Compressed Budgets & Shifting Revenues A Primer on Policy Alternatives and Options

1. Compressed Budgets & Shifting Revenues
A Primer on Policy Alternatives and Options
Gordon M. Groat, M.Sc., R.C.P.
University of Arizona

2. 2
Introduction
The phenomenon of dramatic tuition increases has far reaching ramifications in the field
of Higher Education. Analysis of seminal literature highlights the cyclical nature of the funding
mechanisms and the policies, which actuarially control the revenue streams that are critical to the
ongoing operations necessary to fund the institutions as we have come to know them. In 1990,
The Pew Higher Education Research Program on Policy Perspectives (June, 1990) discussed
former Secretary of Education William Bennett’s angst over the public discussions concerning the
costs and prices of Higher Education.
The focus in 1990 had shifted from price to expenditure--from what students and their
families pay, to what colleges and universities spend. In the tradition of an economic cycle of
inflation and recession, the most recent discussions on this topic have noticeably returned to the
concern over the out-of-pocket costs imposed upon students and their families. Over the past five
years, the tuition at our countries public colleges has risen at an annual rate of slightly greater
than 4 percent. However, for 2002-2003, many of the public colleges are projecting increases
double digits in the (Morgan, 2002). College Board’s data (www.collegeboard.com) depicts the
following increases in tuition and fees:
 At 4-year private institutions, tuition and fees average $18,273 ($1,001 more than last
year’s $3,725 – a 5.8% increase)
 At 4-year public institutions, tuition and fees average $4,081 ($356 more than last
years $3,725 – a 9.6% increase)
 At 2-year private institutions, tuition and fees average $9,890 ($690 more than last
year’s $9,200 – a 7.5% increase)
 At 2-year public institutions, tuition and fees average $1,735 ($127 more than last
year’s $1,608 –a 7.9% increase)

3. 3
These trends have a dramatic impact on the image of Higher Education administration’s
ability to control costs, growth and revenue. It is the intent of this paper to investigate the policies
currently in place at the University of Arizona in an effort to ascertain potential modifications or
changes that may be necessary to minimize the historical cycle of these tuition increases and gain
greater control of our own destiny.
A thorough review of both historical and current literature shall provide us with a broad
spectrum of policy modifications and enhancements, which have been implemented to minimize
the volatility and dependence upon state governments and their constituents. Through this
assortment of alternatives, it is our intent to provide a detailed recommendation of the current
policies and regulations as they relate to the University of Arizona, and the tuition dilemma that
we currently face.
Problem Formulation
Tuition increases have been a part of the education landscape for over thirty years
(Ehrenberg, 1999). Tuition levels have been rising, on average, by 2 to 3 percent more than the
rate of inflation ever since the turn of the century. Ehrenberg (1999) cites that a number of forces
continue to place upward pressure on tuition costs. “These include the aspirations of academic
institutions, our “winner take all” society, the shared system of governance that exists in academic
institutions, recent federal government policies, the role of external actors such as alumni, local
government, the environmental movement and historic preservationists, periodicals that rank
academic institutions, and how universities are organized for budgetary purposes and select and
reward their deans.”
In order to gain a better understanding of the “costs” of higher education it is critical that

4. 4
we have a working understanding of the definitions associated with this topic. According to the
definitions stated by the National Commission on Costs in Higher Education (1998), terminology
used in this paper means the following:
 Cost per student: The average amount spend annually to provide education and
related services to each full-time student equivalent (FTSE)
 Sticker Price: The tuition and fees that institutions charge
 Net Price: What students pay after financial aid is subtracted from the total price of
attendance. Financial aid comes in the form of grants, loans, work study
 General Subsidy: The difference between the cost to the institution of providing an
education (cost/student) and the tuition and fees charged to students (sticker price)
For students currently attending, or prospective students and their families, the rising cost of
education leads to an endless number of debates and discussions. Is it cost prohibitive to attend
the University of Arizona as an out-of-state student? Will the tuition in my home state increase
faster than an out-of-state school such as the University of Arizona? How do the tuition increases
compare to the increases amongst peer institutions? What value does an education from the
University of Arizona carry?
In order to address these concerns, our investigation of the pricing policies and strategies shall
delve into the actions taken by institutions and states, which have the greatest investment into our
own Universities supply base. It is our goal to investigate the critical policies affecting the rapid
cost increases and develop options for controlling these costs in an effort to develop a concise
strategy and positioning statement with respect to the University of Arizona’s tuition dilemma.

