THE 2013 NACUBO TUITION DISCOUNTING STUDY · 2014. 11. 3. · and universities that were members of NACUBO as of September 2013. The study reports discounting data for the 2012–13

THE 2013 NACUBO TU IT ION D ISCOUNT ING STUDY

We Mean Business in Higher Education

The 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study

Natalie Pullaro Davis

Manager, Research and Policy Analysis

National Association of College and University Business Officers 1110 Vermont Ave., NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Copyright © 2014 National Association of College and University Business Officers.

About NACUBO NACUBO is a membership organization representing more than 2,200 colleges and universities across the country and around the world. NACUBO specifically represents chief business and financial officers through advocacy efforts, community service, and professional development activities. The association’s mission is to advance the economic viability, business practices, and support for higher education institutions in fulfillment of their missions. For additional information, please visit www.nacubo.org.

NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Study Page 2

Foreword

I am pleased to share the results of The 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study (TDS). Over the years, this annual study has become a widely used source of information on institutional grants to undergraduates who attend four-year private nonprofit colleges and universities in the United States. The TDS grew out of an Eastern Association of College and University Business Officers’ (EACUBO) annual survey of tuition discounting rates at independent colleges and universities in its region. NACUBO is grateful to EACUBO for launching this important initiative. NACUBO assumed responsibility for the project in 1994 with a national study and has conducted it annually since then.

NACUBO’s manager, research and policy analysis, Natalie Pullaro Davis, directed this project, under the oversight of Matt Hamill, senior vice president. Natalie Pullaro Davis also analyzed the data and prepared the report. We would like to thank Lois Oviawe, NACUBO’s research and policy intern, for her contributions to the production of the report.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the dedication of the various staff members at the 401 NACUBO institutions who participated in the 2013 TDS—their participation truly makes this annual project a success.

John D. Walda President and Chief Executive Officer National Association of College and University Business Officers


Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Tables and Figures .......................................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 8

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 10

Survey Participants .................................................................................................................... 12

NACUBO Constituent Group Classification ............................................................................... 13

Declining Enrollment Not Uncommon .......................................................................................... 14

Variations in Freshmen Enrollment .......................................................................................... 19

Chief Business Officers’ Perceptions ......................................................................................... 21

Average Tuition Discount Rate Grows Rapidly ............................................................................. 27

Distribution of the Tuition Discount Rate ................................................................................. 32

Movement in the Discount Rate ............................................................................................... 34

Steady Growth in Average Grant Coverage .................................................................................. 35

Smaller Gains in Net Tuition Revenue in 2013 ............................................................................. 40

Tuition Discounting and Endowments .......................................................................................... 47

Institutional Grants Meeting Student Financial Need .................................................................. 50

In Their Own Words ...................................................................................................................... 56

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 65

Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 67

Data Elements Provided by Participating Institutions .............................................................. 67

Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 67

Calculations ............................................................................................................................... 69

Moody’s Ratings ........................................................................................................................ 70

References .................................................................................................................................... 73

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 75

Survey Instrument ..................................................................................................................... 75

Appendix B .................................................................................................................................... 87

Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 134


Participating Institutions ............................................................................................................. 149

Comprehensive/Doctoral Institutions ..................................................................................... 149

Research Institutions ............................................................................................................... 150

Small Institutions ..................................................................................................................... 151


Tables and Figures Table 1 - Number of Respondents in the 2013 Tuition Discounting Study by NACUBO

Constituent Group ........................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 1 - Percentage of Participating Institutions that Experienced a Decline or Maintained

Enrollment from Fall 2012 to Fall 2013 ........................................................................................ 15

Figure 2 - Participating Institutions that Lost or Maintained Enrollment from Fall 2012 to Fall

2013 by Constituent Group........................................................................................................... 17

Figure 3 - Distribution of Freshmen Enrollment Changes from Fall 2011 to Fall 2013 ............... 20

Figure 4 - Distribution of Total Undergraduate Enrollment Changes from Fall 2011 to Fall 2013

....................................................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 5 - Perceived Reasons for Loss of Enrollment at Institutions that have Lost Freshmen

Enrollment from AY2010-AY2013 ................................................................................................. 22

Figure 6 - Perceived Reasons for Growth of Enrollment at Institutions that have Increased

Freshmen Enrollment from AY2010-AY2013 ................................................................................ 24

Figure 7 - Average Tuition Discount Rate: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen and All

Undergraduates ............................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 8 - Average Tuition Discount Rate: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen by Constituent Group

....................................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 9 - Distribution of Participating Institutions by 2012 Freshmen Discount Rate ................ 33

Figure 10 - Distribution of Participating Institutions by Freshmen Discount Rate: 2000, 2005,

2010 and 2013 .............................................................................................................................. 33

Figure 11 - Percentage of Institutions that Increased or Decreased/Maintained Discount Rate

for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen from AY 2010 - AY 2013* ..................................................... 34

Figure 12 - Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants and the

Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Recipients as a Percentage of Tuition and

Fees ............................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 13 - Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants by

NACUBO Constituent Group ......................................................................................................... 38


Figure 14 - Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Recipients as a

Percentage of Tuition and Fees by NACUBO Constituent Group ................................................. 38

Figure 15 - Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants and the Average

Institutional Grant for Undergraduate Recipients as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees, AY2010-

AY2013 ......................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 16 - Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Full-Time Freshman ............................. 40

Figure 17 - Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen by

NACUBO Constituent Group ......................................................................................................... 43

Figure 18 - One-Year Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Freshman from 2012 to 2013

by Moody’s Credit Quality Rating ................................................................................................. 44

Figure 19 - Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Full-Time Freshman and Inflation-

Adjusted* (HEPI) Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Full-Time Freshman .................. 45

Figure 20 - Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Undergraduate .................................... 46

Figure 21 - Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Undergraduate and Inflation Adjusted*

(HEPI) Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Undergraduate ........................................... 47

Figure 22 - Average Annual Net Investment Rates of Return for U.S. College and University

Endowments and Affiliated Foundations, Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2013-2003 .................... 48

Table 2 - Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Endowments

Funds, by NACUBO Constituent Group and Endowment Level .................................................... 49

Figure 23 - Average Percentage of Total Awarded Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars

Awarded in Fall 2012 Categorized as Need-Based, Merit that Met Need, and Merit the Did Not

Meet Need .................................................................................................................................... 51

Table 3 - Average Percentage of Total Awarded Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars

Awarded in Fall 2012 Categorized as Need-Based, Merit that Met Need, and Merit that Did Not

Meet Need, by NACUBO Constituent Group ................................................................................ 52

Table 4 Average Percentage of Total Awarded Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars that

Met Students’ Financial Need, by NACUBO Constituent Group and Endowment, 2009-2012 ... 54


Executive Summary

Many four-year private nonprofit (independent) colleges and universities aim to increase their undergraduate enrollments by discounting tuition and fee charges to attract and retain students who are unable—or unwilling—to pay the full sticker price. An institution’s tuition discounting practices serve as one indicator of its financial health and its ability to remain competitive in the higher education marketplace.

The NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study (TDS) measures the tuition discount rates and other indicators of institutional grant awards to first-time, full-time freshmen and all undergraduates who attend independent higher education institutions. Results of The 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study are based on survey responses from 401 private, nonprofit four-year colleges and universities that were members of NACUBO as of September 2013.

The study reports discounting data for the 2012–13 academic year as of the fall 2012 census date and preliminary estimates for the 2013–14 academic year as of fall 2013. Highlights include:

• Compared to the year before, total undergraduate enrollments in 2013 are down at 49.1 percent of participating institutions. Many institutions with softer demand increased the use of institutional grant dollars to increase their enrollment, while colleges with stronger demand tried to scale back their discount rate.

• Fifty-seven percent of chief business officers (CBOs) at schools with falling enrollment over the last four years attribute the drop to price sensitivity. CBOs at institutions with growing enrollment over the same time period attribute their growth to improved recruitment and marketing strategies.

• The tuition discount rate—defined as institutional grant dollars as a share of gross tuition and fee revenue—has continuously risen over the last decade, with large increases during the recession. In 2012, the discount rate for first-time, full-time freshmen reached 44.8 percent and climbed to an estimated 46.4 percent in 2013. This new record high discount rate indicates that institutions are responding to a changing student environment.

• While the average discount rate is increasing, not all schools are following suit; in fact, approximately one-third of survey respondents (32.7%) are reducing or holding the line on their freshman discount rate. One-year changes show 34.6 percent of institutions holding or reducing the discount rate in 2012 compared to the prior year, down from 37.4 percent that did so in 2011.


• For freshman institutional grant recipients in 2013, the average grant covers a record 53.5 percent of tuition and fees, up from 52.3 percent in 2012 and 48.5 percent in 2009. Nearly 89 percent of first-time, full-time freshmen receive an institutional grant, a percentage that has grown consistently over the last few years.

• For the broader undergraduate population in 2013, 76.6 percent of all undergraduates receive an institutional grant. The average grant covers 47.9 percent of tuition and fees, up from 44.5 percent in 2010.

• In academic year 2012–13 (FY2013), the institution’s endowment, on average, funded 10.5 percent of grants. Institutions with endowments exceeding $1 billion funded 28.9 percent of their institutional aid from their endowment, while those with the smallest endowments ($25 million or less) funded 6.8 percent of their aid from their endowment.

• Institutional grants that met students’ financial need (regardless of the criteria used to award the aid) represent 80.4 percent of institutional grants awarded in 2012. Nearly half of the dollars awarded that met students’ need are classified as “merit-based”; the other half is considered “need-based.” Pure merit-based dollars made up approximately 20 percent of awarded dollars in 2012.

Because of enrollment troubles, high discount rates, and large percentages of students receiving grants that cover a substantial portion of tuition and fees, the average change in net tuition revenue per student is expected to be 1.1 percent in 2013. Institutions with a “Superior” Moody’s Credit Quality Rating have a 4.3 percent change in net tuition revenue in 2013, compared to 0.3 percent at institutions rated as ”Adequate” and -1.7 percent at institutions with a withdrawn rating. Institutions that did not have a Moody’s rating have 0.7 percent growth in net tuition revenue. When average net tuition revenue dollars are adjusted for inflation, institutions have seen, on average, no growth over the last 13 years.

Demand for an institution plays a significant role in understanding an institution’s pricing strategy, discounting practices, enrollment, and ability to generate net tuition revenue. Institutions must weigh decisions about sticker price and discounts against the price sensitivity of their students and families.


Introduction

Conducted annually, The NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study (TDS) measures tuition discount rates and other indicators of institutional grant aid awards provided to undergraduate students by four-year private, nonprofit (independent) colleges and universities. The TDS defines each institution’s tuition discount rate for freshmen as its total institutional grant aid awarded to first-time, full-time, degree- or certificate-seeking freshmen as a percentage of its gross tuition and fee revenue collected from freshmen students. The discount rate is defined for all undergraduates in the same way.

Total institutional grant aid in the NACUBO study includes all institutionally funded administered scholarships, fellowships, and other grant awards (including athletic scholarships) provided to undergraduate students. In other words, the survey data include all grants either funded or unfunded by institutional resources or awarded to students based on institutionally developed criteria.

More specifically, institutional grant aid encompasses grants, scholarships, and fellowships funded by tuition and fee revenue, restricted and unrestricted endowment funds, general investment earnings, donations, and other forms of support revenue.

It does not include tuition remission (which is generally provided as a benefit of employment at an institution and thus is not considered financial aid available to all undergraduates) or tuition exchange programs (which are usually awarded as part of an exchange agreement between two or more institutions but not considered as part of the general financial aid expenditures under the NACUBO definition). External grants from other organizations and the private sector (such as fraternal organizations, civic, or religious groups) are excluded. Also, it does not include institutional matches to federal or state financial aid programs, because colleges and universities do not develop the criteria used to award aid under such programs.

The NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study defines the freshmen discount rate as an

institution’s total grant aid awarded to freshmen as a

percentage of gross tuition and fee revenue from freshmen or,

(𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝑎𝑎𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡𝐷𝐷 𝐹𝐹𝐷𝐷𝑎𝑎𝐷𝐷ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚)(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑚𝑚𝑁𝑁𝑎𝑎𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝑜𝑜 𝐹𝐹𝐷𝐷𝑎𝑎𝐷𝐷ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚)×(𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎𝐷𝐷 𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎


Understanding Net Tuition Revenue

Enrollment, sticker price, and the discount rate are inter-related and have various impacts on net tuition revenue (NTR).

An institution can hold sticker price and the discount rate constant and generate more net tuition revenue by simply expanding its headcount. Or, an institution can maximize NTR by increasing the sticker price and decreasing the discount rate while expanding enrollment. Not all institutions are able to do this, however; it’s all about demand.

Institutions that cannot or do not want to expand enrollment can also grow NTR by manipulating the two other factors: sticker price and the discount.

Institutions have to weigh decisions about sticker price and discounts against the price sensitivity of their students and families.

While many public colleges and universities also award institutional grants, independent institutions have historically been the focus of the study because they award the largest proportion of such aid. Calculations from the U.S. Department of Education’s 2010 financial aid survey reveal that four-year independent higher education institutions awarded about 70.3 percent of the total institutional grants provided to all undergraduates in FY2009 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010).

Under tuition discounting strategies, colleges and universities use their institutional grants to aid students who might otherwise be unable or unwilling to pay the full tuition and fee “sticker” price. The strategies can help institutions increase enrollment of undergraduate students and, in some cases, retain them. The TDS focuses chiefly on institutional grants awarded to first-time, full-time freshmen in degree or certificate programs; these students are often the focus of discounting strategies at many institutions and thus are a leading indicator of current and future trends in tuition discounting.

This report examines the results of the 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey, which serves as the basis for The 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study. The survey instrument was sent electronically to the primary representatives at all four-year private, nonprofit colleges and universities that were members of NACUBO and had valid e-mail addresses as of September 2013 (959 members)1. Roughly 42 percent of these members (401) submitted usable responses by the end of the survey data collection period.

The survey instrument asked institutions to report their final institutional grant expenditures and tuition

1 For a complete description of the methodology, please see the glossary.


revenue for Academic Year (AY) 2012-13 as of the fall census date and preliminary estimates of these data for AY 2013-14 as of the fall census date.

In addition to collecting data on institutional grant recipients, dollars awarded, and tuition and fee revenue, the 2013 TDS asked participating institutions to report the percentage of their institutional grants funded by endowment dollars in AY 2012-13 as of the fall, the percentage of their total awarded institutional grant dollars that met students’ financial need in AY 2012-13, and the incoming freshmen admissions acceptance and yield rates in fall 2012. (Appendix A includes the survey instrument and definitions.)

This report provides details on the 10-year trends, based on data collected from institutions that have participated in the study for 10 years or more, and presents tables of data with year-to-year comparisons and other time periods as allowed by the existing data.

Survey Participants Table 1 shows the number of institutions participating in the 2013 TDS. Additional tables in the appendices show the number of all participating institutions for 10 survey years, institutions that participated in the survey for 10 consecutive years, and institutions that participated for three consecutive years. For the purpose of peer analysis, the 2013 TDS shows the participating institutions according to their NACUBO constituent group classification.

Table 1

Number of Respondents in the 2013 Tuition Discounting Study by NACUBO Constituent Group

NACUBO Constituent Group

Number of Responding Institutions

Comprehensive/Doctoral 55 Research 34 Small Institutions 312 All Institutions 401

Source: 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey


NACUBO Constituent Group Classification The NACUBO constituent group classifications are defined as follows2:

• Small Institutions (Small): Colleges and universities with total enrollment under 4,000. Most of these institutions award associate’s and bachelor’s degrees.

• Comprehensive/Doctoral Institutions (Comp/Doc): Master’s and doctoral degree-granting colleges and universities with enrollment above 4,000.

• Research Institutions (Research): Doctoral degree-granting research universities.

Note: While this study chronicles and compares year-to-year changes in tuition discounting, the institutions in the sample vary each year. Slight fluctuations in year-to-year discount rates or components should be interpreted with caution.

2 Because the TDS covers only independent institutions, the analysis does not include the Community Colleges constituent group.


A Story of Demand

To understand and evaluate an institution’s tuition discounting practices, net tuition revenue generation, and pricing structure, demand for the institution should be the first factor to consider. Within The 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study, two types of institutions emerged: those with plenty of demand and those with softening demand.

In this economic environment and with rapidly shifting opinions regarding the value of higher education, many institutions are reassessing their demand and thinking more strategically about their path moving forward.

Declining Enrollment Not Uncommon

Enrollment is one of several pillars holding up the higher education business model. Students are the lifeblood of colleges and universities, and any significant change in enrollment causes concern for institutions—especially those that experience an unwelcome drop in enrollment and must provide more financial assistance to enroll students.

Not all colleges and universities worry about student enrollment, however. At institutions where demand is high, the business model looks much different from those with softer demand.

In general, private, non-profit institutions depend upon tuition and fee revenue to support campus operations much more than their public counterparts, which receive state appropriations that partially subsidize the cost of delivering education. As a result, many private, nonprofit four-year colleges and universities are quite sensitive to changes in their enrollments. For some, even a small enrollment decline can lead to a substantial decline in tuition revenue.

In 2013, Moody’s Investors Services observed, “Nearly half of all universities are reporting lower enrollment for Fall 2012…enrollment declines are concentrated in colleges with smaller enrollment size, high tuition dependence, weak selectivity/yield rates, and soft regional demographics.” The results of NACUBO’s 2011, 2012, and 2013 Tuition Discounting Studies also document this trend in declining enrollments at independent colleges and universities.

Many factors contribute to this loss of student enrollment, including a decline in the 18- to 24-year-old population, changing demographics in various states and regions, price sensitivity from students and families, economic factors,


shifting public opinion about the value of a college degree, rising student indebtedness, and greater inability to find a job after graduation (Moody’s, 2013; NACUBO 2013 TDS results)

Similar to The 2012 Tuition Discounting Study, 47.9 percent of participants in the 2013 TDS report a decline or no increase in their first-time, full-time freshmen enrollment from the year before, while 49.1 percent lowered or maintained their total undergraduate enrollment (see Figure 1). Approximately one third of respondents report declines in both first-time freshmen and total enrollment. In comparison, 50.7 percent of institutions had declining freshman enrollment in 2012, 45.6 percent of institutions lost undergraduate enrollment, and 30.7 percent had lost both first-time freshmen and total enrollment. Although an institution can experience a natural rise and fall of enrollment from year to year, declines seen over a longer period of time make for a better understanding of the trends. (Longer-term trends, as well as contributing factors, are discussed in a later section.)

The categories of “lost freshmen” and “lost all undergraduates” in Figure 1 are not mutually exclusive and should not be considered a subset of one another. For example, an institution can lose freshmen enrollment but gain a large amount of upperclassmen through transfers and successful retention, thereby only counting as a school that “lost freshmen enrollment.” Some colleges with reductions in freshmen enrollment and total upperclassmen would be classified as losing enrollment in both freshmen enrollment and total undergraduates.

Figure 1

Percentage of Participating Institutions that Experienced a Decline or Maintained Enrollment from Fall 2012 to Fall 2013

Source: 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey


As Moody’s Investor Services noted in its Third Annual Tuition Pricing Survey of U.S. Higher Education, “While long-term demand for higher education remains strong, prolonged elevated unemployment and economic uncertainty have hampered historically more robust countercyclical enrollment trends.” Released in 2012, this Moody’s report found that 41 percent of private institutions reported a loss in total full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment3 from fall 2010 to fall 2011, and the median percentage increase in total FTE enrollment was just

0.7 percent. Moody’s also documented that undergraduate FTE growth was greatest at “large, programmatically diversified [public] universities.”

According to Moody’s, institutions with 20,000 FTE or more saw the largest enrollment growth—between nearly 2 and 3 percent. The only private institutions able to keep pace with this undergraduate enrollment growth rate had a bond rating of Aaa; they saw a little over 2.5 percent gains in undergraduate enrollment from fall 2010. Generally, schools that have larger endowments and are more financially stable have higher bond ratings, which range from C to Aaa. “This flight to quality and size has meant that the selectivity gap is widening between universities with a strong reputation and brand compared to those lacking a distinct market position, especially for private universities that lose students to lower-cost public [institutions],” Moody’s reported.

Declining enrollment affects all types of institutions participating in the 2013 TDS, although small institutions make up the largest share of institutions reporting a loss in total undergraduate enrollment, freshmen enrollment, or both from fall 2012 to fall 2013. Comprehensive/doctoral institutions represent 10.9 percent of the institutions reporting lost or maintained undergraduate enrollment, while research institutions represent 4.1 percent.

Figure 2 shows institutions with declining or flat enrollments by NACUBO constituent group (see the Introduction for definitions of each group).

3 In the Moody’s study, this includes undergraduate and graduate FTE.

“In response to increased price

sensitivity, the discount rate was increased

slightly and some merit awards were increased for incoming students.

With shifting demographics in the

Northeast [and] increased competition

from out-of-state institutions and in-state

public institutions, the University was unable

to meet enrollment targets.”


Figure 2

Participating Institutions that Lost or Maintained Enrollment from Fall 2012 to Fall 2013 by Constituent Group

Source: 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey

Note that not all institutions experiencing a loss in student enrollment face economic issues. Some colleges purposefully pare down enrollment to become more selective or for other reasons, such as correcting for years where enrollment was very large. We cannot determine the exact percentage of schools intentionally becoming smaller.

Often, a dip in enrollment can result in declines in net tuition revenue generated from students. Some institutions indicate that reduced or flat enrollment was not the intended outcome, and strategies to increase net tuition revenue had mixed results.

Here, for example, is how one TDS participant in the Great Lakes region explains the institution’s experience: “As an institution, we planned for a modest decrease in enrollment for our full-time freshman population and budgeted for a flat discount rate. A targeted population was identified late in the cycle and institutional aid dollars were redeployed in order to increase net tuition revenue. This program was moderately successful.”

