NACUBO 2014 Report

The 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study

The 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study Page i

National Association of College and University Business Officers 1110 Vermont Ave., NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Copyright © 2015 National Association of College and University Business Officers.

The 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study Page ii

Foreword I am pleased to share the results of The 2014 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.

This year’s TDS was funded, in part, by a generous contribution from Hardwick Day. Much of the survey design and data analysis was completed by Natalie Pullaro Davis, formerly NACUBO’s manager of research and policy analysis.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the dedication of the various staff members at the 411 NACUBO institutions that participated in the 2014 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

The 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study Page iii

Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................................... ii Tables and Figures ......................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ vi Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Survey Participants ...................................................................................................................... 3 NACUBO Constituent Group Classification ................................................................................. 3

Growth in Average Tuition Discount Rates ..................................................................................... 4 Discount Rate by Constituent Group .......................................................................................... 5

Changes in Net Tuition Revenue ..................................................................................................... 6 Growth in Average Grant as a Share of the Tuition and Fee Price ................................................. 8 Institutional Grants Meeting Student Financial Need .................................................................. 11 Need-‐Based Institutional Grants Relative to Endowment Size ................................................. 13

Tuition Discounting and Endowments .......................................................................................... 14 Tuition Discounting and Institutional Admissions Selectivity ....................................................... 15 Changes in Undergraduate Enrollment ........................................................................................ 17 Explaining Enrollment Changes: Chief Business Officers’ Perceptions ..................................... 17

In Their Own Words ...................................................................................................................... 20 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Data Elements Provided by Participating Institutions .............................................................. 24 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 24 Calculations ............................................................................................................................... 26

References .................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 29 Survey Instrument ..................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix B .................................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................... 76 Participating Institutions ............................................................................................................... 90

The 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study Page iv

Tables and Figures Table 1—Number of Respondents to the 2014 Tuition Discounting Study, by NACUBO

Constituent Group .......................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 1—Average Tuition Discount Rate, by Student Category ................................................... 4

Figure 2—Average Tuition Discount Rate: First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen ................................... 5

by Constituent Group ..................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3—Average Annual Percentage Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Full-‐Time Freshman

in Current and Inflation-‐Adjusted* Value ....................................................................................... 6

Table 2—Average Annual Change (in Current Dollars) in Net Tuition Revenue per First-‐Time,

Full-‐Time Freshman, by NACUBO Constituent Group .................................................................... 7

Figure 4—Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Undergraduate in Current and Inflation-‐

Adjusted* Value ............................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 5—Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Who Received Institutional Grants and

the Average Institutional Grant as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees ............................................ 9

Figure 6—Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Who Received Institutional Grants, by

NACUBO Constituent Group ........................................................................................................... 9

Figure 7—Average Institutional Grant for First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Recipients as a

Percentage of Tuition and Fees by NACUBO Constituent Group ................................................. 10

Figure 8—Percentage of All Undergraduates Who Received Institutional Grants and the Average

Institutional Grant as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees ** ......................................................... 10

Figure 9—Average Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars Awarded in

Fall 2013, by Aid Category ............................................................................................................ 12

Table 3—Distribution of Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars in Fall 2013, by Aid Category

and NACUBO Constituent Group .................................................................................................. 12

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

Students’ Financial Need, by Total Endowment Level, 2009 to 2013 .......................................... 13

Table 5a—Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Endowment

Funds, by NACUBO Constituent Group ........................................................................................ 14

The 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study Page v

Table 5b—Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Grants Funded by Endowment

Funds, by Total Endowment Level ................................................................................................ 15

Table 6—Average Discount Rate in 2013, Institutional Grant Receipt, and Average Grant as a

Percentage of Tuition and Fees, by Admissions Acceptance Rate ............................................... 15

Table 7—Average Tuition and Fee “Sticker” Price in 2013, Institutional Grant, and Net Price by

Institutional Selectivity ................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 10—Percentage of Participating Institutions that Experienced a Decline or Maintained

Enrollment from Fall 2013 to Fall 2014 ........................................................................................ 17

Figure 11—Perceived Reasons for Loss of Enrollment at Institutions that have Lost Freshmen

Enrollment from AY2010-‐AY2013 ................................................................................................ 18

Figure 12—Perceived Reasons for Growth of Enrollment at Institutions That Have Increased

Freshmen Enrollment from AY2010-‐AY2013 ................................................................................ 19

The 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study Page vi

Executive Summary Many four-‐year private, nonprofit (independent) colleges and universities aim to increase their undergraduate enrollments by discounting tuition and fee charges. Discounting strategies are often used to attract or retain students who are unable or unwilling to pay the full tuition and fee “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 2014 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 2014 TDS are based on survey responses from 411 private, nonprofit four-‐year colleges and universities that were members of NACUBO as of September 2014.

The study reports discounting data for the 2013–14 academic year as of fall 2013 and preliminary estimates for the 2014–15 academic year as of fall 2014. Highlights include:

• The average tuition discount rate—defined as institutional grant dollars as a share of gross tuition and fee revenue—has risen over the last decade. In 2013, the average discount rate for first-‐time, full-‐time freshmen reached 46.4 percent and climbed to an estimated 48 percent in 2014, the highest level recorded in the history of the TDS project. The discount rate for all undergraduates rose to 41.6 percent, also an all-‐time high.

• While the average discount rate increased, not all schools followed suit; in fact, nearly 31 percent of TDS participants reduced or maintained a steady freshman discount rate from 2013 to 2014. However, the share of institutions that reported year-‐over-‐year declines in discount rates fell from 34.6 percent in 2012.

• Rising discount rates have led to a decrease in net tuition revenue. The average growth in net tuition revenue per student is expected to be just 0.4 percent in 2014. After adjusting average net tuition revenue dollars for inflation, institutions have seen, on average, no growth over the last 13 years.

• About 89 percent of first-‐time, full-‐time freshmen received institutional grants in 2014, compared with 88 percent in 2013 and 87.7 percent in 2012. The average grant award in 2014 covered 54.3 percent of tuition and fees, up from 53.1 percent in 2013 and 52.3 percent in 2012.

• In 2014 about 77 percent of all undergraduates received an institutional grant. The average grant to all students covered 48.9 percent of tuition and fees, up from 47.6 percent in 2013.

The 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study Page vii

• On average, in academic year 2013–14, funds from institutional endowments funded 10.8 percent of institutional grants. Institutions with total endowments exceeding $1 billion funded 32.3 percent of their institutional grant aid from their endowments, while those with total endowments of less than $25 million funded 6.5 percent of their grant aid from their endowments.

• More than three quarters of institutional grants awarded in 2013 were used to meet students’ demonstrated financial need, regardless of the criteria used to award the aid. Nearly half of the dollars awarded that met students’ need were classified as “merit-‐based.”

• Despite rising discount rates, many schools experienced enrollment declines. Nearly half the participating institutions reported declines in total undergraduate enrollments between 2013 and 2014. Many institutions with softer enrollment demand increased their use of institutional grant dollars, while colleges with stronger demand tried to scale back their discount rates.

• Sixty-‐three 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 trends discussed in this year’s 2014 TDS suggest that many CBOs at independent colleges and universities will face many difficult challenges, including: lower enrollments; declines in net tuition and fee dollars; and increasing demands from students for more institutional grant aid. How CBOs navigate through these challenges will have broad implications for many four-‐year private, nonprofit colleges and universities in the future.

The 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study Page 1

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

Total institutional grant aid in the NACUBO TDS study includes all institutionally funded scholarships, fellowships, and other grants (including athletic scholarships) provided to undergraduates. The survey data include grants funded by institutional resources and tuition waivers awarded to students based on institutionally developed criteria.

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

Institutional grant aid 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 (such as fraternal organizations, civic, or religious groups) are also excluded. The TDS also does not include institutional matching funds provided to federal or state financial aid programs, because colleges and universities usually do not develop the criteria used to award aid under such programs.

While public institutions also award institutional grants, independent colleges have historically been the focus of the TDS because they award the largest proportion of such aid. Calculations from the National Center for Education Statistics’ 2014 financial aid survey reveal that four-‐year

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, expressed as

(!"##$%& !"!#$%$ !" !"#$!!"#)

(!"#$%& !" !"#$!!"#)×(!"#$%&' !"#$%)


independent higher education institutions awarded about 70.8 percent of the total institutional grants provided to all undergraduates in FY2013 (NCES, 2014a).

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 price. The strategies can help institutions increase enrollment or retention of undergraduates. 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 2014 TDS. 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 2014 (927 eligible members).1 Roughly 44 percent of these members (411) 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 revenue for academic year (AY) 2013-‐14 as of the fall 2014 census date (the date by which institutions report their enrollment numbers) and preliminary estimates of these data for AY 2014-‐15.

In addition to collecting data on institutional grant recipients, dollars awarded, and tuition and fee revenue, the 2014 TDS asked participating institutions to report the percentage of their institutional grants funded by endowment dollars as of the fall, the percentage of their total awarded institutional grant dollars that met students’ demonstrated financial need, and their incoming freshmen admissions acceptance and yield rates (see Appendix A for the survey instrument).

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

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


Survey Participants

Table 1 shows the number of institutions that participated in the 2014 TDS.2 Additional tables in the appendices show the number of institutions that participated in the survey for 10 consecutive years and for three consecutive years. For the purpose of peer analysis, TDS groups the participating institutions according to their NACUBO Constituent Group classification.

Table 1. Number of Respondents to the 2014 Tuition Discounting Study, by NACUBO Constituent Group

NACUBO Constituent Group Number of Responding Institutions Comprehensive/Doctoral 55 Research 33 Small Institutions 323 All Institutions 411

Source: 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey.

NACUBO Constituent Group Classification

The NACUBO constituent group classifications are defined as follows: 3

• 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.

2 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. 3 Because the TDS covers only independent institutions, the analysis does not include the Community Colleges Constituent Group.


Growth in Average Tuition Discount Rates The average 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 1, the early and mid-‐2000s marked a time of relative stability in the freshmen discount rate, when it hovered between 37 and 38 percent. The rate for all undergraduates ranged between 34 and 35 percent during the same time period.

Figure 1. Average Tuition Discount Rate by Student Category4

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014. *Preliminary estimate. The severe economic 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. From 2008 to 2011, for example, the average freshman rate

4 Due to the nature of NACUBO’s database of historical survey data, minor adjustments from previous years’ reports can occur. The discount rate includes grant dollars from funded and unfunded sources. Please see the Introduction and the Glossary for discount rate calculation methodology and the Endowment section for more detail on institutional grants funded from the endowment. Figures throughout the report represent academic year, as of the fall census date.

37.9% 38.1% 38.0% 38.6% 39.1%

39.9%

41.6% 42.0%

44.3% 44.8%

46.4%

48.0%

33.9% 34.3% 34.3% 35.1% 34.7%

36.9% 36.1% 36.4%

38.6%

40.2% 39.8%

41.6%

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen All Undergraduates


jumped from 39.9 percent to 44.3 percent. In fact, the growth in the freshman 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. In 2013, the average freshman rate reached an unprecedented 46.4 percent; the projected rate for 2014 is 48 percent, which would represent a record high in the history of the TDS.

The average discount rate for all undergraduates has had a similar upward trajectory since 2008. While the average rate slightly declined between 2012 and 2013—dipping from 40.2 percent to 39.8 percent—it is projected to climb by 1.8 percentage points in 2014. (See Appendix B for median discount rates.)

Discount Rate by Constituent Group Discount rates vary substantially by institutional type, as Figure 2 demonstrates. Over the past decade, small institutions have consistently had the highest average rates for freshmen, which are estimated to reach nearly 50 percent in 2014. Average rates for comprehensive/doctoral and research institutions are somewhat lower but have risen consistently since 2008.

Figure 2. Average Tuition Discount Rate: First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen, by Constituent Group

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014. * Preliminary estimate.

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Comprehensive/Doctoral Research Small Insmtumons All Insmtumons


Changes in Net Tuition Revenue Per-‐student net tuition and fee revenue—gross tuition and fee dollars minus institutional grant aid —is an important measure for understanding the effects of institutional grants on college and university finances. Ideally, gross tuition and fee dollars should rise faster than grant aid, so that new revenue covers the cost of the discounts. Grant dollars rising faster than revenue could result in net revenue declines.

