This article is the second in a five-part series examining the contemporary state of higher education. Building on our analysis of purpose versus function, we now explore how attempts to democratise higher education have led to unexpected economic consequences.

The post-war expansion of higher education emerged from noble aspirations: democratising knowledge, fostering social mobility, and building a more equitable society. State funding and policy initiatives aimed to transform university education from an elite privilege into a broadly accessible opportunity¹. Yet this worthy goal has yielded paradoxical outcomes that merit careful examination.

The democratisation of higher education has created an unexpected paradox: as access widens, the individual value of a degree diminishes, while its cost increases.

The democratisation of higher education has created an unexpected paradox: as access widens, the individual value of a degree diminishes, while its cost increases. This counterintuitive outcome challenges our fundamental assumptions about educational accessibility and its relationship to social progress.

The Market Response

Supply and Demand Distortions

As state funding increased access, universities responded not by expanding supply to meet demand, but by leveraging increased demand to enhance their market position². This response reflects the peculiar economics of higher education, where traditional market forces fail to regulate prices effectively. Unlike typical markets, increased competition in higher education often drives prices up rather than down, as institutions compete on prestige rather than affordability.

increased competition in higher education often drives prices up rather than down

The economic dynamics create several distinct but interrelated effects. Institutions invest heavily in amenities and facilities, transforming campuses into sophisticated learning environments that often resemble luxury resorts more than traditional academic settings. Administrative costs expand exponentially as universities create new departments and positions to manage increasingly complex operations and regulatory requirements. Marketing budgets have grown dramatically, with some institutions spending millions annually on recruitment and brand positioning. Research infrastructure continues to expand as universities seek to enhance their global rankings and attract prestigious faculty members.

The Prestige Premium

The persistence of institutional hierarchy means that despite wider access, competition for elite institutions intensifies³. This creates a two-tier effect where elite institutions maintain exclusivity while raising prices, and other institutions emulate this model, driving up costs across the sector. Prestige in higher education operates as a positional good: its value depends on its scarcity. This fundamental characteristic creates an inherent tension with democratisation efforts.

The pursuit of prestige manifests in various forms across the educational landscape. Elite institutions leverage their historical advantages to maintain selective admission rates while steadily increasing tuition fees. Mid-tier universities, attempting to climb the prestige ladder, invest heavily in research facilities and faculty recruitment, often at the expense of teaching resources. Less prestigious institutions find themselves caught in a difficult position, struggling to maintain academic standards while competing for a diminishing pool of students who can afford their fees.

The Student Debt Paradox

What began as an initiative to democratise opportunity has evolved into a system where students require more debt to access opportunity⁴. This creates a troubling cycle where rising tuition requires increased borrowing, which in turn influences career choices and often constrains social mobility. The burden falls disproportionately on those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who often take on higher debt levels relative to family income⁵.

What began as an initiative to democratise opportunity has evolved into a system where students require more debt to access opportunity

The implications of this debt burden extend far beyond graduation. Recent graduates increasingly postpone major life decisions such as home ownership, marriage, or starting a family. Career choices become heavily influenced by loan repayment considerations rather than personal interest or societal need. Perhaps most troublingly, those who fail to complete their degrees often find themselves in the worst position: bearing the burden of educational debt without the corresponding benefit of a credential.

The Institutional Arms Race

The inflow of state funding and student debt has fuelled an institutional arms race⁶. Universities compete through an ever-expanding array of facilities, services, and programmes. Modern campuses now routinely feature state-of-the-art fitness centres, dining facilities that rival upscale restaurants, and residential accommodation that would have been considered luxurious by previous generations’ standards.

Universities now maintain extensive bureaucracies to manage everything from compliance and risk management to student life and career service

Administrative growth has been particularly striking. Universities now maintain extensive bureaucracies to manage everything from compliance and risk management to student life and career services. Marketing departments have expanded dramatically, employing sophisticated digital strategies and international recruitment campaigns. Research facilities continue to grow more elaborate and expensive, with institutions investing heavily in specialised equipment and facilities to attract top researchers and secure grant funding.

International Perspectives

Different funding models across nations reveal varying approaches to this challenge⁷. The European model of state-funded universities has historically maintained broader access while controlling costs, though recent pressures have begun to erode this advantage. The American model of high-fee, high-aid institutions creates a complex system of cross-subsidisation but often results in significant student debt. Emerging Asian hybrid models attempt to balance state control with market forces, though they too face increasing pressure from global competition.

The American model of high-fee, high-aid institutions creates a complex system of cross-subsidisation but often results in significant student debt.

These international variations provide valuable insights into alternative approaches to higher education funding and delivery. The Nordic countries, for instance, maintain high-quality public universities with minimal student fees, funded through progressive taxation. German-speaking countries have preserved a dual system of universities and technical institutions, helping to maintain distinct educational pathways. East Asian systems often combine strong state oversight with significant private sector involvement, creating unique hybrid models.

Implications for Social Mobility

The democratisation of access, paradoxically, may reinforce rather than reduce social stratification⁸. This occurs through multiple mechanisms that often work in concert to preserve and sometimes exacerbate existing inequalities. Debt burdens disproportionately affect students from lower-income backgrounds, potentially limiting their post-graduation choices and economic mobility. Credential inflation requires increasingly lengthy periods of study, favouring those with the financial resources to remain in education longer. Elite institutions, despite widened access overall, often remain bastions of privilege, with admission rates for disadvantaged students showing minimal improvement over time.

The democratisation of access, paradoxically, may reinforce rather than reduce social stratification

The role of social capital in educational success has, if anything, grown more significant. Students from privileged backgrounds often benefit from better information about university choices, stronger support networks, and greater access to unpaid internships and other career-building opportunities. These advantages compound over time, potentially leading to greater rather than lesser social stratification.

Looking Forward

Resolving these tensions requires rethinking not just funding mechanisms but the underlying structure of higher education⁹. The challenge lies in preserving genuine accessibility while avoiding the inflationary spiral that threatens to undermine the very democratisation we seek. True democratisation of higher education may require reimagining not just how we fund universities, but how we conceive of their role in society.

True democratisation of higher education may require reimagining not just how we fund universities, but how we conceive of their role in society.

This reimagining might involve developing new models of educational delivery, creating alternative credentialing systems, or fundamentally restructuring the relationship between education and employment. Whatever path forward we choose, it must address both the financial sustainability of institutions and the genuine accessibility of education for all qualified students.

---

In the next article in this series, we shall examine how grade inflation compounds these challenges, further eroding the value proposition of higher education.

---

Footnotes

¹ Trow, M. (2007). “Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access.” Springer. ↩

² Winston, G. C. (1999). “Subsidies, Hierarchy and Peers: The Awkward Economics of Higher Education.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. ↩

³ Marginson, S. (2016). “The Dream Is Over: The Crisis of Clark Kerr’s California Idea of Higher Education.” University of California Press. ↩

⁴ Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). “Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream.” University of Chicago Press. ↩

⁵ Scott-Clayton, J. (2018). “The Looming Student Loan Default Crisis Is Worse Than We Thought.” Brookings Institution. ↩

⁶ Zemsky, R., Wegner, G., & Massy, W. (2005). “Remaking the American University: Market-Smart and Mission-Centered.” Rutgers University Press. ↩

⁷ OECD (2023). “Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators.” OECD Publishing. ↩

⁸ Chetty, R., et al. (2017). “Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility.” NBER. ↩

⁹ Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). “The Innovative University.” Jossey-Bass. ↩