10.9% 4.1%

85.0%

11.2% 7.5%

81.3%

10.8% 5.0%

84.2%

Comprehensive/Doctoral Research Small Institutions

Institutions that had a Decline in Undergraduate Enrollment

Institutions that had a Decline in Freshmen Enrollment

Institutions that Lost Both Freshmen and Undergraduate Enrollment

“We increased enrollment while attempting to

decrease the discount rate. We were not successful in

decreasing the discount rate.”


Other institutions did not succeed in increasing enrollment and, as a result, did not meet their net tuition revenue goals. “We tried to increase net tuition revenue by enrolling more students on campus with increasing the amount of financial aid offered. Our strategy was not successful, as we saw a drop in overall yield even with an increase on our first-year discount” reports one participant. Another remarks, “The institution attempted to increase new tuition revenue by increasing enrollment; however, those efforts were not successful, and we experienced a large summer melt that was larger than our past data would have predicted.”

Another small institution had an increase in freshmen enrollment but static undergraduate enrollment. “Our admissions office has implemented initiatives in an attempt to attract more new students. Through more regional outreach and increased efforts in marketing and communication, we have secured more student inquiries and applicants,” says this participant. “While we saw a 2% increase in the number of first-year students, overall enrollment is flat.”


Variations in Freshmen Enrollment

Colleges and universities often consider first-time, full-time freshmen enrollment as a key ingredient in their plans for future enrollment growth because these new students have the potential to stay enrolled—and provide a source of tuition revenue—for four years or longer.

The 2011 TDS, which captured the change from fall 2010 to fall 2011, found 53.2 percent of schools lost freshmen enrollment. There was a near even split in the ranges of percentage

change in freshmen enrollment (see Figure 3, Fall 2010 to Fall 2011). Schools that gained students were slightly more likely to see gains from only 0.1 percent to 5 percent. Conversely, institutions that lost students were equally as likely to have losses in the range of 5 percent to 10 percent as losses of over 10 percent. In other words, in fall 2011, institutions that lost enrollment were more likely to have substantial declines, while schools that gained students were more likely to have fairly small increases.

The 2013 TDS captures the change in freshmen enrollment from 2011–12 to 2012–13. As this year’s study shows, the percentage of institutions with a decline in their freshmen enrollment has dropped to 48 percent, down from the 50.7 percent reported in 2012.

Institutions were more likely to see small gains (0.1 percent to 5 percent) in enrollment

than losses of the same degree. In 2013, however, a higher percentage of institutions had a larger decrease in enrollment compared to the previous year—17.2 percent lost 10 percent or more of their freshmen in 2013, compared to 14.7 percent in 2012.

Figure 3 examines the distribution of change in enrollment of first-time freshmen among 2011, 2012, and 2013 TDS participants. Institutions that lost or maintained enrollment appear in shades of red, while those with gains are in shades of green.

“The university has experienced strong

freshman enrollment growth over the last two

years, showing with an increase of 13 percent from

FY13 to FY14 and an increase of 26 percent since

FY12. At the same time, University leadership has recommended a nominal

tuition increase of 2 percent from FY13 to FY14 and is

committed to lowering the freshman discount rate by

at least 1 percent in each of the five upcoming years.”


Figure 3

Distribution of Freshmen Enrollment Changes from Fall 2010 to Fall 2013

Source: 2012 and 2013 Tuition Discounting Surveys

The NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study also examines the distribution of changes in total undergraduate enrollment to understand the magnitude of the increase or decrease. As shown in Figure 4, changes from fall 2011 to 2012 indicate 44.9 percent of institutions (in red) lost undergraduate enrollment, while 54.5 percent of institutions (in green) gained undergraduate enrollment.

The plurality of institutions had a change falling between plus or minus 5 percent. Institutions that lost more than 10 percent of their undergraduate population in 2012 made up 2.16 percent of all institutions; institutions that gained more than 10 percent in their undergraduate population made up 3.2 percent. The distribution of enrollment changes from fall 2012 to 2013 similarly show the large majority falling within the plus-or-minus 5 percent range; however, it appears institutions were slightly more likely to have declining enrollment from 5 to 10 percent and less likely to have gained enrollment from 0.1 to 5 percent over the prior year.

17.9% 14.7% 17.2%

17.9% 13.4% 12.6%

17.4% 22.6% 18.2%

17.4% 19.3% 20.8%

12.3% 9.8% 11.3%

17.1% 20.2% 20.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Distribution of FreshmenEnrollment Changes from

Fall 2010 to Fall 2011





Gained over 10%

Gained 5.1% to10%

Gained .1% to 5%

Decreased 0% to 5%

Decreased 5.1% to10%

Decreased over 10%


Figure 4

Distribution of Total Undergraduate Enrollment Changes from Fall 2011 to Fall 2013

Source: 2012 and 2013 Tuition Discounting Surveys

Chief Business Officers’ Perceptions

The Tuition Discounting Survey includes a two-part question requesting CBOs’ perceptions of the enrollment change at their institutions. The first part of the question asks the institution’s percentage change in freshmen enrollment over the last four years. Respondents who answer with positive growth receive a follow-up question asking them to assess the underlying reasons for the enrollment shift. Respondents who answer with negative growth are asked about

2.2% 2.8% 7.3% 10.4%

36.1% 35.9%

42.6% 37.7%

8.6% 9.9%

3.2% 3.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Distribution of TotalUndergraduate Enrollment

Changes from Fall 2011 to Fall2012

Distribution of TotalUndergraduate Enrollment

Changes from Fall 2012 to Fall2013

Gained over 10%

Gained 5.1% to10%

Gained .1% to 5%

Decreased 0% to 5%

Decreased 5.1% to 10%

Decreased over 10%


potential reasons as well. Respondents who report zero growth or leave the question blank do not receive a follow-up question.

Figure 5

Perceived Reasons for Loss of Enrollment at Institutions that have Lost Freshmen Enrollment from AY2010-AY2013


Figure 5 shows that more than half (57.4%) of CBOs from institutions that have lost freshmen over the last four years (from fall 2010 to fall 2013) cite price sensitivity of students as a reason for that falling enrollment. Price sensitivity is generally defined as the degree to which the price or cost changes the consumer behavior/demand for the product.

Sallie Mae’s recent research—How America Pays for College, 2012—confirms CBOs’ and chief financial officers’ (CFOs’) perceptions to be correct. “In 2012, families demonstrated increasing cost consciousness in their approaches to paying for college. This year’s survey

14.2%

0.7%

5.4%

8.8%

11.5%

14.2%

23.0%

30.4%

34.5%

43.9%

50.0%

57.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Closure of academic program

Decrease in institutional financial aid

Changes in state aid programs

Falling demand for programs

Purposeful decrease to balance prior year(s) larger…

Becoming more selective

Decrease in the yield rate of accepted students

Decrease in 18-24 year population

Changing demographics

Increased competition from public/private…

Price sensitivity of students

“Our freshmen enrollment has declined mostly due to a

strategic decision to eliminate JV sports programs. We are

making decisions to increase our discounting; historically, we have had a low discount

rate as compared to other schools.”


“We did decrease the size of the first-year class because we felt the total student body was

getting larger than we wanted.”

confirms the movement to lower-cost schools initially seen in 2011,” the report states. “Furthermore, families increasingly rejected schools based on cost earlier in the application process. To cut costs, more than half of students lived at home while they attended college this year, up nearly [9 percentage points] from last year. Most families also reported cutting personal spending or working longer hours to meet the costs of college” (p.6).

Half of business officers believe increased competition from both private and public institutions has played a role in their declining enrollment. Related to this is a decline in the yield rate of accepted students (cited by 30.4% of study participants). Many business officers also identify changing demographics (43.9%) and the decrease of the 18- to 24-year-old population (34.5%) as reasons for their enrollment loss. Some institutions purposefully became smaller in an effort to become more selective (23%) or balance out a prior year’s larger-than-normal incoming class (14.2%). Knowing that price sensitivity is an issue for students and families, changes in grants from the

institution or the state could have contributed to falling enrollment. Nearly 9 percent of CBOs hold changes in state-based financial aid policies partially responsible, as well as institutions that chose to reduce financial aid (decreasing the discount), according to 5.4 percent of CBOs. Many of the “other” responses (14.2 %) relate to price sensitivity but refer to it instead as “declining economic environment.” Several responses reference changes in leadership and other personnel in key offices, while one says, “possible changes to public opinion about higher education.”

“During 2011-2012, the university utilized both a tuition rate increase and

additional recruitment of transfer and international

students to increase net tuition revenue. While these

strategies yield more undergraduates, the national

trend of declining graduate enrollments had an impact

on overall enrollment.”


“Other” Responses for Falling Freshmen Enrollment • Change in financial aid award strategy • Change in leadership in admissions

office • Change was so small it’s considered

irrelevant • Closure of athletic programs (JV

athletics) • Declining economic environment • Economic conditions • Economic down-turn in the U.S. • Elimination of some academic

programs • Great Recession impact on affordability • Increased competition from peer

institutions

• Inquiry and application pool lower by 15%; admit pool was lower by 16%; difficult leadership transition

• Institutional staffing issues • Leadership transition in recruitment

office • Personnel turnover; trying to maintain

discount rate at reasonable level • Possible changes to public opinion

about higher education • Return to historical freshmen class size

(intentional growth in Fall 2010) • Started football program in 2010,

which led to a spike in enrollment that year

• This was our target for this year

Figure 6

Perceived Reasons for Growth of Enrollment at Institutions that have Increased Freshmen Enrollment from AY2010-AY2013


10.7%

0.0%

3.0%

13.6%

17.2%

23.1%

28.4%

29.6%

32.0%

36.7%

38.5%

57.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other

Decreasing selectivity

State budget cuts to public institutions

Changing demographics

Increase in yield rate of accepted students

New athletic programs

Improved admissions processing systems/procedures

New academic programs

Updated/new facilities

Increase in institutional financial aid

Increase in overall demand for institution

Improved recruitment and/or marketing strategies


As shown in Figure 6, institutions with increased freshmen populations over the last four years (fall 2010 to fall 2013) largely attribute this growth to improved recruitment and/or marketing strategies (57.4%). More than one third of CBOs at institutions with increased enrollment over the last three years believe increased demand for the institution (38.5%) and increased institutional grants, or tuition discounting (36.7%), has played a role in the growth.

More than one in four CBOs think updated or new facilities (32%), new academic programs (29.6%), or improved admissions systems and procedures (28.4 %) were factors. Just under a quarter (23.1%) point to new athletic programs as drawing more enrollment. Interestingly, 3 percent of CBOs believe their private institutions are benefiting from some states’ recent cuts to funding of public institutions.

Responses to the “other” category (10.7%) include restructuring of institutional grants and financial aid award strategies (not necessarily increasing the financial aid budget). Some interesting responses included a campus that moved from a women’s college to a coeducational university and an institution that started awarding bachelor’s degrees.

“Other” Responses for Gaining Freshmen Enrollment • Affordable Excellence Initiative/SAT

Optional • Application of institutional research

concepts to the practice of Enrollment Management.

• Decreased tuition • Fall 2010 was an low enrollment year for

us, so the increase is artificial • Financial aid strategy • Four years ago was an abnormally low

enrollment year just after the economic crisis

• We moved to a full coeducational University

• Guaranteed Tuition Plan • Increased availability of tutors and/or

specialized educational programs • It was a strategic decision to increase

enrollment • Natural variations in enrollment from year-

to-year • New financial aid strategies through an

external consulting group

“We’ve launched an all new admissions marketing

campaign and website design for FY 2013. Freshmen have new merit aid structure. We

also engaged [consulting firm] to prioritize markets,

target student populations, and develop a financial aid

matrix.”


• New football program alone increased freshmen enrollment. Also added marching band, scholarship for female athletes, a dance team, and expanded competitive cheerleading

• Opened 2 sites, made changes in athletic recruiting

• Restructured Athletic Aid, Financial Aid Leveraging

• We added the bachelor degree 3 years ago


Average Tuition Discount Rate Grows Rapidly

The average tuition discount rate has long been a measure of an institution’s ability to remain competitive in the marketplace. It is the core measure that business officers at similarly situated colleges and universities want to gauge. Measured as the share of institutional grants of gross tuition and fee revenue, it essentially quantifies how much of the gross tuition and fee revenue is foregone by an institution.

One purpose of tuition discounting is to attract and retain students who might otherwise be unwilling or unable to pay the full sticker price to attend. Although the discount rate has historically been associated with freshmen, upperclassmen also receive institutional grants and have been tracked in the “all undergraduates” category alongside the freshmen cohort (see Figure 7).

While individual institutions’ practices vary in how they divide institutional grants between freshmen and undergraduates, the undergraduate discount rate is typically lower than the freshmen discount rate. One possible reason is that freshmen students usually are awarded a set dollar amount for all four years of their education. As tuition and fees rise over time, this package becomes a smaller portion of tuition and fees. Other possibilities include: student need may

change; the undergraduate discount rate includes part-time students and transfer students, who often are not eligible for institutional grants; undergraduate students with merit-based criteria for the award may lose eligibility due to changes in their GPA; and students may switch majors or no longer participate in extracurricular activities (such as an athletic team).

“[The Institution] implemented the strategy

of increasing three items to maintain net tuition

revenue in FY12. These three items include the

discount rate, the price of tuition and fees, and the

number of students that we enrolled.”

“We have one scholarship program which makes up 9%

of our total discount rate. This program is very costly and

may have to be reviewed as we go forward.”


Figure 7

Average Tuition Discount Rate: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen and All Undergraduates

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey 2000 to 2013. Figures represent academic year, as of the Fall census date. Note: Due to the nature of NACUBO’s living database of historical survey data, minor adjustments from prior years’ reports can occur. The discount rate includes grant dollars that are from funded and unfunded sources. Please see Introduction and Glossary for discount rate calculation methodology. Also, see Endowment section for more detail on institutional grants funded from the

endowment. *Preliminary estimate.

The discount rate for freshmen has been on the rise for years. Hubbell and Lapovsky’s (2005) analysis of TDS data showed that the discount rate rose dramatically from 26.4 percent in AY

1990 to 37.2 percent in AY 2000. As shown in Figure 7, the early and mid-2000s marked a time of stability in the discount rate, when it hovered between 37 and 38 percent.

The severe recession that began in late 2007 and the sluggish recovery that followed may have influenced many independent institutions to increase their grant awards to undergraduate students. AY 2011 saw

37.2% 37.7% 38.4% 37.9% 38.1% 38.0% 38.6%

39.1% 39.9%

41.6% 42.0%

44.3% 44.8%

46.4%

33.5% 34.1% 34.5%

33.9% 34.3% 34.3% 35.1%

34.7%

36.9% 36.1% 36.4%

38.6%

40.2% 40.9%

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen All Undergraduates

“The University goal is to freeze tuition discounts and

begin pushing this rate down beginning with the Fall 2013

cohort.”


another large spurt in the average discount rate for both freshmen and all undergraduates. In fact, the growth in the freshmen discount rate between 2010 and 2011 was 2.3 percentage points—the largest one-year increase in the nearly 20-year history of the discounting study—which even outpaced the 1.7 percentage point rise during the recession (2008 to 2009). A near identical increase (2.2 percentage points) in the all undergraduates rate occurred during the same period.

Most recently, the data show that the freshmen discount rate had a smaller rate of growth in 2012 but is projected to be on path of moderate growth at 1.6 percentage points in the 2013−14 academic year.

The undergraduate discount rate seems to have worked the opposite way: It experienced a 1.6 percentage point growth in 2012 and is now projected to slow that rate of growth to only 0.7 percent in 2013. The 2013 discount rates of 46.4 percent and 40.9 percent, for freshmen and undergraduates respectively, are once again the highest recorded in the history of The NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study. (Median discount rates from 2000-2013, available for the first time, appear in the appendix.)

Why did the discount rate grow so significantly between 2010 and 2011 and experience continuous growth through 2013? No recession occurred between 2010 and 2011 to account for the growth in institutional grants

as a percentage of gross tuition and fee revenue; however, the United States had a weak recovery, falling wages, and depressed net worth for the average American family.

For example, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Study of Consumer Finances released in 2012, the average median value of inflation-adjusted pre-tax income fell 7.7 percent from 2007 to 2010, and median net worth of families fell 38.8 percent. These factors, along with falling enrollment at some schools, and other schools meeting their enrollment targets only by the use of discounting, have led to the upward ticking discount rate reaching new highs.

Also, some states—including Alabama, Oregon, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Ohio (NASSGAP, 2011)—decreased financial aid programs for students in recent years. In many cases, institutions have bridged the gap in funding from the state. One institution reports, “For

“We made a concerted effort to lower the discount rate,

which we were able to accomplish. The discount rate

dropped from 44% to 41% between the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 academic years.

However, we did see an increase in student loans and

are now concerned about increased default rates in the

future.”


FY 2012 state grant allocations were reduced by 20 percent. As a result, there was a greater expenditure of institutional aid to offset this reduction.”

Returning to chief business officers’ perceptions of falling enrollment, 57 percent attribute enrollment problems to student price sensitivity. In other words, in 2012, like 2011, more institutions had to use more money from their gross revenue to reduce the net price of education to enroll or retain students.

Rising discount rates are of particular concern to institutions with softening demand. Institutions that have plenty of demand aren’t as confined in setting the sticker price—and many students are willing to pay full price because they want to attend. A portion of the students accepted by in-demand schools cannot afford to pay or will not enroll without the financial incentive; they receive a discount. Because demand is strong, these institutions can expand their enrollment and—even if they discount every student past their enrollment goal or some other fixed point—they will receive more net tuition revenue by having more headcount.

In this case, a rising discount rate does not necessarily indicate a financial concern for the school. A small institution in the Far West region of the country serves as an example: “We have increased our enrollment along with our discount rate. This has been successful in securing additional net tuition revenue.”

An institution with lower demand, however, may have to discount the sticker price to fill seats or to meet the financial need of those unable to pay. When an institution discounts too deeply to meet its enrollment goals, it may not raise enough tuition revenue to offset the cost of educating all students. Such an institution would have to draw from other sources of support to fund its operations.

Other sources of revenue, which vary by institution, can come from donations, auxiliaries, and reserves. Generally speaking, an institution operating in this way is considered unsustainable

“We are finding that our decision to increase tuition is

less elastic than in previous years. More and more

families are ‘setting’ the amount of tuition that they

are willing to pay, making it more difficult to increase net tuition revenue by increasing

our sticker price. We have found through our research with our admitted students that cost is not always the

most important consideration when ultimately choosing a

college. A value-added approach is necessary, as

well as finding ways to set what we do apart from our

competitors.”


because its net tuition revenue is falling. Again, demand plays a large role in understanding an institution’s discount rate and its overall financial health.

Different types of institutions take varying approaches to the discount rate and the percentage of their gross tuition and fee revenue given back as institutional grants. Figure 8 shows the average discount rate for freshmen, broken out by NACUBO constituent group, from 2000 to 2012 and estimates for 2013. Small Institutions have consistently higher discount rates, estimated to have reached 47.9 percent in 2013. Although small institutions have the highest discount rate, research institutions have had the largest change among all institution types over the past 13 years, growing by 10.1 percentage points.

Figure 8 Average Tuition Discount Rate: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen

by Constituent Group

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey 2000 to 2013. Note: The discount rate includes grant dollars that are from funded and unfunded sources. Please see Introduction and Glossary for discount rate calculation methodology. Also, see Endowment

section for more detail on institutional grants funded from the endowment. *Preliminary estimate.

Many institutions struggle to find the balance between remaining affordable and having enough net tuition revenue to offset education and general (E&G) expenses.

33.0%

40.5%

32.0%

42.1%

39.0%

47.9%

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*



One participant shares this observation: “We implemented a nominal tuition increase to balance the university's financial requirement with the affordability of our families. Secondly, due to the economic pressures on our students and families that is being seen through the higher education industry, we increased our budgeted institutional aid discount rate…”

Another institution reports, “We plan to slightly reduce our financial aid discount in the coming years. We recognize the challenge associated with that goal as families’ incomes (on average) are just now beginning to recover from the recession. The challenge is exacerbated as we watch state aid to students decline in spite of their reduced ability to help contribute toward the cost of their education.”

Some institutions are trying to hold the line or reduce unsustainable discount rates and meet the challenge of losing enrollment. “We attempted to decrease our discount rate. We were not successful and ended up enrolling slightly less students than desired with a discount rate slightly higher than desired,” says one participant.

Distribution of the Tuition Discount Rate

Figure 9 shows how the 2012 freshmen discount rates among participating institutions are normally distributed, with the majority (34.9%) of discount rates clustered around the mean discount rate of 44.8 percent. The next largest portion of institutions, 23.7 percent, had a discount rate between 51 percent and 60 percent.

Approximately 19 percent of institutions have a freshmen discount rate ranging from 31 percent to 40 percent. A small portion of schools (4.7%) did not provide enough data elements to calculate a freshmen discount rate for 2012.

“To generate increased net tuition revenue in FY 2014, the institution

increased the discount rate by 1 percent in order to yield more

first- year students. Unfortunately, the plan did not

work, as fall enrollment for first-year students fell below the

desired goal, while the discount rate was higher than expected.”


Figure 9

Distribution of Participating Institutions by 2012 Freshmen Discount Rate

Source: 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey. Figures represent the 2012-13 academic year.

Figure 10

Distribution of Participating Institutions by Freshmen Discount Rate: 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2013

4.7% 2.2% 1.7%

6.2%

19.0%

34.9%

23.7%

5.7%

1.0% 0.2% 0.5%

Did Not Provide Enough Datato CalculateDiscount Rate of 0% to 10%

Discount Rate of 11% to 20%










Source: 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys. Figures represent academic years. *Preliminary estimate.

Figure 10 shows how the distribution of discount rates for the selected years has grown over time. The years, marked by a particular color bar and corresponding line, show the mean values from the 31 to 40 percent range in 2000 to the 41 to 50 percent range in 2013.

Movement in the Discount Rate A great deal of variation occurred in the movement of discount rates from AY 2012-13 to AY 2013-14 (as of the fall census date). While the overall average discount rate for first-time, full-time freshmen increased over the past year, as shown in Figure 7, nearly one third of institutions (32.7%) reduced their discount rate in AY 2013 from AY 2012 (Figure 11). The 2012 TDS found that 34.6 percent of institutions decreased their discount rate from 2011 to 2012. This is a decline from the 2010 study, when 37.4 percent were able to reduce their discount rate.