As Figure 3 shows, during the past decade annual changes in net tuition dollars received from freshmen in both current and constant value have been extremely volatile (inflation-‐adjusted dollars are based on the Higher Education Price Index).5 Revenue declined sharply during the height of the recession in 2008, followed by a bit of a recovery in 2012.

Figure 3. Average Annual Percentage Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Full-‐Time Freshman in Current and Inflation-‐Adjusted* Value

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014. * Preliminary estimate.

Additionally, it appears any future gains in net revenue will be very limited. In 2013, net revenue increased just 1.1 percent in current value and are projected to have slowed to just 0.4 percent in 2014. Both increases are well below the rate of inflation, resulting in negative growth in both years.

5 Higher Education Price Index data come from Commonfund Institute, 2014.

5.6% 5.4%

3.2%

5.9% 5.4%

-‐0.8%

1.6%

5.4%

-‐0.3%

3.4%

1.1% 0.4% 0.5% 1.7%

-‐0.7%

0.7%

2.5%

-‐5.5%

-‐0.6%

4.5%

-‐2.6%

1.7%

-‐0.5% -‐2.5%

-‐8%

-‐6%

-‐4%

-‐2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Average Percent Change in Net Tuimon Revenue (Current Dollars)


These results suggest that rising discount rates appear to have contributed to much slower net revenue growth at most campuses. In other words, overall net revenue received from freshmen, when adjusted for inflation, has remained flat over the last 13 years. Said another way, gross tuition price increases have been largely offset by increased aid to students.

Declines in net tuition revenue may have a chilling effect on the overall finances of many independent institutions. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2014b), in academic year 2012–13 four-‐year private, non-‐profit institutions derived nearly one-‐third of their total funding from net tuition and fees. Further declines in this revenue source may limit the institutions’ ability to fulfill their educational and public service missions.

Overall average changes in net tuition revenue do not give an adequate picture, as these changes vary substantially by type of college (see Table 2). For example, while the overall average current-‐dollars gain in freshmen net revenue in 2014 is only 0.4 percent, research institutions reported an estimated gain of 5.7 percent, versus an increase of 1.5 percent at comprehensive/doctoral universities and a decline of 0.1 percent at small institutions.

Table 2. Average Annual Change (in Current Dollars) in Net Tuition Revenue per First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshman, by NACUBO Constituent Group

NACUBO Constituent Group

Academic Year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Comprehensive 5.1% 6.6% 7.6% 4.3% 5.4% -‐3.4% 4.2% 11.2% 1.2% -‐0.5% -‐1.6% 1.5%

Research 6.7% 3.5% 6.0% 8.5% 5.4% -‐0.4% 2.3% 4.4% -‐0.4% -‐0.2% 1.0% 5.7%

Small 6.0% 5.4% 3.0% 5.5% 5.4% -‐0.8% 1.7% 4.6% -‐1.4% 4.7% 2.1% -‐0.1%

All Institutions 5.6% 5.4% 3.2% 5.9% 5.4% -‐0.8% 1.6% 5.4% -‐0.3% 3.4% 1.1% 0.4% Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey 2003 to 2014. Note: Dollars are not inflation adjusted. *Preliminary estimate.

Recent trends in net tuition revenue from the total number of undergraduates (see Figure 4) are similar to those shown for first-‐time full-‐time freshmen (Note: only five years of data are available for this measure). The average change in net tuition revenue per undergraduate, adjusted for inflation, is estimated to fall by 1.5 percent in 2014.


Figure 4. Average Change in Net Tuition Revenue per Undergraduate in Current and Inflation-‐Adjusted* Value

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2011 to 2014. *Dollars were adjusted using the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI).

Growth in Average Grant as a Share of the Tuition and Fee Price Since 2009, the portion of tuition and fees covered by an institutional grant has grown steadily, as Figure 5 reveals. The average grant in 2009 covered 48.5 percent of the average tuition and fee price, reaching an estimated 54.3 percent in 2014. The results suggest that average grants were growing much faster than the average tuition and fee prices.

In addition, the share of first-‐time, full-‐time freshmen who received an institutional grant (of any amount) has been on the rise. From 2009 to 2013, the percentage who received this aid grew from 82.3 to 88 percent, with an estimated 89.2 percent of freshmen receiving institutional grants in 2014.

8.0%

-‐0.4%

4.5%

2.2% 1.4%

7.0%

-‐2.7%

2.8%

0.7%

-‐1.5%

-‐4%

-‐2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Average Percent Change in Net Tuimon Revenue (Current Dollars)

Inflamon Adjusted Average Percent Change in Net Tuimon Revenue (Constant Dollars)


Figure 5. Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Who Received Institutional Grants and the Average Institutional Grant as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014. *Preliminary estimate.

Figures 6 and 7 show, by NACUBO Constituent Group, the percentage of freshmen who received institutional grants and the average institutional grant as a percentage of tuition and fees.

Figure 6. Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Who Received Institutional Grants, by NACUBO Constituent Group


79.9% 81.5% 81.1% 81.0% 81.7% 82.3%

86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.0% 89.2%

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

48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.1% 54.3%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Percentage of Freshman Receiving Insmtumonal Grants

Average Insmtumonal Grant as a Percentage of Tuimon and Fees

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*



Figure 7. Average Institutional Grant for First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Recipients as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees, by NACUBO Constituent Group


Figure 8 shows the percentage of all undergraduates who received a grant, which has remained relatively stable since 2010. However, the average grant as a share of the tuition and fee “list price” rose from 47.6 percent in 2010 to an estimated 48.9 percent in 2014.

Figure 8. Percentage of All Undergraduates Who Received Institutional Grants and the Average Institutional Grant as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees **

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2014. *Preliminary estimate **Ten-‐year trends not available for this figure.

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*


76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.4% 77.1%

44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.6% 48.9%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Percent of All Undergraduates Receiving Insmtumonal Grants

Average Insmtumonal Grant as a Percentage of Tuimon and Fees


Several factors may account for the difference between the shares of freshmen and all undergraduates who received institutional aid. These factors may include (but are not limited to): eligibility changes due to part-‐time status, transfer students, students’ ability to meet the criteria for continuing aid beyond the freshman year, and changes in students’ level of financial need.

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 based on students’ demonstrated financial need, students’ academic merit, or other “non-‐need” criteria, such as athletic or artistic ability.

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

Institutions use a particular methodology to identify students who qualify for grants that meet demonstrated financial need. 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 using 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 used a combination of both methods. Approximately 25.5 percent of schools did not report the methodology they used (NACUBO, 2011).

The 2014 TDS asked participants to report the percentages of their total institutional grant dollars awarded in 2013 into three buckets: need-‐based aid, non-‐need-‐based aid that met financial need, and non-‐need aid that did not meet need. In the “Merit Aid Used to Meet Need” category, institutions were directed to include grants that may have been awarded on the basis of academic merit or some other “non-‐need” criteria but still went to students with any financial need.6

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

On average, 40.4 percent of each institution’s grant dollars in 2013 were awarded solely on the basis of students’ demonstrated financial need (see Figure 9). About 37.1 percent were 6 Due to a change in the wording of this question in 2011, only three years of data are available.


awarded on the basis of merit but received by students who had some level of financial need; 21.5 percent were merit-‐based dollars that did not meet students’ financial need.

On average, 77.5 percent of total institutional grant aid awarded was used to meet students’ financial need in 2013 (need-‐based aid combined with merit aid used to meet need).

Figure 9. Average Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars Awarded in Fall 2013, by Aid Category

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2014. Note: Due to rounding, sum may not add to 100 percent.

The portion of dollars awarded specifically based on need varied by type of institution. As Table 3 shows, 69 percent of the total institutional grants awarded by research universities in fall 2013, on average, were based exclusively on students’ financial need, compared with 39 percent at small institutions and 32 percent at comprehensive/doctoral schools.

Table 3. Distribution of Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars in Fall 2013, by Aid Category and NACUBO Constituent Group

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2014. Note: Due to rounding, sums may not add to 100 percent.

Because research universities tend to have higher tuition prices than other types of institutions, they have a greater share of undergraduates having some level of financial need.

40.4%

37.1%

21.5% Need-‐Based Aid

Merit Aid Used to Meet Need

Merit Aid Not Used to Meet Need

NACUBO Constituent Group Need-‐Based

Aid

Merit Aid Used to Meet

Need

Merit Aid Not Used to Meet Need

Comprehensive/Doctoral 32% 42% 27%

Research 69% 14% 17%

Small Institutions 39% 39% 21%

All Institutions 40% 37% 21%


Despite this difference, most types of campuses appear to use the vast majority of institutional grants to meet students’ need. On average, 83 percent of total institutional grant dollars are awarded to students with financial need (need-‐based grants combined with merit grants that meet need). This compares with 78 percent at small institutions and 74 percent at comprehensive/doctoral schools. Need-‐Based Institutional Grants Relative to Endowment Size

Institutions’ endowment size typically corresponds to the share of grant dollars meeting students’ financial need, as Table 4 shows. In 2013, institutions with endowments greater than $1 billion used 87.4 percent of their institutional grant dollars to meet student need, compared with 69.4 percent at schools with endowments below $25 million.

Table 4. Average Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Grant Dollars that Met Students’ Financial Need, by Total Endowment Level, 2009 to 2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Endowment Level N % N % N % N % N %

Over $1 billion 11 83.3% 22 88.4% 20 90.6% 20 84.1% 23 87.4% $500 million to $1 billion 16 69.9% 16 83.3% 16 75.9% 9 86.2% 12 87.0% $100 million to $500 million 58 74.2% 74 78.0% 76 74.5% 73 80.2% 89 76.6% $50 million to $100 million 48 73.2% 47 73.2% 53 73.2% 43 77.5% 45 77.9% $25 million to $50 million 37 70.7% 33 68.5% 44 67.0% 29 79.2% 30 73.7%

$25 million or less 30 70.5% 16 65.1% 53 62.2% 50 81.5% 52 69.4% Unknown Endowment Level 69 67.1% 72 64.7% 11 78.8% -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐

All Institutions 269 71.4% 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4% 251 76.5%

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 through 2014. Note: Grant aid that met students’ demonstrated financial need includes need-‐based grants plus merit and other “non-‐need” scholarships that were awarded to students with any demonstrated financial need.

Awarding need-‐based versus merit-‐based grants has been a heated discussion within higher education, especially as affordability continues to be a growing concern among students and families. The TDS shows that the need-‐versus-‐merit discussion is in many ways a false dichotomy. Many institutions are increasingly using merit aid to meet need as a matter of logistics, blurring any distinction between these two aid categories. As more institutions increase their tuition prices, the share of students with financial need will rise and the more students will need aid dollars to enroll. Whether those aid dollars are classified as “merit” or “need” means little to many of these students.


Tuition Discounting and Endowments

Endowments often serve as a source of funding for institutional grants. Most endowments, however, are relatively small: The median endowment among U.S. colleges and universities that participated in the 2013 NACUBO-‐Commonfund Study of Endowments was about $97.6 million (NACUBO and Commonfund Institute, 2014).

For most schools the amount of endowment funds withdrawn to support institutional aid programs or other expenditures remains relatively low. On average, independent colleges and universities received 8.8 percent of their operating revenue from their endowments (NACUBO and Commonfund Institute, 2014).

On average in 2013–14 (the most recent year of available data), just 10.8 percent of total institutional grant aid was funded from endowments, 7 as shown in Table 5a. In FY2010, endowments, on average, supported 9.7 percent of grants.

Research institutions, which tend to have larger endowments than small and comprehensive/doctoral institutions, had a higher percentage of institutional grant dollars funded by endowments. 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.

Table 5a. Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Grant Aid Funded

by Endowment Funds, by NACUBO Constituent Group


Academic Year 2009–10 (FY10)





Comprehensive/Doctoral 5.0% 6.2% 4.0% 4.4% 4.2% Research 15.0% 23.0% 21.5% 20.9% 24.3% Small Institutions 9.9% 10.0% 10.1% 10.4% 10.6% All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5% 10.8% Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2014. In addition, there continues to be a positive relationship between an institution’s total endowment and the percentage of institutional grants funded by endowment earnings. Survey respondents with more than $1 billion in endowed funds reported that their endowments provided about one-‐third of their institutional grant funds in 2013–14, compared with 6.5 percent at institutions with endowments of less than $25 million (see Table 5b).

