Keeping trustees up to speed: trustees need to know more than just the trends in the tuition discount rate.

Because trustees are responsible for the long-term future of the institutions they serve, not the day-to-day management, it is often difficult to know how much detail to provide on critical topics, such as tuition discounting. To begin, trustees need the institutional context of capacity in order to know what to focus on. If not at capacity (defined as the ideal maximum enrollment that could be handled without significant additional fixed costs), the focus needs to be on generating the maximum possible net tuition revenue (NTR) by discounting wisely (e.g., through data analysis). As William Bowen and David Breneman explained so eloquently in a 1993 Trusteeship article, "so long as the 'net revenue' contributed by (students who will come only for a discount) exceeds the marginal cost of enrolling them, it is to the financial advantage of such colleges to provide price discounts." If at capacity, then discussions need to focus on trade-offs between NTR and other enrollment goals such as quality profile, program mix, etc. For example, at the handful of elite institutions (read Ivy) that could meet their enrollment goals with no discount to their sticker price, financial aid truly is an expense, rather than a means of generating additional revenue to cover fixed costs. Trustees need to understand to what extent your institution is using aid to make the class versus to shape the class.

Certainly data on trends in the overall discount rate (the percent of tuition revenue going back to students in the form of financial aid) is an important financial indicator that is commonly included on institutional "dashboards." And yet, it tells only a fraction of the story. If the discount rate is the only data point your board sees related to financial aid, don't be surprised if that is the data point on which they focus, without the appropriate context. On the other hand, providing all the gory details about need-analysis, the plethora of sources of financial aid, and institutional packaging policies would result in confusion, rather than a clear focus on the most essential factors driving the discount rate.

STRIKING A BALANCE

So how do you find the right balance between too little information and too much? A recent Trusteeship article by Nathan Dickmeyer posed 10 questions for board members to ask related to tuition pricing and financial aid strategies. Interestingly, eight of the 10 questions had to do with the impact of pricing and financial aid policies on students and their families (e.g., trends in net price to families, net price to average family income ratios; average "out-of-pocket" costs to families, average unmet need; unmet need by income level; average debt burden; ratio of debt burden to starting salaries of graduates; and trends in the financial need levels of families). While it is certainly important for trustees to have some understanding of the ability of their enrolling students/families to pay, it is equally important for them to understand the market's willingness to pay for the education being offered by this specific institution. To that end, some data to provide trustees, in addition to trends in the financial aid discount rate, would include:

Information on trends in the freshman discount rate as well as the overall discount rate. The overall discount rate is primarily influenced by past policies. The only discount rate that the institution can effectively influence in the short term is the freshman rate. Moreover, it is this rate that best reflects the current market's price sensitivity. Consequently, it is important for the Board to know about trends in that rate. In addition, it is the freshman rate on which national benchmarking data is available through the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) annual Tuition Discounting Survey.

Information about the institutional sticker price, discount rate, and relative prestige ranking compared to that of key competitors. Often, an institution compares its sticker price and discount rate to a set of peer or aspiration institutions, with little consideration given to whether these institutions are actually its competitors. The most relevant price comparisons, however, are with other institutions that are most frequently in the choice sets of students who are part of your applicant pool Furthermore, you need to be sure that you compare your institution to competitors on factors other than just sticker price. Across the country, we have found a statistically strong correlation between sticker price and prestige, as measured by such factors as mid-50 percent SAT/ACT scores; selectivity; and rank in U.S. News 8, World Report. A sample benchmarking report can be found in Figure 1 which clearly shows this correlation. Trustees need to understand whether or not your institution's relative price and prestige positions are in synch, as that will influence your prospective students' willingness to pay your costs.

Trends in applications and yields on nonaided students versus those receiving institutional aid. Another measure of your market's willingness to pay is whether or not you are able to attract and enroll students who will pay your full sticker price. Many institutions are now providing some level of discount to nearly 100 percent of their incoming freshmen, and have very low yields on students who are not offered institutional financial aid. In contrast, some Ivy League institutions are now offering significant financial incentives to students from families with lower incomes because they believe they are out of balance the other way. For them, high-need students are at a premium. It is important for trustees to understand where your institution falls on this continuum.

Differences in the net tuition revenue generated by desirable subpopulations. Board members frequently discuss goals for "shaping" the class without being provided the necessary information or taking the time to understand the financial implications of those goals. In many cases, the groups whose enrollment is most desired (e.g., students with impressive academic credentials; out-of-region students; etc.) are those who are least willing (or able) to pay the full price, and consequently generate the least net tuition revenue. Providing a simple chart showing differences in average net tuition revenue generated by different groups will help trustees better understand the costs of changing the freshman class profile. (See Figure 2 for a sample chart.)

An understanding of the trade-offs between enrollment goals. Econometric modeling can help institutions understand the maximum net tuition revenue they could generate with their current applicant pool and simulate how much NTR they would forgo in order to achieve institutional goals for quality, diversity (racial/ethnic and geographic), program mix, etc. This information provides the best measure of where an institution ties along the continuum of financial aid as expense versus revenue generator. Such information can be presented to trustees in a table format that makes the trade-offs clear. (See Figure 3 for a sample simulation summary table.)

To summarize, trustees need to know more than just the trends in the discount rate; they also need to understand the key factors driving that discount rate. Market position, changes in student willingness to pay, the socio-economic profile of enrollees, and institutional enrollment goals themselves are all contributing factors. Trustees need to understand the relative importance of each in driving the engine behind the "dashboard."

figure 1

Comparison of 39 Private Colleges and
Universities Based on Fall 2003 SAT Overlap

 Number of       Average     Tuition       Average
Institutions       SAT       & Fees     Discount Rate

     13           >1250      $25,519         35
      8         1200-1250    $25,267         40%
      8         1150-1199    $21,000         43%
      9           <1150      $19,981         43%

* Sources: College Board, US News & World Report, IPEDS

figure 2

Net Tuition Revenue Table
Tuition $21,000

EFC Quality    NonFilers      30k     20-30k    15-20k    10-15k

Highest         12,511      12,304    11,975     9,056     5,609
High            17,254      17,237    14,543    10,772     7,888
Medium          18,737      18,997    16,075    10,926     9,128
Lower           20,023      20,104    15,614    11,730     9,740
Lowest          20,044      20,049    16,433    11,651    10,798
Average         18,896      18,071    13,243    10,974     8,813

EFC Quality     5-10k    0-5k     Average

Highest         4,960    4,866     8,382
High            7,423    7,018    11,270
Medium          8,082    8,134    13,178
Lower           9,479    9,066    14,018
Lowest         10,355    9,684    14,633
Average         8,161    7,734    12,665

figure 3

Sample Simulation Summary Table

                             Total Enroll    Minority    Engineers

Actual Class                     656            45          96
Optimization (NTR)               675            46          81
Increased Diversity              664            64          88
More Engineering Students        666            43          95
Maximum enrollment               725            45          95
Maximum quality                  647            40          87

                             Avg. SAT    NTR     Avg. NTR

Actual Class                   1043      6.9m     $10,457
Optimization (NTR)             1033      7.6m     $11,299
Increased Diversity            1040      6.9m     $10,443
More Engineering Students      1045      6.9m     $10,308
Maximum enrollment             1045      6.6m      $9,057
Maximum quality                1047      7.1m     $10,926

Kathy Kurz and Jim Scannell are partners in the enrollment management consulting firm Scannell & Kurz, Inc. (www.scannellkurz.com).