Figure 11

Percentage of Institutions that Increased or Decreased/Maintained Discount Rate for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen from AY 2010 - AY 2013*

Source: The 2011 - 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys. Data for the Academic Years are as of the Fall census date. *2013 data are preliminary estimates

37.40% 34.6% 32.7%

62.60% 65.4% 67.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 to 2011 2011 to 2012 2012 to 2013*

Increased Discount Rate forFreshmen

Reduced or MaintainedDiscount Rate for Freshmen


While the share of schools that have held or decreased their discount rate has fallen, the share of institutions increasing their discount rate is growing. This growth in the number of

institutions that have set their institutions on the path to increase their discount rate speaks to the need more institutions have had to discount because of more price-sensitive students—both those unwilling and those unable to pay the full price.

Many institutions decreased their discount rate because they are uncomfortable with a high discount rate or have described their discount rate as untenable. A Plains region

CBO at a small institution remarks, “FY2013 marks a turning point for [the institution]. With a discount rate climbing near an unsustainable 65%, a comprehensive strategy is being discussed to rein in aid costs and increase net tuition revenue. Changes will be implemented for the entering class in 2014.”

Some institutions that decreased their discount rate did so at a price—losing enrollment. One CBO from a small institution in the Great Lakes region shares, “We attempted to reduce our discount rate. Enrollment plunged.”

Steady Growth in Average Grant Coverage

Since 2009, the portion of tuition and fees covered by an institutional grant has grown steadily. As shown in Figure 12, the average grant in 2009 covered 48.5 percent of the average tuition and fee “sticker price.” This rate was similar to the historical averages from 2000 to 2007, when the percentage of tuition and fees covered by the average grant ranged from 47.8 percent to 49.6 percent. The one exception was 2008, when the

percentage of tuition and fees covered by the average grant shot to 51.4 percent, in reaction to the recession.

“Our plan for the next several years calls for conservative

tuition increases and a flattening of the institutional

discount rate for first-year students.”

We have a First Generation Grant, which is not need-

based. This grant has grown in number/dollars awarded

directly from institutional funds.


The average institutional grant as a percentage of tuition and fees in 2013 is estimated to reach 53.5 percent, greater than at the height of the recession, and is the largest percentage recorded in the history of The NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study. The percentage of tuition and fees covered by an institutional grant is not to be confused with the discount rate. The discount rate measures the dollars awarded as a share of gross tuition and fee revenue, which comes from all students, regardless of whether they receive an institutional grant. The measure for institutional grants as a percentage of tuition and fees considers only tuition and fee revenue from grant recipients (not all students).

Figure 12

Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants and the Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Recipients as a Percentage of

Tuition and Fees

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys 2000 to 2013. Note: Due to the nature of NACUBO’s living database of historical survey data, minor adjustments from prior years reports can occur. Figures represent academic year, as of the Fall census date. *Preliminary estimate.

Grants that cover a higher percentage of tuition and fees are generally good for the students receiving those institutional grants. However, understanding the value requires a look at the

77.0% 77.8% 80.2% 79.9%

81.5% 81.1% 81.0% 81.7% 82.3%

86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.9%

49.6% 49.6% 49.3% 48.7% 48.0% 47.8% 49.3% 49.2% 51.4%

48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.5%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants

Average Institutional Grant as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees


percentage change in tuition and fees. Depending on the trends in tuition pricing at a particular institution, an increase in the portion of tuition and fees paid covered by a grant can still leave a grant recipient paying more than the previous year. The College Board reports that the average price of tuition and fees at private four-year institutions increased 3.8 percent from AY 2012-13 to 2013-14 (College Board, 2013). This average rate of increase is considered very low. Assuming tuition and fees at a university are $50,000 in 2012 and the student receives a grant that covers 52.3 percent ($26,150), the net price to the student (considering institutional grants only) is $23,850. In 2013 the institution raises tuition by 3.8 percent to $51,900. If the student has an institutional grant that now covers 53.5 percent of tuition and fees ($27,766), the net price is $24,134. This example shows that the net price to the student increases at an institution with a small rate of increase in tuition and fees. An institution that increases its tuition at a moderate or aggressive rate can significantly increase the net price to student, even if the student receives an institutional grant that covers half of the cost. Institutions that keep increases in tuition and fees very low while increasing the grant dollars a recipient receives can reduce the net price to the student. Awarding larger institutional grants to more students can place some institutions on shaky ground, while others are able to handle the increased dollars awarded. As the percentage of tuition and fees covered by the average institutional grant has risen since 2009, the percentage of first-time, full-time students receiving an institutional grant (of any amount) has been on the rise as well. In 2009, the percentage of freshmen receiving an institutional grant grew to 86.9 percent from 82.3 percent (see Figure 12). This represents the largest one-year growth in the percentage of freshmen receiving an institutional award and is indicative of institutions responding to more student need related to the recession and slow recovery. In 2013, an estimated 88.9 percent of freshmen are receiving some form of institutional aid. Although most economists have declared the recession is over, the percentage of freshmen receiving aid has not returned to prerecession averages (between 77% and 82.3%), signaling a “new normal” for private institutions.

“[We] started taking into account an additional factor—

a student's major—when determining the financial aid

award.”


Figure 13

Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants by NACUBO Constituent Group

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys 2000 to 2013. Figures represent academic year, as of the Fall census date. *Preliminary estimate.

Figure 14

Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Recipients as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees by NACUBO Constituent Group

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys 2000 to 2013. Figures represent academic year, as of the Fall census date. *Preliminary estimate.

77.0% 77.8% 80.2% 79.9%

81.5% 81.1% 81.0% 81.7% 82.3%

86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7%

88.9%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Comprehensive/Doctoral Research Small Institutions All Institutions

49.6% 49.6% 49.3% 48.7% 48.0% 47.8% 49.3% 49.2% 51.4%

48.5% 49.8%

51.7% 52.3% 53.5%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Comprehensive/Doctoral Research Small Institutions All Institutions


Figures 13 and 14 show the percentage of freshmen receiving institutional grants and average institutional grant as a percentage of tuition and fees, by NACUBO constituent group. Only the All Institutions averages are marked with values; specific values for the constituent groups are listed in a table in Appendix B.

The recent trends in awarding aid to freshmen are somewhat consistent with those for all undergraduates for the last four years. Figure 15 shows stability in the percentage of all undergraduates receiving a grant, moving from 76.2 percent to 76.6 percent. The average grant as a share of the tuition and fee price that an undergraduate received in 2010 rose from 44.5 percent to an estimated 47.9 percent in 2013.

Figure 15

Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants and the Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduate Recipients as a Percentage of Tuition and

Fees, AY2010-AY2013**

Source: The 2011 , 2012, and 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys. Data for the Academic Years are as of the Fall census date. *2013 data are preliminary estimates**Ten year trends not available for this figure.

76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.6%

44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.9%

2010 2011 2012 2013*

Percent of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants

Average Institutional Grant as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees

“We increased the size of financial aid awards and targeted specific groups

of students—such as veterans, homeschoolers,

and athletes—for enrollment. Yes, the

strategies have been successful.”


The difference in the percentage of freshmen and total undergraduates receiving institutional grants is not surprising. As previously discussed, several reasons can account for a gap in this percentage between freshmen and total undergraduates. These factors may include eligibility changes due to part-time status, transfer students, students’ ability to meet the criteria for merit-based awards, changes in need, and other unique institutional practices.

Smaller Gains in Net Tuition Revenue in 2013 Net tuition revenue per student is an important measure to understand the revenue generated per student on campus. Analyzing average annual change in net tuition revenue helps an institution see if it generated more money per student from year to year. Ideally, tuition revenue should cover the cost of delivering an education to the student. Institutions, however, face rising costs in delivering educational services because of faculty salaries and benefits (including health insurance), updating facilities, investing in technology, mounting building maintenance, supplies and other services, and so forth.

Figure 16

Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Full-Time Freshman

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey 2000 to 2013. Note: Due to the nature of NACUBO’s living database of historical survey data, minor adjustments from prior years’ reports can occur. Dollars are not inflation adjusted. Please see Figure 19 for

inflation-adjusted figure. Years listed represent academic years (e.g. 2013 is the 2013-14 academic year). *Preliminary estimate.

5.2%

1.3%

5.6% 5.4%

3.2%

5.9% 5.4%

-0.8%

1.6%

5.4%

-0.3%

3.4%

1.1%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*


In Figure 16, net tuition revenue is a per-student figure, so a drop or gain in net tuition revenue cannot be attributed to changes in enrollment.

In 2011, the boom in growth in the freshmen discount rate (refer to Figure 7) had a related effect on net tuition revenue for private, nonprofit institutions. Because of the large increase in institutional grant dollars awarded, net tuition revenue fell by -0.3 percent on average, as shown in Figure 16. Negative net tuition revenue is a result of institutions discounting very deeply and making less revenue per student than they did the year before.

Although private colleges and universities had falling net tuition revenue on average as a sector in 2011, not all institutions lost net tuition revenue. Some that had strong demand increased their net tuition revenue by increasing their enrollment and/or the price of tuition.

As previously discussed, depending on the growth in headcount, an institution can increase its discount rate while at the same time increasing its net tuition revenue. One institution in the Far West region with strong demand did just that as reported by a study participant: “We increased the dollar value of merit scholarships. The resulting increase in enrollment also

resulted in increased net tuition.”

Another institution of similar enrollment size employed the same strategy but had a different outcome. “We tried to increase net tuition revenue by enrolling more students on campus with increasing the amount of financial aid offered,” the participant writes. “Our strategy was not successful as we saw a drop in overall yield even with an increase in

our first-year discount.”

“We attempted to decrease our discount rate. We were

not successful and ended up enrolling slightly less students

than desired with a discount rate slightly higher than

desired.”

“Strategic partnerships with external entities to begin

alternative revenue streams based on a low cost/no aid

model. Success? TBD...”


While net tuition revenue for 2012 increased 3.4 percent, the last five years have been something of a roller coaster. Considering trends in enrollment and the discount rate, it does

not appear institutions will return to pre-recession average change in net tuition revenue near 5 percent anytime soon. A January 2013 report from Moody’s Investor Service says, “The [higher education] sector will need to adjust to the prospect of prolonged muted revenue growth…Families remain willing to pay for college but their capacity to pay higher prices has been largely tapped and has dramatically dampened the sector’s capacity to grow tuition revenue” (Moody’s, 2013, p.1-2).

Estimates for 2013’s net tuition revenue do not look very promising, at 1.1 percent growth on average. This shows that many colleges are limited in their ability to grow net tuition revenue.

Institutions that have exhausted enrollment, what they can charge for tuition and fees, and the aid they can offer must rely on other sources of support to cover their Education and General (E&G) expenses. This support can come from revenue generated from the endowment spending and other gifts, auxiliaries (such as food service programs, bookstores, parking, dormitories), other unrestricted public support sources, or increased debt.

The smaller growth in net revenue estimated for 2013 may be due to some institutions’ caution about raising tuition and fee prices any higher than absolutely necessary. A participant describes how tuition pricing adversely affected net tuition revenue at the institution: “[We] continued to increase tuition and fees at rates less than geographic competitors. The rates of effective discounted tuition has meant a flat rate of net tuition and fee revenue increase in 2012-13 compared to 2011-12. [We are] attempting to restrain (lower) discounting in 2013-14 year on year with an increase in fees of 3.61%.”

“Our decrease in net tuition revenue for undergraduates of approximately 10% is due to a decline in enrollment of

about 7%, offset by an increase in tuition of 4.5%. Additionally, financial aid

awarded to undergraduates increased by 4%. The

university is implementing marketing initiatives and a

new strategic plan to increase enrollment over the

next several years.”

“Our college did approximately a 5% tuition

increase for FY12 with no significant change to financial

aid awards. Net tuition revenue did increase, but our

freshman enrollment declined.”


The average change in net tuition revenue across all institutions does not always give an adequate picture. Figure 17 illustrates the average change in net tuition revenue for first-time, full-time freshmen by constituent group.

Figure 17

Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen by NACUBO Constituent Group

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey 2000 to 2013. Note: Dollars are not inflation adjusted. Years are academic years. *Preliminary estimate.

The 5.4 percent average gain in net tuition revenue in 2010 (Figure 16) was driven largely by the jump in revenue achieved by comprehensive/doctoral institutions (Figure 17); these schools averaged a revenue gain of around 12 percent that year. In contrast, both small institutions and research institutions experienced growth in net tuition revenue of approximately 4 percent.

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*


“Our strategies to increase net tuition were directed to

increased retention, reaching out to secondary markets

and marketing to potential transfer students.”


In 2011, small institutions had the deepest drop in net tuition revenue (-1.4%), followed by research institutions at -0.04 percent. Comprehensive/doctoral institutions were the only constituent group to have net positive tuition revenue, with an average growth of 1.2 percent. The 2012 growth in average net tuition revenue was driven entirely by small institutions (4.7% growth), while research and comprehensive/doctoral institutions saw declining net tuition revenue. The small growth estimated in 2013 will be led by research institutions at 5.1 percent, comprehensive/doctoral institutions at 2.6 percent, and small intuitions at 2.4 percent.

For the first time, the 2013 TDS looked at institutions’ credit quality rating from Moody’s. An interesting pattern was found in the relationship between the average change in net tuition revenue per freshman and the credit quality rating. Private institutions rated as “Superior” had an average growth in their net tuition revenue of 4.3 percent in 2013. Those rated as “Good” had positive growth of 2.4 percent, while “Adequate” institutions saw nearly flat net tuition revenue.

Institutions rated as speculative or highly speculative experienced declining net tuition revenue, as did those institutions with withdrawn ratings. (For more information on withdrawn ratings, please see the glossary.) Many institutions that participate in the TDS are not rated by Moody’s. These schools saw 0.7 percent growth in 2013.

Figure 18

One-Year Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Freshman from 2012 to 2013 by Moody’s Credit Quality Rating*

4.3%

2.4%

0.3%

-0.7%

-1.7%

0.7%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%


Source: 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey. Note: *More information about Moody’s ratings can be found in the Glossary. Number of participating institutions in each category can be found in the appendix. Dollars are not inflation adjusted.

Years are academic years.

For the second time, The NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study adjusted the net tuition revenue dollars for inflation, illustrated in Figure 19. When net tuition revenue dollars are converted to constant dollars using the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI)—which measures changes in prices for goods and services typically purchased by colleges and universities—the average annual change figures cast a new light on what is happening on the business side of the house at colleges and universities. Over the last 13 years, institutions have had flat net tuition revenue. Said another way, gross tuition price increases have been largely offset by increased aid to students.

Figure 19

Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Full-Time Freshman and Inflation-Adjusted* (HEPI) Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Full-Time Freshman

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys, 2000 to 2013. Note: Years listed are academic years. *Dollars were adjusted using the Higher Education Price Index, (HEPI)

5.2%

1.3%

5.6% 5.4%

3.2%

5.9% 5.4%

-0.8%

1.6%

5.4%

-0.3%

3.4%

1.1%

-0.7% -0.6%

0.5%

1.7%

-0.7%

0.7%

2.5%

-5.5%

-0.6%

4.5%

-2.6%

1.7%

-0.5% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Average Percent Change in NTR (Current Dollars)

Inflation Adjusted Average Percent Change in NTR (Constant Dollars)


Net tuition revenue per undergraduate (Figure 20) is similar to that of first-time full-time freshmen. Only four years of data are available for this measure. Figure 21 shows the average change in net tuition revenue per undergraduate adjusted for inflation using HEPI.

Figure 20

Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Undergraduate

Source: 2011 to 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys. Note: Years listed represent academic years. *Preliminary Estimate

8.0%

-0.4%

4.5%

2.5%

2010 2011 2012 2013*


Figure 21

Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Undergraduate and Inflation Adjusted* (HEPI) Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Undergraduate

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys, 2011 to 2013. Note: Years listed are academic years. *Dollars were adjusted using the Higher Education Price Index, (HEPI)

Tuition Discounting and Endowments

Endowments and their earnings often serve as a source of funding for institutional grants. During the height of the financial crisis, according to the NACUBO–Commonfund Study of Endowments (NCSE), colleges and universities had an average return (net of investment fees) of -18.7 percent in fiscal year 2009. Since then, endowments achieved average net investment gains of 11.9 percent in fiscal year 2010 and 19.2 percent in 2011, fell -0.3 percent in FY12, and recently rebounded in FY13 with an average rate of return of 11.7 percent (Figure 22).

8.0%

-0.4%

4.5%

2.5%

7.0%

-2.7%

2.8%

0.9%

2010 2011 2012 2013*

Average Percent Change in NTR (Current Dollars)

Inflation Adjusted Average Percent Change in NTR (Constant Dollars)


Figure 22

Average Annual Net Investment Rates of Return for U.S. College and University Endowments and Affiliated Foundations, Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2013-2003

Source: 2013 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments, Public Tables. Years listed are Fiscal Years (e.g. FY13 corresponds to the 2012-13 Academic Year).

Despite this recent rebound, many endowments remain relatively small—the median endowment in 2011 was about $90 million—and for most schools the amount of endowment funds withdrawn to support institutional aid programs or other expenditures remains relatively low. The average effective spending rate for private institutions in FY12 was 4.3 percent, slightly down from 4.6 percent in FY11 (2012 NACUBO Commonfund Study of Endowments).

In 2012-13, or FY2013 (the most recent year of available final data at the time The 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study was launched), just 10.5 percent of total institutional grant aid was funded from endowments4 on average, across all institution types (see Table 2). This is a slightly larger percentage of grants funded by endowments than FY2010, when the endowment supported 9.7 percent of grants.

4 The data include institutional grants that were funded by restricted and unrestricted endowments.

-25.0%

-20.0%

-15.0%

-10.0%

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Table 2

Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Endowments Funds, by NACUBO Constituent Group and Endowment Level


Academic Year

2009-10 Academic Year



2012-13 (FY10) (FY11) (FY12) (FY13) Comprehensive/Doctoral 5.0% 6.2% 4.0% 4.4% Research 15.0% 23.0% 21.5% 20.9% Small Institutions 9.9% 10.0% 10.1% 10.4% All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5%

Endowment Level

Academic Year 2009-10




(FY10) (FY11) (FY12) (FY13) Over $1 billion 22.6% 33.9% 32.5% 28.9% $500 million to $1 billion 24.2% 23.2% 21.6% 18.5% $100 million to $500 million 13.2% 13.0% 9.8% 11.0% $50 million to $100 million 7.2% 7.8% 9.0% 9.3% $25 million to $50 million 7.9% 9.4% 7.0% 6.0% $25 million or less 3.7% 3.8% 6.2% 6.8% Unknown Endowment Level 7.2% 5.5% n/a n/a All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5%

Source: 2011-2013 Tuition Discounting Surveys

There continues to be a positive relationship between an institution’s endowment level and the percentage of institutional grants funded by endowment earnings. Survey respondents with endowments greater than $1 billion report that their endowment income provides a little less than one third (on average) of their funding for institutional grants, compared with 6.8 percent at institutions with endowments of less than $25 million.

Research institutions, which tend to have larger endowments than small and comprehensive/doctoral institutions, have a higher percentage of institutional grant dollars funded by endowment income. These data suggest that even at institutions with the largest endowments, the vast majority of


institutional grant aid is “unfunded”—that is, a dedicated revenue source does not support the bulk of aid expenditures.

Institutional Grants Meeting Student Financial Need While higher education institutions use a variety of criteria to award their scholarships and grants, they generally disburse these awards according to students’ demonstrated financial need, students’ academic merit, or other “non-need” criteria, such as athletic or artistic ability.

Eligibility for grants that meet need is usually determined based on a financial aid application that collects information on the students’ family income, assets, and other measures of financial circumstances.

Institutions award grants that meet demonstrated financial need by using a particular methodology to identify qualifying students. Colleges and universities can use the federal methodology, an institutionally developed methodology, or a combination of both. In 2009, 63.5 percent of participants in the 2010 TDS (the last time this question was asked) reported they used the federal methodology exclusively to determine eligibility for “need based” institutional grants, while 8.5 percent relied on institutional methodology exclusively, and 2.5 percent relied on a

combination of both methods. Approximately 25.5 percent of schools did not report the methodology they use.

The 2013 Tuition Discounting Study asked participants to report the percentages of their total institutional grant dollars awarded in 2012 into three buckets: need-based, merit that met need, and merit that did not meet need. Institutions were directed to include grants that may have been merit-based in their criteria for awarding the grant but were awarded to students with any financial need in the “merit

“We changed the way we awarded aid to include more

aid designated as merit (although a majority of that

aid still went to meet student need). In addition, we expanded the pool of

students eligible for merit awards.”

“We made the decision a couple of years ago to increase the

dollar value of merit scholarships and to increase the pool of need-based scholarships

for specific categories of students. This decision has

increased our discount rate modestly but has also been

quite successful in increasing enrollment and net revenue.”


that met need” category.5

For example, if a student was awarded a scholarship for musical talent but the dollars met the students’ need, then the grant should be classified as a “merit that met need.” Grants were classified in this way for this year’s survey to better understand how much of the institutional dollars are meeting student need, regardless of the criteria for which the grants were awarded.

Figure 23

Average Percentage of Total Awarded Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars Awarded in Fall 2012 Categorized as Need-Based, Merit that Met Need, and Merit the Did Not Meet

Need

Source: 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey. Note: Although institutions’ individual responses for this question were required to sum to 100 percent, when calculating the average of each type of aid, numbers will not necessarily sum to 100 percent.

5 The wording of this question changed in the 2011 survey (2010 data) so only two years of data are available for analysis.

46.2% 42.3%

21.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Need-Based Aid Merit Aid Used to Meet Need Merit Aid Not Used to MeetNeed

“We continued to reduce slightly our allocation of funds to merit aid, redeploying some of those savings to better fund students

with need and the balance to increase net tuition revenue

(reduced discount).”


