FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W86585281> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W86585281 endingPage "24" @default.
• W86585281 startingPage "15" @default.
• W86585281 abstract "Factual matters ought to be easily resolved by examining the facts, but in the case of higher education costs, diametrically opposed views have persisted over time. Consider this statement by a prominent legislator as reported in The New York Times in an article on public university tuition increases: Colleges and universities have not shown a willingness to contain (Arenson 2003, A8). In that same article, the legislator committed to introduce legislation that would withdraw federal money from big tuition raisers. Contrast that stance with the findings of a Delta Cost Project (1) study conducted under the leadership of noted higher education researcher Jane Wellman: Real full educational cost per student at public research universities increased at an average annual rate of only .2 percent from 1998 to 2005 (Wellman, Desrochers, and Lenihan 2008). The Delta Cost Project study found that universities did contain educational costs; what they were unable to contain was tuition increases. So, did cost increases lead to tuition increases, as the legislator maintained? In general, the costs borne by public research universities are made up of two components: (1) the costs of student education, paid for by state appropriations, tuition, and some donations, and (2) the costs for research, clinical practices, student residence halls, athletics, and other activities that in general produce their own revenue. (We realize that there is some cross-subsidization, but this pattern generally holds.) Public policy makers are appropriately concerned about educational costs because state appropriations and students (through tuition) pay the bill. On the other hand, public policy makers generally encourage increased revenue from activities that substantially pay for themselves because they contribute to the economy of the community and state, despite any increased cost to do so. We hope this two-sector conceptual model will help public policy makers focus more clearly on the actual costs and needed revenues of each specific university function, rather than misunderstand the situation by looking only at universities as a whole. Tuition Increases vs. Cost of Education Increases Clearly, university tuition and fees have increased dramatically in recent years. Tuition and fees represent the price of higher education to students and parents. From 1996 to 2006, private (2) universities experienced average compounded annual tuition increases of 5.68 percent, while their public university counterparts experienced increases that averaged 5.98 percent. These rates are more than double the compounded annual 2.44 percent increase in the consumer price index (CPI) for that period. From 1980 to 1990, public university tuition increased at a 4.3 percent rate and private university tuition increased at a substantially greater 5.6 percent rate (Alsalam 1996). Price changes are experienced by consumers, while cost changes are directly experienced by producers. (3) The mass media often confuse the two, especially in reporting on tuition increases. This confusion is frequently reinforced by elected officials who seem to assume that it must be cost increases that lead to tuition increases. Similar confusion is evident among some members of the current Congress; the Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 2008 includes mechanisms to compel or cajole the study and control of costs by universities whose tuition increases exceed certain thresholds. This confusion may have its roots in the classical economics model of price and cost behavior in a competitive market. Long term, in a purely competitive market, cost increases and price increases tend to be precisely the same amount, and, at equilibrium, the market clearing price and the firm's per unit marginal costs are also the same. But the market for earning a baccalaureate degree is not the competitive market envisioned by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The student shares the price of a college education with donors, governments, and others. …" @default.
• W86585281 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W86585281 creator A5005655370 @default.
• W86585281 creator A5055239600 @default.
• W86585281 date "2010-04-01" @default.
• W86585281 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W86585281 title "Understanding the Cost of Public Higher Education" @default.
• W86585281 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W86585281 type Work @default.
• W86585281 sameAs 86585281 @default.
• W86585281 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W86585281 countsByYear W865852812013 @default.
• W86585281 countsByYear W865852812015 @default.
• W86585281 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W86585281 hasAuthorship W86585281A5005655370 @default.
• W86585281 hasAuthorship W86585281A5055239600 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C195487862 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C2776269092 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C2780808987 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C2781287902 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C4249254 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W86585281 hasConcept C84265765 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C10138342 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C11413529 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C120912362 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C144133560 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C162324750 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C17744445 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C195487862 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C199539241 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C2776269092 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C2777351106 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C2780808987 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C2781287902 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C3116431 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C39549134 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C41008148 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C4249254 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C48103436 @default.
• W86585281 hasConceptScore W86585281C84265765 @default.
• W86585281 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W86585281 hasLocation W865852811 @default.
• W86585281 hasOpenAccess W86585281 @default.
• W86585281 hasPrimaryLocation W865852811 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W143963146 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W1669697262 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W1727090889 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W1990794309 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W1992098114 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2011541756 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2040568482 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2069939401 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2084943577 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2092806385 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2095312187 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2125539082 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2126038932 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2265375960 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2333003169 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2361313666 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2483370381 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W3124094747 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W3125213550 @default.
• W86585281 hasRelatedWork W2597593041 @default.
• W86585281 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W86585281 isParatext "false" @default.
• W86585281 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W86585281 magId "86585281" @default.
• W86585281 workType "article" @default.