,280 40

Delaware 11,876 3,620 30

California 11,965 2,528 21

Hawaii 11,994 1,455 12

aThese figures include instruction, student services, and a portion of other expenditures,

excluding research, public service, and scholarships and fellowships, weighted by the estimated

number of fall, full-time, in-state undergraduate students at each 4-year public college.

bThese figures are averages for 4-year public colleges and universities, weighted by the

estimated number of full-time, in-state undergraduate students at each 4-year public college.

However, there were several notable exceptions to this low

expenditures/low tuition relationship. Hawaii’s public colleges, for

example, had the highest expenditures per student but the lowest tuition.

Not surprisingly, Hawaii identified itself as a state with a low tuition policy

in the 1993 study. The explanation for this anomaly is that Hawaii’s

unusually high level of state funding support more than compensates for

its high expenditures per student and thus enables it to keep tuition rates

low.

However, Hawaii’s schools may not have the lowest tuition level in school

year 1996-97. The state approved an 84.6-percent increase in resident,

undergraduate tuition at the University of Hawaii’s Manoa campus, which

accounts for most of the resident undergraduate students attending a

4-year public college in the state. The increase came after the governor of

Hawaii ordered the University to cut $48 million, over 2 years, from its

$313 million budget to help cover a state-revenue shortfall.

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 4 

Tuition at 4-Year Public Colleges Varies

Widely Among States

Although we found a positive correlation between states’ tuition levels and

the total per-student cost of providing a college education, individual cost

components varied in their correlation to tuition. For example, high tuition

states typically had higher expenditures for student services, such as

admissions, financial aid administration, and counseling. Similarly, high

tuition states tended to have higher expenditures per student for certain

administrative functions, such as general administrative support,

executive direction and planning, legal and fiscal operations, and public

relations/development. On the other hand, in states where public colleges

spent more per student on research and public service, tuition levels were

generally lower.

Level of Household Income

Related to Tuition Levels

Public colleges in states with low median household incomes tended to set

tuition at a level below the national average. For example, the six states

with the lowest median income (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Mississippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia) all had tuition levels more than

10 percent below the national average in school year 1993-94. States with

lower median household incomes may set below-average tuition levels in

recognition of their residents’ lower average income levels. In fact, the

1993 survey of state higher education financial officers showed that state

personal or disposable income is considered by 20 states in setting tuition

levels.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

States and schools are taking a wide range of actions to address the

growing burden of paying for college. The actions we identified were of

three main types: limiting tuition increases, expediting students’ progress

toward their degrees, and providing payment alternatives that may lower

costs for participants or mitigate students’ difficulty in paying those costs.

The approaches ranged from long-standing, widely available programs

(such as giving students an opportunity to earn college credits while still

in high school) to very recent arrangements (such as guaranteeing

completion of a degree in 4 years, if students follow certain schoolspecified conditions).

The arrangements we describe are not intended to be a comprehensive

inventory of state and school efforts but, rather, to provide a sense of the

range and general flavor of those efforts. Though our focus is on the

benefits of programs to students, some of these efforts—particularly those

that expedite students’ progress toward earning a degree—also benefit

schools and the states.

Limiting Tuition

Increases

Many of the states and schools we contacted said that they were

attempting to keep tuition increases as small as possible through general

cost-cutting measures, while some states were taking more definitive steps

by setting prescribed limits on tuition levels. We identified two principal

approaches that were being applied in setting tuition levels.

No Tuition Increases From

the Previous Year

Some states report holding tuition at existing levels, or even reducing it.

For example, the Virginia Council of Higher Education, the governing body

for Virginia’s state-operated colleges and universities, recommended to the

state legislature that tuition be held constant in school years 1996-97 and

1997-98. A Council official explained that tuition, rather than additional

state support to schools, had borne the brunt of efforts to help schools

offset their increasing expenditures from the mid-1980s through school

year 1993-94.

The Massachusetts Higher Education Coordinating Council cut school

year 1996-97 tuition for state residents by 5 percent at 4-year state

colleges. The Committee asked school administrators to make similar

reductions in fees set by the institutions. According to a Massachusetts

official, the fees are about equal to tuition payments.

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

Inflation-Related Tuition

Increases

Other states and schools are tying their tuition charges to changes in the

cost of living. For example, the tuition level at the University of Colorado

at Boulder was set specifically to reflect the rate of inflation. For school

year 1995-96, this school’s tuition for out-of-state students increased by

4.3 percent, which was equal to the increases in the Denver-Boulder CPI.

In-state tuition increased even less. Because the Colorado legislature

wanted to minimize the effect of inflation on resident students, it

increased state funding to hold down the resident tuition increase to

2.3 percent.

The state of Washington shifted from setting tuition based on schools’

expenditures to a policy that limits tuition increases to about 4 percent in

the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school year budgets, with some variation among

schools. The change is intended to hold tuition increases to a rate close to

the rate of inflation.

Where schools themselves have tuition-setting authority, states may create

inducements for them to limit tuition increases. For example, the

Pennsylvania legislature appropriated $24 million in fiscal year 1995-96 for

distribution to public colleges that restricted tuition increases to

4.5 percent or less. About $143 per full-time resident student was allocated

for schools that complied.

Michigan enacted a different type of incentive, providing for a credit equal

to 4 percent of tuition, up to $250, to be deducted from the state income

tax liability of residents paying tuition at state schools whose tuition

increases do not exceed the change in CPI. Before this legislative revision,

Michigan State University approved a policy guaranteeing that tuition

increases would not exceed inflation for the 4 years required to complete a

baccalaureate degree for freshmen classes entering the school in school

years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The guarantee is contingent on state

appropriations for the school’s general fund keeping pace with inflation.