5. 5
Criteria Selection
Six specific alternatives have been selected from a multitude of both historical and current
topical literature. These alternatives each represent potential methods to reduce the dependence
on State revenues and follow the principle of, “Resource Dependence Theory” (Slaughter, Leslie,
1997). “Resource dependence theory suggests that as unrestricted moneys for higher education
constrict, institutions with a national system will change their resource-seeking patterns to
compete for new, more competitively based funds. To respond to new opportunities, institutions
will have to shift away from basic research toward more applied science and technology. Further,
they will likely increase tuition and become more active in expanding sales and services while
lowering labor costs”. The alternatives, which appear to have the most viable opportunity to
allow the University to regain control of their financial solvency are as follows:
 Establish income threshold
 Increase aid: low tuition/low aid, high tuition/high aid
 Decrease burden imposed by state and federal administrative requirements
 Change or alter state constitution
 Limit number of incoming students through academic thresholds
 Advocate tiered plans: incoming freshmen pay more than existing students, varies by
degree, ranking…etc

6. 6
(Table 1)
Decrease Admin.
Alternatives Establish income Alter State
Increase Aid Burden imposed by Tiered Plans Increase Selectivity
Criteria threshold Constitution
states and agencies
Favors low income Increase due to
Increased by
Favors low students, has been on inferred increase in
Cost to Students No cost to students program or year No Cost
income students decrease for last 30 quality thru
entering University
years * selectivity
Increased lattice
cost due to non- Lose revenue in
Possibly significant
Increased Decrease institutional standardization aggregate but
Institutional costs Direct Benefit indirect costs due to
Revenue discretionary funds with obvious increase on per
lobbying efforts
implications for student basis
increased revenue
Potential benefit to May shift current Revenue Potential to Must be combined
Public Svc. Community Maintain low SES
maintain existing admin. Efforts to redirection maintain or with income
Outreach category students
programs outreach projects opportunities increase outreach threshold program
Additional revenue Potential to boost
Academic Capitalism Should decrease More strategic, focus
streams // possible research budgets
Research Not Applicable // Aid should enhance direct cost of on science &
redirection through tuition
research research activities technology
opportunities redirection
Relative
percentage equal Potential Place increased
Maintain the integrity Graduate research Opportunity to
across graduate disaggregation of emphasis on graduate
Grad vs Undergrad of commitment to may be positively enhance graduate
and graduate program students and their
graduate students impacted subsidization
undergraduate tuitions research
programs
Income thresholds fall within the scope of key groups that shall continue to have
significant priority with our nation’s educators. The emerging groups that will meet with the
political favor are students coming from low-income families and underserved groups. This
strategy leverages the argument for equity while seeking to support traditionally underserved
groups. A peer institution, the University of Texas, has proposed as series of policies which
provide significant protection for this group. Or, according to (Potter, 2003), “The University of
Texas System’s Board of Regents last month proposed free tuition for all Texas students from
families with annual incomes below the state’s median income of $40,860 in 2001.” The
proposal by Texas, called the “Texas Compact” proposes that lawmakers’ relinquish their tuition
setting power to colleges. The University of Arizona has spoken to these issues and the Arizona
Board of Regents currently supports the same policies.

7. 7
Increasing aid is a consequence of the trend in decreasing state government support as
administrators increasingly feel that tuition hikes are the only way to regain lost money; however,
they also feel that increasing tuition will also have the effect of making education more accessible
to financially disadvantaged students. According to University of Arizona Provost George Davis,
as a result of the 2003/2004 tuition increase, “there will be an $11 million increase in financial aid
for undergraduates and a $2.6 million increase in financial aid for graduate students in the drafted
proposal (Raz, 2003, ¶. 9)..” This shifting of tuition revenue to support low income students has
some literature to support the idea. “The Targeted Subsidy Model” (Hearn and Longanecker,
1985) can be interpreted to state that, rather than waste financial resources subsidizing every
student, even the ones that could and would pay to attend the same university with a substantially
larger tuition than the one they currently pay, to the detriment to the university; by using this
strategy, increasing tuition substantially is more efficient in assisting low-income students. An
increase in tuition that affluent students can afford to pay can be used to subsidize financially
disadvantaged students. Hence, from this perspective, financial assistance is “targeted” to those
that actually need it and can therefore more effectively help them because more funds are now
available to do so.
Reduction of the Administrative Lattice will reverse a trend that resulted in the increase
of administrative personnel. The more discretionary income an institution generated, the greater
the investment in additional administrative personnel. The tendency to solve problems by adding
to the administrative lattice further supported the increased growth and cost burden associated
with this strategic business unit. As the lattice of administrative function at our nation’s
universities have experienced significant growth during the years 1975 and 1985, academic
support personnel increased 60 percent while faculty numbers only increased by an average of

