Skip to main content

The Discount Dilemma

"You should write something about discount rates."

I hear that a lot these days.  Even though NACUBO does its annual discount study, people still want and crave more.  There is no topic, it seems, as much on the minds of people in universities as discount rate.

But despite my desire to make you, the loyal readers of this blog, happy, there are a lot of reasons I haven't written about discount rates:

  • First, data are old.  It's a long story, but financial reporting (where you learn about financial aid) is reported about a year after the freshman class enrolls.  So the ability to calculate discount is always behind the most current admissions data.  The viz below is for 2014 freshmen for instance, and it's the most recent publicly available.  It's hard to describe to people how much things have changed between 2014 and 2017. (And even harder to figure out why 2016 admissions data are not out yet.)
  • Second, discount is not as important as accountants think it is.  "WHAT?!?" say the accountants! I politely suggest that what you really care about if you're running an institution is net revenue per student, and total net revenue, the cash you use to run the university.  
  • Put it this way: If your tuition is $50,000 and you have a 40% discount rate, you net $30,000 cash per student.  But you're generating less net revenue than your competitor who charges $55,000 in tuition with a 43% discount rate, who nets $31,350 per student.  Still, people insist on comparing disparate institutions on this single accounting measure. Lower discount is not always better.
  • In that same vein, average and total revenue are both important.  If you took only full-pay students in the scenario above, you would average $50,000 with a zero percent discount.  But your numbers of enrolling students would go way down, as would your total; you wouldn't have enough to cover your overhead.  Inversely, you can generate more total revenue by discounting more and enrolling more,  but your costs go up faster than revenue, which is of course not good.
  • Third, most people and stories focus on freshman discount.  If you're a small, tuition-driven, liberal-arts college, that might be meaningful, as freshman may make up 25% or 35% of your revenue. But it's less important at big, complex universities, where we have freshmen, transfer, law, medical, graduate, and other types of enrollment too.  Overall discount is far more important, but usually less discussed.  At some institutions, where educating undergraduates can almost be said to be a side business, the revenue from student tuition is tiny, dwarfed by things like research dollars and endowment return.  Large discounts on tiny fractions don't add up to much.
  • Fourth, net revenue is not the cost to the student.  Pell and state grants come to the university as cash, and look the same as money from a student's pocket, even though they are very different to the student.  You can't tell how much a college costs a student by looking at this data.
  • Fifth, not all discount rates are the same, even at similar institutions with similar tuition rates. You can get to a 50% discount rate by having the class half full-pay and half-full need that you meet; you can also get there by having everyone at 50%.  These are impossible examples, of course, but you get the picture.
  • Finally, discount rate--an accounting measure--is something we used to look at only after the fact, where three decimal points are very satisfying.  It's essentially impossible to manage to that rate in a fast-changing, dynamic environment unless you constrain other outcomes.  As I've said before, when we send out aid awards, we're not planting saplings; we're casting seeds.  You can predict with some precision what percentage of which seeds will take root and grow, but you can't control the wind, the rain, or the temperature, which are all critical to success.
As you look at this, there are a couple of things to consider in addition to the usual caveat about the accuracy of IPEDS.

I calculated discount by taking the Financial Aid Cohort of freshmen (first-time, full-time, degree-seeking) students and multiplying that number by the tuition, then using the total institutional aid.  At most places, institutional aid is not funded, it's just a contra revenue.  But at others, income from restricted endowment funds may actually fund the aid.  Here's a long boring argument about whether this matters or not. For this purpose, I'm taking all aid as unfunded discount.  Thus, discount = Institutional Aid/Gross Tuition Revenue.

Some numbers seem a little crazy.  While a lot of institutions have freshman cohort numbers lower than total freshman enrollment (which makes sense) some have freshman total numbers lower than the aid cohort, which suggests someone in the IR office is counting wrong.  Not my problem.

This does not include all 2,200 four-year, degree-granting private colleges and universities.

Discount only makes sense for private universities, for one thing, which takes us down to about 1,600.  Several hundred of them don't accept freshmen, others have incomplete data, some are rabbinical institutes or schools of theology or massage therapy that aren't of great interest to many. Others have tiny freshman classes.  Thus, this view starts with 675 institutions, and shows five things. The four columns, left-to-right show Calculated freshman discount, Average Net Revenue per Freshman, Endowment Per Freshman, and Percentage of Freshmen with Pell.  The color shows mean SAT CR+M scores, approximated using the 25th and 75th percentiles; gold is low, and purple is high.

Use the filters on the right to limit the view.  For instance, you might only want to look at colleges in your state, or with similar sized freshman classes, or test score averages.  Or perhaps you only care about Doctoral institutions.  Filter to your heart's content.  If you want to sort the columns, just hover over the bottom of the column until you see the small icon appear, like this:

Click through the cycles to sort descending, ascending, or alphabetically.  Click on undo, redo, and reset to, well, you get the picture.


Let me know what you think and what you see here.  That is, if you've gotten this far and I haven't whomped the enthusiasm right out of you.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

On Rankings, 1911, and Economic Mobility

If you're alive today, you have lived your whole life with college rankings.  Yes, even you.  You may not have knows you were living in the time of college rankings, but indeed, you have been, unless you were born before 1911 (or maybe earlier.)  If you're interested, you can read this Twitter thread from 2020 where I discuss them and include snippets of those 1911 rankings as well as those from 1957, written by Chesley Manly. You can read for yourself, or you can trust me, that in fact the rankings as we know them have been surprisingly consistent over time, and most people would have only minor quibbles with the ratings from 1911.  Perhaps that's because they have always tended to measure the same thing. But what if we did different rankings?  No, not like the Princeton Review where they make an attempt to measure best party school, or best cafeteria food, or worst social life.  Something more quantifiable and concrete, although still, admittedly, a hard thing to get rig

Freshman Migration, 1986 to 2020

(Note: I discovered that in IPEDS, Penn State Main Campus now reports with "The Pennsylvania State University" as one system.  So when you'd look at things over time, Penn State would have data until 2018, and then The Penn....etc would show up in 2020.  I found out Penn State main campus still reports its own data on the website, so I went there, and edited the IPEDS data by hand.  So if you noticed that error, it should be corrected now, but I'm not sure what I'll do in years going forward.) Freshman migration to and from the states is always a favorite visualization of mine, both because I find it a compelling and interesting topic, and because I had a few breakthroughs with calculated variables the first time I tried to do it. If you're a loyal reader, you know what this shows: The number of freshman and their movement between the states.  And if you're a loyal viewer and you use this for your work in your business, please consider supporting the costs