7 The data include institutional grants funded by restricted and unrestricted endowments.


Table 5b. Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Grants Funded by Endowment Funds, by Total Endowment Level

Endowment Level






Over $1 billion 22.6% 33.9% 32.5% 28.9% 32.3% $500 million to $1 billion 24.2% 23.2% 21.6% 18.5% 22.9% $100 million to $500 million 13.2% 13.0% 9.8% 11.0% 10.6% $50 million to $100 million 7.2% 7.8% 9.0% 9.3% 6.7% $25 million to $50 million 7.9% 9.4% 7.0% 6.0% 7.1% $25 million or less 3.7% 3.8% 6.2% 6.8% 6.5% Unknown Endowment Level 7.2% 5.5% -‐ -‐ -‐ All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5% 10.8% Source: Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2014.

Tuition Discounting and Institutional Admissions Selectivity

Tables 6 and 7 display indicators of institutional aid and tuition discounting by level of admissions selectivity, or the percentage of undergraduate admissions applications accepted for enrollment. While there does not appear to be a strong relationship between institutional selectivity and the discounting rate, the data suggest that more selective institutions are less likely to award institutional grants—but when they do, the grants cover a higher percentage of tuition and fees compared with less selective institutions.

Table 6. Average Discount Rate in 2013, Institutional Grant Receipt, and Average Grant as a

Percentage of Tuition and Fees, by Admissions Acceptance Rate

Admissions Acceptance Rate

Average Tuition Discount Rate (Freshmen)

Average Percentage Receiving Institutional Grants (Freshmen)

Average Grant as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees (Freshmen)

Less than 25% 47.2% 67.3% 73.2% 25% to 49% 42.2% 72.8% 57.2% 50% to74% 47.5% 93.7% 50.2% 75% or more 46.8% 93.3% 49.9% Unknown 45.0% 93.9% 46.7% All Institutions 46.4% 88.0% 53.1% Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2014.

For example, while more than 93 percent all entering students at institutions with acceptance rates above 50 percent received institutional grants, approximately two-‐thirds of those at more


selective institutions—which accept less than 25 percent of applicants—receive institutional grants. Grants at the most selective institutions, however, cover 73 percent of tuition and fees on average, compared with less than half at the less selective colleges.

Table 7 shows that while the “sticker” price—the tuition and fee price charged by institutions before any financial aid is considered—is higher at more selective institutions, the average institutional grant awarded to full-‐time freshmen is also higher. Despite these larger grants, the average net price (the sticker price minus the average grant) is still higher at more selective institutions: nearly $24,000 at institutions accepting 25 percent or fewer admissions applicants, compared with nearly $20,000 at colleges accepting 75 percent or more.

Table 7. Average Tuition and Fee “Sticker” Price in 2013, Institutional Grant, and Net Price, by Institutional Selectivity

Acceptance Rate Average Sticker Price Average Institutional

Grant Average Net Price Less than 25% $40,056 $16,451 $23,605 25% to 49% $36,700 $13,100 $23,600 50% to74% $30,995 $11,924 $19,071 75% or more $30,494 $10,786 $19,708 Unknown $24,344 $7,693 $16,651 All Institutions $32,239 $12,043 $20,196 Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2014.


Changes in Undergraduate Enrollment

In addition to tuition discounting and net tuition revenue, the TDS tracks trends in student enrollment. Most schools use discounting strategies to increase enrollment, and any significant change in enrollment may be a cause of concern for colleges and universities. For some, even a small enrollment decline can lead to a substantial decline in tuition revenue.

Despite rising discount rates, many independent colleges and universities appear to have experienced drops in their numbers of undergraduates. About 48.4 percent of participants in the 2014 TDS participants reported a decline or no increase in their enrollments of first-‐time, full-‐time freshmen from the year before, while 49.1 percent saw lower or no change in their total undergraduate enrollment (see Figure 10). Approximately one third of respondents report declines in both first-‐time freshmen and total enrollment.

Figure 10. Percentage of Participating Institutions that Experienced a Decline or Maintained Enrollment from Fall 2013 to Fall 2014

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2014.

Explaining Enrollment Changes: Chief Business Officers’ Perceptions

Many factors may contribute to a 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, shifting public opinion about the value of a college degree, rising student indebtedness, and fears about finding employment after graduation (NACUBO, 2014).

49.1% 48.4%

32.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Decrease in Undergraduate Enrollment

Decrease in Freshman Enrollment Decrease in both Freshman and Undergraduate Enrollment


Note that not all institutions which experienced a loss in student enrollment faced economic issues. Some colleges may purposefully reduce their numbers of students to become more selective or to correct for years when enrollment yield was larger than anticipated.

To better ascertain the factors potentially contributing to enrollment changes, the 2014 TDS included a two-‐part question that asked chief business officers (CBOs) to report their perceptions of the enrollment changes at their institutions. The first part asked for the percentage change in freshmen enrollment over the last four years (from fall 2010 to fall 2013); the second part asked respondents to assess the underlying reasons for the enrollment changes during this time period. Respondents who reported zero growth or did not answer the first part did not receive the follow-‐up question.

Figure 11 shows the responses from CBOs who reported enrollment declines at their universities; respondents could select multiple reasons. About 63.4 percent of CBOs from institutions that have lost freshmen over the last four years cite price sensitivity—generally defined as the degree to which the price or cost changes in tuition and fees may have contributed to students’ enrollment decisions. About 61.3 percent believe increased competition from both private and public institutions has played a role in their falling numbers of undergraduates.

Figure 11. Perceived Reasons for Loss of Enrollment at Institutions That Have Lost Freshmen Enrollment from AY2010–AY2013

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2014. Responses are not mutually exclusive (CBOs may have cited multiple reasons for enrollment declines at their schools.)

12%

4%

4%

8%

9%

9%

13%

36%

49%

53%

61%

63%

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

Other

Closure of academic program(s)

Decrease in insmtumonal financial aid

Changes in state aid programs

Falling demand for programs

Purposeful decrease to balance prior year(s)

More selecmve

Decrease in the yield rate

Decrease 18-‐24 year olds

Changing Demographics

Increased compemmon

Price sensimvity of students


Changes in demographics may also contribute to decreases in students. Nearly 53 percent of CBOs identify changing demographics, while just under half (48.6 percent) believe the decrease of the 18-‐ to 24-‐year-‐old population accounts for their enrollment losses.

Changes in financial aid also may play a role in enrollment declines at some universities. Nearly 8 percent of CBOs hold changes in state-‐based financial aid policies partially responsible for their enrollment drops, while 3.5 percent said their schools’ reductions in financial aid—in other words, decreases in the discount rate—led to enrollment declines. On the other hand, roughly 13 percent of CBOs said they purposefully became smaller in an effort to become more selective. Fewer than one in 10 (9.1 percent) said they attempted to balance out a prior year’s larger-‐than-‐normal incoming class.

In contrast, 62.2 percent of CBOs at institutions with increased freshmen enrollments over the last four years largely attribute this growth to improved recruitment and/or marketing strategies. Nearly 41.5 percent of these CBOs attributed rising enrollments to increased institutional grants or tuition discounting, while 38.3 cite increased demand for the institution. (CBOs could select multiple reasons for the growing number of students at their colleges.)

Figure 12. Perceived Reasons for Growth of Enrollment at Institutions That Have Increased Freshmen Enrollment from AY2010–AY2013

Source: NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2014. Responses are not mutually exclusive (CBOs may have cited multiple reasons for enrollment declines at their schools.)

8%

2%

3%

13%

21%

23%

31%

34%

35%

38%

41%

62%

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

Other

State budget cuts to public insmtumons

Decreased selecmvity

Changing demographics

Increase in yield rate of accepted students

New athlemc programs

Improved admissions processing systems/

Updated/new facilimes

New academic programs

Increase in overall demand for your insmtumon

Increase in insmtumonal financial aid

Improved recruitment and/or markemng strategies


In Their Own Words

The TDS survey asked CBOs to describe the strategies their institutions implemented to increase net tuition revenue (NTR) in fiscal year 2014. Below are a few examples of the anonymous responses received, which represent a variety of the strategies undertaken.

• As part of the 2014 Strategic Enrollment Plan, the admissions staff identified several very specific approaches that would directly increase overall enrollment. Some of the more prominent objectives included creating new degree programs and new athletic programs. We also hired a specialist to promote college programs to local and regional businesses. Also, in a concerted effort to improve our financial aid process, we created a new method of delivering student aid packages to incoming freshmen. We have also placed a greater emphasis on customer service within both the admissions and financial aid areas.

• A number of key strategies for increasing net tuition revenue have been in the process of being implemented as part of an ongoing strategic enrollment plan initiative. Chief among them is increasing student retention and success, thus decreasing lost revenue from student attrition. Plans concerning growth in new student enrollment have to take into account optimizing the chances of student success for both undergraduate and graduate student populations.

• For FY 14, the university’s net tuition revenue increase was primarily driven by an increase in the number of transfer students and continued improvement in retention. For FY 15, the university experienced a large increase in net tuition revenue because of high demand, improvement in recruiting methods targeting students with a strong interest in the university, and solid retention.

• For FY 15 we opened a new freshmen dormitory and added a business program, as well as additional liberal arts programs. We increased tuition, increased the number of new enrolled freshmen students, and increased the discount rate by only .5%. We were successful in increasing net revenue per student.

• In an effort to increase net revenues, we have sought to decrease the discount rate. A lower discount rate was built into our financial aid awarding model for incoming freshman students for FY15, where we realized a 4 percent drop from the previous year. In addition, we are beginning to dedicate more efforts toward the recruitment of international students, a population that typically requires less aid; however, with the realization that breaking into new foreign markets requires time and patience.


As these examples demonstrate, CBOs often use a multi-‐pronged approach to raising revenue, taking into consideration academic programs, enrollment management, institutional aid strategies, tuition discounting, and tuition and fees. Many hire outside consultants to assist in identifying the appropriate balance between these multiple factors. In some cases, institutions choose to focus on specific populations or programs for growth.


Conclusion

The results of the 2014 NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study show that four-‐year private, nonprofit institutions continue to see their discount rate increase for freshmen and the larger undergraduate population. The average fall 2014 discount rates are estimated to have risen to 48 percent and 41.6 percent, respectively—the highest levels in the history of the TDS series. Although most institutions increased their freshmen discount rate from 2013 to 2014, about 31 percent of private institutions held or decreased their discount rate—a smaller share than in prior years.

The rising discount rates appear to be leading to inflation-‐adjusted declines in net tuition and fee revenue. In inflation-‐adjusted value, net tuition revenue has registered virtually no growth over the last 13 years. In 2014, it is estimated that net revenue collected from all undergraduates will rise only 1.4 percent in current dollars, which would result in a loss of 2.5 percent in inflation-‐adjusted terms. Because independent colleges and universities receive one-‐third of their operating revenue from net tuition revenue, on average, such losses could limit schools’ ability to meet their educational and public service missions.

The percentage of freshmen and undergraduates who received institutional grants, and the percentage of tuition and fees covered by those grants, also rose to all-‐time highs. An estimated 89 percent of freshmen received an institutional grant in fall 2014, and the average grant represented 54.3 percent of the average tuition and fee price. About 77 percent of all undergraduates received an institutional grant, and the average award covered 48.9 percent of the tuition and fees price.

TDS participants report that 77.5 percent of institutional aid dollars in fall 2013 went toward meeting students’ demonstrated financial need, regardless of whether the award criteria were based on academic merit or need. This finding suggests that, for most aid recipients, there is no distinction between “merit” and “need” awards.

Approximately 10.8 percent of total institutional grant dollars were funded by funds from the institutions’ endowments. Institutions with endowments exceeding $1 billion had 32.3 percent of their institution grants funded from the endowment earnings, while institutions with endowments less than $25 million had 6.5 percent. The data suggest that even at the largest universities, most institutional grant dollars do not have a fixed or permanent funding source.