On average, 46.2 percent of total institutional grant dollars met need and had a criterion for need to be a recipient. A nearly equal percentage of dollars (42.3%) on average did not have a need-based criterion but, in fact, met student need. On average, 21.4 percent of dollars were exclusively merit-based dollars that did not meet students’ financial need.

Table 3

Average Percentage of Total Awarded Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars Awarded in Fall 2012 Categorized as Need-Based, Merit that Met Need, and Merit that Did Not Meet

Need, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group

Need-Based

Aid Merit Aid Used to

Meet Need Merit Aid Not Used to

Meet Need

Comprehensive/Doctoral 41.8% 34.5% 23.9%

Research 68.3% 27.8% 24.4%

Small Institutions 44.4% 45.3% 20.6%

All Institutions 46.2% 42.3% 21.4% Source: 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey. Note: Although institutions’ individual responses for this question were required to

sum to 100 percent, when calculating the average of each type of aid, numbers will not necessarily sum to 100 percent.

Combining need-based dollars and merit dollars that met need, 80.4 percent (on average) of total institutional grant aid awarded was used to meet students’ financial need in 2012-13—a significant increase from the year before when 72.1 percent of institutional grants met student need (see Table 3). The portion of dollars awarded that met need varied by institutional type. On average, comprehensive/doctoral institutions had 75.9 percent of awarded institutional grant dollars meeting student need, compared with 85.3 percent at research institutions and 80.9 percent at small institutions.

In the past, institutions’ endowment size seemed to play a key role in the share of grant dollars meeting need; this but no longer holds true in 2012. A positive relationship used to exist between the size of the responding institutions’ endowment and the portion of dollars meeting need. Table 4, for example, shows that in 2011 institutions with endowments greater than $1 billion used 90.6 percent of their institutional grant dollars to meet student need, while schools with endowments below $25 million used 62.3 percent of their institutional grant dollars to meet need. In 2012 there appears to be less of a relationship.


Awarding need-based versus merit-based grants has been a heated discussion within higher education, especially as affordability continues to be a growing concern of students and families. The TDS shows that the need and merit conversation is often not as simple as it seems. Many institutions are increasingly using merit aid to meet need as a matter of logistics. As more institutions try to enroll students earlier in the process, they want to offer an institutional grant quickly, which is more likely to be a merit-based grant; otherwise, the institution must collect financial information or wait on a FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) to determine whether to offer the student a need-based scholarship.

As one institution reports, “[We were] more aggressive with merit awards, which increased freshmen discount rate, freshmen class, and net tuition revenue.”

When institutions award aid to gain enrollment, sometimes they haven’t determined if the aid is need or merit based. In other words, some institutions do not have use for separating their institutional grants into two distinct buckets, so what the award is called becomes irrelevant. This small institution makes an important point: “We feel certain that some students who likely have need don't bother to apply if they have received a significant merit award. As a result, for those students we do not have verifiable data on whether or not they have need.”

“We attempted to time the offer of admission

with our merit financial aid award. Our research

suggested that it helps to make your

scholarship offer as close to the admission

offer so that it takes some of the ‘sting’ out

of the sticker price of the cost of attendance.”

“We changed our financial aid model to award slightly more aid to middle income

and low need students based upon academic merit. We

also had a larger increase in tuition and fees than we

typically do.”


Table 4 Average Percentage of Total Awarded Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars that Met

Students’ Financial Need, by NACUBO Constituent Group and Endowment, 2009-2012


2009 2010 2011 2012

N

Percentage of Total

Institutional Grant Aid

Awarded that Met

Students' Financial

Need N

Percentage of Total


Awarded that Met

Students' Financial

Need N

Percentage of Total


Awarded that Met Students' Financial Need N

Percentage of Total


Awarded that Met Students' Financial Need

Comprehensive/Doctoral 38 72.8% 39 68.7% 39 67.2% 37 75.9%

Research 21 74.2% 24 82.3% 24 84.0% 20 85.3%

Small Institutions 210 70.9% 217 72.8% 210 71.7% 167 80.9%

All Institutions 269 71.4% 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4%

FY13 Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012

N

Percentage of Total

Institutional Grant Aid Awarded that Met Students' Financial

Need N

Percentage of Total


Need N

Percentage of Total


Need N

Percentage of Total


Need Over $1 billion 11 83.3% 22 88.4% 20 90.6% 20 84.1% $500 million to $1 billion 16 69.9% 16 83.3% 16 75.9% 9 86.2% $100 million to $500 million 58 74.2% 74 78.0% 76 74.5% 73 80.2% $50 million to $100 million 48 73.2% 47 73.2% 53 73.2% 43 77.5% $25 million to $50 million 37 70.7% 33 68.5% 44 67.0% 29 79.2% $25 million or less 30 70.5% 16 65.1% 53 62.2% 50 81.5% Unknown Endowment Level 69 67.1% 72 64.7% 11 78.8% n/a n/a

All Institutions 269 71.4% 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4%

Source: 2010 and 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Surveys. Note: Grant aid that met students’ need includes merit and other “non-need” scholarships that were awarded to students with any demonstrated

financial need in addition to need-based grants.


Some institutions are deliberately shifting more dollars toward merit-based aid, which can—but does not have to—meet need. One comprehensive institution, for example, reports, “[Our institution] increased merit aid to attract no-need and low-need applicants.”

Others are deliberately shifting dollars toward grants that meet need. One small institution talks about its strategy to leverage need-based aid and its

impact on the enrollment and discount rate: “We attempted this year to put more resources into need-based programs and less into our academic top-level scholarships, in an effort to attract more students in the 25-75% SAT range, and to reduce our discount rate. Ultimately we had less Presidential (top-level) scholarships and more middle level. We also had less at the lower level of our entering class.”

A mid-East Coast institution took a different approach: “We worked with [our enrollment consultant group] every year to identify opportunities to increase net tuition revenue. The main strategy used with [our enrollment consulting group] is to cut back on percentage of need met in cells where we offered too high a percent of need met. This worked in some cells and others it didn't. We increased our net tuition revenue in our commuter population by pulling back some aid in areas that we were offering too much.”

“We continued to refine our merit-based scholarship

program to impact yield and applied greater need-sensitivity during the admissions process.”


In Their Own Words The survey for The NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study asks chief business officers about the strategies (or combination of strategies) their institutions implemented to attempt to increase net tuition revenue in FY13. In addition to the quotes that appear throughout this study, here are some of the anonymous responses collected. The comments represent a variety of strategies undertaken in several areas—some successful and others not—in increasing net tuition revenue. Academic Program

• We have relied on program diversification for non-traditional student populations (primarily graduate and continuing education students) to grow net tuition revenue, since traditional student enrollment will most likely continue to follow the path of declining demographics in our region. We have been reasonably successful to date.

• Strategies implemented to increase net tuition revenue include: major repairs to buildings and

grounds; new construction; provide affordable degree programs to prepare students to be more competitive in the workforce with students from similar programs; maintain strong degree programs at every level; retain the best faculty; recruit, attract, and retain the best and brightest students; build a student body with representation from a variety of states and countries to provide a diverse learning environment; develop outstanding student engagement programs; increase academic support of financial aid; improve study abroad program and online courses.

• Targeted enhanced aid to middle income applicants, new academic programs.

• We have increased enrollment in our graduate and post-baccalaureate programs, while

restructuring our undergraduate program array to ensure program sustainability and student success.

Administration

• There is a 75-day replacement hiring freeze. There are restrictions on travel and professional development. These have been in place for a few years. There has been a tuition increase.

• We hired an outside consultant to help construct a leveraging strategy. No, it was not successful.


• The College has made improvements in physical plant geared toward improving student quality of life. Fall FY2013 experienced enrollment that is larger than prior year and consistent with budget expectations.

• The university has taken several steps to ensure continued sound financial practices, including:

Cost containment measures; implementing a new financial aid model, which allowed us to reduce the freshmen discount rate; and simultaneously increasing the size of the freshmen class.

• We continued with regression analysis aligned with financial aid planning for key undergraduate

programs to maximize net tuition revenue through the partnership with an external service provider. These strategies were successful in that enrollment exceeded goals, bringing in more revenue to those programs. Overall, our goal was to maintain enrollment, which was successfully accomplished this year.

• We have provided sessions to parents and students about financial aid.

Enrollment Management

• The University went fully co-ed in the Fall of 2013. The first-time, full-time freshmen was one of the largest classes in several years. Tuition was increased at a pace comparable to the state’s other private colleges’ average over the last five years. We continue to use a merit/need matrix to award aid and adjusted some of the categories to encourage students with higher academic expectations.

• We increased enrollment by increasing the size of the incoming class. This was successful in that

we have increased the size of the incoming class by an average of 40. We increased the value of our highest merit aid award to try and yield lower need students—this has had mixed results. We’ve expanded our recruiting territory to targeted locations to increase the size of the application pool, thus giving us more flexibility in who we admit. We’ve modified our international recruiting to target lower need students, and that has been successful in lowering the discount rate for international students by 10 bps.

• We increased price and planned to decrease discount for entering first-time students, but were

not successful. We had to increase discount later in the cycle, but still did not achieve the enrollment results for which we were looking. We are also focusing on increasing student


satisfaction and engagement to better support student success and positively influence our retention and graduation rate.

• We increased the level of contact with campus community members after the admit stage and

prior to the deposit stage, which resulted in a stronger tie to more people at the University. This was successful in generating more perceived value, netting us more net tuition revenue.

• We’ve slowed gross tuition and fee growth rate and have continued financial aid strategies with

just slight adjustments. We’ve allowed overall enrollment to grow slightly over the past five or six years so that we now budget on approximately 2,150 FTE—and as recently as five years ago, it was 2,030. Improved retention has helped this.

• Consistent marketing message and branding, increased communication flow, more selective

purchasing of names to only those prospective students that we think will apply.

• Expand geographic reach, including increased international recruitment.

• Improved direct marketing, expanded campus visits from students, shifted timelines, and strategies related to offers of admission and aid, among other strategies. Net increase in deposits from Fall 2012 to Fall 2013 was 16 percent.

• Our focus is retention for 1-year-out and 2-year-out cohorts, as well as growth in the freshmen

class.

• Our institution exceeded our enrollment goal by approximately 20 new students and lowered our first-year student discount rate by nearly 1 percent. These strategies were successful but may not be sustainable.

• Our institution is undergoing a transformation into co-ed, so there were minimal changes

implemented from FY13 to FY14. There is, however, a significant marketing effort that was implemented in FY14 to begin in the late fall and spring semesters of FY14, but we will not see the benefit of the marketing efforts until fall 2014. In FY15 there is a reduction in the tuition amount planned.

• Our main strategy for increasing net tuition revenue was to increase enrollment. This was mildly

successful, but not as successful as we would like due to increased scholarship spending.


• Our strategy for FY13 was to increase the size of our admit pool in order to provide us with some flexibility in the allocation of institutional aid. Our need-based financial aid strategy was intended to be more equitable and not as merit driven as it has been in the past, in an effort to drive higher enrollment in the mid-50 ACT range. The results were mixed. The admit pool came in higher than FY12 but even with previous years. We were able to maintain our yield rate from previous years and generate additional net tuition revenue, but our discount rate came in higher than we had anticipated.

• Strategy: Increased enrollment marketing and merit scholarship increases to generate more

admitted students with the anticipation of some decrease in yield and increase in discount. Result: Increase in number of enrolled freshmen with a greater than expected increase in discount that resulted in coming close to achieving the overall net revenue goal but decrease in per-student net revenue. This was primarily a result of a greater than expected level of financial need for new students who were admitted and enrolled.

• The addition of a football program (“red shirt” for current year) increased freshman enrollment

by 150 more than would normally be expected. Also, our scholarship program for females has added proportionately to incoming freshmen enrollment, as well as the addition of a marching band, a dance team, and expanded competitive cheerleading.

• The University has continued to focus on retention and has implemented different strategies.

Additionally, the University continued marketing campaigns and conducted student and parent surveys regarding tuition, fees, discounts, and other University business. Some of the strategies implemented have worked well, while others have not. Discount rate has stayed about the same.

• We tried to extend our national reach in developing new and different markets as the Midwest

market suffered under the weight of declining high school graduates. We also increased our discount rate marginally at the advice of our financial aid leveraging consultant, and we admitted more students earlier in our bottom quartile of the class. The strategies appear to be a mixed bag of success. We lost in individual net revenue, but we gained in aggregate net revenue in that we exceeded the entering class goal.

• We did not make major changes to our recruiting or aid strategies for FY13. For FY14, we are

seeking to increase enrollment and have worked with marketing and recruitment experts to broaden our application generation tactics, which will be followed by earlier and expanded tactics


to sustain yield. Early indications are positive: applications are 100 percent ahead of last year. We are not changing our pricing or financial aid strategies this year.

Institutional Aid

• We implemented a new merit faculty scholarship to accelerate the awarding of merit scholarship with faculty involvement. The yield on these offers was 30 percent, which was exactly as planned and in line with overall yield. The program was viewed as neither unsuccessful nor successful in increasing net tuition revenue, but it did increase faculty communication with students, which we believe was helpful.

• In FY13, we implemented numerous new financial aid programs directed a specific groups of

students, such as: Catholics, students commuting from specific geographical locations.

• We increased the percentage of need we meet with grants and we increased our merit amount per student for our incoming class. This strategy was successful.

• We introduced a need-based scholarship outside of the traditional federal and institutional

methods. These were very successful as they increased net tuition revenue and enrollment in a population that we had a difficult time yielding.

• We offered an increase to a special institutional grant geared toward high-need, high-achieving

students.

• We restructured the awarding of athletic aid. Previously, athletic aid was not considered as part of their leveraged package. For 2013-14, athletic aid was considered as going to need if the student had need and then need-based was awarded accordingly.

• We revised our aid awarding, which increased our merit awards slightly after three years of fixed

values. This, in part, helped us attract a few more merit-only (lower need) students. Our institutional messaging efforts are fully kicking into gear. Our first-year class enrollment is neither increasing nor decreasing—we are at capacity. Tuition and fee increases have been normal.

• For incoming students, the institution focused on calculating a cap amount for a student’s GAP.

Need-based aid was awarded to all students whose initial GAP was higher than the cap in order to lower it to the cap amount. This strategy was not a success.


• In FY14 the institution began awarding some forms of institutional aid based on students’ need as determined by the EFC. The institution adopted a strategy to meet 80 percent to 100 percent need. This strategy was designed to ensure that students with the greatest need could fund their education, thus reducing the potential for drops and increasing tuition revenue over the long-term.

• In the fall 2013 recruitment cycle, we introduced a new program through which we offered

$1,000 or $2,000 in additional aid to selected students who submitted the FAFSA regardless of demonstrated financial need. This focused effort was aimed at those families with little or no need with the intent of generating more net revenue by tipping the scale toward increasing enrollment of these students. We generated about $1,000 more in net tuition revenue than we did for fall 2012, and I think much can be attributed to this initiative.

• Strategies have included enhanced focus on implementation of the financial aid award model

supported by our consultant, the implementation of housing discounts, and the completion of our new student center (curb appeal).

• The college has completed a four-year transition from our former full-tuition scholarship model

to our current half-tuition scholarship for all students with additional need-based aid. This has resulted in increased revenue over four years.

• Unfortunately, we have not been able to implement strategies to increase net tuition revenue

since we have been focused on trying to keep enrollment we have had. That process has ended up resulting in a decrease in net tuition revenue as we have increased financial aid to try to keep competitive.

• We did not offer scholarships to the bottom of our applicant pool and were able to increase the

net tuition revenue by reducing stacking and tightening the amount of need-based aid.

• We increased first-year Fall enrollment in FY14 largely by infusing additional dollars into student gift aid to better attract and retain students.

Tuition Discounting

• We increased our budgeted discount rate by .5 percent from 25.35 percent to 25.85 percent from 2012-13 to 2013-14. There is a plan to increase the discount rate over time to address


affordability. In order to address our needs across campus and care for the increase in the discount rate, tuition was increased 3.67 percent. We have met our increasing enrollment goals. We have worked with an outside consultant to develop how the discount rate is packaged and applied for various students, with a higher level going to freshmen.

• We increased the discount rate to increase enrollment and net tuition, which was successful.

• We know we need to increase net tuition to make our financial model work in [expensive

location]. We increased the published tuition by 7 percent and reduced the discount rate for entering freshmen from 65 percent to 56 percent.

• We made an attempt to decrease our discount rate through targeted enrollment strategies

meant to increase the yield of full-pay students. And no, the strategies were not all that successful.

• We slightly increased our discount rate to attract a larger freshmen class and we were successful

in attracting 15 percent more students than in the previous year. We also increased tuition by 3.9 percent this past year in an attempt to improve net tuition revenue. Overall, we fell short of our goals.

• We tried to maintain the current discount rate, while increasing the tuition rate, effectively trying

to increase net tuition revenue. In addition, due to the change in demographics in our area, we tried to target more international students. These strategies were mildly successful, since the international students helped to offset the domestic enrollment shortfall.

• For Fall 2013, the university was able to decrease the discount rate and increased the tuition/fees

comparable to other similar private schools in our area. The strategy was somewhat effective since our net tuition revenue increased over $1,000 per new student but not as successful as we would have liked since the total number of new students decreased. We have begun to focus a lot more on the admissions/enrollment end this year and are looking forward to an increase for 2014-2015 in both enrollment and net tuition revenue.

• For the 2013-14 academic year we increased costs by 5.25 percent and increased the overall

discount rate by 1 percent. The result was a reduction in fall enrollment.


• The University targeted stable NTR. The university also held on the budgeted discount rate but saw a slight decline in budgeted enrollment in the upcoming class.

• We use econometric modeling to optimize the impact of our financial aid awarding. Our discount

rate substantially has remained the same.

Tuition and Fees

• We implemented a nominal tuition increase to balance the University’s financial requirement with the affordability of our families. Secondly, due to the economic pressures on our students and families, we maintained our level of budgeted institutional aid discount rate, as our commitment to helping our students and families. For Fall 2013, we experienced a small increase in the discount rate; however, the headcount remained stable.

• We increased costs to students by 3.9 percent and tried to manage the discount rate by relying

more heavily on self-help aid, such as Federal Perkins Loans and increases in Federal Work-Study awards. We also introduced a tiered tuition schedule in FY13 and two new fees in FY14: a fee for credit overloads and an international student fee.

• We increased our discount rate and increased tuition and fees rates charged students. These

strategies were not successful.

• We increased our fees for FY 2014 after almost eight or more years of no general fee increase. With that significant increase in fees, along with a 4 percent increase in tuition, our tuition and fees increase was at the highest level in several years, at about 6 percent. We added some institutional aid to students to attempt to attract more new students and used some transfer incentive grants to increase the number of full-time transfer students.

• We will be maintaining tuition and fees at the 2012-13 level for the second consecutive year.

Have also reduced the number of full-tuition scholarships.

• Increased tuition and fees minimally while closely monitoring institutional aid to keep discount rate level.

• The College continued its fixed-tuition guarantee strategy for the entering new freshmen in the

campus (residential) undergraduate program, along with highly discounted tuition for these


students. Neither of these strategies has proven to be successful in increasing net tuition revenue over the past two years.

• Net tuition has declined given increased competition and increased merit awards.

• Our increase to tuition was modest during FY13 at only 2 percent. Our goal was to increase

enrollment, but our enrollment ended fairly flat with the prior year. We attempted to hold discount rate flat but ended up spending more on discount than anticipated, especially with our athletes. All in all, our net tuition should be about flat FY13 vs. FY12.

• Tuition was frozen for our traditional day students between the 2012 and 2013 academic year.

• Two-year frozen tuition is offered. Discount rate has increased over the past three years.

However, even so, we saw a decrease in enrollment for the FY14 year.

• We budgeted for a 5 percent increase in tuition for FY13. We strategically increased aid to our neediest students and offered a top tier premier scholarship to attract our in-state students. We increased parent and value messaging.

• We had the lowest percentage tuition increase in a decade and approximately $6M increase in

institutional grant aid expenditure to support families.

• We have raised the tuition price and discount rate is being held steady while we are increasing the levels of student need that we are able to meet.


Conclusion The results of The 2013 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study show that private institutions continue to see their discount rate increase for freshmen and the larger undergraduate population, now (2013-14) estimated at 46.4 percent and 40.9 percent, respectively—and the highest recorded in the history of the study. Although most institutions increased their freshmen discount rate from 2012 to 2013, 32.7 percent of private institutions held or decreased their discount rate—a smaller share than in prior years.

Both the percentage of freshmen and undergraduates receiving institutional grants and the percentage of tuition and fees covered by those grants rose to all-time highs. Approximately 88.9 percent of freshmen received an institutional grant in 2013, covering 53.5 percent of their tuition and fee price. Nearly 77 percent of undergraduates received an institutional grant, covering 48 percent of the cost of tuition and fees, on average.

TDS participants report that 80 percent of institutional aid dollars went toward meeting students’ financial need. That is, regardless of the award criteria being based on merit or need, 80 percent of institutional grants went to students with financial need who otherwise would have been unable to pay the full sticker price to attend the institution. Approximately 10.5 percent of institutional grant dollars were funded by funds from the institutions’ endowments. Institutions with endowments exceeding $1 billion had 28.9 percent of their institution grants funded from the endowment earnings, while institutions with endowments less than $25 million had 6.8 percent.

Institutions were able to grow net tuition revenue on average by 3.4 percent in 2012 from the year before, when institutions net tuition revenue fell -.28 percent. In 2013 the projected net tuition revenue growth is very limited at 1.1 percent. When these figures are adjusted for inflation using HEPI, the shrinking net tuition revenue in 2011 is even poorer at -2.6 percent, the gains in 2012 drop to 1.7 percent, and the projected growth in 2013 turns to falling revenue by -0.5 percent. In inflation-adjusted dollars, there has been virtually no growth in net tuition revenue over the past 13 years.

The lower percentage change in net tuition revenue is partly a result of over-discounting tuition and fees. Even with the average discount rate increasing, 47.9 percent of participating institutions experienced a loss or maintained their total undergraduate enrollment; nearly half (49.1%) lost or maintained first-time, full-time freshmen enrollment.

