When “Elite” Becomes a Disadvantage

As a faithful consumer of USC’s product, it has come to my attention that the university’s brand is at risk. In the past three years, tuition has raised from about $45,602 during the 2013-­2014 school year to a projected $51,442 in 2016 (a difference of approximately $5,840). These increases follow and directly defy recommendations made by Undergraduate Student Government last November when they passed a tuition freeze resolution. Many of my fellow consumers have written extensively about whether​t​his product’​s quality warrants its high cost. But, I’m more concerned that this raise implies the university holds structural values that damage its image as a diverse and pioneering institution.

Access to a USC education has become increasingly limited. In 2015 we touted a 17.8 percent admission rate for first-year students. But the greatest determinate of who attends this university is not a student’s abilities, their grit, or even whether USC is the right fit for them. Rather, attendance is predicated on students’ access resources needed to afford a USC education.

USC offers generous scholarships and financial aid, and helps ease the burden of educational costs for many students. But with every year tuition increases, students who, though no less talented, intelligent or hardworking than any other accepted students, will not complete a USC education due to financial feasibility. Many students take on private student loan debt in hope that a USC-­caliber education, however expensive, will guarantee them stable employment in the future.

Moving forward, USC’s brand will suffer if students are profited from, rather than provided for. Not only is every student a consumer of their product (an elite educational experience), they are a potential marketing opportunity. The university’s website homepage reflects USC’s pride in the accomplished pool of students, faculty and alumni it has accumulated throughout the years.

For current attending students to be successful in their profession or at their craft, there is a myriad of structural obstacles to overcome. Foremost, it takes an immense amount of time to hone a skill or gain necessary knowledge. There is a clear relationship between USC students’ academic and career accomplishments, the amount of time they spend trying to pay for USC tuition, and the economic risks they have the option of taking.

Professional development opportunities like unpaid internships, travel, and research are only available to those who have enough economic capital to prioritize those engagements over paid employment opportunities, which may become a necessity with increased tuition costs. Students who do not have to worry about paying for school, and can accept opportunities simply to gain expertise will be more both more accomplished job candidates and have more time to develop innovative ideas.

But why not only cater to the consumer base that has the economic resources to purchase USC’s product, given they are more likely to be successful brand marketers in the future due to their economic advantages? Why not raise the threshold and ask them to pay a little more?

Simply, because USC accepted all of us. This institution saw the change we might create, the service, innovation, and hard work we would bring to USC’s name. In short, they saw our potential return on investment for the image of their institution. But every increase in tuition further decreases some students’ access to educational and professional opportunities not directly tied to paying for school. Returns on any partial investment in the form of financial aid fronted to students will weaken the more students must pay themselves. Every tuition increase, and the talent pool shrinks, leaving behind students just like ​R​onald Nelson, ​ who last year was accepted to all eight Ivy League universities, but chose to attend University of Alabama because that was the only school that offered him a full ride.

Allow if you will, an analogy. We all love football here at SC, and have drafted the most exceptional athletes to play on our teams. Regardless of their socioeconomic and academic standings, they are given what they need to solely focus on playing the game well. Now imagine football players were drafted based not on skill, but by their ability to afford to pay the full tuition at USC. This would result in a dramatic decrease in costs for athletic scholarships and tutors, but frankly, our team would suck.

If all elite academic institutions followed the same logic, perhaps we all could have equally terrible football teams. But, UCLA’s in-­state tuition for this year cost $38,171 less than USC*. Stanford, who won both football games against us last year, recently decided ​to make their education tuition-free for families who make less than $125,000 a year. These competing schools are already attracting, selecting, and retaining students based on their potential and talent rather than their financial capabilities.

It may be tempting to cater to low-risk, high­-return investments, to raise tuition so much that you can easily identify whose affluence already guarantees their success. USC could simply ride on their tailwinds, propagating their success and making them the poster­-children of an elite academic experience. In doing so, however, USC will be denying potential profit and branding opportunities and limiting the variety in perspectives that students of different financial backgrounds could only offer if they are given equitable access to chances for growth in and outside of the classroom.

*If you’re wondering about UCLA’s out-of-state tuition costs, they are still, not surprisingly, $18,780 less than USC a year.