An Analysis of the Hanson-Liethen Sliding Scale Cost Recovery Model for College Tuition: A Case Study

Michael T. Miller, Everrett A. Smith

Abstract


Public colleges and universities rely increasingly on tuition to subsidize their operations, and how they price their tuition is important for many reasons, including who can access higher education, the financial stability of the institution, what labor costs can be paid, etc. In the early-1970’s, two scholars created a sliding scale for tuition pricing based on the assumption of state-citizenship. As costs have risen in higher education and public subsidies have not grown, there is a need to reconsider some of these tuition pricing models and to examine their potential to secure the financial stability of public higher education. Through an analysis of tax-related and tuition pricing data, the current analysis identified that the Hanson-Liethen sliding scale model does have several distinct advantages over the incremental-based tuition pricing at one case study institution, but that the model did not return significantly more money to the institution, thus, not providing a strong rationale for the model’s adoption at the case study institution.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2011). Why does college cost so much?. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Assessment Coordination Department. (2012). Frequently asked questions (2nd. Ed.). Little Rock, AR: State of Arkansas.

Baum, S., & Lee, V. (2017). Paying for college: What is affordable? Retrieved from Urban Institute http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/89481/paying_for_college_finalized_0.pdf

Burgess, B. (2009). Evaluating the policies that lead to substantial tuition variation at public land-grant universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Carbone, R. F. (1974). Alternative tuition systems. Iowa City, IA: ACT Publications.

Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2011). The impacts of state performance funding systems on higher education institutions: Research literature review and policy recommendations. CCRC working paper no. 37. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Douglas-Gabriel, D. (2015, January 5). Students now pay more of their public university tuition than state governments. Washington Post. Retrievedhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/

news/get-there/wp/2015/01/05/students-cover-more-of-their-public-university-tuition-

now-than-state-governments/

Doyle, W. R. (2012). The politics of public college tuition and state financial aid. Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 617-647.

Fincher, S. M. E. (2015). An exploration of performance-based funding at four-year public colleges in the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Harris, M. S. (2007). From policy design to campus: Implementation of a tuition decentralization policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(16). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v15n16/.

Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Gross, J. P. (2014). Market-based higher education: Does Colorado’s voucher model improve higher education access and efficiency? Research in Higher Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s1162-013-9326-3

Hinrichs, P. (2017, March). Trends in revenues at US colleges and universities, 1987-2013. Economic Commentary, 2017-05. Cleveland, OH: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

Jaschik, S. (2017, April 10). New York adopts free tuition. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved online at www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/10/new-york-state-reaches-deal-provide-free-tuition-suny-and-cuny-students

Miller, M. T., & Morris, A. A. (2008). Profile of online programs in private colleges: From college to university with a click. Academic Leadership, 6(1), available online at www.academicleadership.org

Miller, M. T., & Smith, E. A. (2016). Brand consciousness and college debt: Does student

attendance location make a difference? International Journal of Educational Studies, 3(03), p. 97-103. http://www.escijournals.net/index.php/IJES/article/view/1737/929

Mitchell, M. Leachman, M., & Masterson, K. (2016). Funding down, tuition up: State cuts to higher education threaten quality and affordability at public colleges. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Meier, K. J. (2002). Size doesn’t matter: In defense of single-state studies. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2(4), 411-422.

Paulsen, M. (1991). College tuition: Demand and supply determinants from 1960 to 1986. Review of Higher Education, 14(3), 339-358.

Rusk, J. J., & Leslie, L. L. (1978). The setting of tuition in public higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 49, 531-547.

Sanford, T., & Hunter, J. M. (2011). Impact of performance-funding on retention and graduation rates. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(33), 1-30.

Smith, A. A. (2017, March 24). Indiana creates free tuition program for certificate earners. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved online at www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/24/indiana-creates-free-tuition-program-certificate-earners

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (2009). An evaluation of Colorado’s College opportunity fund and related policies. Retrieved from Western Interstate

Commission for Higher Education http://www.wiche.edu/pub/12271




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/gjes.v3i2.11409

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Global Journal of Educational Studies



Global Journal of Educational Studies  ISSN 2377-3936

Email: gjes@macrothink.org

Copyright © Macrothink Institute

 

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'macrothink.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.