Even with the average discount rate increasing, almost half of participating institutions experienced a loss or maintained their total undergraduate enrollment, and nearly half lost or maintained their numbers of first-‐time, full-‐time freshmen. More than 57 percent of CBOs at institutions that lost freshmen enrollment attribute the loss to price sensitivity. Other reasons


include increased competition from public and private institutions (50 percent), changing demographics (43.9 percent), a decrease in the 18-‐ to 24-‐year-‐old population (34.5%), and a decrease in yield rate of accepted students (30.4 percent).

Given the trends revealed by this year’s TDS, many campus chief business officers and other leaders will be challenged to meet their objectives in the near future. They will have to generate net tuition revenue at the same time as students want and need increases in financial aid. Consequently, institutions must weigh decisions about sticker price and discounts against the price sensitivity of their students and families. Any continuation of the lower enrollments and declines in net tuition and fee dollars seen in the 2014 data could bring even greater challenges to many four-‐year independent colleges and universities.


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 appliedfor admission

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

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.


References

Commonfund Institute (2014). 2014 Higher Education Price Index (HEPI). Retrieved from https://www.commonfund.org/CommonfundInstitute/HEPI/HEPI%20Documents/2014/CF_HEPI_2014.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 (2014). The 2013 Tuition Discounting Study. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/Products/Online_Research_Products/2013_Tuition_Discounting_Study.html

NACUBO and Commonfund Institute. (2014). The 2013 NACUBO-‐Commonfund Study of Endowments. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO_Endowment_Study/Public_NCSE_Tables_.html

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2014a). Integrated postsecondary education data system (IPEDS) student financial aid survey component (Winter 2013-‐2014, final data). Analysis by Author.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2014b). 2014 Digest of Education Statistics, Table 333.40. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_333.40.asp?current=yes Analysis by Author.


Appendix A

Survey Instrument






Appendix Tables 1 to 77


Appendix B

Appendix B contains tables with data from all institutions that participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey from 2003 to 2014. The 2014 data, collected in the 2014 survey, are preliminary estimates. Percentage change figures that include 2014 data should also be considered preliminary estimates.8 Data are organized by NACUBO Constituent Group (defined in the Glossary), Carnegie Classification, Endowment Level, Region, and Enrollment Size.

8 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 the table.


Participating Institutions Appendix Table 1 Number of Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2004 to 2014, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Comprehensive/Doctoral 26 26 31 34 34 39 50 51 52 55 55 Research 17 19 20 21 21 34 29 31 34 34 33 Small Institutions 139 150 194 198 198 286 302 318 297 312 323 All Institutions 182 195 245 253 253 359 381 400 383 401 411 Appendix Table 2 Number of Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2004 to 2014, by Carnegie Classification* Carnegie Classification 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Baccalaureate 86 90 119 122 122 160 171 185 163 171 177 Doctoral/Research 22 24 28 31 31 54 51 55 62 62 60 Master’s 69 76 88 90 90 120 138 134 132 142 147 Special Focus 5 5 10 10 10 25 21 26 26 26 27 All Institutions 182 195 245 253 253 359 381 400 383 401 411 *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, 2004 to 2014, by Region* Region 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Far West 18 18 26 28 28 33 44 40 47 46 49 Great Lakes 32 33 43 43 43 63 66 72 63 71 78 Mid-‐East 53 59 66 69 69 91 93 88 89 96 90 New England 20 21 26 27 27 51 43 61 48 57 54 Plains 19 19 24 25 25 36 41 46 38 38 46 Rocky Mountains 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 8 7 8 Southeast 29 32 44 44 44 64 68 70 69 67 63 Southwest 8 10 13 14 14 17 21 17 21 19 23 All Institutions 182 195 245 253 253 359 381 400 383 401 411 *U.S. States by Region 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, 2010 to 2014, by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 15,001 or more 6 7 10 11 10 8,001 to 15,000 17 19 23 26 24 4,001 to 8,000 47 48 60 57 60 Less than 4,000 311 326 290 307 317 All Institutions 381 400 383 401 411


Average Number of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen

Appendix Table 5 Average Number of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 977 989 954 989 1,000 996 1,054 1,140 1,071 1,152 1,165 1,192 Research 1,668 1,723 1,972 1,994 2,011 1,698 1,774 1,739 1,695 1,669 1,552 1,569 Small Institutions 412 426 406 408 417 382 400 407 408 407 415 417 All Institutions 610 627 603 618 627 574 595 605 614 616 607 612

Appendix Table 6 Average Number of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 405 414 396 405 412 370 399 415 398 409 416 414 Doctoral/Research 1,597 1,636 1,729 1,744 1,752 1,379 1,455 1,430 1,372 1,400 1,336 1,348 Master’s 567 576 565 555 570 534 551 589 594 597 604 607 Special Focus 393 399 263 285 287 324 363 260 268 212 236 270 All Institutions 610 627 603 618 627 574 595 605 614 616 607 612 *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


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

Appendix Table 7 Average Number of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by Region Region 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Far West 620 657 558 624 642 420 513 517 561 513 507 525 Great Lakes 636 630 543 574 579 532 540 529 572 592 601 609 Mid-‐East 748 744 773 798 806 713 734 729 750 699 712 721 New England 598 610 754 771 797 767 845 830 830 820 794 787 Plains 382 391 352 285 281 352 366 397 346 409 394 384 Rocky Mountains 430 433 403 442 460 540 493 534 486 466 471 501 Southeast 500 495 443 443 452 444 477 484 487 493 504 513 Southwest 609 842 786 743 743 661 656 784 724 827 740 749 All Institutions 610 627 603 618 627 574 595 605 614 616 607 612 *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Cohort Enrollment: All Undergraduates

Appendix Table 8 Average Number of All Undergraduates at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2014,* by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 4,790 5,439 5,103 5,375 5,360 5,443 Research 7,654 7,475 7,355 7,235 6,597 6,690 Small Institutions 1,704 1,729 1,808 1,823 1,859 1,860 All Institutions 2,573 2,657 2,747 2,769 2,708 2,717 Appendix Table 9 Average Number of All Undergraduates at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 1,560 1,567 1,580 1,635 1,670 1,672 Doctoral/Research 6,317 6,457 6,152 6,287 5,940 5,996 Master’s 2,518 2,726 2,809 2,866 2,850 2,833 Special Focus 1,961 1,655 1,641 1,317 1,562 1,631 All Institutions 2,573 2,657 2,747 2,769 2,708 2,717 *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Cohort Enrollment: All Undergraduates (Continued) Appendix Table 10 Average Number of All Undergraduates at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2014,* by Region Region 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Far West 2,164 2,306 2,518 2,306 2,374 2,431 Great Lakes 2,537 2,620 2,871 2,870 2,795 2,828 Mid-‐East 3,237 3,262 3,399 3,169 3,163 3,155 New England 3,398 3,350 3,466 3,430 3,345 3,344 Plains 1,627 1,768 1,576 2,006 1,853 1,831 Rocky Mountains 2,007 2,121 1,967 1,932 2,333 2,331 Southeast 1,942 2,022 1,997 2,121 2,129 2,155 Southwest 2,950 3,225 3,370 3,632 3,277 3,308 All Institutions 2,573 2,657 2,747 2,769 2,708 2,717 *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


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

Appendix Table 11 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 34.6% 34.2% 31.5% 33.5% 34.1% 37.1% 36.3% 36.0% 38.8% 39.2% 43.8% 44.5% Research 34.8% 34.7% 34.9% 33.7% 33.8% 37.4% 38.9% 38.8% 40.9% 43.0% 43.1% 43.2% Small Institutions 38.9% 39.2% 39.4% 40.0% 40.5% 40.6% 42.8% 43.3% 45.6% 46.0% 47.2% 49.1% All Institutions 37.9% 38.1% 38.0% 38.6% 39.1% 39.9% 41.6% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4% 48.0% Appendix Table 12 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 39.8% 39.7% 39.3% 39.8% 39.7% 41.7% 43.0% 43.9% 48.0% 47.8% 48.3% 50.2% Doctoral/Research 33.8% 34.0% 32.9% 33.5% 34.1% 37.1% 38.4% 39.7% 39.9% 42.0% 44.9% 45.3% Master’s 37.4% 38.0% 39.5% 40.3% 41.2% 41.8% 41.9% 42.4% 44.5% 44.8% 46.4% 48.3% Special Focus 30.9% 31.7% 24.1% 24.8% 27.5% 25.3% 33.9% 31.0% 28.1% 31.2% 36.1% 37.0% All Institutions 37.9% 38.1% 38.0% 38.6% 39.1% 39.9% 41.6% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4% 48.0% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Tuition Discounting Rates: First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen (Continued) Appendix Table 13 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013, by Endowment Level Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Over $1 billion 41.5% 41.9% 42.0% 43.0% 43.1% $500 million to $1 billion 41.3% 40.2% 41.3% 44.3% 44.7% $100 million to $500 million 42.2% 42.0% 43.7% 45.1% 47.3% $50 million to $100 million 44.9% 45.3% 46.5% 45.5% 47.6% $25 million to $50 million 43.5% 44.3% 45.3% 46.5% 49.0% $25 million or less 41.0% 43.0% 44.7% 43.0% 43.8% Unknown Endowment Level 38.1% 39.2% 39.9% -‐ -‐ All Institutions 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, 2009 to 2014,* by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 15,001 or more 34.5% 38.0% 40.7% 43.1% 43.8% 41.9% 8,001 to 15,000 36.3% 35.2% 39.3% 38.6% 40.3% 41.1% 4,001 to 8,000 37.7% 38.2% 38.7% 40.7% 44.4% 45.1% Less than 4,000 42.6% 43.0% 46.0% 46.2% 47.4% 49.3% All Institutions 41.6% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4% 48.0% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


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 that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by Region Region 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Far West 35.8% 34.3% 35.4% 37.5% 36.9% 35.2% 39.0% 40.9% 39.2% 39.0% 40.4% 41.1% Great Lakes 40.3% 39.5% 39.8% 40.4% 40.0% 39.8% 44.8% 44.5% 48.8% 48.8% 50.5% 51.3% Mid-‐East 37.4% 37.8% 36.9% 36.2% 37.4% 40.3% 40.7% 42.9% 43.9% 45.4% 47.2% 48.9% New England 31.6% 31.9% 32.8% 32.0% 33.4% 38.8% 38.4% 37.8% 40.1% 42.3% 43.9% 45.9% Plains 42.3% 41.6% 41.2% 45.4% 45.8% 43.1% 42.9% 42.8% 47.8% 48.1% 49.2% 51.3% Rocky Mountains 35.6% 40.6% 40.9% 38.8% 41.8% 34.5% 48.2% 43.3% 46.1% 45.0% 45.3% 49.1% Southeast 40.7% 42.3% 42.1% 42.4% 42.3% 41.9% 42.7% 43.3% 44.2% 44.6% 45.1% 47.0% Southwest 32.9% 34.4% 33.6% 36.3% 36.9% 38.2% 38.9% 34.3% 46.2% 42.0% 46.3% 48.9% All Institutions 37.9% 38.1% 38.0% 38.6% 39.1% 39.9% 41.6% 42.0% 44.3% 44.8% 46.4% 48.0% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Tuition Discounting Rates: All Undergraduates Appendix Table 16 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 29.8% 29.3% 27.3% 37.7% 30.1% 38.3% 30.0% 30.3% 33.6% 35.1% 35.5% 35.8% Research 34.8% 34.5% 35.1% 30.7% 30.9% 38.0% 35.7% 37.5% 38.5% 40.3% 40.0% 40.4% Small Institutions 34.6% 35.2% 35.4% 35.1% 35.8% 36.6% 37.1% 37.3% 39.5% 41.1% 40.5% 42.8% All Institutions 33.9% 34.3% 34.3% 35.1% 34.7% 36.9% 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 39.8% 41.6% Appendix Table 17 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 36.1% 37.0% 36.9% 36.8% 37.2% 40.5% 39.2% 39.2% 43.4% 44.0% 43.4% 44.9% Doctoral/Research 32.2% 32.5% 32.0% 30.2% 30.3% 41.7% 33.2% 35.2% 35.7% 38.8% 39.0% 39.5% Master’s 32.1% 32.2% 32.8% 35.8% 33.8% 32.9% 34.7% 34.7% 37.3% 38.9% 38.0% 41.5% Special Focus 28.8% 28.5% 23.2% 22.4% 23.9% 21.7% 25.9% 27.2% 22.1% 25.7% 27.5% 26.0% All Institutions 33.9% 34.3% 34.3% 35.1% 34.7% 36.9% 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 39.8% 41.6% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Tuition Discounting Rates: All Undergraduates (Continued) Appendix Table 18 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for First-‐Time, Full Time Freshmen at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2014,* by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 15,001 or more 28.7% 33.7% 37.3% 44.0% 39.7% 37.8% 8,001 to 15,000 32.7% 32.0% 34.6% 35.6% 37.2% 37.7% 4,001 to 8,000 32.2% 33.1% 34.3% 35.2% 35.9% 41.5% Less than 4,000 37.0% 37.2% 39.9% 41.4% 40.7% 42.1% All Institutions 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 39.8% 41.6% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates. Appendix Table 19 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013, by Endowment Level Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Over $1 billion 39.7% 39.5% 43.2% 41.9% 41.2% $500 million to $1 billion 36.8% 35.6% 39.3% 42.3% 40.8% $100 million to $500 million 38.5% 37.9% 40.3% 41.7% 42.2% $50 million to $100 million 38.4% 39.1% 40.6% 40.6% 40.0% $25 million to $50 million 40.2% 37.3% 38.8% 40.9% 39.3% $25 million or less 32.4% 34.5% 35.2% 36.7% 35.4% Unknown Endowment Level 31.3% 33.3% 34.9% -‐ -‐ All Institutions 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 39.8%