Lowering Total Costs

for College by

Speeding Academic

Progress

Some actions and programs can lower students’ costs without directly

addressing the issue of rising tuition. We identified a variety of state and

school initiatives to help expedite students’ progress toward their degrees.

These actions, according to experts, can result in substantial savings for

students, schools, and states by reducing both college costs and the length

of time students forgo earnings. State and national data show that many

students take longer than 4 years to complete their degrees. For example,

a 1994 University of Illinois study found that about half the degree

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

recipients at Illinois who entered as freshmen needed more than 4 years to

finish. And, according to a 1995 State University of New York (SUNY)

report, 60 percent of the university’s students, and 45 percent of students

nationally, receive their bachelors degrees within 6 years.

We found similar results analyzing Department of Education national data

on the proportion of seniors who did not graduate during their fourth year.

At public 4-year institutions in 1992-93, fewer than half the full-time,

fourth-year students finished their baccalaureate degrees by the end of

their senior year.18 Although many students may take longer for reasons of

their own choosing (such as taking less than a full load of course work),

actions to help students move through a degree program as expeditiously

as possible may eliminate some of the institutional obstacles to reducing

students’ costs.

We identified various strategies states and schools were using to help

students move more quickly through their undergraduate work: limiting

degree requirements or program length, working with high school students

to guide them in taking the right preparatory courses, letting high school

students earn college credit through accelerated courses and other means,

facilitating the transfer of courses taken at community colleges, and

improving academic advising. Although some of these efforts have been in

place for a number of years, none of the studies we reviewed determined

the effectiveness of the programs in shortening the time students take or

reducing the cost they incur to obtain their undergraduate degrees.

Limiting Degree

Requirements or Program

Length

Reducing the amount of time required for students to complete a college

degree by limiting the number of required credits is one way schools are

lowering their students’ costs. Eight of the 21 states responding to our call

for information through the State Higher Education Executive Officers’

electronic network said they had made an effort to limit the number of

credits students needed to complete their degree requirements. And we

identified efforts by other states to reduce maximum degree requirements.

Arizona’s three state universities, for example, are reducing the required

number of hours in 261 undergraduate degree programs from 125 or 126

(and as many as 144) to 120, effective December 1996. A Board of Regents

official said this change is designed to make it easier for students to

complete a degree in 4 years. Eighty-five percent of the three universities’

undergraduates were in these programs in school year 1995-96.

18Our national calculations are based on Department data that do not indicate whether students who

were full time at 4-year public colleges during the fall term of the year they graduated attended on a

full-time basis throughout their years in college.

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

Another effort to reduce the time needed to obtain a degree takes the form

of schools’ programs to provide 3- and 4-year degree programs. We

identified several programs that guarantee students can complete their

requirements for a baccalaureate degree in 4 years—and, in some cases, in

less time. One such 4-year degree completion program, at the University of

Iowa, is described below. A University of Iowa publication advises that

resident students can save $9,518 by graduating in 4 years instead 5 years,

which is closer to the current average.

An additional value of these programs is derived from the message they

can convey to parents and school staff about the importance of timely

degree completion. For example, a Colorado official told us an important

benefit of the 4-year program at the University of Colorado Boulder

campus is that it notifies parents of the feasibility of completing the degree

in 4 years and puts departments on notice that they must ensure course

availability.

University of Iowa’s 4-Year Graduation Plan: Established in 1995, the

University of Iowa’s 4-Year Graduation Plan is available to students in all

except a small proportion of its programs. Among its requirements are that

the student begin at the university as a freshman, choose and be

adequately prepared for a qualified major at entry (or at specified later

times for certain majors), complete the necessary number of courses each

year, and not change majors in a way that will undermine completion in 4

years. In return, the university agrees to help students graduate in 4 years

by waiving or making substitutions for any unavailable required courses or

by paying for students to take unavailable courses later. Students meet

with their adviser every semester to review their 4-year plan, ensure they

are still on track, and incorporate any changes that are appropriate.

When first offered in the 1995-96 school year, the program enrolled about

50 percent of the fall 1995 entering freshmen. Because all participants are

still freshmen, it will take 4 years to determine the program’s success in

shortening time to graduation.

We found a few instances in which states’ schools are offering even

shorter degree programs or permitting students to pursue advanced

degrees as undergraduates. One of these programs, at SUNY Brockport, is

described below.

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

SUNY Brockport’s 3-Year Delta Program: The Delta College Program at

SUNY Brockport provides two academic options for students to complete a

baccalaureate degree with a total of 99 credits in six semesters (program

duration may be prolonged by requirements for certain majors or by

courses required to gain the language, statistics, or computer

competencies). The shorter completion time is achieved in part by

“deleting duplication of content from advanced secondary courses and in

part by students having the necessary prerequisites to complete the

program in six semesters.” All students must complete (1) a common

42-credit core studies curriculum,(2) 36 hours in a major or global studies

curriculum, and (3) 21 credits of experiential integrative learning

experiences. The integrative learning credits, which include a 15-week

international experience, are achieved off campus, partly in summer, and

may be for pay. Students may meet required language, statistics, and

computer competency requirements either through courses or

examinations.

The program, started in this form in 1995, has a first-year enrollment of 199

students, of whom 32 are freshmen. Officials expect the freshman

enrollment to double in the second year.

At other schools, students may be able to complete a degree in less than 4

years by squeezing 4 years of course work into a shorter time. Students

may shorten the time to obtain their degrees by taking a heavier course

load, passing proficiency tests, attending summer school, applying college

credits achieved before starting their college education, or some

combination of these.

Emphasis on shortened degree programs has met with some skepticism in

the academic community. For example, the Virginia Council on Higher

Education’s 1993 report, The Continuum of Education, contains a

comprehensive discussion of how students move through the Virginia

educational system and questions the applicability of formal 3-year degree

programs in the U.S. educational setting. The report maintains that the

usual senior year in American high schools is not a rigorous academic

experience and concludes that students may not have adequate

preparation to complete college in 3 years or even 4 years unless they take

advantage of options for achieving college credits during their senior year.

