Resize Text: 
Fixed-tuition plans, which vary in specifics from institution to institution, rely on a common principle: Students pay the same annual tuition costs over a pre-determined length of time, ostensibly the time required to earn an undergraduate degree. Students, parents, and policymakers are demonstrating growing interest in such plans.
Already in place at dozens of private colleges and universities, fixed-tuition plans also have been proposed or adopted at public universities in Georgia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, and North Carolina. As of 2005-06, fixed-tuition models had been implemented at all 12 public university campuses in Illinois, as mandated by state law. In 2006-2007, the University System of Georgia adopted fixed tuition at all of its two- and four-year institutions.
At face value, these plans have broad appeal. By providing them, colleges and universities can claim that they are offering parents and students the comfort of knowing exactly how much tuition they will be charged during the student’s tenure at the institution. This peace of mind is of significant value to those facing the prospect of paying ever-increasing tuition costs. Meanwhile, politicians and policymakers can cite the plans as proof that they are holding down the cost of a postsecondary education.
Great idea, right? But there are a couple of problems: These plans offer no actual cost savings; rather they produce accelerated costs for underclassmen that are especially likely to penalize students from underrepresented groups. Add to that the fact that they are being marketed in a misleading fashion, and you’ve got yourself a policy with a political and psychological upside, but one that poses substantial risk for both higher-education institutions and their students.
Christopher C. Morphew is an associate professor in the Institute of Higher Education at the University of Georgia, where he specializes in research on institutional diversity and state policy.
Become a Subscriber