Average Tuition Discounting Rates: All Undergraduates (Continued)

Appendix Table 20 Average Tuition Discounting Rates for All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by Region Region 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Far West 35.8% 34.2% 35.0% 34.3% 35.1% 30.5% 34.5% 35.9% 36.0% 35.2% 35.2% 35.3% Great Lakes 35.4% 35.5% 35.6% 34.4% 35.4% 36.7% 38.7% 37.5% 41.0% 41.9% 40.6% 46.0% Mid-‐East 33.2% 33.3% 32.4% 30.7% 31.7% 38.6% 34.4% 35.9% 38.1% 40.0% 40.5% 41.6% New England 29.9% 30.3% 29.7% 40.7% 31.5% 40.1% 34.9% 35.1% 38.4% 39.4% 39.2% 39.3% Plains 37.3% 37.7% 37.5% 37.8% 37.7% 39.5% 37.8% 38.3% 38.1% 42.8% 40.9% 43.5% Rocky Mountains 34.7% 34.3% 33.9% 37.9% 39.1% 30.7% 30.1% 41.0% 40.8% 41.9% 40.8% 41.6% Southeast 34.8% 37.0% 38.0% 39.7% 39.6% 36.0% 38.2% 37.1% 38.7% 40.9% 40.7% 41.8% Southwest 27.1% 30.0% 29.6% 29.2% 30.6% 30.4% 32.2% 30.0% 40.3% 41.4% 39.4% 41.8% All Institutions 33.9% 34.3% 34.3% 35.1% 34.7% 36.9% 36.1% 36.4% 38.6% 40.2% 39.8% 41.6% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Median Tuition Discounting Rates

Appendix Table 21 Median Tuition Discounting Rates for First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen and All Undergraduates at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014* Median Discount Rates 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen 39.0% 38.2% 38.1% 38.4% 39.4% 41.8% 42.8% 43.3% 45.3% 45.4% 47.1% 49.3%

All Undergraduates 33.8% 34.3% 33.7% 33.9% 34.5% 35.1% 36.5% 38.2% 39.1% 40.5% 40.5% 42.1%

*Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


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

Appendix Table 22 Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 76.1% 77.6% 73.7% 74.4% 75.2% 75.3% 83.1% 81.9% 83.2% 86.3% 88.1% 93.6% Research 62.3% 62.9% 63.7% 63.0% 63.3% 66.5% 66.0% 63.8% 67.4% 68.7% 67.5% 66.5% Small Institutions 82.8% 84.6% 84.1% 84.0% 84.8% 85.2% 89.7% 88.6% 89.5% 90.1% 90.2% 90.7% All Institutions 79.9% 81.5% 81.1% 81.0% 81.7% 82.3% 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.0% 89.2% Appendix Table 23 Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 80.8% 82.3% 81.8% 81.6% 82.0% 84.2% 87.7% 86.0% 87.8% 89.4% 88.6% 89.1% Doctoral/Research 63.4% 64.3% 65.8% 66.0% 66.6% 70.6% 73.0% 73.1% 76.3% 77.2% 77.4% 81.5% Master’s 84.6% 86.7% 87.1% 87.2% 88.1% 87.9% 92.3% 91.5% 91.8% 91.7% 92.5% 93.1% Special Focus 73.1% 72.7% 64.0% 64.2% 67.7% 68.2% 77.8% 80.8% 76.3% 79.4% 83.7% 85.4% All Institutions 79.9% 81.5% 81.1% 81.0% 81.7% 82.3% 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.0% 89.2% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


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

Appendix Table 24 Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2014,* by Enrollment Size

Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 15,001 or more 64.3% 64.0% 64.4% 66.8% 63.2% 63.3% 8,001 to 15,000 67.4% 68.7% 72.4% 76.2% 76.3% 85.9% 4,001 to 8,000 83.7% 79.9% 82.4% 84.3% 86.9% 87.9% Less than 4,000 89.0% 88.1% 89.5% 90.2% 90.0% 90.5% All Institutions 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.0% 89.2%

Appendix Table 25 Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by Region

Region 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Far West 71.3% 72.6% 75.8% 76.3% 77.1% 69.8% 84.5% 81.9% 82.8% 85.6% 86.0% 85.9% Great Lakes 88.4% 89.0% 86.9% 86.8% 86.8% 85.9% 91.7% 90.9% 91.5% 92.1% 93.0% 93.2% Mid-‐East 79.5% 81.6% 80.7% 80.5% 81.3% 81.1% 84.9% 85.9% 88.0% 89.8% 88.0% 88.4% New England 61.9% 63.8% 62.4% 60.8% 62.9% 75.9% 76.5% 76.7% 75.6% 78.4% 78.8% 81.3% Plains 87.7% 88.4% 87.4% 89.7% 92.0% 93.0% 93.3% 89.4% 91.3% 92.8% 93.4% 94.1% Rocky Mountains 76.0% 81.2% 81.4% 76.4% 80.4% 80.9% 91.1% 84.7% 87.9% 80.7% 84.8% 86.5% Southeast 83.2% 85.1% 85.3% 85.9% 85.4% 85.9% 88.2% 87.9% 87.5% 87.0% 87.6% 89.2% Southwest 84.0% 85.8% 87.0% 83.8% 83.8% 82.0% 88.5% 84.6% 90.4% 87.4% 88.1% 95.5% All Institutions 79.9% 81.5% 81.1% 81.0% 81.7% 82.3% 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.0% 89.2%

*Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants (Continued) Appendix Table 26 Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2013, by Endowment Level Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Over $1 billion 54.4% 56.8% 56.5% 60.0% 59.5% $500 million to $1 billion 71.7% 67.3% 71.3% 71.3% 71.7% $100 million to $500 million 80.8% 80.6% 85.9% 86.9% 88.8% $50 million to $100 million 93.4% 91.7% 93.2% 92.8% 93.0% $25 million to $50 million 93.9% 93.8% 93.0% 95.5% 95.1% $25 million or less 93.2% 95.3% 91.5% 91.8% 91.7% Unknown Endowment Level 89.7% 90.3% 77.3% -‐ -‐ All Institutions 86.9% 85.7% 86.7% 87.7% 88.0%


Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Aid

Appendix Table 27 Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2014,* by NACUBO Constituent Group

NACUBO Constituent Group 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 70.9% 72.2% 73.6% 74.2% 74.2% Research 61.2% 62.5% 65.3% 64.1% 62.6% Small Institutions 78.5% 78.4% 78.0% 78.1% 79.0% All Institutions 76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.4% 77.1%

Appendix Table 28 Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification

Carnegie Classification 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 79.6% 81.2% 81.6% 80.8% 81.5% Doctoral/Research 64.8% 66.2% 68.6% 68.9% 68.6% Master’s 77.8% 76.8% 75.8% 76.1% 77.3% Special Focus 67.8% 64.5% 62.9% 67.3% 65.6% All Institutions 76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.4% 77.1%

* Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Aid (Continued) Appendix Table 29 Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2014,* by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 15,001 or more 57.7% 58.2% 60.2% 59.2% 58.8% 8,001 to 15,000 62.7% 64.1% 68.2% 68.7% 66.9% 4,001 to 8,000 71.0% 71.4% 72.3% 73.4% 73.2% Less than 4,000 78.2% 78.7% 78.3% 78.2% 79.2% All Institutions 76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.4% 77.1%

Appendix Table 30 Percentage of All Undergraduates Receiving Institutional Grants at Institutions that Participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2014,* by Region Region 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Far West 75.0% 76.4% 79.5% 76.0% 76.4% Great Lakes 80.3% 78.7% 78.2% 80.0% 80.8% Mid-‐East 73.6% 74.2% 76.0% 76.0% 75.9% New England 70.9% 71.6% 70.8% 68.6% 70.3% Plains 78.6% 79.3% 78.3% 79.7% 82.3% Rocky Mountains 79.4% 83.7% 76.2% 72.3% 73.7% Southeast 79.5% 76.9% 74.9% 76.6% 77.0% Southwest 71.5% 76.0% 78.9% 80.0% 78.9% All Institutions 76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 76.4% 77.1% * Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


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

Appendix Table 31Average 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, 2003 to 2014,* by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 46.2% 44.9% 41.9% 46.5% 45.9% 56.2% 43.3% 43.3% 46.8% 46.9% 47.8% 47.9% Research 58.4% 57.9% 57.5% 56.4% 56.7% 59.8% 61.7% 63.5% 66.2% 66.6% 67.3% 68.5% Small Institutions 48.0% 47.2% 47.7% 49.0% 48.9% 49.7% 48.0% 49.4% 51.0% 51.7% 52.4% 53.9% All Institutions 48.7% 48.0% 47.8% 49.3% 49.2% 51.4% 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.1% 54.3% Appendix Table 32 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, 2003 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 50.7% 49.5% 49.3% 50.7% 50.2% 51.7% 49.6% 52.0% 54.7% 54.4% 55.2% 56.7% Doctoral/Research 55.7% 55.5% 52.5% 54.2% 54.8% 55.7% 55.2% 56.9% 56.4% 57.7% 60.1% 59.6% Master’s 44.4% 43.9% 45.5% 46.6% 46.9% 52.5% 45.4% 46.0% 48.3% 48.5% 49.2% 51.0% Special Focus 43.4% 45.3% 36.2% 40.1% 39.6% 34.4% 41.6% 36.8% 37.7% 44.7% 43.4% 43.6% All Institutions 48.7% 48.0% 47.8% 49.3% 49.2% 51.4% 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.1% 54.3% * Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Institutional Grant for First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees (Continued) Appendix Table 33 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 2014,* by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 15,001 or more 55.0% 60.4% 67.1% 68.2% 72.6% 69.7% 8,001 to 15,000 57.3% 55.0% 57.3% 53.9% 53.8% 55.3% 4,001 to 8,000 46.6% 49.0% 48.5% 50.6% 51.1% 51.2% Less than 4,000 48.1% 49.3% 51.4% 51.8% 52.8% 54.3% All Institutions 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.1% 54.3% Appendix Table 34 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, 2003 to 2014,* by Region Region 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Far West 52.4% 49.9% 48.3% 51.8% 49.8% 64.6% 47.8% 50.9% 47.5% 47.9% 48.2% 49.3% Great Lakes 45.8% 44.8% 44.8% 46.3% 45.4% 47.1% 48.4% 48.7% 53.3% 53.3% 53.7% 53.9% Mid-‐East 48.4% 47.8% 46.9% 46.3% 47.6% 50.5% 48.5% 51.2% 51.8% 52.0% 54.7% 55.9% New England 54.0% 52.9% 55.6% 55.8% 56.3% 54.6% 52.3% 52.6% 55.6% 57.0% 58.5% 58.9% Plains 48.2% 46.9% 46.6% 51.9% 51.0% 46.3% 46.5% 47.2% 52.8% 51.8% 52.3% 55.3% Rocky Mountains 51.4% 54.1% 53.2% 54.8% 54.4% 38.8% 53.1% 52.6% 53.4% 54.2% 54.2% 58.5% Southeast 49.0% 49.7% 49.8% 50.2% 49.9% 53.8% 48.4% 49.2% 49.9% 51.9% 50.1% 51.3% Southwest 39.9% 40.5% 38.9% 46.3% 47.0% 46.6% 45.0% 42.4% 50.0% 48.4% 51.3% 52.7% All Institutions 48.7% 48.0% 47.8% 49.3% 49.2% 51.4% 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.1% 54.3% * Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