At institutions with declining enrollment over the past three years, 57.4 percent of CBOs attribute the loss of freshmen enrollment to price sensitivity. Other reasons include increased


competition from public and private institutions (50%), changing demographics (43.9%), decrease in the 18- to 24-year-old population (34.5%), and a decrease in yield rate of accepted students (30.4%). Undoubtedly, lower enrollment will have consequences for net tuition revenue and discounting strategies in the future.

One survey participant from the last year summarizes the findings of the 2013 TDS best: “It gets harder every year....” Many indicators emphasize that the business model higher education has relied on for many years may have to change. Private nonprofit colleges and universities are facing a challenging environment that will continue in the years to come. They must seek the right balance among pricing, enrollment, and discounting to provide a high-quality postsecondary education and fulfill their missions.


Glossary Data Elements Provided by Participating Institutions 1. Number of entering full-time freshmen

2. Number of entering full-time freshmen receiving institutional grants

3. Number of all undergraduates (including freshmen)

4. Number of undergraduates receiving institutional grants

5. Total institutional grants for entering full-time freshman class

6. Total institutional grants for all undergraduates

7. Tuition amount and mandatory fees (individual rate)

8. Total undergraduate tuition and mandatory fees revenue

9. Percentage of institutional aid funded by endowment

10. Total number of first-time, full-time, degree-or certificate-seeking freshmen who applied for admission

11. Total number of first-time, full-time, degree- or certificate-seeking freshmen who were admitted

12. Percentage of institutional grants awarded to all undergraduates that met students’ financial need

The following data definitions accompanied the online survey questions.

Definitions Entering Full-Time Freshmen: The total number of new freshman students who matriculated on a full-time basis for the fall term of the survey year. Part-time students, guests, and special students are not included in this figure.

Entering Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants: The subset of entering full-time freshmen who received institutional grant aid (defined below).

Total Institutional Grants for Entering Full-Time Freshman Class: The total dollar amount of institutionally funded scholarships, fellowships, and grants awarded to first-time, full-time freshmen for the fiscal year. This figure includes athletic scholarships, grants funded by


restricted and unrestricted endowment income, and all other grant-based aid that is distributed by institutionally specific criteria. It does NOT include tuition remission and tuition exchange programs, institutional matches for externally funded federal or state student aid programs, or transfers from the current fund to student loan funds.

All Undergraduates: The total number of all undergraduates enrolled at the institution as of the fall term of the survey year. This includes all full-and part-time students, guests, and special students.

Total Institutional Grants for All Undergraduate Classes: The total dollar amount of institutionally funded scholarships, fellowships, and grants awarded to all undergraduate students. This figure includes athletic scholarships, grants funded by restricted and unrestricted endowment income, and all other grant-based aid that is distributed by institutionally specific criteria. It does NOT include tuition remission and tuition exchange programs, institutional matches for externally funded federal or state student aid programs, or transfers from the current fund to student loan funds.

Tuition Amount and Mandatory Fees (Individual Rate): The published individual tuition and mandatory fee rate per year for full-time undergraduate students. This figure does not include room and board or other charges.

Total Undergraduate Tuition and Mandatory Fee Revenue for All Undergraduate Students: The gross tuition and mandatory fee revenue for all undergraduate students (matriculated, non-matriculated, full-time, part-time, etc.) for the fiscal year. This figure does not include room and board or other charges.

Financial Need: As determined by institutions, based on undergraduate students’ income, assets, and other financial resources that are reported by students on their applications for institutionally awarded financial aid. Institutions use either the federal methodology, the College Board “Profile,” and/or institutionally specific methodology to determine students’ financial need. Grant Aid that Meets Students’ Financial Need: Any institutional scholarships, grants or fellowships that were used to meet students’ financial need. Any non-need based grants (athletic scholarships or merit aid) that were used to meet students’ financial need should be counted as aid that meets need. Number of Freshmen Applicants: Those students who fulfilled the requirements for consideration for admission, i.e., who completed actionable applications.


Number of Admitted Freshmen: The number of degree- or certificate-seeking, first-time, first-year students who applied, and were admitted in the fall. Include early decision, early action, and students who began studies during the summer in this cohort.

Calculations 1) Average Tuition Discount Percentages: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen: With the data collected, the first-time, full-time freshmen tuition discount percentage can be calculated two ways, directly or by using the product of the components (the two main operational drivers) of the discount rate.

Direct Formula—total institutional grants for first-time, full-time freshmen divided by total tuition and mandatory fee revenue for full-time freshmen.

Component Formula—the product of the percentage of first-time, full-time freshmen aided and the average first-time, full-time freshmen grant as a percentage of tuition and mandatory fees.

By definition the tuition discount rate for each individual institution will be the same using both methods of calculation.

2) Average Tuition Discount Percentages: All Undergraduates: The tuition discount percentage for all undergraduates is calculated directly by the total amount of institutional grants awarded to all undergraduates divided by total tuition and mandatory fee revenue for all undergraduates.

3) Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants: The percentage of freshmen aided is calculated as the number of full-time freshmen receiving institutional grants divided by the number of full-time freshmen.

4) Percentage of Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants: The percentage of all undergraduates aided is calculated as the number of undergraduates receiving institutional grants divided by the number of all undergraduates.

5) Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees: The average institutional grant as a percentage of tuition and fees is calculated by dividing the aggregate institutional grant dollars awarded to first-time, full-time freshmen by the product of the number of full-time freshmen receiving institutional aid and the tuition and mandatory fee rate.

6) Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees: The dollars awarded to all undergraduates divided by the product of the number of undergraduates receiving institutional aid and the tuition and mandatory fee rate.


7) Average Gross and Net Tuition Rate for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen: The gross tuition rate is the reported mandatory tuition and fee rate for first-time, full-time freshmen. It does not include room and board. The net tuition rate is calculated as the aggregate gross tuition revenue for full-time, freshmen students minus institutionally funded financial aid grants for first-time, full-time freshmen divided by the number of first-time, full-time freshmen.

8) Average Financial Aid for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen: Financial aid (imputed) is calculated as the difference between the average gross and net tuition rate.

9) Acceptance Rate: The number of admitted students divided by the total number of applicants.

10) Yield Rate: The number of enrolled students divided by the number of admitted students.

Moody’s Ratings Moody’s system of rating securities provides investors with a simple scheme of gradation by which future relative credit worthiness of securities, issued by institutions, may be evaluated (Moody's, 2014). Ratings assigned to institutions are as of March 18, 2014.

Institutions with No Ratings

According to Moody’s, when there are no ratings assigned to securities, it may be for reasons unrelated to the credit worthiness of the issue.

When there are no ratings:

1. The issuer’s application may not have been received 2. The issue or issuer belongs to a group of securities or entities that are not rated as a

matter of policy. 3. There is inadequate critical data pertaining to the issue or issuer. 4. The issue was privately placed, in which case the rating is not published in Moody's

publications. (Moody's, 2014).

Withdrawn Ratings

Just like with institutions with no ratings, withdrawn ratings may be for reasons unrelated to the credit worthiness of the issue. According to Moody’s, “withdrawal may occur if new and material circumstances arise, the effects of which preclude satisfactory analysis; if there is no longer available reasonable up-to-date data to permit a judgment to be formed; if a bond is called for redemption; or for other reasons” (Moody's, 2014).


Ratings Scale

Remarks Rating Superior Aaa Obligations rated Aaa are judged to be of the highest quality, with

minimal credit risk Superior Aa1,

Aa2,Aa3 Obligations rated Aa are judged to be of high quality and are subject to very low credit risk.

Good A1, A2, A3 Obligations rated A are considered upper-medium grade and are subject to low credit risk.

Adequate Baa1, Baa2, Baa3

Obligations rated Baa are judged to be medium-grade and subject to moderate credit risk and as such may possess certain speculative characteristics.

Speculative Ba1, Ba2, Ba3

Obligations rated Ba are judged to be speculative and are subject to substantial credit risk.

Highly Speculative

B1, B2, B3 Obligations rated B are considered speculative and are subject to high credit risk

Highly Speculative

Caa Obligations rated Caa are judged to be speculative of poor standing and are subject to very high credit risk.

Extremely Speculative

Ca Obligations rated Ca are highly speculative and are likely in, or very near, default, with some prospect of recovery of principal and interest

Default C Obligations rated C are the lowest rated and are typically in default, with little prospect for recovery of principal or interest.

Source: Moody’s

Ratings Outlook

A Moody’s rating outlook is an opinion regarding the likely rating direction over the medium term (between the short term and long term period).

Rating Outlook Positive A positive outlook indicates a high likelihood of a rating change over the

medium term. The next rating action subsequent to the assignment of a positive rating outlook has historically been an upgrade or review for possible upgrade. About one half of the time; rating actions in the opposite direction are less common.

Negative A negative outlook indicates a high likelihood of a rating change over the medium term. The next rating action subsequent to the assignment of a negative rating outlook has historically been a downgrade or review for possible downgrade about one half of the time; rating actions in the opposite direction are less common.

Stable A stable outlook indicates a low likelihood of a rating change over the medium term. After the initial assignment of a stable outlook, about 90%


of ratings experience no change in rating during the following year. Developing A developing outlook indicates a higher likelihood of a rating change over

the medium term. A


References

College Board. (2013). Trends in college pricing, 2013. Retrieved from: https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2013-full-report-140108.pdf

Hubbell, L. L., & Lapovsky, L. (2005). Tuition discounting: 15 years in perspective. Business Officer Plus, June 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Officer_Magazine/Business_Officer_Plus/Online_Articles/Tuition_Discounting_15_Years_in_Perspective.html

NACUBO. (2011). The 2010 Tuition Discounting Study. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/Products/Online_Research_Products/2010_Tuition_Discounting_Study.html

NACUBO and Commonfund Institute. (2013). The 2012 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO_Endowment_Study/Public_NCSE_Tables_.html

National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP). (2012). The 42nd annual survey report on state-sponsored student financial aid, 2010-2011 academic year. Retrieved from: http://www.nassgap.org/viewrepository.aspx?categoryID=3

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). Integrated postsecondary education data system, Spring 2010 Finance Component. Table 36: Scholarship and fellowship expenses of title IV institutions, by level and control of institution, accounting standards utilized, and source of funds, United States, fiscal year 2009. Analysis by Author.

Moody’s Investors Services. (2012, January 4). More U.S. universities expect tuition revenue declines; Larger, diversified universities favored in tough higher education market: Results of Moody’s third annual tuition pricing survey of U.S. higher education. Retrieved from http://www.moodys.com/researchandratings/market-segment/u.s.-public-finance/005003/4294966117/4294966623/0/0/-/0/-/-/en/global/rr

Moody’s Investors Services. (2013, January 16). US higher education outlook negative in 2013: Revenue pressure on all fronts intensifies need to grapple with traditional cost structure.


https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2013-full-report-140108.pdf

https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2013-full-report-140108.pdf

http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Officer_Magazine/Business_Officer_Plus/Online_Articles/Tuition_Discounting_15_Years_in_Perspective.html

http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Officer_Magazine/Business_Officer_Plus/Online_Articles/Tuition_Discounting_15_Years_in_Perspective.html

http://www.nacubo.org/Products/Online_Research_Products/2010_Tuition_Discounting_Study.html

http://www.nacubo.org/Products/Online_Research_Products/2010_Tuition_Discounting_Study.html

http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO_Endowment_Study/Public_NCSE_Tables_.html

http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO_Endowment_Study/Public_NCSE_Tables_.html

http://www.nassgap.org/viewrepository.aspx?categoryID=3

http://www.moodys.com/researchandratings/market-segment/u.s.-public-finance/005003/4294966117/4294966623/0/0/-/0/-/-/en/global/rr

http://www.moodys.com/researchandratings/market-segment/u.s.-public-finance/005003/4294966117/4294966623/0/0/-/0/-/-/en/global/rr

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (2013, February 25). U.S. higher education sector could experience a rise in rating and outlook changes in 2013. Retrieved from http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/upload/Events_US/US_PF_Event_Tcon22513Article1.pdf

U.S. Federal Reserve. (2012, June). Changes in U.S. family finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence

from the survey of consumer finances. Federal Reserve Bulletin(98)2. Retrieved from http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf


http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/upload/Events_US/US_PF_Event_Tcon22513Article1.pdf

http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/upload/Events_US/US_PF_Event_Tcon22513Article1.pdf

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf

Appendix A Survey Instrument









2013 Tuition Discounting Study

Help Text

Question 1: Include all undergraduates (including the freshman that you will count in question 2) who were enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in the fall term. Part-time students, guests, and special students should also be included. Please use the same census date that you used for the IPEDS survey (approximately October 1st) for your "Fall 2012" and "Fall 2013 estimated" figures.

Question 2: Include only those new degree- or certificate-seeking freshman students who matriculated on a full-time basis in the fall term. Part-time students, guests, and special students SHOULD NOT be included. Please use the same census date that you used for the IPEDS survey (approximately October 1st) for your "Fall 2012" and "Fall 2013 estimated" figures.

Question 3: Include grants funded by your institution that were awarded to any full- or part-time undergraduates. These include grants awarded on the basis of students' financial need, academic merit, athletics, or any other criteria your institution may use. Also include that any grants that were funded by restricted and unrestricted endowment income. DO NOT include: federal or state grant aid, private scholarships, institutional matches for externally funded student aid grants, transfers from the current fund to student loan funds, tuition remission, tuition benefits for institutional employees or their dependents, or tuition exchange programs.

Question 4: Include grants funded by your institution that were awarded to entering first-time, full-time freshman. These include grants awarded on the basis of students' financial need, academic merit, athletics, or any other criteria your institution may use. Also include that any grants that were funded by restricted and unrestricted endowment income. DO NOT include: federal or state grant aid, private scholarships, institutional matches for externally funded student aid grants, transfers from the current fund to student loan funds, tuition waivers/tuition remission, tuition benefits for institutional employees or their dependents, or tuition exchange programs.

Question 5: Include grants funded by your institution that were awarded to any full- or part-time undergraduates in the Fall semester for the academic year. (*Note this is not asking for the amount disbursed in the fall semester, rather the dollar amount that was determined to be awarded for the full academic year as of the fall). These include grants awarded on the basis of students' financial need, academic merit, athletics, or any other criteria your institution may use. Also include that any grants that were funded by restricted and unrestricted endowment income. DO NOT include: federal or state grant aid, private scholarships, institutional matches for externally funded student aid grants, transfers from the current fund to student loan funds,


tuition remission, tuition benefits for institutional employees or their dependents, or tuition exchange programs.

Question 6: Include grants funded by your institution that were awarded to entering first-time, full-time freshman in the Fall semester for the academic year. (*Note this is not asking for the amount disbursed in the fall semester, rather the dollar amount that was determined to be awarded for the full academic year as of the fall). These include grants awarded on the basis of students' financial need, academic merit, athletics, or any other criteria your institution may use. Also include that any grants that were funded by restricted and unrestricted endowment income. DO NOT include: federal or state grant aid, private scholarships, institutional matches for externally funded student aid grants, transfers from the current fund to student loan funds, tuition remission, tuition benefits for institutional employees or their dependents, or tuition exchange programs.

Question 7: Include the published price of tuition plus all mandatory fees (or "sticker price") for full-time, full-year undergraduate students for the academic year (as defined as a regular academic year, not including summer). This rate SHOULD NOT charges for room, board, books, supplies, or any other education-related expenses. If tuition charges differ by class level or academic program (differential tuition), please report on the tuition and mandatory fee rate that the majority of undergraduate students pay. This figure should be the same as the IPEDS Institutional Characteristics Survey Part D, Price of Attendance.

Question 8: Include the gross revenue received from tuition and fees from all undergraduate students for the requested academic year. This figure SHOULD NOT include any revenue received from room, board, or any other charges.

Question 10: Provide the number of degree or certificate-seeking, first-time, first-year students who applied, were admitted in Fall 2012. Include early decision, early action, and students who began studies during summer in this cohort. Applicants should include only those students who fulfilled the requirements for consideration for admission (i.e., who completed actionable applications) and who have been notified of one of the following actions: admission, non-admission, placement on waiting list, or application withdrawn (by applicant or institution). Admitted applicants should include wait-listed students who were subsequently offered admission. For additional description, please refer to the Common Data Set, section C1, First-Time, First-Year (Freshman) Admission.

Question 12: Include any institutionally awarded scholarships, fellowships, or grants (as reported in Question 5). DO NOT include: federal or state grant aid, private scholarships, institutional matches for externally funded student aid grants, transfers from the current fund to student loan funds, tuition waivers/tuition remission, tuition benefits for institutional employees or their dependents, or tuition exchange programs. Approximate percentages in the


three categories should sum to 100. If your institution cannot or will not answer this question, please leave blank.

Question 13: At most institutions, Fiscal Year 2013 refers to the period from July 1, 2012 - June 30, 2013.


This page intentionally left blank.


Appendix B Appendix B contains tables with data from all institutions that participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey from 2000 to 2013. The 2013 data were collected in the 2013 survey and are preliminary estimates, indicated with an asterisk (*). Percentage change figures that include 2013 data should also be considered preliminary estimates. Data are organized by NACUBO Constituent Group, Carnegie Classification, and Endowment Level. NACUBO Constituent Groups are defined in the glossary. Carnegie Classification is based on the 2000 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. For more information, go to http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/downloads/2000_edition_data_printable.pdf. Endowment levels are from FY 2013 as reported in the 2013 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments (NCSE). Institutions that did not participate in the NCSE in prior years were placed in the “Unknown Endowment” category or looked up in IPEDS. Some data are limited to the years shown in table.


http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/downloads/2000_edition_data_printable.pdf

Participating Institutions Appendix Table 1 Number of Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013, by NACUBO Constituent Group (The 2013 Study collects both 2012 data and 2013 estimated data) NACUBO Constituent Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 23 23 25 26 26 31 34 34 39 50 51 52 55 55 Research 17 17 15 17 19 20 21 21 34 29 31 34 34 34 Small Institutions 108 108 118 139 150 194 198 198 286 302 318 297 312 312 All Institutions 148 148 158 182 195 245 253 253 359 381 400 383 401 401

Appendix Table 2 Number of Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013, by Carnegie Classification* Carnegie Classification 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 71 71 73 86 90 119 122 122 160 171 185 163 171 171 Doctoral/Research 21 21 20 22 24 28 31 31 54 51 55 62 62 62 Master’s 52 52 61 69 76 88 90 90 120 138 134 132 142 142 Special Focus 4 4 4 5 5 10 10 10 25 21 26 26 26 26 All Institutions 148 148 158 182 195 245 253 253 359 381 400 383 401 401

*Based on the 2000 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. For more information, go to http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/downloads/2000_edition_data_printable.pdf


Participating Institutions (Continued) Appendix Table 3 Number of Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013, by Region Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Far West 17 17 17 18 18 26 28 28 33 44 40 47 45 45 Great Lakes 26 26 29 32 33 43 43 43 63 66 72 63 72 72 Mid-East 44 44 46 53 59 66 69 69 91 93 88 89 96 96 New England 15 15 16 20 21 26 27 27 51 43 61 48 57 57 Plains 17 17 17 19 19 24 25 25 36 41 46 38 38 38 Rocky Mountains 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 8 7 7 Southeast 22 22 24 29 32 44 44 44 64 68 70 69 67 67 Southwest 4 4 6 8 10 13 14 14 17 21 17 21 19 19 All Institutions 148 148 158 182 195 245 253 253 359 381 400 383 401 401

Far West: AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA Great Lakes: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI Mid-East: DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA, NY New England: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT Plains: IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD Rocky Mountains: CO, ID, MT, UT, WY Southeast: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV Southwest: AZ, NM, OK, TX


Participating Institutions (Continued) Appendix Table 4 Number of Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013 by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 15,001 or more 6 7 10 11 11 8,001 to 15,000 17 19 23 26 26 4,001 to 8,000 47 48 60 57 57 Less than 4,000 311 326 290 307 307 All Institutions 381 400 383 401 401

Appendix Table 5 Number of Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey, by Moody’s Credit Quality

Number of Participating

Institutions Superior 41 Good 74 Adequate 55 Speculative/Highly Speculative 4 Withdrawn 47 No Rating 180 All Institutions 401


Participating Institutions (Continued) Appendix Table 6 Number of Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey, by Moody’s Credit Rating

Number of Participating

Institutions Aaa 9 Aa1, Aa2, Aa3 32 A1, A2, A3 74 Baa1, Baa2, Baa3 55 Ba1, Ba2, Ba3, B1,B2, B3, Caa, Ca 4 Withdrawn Rating 47 No Rating 180 All Institutions 401


Average Number of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen

Appendix Table 7 Average Number of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Estimated 10 Year Percent Change 2003 to 2013*

Estimated 3 Year

Percentage Change 2011 to 2013*

Comprehensive/Doctoral 912 971 970 977 989 954 989 1000 996 1054 1140 1071 1152 1185 21.3% 10.6% Research 1578 1605 1636 1668 1723 1972 1994 2011 1698 1774 1739 1695 1669 1695 1.6% 0.0% Small Institutions 400 394 402 412 426 406 408 417 382 400 407 408 407 407 -1.3% -0.4% All Institutions 615 623 611 610 627 603 618 627 574 595 605 614 616 620 1.6% 1.0% *Data for 2013 and all percentage change figures are preliminary estimates.