However, those who take advantage of such options can complete most

120-hour degree programs in 3 years.

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

Helping Entering Students

Avoid Having to Take

Remedial Courses

Responding to concerns about students’ inadequate preparation for

college, some schools have implemented programs to minimize the

number of remedial classes students take at 4-year schools. In Oregon, for

example, nearly 40 percent of all first-time freshmen at state schools

require remedial education in mathematics. Students pay for courses such

as these but usually do not receive college credit for them. In aggregate,

students attending Oregon schools spend an estimated $300,000 annually

for remedial education in mathematics, and $125,000 for remedial writing

courses.

Some states or institutions have developed programs to give high school

students a clearer idea of courses they need to take while in high school to

better prepare themselves for college-level work and to allow them to

appropriately adjust their high school curriculum. An example of a

program that has been operating for some time is Ohio’s Early College

Mathematics Placement Testing Program. According to an Ohio official,

five states now have similar programs in place.

Ohio’s Early College Mathematics Placement Testing Program: 

Based on the premise that if high school juniors were aware of the

negative consequences of needing remedial math in college, they would

schedule appropriate courses in their high school senior year, Ohio’s Early

College Mathematics Placement Testing Program was designed to provide

feedback to high school juniors. As of 1994, the program included 42

colleges and universities, including all 13 state-supported universities as

well as 2-year and private schools. The program, which began in 1978, is

administered by Ohio State University. The program provides optional

testing to college-bound high school juniors and provides them

information on which to base senior-year scheduling in preparation for

their intended college majors. As of 1994, about 75 percent of Ohio high

schools participated in the program.

From the start, the program was followed by a dramatic increase in the

number of high school seniors enrolling in mathematics, and by

improvement in the college mathematics placement test scores of students

entering Ohio State University. The university reported, for example, that

remedial mathematics placements were down 50 percent (from a high of

43 percent of students). Moreover, a 1994 report cited strong evidence that

students from high schools participating in the program for several years

needed fewer remedial courses than would otherwise have been expected.

The report suggested that the program is positively affecting the quality of

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

instruction at participating high schools. Ohio has since developed a

similar program for assessing English composition.

Providing College Credit

Through Acceleration

Programs

Programs at some high schools, community colleges, and 4-year schools

provide qualified high school students college credits, which can

accelerate students’ progress to a baccalaureate degree. Acceleration

programs include such approaches as advanced placement (AP), dual

enrollment options and early admissions, the International Baccalaureate

(IB) Program, and achieving college credits through the College-Level

Examination Program. Table 5.1 describes these programs.

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

Table 5.1: Programs Providing Accelerated College Credit

Program Description Example or scope

Advanced placement Students participate in one or more of 29 specific

courses developed under College Board

sponsorship. On the basis of their scores on

standardized AP tests, students may receive college

credit, advanced placement, or both. AP programs

are taught at the high schools by high school faculty.

Students pay only AP examination fees, considerably

less than the cost per course of college tuition and

fees. Under certain circumstances, some

states—Colorado, for example—absorb examination

fees.

The South Dakota Board of Regents produces a

booklet called “Acceptance of Advanced Placement

Examinations,” which specifies which AP

examinations are accepted at each state school, what

AP score is required, and to which college courses

the credits apply. A state of Washington official said

roughly 4.5 percent of Washington high school

students participate in the AP curriculum, most often

in mathematics, English, biology, or chemistry.

Dual enrollment Under agreements with participating colleges and

universities, qualified high school students are eligible

to take college-level courses, for which they receive

both college credit and credit toward high school

graduation. The courses may be taught at a

community or 4-year school, or at high school, by

high school or college faculty. Arrangements for

paying the costs range from absorption of all normal

tuition costs by the school district, to students’ paying

for books, supplies, and/or transportation, to students’

paying all costs. Under an early admission program,

a variant of dual enrollment, students attend a

postsecondary institution full or part time during the

last 1 or 2 years of high school and receive both high

school and college credit.

Under Washington State’s Running Start Program,

students in grades 11 and 12 attend college courses

at any of 32 community and technical colleges, or at

any of three state universities in cities without a

community or technical college main campus.

Because tuition costs are paid with basic education

funds for grades kindergarten through 12, students

are able to attend tuition free, though they are

responsible for transportation and books. The

program began with a pilot in school years 1990-91

and 1991-92 and had more than 7,400

participants—about 3 percent of all high school

juniors and seniors in public high schools—by

1994-95. In 1994-95, the program saved students and

their families $5 million in tuition costs.

International

Baccalaureate Program

As is the case with advanced placement, this

program is taught at high schools by high school

faculty, using school district funding. It is an

integrated program of studies, comparable to a

comprehensive advanced placement curriculum, with

additional requirements for research and social

service. The IB Program is offered by one or more

high schools in 32 states and the District of Columbia.

In most states, at least one public college recognizes

the program, though schools differ in their criteria for

providing credit. In some states, legislatures provide

supplementary funding to high schools that offer the

program.

The University of North Carolina’s Charlotte campus

offers up to a year’s credit to IB students. Four of

Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s 11 public high schools offer

the program, and IB preparatory programs exist in 4

middle schools and 2 elementary schools. In Florida,

state regulations require public colleges and

universities to award up to a year’s credit for IB

course completion—depending on the level of test

passed and the score achieved—and the law

provides scholarships for students with IB diplomas.

In addition, the law provides for increasing high

schools’ full-time-equivalent count for funding

purposes by a factor that reflects IB students’ course

completion.

College-Level

Examination Program

Students may qualify for postsecondary credit by

demonstrating college-level achievement on

nationally standardized tests given monthly around

the country by the College Board. No structured

curriculum exists for the Program. Schools vary as to

the subjects for which they award credit, their cut-off

scores, how much credit they award, and additional

requirements they impose.

