Skip to main content

Looking at Discount, 2016

If you want to strike fear into the hearts of enrollment managers everywhere, just say, "The trustees want to talk about the discount rate."

If you don't know, the discount rate is a simple calculation: Institutional financial aid as a percentage of tuition (or tuition and fees) revenue.  If your university billed $100 million in tuition and fees, and awarded $45 million in aid, your discount is 45%.  In that instance, you'd have $55 million in hard cash to run the organization.

Discount used to be a reporting function, something you would look at when the year was over to see where you stood.  Now, it's become a management target. And that's a problem.  If you want to know why, read this quick little explanation of Campbell's Law. The short explanation is this: If you want to lower discount--if that's really the thing you are after--you can do it very easily.  Just shrink your enrollment.  Or lower your quality, as measured by things like GPA and test scores. Easy.

Of course, this is generally not what people mean when they say they want to decrease the discount rate.  They usually mean "decrease the discount and keep everything else the same, or better yet, improve those measures."  That's not so easy.  The simple reason is that decreasing your discount means you're raising price.  And we all know what happens when you raise price, unless you turn your college into a Giffen good which you can't do, of course.

What people really want is more net revenue: that $55 million in the example above.  You'd probably like to have it be $57 million, which would mean you lower your discount rate to 43%.  That happens because you either charge students more, or enroll more students who bring external aid, like Pell or state grants.  You don't care, really.  Cash is cash.

The absurdity of discount was demonstrated to me by a finance professor friend, who said back in the late 90's, "If we generate $12,000 in average net revenue on an $18,000 tuition (a 33% discount), let's propose raising tuition to $100,000 and the discount to 80%."  Yes, believe it or not, the denominator is important when calculating percentages, which is why it's hard to compare discounts in a meaningful way for competitors who charge more.)

If you're interested, here's a little presentation I did on why colleges have tended to increase discount and net revenue at the same time.  This exercise is probably close to the breaking point, however.

Now that you understand a little more about discount, on to the data. This is from the IPEDS data for Fall, 2016, the most recent available showing both aid and admissions data.  There are four views, using the tabs across the top.

View 1: Discount overview

No interactivity: Just average discount rates by Carnegie type, Region, and Urbanicity.  I think the bottom one is the most fascinating discovery I've come across yet.  Just by playing with the data.

View 2: Discount by Market Category

This one combines the three categories above: Carnegie, Region, and Urbanicity into a single category to see how discounts play out.  In order to be included in this, there had to be at least ten colleges in the category.  You can see that the highest discount, on average, is Baccalaureate institutions in distant towns in the South Central region of the US.  You can color this by any of the three individual categories using the little control at the top right.

View 3: Individual Colleges

This lists all the private colleges for which I could calculate a freshman discount rate and net revenue per freshman.  The controls at the top allow you to look at schools like yours, if you want.  Note the slider at top right: I started showing freshman classes of at least 200, as some small college data gets a bit funky.  You can expand or narrow that by pulling the sliders to your heart's content.

Sort by any column by hovering over the little icon in the x-axis label.  If you get in trouble, you can always reset using the arrow control at lower right.

View 4: Multidimensional

Each college in this view is a bubble, arrayed on the chart in two dimensions: Freshman Discount and Average net revenue per freshman.  The size of the bubble shows freshman selectivity (bigger is more selective).  The color of the bubble shows the percentage of freshmen with institutional aid.  Note that the highest net revenue institutions are also the most selective, suggesting people will pay for prestige (or prestige and wealth pave the way to admissions). And the lowest net revenue institutions are dark blue, showing almost everyone getting institutional aid (either "merit" or "need-based" although those distinctions are silly.)

Use the filters to limit the colleges on the view, and use the highlight function (just start typing) to highlight the institution of your choice.  Note especially what happens when you limit the view to colleges with higher tuition.  Go ahead.  You won't break anything.

As always, let me know what you see.

Comments

  1. Jon - this is great. I can't get the download for some reason. Shows up it crazy unreadable format.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Changes in AP Scores, 2022 to 2024

Used to be, with a little work, you could download very detailed data on AP results from the College Board website: For every state, and for every course, you could see performance by ethnicity.  And, if you wanted to dig really deep, you could break out details by private and public schools, and by grade level.  I used to publish the data every couple of years. Those days are gone.  The transparency The College Board touts as a value seems to have its limits, and I understand this to some extent: Racists loved to twist the data using single-factor analysis, and that's not good for a company who is trying to make business inroads with under-represented communities as they cloak their pursuit of revenue as an altruistic push toward access. They still publish data, but as I wrote about in my last post , it's far less detailed; what's more, what is easily accessible is fairly sterile, and what's more detailed seems to be structured in a way that suggests the company doesn...

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...

Changes in SAT Scores after Test-optional

One of the intended consequences of test-optional admission policies at some institutions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was to raise test scores reported to US News and World Report.  It's rare that you would see a proponent of test-optional admission like me admit that, but to deny it would be foolish. Because I worked at DePaul, which was an early adopter of the approach (at least among large universities), I fielded a lot of calls from colleagues who were considering it, some of whom were explicit in their reasons for doing so.  One person I spoke to came right out at the start of the call: She was only calling, she said, because her provost wanted to know how much they could raise scores if they went test-optional. If I sensed or heard that motivation, I advised people against it.  In those days, the vast majority of students took standardized admission tests like the SAT or ACT, but the percentage of students applying without tests was still relatively small; the ne...