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

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, 2009 to 2013, by Endowment Level Endowment Level 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Over $1 billion 75.8% 74.0% 74.8% 73.3% 74.5% $500 million to $1 billion 58.4% 60.5% 62.5% 64.9% 65.4% $100 million to $500 million 52.4% 52.8% 51.2% 52.4% 53.2% $50 million to $100 million 48.0% 49.6% 49.8% 49.9% 50.3% $25 million to $50 million 46.1% 46.8% 48.5% 48.4% 50.0% $25 million or less 43.5% 44.8% 48.0% 47.1% 46.8% Unknown 42.2% 42.7% 48.8% -‐ -‐ All Institutions 48.5% 49.8% 51.7% 52.3% 53.1%


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

Appendix Table 36 Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2014,* by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 29.3% 38.8% 42.5% 42.8% 43.9% 44.3% Research 34.3% 60.5% 62.2% 62.3% 63.0% 65.2% Small Institutions 34.2% 43.8% 45.6% 46.5% 46.6% 48.0% All Institutions 33.5% 44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.6% 48.9% Appendix Table 37 Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 47.1% 49.9% 49.3% 50.1% 51.7% Doctoral/Research 52.4% 52.0% 53.2% 56.0% 56.8% Master’s 39.2% 43.2% 43.7% 43.2% 44.7% Special Focus 34.9% 29.6% 39.9% 35.9% 35.5% All Institutions 44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.6% 48.9% * Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees (Continued) Appendix Table 38 Average Institutional Grant for All Undergraduates as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009 to 2014,* by Enrollment Size Enrollment Size 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* 15,001 or more 26.5% 54.6% 60.8% 61.8% 66.1% 64.1% 8,001 to 15,000 31.5% 53.0% 54.5% 52.0% 52.5% 54.5% 4,001 to 8,000 31.5% 44.4% 44.0% 45.7% 45.7% 46.6% Less than 4,000 34.1% 43.8% 46.0% 46.6% 47.0% 48.4% All Institutions 33.5% 44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.6% 48.9% 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, 2009 to 2014,* by Region Region 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Far West 32.0% 44.9% 44.8% 42.6% 43.6% 44.5% Great Lakes 35.7% 42.7% 45.6% 44.6% 46.2% 47.4% Mid-‐East 31.5% 45.5% 46.9% 47.8% 48.4% 50.2% New England 32.9% 47.7% 50.9% 52.7% 54.3% 53.8% Plains 35.2% 41.9% 44.4% 46.0% 45.1% 46.5% Rocky Mountains 39.3% 49.7% 47.9% 53.1% 54.2% 54.0% Southeast 35.2% 44.6% 46.1% 48.5% 47.0% 48.4% Southwest 29.9% 39.5% 47.9% 46.2% 46.0% 49.9% All Institutions 33.5% 44.5% 46.6% 47.3% 47.6% 48.9% * Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


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

Appendix Table 40 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshman at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014*, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

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 $33,290 $34,276

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 $14,990 $15,658

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 $19,232 $19,518 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 $41,430 $42,958 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 $17,868 $18,674

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 $23,562 $24,896

Small Institutions Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $19,877 $21,007 $21,770 $23,096 $24,522 $24,939 $25,904 $27,360 $28,024 $29,989 $31,127 $32,121

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 $14,906 $16,067 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 $16,392 $16,367

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 $32,246 $33,282

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 $15,165 $16,217 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 $17,365 $17,441 * Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshman (Continued)

Appendix Table 41 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshman at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014*, 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 $33,290 $14,990 $19,232 2014* $34,276 $15,658 $19,518

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 $41,430 $17,868 $23,562


2014* $42,958 $18,674 $24,896 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 $31,127 $14,906 $16,392 2014* $32,121 $16,067 $16,367



Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshman (Continued) Appendix Table 42 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshman at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2003 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification NACUBO Constituent Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

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 $32,687 $33,727


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 $16,788 $16,767 Doctoral/ Research

Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $25,455 $26,556 $28,430 $30,020 $31,706 $32,227 $32,898 $34,381 $35,059 $37,073 $37,685 $39,099 Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $8,617 $9,008 $9,334 $9,994 $10,724 $11,993 $12,818 $13,753 $14,153 $15,856 $16,672 $17,371


Master’s Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $18,903 $19,943 $20,941 $22,257 $23,736 $24,032 $24,964 $26,974 $27,805 $29,197 $30,304 $31,228

Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $7,065 $7,548 $8,244 $8,867 $9,654 $10,150 $10,373 $11,457 $12,436 $13,375 $14,276 $15,363 Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $11,838 $12,395 $12,697 $13,390 $14,083 $13,894 $14,628 $15,428 $15,541 $16,014 $16,148 $16,001

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 $27,858 $28,643



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 $32,246 $33,282

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 $15,165 $16,217

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 $17,365 $17,441 * Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per Undergraduate

Appendix Table 43 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per Undergraduate Student at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2014,* by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral

Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $30,747 $32,493 $32,957 $33,290 $34,276 Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $9,241 $10,111 $10,651 $11,230 $11,641 Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $21,945 $22,107 $22,306 $22,060 $22,550

Research Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $38,185 $38,784 $40,879 $41,430 $42,958

Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $13,503 $14,394 $15,508 $15,962 $16,784 Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $24,682 $24,923 $25,262 $25,468 $26,786

Small Institutions Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $27,360 $28,024 $29,989 $31,127 $32,121

Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $9,864 $10,352 $11,338 $11,774 $12,673 Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $17,919 $17,674 $18,666 $19,302 $19,511

Total Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $28,629 $29,586 $31,319 $32,246 $33,282 Total Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $10,072 $10,667 $11,594 $12,043 $12,847 Total Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $18,976 $18,893 $19,737 $20,186 $20,474 * Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per Undergraduate (Continued)

Appendix Table 44 Average Gross and Net Tuition Rates per Undergraduate Student at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010 to 2014,* by Carnegie Classification

Carnegie Classification 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $28,624 $29,580 $31,594 $32,687 $33,727 Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $10,846 $11,832 $12,970 $13,386 $14,437 Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $18,202 $17,609 $18,625 $19,206 $19,307

Doctoral/Research Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $34,381 $35,049 $37,073 $37,685 $39,099 Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $11,449 $11,853 $13,077 $13,915 $14,508 Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $22,932 $23,284 $23,874 $23,770 $24,709

Master’s Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $26,794 $27,805 $29,197 $30,304 $31,228 Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $8,755 $9,478 $9,942 $10,440 $11,200 Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $18,535 $18,499 $19,331 $19,887 $20,062

Special Focus Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $25,842 $25,635 $27,390 $27,858 $28,643 Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $8,413 $6,377 $8,144 $7,812 $7,872 Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $17,972 $18,780 $19,246 $20,046 $21,022

Total Average Gross Tuition for Undergraduates $28,629 $29,586 $31,319 $32,246 $33,282 Total Average Institutional Grant for Undergraduates $10,072 $10,667 $11,594 $12,043 $12,847 Total Average Net Tuition for Undergraduates $18,976 $18,893 $19,737 $20,186 $20,474



Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment Appendix Table 45 Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009–2013, by Carnegie Classification

Carnegie Classification Academic Year 2009–

10 (FY10) Academic Year 2010–




14 (FY14) Baccalaureate 11.2% 11.5% 11.3% 10.6% 13.3% Doctoral/Research 12.2% 17.3% 15.3% 14.7% 15.8% Master’s 6.3% 6.1% 4.9% 7.4% 5.5% Special Focus 13.4% 13.3% 21.5% 17.5% 12.3% All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5% 10.8% Appendix Table 46 Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009-‐2013, by Enrollment Size

Enrollment Size Academic Year 2009-‐

10 (FY10) Academic Year 2010-‐

11 (FY11) Academic Year 2011-‐



14 (FY14) 15,001 or more 7.3% 14.5% 18.8% 18.2% 17.7% 8,001 to 15,000 7.6% 15.0% 14.9% 13.2% 13.5% 4,001 to 8,000 7.4% 11.6% 6.2% 7.6% 7.5% Less than 4,000 10.2% 10.1% 10.6% 10.5% 11.0% All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5% 10.8%


Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment (Continued) Appendix Table 47 Percentage of the Total Institutional Grant Aid Funded by Earnings from Endowment at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009–2013, by Endowment Level

Endowment Level Academic Year 2009–





14 (FY14) Over $1 billion 22.6% 33.9% 32.5% 28.9% 32.3% $500 million to $1 billion 24.2% 23.2% 21.6% 18.5% 22.9% $100 million to $500 billion 13.2% 13.0% 9.8% 11.0% 10.6% $50 million to $100 million 7.2% 7.8% 9.0% 9.3% 6.7% $25 million to $50 million 7.9% 9.4% 7.0% 6.0% 7.1% $25 million or less 3.7% 3.8% 6.2% 6.8% 6.5% Unknown Endowment 7.2% 5.5% -‐ -‐ -‐ All Institutions 9.7% 10.6% 10.4% 10.5% 10.8%


Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Financial Need

Appendix Table 48 Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Students’ Financial Need at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010–2013, by Endowment Level 2010 2011 2012 2013

Endowment Level

Number of Participating Institutions

Percentage of Total

Institutional Grant Aid

Awarded that Met Students' Financial Need


Percentage of Total


Awarded that Met

Students’ Financial Need


Percentage of Total


Awarded that Met Students’

Financial Need


Percentage of Total


Awarded that Met Students’ Financial Need

Over $1 billion 22 88.4% 20 90.6% 20 84.1% 23 87.4% $500 million to $1 billion 16 83.3% 16 75.9% 9 86.2% 12 87.0% $100 million to $500 million 74 78.0% 76 74.5% 73 80.2% 89 76.6% $50 million to $100 million 47 73.2% 53 73.2% 43 77.5% 45 77.9% $25 million to $50 million 33 68.5% 44 67.0% 29 79.2% 30 73.7% $25 million or less 16 65.1% 53 62.2% 50 81.5% 52 69.4% Unknown Endowment Level 72 64.7% 11 78.8% -‐ -‐ -‐ -‐ All Institutions 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4% 251 76.5%


Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Financial Need (Continued) Appendix Table 49 Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Students’ Financial Need at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2009–2013, by Constituent Group 2010 2011 2012 2013



Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total



Comprehensive/Doctoral 39 68.7% 39 67.2% 37 75.9% 36 73.4% Research 24 82.3% 24 84.0% 20 85.3% 22 83.3% Small Institutions 217 72.8% 210 71.7% 167 80.9% 193 76.3% All Institutions 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4% 251 76.5%


Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Financial Need (Continued) Appendix Table 50 Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Students’ Financial Need at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010–2013, by Enrollment Size 2010 2011 2012 2013

Enrollment Size


Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total



15,001 or more 5 87.5% 8 88.2% 8 90.2% 8 93.5% 8,001 to 15,000 13 80.1% 16 82.3% 13 76.2% 14 80.2% 4,001 to 8,000 38 71.8% 45 67.0% 38 76.1% 38 71.1% Less than 4,000 224 72.5% 204 71.8% 165 81.3% 191 76.5% All Institutions 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4% 251 76.5%


Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Financial Need (Continued) Appendix Table 51 Percentage of Total Undergraduate Institutional Aid Awarded that Met Students’ Financial Need at Institutions Participating in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Survey, 2010–2013, by Region 2010 2011 2012 2013

Region


Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total




Percentage of Total



Far West 32 75.3% 36 74.6% 31 76.8% 36 76.7% Great Lakes 49 71.8% 42 72.5% 38 77.5% 52 74.8% Mid-‐East 63 78.2% 62 69.6% 60 84.3% 62 80.7% New England 37 78.4% 33 77.3% 32 85.2% 33 85.6% Plains 30 70.4% 25 75.4% 13 83.0% 16 70.2% Rocky Mountains 5 73.2% 6 77.3% 5 79.1% 6 81.3% Southeast 52 64.7% 51 67.3% 33 77.1% 29 70.8% Southwest 12 70.7% 18 72.6% 12 73.9% 17 61.9% All Institutions 280 73.0% 273 72.1% 224 80.4% 251 76.5%


Selected Statistics

Appendix Table 52 Selected Statistics for Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2014 Tuition Discounting Survey, by Endowment Level

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 Revenue per FT Freshman

Over $1 billion 29 43.1% 41.2% 59.5% 74.5% $42,777 $18,357 $24,420 $500 million to $1 billion 23 44.7% 40.8% 71.7% 65.4% $43,020 $19,089 $23,756 $100 million to $500 million 130 47.3% 42.0% 88.8% 53.2% $35,824 $17,103 $18,874 $50 million to $100 million 79 47.6% 40.0% 93.0% 50.3% $30,730 $15,042 $16,228 $25 million to $50 million 61 49.0% 39.3% 95.1% 50.0% $28,826 $14,085 $14,839 $25 million or less 89 43.8% 35.4% 91.7% 46.8% $24,407 $10,935 $13,735 All Institutions 411 46.4% 39.8% 88.0% 53.1% $32,246 $15,165 $17,365 *FT refers to First-‐Time, Full-‐Time


Selected Statistics (Continued) Appendix Table 53 Selected Statistics for Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2014 Tuition Discounting Survey, by Carnegie Classification

Carnegie Classification









Baccalaureate 177 48.3% 43.4% 88.6% 55.2% $32,687 $15,935 $16,788 Doctoral/ Research 60 44.9% 39.0% 77.4% 60.1% $37,685 $16,672 $21,013 Master’s 147 46.4% 38.0% 92.5% 49.2% $30,304 $14,276 $16,148 Special Focus 27 36.1% 27.5% 83.7% 43.4% $27,858 $11,029 $19,622 All Institutions 411 46.4% 39.8% 88.0% 53.1% $32,246 $15,165 $17,365 *FT refers to First-‐Time, Full-‐Time


Selected Statistics (Continued) Appendix Table 54 Selected Statistics for Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2014 Tuition Discounting Survey, by Region

Region









Far West 49 40.4% 35.2% 86.0% 48.2% $34,859 $14,436 $20,992 Great Lakes 78 50.5% 40.6% 93.0% 53.7% $30,562 $15,687 $15,443 Mid-‐East 90 47.2% 40.5% 88.0% 54.7% $33,963 $16,282 $17,872 New England 54 43.9% 39.2% 78.8% 58.5% $36,802 $16,073 $20,798 Plains 46 49.2% 40.9% 93.4% 52.3% $29,244 $15,062 $14,841 Rocky Mountains 8 45.3% 40.8% 84.8% 54.2% $31,460 $13,885 $17,575 Southeast 63 45.1% 40.7% 87.6% 50.1% $29,349 $13,621 $15,728 Southwest 23 46.3% 39.4% 88.1% 51.3% $29,302 $13,319 $15,811 All Institutions 411 46.4% 39.8% 88.0% 53.1% $32,246 $15,165 $17,365 *FT refers to First-‐Time, Full-‐Time


Selected Statistics (Continued) Appendix Table 55 Selected Statistics for Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2014 Tuition Discounting Survey, by Women’s Colleges









Women's Colleges 24 53.0% 40.7% 92.5% 57.1% $32,525 $17,285 $15,271 Co-‐Ed Institutions 387 46.0% 39.7% 87.8% 52.9% $32,229 $15,040 $17,488 All Institutions 411 46.4% 39.8% 88.0% 53.1% $32,246 $15,165 $17,365 Appendix Table 56 Selected Statistics for Institutions Participating in the NACUBO 2014 Tuition Discounting Survey, by Religious Institutions









Religious Institutions 202 47.7% 39.3% 92.3% 50.8% $30,017 $14,381 $15,674 Non-‐Religious Institutions 209 45.1% 40.2% 83.8% 55.4% $34,411 $15,961 $19,081 All Institutions 411 46.4% 39.8% 88.0% 53.1% $32,246 $15,165 $17,365 *FT refers to First-‐Time, Full-‐Time


Appendix C

The tables in Appendix C present 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 2004 to 2013. The dataset allows readers to review the data for schools that participated in 10 consecutive years exclusively. The second includes only those institutions that participated for three consecutive survey years (2011 to 2013). The 2014 data are preliminary estimates. Percentage change figures that include the 2014 data should also be considered preliminary estimates. Data are organized by NACUBO Constituent Group (defined in the Glossary).


Responding Institutions Appendix Table 57 Number of Institutions with Consecutive Participation in NACUBO’s Tuition Discounting Survey for 3 years and 10 years, by NACUBO Constituent Group NACUBO Constituent Group Institutions with 3 Consecutive years of Data Institutions with 10 Consecutive years of Data Comprehensive/Doctoral 46 32 Research 25 18 Small Institutions 195 126 All Institutions 266 176 Appendix Table 58 Number of Institutions with Consecutive Participation in NACUBO’s Tuition Discounting Survey for 3 years and 10 years, by Carnegie Classification Carnegie Classification Institutions with 3 Consecutive Years of Data Institutions with 10 Consecutive Years of Data Baccalaureate 114 80 Doctoral/Research 48 28 Master’s 92 62 Special Focus 12 6 All Institutions 266 176


Average Cohort Enrollment: First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Appendix Table 59 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 NACUBO Constituent Group 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 1,089 1,123 1,107 1,115 1,139 1,191 1,173 1,216 1,194 1,239 1,316 Research 1,758 1,897 1,842 1,847 1,909 1,928 1,969 1,950 1,975 1,971 2,031 Small Institutions 432 437 446 448 447 458 461 464 460 465 469 All Institutions 687 711 709 712 726 741 744 753 749 759 780 Appendix Table 60 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 437 440 441 444 439 455 458 458 446 454 456 Doctoral/Research 1,597 1,703 1,678 1,670 1,734 1,741 1,775 1,782 1,789 1,802 1,861 Master’s 620 637 639 649 662 686 676 693 693 705 715 Special Focus 466 451 477 473 472 458 463 496 491 523 595 All Institutions 687 711 709 712 726 741 744 753 749 759 780 *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Cohort Enrollment: First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen (Continued) Appendix Table 61 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 NACUBO Constituent Group 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 1,105 1,127 1,149 1,179 Research 1,600 1,605 1,620 1,662 Small Institutions 445 442 448 450 All Institutions 669 670 680 685 Appendix Table 62 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 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 438 434 440 439 Doctoral/Research 1,318 1,346 1,347 1,367 Master’s 657 657 672 673 Special Focus 332 301 333 378 All Institutions 669 670 680 685 *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates.


Average Tuition Discount Percentages: First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Appendix Table 63 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 34.3% 33.3% 33.8% 34.1% 37.1% 36.4% 37.5% 39.6% 39.2% 41.7% 43.7% Research 35.3% 34.5% 33.7% 34.4% 37.2% 39.2% 39.9% 40.2% 40.2% 41.2% 40.5% Small Institutions 39.2% 39.5% 40.1% 40.4% 41.0% 44.4% 44.5% 45.3% 46.6% 47.5% 48.8% All Institutions 37.9% 37.9% 38.3% 38.6% 39.9% 42.4% 42.8% 43.7% 44.5% 45.8% 47.1% Appendix Table 64 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 38.0% 38.3% 39.0% 39.2% 40.0% 43.6% 43.3% 43.8% 45.5% 46.6% 48.1% Doctoral/Research 33.9% 32.4% 32.2% 33.4% 35.9% 37.6% 38.4% 39.5% 38.3% 40.2% 39.7% Master’s 39.3% 39.8% 40.3% 40.4% 41.7% 43.0% 44.2% 45.4% 45.7% 48.0% 50.4% Special Focus 40.0% 38.3% 36.8% 37.5% 40.1% 42.0% 41.9% 45.3% 49.2% 39.4% 35.4% All Institutions 37.9% 37.9% 38.3% 38.6% 39.9% 42.4% 42.8% 43.7% 44.5% 45.8% 47.1% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


Average Tuition Discount Percentages: First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen (Continued) Appendix Table 65 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 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 38.6% 39.3% 43.4% 44.1% Research 43.4% 44.3% 43.8% 42.8% Small Institutions 45.1% 46.1% 47.6% 49.4% All Institutions 43.8% 44.7% 46.5% 47.9% Appendix Table 66 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 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 45.9% 46.6% 47.9% 50.0% Doctoral/Research 41.3% 43.0% 45.5% 45.4% Master’s 44.4% 44.9% 46.2% 47.8% Special Focus 27.8% 30.8% 36.6% 36.6% All Institutions 43.8% 44.7% 46.5% 47.9% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


Average Tuition Discount Percentages: All Undergraduates

Appendix Table 67 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 27.8% 27.8% 45.8% 29.4% 32.8% 30.6% 32.1% 34.4% 34.4% 35.7% 37.1% Research 32.0% 32.6% 30.5% 31.4% 47.1% 37.2% 38.6% 38.9% 38.9% 38.5% 38.9% Small Institutions 34.1% 34.6% 35.4% 35.6% 35.9% 37.9% 38.6% 39.6% 41.4% 40.9% 47.6% All Institutions 32.8% 33.2% 36.8% 34.0% 36.5% 36.5% 37.5% 38.5% 39.8% 39.7% 44.8% Appendix Table 68 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 35.4% 35.4% 36.0% 36.2% 36.6% 39.6% 39.9% 40.4% 42.3% 41.8% 44.0% Doctoral/Research 29.4% 29.6% 29.0% 29.7% 40.4% 34.4% 34.8% 35.5% 35.4% 35.5% 36.1% Master’s 31.0% 31.9% 41.8% 33.4% 34.7% 33.7% 35.9% 38.0% 38.8% 40.1% 51.9% Special Focus 31.8% 33.0% 31.7% 32.1% 34.0% 35.5% 34.9% 31.6% 40.4% 26.7% 25.5% All Institutions 32.8% 33.2% 36.8% 34.0% 36.5% 36.5% 37.5% 38.5% 39.8% 39.7% 44.8% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


Average Tuition Discount Percentages: All Undergraduates (Continued) Appendix Table 69 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 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 33.3% 35.5% 35.9% 36.1% Research 40.7% 41.2% 41.1% 40.7% Small Institutions 40.1% 41.2% 41.0% 43.9% All Institutions 39.0% 40.2% 40.1% 42.3% Appendix Table 70 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 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 43.1% 43.4% 43.2% 45.3% Doctoral/Research 37.0% 39.8% 39.3% 39.4% Master’s 37.1% 38.4% 39.2% 43.2% Special Focus 21.5% 26.1% 22.8% 20.0% All Institutions 39.0% 40.2% 40.1% 42.3% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


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

Appendix Table 71 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 76.4% 77.2% 74.2% 74.0% 80.0% 83.1% 81.0% 84.3% 83.0% 85.2% 87.8% Research 57.9% 57.7% 58.7% 58.9% 59.0% 61.8% 63.3% 62.1% 62.0% 62.5% 61.7% Small Institutions 82.7% 83.0% 83.0% 83.6% 84.3% 86.2% 85.5% 86.8% 87.7% 88.1% 88.2% All Institutions 79.0% 79.4% 78.9% 79.3% 80.9% 83.1% 82.4% 83.7% 84.1% 84.9% 87.5% Appendix Table 72 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 79.7% 80.0% 80.3% 80.4% 80.2% 83.1% 83.1% 83.8% 85.2% 85.9% 86.5% Doctoral/Research 62.0% 62.2% 59.5% 60.5% 62.6% 67.6% 66.9% 68.0% 66.8% 67.8% 82.4% Master’s 85.4% 86.1% 85.8% 86.4% 89.7% 90.2% 88.9% 91.2% 91.2% 92.9% 93.4% Special Focus 82.8% 81.6% 79.2% 79.7% 81.2% 82.8% 80.3% 72.1% 79.6% 70.0% 65.9% All Institutions 79.0% 79.4% 78.9% 79.3% 80.9% 83.1% 82.4% 83.7% 84.1% 84.9% 87.5%

*Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


Percentage of First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen Receiving Institutional Grants (Continued) Appendix Table 73 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 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 82.4% 85.2% 87.5% 88.8% Research 67.9% 68.4% 68.1% 66.5% Small Institutions 89.4% 90.2% 90.3% 91.1% All Institutions 86.1% 87.2% 87.6% 89.2% Appendix Table 74 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 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 87.7% 88.3% 88.7% 89.5% Doctoral/Research 76.4% 76.9% 77.7% 82.4% Master's 91.4% 92.3% 92.8% 93.5% Special Focus 65.9% 76.5% 75.0% 78.2% All Institutions 86.1% 87.2% 87.6% 89.2% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


Average Institutional Grant for First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees Appendix Table 75 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 45.6% 43.9% 48.2% 48.9% 47.4% 44.9% 47.6% 47.3% 47.6% 49.3% 48.4% Research 63.4% 62.5% 60.4% 61.6% 66.3% 67.1% 66.6% 68.5% 68.5% 70.1% 69.7% Small Institutions 48.5% 48.9% 49.7% 49.9% 50.8% 53.2% 53.4% 53.4% 54.0% 55.2% 56.6% All Institutions 49.5% 49.4% 50.5% 50.9% 51.8% 53.1% 53.8% 53.9% 54.3% 55.7% 56.5% Appendix Table 76 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 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 49.1% 49.4% 50.3% 50.6% 52.4% 54.7% 54.4% 53.9% 55.1% 56.0% 57.4% Doctoral/Research 57.3% 55.1% 58.9% 60.1% 60.9% 59.6% 60.2% 61.7% 60.8% 62.9% 60.0% Master’s 46.2% 46.6% 47.1% 47.0% 46.8% 48.2% 50.0% 49.8% 49.4% 51.7% 53.8% Special Focus 51.8% 50.6% 49.7% 50.9% 52.5% 53.0% 54.4% 64.7% 64.4% 58.4% 56.7% All Institutions 49.5% 49.4% 50.5% 50.9% 51.8% 53.1% 53.8% 53.9% 54.3% 55.7% 56.5% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


Average Institutional Grant for First-‐Time, Full-‐Time Freshmen as a Percentage of Tuition and Fees (Continued) Appendix Table 77 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 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral 47.1% 47.8% 48.4% 47.5% Research 67.4% 68.0% 67.8% 67.7% Small Institutions 50.6% 52.0% 53.3% 54.9% All Institutions 51.6% 52.8% 53.9% 54.8% Appendix Table 78 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 2011 2012 2013 2014* Baccalaureate 52.7% 53.8% 55.0% 56.9% Doctoral/Research 57.3% 58.7% 60.3% 58.9% Master’s 48.5% 48.6% 49.7% 51.0% Special Focus 41.9% 50.8% 49.3% 47.9% All Institutions 51.6% 52.8% 53.9% 54.8% *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


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

Appendix Table 79 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 NACUBO Constituent Group 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Comprehensive/Doctoral

Average Gross Tuition for

Freshmen $22,973 $24,748 $26,597 $28,287 $29,915 $31,309 $32,958 $34,262 $35,688 $36,931 $38,118 Average Institutional Grant for

Freshmen $7,930 $8,305 $9,037 $9,678 $11,103 $11,506 $12,840 $13,402 $14,034 $15,362 $16,422 Average Net Tuition for

Freshmen $15,043 $16,442 $17,560 $18,609 $18,812 $19,803 $20,590 $20,516 $21,654 $21,569 $21,297

Research Average Gross Tuition for



Freshmen $18,013 $19,286 $20,623 $21,463 $21,633 $21,811 $22,418 $23,163 $24,071 $24,556 $25,903

Small Institutions Average Gross Tuition for



Freshmen $13,902 $14,608 $15,346 $16,165 $16,795 $16,731 $17,340 $17,725 $18,088 $18,334 $18,419 Total Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $23,157 $24,628 $26,130 $27,691 $29,163 $30,492 $31,896 $33,141 $34,607 $35,914 $37,139 Total Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $8,627 $9,208 $9,842 $10,540 $11,562 $12,682 $13,651 $14,284 $15,230 $16,231 $17,261 Total Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $14,530 $15,420 $16,288 $17,151 $17,677 $17,809 $18,413 $18,793 $19,378 $19,573 $19,719

*Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


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 NACUBO Constituent Group 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014* Comprehensive/Doctoral

Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $33,321 $32,313 $33,265 $34,222 $35,181 Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $13,350 $12,509 $13,316 $14,881 $15,495 Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $19,970 $19,646 $19,949 $19,865 $20,181

Research Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $36,640 $39,109 $40,582 $42,091 $43,700

Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $20,564 $16,893 $17,879 $18,357 $18,565 Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $16,076 $22,215 $22,703 $23,734 $25,058

Small Institutions Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $17,771 $29,342 $30,881 $32,185 $33,212

Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $8,036 $13,161 $14,467 $15,369 $16,644 Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $9,735 $16,120 $16,626 $16,982 $16,937

Total Average Gross Tuition for Freshmen $30,234 $30,773 $32,205 $33,473 $34,544 Total Average Institutional Grant for Freshmen $12,971 $13,408 $14,594 $15,572 $16,623 Total Average Net Tuition for Freshmen $17,263 $17,321 $17,826 $18,135 $18,232 *Data for 2014 are preliminary estimates


Participating Institutions Institutions in bold have participated in the NACUBO Tuition Discounting Study for three consecutive years. Institutions that are in bold and underlined have participated in 10 or more years consecutively. Comprehensive/Doctoral Abilene Christian University American University Ashland University Barry University Bentley University Biola University Bradley University Butler University Campbell University Cardinal Stritch University Chapman University The College of Saint Rose Columbia College Creighton University DePaul University Duquesne University Embry-‐Riddle Aeronautical University 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 Pace University Pepperdine University Quinnipiac University Regis University Rider University Roger Williams University Sacred Heart University

Saint Joseph’s University Santa Clara University Seattle University Seton Hall University Southern Methodist University St. John’s University (NY) Suffolk University Texas Christian University University of Hartford University of La Verne University of Saint Thomas (MN) University of San Diego University of San Francisco The University of Scranton University of Tampa Webster University Xavier University York College of Pennsylvania


Research Baylor University Boston College Brandeis University Brown University California Institute of Technology Case Western Reserve University The Catholic University of America Clark Atlanta University Clark University Clarkson University Columbia University in the City of New York Cornell University Dartmouth College 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 Rice University Stanford University Stevens Institute of Technology Syracuse University Main Campus

Tufts University University of Denver University of Notre Dame University of Pennsylvania University of Tulsa Vanderbilt University


Small Institutions Albertus Magnus College Albion College Allegheny College Alma College Alvernia University Alverno College American Jewish University Anna Maria College Aquinas College Arcadia University Art Center College of Design Augustana College Babson College Baldwin-‐Wallace University Bard College Bates College Bellarmine University Belmont Abbey College Belmont University Beloit College Benedictine College Benedictine University Bethel College Bluefield College Bridgewater College Bryant University Buena Vista University Cairn University (formerly Philadelphia Biblical University) Caldwell University California Baptist University California Lutheran University Calvin College Campbellsville University Capital University Carleton College Carlow University Carroll College Carroll University Carthage College Cazenovia College Cedar Crest College Centre College Champlain College

Charles R. Drew University of Medicine & Science Chatham University Chowan University Christian Brothers University Clarke University Coe College Coker College Colgate University 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 Concordia University Texas Connecticut College Converse College Cooper Union Cornerstone University Cornish College of the Arts Cottey College Curry College Davidson College Dean College Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture Denison University DeSales University Dickinson College Doane College Dominican University of California Dordt College Drake University Drew University Drury University East Texas Baptist University Eastern Mennonite University Elmhurst College Elmira College Elms College Emmaus Bible College Endicott College Flagler College


Florida Southern College Franciscan University of Steubenville Franklin Pierce University Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering Freed-‐Hardeman University Friends University Furman University Gallaudet University Gannon University Geneva College George Fox University Gettysburg College Gordon College Goshen College Grand View University Grinnell College Grove City College Guilford College Gustavus Adolphus College Gwynedd-‐Mercy College Hamilton College Hamline University Hampden-‐Sydney College Hanover College Hendrix College Heritage University Hilbert College Hiram College Hobart and William Smith Colleges Hollins University Holy Family University Hood College Hope College Houston Baptist University Huntington University Illinois College Illinois Wesleyan University Indiana Institute of Technology Iona College Jamestown College John Carroll University John F. Kennedy University Juniata College Kalamazoo College Kenyon College

Kettering University Keuka College Keystone College Knox College La Roche College Lackawanna College Lafayette College Laguna College of Art & Design Lake Forest College Lasell College Le Moyne College Lebanon Valley College Lewis and Clark College Lewis University Limestone College Linfield College Loras College Loyola University New Orleans Luther College Lycoming College Lynchburg College Macalester College MacMurray College Malone University Manchester University Manhattan Christian College Marietta College Marymount Manhattan College Marymount University Maryville University Marywood University McDaniel College McKendree University McPherson College Menlo College Mercy College of Northwest Ohio Meredith College Merrimack College Messiah College Mid-‐Atlantic Christian University Middlebury College Milligan College Millikin University Mills College Minneapolis College of Art Design


Misericordia University Mitchell College Mount Holyoke College Mount Marty College Mount Mercy University Mount Saint Mary College Mount Saint Mary’s University Multnomah University Muskingum University Naropa University Nazareth College of Rochester New England College Newbury College North Central College North Park University Northwest Christian University Northwood University, Michigan Campus Notre Dame of Maryland University Oberlin College Occidental College Ohio Northern University Oklahoma Baptist University Olivet College Olivet Nazarene University Oral Roberts University Our Lady of the Lake College Our Lady of the Lake University Pacific Lutheran University Pacific Union College Pacific University Palm Beach Atlantic University Paul Smith’s College of Arts and Sciences Peirce College Philadelphia University Pitzer College Point Loma Nazarene University Point Park University Queens University of Charlotte Randolph-‐Macon College Reed College Regis College Rhode Island School of Design Rhodes College Ringling College of Art and Design Ripon College

Rivier University Roanoke College Robert Morris University Rockhurst University Rocky Mountain College Rollins College Rose-‐Hulman Institute of Technology Saint Francis University Saint John’s University (MN) Saint Joseph’s College 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 School of the Art Institute of Chicago Schreiner University Scripps College Seattle Pacific University Shenandoah University Sierra Nevada College Simmons College Simpson College Simpson University Smith College Southwestern University Spalding University Spartanburg Methodist College Spelman College St. Ambrose University St. Bonaventure University St. Catherine University St. Edwards University St. Gregory’s University St. Lawrence University St. Olaf College Stephens College Stetson University Stonehill College


Susquehanna University Sweet Briar College Tabor College Texas Lutheran University Texas Wesleyan University The College of Saint Scholastica The College of Wooster The Defiance College The Sage Colleges The University of Findlay Thomas College Thomas More College Tiffin University Trevecca Nazarene University Trinity University Trinity Washington University Truett-‐McConnell College Union College University of Bridgeport University of Dallas University of Evansville University of Mary Hardin-‐Baylor 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 (TX) University of the Incarnate Word University of the Ozarks Ursinus College Utica College Valparaiso University Vanguard University of Southern California Wabash 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 Wheaton College Whittier College Widener University William Jessup University William Woods University Wilson College Wingate University Wofford College

NACUBO 2014 Report

Documents

national study

annual study

nacubo institutions

average tuition discount

net tuition revenue

eastern association

annual project

years tds