Schools accepting credits include schools in all 50

states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico,

the Virgin Islands, and Canada. Participating schools

range from community colleges to ivy league schools.

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

Though such programs are widely available, colleges and universities vary

in their acceptance of the credits that students earn. According to the

College Board, for example, about 50 percent of colleges and universities

offer sophomore standing for students with qualifying grades on advanced

placement examinations. But the schools use different formulas for

translating those credits to college credits. Similarly, schools differ in their

acceptance of dual enrollment and IB Program credits.

There have been a number of variations of these programs. One that

involves a fundamental change is the proposed system, currently under

development, for admitting students to Oregon’s state colleges and

universities on the basis of demonstrated proficiencies.

Oregon’s Proficiency-Based Admissions Standard System (PASS):

Oregon’s PASS is a new system of college admission that substitutes

proficiency requirements for traditional time-based proxies for learning,

such as the number of courses completed with a passing grade. Among

reasons given for the change are lack of uniformity in preparation students

receive in high school even when they take the same courses, and the

large proportion of college students requiring remedial courses in college.

PASS requires that students demonstrate specific levels of knowledge and

skill in six major content areas (such as mathematics, science, and the

humanities) and nine processes (reading, writing, communication

competence, critical/analytic thinking, problem solving, technology as a

learning tool, teamwork, systems/integrative thinking, and quality work).

Assessment tools include tests, tasks such as research papers and

speeches, and teacher verification of proficiency through documented

scoring and common criteria. PASS is scheduled for implementation in

2001.

Oregon teachers piloted PASS proficiencies and integrated the PASS

assessment standards with existing high school performance standards in

school year 1995-96. When PASS is fully implemented in 2001, the Oregon

State System of Higher Education expects to significantly curtail remedial

programs and introductory level courses, and to create opportunities for

students to move more quickly to graduation.

Facilitating the Transfer of

Community College

Students to 4-Year Schools

Community colleges have been designed, in part, to provide affordable

educational access both through their relatively low tuition costs and their

location within commuting distance. But when students transfer from

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

community colleges to 4-year schools, their academic progress may be

slowed because their credits do not always fully satisfy the 4-year schools’

requirements. Sometimes this means that students must take courses that

are similar to ones they have already completed. For example, a transfer

student’s completed courses may give too few credits or may lack a

laboratory component required to meet the receiving school’s

requirements. To the extent that states are successful in facilitating

transfer of credits, students will be able to achieve an increased portion of

their requirements in lower-cost settings.

Many states and schools reported that they were working to improve the

transfer of community college credits to 4-year schools. Examples of steps

taken to improve the transfer of credits included agreements between

colleges and community colleges as well as better coordination between

colleges and high schools on high school curricula. Other initiatives to

facilitate credit transfer include written or computerized transfer guides to

inform students regarding course equivalencies and common course

numbering systems. These steps are part of a comprehensive approach to

expediting students’ degree completion included in a Florida statute, as

described below.

Florida’s Provisions to Facilitate Transfer of Credits: Florida law

requires that the state’s postsecondary institutions use a common course

designation and numbering system for community colleges and state

universities and colleges, and common course prerequisites and

substitutions except for unique program prerequisites approved by the

Board of Regents. Further, postsecondary institutions are required to work

with school districts to coordinate high school curricula with college core

courses to prepare high school students for college-level work.

The Florida law also calls for state colleges and universities (with the

exception of specified programs) to give upper-division status to any

Florida student with an associate in arts degree or with 60 completed

community college credits that include 36 general education credits. For

most degree programs, at least half of the required credits must be

achievable through courses designated as lower-division courses offered

by Florida community colleges. Colleges, universities, and community

colleges must also enable students to earn general education course

credits through nationally standardized or institutionally developed

examinations. In addition, the law calls for developing a single, statewide

computer-assisted student advising system, accessible by state 4-and

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

2-year postsecondary school students as an integral part of the process of

advising and registering students and certifying them for graduation.

Many of these provisions were contained in a 1995 amendment and are

targeted for completion by the fall semester of 1996. An official said that,

for the most part, efforts are on track to meet targeted dates.

Improving Academic

Advising

To avoid delays in students’ completing degree requirements, it is

important that they have the information they need to select a major and

to efficiently schedule course work. Good academic advising can help

students by providing guidance in selecting a major and properly

sequencing courses and by making students aware of necessary but

infrequently offered courses or of courses that tend to be difficult to

schedule. A 1992 study of student progress by the Virginia Polytechnic

Institute found that students’ most common recommendation for

shortening the time needed to graduate was to improve advising; one-third

of students who were delayed in completing their degree programs

attributed the delay to some extent to the advice they received. Similarly,

an Illinois Board of Higher Education report attributed students’ delayed

degree completion to a lack of guidance and information on how to

achieve their educational goals. University officials in two other states

commented that bottlenecks to degree completion often reflect improper

course sequencing or student unawareness that certain courses are not

always available.

To strengthen their academic advising activities, some states are

developing computerized systems that provide students and/or advisers a

list of unmet degree requirements for each student. According to a

University of Colorado official, the school plans to make its computerized

transcript system, now accessible only to advisers, accessible to students.

The eventual plan is to develop software that will calculate a student’s

remaining course work needs in response to “what if?” scenarios that

users enter into the computer.

Alternative Ways of

Helping Students to

Pay

Alternative payment and savings plans, for those who choose to

participate, offer several different approaches to easing the burden of

paying for college. These arrangements do not focus on lowering tuition

costs; rather, they are intended to offer parents alternative ways of paying

these costs, such as spreading them out over a longer time frame.

