Until relatively recently, both the price of housing and tuition at America's institutions of higher education were rising at unsustainable rates.As the late economist Herbert Stein once said, "Anything that can't go on forever, won't." His prophecy has proven correct for the housing market.
By 2007, house prices were falling in many parts of the country, a trend that showed signs of spreading and accelerating in 2008. College tuition, however, continued its ascent. It would seem only a matter of time before these "unsustainable" increases in tuition cease and likely reverse, but as we have seen with the dot-com bubble and now the housing bubble, readjustments can be very painful. Thus, if tuition increases truly are unsustainable, we should aim to minimize any bubble in the interest of avoiding additional pain -- such as school closures and large-scale student dislocations -- from the inevitable readjustment. Intriguingly, the housing bubble offers some insights into what might be termed the "tuition bubble."

Should federal tax policy towards universities be reviewed and changed? This study is not a comprehensive look at all the issues raised above, but discusses some of the major ones. Special attention is placed on the tax treatment of university endowments, and what are reasonable rules that should be enacted, if any, to assure that monies are expended in a manner consistent with the granting of tax exempt status. Lesser attention is placed on other issues, such as the use of tuition tax credits.

This study summarizes recent and continuing research conducted by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) on the metrics used for measuring college performance. Unlike other rankings, this study does not concentrate on the inputs of college education such as endowment size, number of faculty, or the educational preparation of students as measured by SAT scores, etc. Instead, it focuses on the outputs, namely the success of students after graduation. Using the names of entrants in Marquis Publishing's 2008 edition of Who's Who in America as our standard for measuring high levels of success, we collected the names of over 5,200 individuals, along with their educational background.This is more than a 5 percent sampling of all names listed in this standard reference work. From this sample, we then calculated which colleges produced the most successful graduates.

The results thus far have been both fascinating and surprising.We have found that while going to top ranked schools as measured by standard college rankings does correlate with success, it is a weaker relationship than many may have previously believed. The study reveals that the "industry standard," U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) rankings, on the whole, is only weakly related to graduate success. This suggests that the characteristics contributing to the value of a student's education differ substantially from what is typically assumed. The goal of this study is not to serve as a definitive source for ranking and comparing colleges. Rather, the research presented herein will hopefully serve as both an impetus and road map

This study summarizes recent and continuing research conducted by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) on the metrics used for measuring college performance. Unlike other rankings, this study does not concentrate on the inputs of college education such as endowment size, number of faculty, or the educational preparation of students as measured by SAT scores, etc. Instead, it focuses on the outputs, namely the success of students after graduation. Using the names of entrants in Marquis Publishing's 2008 edition of Who's Who in America as our standard for measuring high levels of success, we collected the names of over 5,200 individuals, along with their educational background.This is more than a 5 percent sampling of all names listed in this standard reference work. From this sample, we then calculated which colleges produced the most successful graduates.

The results thus far have been both fascinating and surprising.We have found that while going to top ranked schools as measured by standard college rankings does correlate with success, it is a weaker relationship than many may have previously believed. The study reveals that the "industry standard," U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) rankings, on the whole, is only weakly related to graduate success. This suggests that the characteristics contributing to the value of a student's education differ substantially from what is typically assumed. The goal of this study is not to serve as a definitive source for ranking and comparing colleges. Rather, the research presented herein will hopefully serve as both an impetus and road map

This analysis focuses on several key issues in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). The intrinsic benefits of athletic programs are discussed in the first section. Trends in graduation rates and academic performance among athletes and how they correlate with the general student body are discussed in the second section. Finally, an overview of the revenues and expenses of athletic department budgets are discussed in an effort to gain a better understanding of the allocation of funds to athletics. In spite of recent growth in revenues and expenses, the athletic department budget comprises on average only 5 percent of the entire university budget at an FBS school, though spending and revenues have increased dramatically in recent years. In the grand scheme of things, American higher education faces several other, arguably more pressing, areas of reform. However, athletics is a significant and growing dimension of higher education that warrants in-depth examination.

Is it possible to get an "Ivy" education for $7,376 a year? Can a college provide high-quality undergraduate education at a reasonable cost? In this paper, I explore if cost can be reduced and quality improved through the use of new "value-designed" models of undergraduate education. A value-designed model allows you to appeal to customers seeking the greatest value. These are the students -- or perhaps more often, their parents -- who are looking for a high-quality product at a relatively low price. To be able to charge a relatively low price, a college must have either a large subsidy from public or private sources or low costs. In this paper, I focus on the cost side of providing a high-quality education.

Is it possible to get an "Ivy" education for $7,376 a year? Can a college provide high-quality undergraduate education at a reasonable cost? In this paper, I explore if cost can be reduced and quality improved through the use of new "value-designed" models of undergraduate education. A value-designed model allows you to appeal to customers seeking the greatest value. These are the students -- or perhaps more often, their parents -- who are looking for a high-quality product at a relatively low price. To be able to charge a relatively low price, a college must have either a large subsidy from public or private sources or low costs. In this paper, I focus on the cost side of providing a high-quality education.