在市场中确定成本约束的研究生学费定价与财政资助--解决成本分担比例问题的第二种技术方案

研究生教育是准公共产品,基于准公共产品第二种定义所提出的方案主张研究生学费定价和财政补贴可分立操作.研究生学费可首先单独建立在研究生教育是私人产品基础上,学费是学校根据学生需求和劳动力市场需求所确定的市场化价格,生均成本在市场中确定并且不高于学费;同时,针对不同学校、不同专业所产生的不同外部性,政府有针对性地单独用财政进行补贴以保证某种外部性的充足供给.竞争市场对私人收益和外部性的恰当反映成为确定学费与财政资助的依据.此方案将学费和生均成本决定权交给市场(学费等于生均成本),而将财政资助决定权保留给政府,财政资助成为对成本的分担.本文以比较的方法对美国华盛顿州正在实践中的宏观研究生学费定价政策进行了分析.     

论高等教育的学费

:基于高等教育机会的公平和收益 ,受教育者应缴纳学费。作为准公共产品的高等教育服务 ,其学费不是高等教育服务的价格 ,而是高等教育服务的成本分担。高等学校培养学生的成本 ,大多数居民收入水平决定的支付能力 ,是确定学费标准的基本依据。学费听证会是政府确定学费标准的有效形式。当学费达到一定水平时 ,学费减免。助学金、奖学金、学生勤工助学和学生助学贷款等形式的学生资助政策 ,是缓解高等教育机会不公平的重要手段     

我国高等教育学费的制衡因素探析

基于高等教育机会的公平和收益,受教育者应该交纳学费.学费的确定对高等教育具有重要影响,应遵循公平、效率和能力支付的原则.当前,我国大学学费标准确定应综合考虑我国高等教育的发展规模、财政状况、高等教育的成本与收益、学生家庭的支付能力和社会人才的市场供求状况等因素.同时,应建立贫困生资助政策,以实现高等教育的公平.     

研究生学费定价与资助政策

研究生教育应当收取学费,学费定价与资助政策应建立在研究生教育是私人产品的基础上,学费是学校根据学生对研究生教育的需求以及劳动力市场需求所确定的市场化价格。研究生学费定价与资助政策应同时考虑以下因素:(1)基础研究是典型的纯公共产品,应用研究有更多的私人产品的属性。(2)研究生教育所颁授学位分为学术性与职业性学位两类。(3)不同的研究生教育方式具有不同的成本特点,教育过程可以明确划分为以课堂教学为主和以研究为主两个阶段。(4)国防研究生教育属于典型的纯公共产品,国防领域的研究与发展以及高级军事人才的培养属于纯公共产品范畴。(5)财政经费给予研究生资助的主要性质应当是研究生工作的工资。这一理论可称为多因素市场决定论。     

关于高等教育学费定价的理论分析

高等教育学费定价与高等学校教育成本、高等教育收益、受教育者承受能力和相关的社会经济运行指标四类要素密切相关.培养目标制约下的高等学校教育成本信息是高等教育学费定价的基础性依据.高等教育收益,尤其是市场化私人收益与市场化社会收益的比例关系是高等教育学费定价的主要依据之一.学费定价还应充分考虑受教育者家庭的经济承受能力.完...     

高等教育公平与学费政策选择

高等教育学费政策取决于政府效用与教育公平的匹配情况,当存在完善的贫困生资助制度时,二者能在一定程度上得到兼顾,高学费、高资助政策是满足激励相容条件的最优选择.但就我国当前而言,由于资助制度不完善,高学费仍会冲击教育公平,政府必须通过高财政投入来控制学费水平.此外,高等教育的个人收益率有较大不确定性,应据此制定差异化学费政策.     

中国高等教育基于个人差别的定价及补贴机制研究

高等教育统一收费将一部分收入禀赋较差的消费者排斥在市场之外,引发对教育公平问题的关注。高等教育应该采取各种隔离手段对市场进行分割,并对各细分市场实施价格歧视,即通过强化资助与奖励制度两种补贴手段实现高等教育定价的个人差别,一方面可实现高校学费总额的最大化,另一方面可兼顾社会公平。     

市场扭曲与高等教育学费定价

高等教育学费在一定程度上已经具有价格的某些功能,发挥着价格机制对教育资源的配置作用。但由于高等教育的巨大外部性,往往导致其市场扭曲,高等教育的学费定价不能完全按照等价交换原则来进行。高等教育收益的不可分割及其风险性、高等教育资源的稀缺及其垄断性、高等教育供需矛盾以及教育信息不对称等对学费定价有着不同的影响。规范政府和学校定价行为,改革政府学费规制是学费政策的现实选择。     

高等教育学费和学生资助政策

在高等教育投入的多元化趋势中,伴随着高校收费政策的实施,学生资助问题成为国家宏观教育政策关注的重点领域.本文在国际高等教育投入和学生资助模式比较分析的基础上,对我国高等教育学费和学生资助提出政策建议.争取除学费外的其他社会投入应成为中国进一步筹措高等教育经费的重点;在确定高等教育学费时应兼顾培养成本和人均收入水平;同时要建立和完善多元化的学生资助体系.     

试论市场机制下我国高校学费标准问题

教育市场中高校学费的本质是高等教育的服务价格,但教育市场不同于完全竞争下的商品市场,教育市场中的高校教育有其自身的功能和政策目标,高校教育更关注的是社会收益和教育公平问题。高校学费是高等教育经费收入的主要来源之一,高校学费的标准应遵照市场机制中的价格机制,并兼顾受教育者的个人收益和社会收益,高校学费政策的主要目标是促进高等教育的有效供给,保证高等教育的机会公正。     

第三部门视野下民办高校的产权和筹资问题分析

第三部门是以非政府形式提供公共物品的一种机制,归国家、社会或学校所有,政府对民办高校的资助应是成本的分担。学生和家长对缴纳学费的认同感。是一种民间公益事业。在此视角下,民办教育最终产权均应民办教育机制能最大限度吸收社会和个人损赠,也可以增强     

The Heterogeneous Non-resident Student Body: Measuring the Effect of Out-Of-State Students’ Home-State Wealth on Tuition and Fee Price Variations

More than 40 years of research has found a positive relationship between increases in the proportion of non-resident students enrolling in an institution and increases in the tuition prices this institution charges to these same students. Notably, this line of research has consistently treated this non-resident student body as if they constitute a homogeneous group in terms of their socioeconomic well-being, when in reality these students come from states with differing levels of socioeconomic prosperity. Notably, given that tuition and fee charges to non-resident students are market-based, institutions charge what out-of-state students are willing to pay. Under this rationale, it follows that the wealthier the student body of an institution is, the more institutions will be able to charge them in terms of tuition and fees for their education. The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it offers a method to measure the level of wealth of the non-resident student body enrolling at an institution considering the level of wealth of these students’ home states, therefore creating a measure of heterogeneity of the non-resident student body. The second purpose is to evaluate whether this measure of heterogeneity is associated with larger increases in the net tuition and fee prices charged to these students compared to the increases related to the homogeneous structure that ignores these students’ home-state wealth. This twofold purpose was addressed utilizing a dataset built from regional, state, and institutional information of 1743 public and private not-for-profit 4-year institutions across the contiguous United States. Since all the outcome variables were found to be spatially dependent, spatial econometrics techniques were employed for model estimation. Results corroborated that treating non-resident students as a homogeneous structure rendered downwardly biased estimates of institutions’ abilities and/or decisions to set higher or lower tuition and fee prices compared to the estimates obtained using the heterogeneous structure. Considering current general disinvestment of states in higher education, the analysis of factors driving non-resident tuition and fee price-setting has become especially relevant for public policy officials and decision-makers at both the institution- and state-levels. Accordingly, this study examines a critical issue in the finance of higher education—the setting of institutional tuition and fees for non-resident students.     

中美民办高等教育成本分担主体的比较研究

民办高等教育受益各方均应是成本分担的主体。美国私立高等教育之所以发达,与其多元化筹措办学经费、合理分担教育成本有直接的关系。我国民办高校的经费主要来源于学费,这种单一的经费来源不利于民办高校的可持续发展。应采取差别收费、政府适当资助、引导社会捐赠、民办高校加强自身服务创收等对策,缓解民办高校的经费压力。     

试析教育产品属性与学费定价的关系——以中职教育免费政策为例

教育产品的属性是学费定价的基础。由于教育产品属性具有可变性,所以学费水平应随教育产品属性的变化而调整。近年来,我国中职教育的外部性有所强化,竞争性和个人收益有所弱化,其公共属性正在增强,因此,中职教育由收费走向免费是合理的。管理部门应树立学费动态定价的理念,关注教育产品属性的变化,及时调整其学费水平。     