Average Number of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen (Continued) Appendix Table 8 Average Number of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Estimated 10 Year Percent Change 2003

to 2013*

Estimated 3 Year

Percentage Change 2011

to 2013* Baccalaureate 426 419 414 405 414 396 405 412 370 399 415 398 409 413 2.0% 3.7% Doctoral/Research 1499 1532 1555 1597 1636 1729 1744 1752 1379 1455 1430 1372 1400 1409 -11.7% 2.7% Master’s 531 547 543 567 576 565 555 570 534 551 589 594 597 601 6.0% 1.3% Special Focus 420 441 461 393 399 263 285 287 324 363 260 268 212 199 -49.5% -26.0% All Institutions 615 623 611 610 627 603 618 627 574 595 605 614 616 620 1.6% 1.0% *Data for 2013 and all percentage change figures are preliminary estimates


Average Number of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen (Continued)

Appendix Table 9 Average Number of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013* by Region Region

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Estimated 10 Year Percent Change 2003

to 2013*

Estimated 3 Year

Percentage Change 2011 to

2013* Far West 618 651 646 620 657 558 624 642 420 513 517 561 520 529 -14.7% -5.6% Great Lakes 631 645 658 636 630 543 574 579 532 540 529 572 587 602 -5.4% 5.2% Mid East 771 762 733 748 744 773 798 806 713 734 729 750 699 690 -7.8% -8.0% New England 572 583 600 598 610 754 771 797 767 845 830 830 820 820 37.2% -1.3% Plains 326 315 327 382 391 352 285 281 352 366 397 346 409 410 7.3% 18.4% Rocky Mountains 408 374 372 430 433 403 442 460 540 493 534 486 466 482 12.1% -0.7% Southeast 518 547 524 500 495 443 443 452 444 477 484 487 493 509 1.8% 4.5% Southwest 862 898 691 609 842 786 743 743 661 656 784 724 827 836 37.3% 15.5% All Institutions 615 623 611 610 627 603 618 627 574 595 605 614 616 620 1.6% 1.0% Far West: AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA Great Lakes: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI Mid East: DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA, NY New England: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT Plains: IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD Rocky Mountains: CO, ID, MT, UT, WY Southeast: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV Southwest: AZ, NM, OK, TX


Average Cohort Enrollment: All Undergraduates

Appendix Table 10 Average Number of All Undergraduates at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013* by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Estimated Percentage Change 2009 to 2013*

Comprehensive/Doctoral 4790 5439 5103 5375 5486 14.5% Research 7654 7475 7355 7235 7360 -3.8% Small Institutions 1704 1729 1808 1823 1817 6.7% All Institutions 2573 2657 2747 2769 2777 7.9%

Appendix Table 11 Average Number of All Undergraduates at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013* by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification


Baccalaureate 1560 1567 1580 1635 1641 5.2% Doctoral/Research 6317 6457 6152 6287 6362 0.7% Master’s 2518 2726 2809 2866 2844 13.0% Special Focus 1961 1655 1641 1317 1309 -33.2% All Institutions 2573 2657 2747 2769 2777 7.9%

*Data on the number of all undergraduates only available from 2009-2013


Average Cohort Enrollment: All Undergraduates (Continued)

Appendix Table 12 Average Number of All Undergraduates at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013* by Region Region


Far West 2164 2306 2518 2337 2390 10.4% Great Lakes 2537 2620 2871 2843 2875 13.3% Mid East 3237 3262 3399 3169 3157 -2.5% New England 3398 3350 3466 3430 3435 1.1% Plains 1627 1768 1576 2006 1986 22.1% Rocky Mountains 2007 2121 1967 1932 1918 -4.4% Southeast 1942 2022 1997 2121 2144 10.4% Southwest 2950 3225 3370 3632 3698 25.3% All Institutions 2573 2657 2747 2769 2777 7.9%

Far West: AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA Great Lakes: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI Mid East: DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA, NY New England: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT Plains: IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD Rocky Mountains: CO, ID, MT, UT, WY Southeast: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV Southwest: AZ, NM, OK, TX *Data on the number of all undergraduates only available from 2009-2013


Average Tuition Discounting Rates: First-Time, Full Time Freshmen

Appendix Table 13 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013* by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 33.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.6% 34.2% 31.5% 33.5% 34.1% 37.1% 36.3% 36.0% 38.8% 39.2% 40.5% Research 32.0% 32.9% 34.8% 34.8% 34.7% 34.9% 33.7% 33.8% 37.4% 38.9% 38.8% 40.9% 43.0% 42.1% Small Institutions 39.0% 39.2% 39.8% 38.9% 39.2% 39.4% 40.0% 40.5% 40.6% 42.8% 43.3% 45.6% 46.0% 47.9% All Institutions 37.2% 37.7% 38.4% 37.9% 38.1% 38.0% 38.6% 39.1% 39.9% 41.6% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4%

Appendix Table 14 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013* by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 39.5% 40.3% 40.5% 39.8% 39.7% 39.3% 39.8% 39.7% 41.7% 43.0% 43.9% 48.0% 47.8% 49.4% Doctoral/Research 31.5% 32.1% 33.3% 33.8% 34.0% 32.9% 33.5% 34.1% 37.1% 38.4% 39.7% 39.9% 42.0% 42.3% Master's 37.2% 37.2% 38.3% 37.4% 38.0% 39.5% 40.3% 41.2% 41.8% 41.9% 42.4% 44.5% 44.8% 47.0% Special Focus 28.0% 27.5% 28.7% 30.9% 31.7% 24.1% 24.8% 27.5% 25.3% 33.9% 31.0% 28.1% 31.2% 32.6% All Institutions 37.2% 37.7% 38.4% 37.9% 38.1% 38.0% 38.6% 39.1% 39.9% 41.6% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4%


Average Tuition Discounting Rates: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen (Continued) Appendix Table 15 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2012, by Endowment Level FY13 Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012 Over $1 billion 41.5% 41.9% 42.0% 43.0% $500 million to $1 billion 41.3% 40.2% 41.3% 44.3% $100 million to $500 million 42.2% 42.0% 43.7% 45.1% $50 million to $100 million 44.9% 45.3% 46.5% 45.5% $25 million to $50 million 43.5% 44.3% 45.3% 46.5% $25 million or less 41.0% 43.0% 44.7% 43.0% Unknown Endowment Level 38.1% 39.2% 39.9% n/a All Institutions 41.6% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8%

Appendix Table 16 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey 2009 to 2013* by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 15,001 or more 34.5% 38.0% 40.7% 43.1% 41.4% 8,001 to 15,000 36.3% 35.2% 39.3% 38.6% 40.3% 4,001 to 8,000 37.7% 38.2% 38.7% 40.7% 41.8% Less than 4,000 42.6% 43.0% 46.0% 46.2% 48.0% All Institutions 41.6% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4%


Average Tuition Discounting Rates: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen (Continued)

Appendix Table 17 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey 2000 to 2013* by Region Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Far West 36.7% 37.4% 38.4% 35.8% 34.3% 35.4% 37.5% 36.9% 35.2% 39.0% 40.9% 39.2% 38.6% 37.8% Great Lakes 38.8% 39.8% 39.3% 40.3% 39.5% 39.8% 40.4% 40.0% 39.8% 44.8% 44.5% 48.8% 48.9% 49.8% Mid-East 37.4% 37.1% 38.8% 37.4% 37.8% 36.9% 36.2% 37.4% 40.3% 40.7% 42.9% 43.9% 45.4% 48.3% New England 31.5% 31.6% 32.9% 31.6% 31.9% 32.8% 32.0% 33.4% 38.8% 38.4% 37.8% 40.1% 42.3% 44.3% Plains 40.6% 41.2% 43.0% 42.3% 41.6% 41.2% 45.4% 45.8% 43.1% 42.9% 42.8% 47.8% 48.1% 49.6% Rocky Mountains 37.7% 36.5% 34.6% 35.6% 40.6% 40.9% 38.8% 41.8% 34.5% 48.2% 43.3% 46.1% 45.0% 46.1% Southeast 37.4% 39.3% 38.7% 40.7% 42.3% 42.1% 42.4% 42.3% 41.9% 42.7% 43.3% 44.2% 44.6% 46.1% Southwest 33.3% 31.2% 34.6% 32.9% 34.4% 33.6% 36.3% 36.9% 38.2% 38.9% 34.3% 46.2% 42.0% 45.6% All Institutions 37.2% 37.7% 38.4% 37.9% 38.1% 38.0% 38.6% 39.1% 39.9% 41.6% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4%



Average Tuition Discounting Rates: All Undergraduates

Appendix Table 18 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 30.5% 31.6% 30.9% 29.8% 29.3% 27.3% 37.7% 30.1% 38.3% 30.0% 30.3% 33.6% 35.1% 36.2% Research 30.7% 32.4% 33.4% 34.8% 34.5% 35.1% 30.7% 30.9% 38.0% 35.7% 37.5% 38.5% 40.3% 39.7% Small Institutions 34.6% 34.9% 35.4% 34.6% 35.2% 35.4% 35.1% 35.8% 36.6% 37.1% 37.3% 39.5% 41.1% 41.8% All Institutions 33.5% 34.1% 34.5% 33.9% 34.3% 34.3% 35.1% 34.7% 36.9% 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 40.9%

Appendix Table 19 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 35.7% 36.3% 37.9% 36.1% 37.0% 36.9% 36.8% 37.2% 40.5% 39.2% 39.2% 43.4% 44.0% 44.6% Doctoral/Research 30.7% 31.8% 32.2% 32.2% 32.5% 32.0% 30.2% 30.3% 41.7% 33.2% 35.2% 35.7% 38.8% 39.1% Master’s 32.0% 32.5% 31.9% 32.1% 32.2% 32.8% 35.8% 33.8% 32.9% 34.7% 34.7% 37.3% 38.9% 40.0% Special Focus 27.0% 25.7% 24.3% 28.8% 28.5% 23.2% 22.4% 23.9% 21.7% 25.9% 27.2% 22.1% 25.7% 26.4% All Institutions 33.5% 34.1% 34.5% 33.9% 34.3% 34.3% 35.1% 34.7% 36.9% 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 40.9%


Average Tuition Discounting Rates: All Undergraduates (Continued) Appendix Table 20 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-Time, Full Time Freshmen at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey 2009 to 2013* by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 15,001 or more 28.7% 33.7% 37.3% 44.0% 43.6% 8,001 to 15,000 32.7% 32.0% 34.6% 35.6% 36.0% 4,001 to 8,000 32.2% 33.1% 34.3% 35.2% 36.6% Less than 4,000 37.0% 37.2% 39.9% 41.4% 42.0% All Institutions 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 40.9%

Appendix Table 21 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2012, by FY 2013 Endowment Level FY13 Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012 Over $1 billion 39.7% 39.5% 43.2% 41.9% $500 million to $1 billion 36.8% 35.6% 39.3% 42.3% $100 million to $500 million 38.5% 37.9% 40.3% 41.7% $50 million to $100 million 38.4% 39.1% 40.6% 40.6% $25 million to $50 million 40.2% 37.3% 38.8% 40.9% $25 million or less 32.4% 34.5% 35.2% 36.7% Unknown Endowment Level 31.4% 33.3% 34.9% n/a All Institutions 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2%


Average Tuition Discounting Rates: All Undergraduates (Continued)

Appendix Table 22 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by Region Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Far West 32.2% 32.8% 33.8% 35.8% 34.2% 35.0% 34.3% 35.1% 30.5% 34.5% 35.9% 36.0% 34.9% 35.3% Great Lakes 36.3% 36.8% 36.2% 35.4% 35.5% 35.6% 34.4% 35.4% 36.7% 38.7% 37.5% 41.0% 41.9% 42.0% Mid-East 33.8% 34.2% 34.1% 33.2% 33.3% 32.4% 30.7% 31.7% 38.6% 34.4% 35.9% 38.1% 40.0% 39.7% New England 29.0% 31.9% 32.0% 29.9% 30.3% 29.7% 40.7% 31.5% 40.1% 34.9% 35.1% 38.4% 39.4% 40.7% Plains 34.2% 34.6% 34.6% 37.3% 37.7% 37.5% 37.8% 37.7% 39.5% 37.8% 38.3% 38.1% 42.8% 44.4% Rocky Mountains 33.6% 34.3% 32.3% 34.7% 34.3% 33.9% 37.9% 39.1% 30.7% 30.1% 41.0% 40.8% 41.9% 42.0% Southeast 33.6% 33.9% 36.4% 34.8% 37.0% 38.0% 39.7% 39.6% 36.0% 38.2% 37.1% 38.7% 40.9% 42.4% Southwest 28.7% 28.6% 31.7% 27.1% 30.0% 29.6% 29.2% 30.6% 30.4% 32.2% 30.0% 40.3% 41.4% 42.8% All Institutions 33.5% 34.1% 34.5% 33.9% 34.3% 34.3% 35.1% 34.7% 36.9% 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 40.9%



Average Tuition Discount Rates by Moody’s Ratings

Appendix Table 23

Average Tuition Discount Rates for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen and All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2012 N First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen All Undergraduates Aaa 9 49.6% 48.8% Aa1, Aa2, Aa3 32 38.8% 36.9% A1, A2, A3 74 43.1% 39.7% Baa1, Baa2, Baa3 55 45.7% 40.9% Ba1, Ba2, Ba3, B1,B2, B3, Caa, Ca 4 54.5% 48.1% No Rating 180 45.5% 40.0% Withdrawn Rating 47 46.0% 40.7% All Institutions 401 44.8% 40.2%


Median Tuition Discounting Rates

Appendix Table 24 Median Tuition Discounting Rates for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen and All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013* 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Median First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Discount Rate 37.2% 37.5% 39.1% 39.0% 38.2% 38.1% 38.4% 39.4% 41.8% 42.8% 43.3% 45.3% 45.4% 47.6%

Median All Undergraduates Discount Rate 33.9% 34.4% 33.8% 33.8% 34.3% 33.7% 33.9% 34.5% 35.1% 36.5% 38.2% 39.1% 40.5% 41.3%


Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants

Appendix Table 25 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 73.6% 75.1% 75.7% 76.1% 77.6% 73.7% 74.4% 75.2% 75.3% 83.1% 81.9% 83.2% 86.3% 87.3% Research 59.5% 60.3% 62.4% 62.3% 62.9% 63.7% 63.0% 63.3% 66.5% 66.0% 63.8% 67.4% 68.7% 67.1% Small Institutions 80.6% 81.1% 83.4% 82.8% 84.6% 84.1% 84.0% 84.8% 85.2% 89.7% 88.6% 89.5% 90.1% 93.7% All Institutions 77.0% 77.8% 80.2% 79.9% 81.5% 81.1% 81.0% 81.7% 82.3% 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.9%

Appendix Table 26 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 79.4% 79.7% 81.4% 80.8% 82.3% 81.8% 81.6% 82.0% 84.2% 87.7% 86.0% 87.8% 89.4% 91.6% Doctoral/Research 60.7% 61.4% 64.9% 63.4% 64.3% 65.8% 66.0% 66.6% 70.6% 73.0% 73.1% 76.3% 77.2% 74.8% Master’s 81.4% 82.8% 84.5% 84.6% 86.7% 87.1% 87.2% 88.1% 87.9% 92.3% 91.5% 91.8% 91.7% 93.8% Special Focus 63.6% 65.1% 69.1% 73.1% 72.7% 64.0% 64.2% 67.7% 68.2% 77.8% 80.8% 76.3% 79.4% 98.8% All Institutions 77.0% 77.8% 80.2% 79.9% 81.5% 81.1% 81.0% 81.7% 82.3% 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.9%


Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants (Continued) Appendix Table 27 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013*, by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 15,001 or more 64.3% 64.0% 64.4% 66.8% 66.6% 8,001 to 15,000 67.4% 68.7% 72.4% 76.2% 75.2% 4,001 to 8,000 83.7% 79.9% 82.4% 84.3% 85.4% Less than 4,000 89.0% 88.1% 89.5% 90.2% 93.6% All Institutions 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.9%

Appendix Table 28 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by Region Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Far West 69.6% 70.9% 70.9% 71.3% 72.6% 75.8% 76.3% 77.1% 69.8% 84.5% 81.9% 82.8% 85.3% 86.7% Great Lakes 84.5% 85.7% 86.6% 88.4% 89.0% 86.9% 86.8% 86.8% 85.9% 91.7% 90.9% 91.5% 92.2% 94.2% Mid East 76.8% 78.4% 82.0% 79.5% 81.6% 80.7% 80.5% 81.3% 81.1% 84.9% 85.9% 88.0% 89.8% 89.7% New England 61.1% 60.7% 62.2% 61.9% 63.8% 62.4% 60.8% 62.9% 75.9% 76.5% 76.7% 75.6% 78.4% 79.6% Plains 86.6% 87.3% 89.6% 87.7% 88.4% 87.4% 89.7% 92.0% 93.0% 93.3% 89.4% 91.3% 92.8% 95.8% Rocky Mountains 77.8% 78.8% 74.0% 76.0% 81.2% 81.4% 76.4% 80.4% 80.9% 91.1% 84.7% 87.9% 80.7% 92.7% Southeast 78.4% 78.1% 81.0% 83.2% 85.1% 85.3% 85.9% 85.4% 85.9% 88.2% 87.9% 87.5% 87.0% 88.6% Southwest 73.4% 71.2% 84.0% 84.0% 85.8% 87.0% 83.8% 83.8% 82.0% 88.5% 84.6% 90.4% 87.4% 86.4% All Institutions 77.0% 77.8% 80.2% 79.9% 81.5% 81.1% 81.0% 81.7% 82.3% 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.9%

Far West: AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA Great Lakes: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI Mid East: DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA, NY New England: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT Plains: IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD

Rocky Mountains: CO, ID, MT, UT, WY Southeast: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV Southwest: AZ, NM, OK, TX NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Study Page 106

Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants (Continued) Appendix Table 29 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2012, by Endowment Level FY13 Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012 Over $1 billion 54.4% 56.8% 56.5% 60.0% $500 million to $1 billion 71.7% 67.3% 71.3% 71.3% $100 million to $500 million 80.8% 80.6% 85.9% 86.9% $50 million to $100 million 93.4% 91.7% 93.2% 92.8% $25 million to $50 million 93.9% 93.8% 93.0% 95.5% $25 million or less 93.2% 95.3% 91.5% 91.8% Unknown Endowment Level 89.7% 90.3% 77.3% n/a All Institutions 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7%


Percent of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Aid

Appendix Table 30 Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 70.9% 72.2% 73.6% 74.4% Research 61.2% 62.5% 65.3% 63.2% Small Institutions 78.5% 78.4% 78.0% 78.4% All Institutions 76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.6%

Appendix Table 31 Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 79.6% 81.2% 81.6% 81.9% Doctoral/Research 64.8% 66.2% 68.6% 68.2% Master’s 77.8% 76.8% 75.8% 76.6% Special Focus 67.8% 64.5% 62.9% 62.7% All Institutions 76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.6%


Percent of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Aid (Continued) Appendix Table 32 Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2010 2011 2012 2013* 15,001 or more 57.7% 58.2% 60.2% 59.3% 8,001 to 15,000 62.7% 64.1% 68.2% 66.8% 4,001 to 8,000 71.0% 71.4% 72.3% 72.9% Less than 4,000 78.2% 78.7% 78.3% 78.7% All Institutions 76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.6%

Appendix Table 33 Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by Region Region 2010 2011 2012 2013* Far West 75.0% 76.4% 79.2% 78.9% Great Lakes 80.3% 78.7% 78.4% 78.1% Mid-East 73.6% 74.2% 76.0% 76.1% New England 70.9% 71.6% 70.8% 71.7% Plains 78.6% 79.3% 78.3% 80.0% Rocky Mountains 79.4% 83.7% 76.2% 77.3% Southeast 79.5% 76.9% 74.9% 75.6% Southwest 71.5% 76.0% 78.9% 79.3% All Institutions 76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.6%



Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees

Appendix Table 34Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 45.6% 45.6% 45.4% 46.2% 44.9% 41.9% 46.5% 45.9% 56.2% 43.3% 43.3% 46.8% 46.9% 47.6% Research 56.2% 57.3% 58.6% 58.4% 57.9% 57.5% 56.4% 56.7% 59.8% 61.7% 63.5% 66.2% 66.6% 66.8% Small Institutions 49.4% 49.3% 48.9% 48.0% 47.2% 47.7% 49.0% 48.9% 49.7% 48.0% 49.4% 51.0% 51.7% 53.1% All Institutions 49.6% 49.6% 49.3% 48.7% 48.0% 47.8% 49.3% 49.2% 51.4% 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.5%

Appendix Table 35 Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 51.0% 51.8% 51.3% 50.7% 49.5% 49.3% 50.7% 50.2% 51.7% 49.6% 52.0% 54.7% 54.4% 55.4% Doctoral/Research 54.4% 54.9% 54.4% 55.7% 55.5% 52.5% 54.2% 54.8% 55.7% 55.2% 56.9% 56.4% 57.7% 58.5% Master’s 45.9% 45.0% 45.5% 44.4% 43.9% 45.5% 46.6% 46.9% 52.5% 45.4% 46.0% 48.3% 48.5% 50.2% Special Focus 46.0% 43.7% 42.9% 43.4% 45.3% 36.2% 40.1% 39.6% 34.4% 41.6% 36.8% 37.7% 44.7% 45.0% All Institutions 49.6% 49.6% 49.3% 48.7% 48.0% 47.8% 49.3% 49.2% 51.4% 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.5%


Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees (Continued) Appendix Table 36 Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013*, by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 15,001 or more 55.0% 60.4% 67.1% 68.2% 65.4% 8,001 to 15,000 57.3% 55.0% 57.3% 53.9% 56.8% 4,001 to 8,000 46.6% 49.0% 48.5% 50.6% 50.7% Less than 4,000 48.1% 49.3% 51.4% 51.8% 53.3% All Institutions 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.5%

