Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
mortarboards made of money
Gwenda Kaczor for The Chronicle

How to Solve the College-Cost Dilemma

Some majors pay off more than others do. Tuition prices should acknowledge that.

The Review | Opinion
By Anthony P. Carnevale July 25, 2022

Conversations in Washington about higher education have long been dominated by concerns over rising costs for students. And for good reason. Since 1980, average college costs have risen almost 170 percent, while earnings for young people ages 22 to 27 have increased less than 20 percent. Not surprisingly, student debt has ballooned, up 75 percent over the last 10 years to a collective $1.75 trillion.

Most proposed reforms have focused on subsidizing college costs. More recently, the debate has shifted to one over canceling debt for some borrowers. Those are important conversations to have; investing in higher education is an investment in the public good. But we also need to ensure that government funding for higher education goes into a system that is transparent, accountable, and equitable.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Conversations in Washington about higher education have long been dominated by concerns over rising costs for students. And for good reason. Since 1980, average college costs have risen almost 170 percent, while earnings for young people ages 22 to 27 have increased less than 20 percent. Not surprisingly, student debt has ballooned, up 75 percent over the last 10 years to a collective $1.75 trillion.

Most proposed reforms have focused on subsidizing college costs. More recently, the debate has shifted to one over canceling debt for some borrowers. Those are important conversations to have; investing in higher education is an investment in the public good. But we also need to ensure that government funding for higher education goes into a system that is transparent, accountable, and equitable.

Fortunately there is a solution for rising costs that relies on transparency, and it begins with something that has been hiding in plain sight: the College Scorecard. The Scorecard, introduced by the Obama administration in 2015, aggregates and reports earnings and debt data from college students and graduates. Thanks to that — and similar — transparency tools, prospective students can assess what their return on investment might be across not only institutions but also programs. That second part is crucial because it opens the door for the market to sort programs based on value.

Traditionally, a college degree has been presented as a bundled package. A four-year institution, for example, charges a set price for a bachelor’s degree, so an English major, a political-science major, an electrical-engineering major, and a chemistry major each pays the same price. Unbundling the system at the program level would allow institutions to set different tuition rates for programs depending on student demand.

For the most part, higher education has resisted specializing, instead serving all students, cafeteria-style. Colleges offer hundreds of options, and their comprehensiveness is a key selling point. But in reality, each student partakes of only a small sampling. The cafeteria approach is not only inefficient; it is unsustainable for many institutions. Unbundling at the program level would enable colleges to finally specialize.

The cafeteria approach is not only inefficient; it is unsustainable for many institutions.

In practice, unbundling means enabling academic departments to offer programs independently, with their own tuition rates. For example, at one college, students majoring in engineering could pay $10,000 more in tuition annually than would those majoring in English. Although both programs are competitive, the return on investment from engineering is higher over a career, and there’s greater demand among students to attend that program. A few colleges use that pricing approach already, but more should follow suit.

A shift in that direction would recognize that, for most students, field of study matters most for future earnings. Disparities in returns from college majors add up to big differences over a career. Median lifetime earnings for education majors, for example, are $2 million, compared with $3.8 million for architecture and engineering majors. There is also substantial variation in outcomes for different majors at the same institution. As a result, 28 percent of associate-degree holders earn more money than half of workers with bachelor’s degrees, and 36 percent of workers with bachelor’s degrees earn more money than half of those with master’s degrees.

With the College Scorecard, prospective students have years’ worth of data to help guide their decisions. The Education Department has built an information system with data on thousands of institutions and programs. More recently, the bipartisan College Transparency Act was passed by the House; if enacted, it would give the department access to more inclusive and robust data to use in tools like the College Scorecard.

We need to make those data more accessible to students and their families, as well as to college counselors and policy makers. More information about employment opportunities, earnings, and debt from college programs will empower students to choose the ones that offer the greater likelihood of financial success.

The focus on value at the program level could prompt significant changes — and finally break the cost curve — in higher education. The cost of college has risen significantly in large part because of operating expenses: facilities and maintenance, amenities, and ballooning numbers of staff members and administrators to manage it all. But by shifting the focus to the program level, colleges would focus on educating students without extra services adding to the cost. To further reduce costs, colleges would need to teach more classes online, which a lot of students want anyway. Savings from a more efficient system would lower costs, and could help finance counseling and mental-health services, career services, and other wraparound support for students.

As consumers evaluate programs rather than institutions, they are likely to opt for programs with relatively high payoffs.

For public-college systems, this reshuffling would create an opportunity to streamline program offerings and reduce costs across campuses. Rather than offering European history on all campuses in a state university system, for example, one or two campuses could specialize in that program, and students at other campuses could take those courses online. The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education is an example of the impending consolidation of many public university systems. Amid declining enrollment and increased competition with online programs, the system is in the process of merging six of its 14 campuses into just two. Likewise, Georgia’s state-university system merged 14 of its colleges into seven new institutions from 2011 to 2017.

By contrast, private colleges cannot be restructured so easily. Institutional prestige will probably continue to draw applicants to selective colleges despite their high price tags, especially given the growing share of students with two parents who each have a college degree. But less-selective private colleges may struggle to compete against selective private colleges and increasingly efficient public higher-education systems, particularly as they face long-term enrollment declines.

ADVERTISEMENT

Community colleges are likely to lean into transparency because many of their training programs have a direct payoff in the labor market. However, accountability is important for those programs because, unlike many degrees, they are intended to lead to specific jobs. If those jobs aren’t available, graduates’ specific skills usually aren’t transferable.

The Biden administration is considering gainful-employment rules for nondegree programs that would compare graduates’ earnings with earnings of workers in the same state with a high-school diploma or GED. The programs that do not meet the earnings threshold could lose eligibility for federal funding — representing roughly 40 percent of programs covered under the rule, according to an Urban Institute analysis.

Those are good developments. After all, a majority of students reported in a survey that they had pursued postsecondary education to improve their job and career outcomes. It is our responsibility to make sure that that they are armed with the information and guidance they need to find a strong return on their investment.

A version of this article appeared in the August 5, 2022, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Finance & Operations Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Anthony P. Carnevale
Anthony P. Carnevale is research professor and director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. He is a co-author of The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America (The New Press, 2020).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin