(Corey, 2005, p. 3) Now, again these costs are outstripping the ability of institutions to offset them and again other programs or individuals will then be asked to pay them. (Davis, 2003, pp. 1-2) According to these three experts the situation has again reached a pinnacle, as there will be a saturation point, where institutions may begin to reduce tuition discounting, as they become more aware of the risks they take in creating tuition-revenue deficits and begin to lose or be unable to support greater diversity of programming and enrolment. According to Corey, the goals associated with allowance of deficits are softer goals, and less track able, such as increased prestige but they could also be linked intrinsically to poor management, i.e. errors made when tuition discounting goes so far that it creates a deficit without intention, offsetting these deficits institutions argue that they have met goals other than revenue building, like increased economic, racial and academic achievement diversity and have therefore improved prestige and competitiveness in doing so. (Corey, 2005) Yet, like all businesses often asked to make economic sacrifices to meet broader long-term goals the business side of things, i.e. that some institutions are operating at a loss will likely create more and more conflicts within these institutions as they continue. Davis calls this a "breaking point," which will create loss of diversity rather than increased diversity as institutions lose more than they have gained by tuition discounting methods and may begin to lose programming and even faculty at a rate that cannot keep up with enrollment on any level. (2003, pp. 1-2) What Davis found is that some of these outcomes are already occurring, in spite of operational loss associated with tuition discounting. Low-income students are still paying disproportionately for their education, as some discounting plans attempt to stress academic or achievement-based goals of enrollment over economic needs-based programs. The ideal being that students of high caliber who are of lower economic status are being enrolled in greater numbers...

To maintain better scores and standards they remove the need portion of the tuition discount plans' goals an stress the achievement portions, thus supporting tuition discounting among those who have been traditionally less disenfranchised than others. (Davis, 2003, pp. 12-14)
Individuals who benefit from tuition discounting are not likely to seek its demise, and yet they are also not likely capable of continuing to disproportionately expand education by paying higher fees at institutions that offer less academically diverse programs.

1. Discounting may unintentionally reduce student accessibility and affordability.

2. Institutions that pay for discounting by shifting funds from instructional and student services may impede their own efforts to improve student retention and attainment. 3. Some colleges may be courting fiscal danger because of their discounting practices. (Davis, 2003, p. 2)

As is stated by Davis the point of researching this phenomena is not to point out fault but to create a dialogue that will help answer some of the enduring questions of a market driven higher education system.

Resources

Davis, J.S. (May 2003) Unintended consequences of tuition discounting

5(1) Lumina Foundation For Education Retrieved May 1, 2009 at:

http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/Tuitiondiscounting.pdf

Corey, S.M. (November 2005) Explanations for an institution continuing to tuition discount even when the results produce negative effects on net tuition revenue. Retrieved May 10, 2009 at: http://www.prescott.edu/faculty_staff/faculty/scorey/documents/Corey2005ExplainingTDwithNegEffects.pdf

Redd, K.E. (December 2000) Discounting toward disaster: tuition discounting, college finances, and enrollments of low-income undergraduates. 3(2) USA Group Foundation New Agenda Series Retrieved May 10, 2009 at: http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/discountingtowarddisaster.pdf