However, these arrangements pose risks to states and families that

Page 57 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

participate. In a prepaid tuition program, for example, the state or school

may be responsible for the difference between amounts families paid into

the plan and actual tuition costs. Also, these plans’ benefits typically

accrue principally to middle- and upper-income families, which have more

discretionary income to use in such ways, and provide little assistance to

students from low-income families.19 Three principal types of currently

available alternative payment programs came to our attention—tuition

prepayment programs, college savings plans, and monthly payment plans.

Tuition Prepayment

Programs

The three main kinds of tuition prepayment plans—contract, tuition credit,

and certificate—have some characteristics in common. Table 5.2 describes

examples of each. In all three, the purchaser pays in advance for

educational benefits that a designated beneficiary will use in the future.

The program charges roughly the current cost of the tuition and of other

educational benefits. Purchasers pay either in a lump sum or in a series of

payments.

Table 5.2: Major Types of Tuition Prepayment Plans

Type of plan

Selected state using

plan type Description

Contract Florida The purchaser contracts for a predetermined amount of education, with the cost

calculated based on current tuition levels. As of January 1995, 327,707 contracts had

been purchased through the program, but approximately 14 percent had been

cancelled. In September 1994, over 12,000 students were attending community

colleges and 4-year schools and paying at least part of their school expenses using

prepaid tuition.

Tuition credit Pennsylvania The purchaser starts an account into which he or she makes deposits for prepaid units

of education. Between 1993, when the program began, and December 1995, nearly

14,300 accounts were opened with a total value of about $45.4 million. Because

participants must be in the program for at least 4 years, the earliest that credits can be

used is September 1997.

Certificate Massachusetts Participants purchase certificates from the state redeemable for a percentage of a

school’s tuition and mandatory fees. However, the state commits to pay only the face

value of the certificate plus interest compounded annually at a rate equal to 2 percent

above the increase in CPI. The schools absorb the loss if their costs rise more than the

value of the certificates. The program began in 1995.

Some states are reluctant to risk the possibility that income from investing

the premiums that participants pay into these plans will not keep pace

with the rising cost of education. We identified two state programs

(Michigan and Wyoming) that have experienced the effects of this risk. In

Michigan, according to state officials, the original program was suspended

19See College Savings: Information on State Tuition Prepayment Programs (GAO/HEHS-95-131, Aug. 3,

1995).

Page 58 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

because it proved actuarially unsound. A major concern was uncertainty

surrounding federal tax liability, on which a court has since ruled in the

state’s favor. After being suspended for a period, the program was

reinstated in response to the public’s interest. However, the new program

is priced considerably higher and, unlike the earlier program, subject to

liquidation if it becomes actuarially unsound.

Wyoming operates a contract-type program that is also experiencing

actuarial difficulties. When participants begin to redeem their $5,000 unit

contracts next year, the accounts’ principal plus accumulated interest will

fall considerably short of covering the cost of tuition, according to a

University of Wyoming official. The state, in paying the difference, will

subsidize these contracts.

College Savings Plans Among other available savings options, some states have developed

tax-advantaged debt instruments they identify as college savings bonds.

These bonds are generally zero-coupon bonds, sold at a discount, with the

difference between face value and purchase price representing interest.

Interest on the bonds is exempt from federal taxes and, for purchasers

who reside in the issuing state, from state taxes. Many states see these

bond programs as less financially risky and easier to administer than

prepaid tuition programs. Unlike prepaid tuition programs, state savings

bond programs do not require that the funds be spent on college expenses.

Illinois, however, pays a bonus on redemption if the funds are spent at an

institution of higher education.

Other states have programs that enable participants to save money in

special college savings accounts. Kentucky, for example, has a Savings

Plan Trust that is administered by the Kentucky Higher Education

Assistance Authority. Earnings depend on investments the Trust’s fund

manager selects and the timing of the investment and have a guaranteed

minimum interest rate of 4 percent. Students who use the proceeds of

their Trust investments to attend Kentucky schools receive an additional

boost: Kentucky allows the savings in the Trust to be excluded from the

schools’ calculation of state student aid eligibility.

Monthly Payment Plans Most schools require tuition payments, including room and board, to be

paid either before or at the time students enroll in school. Some states

have arrangements for students and their families to spread out their

college payments over the enrollment period rather than paying them at

Page 59 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 5 

States and Schools Take Varying

Approaches to Easing the Cost Burden

the beginning of each semester or quarter. In Connecticut, for example, a

state official said that most 4-year schools have programs allowing

students to spread their payments over the year. Eastern Washington

University, according to a school official, contracts with an outside vendor

to collect payments over 12 months. Although the vendor does not charge

interest for this service, it does charge a small fee.

Page 60 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Chapter 6 

Conclusions

A public college education has become less affordable in the last 15 years

as tuition has risen nearly three times as fast as household income. As a

result, the portion of a household’s income needed to pay for college

tuition nearly doubled during the period. The rapid rise in tuition reflects

two key trends over the last 15 years: public colleges’ expenditures per

student rose over 120 percent and the portion of those costs paid for by

tuition rose from 16 to 23 percent. Students and their families have

responded to this “affordability gap” by drawing more heavily on their own

financial resources and greatly increasing their borrowing.

On a more positive note, public college tuition is still a “bargain” in that it

pays less than a quarter of the costs colleges incur and, at an average of

$2,865 in 1995-96, it is only a fraction of the $20,000-a-year tuition charged

by some private colleges. Also, although federal grant aid has been

stagnant in real terms, the Congress has increased the borrowing limits

and expanded the eligibility for federally guaranteed student and parental

loans. In addition, many states have made efforts to freeze or hold down

the rate of increase in tuition levels, created college savings and

prepayment programs, or undertaken initiatives to expedite students’

completion of the college degree requirements.

