IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01345548.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

To gain or not to lose? Tuition fees for loss averse students

Author

Listed:
  • Guilhem Lecouteux

    (X-DEP-ECO - Département d'Économie de l'École Polytechnique - X - École polytechnique)

  • Léonard Moulin

    (CEPN - Centre d'Economie de l'Université Paris Nord - UP13 - Université Paris 13 - USPC - Université Sorbonne Paris Cité - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

We model the educational choice of students whose objectives in terms of salary are conditioned by their social origins. We assume that students from a poor background have a lower reference point than students with wealthier origins. We then study the efficiency of a policy of tuition fees as a mechanism to select students on the basis of their academic abilities. We show that, even in the absence of borrowing constraints, the optimal policy consists in lowering tuition fees for poorer students: since prospective students from a disadvantaged background perceives the possibility of joining the university as a gain, they have a tendency to act too cautiously compared to students with higher aspirations, who are ready to take risky choices in order to avoid what they perceive as a failure, i.e. not joining the university.

Suggested Citation

  • Guilhem Lecouteux & Léonard Moulin, 2015. "To gain or not to lose? Tuition fees for loss averse students," Post-Print hal-01345548, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01345548
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01345548
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01345548/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Fernandez, R., 1998. "Education and Borrowing Constraints: Tests vs Prices," Working Papers 98-17, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. David Flacher & Hugo Harari-Kermadec & Léonard Moulin, 2012. "Faut-il (vraiment) augmenter les frais d'inscription à l'université ?," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(3), pages 145-183.
    5. Teixeira, Pedro Nuno, 2006. "Markets in Higher Education: Can We Still Learn from Economics' Founding Fathers?," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt1vr4f0b2, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    6. Epple, Dennis & Figlio, David & Romano, Richard, 2004. "Competition between private and public schools: testing stratification and pricing predictions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1215-1245, July.
    7. Betts, Julian R, 1998. "The Impact of Educational Standards on the Level and Distribution of Earnings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 266-275, March.
    8. Robert J. Gary-Bobo & Alain Trannoy, 2008. "Efficient Tuition Fees and Examinations," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(6), pages 1211-1243, December.
    9. del Rey, Elena & Romero, Laura, 2004. "Prices versus Exams as Strategic Instruments for Competing Universities," Working Papers of the Department of Economics, University of Girona 12, Department of Economics, University of Girona.
    10. repec:hal:cepnwp:hal-00749625 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. David Flacher & Hugo Harari-Kermadec, 2013. "Tuition fees, self-esteem and social heterogeneity," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 191-210, March.
    12. Léonard Moulin, 2014. "Une hausse des frais d'inscription en France est-elle inéluctable ou même simplement souhaitable ?," Post-Print hal-01345565, HAL.
    13. Lionel Page, 2005. "Des inégalités sociales aux inégalités scolaires. Choix éducatifs et Prospect Theory," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 56(3), pages 615-623.
    14. Hsieh, Chang-Tai & Urquiola, Miguel, 2006. "The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile's voucher program," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(8-9), pages 1477-1503, September.
    15. Raquel Fernández & Jordi Gali, 1999. "To Each According to …? Markets, Tournaments, and the Matching Problem with Borrowing Constraints," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(4), pages 799-824.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philippe Batifoulier & Denis Abecassis & Nicolas da Silva & Victor Duchesne & Léonard Moulin, 2016. "L’utilité sociale de la dépense publique," CEPN Working Papers hal-01421197, HAL.
    2. Dan Anderberg & Claudia Cerrone, 2017. "Investment in education under disappointment aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(3), pages 1533-1540.
    3. Dan Anderberg & Claudia Cerrone, 2014. "Education, Disappointment and Optimal Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 5141, CESifo.

    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. Guilhem Lecouteux & Léonard Moulin, 2013. "From welfare to preferences, do decision flaws matter? The case of tuition fees," Working Papers hal-00807687, HAL.
    2. Philippe Batifoulier & Denis Abecassis & Nicolas da Silva & Victor Duchesne & Léonard Moulin, 2016. "L’utilité sociale de la dépense publique," Working Papers hal-01421197, HAL.
    3. Claude Diebolt & Magali Jaoul-Grammare, 2016. "Cliométrie de l’enseignement supérieur : une analyse expérimentale de la théorie de l’engorgement," Working Papers of BETA 2016-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    4. Claude DIEBOLT & Magali JAOUL-GRAMMARE, 2019. "The Cliometric Model of Glutting: An Experimental Analysis," Working Papers of BETA 2019-01, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    5. Kris De Jaegher, 2019. "Strategic framing to influence clients’ risky decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 437-462, May.
    6. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    7. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    8. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    9. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    10. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    11. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    12. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    13. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    14. Bin Zou, 2017. "Optimal Investment In Hedge Funds Under Loss Aversion," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-32, May.
    15. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    16. Wiafe, Osei K. & Basu, Anup K. & Chen, En Te, 2020. "Portfolio choice after retirement: Should self-annuitisation strategies hold more equities?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 241-255.
    17. Nicholas Barberis, 2012. "A Model of Casino Gambling," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 35-51, January.
    18. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    19. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    20. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tuition fees;

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-01345548. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.