8. 8
less than 6 percent (Pew, 1990). Several phenomenon have contributed to the expanding lattice
and the increased costs associated with the growing administrative functions.
 Increased regulation and external micromanagement: These two phenomenon have
resulted in increased burden upon the institutions attempts to comply with the addition
of alternative revenue streams.
 Consensus Management: Increased participation by quality circles has resulted in
decreased accountability and productivity. This managerial strategy oftentimes
protects the organizational status quo.
 Expansion of Administrative Entrepreneurialism: Higher Education has not
demonstrated the ability to apply the principle of growth by substitution. Many new
problems are investigated separately: new groups are formed, new administrative
functions defined.
Tiered tuition in the State of Arizona has been the topic of some discussions designed to
capitalize on the demand surplus for certain programs. This would effectively price certain
programs at a higher rate than others. A second form of this strategy that is being implemented is
tiering the tuition by charging incoming students more than returning students. The higher price
is imposed on each new class, so that after four years, students in all four classes will be paying
the new, higher rate (Morgan, 2002). This policy is designed to lessen the impact upon current
students yet retain the increased earnings of higher tuition rates for entering freshmen. Several
major institutions have initiated these programs including The Ohio State University, University
of Illinois, Purdue, and Texas A&M (Hebel, 2002). Indiana and Penn State Universities have also
pursued this policy and many institutions with tiered tuition policies have offered various forms
of financial aid to alleviate the difference in tuition to those students unable to pay the difference.
Initial plans at the University of Arizona include exploration of tiered tuition based on
program demand while gradual tuition increases will be implemented throughout the university
students, those enrolled and those entering. Support for students unable to pay the increased

9. 9
tuition has been pledged by the University of Arizona’s President. The Arizona Board of Regents
has given permission to the University to explore these options and also to recommend that tuition
be raised.
Constitutional change to permit tuition hikes in the State of Arizona have also been the
subject of significant debate. Some argue that because the Constitution of the State of Arizona
mandates regarding education provides that “the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as
possible” (Arizona Constitution, 2003). The tuition increases being explored in the late 1990s
drew the attention of lawmakers who asked if the Arizona Board of Regents, in fact, may have
violated the constitution’s promise of “nearly free” tuition. The Attorney General ruled in favor of
the Arizona Board of Regents statutory authority to raise tuition in 1999. The Attorney General
in 1999 was Janet Napolitano, the same Janet Napolitano who is now the sitting Governor of the
State of Arizona. Changing the constitution is an arduous process that is not likely to receive
neither legislative nor gubernatorial support in the short term.
An identical dispute concerning constitutional guarantee is being debated by the Board of
Governors of the University of North Carolina system. Despite a Constitutional guarantee of free
tuition “as far as practicable”, the Board has agreed to raise in-state tuition 8% next year, and will
allow the states 16 campuses to impose additional increases that range from $100 to $400
(Morgan, 2002). The majority of the additional revenues will be directed to pay for the 5,800
additional students expected in the fall.
Increasing the selectivity of the University of Arizona through a reduction in the number
of students accepted into an institution of higher education necessitates a delicate balance of
several factors. A decision on size-its total enrollment-will influence non-tuition income per
student (Winston, Yen, 1995). An example of this is that by restricting an institutions student