College could become more affordable in the future if (1) colleges’

expenditures per student declined or grew at a slower rate, (2) a smaller

portion of colleges’ expenditures were paid for by tuition, (3) household

incomes increased at a faster rate than that for tuition charges, or

(4) grants became a larger portion of federal student aid. However, if none

of these changes occur, rising tuition levels may deter many students from

attending college. For those that do attend, the debt loads many students

and their families assume may increasingly affect students’ career

decisions, their parents’ life styles while their children attend college, and

students’ life styles after they complete college.

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to address the following questions:

• How much have average undergraduate resident tuition levels at public

colleges increased compared with students’ and their families’ ability to

pay for college, as measured by such yardsticks as median family income

and CPI, and what are the principal reasons for the increases in tuition?

• To what extent have increases in college expenditures for instruction,

administration, research, and other educational elements contributed to

the schools’ cost increases since 1980, and why have these expenditures

increased?

• To what extent does average undergraduate resident tuition at public

colleges differ among states, and what factors or characteristics (such as

state tax levels and median household income) are associated with the

differences among states?

• How do the costs of providing an education at public colleges differ

among states, and to what degree are these costs related to the average

level of tuition charged in each state?

• What are some examples of measures taken by states, colleges, and

universities to contain increases in tuition at public colleges or otherwise

help make paying for college less burdensome?

Scope and Limitations We focused our study on public colleges, which enroll more students than

other kinds of higher education institutions (that is, private and

proprietary—for profit—schools). Our analysis generally focused on the

period spanning school years 1980-81 through 1993-94. However, we were

able to obtain tuition data for school year 1995-96, and some data were

available through the 1994-95 school year.

In our analysis of students’ costs, we focused on tuition, which included

related fees. We excluded certain other costs, which can be substantial,

that students incur while attending college, such as room and board,

books and supplies, and transportation. Data on these kinds of costs were

not consistently included in the readily available databases we used in our

analysis. We also excluded the opportunity costs of attending college—the

income students could have otherwise earned had they not attended

college. The literature we reviewed provided no empirical analysis of this

issue but rather addressed it mainly in theoretical terms. While foregone

earnings may be substantial for some students, the lack of empirical data

did not permit us to conduct an analysis of these opportunity costs.

Page 62 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Where possible, we focused on costs related to enrolled undergraduate

students. However, the database we used to determine the expenditures

incurred by colleges, the Department of Education’s IPEDS, did not contain

sufficient data to permit us to distinguish costs for undergraduates from

costs for other students, such as graduate and professional students.

Because the information on colleges’ expenditures covers graduate as well

as undergraduate students, our cost data may overstate actual

expenditures incurred by public colleges in educating undergraduates. In

addition, we did not attempt to determine the extent to which scholarships

and fellowships supported teaching assistants, or to identify the portion of

college expenditures that are federal or state pass-through funds. We did

not verify the accuracy of the data used in our analyses.

Methodology To compare trends in tuition and indicators such as median household

income and inflation, we gathered historical data from IPEDS, the Bureau of

Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, and Research Associates of

Washington. Where possible, we used data for school years, which

typically begin July 1 each year. In some cases, however, data were not

readily available for school years. In the case of federal student loan data,

for example, we used federal fiscal year data. Median household income

data were available for calendar years.

In estimating the states’ average public college cost of providing education

to their resident students, we were limited to the use of IPEDS data.

Because these data are not sufficient to identify expenditures separately

for undergraduates and graduate or professional students, the results of

our analysis represent estimates of the cost per enrolled student of

providing education. We included some IPEDS expenditures entirely;

prorated others, based on the extent of their application to instruction or

student services; and excluded still others. We calculated expenditures in

each category per estimated FTE student for each public college and

university. To determine the average state cost, we weighted the data

using the estimated number of in-state, full-time undergraduate students.

By using this protocol, we tried to avoid overrepresenting entities such as

medical schools, which have few full-time undergraduates but many

graduate students.

The extent to which we included different cost elements in our analyses

was judgmental, based in part on the degree that these elements were used

to provide instruction and support services to students rather than, for

example, research or community services. Accordingly, we included

Page 63 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

instruction and student services in their entirety and prorated academic

support, institutional support, plant operation and maintenance, and fund

transfers. We excluded auxiliary enterprise, hospital, and independent

operation expenses because these expenditures are not directly related to

educating students and generally have offsetting revenues. We also

excluded federal Pell grants and other scholarships and fellowships

provided directly to students because these help offset students’ costs

without significantly adding to the schools’ costs of providing education.

To determine nationwide trends in tuition, we performed statistical

analyses using data from the IPEDS surveys. Our analysis focused on data

for academic years 1980-81 through 1994-95, the latest year for which such

data were available. In order to provide more up-to-date information, we

supplemented IPEDS data with tuition data compiled by the College Board

for the 1995-96 academic year. To obtain tuition figures for colleges and

universities not included in the College Board data or to resolve apparent

inconsistencies, we contacted school officials. To determine how tuition

trends compared with changes in consumer prices and in peoples’ ability

to pay, we used Census Bureau median household income and Bureau of

Labor Statistics CPI data as comparison indices. To identify reasons why

changes in tuition have differed from changes in the various economic

indicators, we reviewed research studies and other information pertaining

to college affordability and interviewed officials of higher education

associations and others knowledgeable about higher education finance

issues.

To determine the extent to which tuition levels varied among the states,

we conducted state-by-state comparisons of the average undergraduate

resident tuition levels using IPEDS and College Board data. In calculating

state average tuition levels, we weighted each school’s undergraduate

tuition charges by the number of its full-time resident undergraduate

students. Our selection of factors to test for association with variations in

tuition levels among states was derived from a review of research studies

and other relevant literature. In addition, we identified state

characteristics that were statistically associated with relatively high tuition

rates and with relatively low tuition rates, analyzing the correlation of

weighted tuition rates with state characteristics, such as schools’

expenditures per student, state appropriations for higher education, and

state funding of student financial aid.

