IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/edecon/v33y2025i2p293-310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do college students demand lower tuition for online learning? Empirical evidence from choice experiments during COVID-19

Author

Listed:
  • H. Holly Wang
  • Yizhou Hua
  • Christine Wilson

Abstract

To address student concerns about full tuition rates while taking online courses during COVID-19, we conducted choice experiments at a representative U.S. land-grant university to elicit students’ willingness-to-pay for alternative course delivery modes. Results show that students demanded 30% and 7% tuition discounts for fully online and hybrid learning, respectively. A welfare analysis further reveals that 63% of the total welfare loss during Fall 2020–Spring 2022 was compensated for by the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) funding. Based on our findings, we suggest measures to facilitate students’ learning experiences and emphasize the importance of leveraging government appropriations.

Suggested Citation

  • H. Holly Wang & Yizhou Hua & Christine Wilson, 2025. "Do college students demand lower tuition for online learning? Empirical evidence from choice experiments during COVID-19," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 293-310, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:33:y:2025:i:2:p:293-310
    DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2024.2318215
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09645292.2024.2318215
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09645292.2024.2318215?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Kelchen & Sara Goldrick-Rab & Braden Hosch, 2017. "The Costs of College Attendance: Examining Variation and Consistency in Institutional Living Cost Allowances," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 88(6), pages 947-971, November.
    2. Caussade, Sebastián & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Rizzi, Luis I. & Hensher, David A., 2005. "Assessing the influence of design dimensions on stated choice experiment estimates," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 621-640, August.
    3. Aucejo, Esteban M. & French, Jacob & Zafar, Basit, 2023. "Estimating students’ valuation for college experiences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. Schlapfer, Felix & Brauer, Ingo, 2007. "Theoretical incentive properties of contingent valuation questions: Do they matter in the field?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 451-460, May.
    6. Moon, DongWhoi & Wang, H. Holly & Hao, Na, 2023. "Consumer behavior in choosing microplastic contaminated seafood across different countries: The role of cultural and attitudinal factors," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 290-306.
    7. Matthew Quaife & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Gian Luca Di Tanna & Peter Vickerman, 2018. "How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1053-1066, November.
    8. Roman, Monica & Plopeanu, Aurelian-Petruș, 2021. "The effectiveness of the emergency eLearning during COVID-19 pandemic. The case of higher education in economics in Romania," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    9. John Lai & Nicole O. Widmar, 2021. "Revisiting the Digital Divide in the COVID‐19 Era," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 458-464, March.
    10. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    11. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, Enero.
    12. Stella Nalukwago Settumba & Marian Shanahan & Willings Botha & Muhammad Zulilhaam Ramli & Georgina Mary Chambers, 2019. "Reliability and Validity of the Contingent Valuation Method for Estimating Willingness to Pay: A Case of In Vitro Fertilisation," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 103-110, February.
    13. Roy Brouwer & Ivana Logar & Oleg Sheremet, 2017. "Choice Consistency and Preference Stability in Test-Retests of Discrete Choice Experiment and Open-Ended Willingness to Pay Elicitation Formats," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 729-751, November.
    14. Jerry Hausman, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 43-56, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Buckell, John & Hess, Stephane, 2019. "Stubbing out hypothetical bias: improving tobacco market predictions by combining stated and revealed preference data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 93-102.
    4. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    5. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    6. Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    7. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    8. Du, Hua & Han, Qi & de Vries, Bauke & Sun, Jun, 2024. "Community solar PV adoption in residential apartment buildings: A case study on influencing factors and incentive measures in Wuhan," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 354(PA).
    9. Meressa, Abrha Megos & Navrud, Stale, 2020. "Not my cup of coffee: Farmers’ preferences for coffee variety traits – Lessons for crop breeding in the age of climate change," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3), December.
    10. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    11. Ruokamo, Enni, 2016. "Household preferences of hybrid home heating systems – A choice experiment application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 224-237.
    12. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    13. Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    15. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    16. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Perni, Ángel & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Martínez-Paz, José Miguel, 2021. "Contingent valuation estimates for environmental goods: Validity and reliability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    18. Baker, Rick & Ruting, Brad, 2014. "Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Macquarie, Australia 165810, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    20. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:33:y:2025:i:2:p:293-310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEDE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.