NPR84%

College 'sticker prices' have risen dramatically. Here's why 87%

By Elissa Nadworny0%

11/20/2025, 1:51:51 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Optimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 16.2% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,120 faulty-reasoning hits from 896 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.4% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,928 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.60% of the article peer group.

It's no secret that going to college can be very expensive, with tuition costs rising faster than financial aid. 
But what's causing that price tag to rise so quickly? 
After adjusting for inflation, tuition has essentially doubled for private and public colleges over the past 30 years. 
NPR's series Cost of Living: The Price We Pay is examining what's driving price increases and how people are coping after years of stubborn inflation. 
How are higher prices changing the way you live? 
Fill out this form to share your story with NPR. 
What's the item: 
College Tuition 
How has the price changed? 
Over the last 30 years  average tuition for both public and private four year colleges has essentially doubled after adjusting for inflation. 
It really does feel like tuition is always rising. 
I found a New York Times article from 1970 noting that tuition at Harvard University for the coming year was going to jump  by $200  from $2,400 a year to $2,600 (which would be about $21,000 today when adjusted for inflation). 
Next year, the tuition at Harvard will be more than $59,000, though when you add in things like housing and food, that number price tag jumps to more than $86,000. 
But many families aren't actually paying those high sticker prices. 
Instead, students get financial aid or merit aid, and end up paying a lower cost, called the net price. 
Net price is still up when you compare with two decades ago, but in recent years the trend is more flat. 
Or, in some cases, falling. 
Data from the College Board's annual report tracking college prices shows that tuition for in-state students at public four-year colleges peaked in 2012, and has since declined. 
Judith Scott-Clayton, a professor of economics and education at Columbia University's Teachers College has been writing about the difference between those $100,000 price tags and what families really pay for more than two decades. 
"College is expensive and no one is saying it's not a challenge," she says "But it's also important to acknowledge that it's not a hopeless case." 
Why has the sticker price gone up so much? 
There are many factors behind this. 
At public institutions, a big factor for many years was declining state funding; as legislatures reduced that funding, colleges were forced to raise tuition to make up for it. 
In recent years, though, state funding has rebounded somewhat. 
The COVID-19 pandemic saw a huge drop in enrollment at colleges, so in some places that increase of state investment combined with fewer people going to college, meant more money per student. 
There's also administrative bloat at some schools. 
And some experts blame student loans, though there is mixed research on this. 
Since 2007, the amount of student debt held by Americans has more than tripled, to roughly $1.6 trillion. 
As the ease of obtaining student loans increased, some researchers say, colleges absorbed that money in tuition increases. 
Other experts point to rising costs, and competition: There are always new fancy buildings to build, and more staff to hire. 
Also, having a high price tag dictates prestige. 
And there are wealthy families willing to pay those high prices: At Harvard  40% of the incoming class pays full price  they don't get any financial help. 
The actual costs are often murky. 
Some families pay one thing, others pay another price. 
And no college seems to cost the same. 
The market is opaque, and that's another reason tuition is high: Families often don't know until the end of the admission process how much these schools will cost them. 
Which means, it's very hard to price shop, comparing one school's cost to another. 
"That means colleges don't really compete on price with one another because students can't see the price up front," says Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. 
"They can't play different colleges' pricing offers against one another the way they could in a normal market." 
Some solutions 
There have been efforts  including in Congress  to standardize financial aid offer letters, to allow more comparison between colleges. 
Another solution the Trump administration has touted is to freeze tuition. 
One example of a university holding down costs by freezing tuition is Purdue University. 
In 2013, Purdue locked undergraduate tuition at around $9,000 a year for in-state students, and $28,000 for out-of-state. 
The move brought a lot of skepticism at the time, but the freeze is still in place  more than a decade later. 
"We've increased tuition revenue without raising prices," says Chris Ruhl, Purdue's chief financial officer and treasurer. 
How? 
"By serving more students," he explains  both in-state students and out-of-state students from within the U.S. 
Also, "we've grown other revenue streams," he adds, "and then, we've been laser-focused on costs." 
There are very affordable options 
One thing to note is that tuition varies widely, from college to college and from state to state. 
In Florida, for example, the average tuition for in-state students is about $5,000 a year and that's remained constant for about 10 years. 
And in many places, community colleges offer an affordable alternative, with the option to transfer later to a four year school. 
And, for low-income students, a Federal Pell Grant could end up making that tuition free, or nearly so. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 2.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Elissa Nadworny: 11.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias4.8%This article: 6.0%Elissa Nadworny: 4.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 4.9%Elissa Nadworny: 5.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic4.9%This article: 2.6%Elissa Nadworny: 1.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Elissa Nadworny: 25.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect8.8%This article: 2.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion2.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Elissa Nadworny: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 8.9%Elissa Nadworny: 13.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias8.9%This article: 0.6%Elissa Nadworny: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.6%This article: 2.6%Elissa Nadworny: 13.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 1.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Elissa Nadworny: 1.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias3.2%This article: 3.8%Elissa Nadworny: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.8%This article: 3.8%Elissa Nadworny: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Elissa Nadworny: 2.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 4.8%Elissa Nadworny: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.2%Elissa Nadworny: 12.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority16.2%This article: 5.8%Elissa Nadworny: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.7%Elissa Nadworny: 8.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization5.7%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion1.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.1%Elissa Nadworny: 11.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.1%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%Elissa Nadworny: 7.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Elissa Nadworny: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.7%Elissa Nadworny: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.7%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%Elissa Nadworny: 3.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote3.5%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.9%Elissa Nadworny: 6.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice6.9%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elissa Nadworny: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Elissa Nadworny: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.7%

896 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers14%attributed speech770writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJudith Scott-Clayton • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Cooper • 34 words • 0.0% coveragePreston Cooper • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageChris Ruhl • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageChris Ruhl • 17 words • 0.0% coverageChris Ruhl • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Preston Cooper

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words41% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Preston Cooper: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Preston Cooper: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Preston Cooper: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.