To identify examples of state and/or school measures to make paying for

college less of a financial burden, we searched the literature and

Page 64 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

interviewed state and school officials. We also contacted representatives

of several higher education trade associations, such as the American

Council on Education, the American Association of State Colleges and

Universities, the College Board, and American College Testing, as well as

individuals with published research or papers on the topic. We

supplemented this information with material gathered on our behalf by the

State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) from its

members regarding their practices and programs to make college more

affordable or payment less difficult. Where readily available, we obtained

data on levels of participation in these programs. We also attempted to

obtain information on program effectiveness, both in our discussions with

state and school officials and in our request for information through

SHEEO’s network.

Page 65 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Appendix II 

Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Between States’ Average Tuition and Various

State Characteristics

To learn more about differences among states’ average tuition charges, we

conducted statistical analyses of states’ average tuition in relation to

various state characteristics. This analysis identified four variables that

together are associated with about 78 percent of the variation among

states’ average tuition levels:

• State and local tax rates. We used a measure of each state’s “tax effort”

developed by the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

Relations. The commission calculated national average tax rates for 27

commonly used taxes assessed by state, county, and local governments,

including taxes on income, retail sales, property, estate, gifts, and licenses.

Using these figures, the commission calculated an index showing how high

each state’s tax rates were compared with the national average tax rates.

This composite tax effort index, expressed as a percentage of the national

average, is equal to the total state and local tax revenue for fiscal year 1994

divided by the amount of state and local tax revenue the state and

localities in the state would have received if they had adopted tax rates

equal to national average state and local tax rates. We used tax effort

estimates for 1994 obtained from Research Associates of Washington.20

• Public college revenue per student from state appropriations. This figure is

the estimated average state appropriation received by public colleges

during the 1993-94 school year, per FTE student. These figures were

weighted by the estimated number of full-time, in-state undergraduate

students at each state college and university in the state. The data used for

this calculation were obtained from the IPEDS 1993 fall enrollment and

school year 1993-94 finance surveys.

• Estimated state average education-related general and current

expenditures per FTE student for school year 1993-94. These estimates

included expenditures for instruction; student services; and a prorated

portion of other expenditures, including academic support, institutional

support, plant operation, and maintenance. These averages do not include

research, public service, or scholarships and fellowships. We calculated

these estimates using data from IPEDS’ 1993-94 finance and fall 1993

enrollment surveys.

• Median 1994 household income in the state. These figures come from the

U.S. Bureau of the Census’s Current Population Reports.

As discussed in appendix I, our dependent variable was the average

in-state (that is, state resident), full-time undergraduate tuition for an

academic year at public colleges and universities. We computed these

20Kent Halstead, State Profiles: Financing Public Higher Education 1978 to 1995 (Washington, D.C.:

Research Associates of Washington, 1995). The Commission’s methodology is described in its 1993

publication RTS 1991: State Revenue Capacity and Effort.

Page 66 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Appendix II 

Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Between States’ Average Tuition and

Various State Characteristics

averages using tuition data obtained from the College Board or, in some

cases, the institutions themselves. We obtained fall enrollment data from

the IPEDS 1994 fall enrollment survey.

Each of the four independent variables was highly correlated with state

average tuition. The state and local tax rate, public college expenditures

per FTE student, and median household income were positively correlated.

States with higher tax rates, public college expenditures, and/or median

household income were more likely to have higher average tuition. One of

the three variables—state appropriations per FTE student—was negatively

correlated with tuition. States that provided higher appropriations per FTE

student at state colleges and universities were more apt to have lower

average tuition. The Spearman correlation coefficients21 and the related

1-tailed probability statistics are shown in table II.1.

Table II.1: Correlation Statistics

Between Independent Variables and

Average State Tuition

Independent variable

Spearman

correlation

coefficient

Probability that

this correlation

was the result of

random factors

State and local tax rates 0.486 Less than 0.001

State appropriations per FTE student –0.481 Less than 0.001

Education-related expenditure per FTE student 0.343 0.007

Median household income 0.363 0.005

Using a step-wise linear multiple regression analysis of these data, we

found that together the four variables accounted for (that is, were

statistically associated with) 78 percent of the variation among states’

average tuition at state colleges and universities. Table II.2 shows the

extent to which the addition of each variable into the analysis increased

the predictive power of the variables:

1. The measure of state and local tax rates was statistically associated with

23.67 percent of the variation among states’ average tuition (as indicated

by R2

 in the table’s third column).

2. State appropriations per FTE student accounted for another

21.94 percent of the variation.

3. Education-related expenditures by public colleges accounted for

29.03 percent.

21The Spearman correlation coefficient is a commonly used measure of correlation between two

ordinal variables.

Page 67 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Appendix II 

Analysis of Statistical Relationships

Between States’ Average Tuition and

Various State Characteristics

4. Median household income accounted for 3.66 percent.

In total, these four variables accounted for 78.06 percent of the variation,

with a residual (unaccounted for) variation of 21.94 percent.

This statistical accounting of the variation among states’ average tuition

does not mean that these factors cause or set tuition levels. Ultimately,

college, university, and/or state policymakers set tuition levels. However,

as the table shows, these four variables provide a statistical prediction

covering about 78 percent of the variation in tuition.

Table II.2: Results of Step-Wise Multiple Linear Regression Analysis of Average State Tuition in Relation to Selected State

Variables

Step Independent variable Multiple R2a

Change in multiple

R2

Probability of the 

F statisticb

1 State and local tax rates 0.2367 0.2367 Less than 0.001

2 State appropriations per FTE student 0.4561 0.2194 Less than 0.001

3 Education-related expenditure per FTE

student 0.7463 0.2903 Less than 0.001

4 Median household income 0.7829 0.0366 0.008

aThis is the coefficient of determination, a statistic that indicates how well a linear statistical model

fits the data. If there is no linear relationship between dependent and independent variables, R2

equals 0; if there is a perfect statistical relationship, R2 equals 1.

bThis indicates, for the addition of each variable in the model, the probability that the statistical

relationship between the variable and the variation in average tuition not accounted for by

preceding variables is due to random factors.

