College tuition is still rising—here’s who’s pushing the price

Higher education has long sold itself as a launchpad: a stable path to economic mobility, social capital, and job security. And for decades, that promise held. But something changed—and fast. In the past 40 years, the average cost of college in the US has ballooned by over 300% (adjusted for inflation), far outpacing wage growth and even healthcare inflation.

Universities claim this growth is due to improving services, research demands, rising labor costs, and the integration of student wellbeing. But that’s only half the story. The real driver? A pricing model that grew unchecked once governments stepped back and individuals (or their lenders) stepped in.

Let’s dismantle the current university model—because it’s not just “price goes up, value goes up.” In reality, four structural flaws are pushing tuition higher, with little to show in return:

Administrative Bloat vs Instructional Output: In many institutions, growth in non-academic staff has far outpaced that of professors. Assistant deans, program directors, compliance teams, student engagement liaisons—it’s become common for universities to run sprawling bureaucracies that replicate corporate org charts without corporate efficiency. The result? Salaries swell. But learning outcomes stagnate.

Subsidy-Cushioned Inflation: Federal student aid—especially in the US—was designed to improve access. But it introduced a moral hazard. When students rely on subsidised loans, institutions have little reason to cut cost. The money still flows. And since aid is tied to enrolment, not performance or cost containment, schools pad budgets while students carry the risk.

The Prestige Economy: Universities today are in a branding war. Rankings drive revenue. Revenue drives rankings. To climb, you need shiny facilities, elite faculty hires, and glossy prospectuses. It’s a race to look exclusive, not to deliver efficient education. That dynamic favours construction over curriculum. Optics over operating discipline.

No Real Market Discipline: Unlike companies that go bankrupt if customers leave, most universities—especially public ones—are propped up by multi-layered funding and political backing. They can hike fees, lose students, and still survive. Because their risk is offloaded to government debt structures or alumni donations, there's no true bottom-line feedback loop.

The deeper issue is that universities are borrowing a consumer-facing pricing model—but applying it to a legacy operating system.

The Borrowed Model: Think of how airlines price tickets: complex, segmented, heavily subsidised by third-party channels. Universities have adopted this logic—offering high sticker prices, heavy discounting (through merit aid), and opaque net costs. It mimics luxury pricing, but it’s funding mass-scale education.

The Legacy Reality: Behind the scenes, they still run as if they were post-war public goods: tenure tracks, physical plant sprawl, endowment allocation silos, and flat hierarchies. They haven’t restructured to become truly nimble, digital-first, or outcomes-driven. This mismatch is what keeps pushing costs up. Universities are operating inefficiently—but competing expensively.

Some systems have resisted this drift—either through policy guardrails or economic discipline.

Germany and Scandinavia
In much of Western Europe, higher education remains a state-funded good. Tuition is nominal or free. Cost controls are enforced centrally. The system accepts trade-offs: less glitz, fewer amenities, but also fewer student loans. And crucially, a tighter labour-market alignment—degrees match employability metrics, not branding exercises.

Purdue University (US)
Purdue’s tuition freeze since 2013 is one of the most notable outliers in the US. It didn’t achieve this through revenue boosts—but by aggressive cost control, operational streamlining, and a relentless focus on delivering degrees that match workforce demand. The result? Rising enrolment, declining debt burdens, and no reputational penalty.

Singapore
In Singapore, the government subsidises the majority of tuition at public universities and polytechnics, but also imposes tight governance over course offerings, student quotas, and institutional funding. Education is treated as both a human capital investment and a national budget line—rather than a prestige market. That’s kept cost escalation in check.

The spiralling tuition model may look broken from a student’s perspective—but it serves a number of institutional stakeholders very well.

Universities: They maintain budget elasticity without difficult restructuring. Tuition becomes the flexible lever, rather than slashing roles or consolidating programs. And because tuition is often bundled with housing, fees, and service charges, it’s a lucrative composite product.

Ranking Bodies: US News, THE, QS—the global ranking systems heavily weight inputs (like endowment size or faculty-student ratio) over outputs (like graduate earnings or retention). That incentivises spending—not efficiency.

Financial Institutions and EdTech Vendors: A bloated tuition model creates fertile ground for loan providers, refinancing companies, and digital learning platforms that claim to “improve value” but are really profiting off the same system. The more expensive college gets, the more supplementary tools emerge to “manage the burden.”

Policy Makers: Politicians often pledge student loan relief or new aid packages rather than regulating tuition directly. Why? Because it preserves university autonomy and avoids the political cost of interfering with elite institutions.

Why market disruption hasn’t worked (yet):

You might ask: what about MOOCs, online universities, bootcamps? Didn’t we disrupt higher ed a decade ago? Yes—but not structurally.

Online education made delivery cheaper. But the credential didn’t transfer. A Google Certificate doesn’t (yet) replace a four-year degree at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey. As long as employers filter via university name, the system stays intact. That’s why even bootcamps began charging Ivy League–style fees once they scaled. Disruption has challenged the delivery model—but not the gatekeeping logic of prestige, accreditation, or employment pipelines. Until that changes, universities remain the bottleneck.

The pressure is building.

• Demographic decline is forcing second-tier colleges in the US and UK to fight harder for fewer students.
• AI and employer-led upskilling are offering new, low-cost ways to validate competence.
• International students, once the lifeline of many Western institutions, are becoming more price-sensitive—and savvier about alternatives in Asia and the Middle East.

If university costs continue rising without outcome transparency, students may eventually defect—not en masse, but selectively. Expect to see credentialing decentralise. Expect employers to build internal academies. Expect tech firms to ignore traditional degrees for certain roles. The erosion won’t be dramatic. But it will be structural.

What strategy leaders miss:

Many higher ed boards continue to treat pricing as a lagging decision, not a lead signal. But this assumption is fading. Tuition is no longer just a budget plug—it’s a branding lever, a trust signal, and a reputational litmus test. Parents aren’t just asking, “Can we afford it?” They’re asking, “Will this still matter in 10 years?”

Universities that treat pricing strategy as optics management, rather than system design, will lose credibility. And eventually, revenue. Meanwhile, emerging institutions that tie pricing to ROI—transparently and confidently—will build the next loyalty cycle. Not because they’re cheaper. But because they’re clearer.

Why college tuition keeps climbing isn’t a mystery. It’s a model built on inertia, power concentration, and pricing without accountability. The players benefiting from the bloat aren’t likely to initiate reform. But students, employers, and new credentialing platforms might. Strategy isn’t just about adapting to cost trends. It’s about asking: Who owns the value chain now—and what will dislodge them?

Because the next disruption won’t come from a cheaper online course. It will come from a new definition of what “qualified” means. And when that happens, tuition will stop climbing—not because it was capped, but because it lost its leverage.

The sharper question for strategy teams is this: What happens when trust in the degree collapses faster than institutions adapt? If the credential loses pricing power before the operating model adjusts, we won’t see reform—we’ll see obsolescence. Tuition isn't just a number. It’s a symptom of a system running out of narrative runway.