10. 10
body, it will protect its per-student endowment income; if it had twice as many students,
other things being equal, it would have half as much endowment income per student. Winston
further elaborates on the issue of demand in his 1999 article titled Subsidies, Heirarchy and Peers:
The Awkward Economics of Higher Education. In this article Winston states “colleges exercise
control over whom they sell to by generating excess demand and then selecting the students with
the characteristics they most desire from the queue.”
In relation to the U of A’s current budget problem, one policy alternative to remedy its
decreasing finances can be seen in terms of cutting costs by becoming more academically
selective. This could potentially help the U of A reduce its costs because it would arguably give
the administration more control over some of the factors that contribute to its costs. Support for
this proposition can be interpreted from the ABC Bulletin #3 in regards to President Likins
“Focused Excellence” plan. According to it, the relatively open admissions standards that the
university has established resulted in shortages of classes, residence hall rooms, and lab space.
The current policy demonstrates very little discretion in quality control, and we find ourselves
admitting students whose academic profile almost guarantees frustration and failure in this
academic environment (ABC Bulletin #3, 2002)
By becoming more academically selective, the University of Arizona will be able to exert
greater control of its costs by admitting fewer, academically superior students who would then be
in a better position to graduate. A second benefit would be the reduced impact on limited
resources such as faculty and facilities.
Lastly, the increased selectivity will bolster the University of Arizona’s reputation as a
center of excellence. Selectivity, as applied to higher education focuses on the ratio of applicants
to admissions, test scores, and high school grades is one of the most significant and sought-after

11. 11
descriptions of a institution of higher educations quality. Excess demand occurs when the
demand from students is significant at a given price relative to supply (Winston, 1999).
Therefore, selectivity requires the simultaneous generation of demand and the restriction of
supply. This could also significantly help the U of A in the future as it could attract even better
students, and having an increase in supply of better students could give the U of A more power in
increasing its tuition via revenue.
Policy Recommendation
A thorough review of the historic literature demonstrates since the middle 1980’s, federal
and state government financial support for higher education has seen a significant decline
(McPherson & Shapiro, 1998). In order to gain control of this negative cycle it is imperative that
the University of Arizona takes several critical steps that address both the short and long term
financial requirements as defined by the State of Arizona Constitution. As cited, several states
have challenged the constitutionality of “free tuition” to mean within reason and not completely
free of charges. In light of the dramatic reduction in our state’s revenues, as a result of the
extended economic downturn, it seems logical to suggest a dual-pronged policy that shall address
both the short term and long-term requirements to eliminate the economic cycle, as well as reduce
our dependence on state resource dependency.
Short term (2003 – 2004): The immediate crisis requires that the University of
Arizona and the Board of Regents develop and implement a policy that fulfills two critical
objectives. First, the Universities in Arizona need to raise new tuition revenues to support both
existing and the new students expected to enroll in the fall of 2004. Secondly, the simplicity of
the program (see Table 2) clearly demonstrates to the general public that our states universities

12. 12
are in desperate need of financial revitalization. Previous single-digit rate increases have neither
reduced demand nor alerted the public of the impending financial shortfall.
Long term (2004 – 2009): This multiple year policy must provide a more comprehensive,
cohesive strategy that expands beyond simply increasing revenue. The long term plan must focus
on both price and expenditure and will have long reaching implications concerning the overall
viability of the University of Arizona and the states higher education system. Based on these
criteria, it is suggested that several of the recommended alternatives are incorporated to produce a
policy that takes into consideration the complex nature of the public they are seeking to serve.
i. Establishment of an income threshold.
ii. Decrease administrative burden associated with grants and research and ensure a
commensurate decrease in the administrative lattice.
iii. Initiate tiered tuition programs beginning 2004/2005.
iv. Increase selectivity commensurate with peer institutions.
The development of the multi-faceted approach to our recurrent financial situation
employs several states “Best Practice” policies and programs. It is critical that a public education
program is instituted concurrent with the introduction of this policy. Public sentiment must
understand and support the strategy both prior to its introduction and throughout its life cycle.
Constraints
The Arizona Board of Regents has raised tuition and it is critical to note that the largest
percentage increase in 2003/2004 tuition will be shouldered by Arizona residents with the largest
burden falling to resident graduate students. The real price, however, has not been significantly
increased in dollars. A comparative analysis of tuition levels with the listed peer institutions from

13. 13
the states where the University of Arizona draws the highest number of out of state students
reveals some data comparisons. The leading states where Arizona drew the Fall 2002 incoming
class are California, Illinois, Texas, and Washington.
(figure 1)
Source: University of Arizona Decision and Planning Support (DAPS)
Prior to the 2003/2004 tuition levels, the University of Arizona was highly competitive
with the peer institutions from those states where the University of Arizona incoming class
emanated from. In the case of Berkeley, it was only a few hundred dollars more for tuition at the
University of Arizona and hence, a comparison of external economic factors might be a large
factor. Factors such as the cost of living would be a component of these factors. In some other
cases, it was actually less expensive for a student from Illinois to pay out of state tuition than to
pay their own in state tuition. This difference is compounded for those students selecting high

