You are here:

Nonoptimal use of nontraditional education
ARTICLE

Economics of Education Review Volume 19, Number 1 ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Many universities are implementing nontraditional programs for working adults using adjunct, nontraditional faculty as temporary workers. This practice is defended as economically necessary. However, no economic theory of this practice has been developed. In a simple model of private universities with two products, traditional and nontraditional education, surplus is maximized subject to market demand for traditional and nontraditional education. Tuition and faculty staffing are choice variables. Marketing and library services are fixed at predetermined levels. The results are consistent with conventional price theory: to operate optimally, the firm pays each input the value of its marginal product, adjusted by the appropriate price elasticity of demand. If the university is modeled as a firm, traditional education is tuition elastic and nontraditional education is tuition inelastic, then traditional faculty are optimally paid more than nontraditional faculty only when traditional tuition is higher than nontraditional tuition. [JEL Code: L31]

Citation

Horton, M.J. Nonoptimal use of nontraditional education. Economics of Education Review, 19(1), 107-111. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved March 23, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(99)00026-6

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Blumenstyke, G. (1997). Some elite private universities get serious about distance learning . The Chronicle of Higher Education XLIII, 41, pp. A23-A24.
  2. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
  3. Breneman, D. (1970). An economic theory of Ph.D. production: the case at Berkeley. Berkeley: Ford Foundation Program for Research in University Administration, University of California.
  4. Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: improving the status of part-timers in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  5. Garvin, D. (1980). The economics of university behavior. New York: Academic Press.
  6. Horton, M.J., & Parry, A.E. (1997). The fall and rise of the faculty: product development in lean times . Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 45(1), pp. 15-21.
  7. James, E. (1990). Decision processes and priorities in higher education. In S. A. Hoenack, & E. L. Collins, The economics of American universities: management, operations, and fiscal environment (Chapter 4, pp. 77–106). Albany: The State University of New York Press.
  8. Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy. New York: Association Press.
  9. Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: a neglected species (4th ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
  10. Ridgeway, J. (1968). The closed corporation: American universities in crisis. New York: Random House.
  11. Statement from the Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty (1998). Academe, January–February, 84(1), 54–60.
  12. Strosnider, K. (1998). For-profit higher education sees booming enrollments and revenues . The Chronicle of Higher Education XLIV, 20, pp. A36-A38.
  13. Walker, P.A. (1998). The economic imperatives for using more full-time and fewer adjunct professors . The Chronicle of Higher Education XLIV, 38, pp. B6-B7.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References