Higher Ed’s Affordability Problem Isn’t Just the Price

It’s increasingly apparent that public support for the nation’s colleges and universities has eroded over the past few years. While some of the disillusionment reflects the impact of conservative attacks on higher education, including Donald Trump’s campaign against prominent institutions, much of it stems from growing concerns about affordability, tuition sticker shock, student loan debt, and nagging doubts about whether a college degree is still a reliable ticket to a successful career.

One recent survey found that the share of parents who said a postsecondary degree program was their top choice for their child’s post-high school plans fell from 74 percent in 2019 to 58 percent in 2025. That result is not an outlier. Survey after survey confirms that Americans have become increasingly skeptical about the value of a college degree. (“Skepticism” may even be an understatement; resentment, especially toward elite colleges, may be the more accurate characterization.)

But here’s the odd thing: despite overwhelming public anger at the perceived unaffordability of higher education, the average net cost of college has barely budged over at least the past decade. It’s actually fallen a bit. 

What might explain this disconnect? One theory is that the opaque and occasionally deceptive ways colleges advertise their prices leads to public misperception about college costs. A 2022 Government Accountability Office study found that 91 percent of colleges understate or don’t include the net price families pay in the offer letters sent to students. Such incomplete or misleading information often leads to “uninformed and costly decisions, such as enrolling in an unaffordable college,” according to the GAO. The confusion has been aggravated by a policy, common across the vast majority of four-year schools, of discounting high “sticker costs” by strategically offering generous institutional financial aid through “merit scholarships.” 

This “high tuition-high aid” model results in a situation where published tuition prices bear little relation to what many students end up paying for college. Congress has recognized the problem, and, as this magazine has reported, several bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate that would require greater clarity and simplicity in college offer letters.

Now, a new report provides the first empirical data showing a link between opaque college pricing and public anger at the system. The Price Transparency Imperative: Rebuilding Confidence in Higher Education, released Tuesday by the Strada Education Foundation, examines how colleges typically described their prices and, more importantly, how the public perceived them. Strada conducted a nationally representative survey of more than 5,000 participants, including current and prospective college students, their parents, adults aged 25 to 44 who were considering enrolling in a bachelor’s degree program, and the general population. More than two-thirds of parents and students believed that the ways colleges communicate their costs were either very confusing or “mixed” in terms of clarity and ease of understanding. On the flip side, a mere one in three students and parents found the process straightforward. The takeaway? Most higher education consumers feel they lack an accurate understanding of true college costs. 

Further, this confusion about college costs and financial aid appears to be breeding public mistrust about the main interests that motivate institutions. When asked if they believed institutions cared more about educating students or making money, the majority of every respondent group said that institutions cared more about making money. Even worse: current college students were the most skeptical about institutional priorities, with 68 percent believing that money was more important to colleges than educating. 

Strada also asked respondents whether they trusted colleges to charge a fair price. Fewer than half of those surveyed reported that they completely or largely trusted public four-year colleges to charge a fair price. Respondents were even less likely to attribute price fairness to private institutions.

Across both public and private institutions, respondents who found the financial aid process straightforward were also more likely to trust that schools charge fair prices. Conversely, those who found the aid process mixed or very confusing expressed higher rates of mistrust toward institutions.

Even with all that, however, 70–90 percent of current or future college students and their parents said that a college education was extremely or very important to achieving their or their child’s future goals. A majority of the general population (57 percent) also agreed that college was extremely or very important.

Similarly large percentages of students and parents believed that college was either a good or a great investment. While the general population was less confident, two-thirds still believed that going to college represented a smart investment—one justified by better career opportunities and stronger financial security.

Nonetheless, many students and families perceive college attendance—particularly at four-year institutions—to be financially out of reach. And cost, real or perceived, is often the decisive factor in where students’ choose to attend college: Out of 16 different options, respondents most frequently cited cost and affordability as important considerations in a college decision.

These findings come as some institutions are hinting that they may be receptive to the message. Just last month, a Yale University faculty committee issued a report commissioned by the school’s president, Maurie McInnis, who had asked the group to examine “the problem of declining trust in higher education” and recommend how Yale could address that problem. As part of its report, the committee urged the university to revise its “high tuition-high aid” system. 

While that model has lowered the expense of attending Yale for the relatively few low-income students it admits, the committee concluded that the process was “complicated, unpredictable, secretive, and highly variable,” and that applying for aid is “laborious” and “frustrating.”

It called for the university to “do everything possible to make the financial aid system more comprehensible, predictable, and fair,” and urged that “Yale provide a more accessible and reliable indication of the actual price that an undergraduate student will pay at the moment of enrollment and over the course of a four-year degree.”

Good for Yale, but the fact remains that a major revision in how it communicates its pricing and financial aid is not likely to occur while the rest of higher education remains wedded to a system where high sticker prices are substantially discounted through generous institutional aid. Too many institutions—Yale included—are committed to that business model, and too many students and families are flattered by the prestige of being awarded a big-dollar scholarship. 

Since unilateral disarmament won’t happen, stronger collective action is needed. One avenue for reform is the College Cost Transparency Initiative, sponsored in part by Strada, through which hundreds of colleges nationwide have committed to make their offer letters more clear and accurate. That effort could help students and families better understand college costs, but most schools haven’t joined the voluntary initiative. Moreover, it doesn’t require colleges to commit to standardizing their letters in a way that would allow students and their parents to easily compare offers.

The only way to achieve that is through federal legislation. A recently released Senate bill would require institutions to use uniform definitions of key components like loans, grants, and total costs in financial aid offer letters so that families can make well-informed decisions. Even though that legislation, and a similar effort in the House, enjoyed bipartisan support, it has yet to become law; higher education associations have successfully lobbied against it, and these groups particularly oppose the requirement of uniformly worded letters.

In fact, the bill has been watered down: its title was changed from the “Understanding the True Cost of College Act” to “Improving Financial Aid Offers for Students Act”—reflecting a step back from what student advocates say was a bill that initially ensured much more consumer protection. In its current form, the bill prevents the Education Department from requiring a standardized offer letter and allows colleges to refer students to website links for additional financial information (rather than laying out the full details about costs and aid in the letter itself).

So far, higher ed groups have been successful in convincing legislators that mandating uniform requirements would interfere with their efforts to woo students, arguing that the problem will not be solved by a one-size-fits-all approach. But that begs the question: if different colleges tailor their messaging to different types of students, doesn’t that increase, rather than lessen, the need for uniformity in their offer letters?

Strada’s new survey makes one thing certain. The majority of students, families, and the general public favor requiring colleges and universities to provide accurate and complete information about the costs of education up front, and standardizing the way financial aid offers are presented. And they also favor requiring colleges and universities to provide greater transparency about their own spending.

The sooner our colleges and universities come to grips with those simple mandates, the better. These reforms would not only enable students to make better choices, but also build trust between institutions of higher education and the public they are intended to serve.

Editor’s note: The Strada Education Foundation is a funder of the Washington Monthly’s higher education coverage.

The post Higher Ed’s Affordability Problem Isn’t Just the Price appeared first on Washington Monthly.