Site menu:


July 2013 - Volume 19, Number 3


Click Here for a pdf version.



When College Becomes a Risky Investment

By Robert E. Martin
Emeritus Professor of Economics, Centre College


Economists mislead families by framing college attendance as an issue of capital investment rather than one of affordability. Telling parents and students that they should choose the college with the highest net present value, or predicted return on their tuition investment, encourages them to choose the most expensive college they can. Since colleges work to convince the public that quality and cost are directly correlated, the investment framework is a good complement to marketing strategies.


In fact, no objective data support the hypothesis that higher cost means higher quality in education. The data are lacking because colleges and universities provide few objective measures of quality, even though the market has called for that evidence for decades.


Colleges have no incentive to provide high-quality information and every incentive to keep “quality” measured by soft, ambiguous rhetoric. Colleges benefit when the public is uncertain in that regard: As long as people cannot measure the quality provided by individual institutions, they cannot make rational cost decisions among competing enrollment options.


The coupling of the investment model with college choice makes families less price-resistant than they should be, which in turn facilitates colleges’ ability to increase the price of attendance. The result is three decades of unprecedented increases in the net price of attendance, and record levels of student debt.


The student “investor” must be able to make accurate economic forecasts, properly estimate the probability that he or she will graduate, predict the completion date, choose the right major, and understand how to calculate the investment’s value. Yet calculations based on flawed forecasts and erroneous probabilities are worthless, and the information and sophistication required to make the right choice using that method are beyond the capabilities of most families.


In contrast, the affordability model is simple and requires only that a family know its current financial condition. No forecast of future prospects or estimation of probabilities is necessary. Family members consider how many children will be going to college, family savings, current income, parents’ retirement expectations, and whether each student will be able to work. From this they agree on the maximum amount they can spend, whether from earnings, savings, or debt, to pay for college. They can apply this method to each year of attendance until the student graduates. This strategy minimizes household regrets: If the student cannot finish or is unable to work after college, the financial impact on the family is mitigated.


The difference between the investment and the affordability models is subtle but important. Financial studies show that individual investors are best served by purchasing broad-based indexed stock or bond funds, or exchange-traded funds. They achieve instant diversification, with the lowest fees, and avoid having to do an analysis of individual securities. They can apply the affordability model to stock-and-bond investments by calculating how much to contribute to those investments during each time period. This strategy converts investors’ decisions into an affordability issue.


Similarly, consider the residential-real-estate market before and after the 1990s. Before then, purchasing a home was strictly an affordability issue, imposed on homeowners by lenders who expected to hold on to the mortgage. Lenders required data on borrowers’ income, existing debt, credit history, and family status in order to determine how much they could afford to borrow. The lenders put a price ceiling on how much individuals could pay; they were subject to a binding price constraint.


This changed during the 1990s. Original lenders could resell mortgages to others, who bundled those mortgages and resold them as securities. With borrowing constraints lifted, prospective homeowners approached the purchase of a home as a capital-investment decision, which says buy the asset with the highest net present value — and that means buy the most expensive house.


Naturally borrowers bought more house than they could afford. Housing prices were artificially inflated, “flipping” became common, and the bubble grew. Eventually, of course, affordability asserted itself, and the bubble burst.


If the investment model is inappropriate for homeownership and stock-and-bond investing decisions, it most assuredly is inappropriate for college-attendance decisions. The student does not take possession of the asset, if ever, until graduation. The student does not have a realistic estimate of the asset’s value until several years after graduation. A home is a real asset, but a college degree is an intangible asset; it cannot be resold.


Studies of the “return on investment” for a college education generally consider only those who complete college. Even for those who graduate, studies report results for the average or median students, while the distribution of results has considerable variance. Further, the return on investment is conditional on native ability, preparation, motivation, and the major chosen.


It is a mistake to encourage all students to go to college —and it is a mistake to encourage families to spend more on college than they can afford. For those students in the lower half, the impact of spending more than necessary for college can be devastating.


College attendance should not be promoted by the investment model. After all, risk is positively correlated with rate of return. Paying too much for college is a risky choice.


Originally published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 17, 2013. Reprint permission granted by the author, <> accessed on June 17, 2013.


FACTS & OPINIONS is one of our quarterly membership newsletters, arriving in January, April, July, and October. It consists of short articles of public interest with an emphasis on current issues.


FACTS & OPINIONS is published by Public Interest Institute at Iowa Wesleyan College, a nonpartisan, nonprofit, research and educational institute, whose activities are supported by contributions from private individuals, corporations, companies, and foundations. The Institute does not accept government grants.


Contributions are tax-deductible under sections 501(c)(3) and 170 of the Internal Revenue Code.


Permission to reprint or copy in whole or part is granted, provided a version of this credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from FACTS & OPINIONS, a quarterly newsletter of Public Interest
Institute." The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Public Interest Institute.


If you have an article you believe is worth sharing, please send it to us. All or a portion of your article may be used. The articles in this publication are brought to you in the interest of a better-informed citizenry, because IDEAS DO MATTER.



All of our publications are available for sponsorship.  Sponsoring a publication is an excellent way for you to show your support of our efforts to defend liberty and define the proper role of government.  For more information, please contact Public Interest Institute at 319-385-3462 or e-mail us at