Appendix Table 37 Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2000 to 2013*, by Region Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Far West 54.9% 54.8% 56.3% 52.4% 49.9% 48.3% 51.8% 49.8% 64.6% 47.8% 50.9% 47.5% 47.6% 46.8% Great Lakes 46.0% 46.7% 45.6% 45.8% 44.8% 44.8% 46.3% 45.4% 47.1% 48.4% 48.7% 53.3% 53.4% 54.0% Mid-East 50.1% 48.8% 48.8% 48.4% 47.8% 46.9% 46.3% 47.6% 50.5% 48.5% 51.2% 51.8% 52.0% 54.5% New England 54.7% 54.6% 55.5% 54.0% 52.9% 55.6% 55.8% 56.3% 54.6% 52.3% 52.6% 55.6% 57.0% 57.3% Plains 47.6% 47.7% 48.1% 48.2% 46.9% 46.6% 51.9% 51.0% 46.3% 46.5% 47.2% 52.8% 51.8% 52.8% Rocky Mountains 50.6% 49.8% 50.0% 51.4% 54.1% 53.2% 54.8% 54.4% 38.8% 53.1% 52.6% 53.4% 54.2% 55.6% Southeast 47.1% 49.9% 47.9% 49.0% 49.7% 49.8% 50.2% 49.9% 53.8% 48.4% 49.2% 49.9% 51.9% 53.1% Southwest 45.2% 43.5% 41.5% 39.9% 40.5% 38.9% 46.3% 47.0% 46.6% 45.0% 42.4% 50.0% 48.4% 51.7% All Institutions 49.6% 49.6% 49.3% 48.7% 48.0% 47.8% 49.3% 49.2% 51.4% 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.5%



Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees (Continued)

Appendix Table 38 Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013, by Endowment Level

FY13 Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012 Over $1 billion 75.8% 74.0% 74.8% 73.3% $500 million to $1 billion 58.4% 60.5% 62.5% 64.9% $100 million to $500 million 52.4% 52.8% 51.2% 52.4% $50 million to $100 million 48.0% 49.6% 49.8% 49.9% $25 million to $50 million 46.1% 46.8% 48.5% 48.4% $25 million or less 43.5% 44.8% 48.0% 47.1% Unknown Endowment Level 42.2% 42.7% 48.8% n/a All Institutions 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3%


Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees

Appendix Table 39 Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 29.3% 38.8% 42.5% 42.8% 42.4% Research 34.3% 60.5% 62.2% 62.3% 63.4% Small Institutions 34.2% 43.8% 45.6% 46.5% 47.3% All Institutions 33.5% 44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.9%

Appendix Table 40 Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 36.4% 47.1% 49.9% 49.3% 50.3% Doctoral/Research 31.7% 52.4% 52.0% 53.2% 53.7% Master’s 31.5% 39.2% 43.2% 43.7% 44.4% Special Focus 27.6% 34.9% 29.6% 39.9% 38.6% All Institutions 33.5% 44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.9%


Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees (Continued) Appendix Table 41 Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* 15,001 or more 26.5% 54.6% 60.8% 61.8% 60.0% 8,001 to 15,000 31.5% 53.0% 54.5% 52.0% 53.5% 4,001 to 8,000 31.5% 44.4% 44.0% 45.7% 45.5% Less than 4,000 34.1% 43.8% 46.0% 46.6% 47.5% All Institutions 33.5% 44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.9%

Appendix Table 42 Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by Region Region 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Far West 32.0% 44.9% 44.8% 42.5% 42.7% Great Lakes 35.7% 42.7% 45.6% 44.6% 45.0% Mid-East 31.5% 45.5% 46.9% 47.8% 49.0% New England 32.9% 47.7% 50.9% 52.7% 52.5% Plains 35.2% 41.9% 44.4% 46.0% 46.5% Rocky Mountains 39.3% 49.7% 47.9% 53.1% 54.2% Southeast 35.2% 44.6% 46.1% 48.5% 49.5% Southwest 29.9% 39.5% 47.9% 46.2% 47.3% All Institutions 33.5% 44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.9%


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full-Time Freshman

Appendix Table 43 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full-Time Freshman at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2013, by NACUBO Constituent Group

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Estimate Percent Change

2003-2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $20,972 $22,316 $23,295 $24,972 $26,547 $26,634 $27,947 $30,747 $32,493 $32,957 $34,144 62.8% Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $7,221 $7,664 $7,530 $8,530 $9,220 $9,889 $10,502 $11,434 $12,582 $13,312 $14,053 94.6% Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $13,751 $14,652 $15,765 $16,442 $17,326 $16,745 $17,444 $19,402 $19,636 $19,545 $20,058 45.9% Research Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $26,822 $27,705 $29,475 $31,507 $33,219 $34,953 $36,482 $38,185 $38,784 $40,879 $42,348 57.9% Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $9,236 $9,505 $10,178 $10,562 $11,144 $12,977 $14,006 $14,721 $15,958 $17,449 $17,664 91.3% Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $17,586 $18,200 $19,297 $20,946 $22,075 $21,976 $22,477 $23,464 $23,359 $23,321 $24,519 39.4% Small Institutions Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $19,887 $21,007 $21,770 $23,096 $24,522 $24,939 $25,904 $27,360 $28,024 $29,989 $31,074 56.3% Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $7,679 $8,134 $8,515 $9,113 $9,786 $10,393 $11,103 $12,046 $12,841 $14,212 $15,239 98.5% Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $12,208 $12,873 $13,255 $13,983 $14,736 $14,620 $14,863 $15,541 $15,327 $16,055 $16,122 32.1% Total Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $20,690 $21,834 $22,592 $24,046 $25,516 $26,075 $26,980 $28,629 $29,586 $31,319 $32,451 56.8% Total Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $7,759 $8,205 $8,526 $9,155 $9,822 $10,586 $11,249 $12,182 $13,078 $14,366 $15,272 96.8% Total Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $12,931 $13,629 $14,066 $14,891 $15,694 $15,561 $15,808 $16,664 $16,618 $17,182 $17,363 34.3%


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full-Time Freshman (Continued) Appendix Table 44 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full-Time Freshman at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2002 to 2013*, by NACUBO Constituent Group (Alternative View) NACUBO Constituent Group

Average Gross

Tuition for Freshmen Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen

Average Net Tuition for Freshmen

Comprehensive/Doctoral 2003 $20,972 $7,221 $13,751 2004 $22,316 $7,664 $14,652 2005 $23,295 $7,530 $15,765 2006 $24,972 $8,530 $16,442 2007 $26,547 $9,220 $17,326 2008 $26,634 $9,889 $16,745 2009 $27,947 $10,502 $17,444 2010 $30,747 $11,434 $19,402 2011 $32,493 $12,582 $19,636 2012 $32,957 $13,312 $19,545

2013* $34,144 $14,053 $20,058 Research

2003 $26,822 $9,236 $17,586 2004 $27,705 $9,505 $18,200 2005 $29,475 $10,178 $19,297 2006 $31,507 $10,562 $20,946


2007 $33,219 $11,144 $22,075 2008 $34,953 $12,977 $21,976 2009 $36,482 $14,006 $22,477 2010 $38,185 $14,721 $23,464 2011 $38,784 $15,958 $23,359 2012 $40,879 $17,449 $23,321

2013* $42,348 $17,664 $24,519 Small Institutions

2003 $19,887 $7,679 $12,208 2004 $21,007 $8,134 $12,873 2005 $21,770 $8,515 $13,255 2006 $23,096 $9,113 $13,983 2007 $24,522 $9,786 $14,736 2008 $24,939 $10,393 $14,620 2009 $25,904 $11,103 $14,863 2010 $27,360 $12,046 $15,541 2011 $28,024 $12,841 $15,327 2012 $29,989 $14,212 $16,055

2013* $31,074 $15,239 $16,122 All Institutions $27,249 $11,462 $15,812


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen (Continued) Appendix Table 45 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full-Time Freshman at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2013, by Carnegie Classification

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Estimate Percent

Change 2003-2013* Baccalaureate

Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $20,894 $22,155 $22,699 $24,127 $25,558 $26,268 $27,213 $28,624 $29,580 $31,594 $32,724 56.6% Average Institutional Grant for

Freshmen $8,198 $8,632 $8,856 $9,474 $10,022 $11,009 $11,722 $12,700 $13,904 $15,291 $16,339 99.3% Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $12,697 $13,523 $13,843 $14,653 $15,537 $15,329 $15,443 $16,114 $15,524 $16,447 $16,540 30.3%

Doctoral/Research Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $25,455 $26,556 $28,430 $30,020 $31,706 $32,227 $32,898 $34,381 $35,049 $37,073 $38,484 51.2% Average Institutional Grant for


Master's Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $18,903 $19,943 $20,941 $22,257 $23,736 $24,032 $24,964 $26,794 $27,805 $29,197 $30,197 59.7% Average Institutional Grant for


Special Focus Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $20,850 $22,139 $19,514 $20,655 $21,830 $21,275 $23,812 $25,842 $25,635 $27,390 $28,574 37.0% Average Institutional Grant for


Total Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $20,690 $21,834 $22,592 $24,046 $25,516 $26,075 $26,980 $28,629 $29,586 $31,319 $32,451 56.8% Total Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $7,759 $8,205 $8,526 $9,155 $9,822 $10,586 $11,249 $12,182 $13,078 $14,366 $15,272 96.8% Total Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $12,931 $13,629 $14,066 $14,891 $15,694 $15,561 $15,808 $16,664 $16,618 $17,182 $17,363 34.3%


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per Undergraduate

Appendix Table 46 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per Undergraduate Student at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by NACUBO Constituent Group

2010 2011 2012 2013* Estimate Percent

Change 2003-2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral

Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $30,747 $32,493 $32,957 $34,144 11.0% Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $9,241 $10,111 $10,651 $11,112 20.2% Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $21,945 $22,107 $22,306 $22,999 4.8%

Research Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $38,185 $38,784 $40,879 $42,348 10.9% Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $13,503 $14,394 $15,508 $15,820 17.2% Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $24,682 $24,923 $25,262 $26,364 6.8%

Small Institutions Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $27,360 $28,024 $29,989 $31,074 13.6% Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $9,864 $10,352 $11,338 $11,971 21.4% Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $17,919 $17,674 $18,666 $19,125 6.7%

Total Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $28,629 $29,586 $31,319 $32,451 13.4% Total Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $10,072 $10,667 $11,594 $12,161 20.7% Total Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $18,976 $18,893 $19,737 $20,233 6.6%


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per Undergraduate (Continued) Appendix Table 47 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per Undergraduate Student at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2013*, by Carnegie Classification

2010 2011 2012 2013* Estimate Percent

Change 2003-2013* Baccalaureate

Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $28,624 $29,580 $31,594 $32,724 14.3% Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $10,846 $11,832 $12,970 $13,592 25.3% Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $18,202 $17,609 $18,625 $19,134 5.1%

Doctoral/Research Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $34,381 $35,049 $37,073 $38,484 11.9% Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $11,449 $11,853 $13,077 $13,462 17.6% Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $22,932 $23,284 $23,874 $24,740 7.9%

Master's Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $26,794 $27,805 $29,197 $30,197 12.7% Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $8,755 $9,478 $9,942 $10,559 20.6% Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $18,535 $18,499 $19,331 $19,674 6.1%

Special Focus Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $25,842 $25,635 $27,390 $28,574 10.6% Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $8,413 $6,377 $8,144 $8,631 2.6% Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $17,972 $18,780 $19,246 $19,943 11.0%

Total Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $28,629 $29,586 $31,319 $32,451 13.4% Total Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $10,072 $10,667 $11,594 $12,161 20.7% Total Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $18,976 $18,893 $19,737 $20,233 6.6%


Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment Appendix Table 48 Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009-2012, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification


(FY10) Academic Year 2010-11


(FY12) Academic Year 2012-

13 (FY13) Baccalaureate 11.2% 11.5% 11.3% 10.6% Doctoral/Research 12.2% 17.3% 15.3% 14.7% Master’s 6.3% 6.1% 4.9% 7.4% Special Focus 13.4% 13.3% 21.5% 17.5% All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5%

Appendix Table 49 Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009-2012, by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size




(FY12) Academic Year 2012-

13 (FY13) 15,001 or more 7.3% 14.5% 18.8% 18.2% 8,001 to 15,000 7.6% 15.0% 14.9% 13.2% 4,001 to 8,000 7.4% 11.6% 6.2% 7.6% Less than 4,000 10.2% 10.1% 10.6% 10.5% All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5%


Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment (Continued) Appendix Table 50 Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009-2012, by Endowment Level

Number of Participating Institutions Percentage of Grant Aid Funded by Endowment Earnings

Academic Year 2009-10 (FY10) Over $1 billion 16 22.6% $500 million to $1 billion 20 24.2% $100 million to $500 million 80 13.2% $50 million to $100 million 70 7.2% $25 million to $50 million 48 7.9% $25 million or less 44 3.7% Unknown Endowment Level 102 7.2%

Academic Year 2010-11 (FY11) Over $1 billion 22 33.9% $500 million to $1 billion 19 23.2% $100 million to $500 million 82 13.0% $50 million to $100 million 62 7.8% $25 million to $50 million 39 9.4% $25 million or less 27 3.8% Unknown Endowment Level 103 5.5%


Academic Year 2011-12 (FY12) Over $1 billion 22 32.5% $500 million to $1 billion 22 21.6% $100 million to $500 million 86 9.8% $50 million to $100 million 70 9.0% $25 million to $50 million 61 7.0% $25 million or less 92 6.2% Unknown Endowment Level

Academic Year 2012-13 (FY13) Over $1 billion 27 28.9% $500 million to $1 billion 19 18.5% $100 million to $500 million 111 11.0% $50 million to $100 million 70 9.3% $25 million to $50 million 62 6.0% $25 million or less 89 6.8%

All Institutions 1465 10.3%


Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment (Continued)

Appendix Table 51 Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009-2012, by Endowment Level (Alternative View) FY13 Endowment Level

Academic Year 2009-10 (FY10)




Over $1 billion 22.6% 33.9% 32.5% 28.9% $500 million to $1 billion 24.2% 23.2% 21.6% 18.5% $100 million to $500 million 13.2% 13.0% 9.8% 11.0% $50 million to $100 million 7.2% 7.8% 9.0% 9.3% $25 million to $50 million 7.9% 9.4% 7.0% 6.0% $25 million or less 3.7% 3.8% 6.2% 6.8% Unknown Endowment Level 7.2% 5.5% n/a n/a All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5%


Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Financial Need

Appendix Table 52 Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Students’ Financial Need at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009-2012, by Endowment Level FY13 Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of Participating Institutions

Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total


Awarded that Met Students'

Financial Need


Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total



Over $1 billion 11 83.3% 22 88.4% 20 90.6% 20 84.1% $500 million to $1 billion 16 69.9% 16 83.3% 16 75.9% 9 86.2% $100 million to $500 million 58 74.2% 74 78.0% 76 74.5% 73 80.2% $50 million to $100 million 48 73.2% 47 73.2% 53 73.2% 43 77.5% $25 million to $50 million 37 70.7% 33 68.5% 44 67.0% 29 79.2% $25 million or less 30 70.5% 16 65.1% 53 62.2% 50 81.5% Unknown Endowment Level 69 67.1% 72 64.7% 11 78.8% n/a n/a All Institutions 269 71.4% 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4%


Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Financial Need (Continued) Appendix Table 53 Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Students’ Financial Need at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009-2012, by Constituent Group

NACUBO Constituent Group 2009 2010 2011 2012


Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total



Comprehensive/Doctoral 38 72.8% 39 68.7% 39 67.2% 37 75.9% Research 21 74.2% 24 82.3% 24 84.0% 20 85.3% Small Institutions 210 70.9% 217 72.8% 210 71.7% 167 80.9% All Institutions 269 71.4% 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4%


Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Financial Need (Continued)

Appendix Table 54 Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Students’ Financial Need at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009-2012, by Enrollment Size

Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012


Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total



15,001 or more 3 88.0% 5 87.5% 8 88.2% 8 90.2% 8,001 to 15,000 12 71.6% 13 80.1% 16 82.3% 13 76.2% 4,001 to 8,000 40 72.3% 38 71.8% 45 67.0% 38 76.1% Less than 4,000 214 71.0% 224 72.5% 204 71.8% 165 81.3% All Institutions 269 71.4% 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4%


Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Financial Need (Continued)

Appendix Table 55 Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Students’ Financial Need at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010-2011, by Region

Region 2009 2010 2011 2012


Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total



Far West 32 75.7% 32 75.3% 36 74.6% 30 76.4% Great Lakes 40 74.1% 49 71.8% 42 72.5% 39 77.8% Mid East 69 67.8% 63 78.2% 62 69.6% 60 84.3% New England 31 71.0% 37 78.4% 33 77.3% 32 85.2% Plains 28 64.3% 30 70.4% 25 75.4% 13 83.0% Rocky Mountains 3 57.9% 5 73.2% 6 77.3% 5 79.1% Southeast 49 78.9% 52 64.7% 51 67.3% 33 77.1% Southwest 17 65.3% 12 70.7% 18 72.6% 12 73.9% All Institutions 269 71.4% 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4%


Selected Demographics

Appendix Table 56 Selected Statistics for Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey by Endowment Level


Average Tuition

Discount for FT*

Freshmen

Average Tuition Discount Rate

for All Undergraduates

Percentage of FT

Freshmen Receiving

Institutional Grants

Average Institutional Grant for FT Freshmen as a Percentage

of Tuition and Fees

Average Gross

Tuition per FT

Freshman

Average Financial

Aid per FT Freshman

Average Net

Tuition per FT

Freshman Over $1 billion 28 43.0% 41.9% 60.0% 73.3% $41,584 $17,809 $23,775 $500 million to $1 billion 20 44.3% 42.3% 71.3% 64.9% $42,029 $18,513 $23,387 $100 million to $500 million 116 45.1% 41.7% 86.9% 52.4% $35,339 $16,063 $19,178 $50 million to $100 million 74 45.5% 40.6% 92.8% 49.9% $29,771 $13,970 $15,967 $25 million to $50 million 66 46.5% 40.9% 95.5% 48.4% $28,458 $13,551 $15,069 $25 million or less 97 43.0% 36.7% 91.8% 47.1% $24,469 $11,050 $13,609 All Institutions 401 44.8% 40.2% 87.7% 52.3% $31,319 $14,366 $17,182 *FT Freshmen refers to First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen


Selected Demographics (Continued) Appendix Table 57 Selected Statistics at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey by Carnegie Classification


Average Tuition

Discount for FT*

Freshmen



Percentage of FT Freshmen

Receiving Institutional

Grants

Average Institutional Grant for FT

Freshmen as a Percentage of

Tuition and Fees

Average Gross

Tuition per FT

Freshman

Average Financial Aid

per FT Freshman

Average Net

Tuition per FT

Freshman Baccalaureate 171 47.8% 44.0% 89.4% 54.4% $31,594 $15,291 $16,447 Doctoral/Research 62 42.0% 38.8% 77.2% 57.7% $37,073 $15,856 $21,457 Master’s 142 44.8% 38.9% 91.7% 48.5% $29,197 $13,375 $16,014 Special Focus 26 31.2% 25.7% 79.4% 44.7% $27,390 $9,953 $18,180 All Institutions 401 44.8% 40.2% 87.7% 52.3% $31,319 $14,366 $17,182 *FT Freshmen refers to First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen


Selected Demographics (Continued)

Appendix Table 58 Selected Statistics at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey by Region


Average Tuition

Discount for FT*

Freshmen





Grants



Tuition and Fees

Average Gross

Tuition per FT

Freshman


per FT Freshman

Average Net

Tuition per FT

Freshman Far West 45 38.6% 34.9% 85.3% 47.6% $34,084 $13,498 $20,966 Great Lakes 72 48.9% 41.9% 92.2% 53.4% $28,826 $14,688 $14,583 Mid-East 96 45.4% 40.0% 89.8% 52.0% $33,429 $15,671 $17,817 New England 57 42.3% 39.4% 78.4% 57.0% $35,421 $14,921 $20,715 Plains 38 48.1% 42.8% 92.8% 51.8% $28,372 $14,130 $14,620 Rocky Mountains 7 45.0% 41.9% 80.7% 54.2% $30,089 $13,147 $17,345 Southeast 67 44.6% 40.9% 87.0% 51.9% $28,308 $13,258 $15,346 Southwest 19 42.0% 41.4% 87.4% 48.4% $28,225 $11,919 $16,306 All Institutions 401 44.8% 40.2% 87.7% 52.3% $31,319 $14,366 $17,182 *FT Freshmen refers to First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Far West: AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA Great Lakes: IL, IN, MI, OH, WI Mid-East: DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA, NY New England: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT Plains: IA, KS, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD Rocky Mountains: CO, ID, MT, UT, WY Southeast: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV Southwest: AZ, NM, OK, TX



Appendix Table 59 Selected Statistics at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey by Women’s Colleges


Average Tuition

Discount for FT*

Freshmen





Grants



Tuition and Fees

Average Gross

Tuition per FT

Freshman


per FT Freshman

Average Net

Tuition per FT

Freshman Women's Colleges 26 50.3% 39.3% 92.6% 53.3% $30,857 $15,724 $14,894 Co-Ed Institutions 375 44.4% 40.3% 87.4% 52.2% $31,351 $14,282 $17,322 All Institutions 401 44.8% 40.2% 87.7% 52.3% $31,319 $14,366 $17,182 Appendix Table 60 Selected Statistics at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey by Religious Institutions


Average Tuition

Discount for FT*

Freshmen





Grants



Tuition and Fees

Average Gross

Tuition per FT

Freshman

Average Financial

Aid per FT Freshman

Average Net

Tuition per FT

Freshman Religious Institutions 223 46.0% 40.7% 92.1% 50.5% $29,360 $13,797 $15,725 Non-Religious Institutions 178 43.2% 39.6% 82.2% 54.6% $33,775 $15,083 $19,020 All Institutions 401 44.8% 40.2% 87.7% 52.3% $31,319 $14,366 $17,182 *FT Freshmen refers to First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen



Appendix Table 61 Selected Statistics at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2013 Tuition Discounting Survey by Moody’s Outlook


Average Discount for FT*

Freshmen

Average Discount Rate


Percentage of FT

Freshmen Receiving

Institutional Grants

Average Institutional Grant

for FT Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees

Average Gross

Tuition per FT

Freshman

Average Financial Aid per

FT Freshman

Average Net

Tuition per FT

Freshman Superior 41 40.8% 39.2% 60.1% 69.7% $40,790 $16,823 $23,967 Good 74 43.3% 39.9% 83.8% 52.6% $36,954 $16,092 $20,665 Adequate 55 45.7% 40.9% 93.2% 49.0% $32,489 $14,963 $17,556 Speculative/Highly Speculative 4 54.5% 48.1% 89.6% 61.8% $33,653 $18,109 $15,544 Withdrawn 47 46.0% 40.7% 93.0% 48.7% $30,279 $14,465 $16,164 No Rating 180 45.5% 40.0% 93.0% 49.6% $26,708 $12,722 $14,239 All Institutions 401 44.8% 40.2% 87.7% 52.3% $31,319 $14,366 $17,182


Appendix C

Appendix C contains tables with data from two different subsets of NACUBO’s historical data. The first group comprises only those institutions that participated for 10 consecutive survey years, from 2003 to 2013. The second includes only those institutions that participated for three consecutive survey years (2010 to 2013). The 2013 data were collected in the 2013 study and are preliminary estimates. Percentage change figures that include the 2013 data should also be considered preliminary estimates. Data are organized by NACUBO constituent group. Definitions of the constituent groups appear in the Glossary.