14. 14
demand programs at institutions with tiered tuition, such as is the case in both Washington
and Illinois.
(TABLE 2) 2002 / 2003 Entering Freshman Tuition at the University of Arizona and Selected Peer Institutions
Public or
In State Out of State Name
Private
$1,802.00 $6,187.00 Public University of Arizona
$5,502 $13,009 Public U. Cal. Berkeley
$5,055 $16,124 Public * University of Washington
$6,748 $15,352 Public * University of Illinois
Source: collegecosts.org * Tiered Tuition Rates Apply
Once the University of Arizona raises the tuition to the expected levels for 2003/2004 –
these differential gaps will be narrowed, and all else being equal, this policy may shift the
perceived economic value of enrolling as an out of state student in a negative manner.
(Table 3) Arizona Board of Regents Planned Tuition for 2003-2004
ASU/NAU UA
Undergraduate Increase Total tuition & fees Increase Total tuition & fees
Resident $1,000 (39.9%) $3,593 $1,000 (39.9%) $3,593
Nonresident $1,000 (9.1%) $12,113 $1,250 (11.3%) $12,363
Graduate
Resident $1,200 (47.8%) $3,793 $1,250 (49.8%) $3,843
Nonresident $1,200 (10.9%) $12,313 $1,500 (13.6%) $12,613
Source – Arizona Board of Regents
The prospect of the addition of tiered tuition at the University of Arizona could further narrow
differential gaps and effect cost changes that could negatively impact the willingness of out of
state students to leave their state as the cost savings could narrow or disappear altogether. The
narrowing financial incentive must be offset by both cost of living differentials as well as ongoing

15. 15
value through policies of increased selectivity and those designed to have a positive effect upon
rankings.
Reduction of the administrative lattice poses a second constraint to improving the overall
efficiency of our institution. Reduction of staff and services when accompanied by increased
tuition has the potential to present the image of a poorly run institution. The reversal of this 30-
year trend must be well strategically implemented thru a cost-benefit analysis to ensure maximum
savings concurrent with the least interruption in services.
The third significant constraint to the successful implementation of our long-term strategy
focuses on the competitive nature of higher education in the United States. Competing
institutions are in nearly identical situations and are making many of the same policy changes as
are being proposed in this paper. Therefore, in order to differentiate the University of Arizona, it
is critical that we present ourselves as a highly selective school so as to negate minor differences
in tuition and living expenses. Also, the University of Arizona may also feel constrained by the
Carnegie Classification where it enjoys status as both a Doctoral/Research University –
Extensive, and the status of being a Research 1 institute according to the classifications. Loss of
the status of either one of these prestigious rankings may not be acceptable to the leadership of the
University of Arizona and may not be well received by the Arizona Legislature and Governor.
Implementation and Evaluation
With the analysis complete, it is time to turn our attention to the development of strategic
marketing programs. Crucial to the success of these policy changes is the communication to the
appropriate target audiences (Armstrong & Kotler, 2003). While not all-encompassing, the steps
noted below shall serve as key tools by which to evaluate both the implementation and
performance of our strategy.

16. 16
 Phase One: Identification of specific target groups is the first phase of
implementation. Key audiences include tax payers, parents of students, state and local
politicians, students and parents of prospective students.
 Phase Two: Develop the desired message that is to be communicated to each target
audience. For example: Parents of prospective students will be interested on the
institutional rankings and the return on their investment as indicated through career
placement measurements.
 Phase Three: Identify channels by which to communicate the messages to the
selected targets. Once again, parents can be reached via direct mail campaigns while
students can be efficiently channeled thru mass media ranging from campus press to
university radio/tv programming.
 Phase Four: Once these programs have been instituted, it is imperative that ongoing
measurement and evaluation takes place. Key measurement parameters must focus on
number of in-state and out-of-state applications, test scores of applicants, acceptance
rate from each key state, rate increases amongst neighboring and peer institutions and
institutional rankings.
 Phase Five: The introduction of these policies shall require that corrective action be
taken to adjust the implementation strategy with the on-going dynamics of a
competitive, dynamic market environment.
Conclusion
Several years ago Larry Leslie posed a question to our higher education finance class. His
question was whom would we want as a decision maker at the University of Arizona in the event
of a budget crisis? Following a lengthy debate, it was decided that an individual with a