Page 68 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Appendix III 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Joseph J. Eglin, Jr., Assistant Director, (202) 512-7009

Charles M. Novak, Issue Area Manager, (206) 287-4794

Charles H. Shervey, Evaluator-in-Charge, (206) 654-5594

Acknowledgments In addition to the individuals listed above, Susie Anschell and Benjamin P.

Pfeiffer contributed significantly to this report.

Page 69 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Bibliography

Blanco, Cheryl D. Doing More With Less: Approaches to Shortening Time

to Degree. Denver, Colo.: State Higher Education Executive Officers, 1994.

Bowen, Howard R. The Costs of Higher Education: How Much Do Colleges

and Universities Spend per Student and How Much Should They Spend?

San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980.

Gold, Steven D. The Fiscal Crisis of the States: Lessons for the Future.

Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1995.

Halstead, Kent. Higher Education Tuition. Washington, D.C.: Research

Associates of Washington, 1989.

__________. State Profiles: Financing Public Education 1978 to 1995.

Washington, D.C.: Research Associates of Washington, 1995.

Hauptman, Arthur M., with Jamie P. Merisotis. The College Tuition Spiral:

An Examination of Why Charges Are Increasing. A report to the College

Board and the American Council on Education. New York: Macmillan

Publishing Co., 1990.

Henderson, Cathy. Student Charges: The Impact on Students, Families,

and Public Institutions, 1995-96. Washington, D.C.: National Association of

State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1996.

Hines, Edward R., with J. Russell Higham, III. State Higher Education

Appropriations 1995-96. Denver, Colo.: State Higher Education Executive

Officers, 1996.

Kirshstein, Rita J., Daniel R. Sherman, Valentina K. Tikoff, and others. The

Escalating Costs of Higher Education. A report for the U.S. Department of

Education. Washington, D.C.: Pelavin Associates, 1990.

Kirshstein, Rita J., Valentina K. Tikoff, Charles Masten, and Edward P. St.

John. Trends in Institutional Costs. A report for the U.S. Department of

Education. Washington, D.C.: Pelavin Associates, 1990.

Lenth, Charles S. The Tuition Dilemma—State Policies and Practices in

Pricing Public Higher Education. Denver, Colo.: State Higher Education

Executive Officers, 1993.

Page 70 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Bibliography

McPherson, Michael S., Morton Owen Shapiro, and Gordon C. Winston.

Paying the Piper: Productivity, Incentives, and Financing in Higher

Education. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press, 1993.

National Center for Education Statistics. Condition of Education, 1995.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1995.

__________. Digest of Education Statistics, 1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Education, 1995.

National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing Postsecondary

Education. Making College Affordable Again. Final report. Washington,

D.C.: National Commission on Responsibilities for Financing

Postsecondary Education, 1993.

Rhoades, Gary. “Rising Administrative Costs in Instructional Units.”

Thought & Action, The NEA Higher Education Journal, Vol. 11, Issue 1

(1995), pp. 7-24.

Ruppert, Sandra S. The Politics of Remedy: State Legislative Views on

Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,

1996.

Rush, Sean C., and Sandra L. Johnson. The Decaying American Campus: A

Ticking Time Bomb. Alexandria, Va.: Association of Physical Plant

Administrators of Universities and Colleges and the National Association

of College and University Business Officers, 1989.

Sax, Linda J., Alexander W. Astin, William S. Korn, and Kathryn M.

Mahoney. The American Freshman: National Norms For Fall 1995. Los

Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of

Education and Information Studies, University of California, 1995.

St. John, Edward P. Prices, Productivity, and Investment: Assessing

Financial Strategies in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education

Report No. 3. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University School

of Education and Human Development, 1994.

__________. “Rethinking Tuition and Student Aid Strategies.” New

Directions For Higher Education, No. 89 (spring 1995).

Page 71 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Bibliography

Sweeney, Robert M. Report of the States. Washington, D.C.: American

Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1995.

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Higher Education: Who

Pays? Who Benefits? Who Should Pay? Hightstown, N.J.: McGraw-Hill

Book Company, 1973.

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Confronting the

Tuition Spiral: A Sourcebook for Higher Education Policymakers in the

West. Boulder, Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher

Education, 1995.

Page 72 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Bibliography

Page 73 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Bibliography

Page 74 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Bibliography

Page 75 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Related GAO Products

Financing College Facilities: Factors Limit Connie Lee’s Ability to Help

More Schools (GAO/HEHS-96-6, Dec. 8, 1995).

College Savings: Information on State Tuition Prepayment Programs

(GAO/HEHS-95-131, Aug. 3, 1995).

University Research: Effect of Indirect Cost Revisions and Options for

Future Changes (GAO/RCED-95-74, Mar. 6, 1995).

University Research: U.S. Reimbursement of Tuition Costs for University

Employee Family Members (GAO/NSIAD-95-19, Feb. 15, 1995).

College Savings Issues (GAO/HEHS-95-16R, Nov. 4, 1994).

Department of Transportation: University Research Activities Need

Greater Oversight (GAO/RCED-94-175, May 13, 1994).

Federal Research: Minor Changes Would Further Improve New NSF

Indirect Cost Guidance (GAO/RCED-93-140, June 3, 1993).

Federal Research: System for Reimbursing Universities’ Indirect Costs

Should Be Reevaluated (GAO/RCED-92-203, Aug. 26, 1992).

(104828) Page 76 GAO/HEHS-96-154 Rising College Tuition and Costs
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100