高等教育学费二元结构的审视与调控

高等教育学费二元结构是公办和民办高校产权差异和学费制度差异的反映。公共财政不足造成了公办和民办高等教育的二元规制、市场的二元分割和市场功能定位的分化。这导致学费定价中政府与市场的边界不清、公办和民办高等教育学费标准的差异与质量的差异不对称、个人投资收益率的差异扩大、学费的资源配置功能弱化。“效率优先,兼顾公平”是其指导思想,其不利于先天禀赋不足的学生,其社会福利效应逐渐降低。在公共财政能力已经增强,高等教育已经大众化的背景下,应该取消对公办和民办高等教育的二元规制,加大民办高等教育的财政投入,提高民办高等教育的质量,加强民办高等教育的学生资助,消除高等教育学费二元结构的不利影响。     

Academic effectiveness of private,public and private–public partnership schools in Pakistan

In recent years, there has been major growth in low-cost or affordable private schooling in South Asia. This has applied in both urban and rural areas. In Pakistan, some 25%–33% of all children now attend private schools. Further, there has been substantial, consistent, developing country evidence that students of affordable private schools outperform academically their counterparts in government schools. This seems to remain true even after account is taken of intellectual ability, home and family characteristics.In this paper we use 2011 data collected by Pakistan's Annual Status of Education Report (ASER, 2012) to address three questions:

• (a)Do Pakistan's rural private school students outperform their public school counterparts?
• (b)Do Pakistan's public–private partnership (PPP) school students outperform their public school counterparts?
• (c)Are higher private school fees associated with higher student achievement?

Our results show that:

• •private school students in Pakistan, do outperform their government colleagues. This effect persists even after account is taken of other variables (child, household and school).
• •PPP students also outperform their government counterparts but this effect disappears when account is taken of private tuition.
• •students from the lowest-fee private schools outperform students from government schools and higher fee school students generally outperform the lowest fee schools but this latter difference seems attributable to factors other than solely the higher fee level itself.

     

高校学费标准的困境与对策

高等教育是准公共产品,学费标准的形成要依据社会效益和市场效益.我国公立高校学费标准对社会效益和市场效益的体现,存在着理论缺失和实践困境.政府确立合理的学费标准区间,完善学费延迟支付制度,学校按照市场机制在学费标准区间内制定学费标准,是破解学费标准困境的途径.     

Funding and the attainment of transformation goals in South Africa’s higher education

The link between the funding of higher education and the attainment of higher education transformation goals in South Africa, especially access by students from previously under‐represented communities, is the main focus of this paper. Specifically, the paper examines three questions: (a) How does public funding of higher education encourage (or discourage) the attainment of higher education transformation goals in South Africa? (b) What challenges do frequent tuition fee increases pose to the attainment of higher education transformation goals? (c) How can South Africa’s higher education be made affordable for indigent (mostly black) students? The paper concludes that although South Africa’s higher education funding formula is generally geared towards attaining the goals of transformation, several of its aspects are inimical to the achievement of these goals. Further, declining public funding of higher education and frequent tuition fee increases by public universities vis‐à‐vis higher education’s natural inclination to reproduce, and even to exacerbate, existing social disparities and inequalities do not bode well for the attainment of transformation in South Africa’s higher education. This is aggravated by existing high levels of poverty and inequality mostly affecting the majority of the communities that were marginalised during apartheid.     

Effects of key state policies on private colleges and universities: sustaining private-sector capacity in the face of the higher education access challenge

The relationship between key state policy variables — (1) relative (private–public) tuition prices, (2) state student-aid funding, and (3) public institution density — and the competitive position of private colleges and universities is examined. Elite private schools are found to be nearly impervious to state policy. Large and moderately selective private institutions are adversely affected by public institution density and low public prices. Such prices divert students who would otherwise prefer these private institutions to similar public schools. State student aid funding most affects the enrollment market shares of the small, low-selectivity private colleges enrolling the greatest proportions of minority and modest-income students. The findings suggest state policies in this era of strong demand for higher education and constrained public sector capacity should use price signals (student aid and public institution pricing) to encourage students to consider seriously whether private higher education might serve their needs as well as or better than public institutions.