According to ‘Cost Disease,’ too much money is being taken out of students’ tuition to cover one type of cost, which leaves an insufficient amount to cover other types of costs, which is highly inefficient. What if tuitions were reevaluated; instead of a total number plus student fees, what if there were 10 sections to a students tuition that added up to a total tuition, and the people at the college responsible for spending money could only spend up to the amount collected for that area from the student’s tuition? That would probably lead to greatest spending efficiency, maybe.

“Dealing with the Future Now” has a part where they discuss refinancing debt. Instead of focusing on dealing with the debt once it becomes an issue, why not request a loan when the interest rate is very low (even if the university doesn’t need it at the moment), so that there will be a cash reserve in the future? This way, the money that the college would need in the future would have been bought in advance at a lower interest rate with a lesser overall cost to the college.

Why would a college opt to spend more money to maintain their “brand” as opposed to significantly cutting costs and risk losing their  “branding prestige?” If the studies from the insidehighered.com (Jashik, S) article are accurate, and the same level of education can be offered with larger class size, then wouldn’t that make branding a moot point?

The Moody’s article proposes that schools become more specific, and cut certain programs that aren’t bringing in the desired revenue. Wouldn’t it be even more financially beneficial to institutions if they offered schools that adhere to one discipline? For example, a school for doctors that offers a purely medical education for students from undergraduate to graduate. That way, all their money can be focused on one discipline and the same students will be retained for longer than four years, which increases the amount of guaranteed tuition.