Responding Institutions Appendix Table 60 Number of Institutions with Consecutive Participation in NACUBO’s Tuition Discounting Survey for 3 years and 10 years, by NACUBO Constituent Group

Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of

Data


Data Comprehensive/Doctoral 44 16 Research 24 8 Small Institutions 194 65 All Institutions 262 89

Appendix Table 61 Number of Institutions with Consecutive Participation in NACUBO’s Tuition Discounting Survey for 3 years and 10 years, by Carnegie Classification


Data


Data Baccalaureate 114 41 Doctoral/Research 47 13 Master’s 85 32 Special Focus 16 3 All Institutions 262 89


Average Cohort Enrollment: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen

Appendix Table 62 Average Cohort Enrollment of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group


2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*


Estimated 3 Year Percentage

Change 2011 to 2013*

Comprehensive/Doctoral 1101 1089 1123 1107 1115 1139 1191 1173 1216 1194 1251 13.6% 2.9% Research 1642 1630 1738 1724 1736 1765 1782 1808 1815 1815 1820 10.8% 0.3% Small Institutions 418 425 430 438 441 440 450 454 457 453 460 10.0% 0.6% All Institutions 651 653 672 674 679 687 703 705 715 708 721 10.8% 0.8%

Appendix Table 63 Average Cohort Enrollment of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey by Carnegie Classification *Carnegie Classification: Special Focus Institutions' Data has been hidden due to low N but is still included in the "All Institutions" average

Carnegie Classification

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*


Estimated 3 Year Percentage

Change 2011 to 2013*

Baccalaureate 419 433 435 436 439 433 450 453 452 441 457 9.0% 1.2% Doctoral/Research 1531 1506 1591 1593 1589 1631 1637 1661 1686 1677 1697 10.8% 0.7% Master’s 608 606 623 625 636 649 671 662 679 678 678 11.6% -0.1% Special Focus 449 466 451 477 473 472 458 463 496 491 453 1.0% -8.7% All Institutions 651 653 672 674 679 687 703 705 715 708 721 10.8% 0.8%


Average Cohort Enrollment: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen (Continued) Appendix Table 64 Average Cohort Enrollment of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group


2010 2011 2012 2013* Estimated Percentage Change 2010 to 2013*

Comprehensive/Doctoral 1140 1071 1152 1185 3.9% Research 1739 1695 1669 1695 -2.5% Small Institutions 407 408 407 407 0.1% All Institutions 605 614 616 620 2.5%

Appendix Table 65 Average Cohort Enrollment of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by Carnegie Classification

Carnegie Classification

2010 2011 2012 2013* Estimated Percentage Change 2010 to 2013*

Baccalaureate 415 398 409 413 -0.6% Doctoral/Research 1430 1372 1400 1409 -1.4% Master’s 589 594 597 601 2.0% Special Focus 260 268 212 199 -23.8% All Institutions 605 614 616 620 2.5%


Average Tuition Discount Percentages: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Appendix Table 66 Average Tuition Discounting Percentages for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group

NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Comprehensive/Doctoral 34.7% 34.3% 33.3% 33.8% 34.1% 37.1% 36.4% 37.5% 39.6% 39.2% 41.7%

Research 33.1% 35.2% 34.3% 33.6% 33.9% 37.3% 39.3% 39.6% 39.7% 39.9% 40.1%

Small Institutions 40.0% 39.4% 39.8% 40.5% 40.9% 41.5% 44.8% 44.9% 45.6% 46.8% 48.2%

All Institutions 38.4% 38.1% 38.2% 38.7% 39.0% 40.3% 42.8% 43.1% 44.0% 44.8% 46.3% Appendix Table 67 Average Tuition Discounting Percentages for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by Carnegie Classification *Carnegie Classification: Special Focus Institutions’ Data has been hidden due to low N but is still included in the “All Institutions” average Carnegie Classification 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 39.5% 38.7% 38.8% 39.5% 39.9% 40.6% 44.1% 43.8% 44.2% 45.9% 47.0% Doctoral/Research 32.1% 33.7% 32.1% 32.0% 32.9% 35.9% 37.5% 38.1% 39.1% 38.0% 38.5% Master’s 39.6% 39.0% 39.8% 40.4% 40.6% 41.8% 43.3% 44.4% 45.5% 45.7% 48.8% Special Focus 38.2% 40.0% 38.3% 36.8% 37.5% 40.1% 42.0% 41.9% 45.3% 49.2% 45.4% All Institutions 38.4% 38.1% 38.2% 38.7% 39.0% 40.3% 42.8% 43.1% 44.0% 44.8% 46.3%


Average Tuition Discount Percentages: First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen (Continued) Appendix Table 68 Average Tuition Discounting Percentages for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 36.0% 38.8% 39.2% 40.5% Research 38.8% 40.9% 43.0% 42.1% Small Institutions 43.3% 45.6% 46.0% 47.9% All Institutions 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4%

Appendix Table 69 Average Tuition Discounting Percentages for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 43.9% 48.0% 47.8% 49.4% Doctoral/Research 39.7% 39.9% 42.0% 42.3% Master’s 42.4% 44.5% 44.8% 47.0% Special Focus 31.0% 28.1% 31.2% 32.6% All Institutions 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4%


Average Tuition Discount Percentages: All Undergraduates

Appendix Table 70 Average Tuition Discounting Percentages for All Undergraduates at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 28.4% 27.8% 27.8% 45.8% 29.4% 32.8% 30.6% 32.1% 34.4% 34.4% 35.5% Research 31.3% 32.8% 33.1% 30.9% 31.8% 49.2% 37.8% 39.1% 39.2% 39.0% 39.2% Small Institutions 34.5% 34.5% 34.9% 35.8% 36.0% 36.3% 38.4% 39.0% 40.0% 41.7% 42.5% All Institutions 33.1% 33.2% 33.5% 37.2% 34.4% 36.8% 36.9% 37.9% 38.9% 40.1% 41.0%

Appendix Table 71 Average Tuition Discounting Percentages for All Undergraduates at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by Carnegie Classification *Carnegie Classification: Special Focus Institutions’ Data has been hidden due to low N but is still included in the “All Institutions” average Carnegie Classification 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 35.9% 36.0% 35.9% 36.6% 36.8% 37.1% 40.1% 40.5% 40.9% 42.8% 43.3% Doctoral/Research 28.2% 29.7% 29.7% 29.2% 29.8% 41.2% 34.5% 34.8% 35.4% 35.2% 35.5% Master’s 31.3% 31.0% 31.9% 41.6% 33.6% 34.8% 34.0% 36.2% 38.2% 38.9% 40.4% Special Focus 33.5% 31.8% 33.0% 31.7% 32.1% 34.0% 35.5% 34.9% 31.6% 40.4% 41.3% All Institutions 33.1% 33.2% 33.5% 37.2% 34.4% 36.8% 36.9% 37.9% 38.9% 40.1% 41.0%


Average Tuition Discount Percentages: All Undergraduates (Continued) Appendix Table 72 Average Tuition Discounting Percentages for All Undergraduates at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 30.3% 33.6% 35.1% 36.2% Research 37.5% 38.5% 40.3% 39.7% Small Institutions 37.3% 39.5% 41.1% 41.8% All Institutions 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 40.9%

Appendix Table 73 Average Tuition Discounting Percentages for All Undergraduates at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey by, Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 39.2% 43.4% 44.0% 44.6% Doctoral/Research 35.2% 35.7% 38.8% 39.1% Master’s 34.7% 37.3% 38.9% 40.0% Special Focus 27.2% 22.1% 25.7% 26.4% All Institutions 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 40.9%


Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants Appendix Table 74 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 76.0% 76.4% 77.2% 74.2% 74.0% 80.0% 83.1% 81.0% 84.3% 83.0% 84.6% Research 54.7% 54.0% 53.9% 55.4% 54.8% 55.0% 57.9% 59.5% 58.2% 58.1% 57.1% Small Institutions 82.6% 82.9% 83.4% 83.5% 84.1% 84.8% 86.5% 85.9% 87.2% 88.1% 90.6% All Institutions 78.9% 79.1% 79.6% 79.3% 79.6% 81.2% 83.3% 82.7% 84.0% 84.3% 84.9%

Appendix Table 75 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by Carnegie Classification *Carnegie Classification: Special Focus Institutions’ Data has been hidden due to low N but is still included in the “All Institutions” average Carnegie Classification 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 79.7% 80.1% 80.5% 80.7% 80.9% 80.7% 83.5% 83.5% 84.2% 85.6% 87.1% Doctoral/Research 59.4% 59.9% 60.2% 57.6% 58.1% 60.3% 65.7% 64.8% 65.9% 64.8% 63.8% Master’s 85.8% 85.3% 86.3% 86.2% 86.8% 90.0% 90.4% 89.3% 91.5% 91.5% 92.6% Special Focus 79.8% 82.8% 81.6% 79.2% 79.7% 81.2% 82.8% 80.3% 72.1% 79.6% 98.6% All Institutions 78.9% 79.1% 79.6% 79.3% 79.6% 81.2% 83.3% 82.7% 84.0% 84.3% 84.9%


Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants (Continued)

Appendix Table 76 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 81.9% 83.2% 86.3% 87.3% Research 63.8% 67.4% 68.7% 67.1% Small Institutions 88.6% 89.5% 90.1% 93.7% All Institutions 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.9%

Appendix Table 77 Percentage of First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 86.0% 87.8% 89.4% 91.6% Doctoral/Research 73.1% 76.3% 77.2% 74.8% Master’s 91.5% 91.8% 91.7% 93.8% Special Focus 80.8% 76.3% 79.4% 98.8% All Institutions 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.9%


Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees Appendix Table 78 Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 46.1% 45.6% 43.9% 48.2% 48.9% 47.4% 44.9% 47.6% 47.3% 47.6% 49.5% Research 62.8% 66.3% 65.2% 62.9% 64.0% 69.6% 70.3% 69.2% 71.0% 71.4% 73.6% Small Institutions 49.7% 48.6% 49.0% 49.8% 50.1% 51.0% 53.4% 53.5% 53.4% 54.0% 55.2% All Institutions 50.2% 49.6% 49.5% 50.7% 51.1% 52.1% 53.4% 54.0% 54.0% 54.4% 56.0%

Appendix Table 79 Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by Carnegie Classification *Carnegie Classification: Special Focus Institutions’ Data has been hidden due to low N but is still included in the “All Institutions” average Carnegie Classification 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 51.1% 49.5% 49.7% 50.6% 51.1% 52.8% 54.9% 54.6% 54.1% 55.2% 55.9% Doctoral/Research 56.6% 58.6% 56.2% 60.3% 61.5% 62.7% 61.0% 61.4% 62.9% 61.9% 64.0% Master’s 46.5% 46.0% 46.5% 47.0% 46.9% 46.8% 48.5% 50.1% 49.8% 49.4% 52.3% Special Focus 50.4% 51.8% 50.6% 49.7% 50.9% 52.5% 53.0% 54.4% 64.7% 64.4% 58.6% All Institutions 50.2% 49.6% 49.5% 50.7% 51.1% 52.1% 53.4% 54.0% 54.0% 54.4% 56.0%


Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees (Continued)

Appendix Table 80 Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2010 2011 2012 2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral 43.3% 46.8% 46.9% 47.6% Research 63.5% 66.2% 66.6% 66.8% Small Institutions 49.4% 51.0% 51.7% 53.1% All Institutions 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.5%

Appendix Table 81 Average Institutional Grant for First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2010 2011 2012 2013* Baccalaureate 52.0% 54.7% 54.4% 55.4% Doctoral/Research 56.9% 56.4% 57.7% 58.5% Master’s 46.0% 48.3% 48.5% 50.2% Special Focus 36.8% 37.7% 44.7% 45.0% All Institutions 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.5%


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full-Time Freshman

Appendix Table 82 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full-Time Freshman at Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013*

Estimate Percent Change 2003-2013*

Comprehensive/Doctoral

Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $21,592 $22,973 $24,748 $26,597 $28,287 $29,915 $31,309 $32,958 $34,262 $35,688 $36,944 71.1%

Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $7,522 $7,930 $8,305 $9,037 $9,678 $11,103 $11,506 $12,840 $13,402 $14,034 $15,201 102.1%

Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $14,070 $15,043 $16,442 $17,560 $18,609 $18,812 $19,803 $20,590 $20,516 $21,654 $21,323 51.5% Research


Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $8,952 $9,979 $10,292 $10,769 $11,392 $13,088 $14,251 $14,948 $15,454 $16,122 $16,832 88.0%

Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $18,234 $18,680 $20,020 $21,426 $22,359 $22,266 $22,379 $23,080 $23,875 $24,666 $25,524 40.0% Small Institutions


Average Institutional $8,278 $8,714 $9,400 $10,070 $10,816 $11,653 $12,941 $13,793 $14,430 $15,508 $16,538 99.8%


Grant for Freshmen

Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $12,747 $13,838 $14,522 $15,242 $16,018 $16,652 $16,589 $17,202 $17,614 $17,978 $18,136 42.3% Total Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $21,680 $23,177 $24,644 $26,161 $27,717 $29,174 $30,488 $31,880 $33,112 $34,563 $35,857 65.4% Total Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $8,202 $8,687 $9,283 $9,947 $10,663 $11,684 $12,801 $13,745 $14,346 $15,293 $16,332 99.1% Total Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $13,478 $14,490 $15,361 $16,214 $17,054 $17,566 $17,687 $18,300 $18,703 $19,269 $19,379 43.8%


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full Time Freshman (Continued) Appendix Table 80 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-Time, Full-Time Freshman at Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Participation in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, by NACUBO Constituent Group

2010 2011 2012 2013*

Estimate Percent Change

2010-2013* Comprehensive/Doctoral

Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $30,747 $32,493 $32,957 $34,144 11.0% Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $11,434 $12,582 $13,312 $14,053 22.9% Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $19,402 $19,636 $19,545 $20,058 3.4%

Research Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $38,185 $38,784 $40,879 $42,348 10.9% Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $14,721 $15,958 $17,449 $17,664 20.0% Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $23,464 $23,359 $23,321 $24,519 4.5%

Small Institutions Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $27,360 $28,024 $29,989 $31,074 13.6% Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $12,046 $12,841 $14,212 $15,239 26.5% Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $15,541 $15,327 $16,055 $16,122 3.7%

Total Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $28,629 $29,586 $31,319 $32,451 13.4% Total Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $12,182 $13,078 $14,366 $15,272 25.4% Total Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $16,664 $16,618 $17,182 $17,363 4.2%


Participating Institutions

Institutions in bold have three or more years of consecutive participation in The NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study. Institutions that are in bold and underlined have 10 or more years of consecutive participation.

Comprehensive/Doctoral Institutions Abilene Christian University American University Ashland University Barry University Bentley University Biola University Bradley University Butler University Campbell University Chapman University Creighton University DePaul University Duquesne University Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Emerson College Fairfield University Franklin University Gonzaga University Hampton University Hofstra University Ithaca College Johnson & Wales University La Salle University Loyola Marymount University Loyola University Maryland Mercer University Monmouth University National Louis University

New York Institute of Technology Main Campus Pace University Pepperdine University Quinnipiac University Rider University Roger Williams University Sacred Heart University Samford University Santa Clara University Seattle University Seton Hall University Southern Methodist University Springfield College St. John's University Suffolk University Texas Christian University The College of Saint Rose The New School The University of Scranton University of Detroit Mercy University of Hartford University of La Verne University of Saint Thomas University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of Tampa Xavier University


Research Institutions Baylor University Boston College Boston University Brandeis University Brown University Case Western Reserve University Clarkson University Columbia University in the City of New York Dartmouth College Drexel University Emory University Florida Institute of Technology Fordham University Harvard University Johns Hopkins University Lehigh University Loyola University Chicago Marquette University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Northeastern University Princeton University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rice University Stanford University Stevens Institute of Technology Syracuse University Main Campus The Catholic University of America Tufts University Tulane University University of Denver University of Notre Dame University of Pennsylvania University of Tulsa Vanderbilt University


Small Institutions Agnes Scott College Albertus Magnus College Allegheny College Alma College Alverno College American Jewish University Anna Maria College Aquinas College Arcadia University Art Center College of Design Asbury University Augsburg College Augustana College Babson College Baldwin-Wallace University Bard College Bay Path College Belhaven University Bellarmine University Benedictine College Bethel College Bluefield College Bridgewater College Bryant University Buena Vista University Cabrini College Caldwell College California Lutheran University Calvin College Capital University Carleton College Carlow University Carroll College Carroll University Carthage College Cedar Crest College Centenary College Central Methodist University Centre College Charles R. Drew University of Medicine & Science Charleston Southern University

Chatham University Chowan University Clarke University Clarkson College Coe College Colgate University College of Mount Saint Vincent College of Saint Benedict College of Saint Elizabeth College of the Holy Cross Colorado Christian University Colorado College Columbia College Concordia College-Moorhead Concordia University Connecticut College Converse College Cooper Union Cottey College Curry College Davidson College Dean College Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture Denison University DeSales University Dickinson College Dillard University Doane College Dominican University Dominican University of California Dordt College Drew University Drury University East Texas Baptist University Eastern Mennonite University Edward Waters College Elizabethtown College Elmira College Elms College Endicott College Eureka College


Flagler College Florida Southern College Franciscan University of Steubenville Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering Freed-Hardeman University Friends University Furman University Gallaudet University Gannon University Geneva College George Fox University Georgian Court University Gettysburg College Golden Gate University Gordon College Goshen College Grand View University Grinnell College Guilford College Gwynedd-Mercy College Hamline University Hampden-Sydney College Hampshire College Hanover College Hardin-Simmons University Hartwick College Hendrix College Hesston College Hilbert College Hobart and William Smith Colleges Hollins University Holy Family University Hood College Hope College Illinois Wesleyan University Indiana Institute of Technology Iona College Jamestown College Jewish Theological Seminary of America John Carroll University Juniata College Kalamazoo College Kentucky Wesleyan College

Kenyon College Keuka College Keystone College Knox College La Sierra University Laguna College of Art & Design Lake Erie College Lake Forest College Lasell College Le Moyne College Lebanon Valley College Lewis and Clark College Lewis University Limestone College Linfield College Loras College Lourdes University Loyola University New Orleans Lubbock Christian University Luther College Lynchburg College Macalester College MacMurray College Maine College of Art Malone University Manchester University Maria College Marietta College Marymount Manhattan College Marymount University Maryville College Maryville University Marywood University McDaniel College McKendree University Menlo College Meredith College Merrimack College Messiah College Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary Middlebury College Milligan College Millikin University


Mills College Misericordia University Mitchell College Mount Holyoke College Mount Ida College Mount Marty College Mount Saint Mary College Mount Saint Mary's University Muhlenberg College Muskingum University Naropa University Nazareth College of Rochester Neumann University New England College North Central College Northwood University, Michigan Campus Notre Dame of Maryland University Occidental College Ohio Northern University Ohio Wesleyan University Oklahoma Baptist University Oklahoma Christian University Olivet Nazarene University Oral Roberts University Otis College of Art and Design Our Lady of the Lake College Pacific Northwest College of Art Pacific Union College Pacific University Palm Beach Atlantic University Philadelphia University Pitzer College Point Loma Nazarene University Point Park University Quincy University Randolph-Macon College Reed College Regis College Rhode Island School of Design Rhodes College Ringling College of Art and Design Ripon College Roanoke College

Robert Morris University Roberts Wesleyan College Rockhurst University Rocky Mountain College Rollins College Sacred Heart Major Seminary and College and Theologate Saint Francis University Saint John's University Saint Joseph's College Saint Joseph's College of Maine Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College Saint Mary's College Saint Mary's College of California Saint Mary's University of Minnesota Saint Michael's College Saint Norbert College Saint Xavier University Salve Regina University San Francisco Art Institute San Francisco Conservatory of Music Sarah Lawrence College Scripps College Seattle Pacific University Shenandoah University Siena Heights University Sierra Nevada College Simmons College Simpson College Simpson University Smith College Southwest Baptist University Southwestern University Spalding University Spartanburg Methodist College Spelman College Spring Arbor University St. Catherine University St. Edwards University St. Josephs College New York St. Lawrence University St. Mary's University St. Olaf College


St. Thomas University Stephens College Stetson University Stonehill College Susquehanna University Sweet Briar College Tabor College Texas Lutheran University The College of Saint Scholastica The College of Wooster The Defiance College The King's College The Sage Colleges Thiel College Thomas College Tiffin University Trinity University Trinity Washington University Truett-McConnell College Union College University of Bridgeport University of Evansville University of Mobile University of Mount Union University of New England University of Portland University of Puget Sound University of Richmond University of Rio Grande University of Saint Joseph University of St. Francis University of St. Thomas University Of The Arts University of the Incarnate Word University of the Ozarks University of the Sciences Valparaiso University Vanguard University of Southern California Vassar College Walsh College of Accountancy and Business Administration Warner Pacific College Warren Wilson College

Washington and Jefferson College Washington and Lee University Wentworth Institute of Technology Western New England University Westminster College, Utah Wheaton College, IL Wheaton College, MA Wheelock College Whittier College Widener University Wilkes University Willamette University William Jessup University William Peace University Wilson College Wingate University Wofford College


Documents

THE 2013 NACUBO TUITION DISCOUNTING STUDY · 2014. 11. 3. · and universities that were members of NACUBO as of September 2013. The study reports discounting data for the 2012–13