17. 17
background in finance or economics would be extremely valuable. Dr. Leslie calmly contradicted
our recommendation and stated that a person with a background in the history of higher education
budgets and finance would be especially important. This individual could share past events and
teach us of the repercussions from previous actions. Simply stated, avoid past mistakes and
improve on earlier successes.
The cyclical nature of revenue shortfalls at our nation’s higher education facilities
provides a vast array of literature, perspectives and history. Vast amounts of research must be
gathered as an institution prepares for a tuition increase in order to ascertain the relative impact on
key publics and constituencies. Clearly the University of Arizona must balance the need for
additional revenue against the actions being taken by both peer and competitor institutions.
Failure to account for such strategic positioning can have dramatic repercussions in terms of
decreasing enrollment, loss of revenue, and potential loss of taxpayer support.
The Arizona state legislature has served notice to the states higher education institutions of
their reluctance to support the current mission of higher education. Based upon this directive, the
suggested policy modifications account for two distinct phases in order to both survive and
become more financially independent during this economic crisis. In the short term, it is critical
to increase revenue realized through tuition. The benefit of increased autonomy from the states
support will allow the University of Arizona to establish their independence and forge a future
destiny.
The long-term policy strategy calls for the introduction of several, albeit intertwined
strategic policies aimed to reposition the University of Arizona during the early stages of the
twenty-first century. Increasing selectivity concurrent with the establishment of income threshold
policies will simultaneously improve the value of our output and preserve a basic tenet in terms of

18. 18
maintaining access to lower income students. Critical to the success of these policies is the
inherent flexibility in response to competitor’s own strategic decisions.
It must be realized that the future success of our states institutions of higher education
cannot be guaranteed through adherence to these proposed policies. When this stage of the
economic cycle concludes and state coffers return to a time of surplus revenues, it is critical that
the University of Arizona maintains a budgeting and expenditure philosophy that prepares in
advance for the next economic downturn. The true test of these policies will be in their ability to
overcome the long history of economic crisis and forge their own destiny in the face of other
institutions reactive programs and strategies.

19. 19
References
Arizona State Constitution. Article 11 Section 6. Admission of students of both sexes to state educational institutions;
tuition; common school system. Retrieved April 23, 2003 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/const/const.htm
Armstrong, G. , & Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. (1999). Why can’t colleges control their costs? Cornell Higher
Education Institute Working Paper #3 (PDF File).
Hearn, James, C. & Longanecker, David. (1985). Enrollment effects of alternative
postsecondary pricing policies.” Journal of Higher Education 56-(5), 485-508.
Hebel, Sara (2002). Skyrocketing public-college tuition renews calls for better policies.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 49, 20-27, 9.
Likins, Peter, ABC Bulletin #3, (2002) Focused excellence 5. Retrieved April 18, 2003 from
http://infocenter.ccit.arizona.edu/~pacs/printinggraphics/3DS/2002/September/ABC%20Bulletin.txt
McPherson & Shapiro. (1998). The student aid game: meeting and rewarding talent in American higher education.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Morgan, Richard. (2002). Students at Public Colleges Brace for Large Tuition Increases. [Electronic Version].
Chronicle of Higher Education.
National Commission on Costs in Higher Education (1998). Straight talk about college
costs and prices. Phoenix: Oryx Press. Pp1-18.
Pew, (1990). The Lattice and the ratchet. Higher Education Research Program Policy Perspectives. 2(4) June.
Potter, Will. (2003). North Carolina and Texas try to buck trend of tuition increases. Chronicle of Higher Education,
49, 23-26, 24.
Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university.
Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press.
The College Board: $90 billion available in student financial scholarship growth outpacing loan growth. Retrieved
April, 23 from http://collegeboard.com/press/cost02html /cost02a.html
University of Illinois, Tuition and fees schedule, tiered tuition tables. Illinois. Retrieved April, 23 from
http://www.oar.uiuc.edu/current/tuittableFUnew.html
University of Washington, Tuition and fees schedule, tiered tuition tables. Student Fiscal Services. Retrieved April,
23 From http://www.washington.edu/students/sfs/sao/ Tuition/pro03.html
Winston, G. & Yen, I. (1995). Costs, prices, subsidies, and aid in u.s. higher education Williams Project on the
Economics of Higher Education, Discussion Paper #32.
Winston, G. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: the awkward economics of higher education. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 13, 13-36.