HE Research Snippet 10 – PGT price expectations and how fees affect demand

Posted on 6th November 2013 by Youth

Research Snippets: Our monthly Research Snippets look at interesting and topical findings unearthed by the HE team at YouthSight. See all our HE Research Snippets here. If any of your colleagues would like to receive our Research Snippets, ask them to drop a line to: james.macgregor@YouthSight.com

November’s Snippet is based on findings from our latest syndicated research study, PGT+BE: Using behavioral economics (BE) to understand how students really make their taught postgraduate (PGT) decisions.

Although our PGT+BE study is wide-ranging, this Snippet will focus on just one narrow area – the issue of fee sensitivity. Tuition fees are, of course, part of a complex ‘return on investment’ assessment that prospective students make when choosing whether or not to undertake a taught master’s course.

Prospective students often over-estimate the difference in PGT fees charged by low versus high-ranked universities

We asked respondents considering doing PGT degrees, how much they would expect to pay for their course (or rather a course they might consider doing) at a ‘high-ranked university’ and at a ‘low-ranked university’. Depending on their subject of interest, prospective students expected to be charged an average of 75% more for a course at a high-ranked university (see Figure 1). Depending on the definition of ‘high-ranked’ and ‘low-ranked’ this can be seen as a fairly large over-estimation. While institutions traditionally found at the very top of the league table can charge significantly higher than other institutions for certain PGT courses, the difference between other Russell Group institutions and lower-ranked universities is often more variable and usually does not reflect expected differences of 75%.

Figure 1: Fee expectations – low-ranked vs. high-ranked institutions

Figure 1: Fee expectations – low-ranked vs. high-ranked institutions

Q24 What would you expect to pay for the course from a high ranking university? What would you expect to pay for the course from a low ranking university?
Base: PGT+BE – All considerers (1997)

One possible interpretation of this likely over-estimation may be that universities are not adopting value-pricing strategies and are instead falling back on market oriented pricing and cost-plus pricing strategies for PGT degrees. There could be a compelling argument to review PGT fee levels at some universities.

Estimating the impact of fees on demand

As well as looking at price expectations, the PGT+BE study looked at demand for taught master’s degrees amongst different groups of prospective students: how many would actually be put off applying at various different price points? To establish levels of ‘willingness to pay’, the study simulated demand for PGT courses using principles of the van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter.

We asked prospective students what fee levels would be too expensive to pay for a taught master’s course, and what price would be so cheap that they would doubt the quality of the course. A ‘U-shaped’ net rejection curve was produced by combining the percentage of respondents ‘rejecting’ at each price point (either because fees were either too high or too low).

To offer a flavour of the findings, Figure 2 below shows the willingness to pay across our overall sample of prospective students (the actual study breaks this down into sub-group too – and, of course, provides a fully calibrated X axis!). Looking at the chart, a few key observations can be made.

Figure 2: The price builder – willingness to pay amongst prospective PGT students

Figure 2: The price builder – willingness to pay amongst prospective PGT students

Q24 What price would you consider to be so cheap that you would doubt the quality of the course?/What price would be so expensive that you wouldn’t consider paying it at all for the course?
Base: PGT+BE – All considerers (1997)

Firstly, there is a broad range where fee levels have relatively little impact on demand. Net rejection remains below 20% between a span of around £4,000 to £8,000 (see note 1 on Figure 2). At these levels, there is a high degree of price inelasticity, in other words changing the fees could very well end up having little impact on demand.

Note 2 on Figure 2 points to the fact that there are also key psychological price points where demand for PGT courses drops off rapidly, either for being too high (and therefore being perceived as too expensive) or too low (and therefore being perceived as of a low quality). There is a sharp increase in net rejection when prices go below a certain point (a realistic base price for PGT degrees) and above a realistic price cap for all but the most prestigious and expensive PGT degrees.

As the data behind Figure 2 is based on a carefully constructed overall sample made up of prospective students at different life stages (current undergraduates, 2013 graduates, graduates from 1-5 years ago and graduates from 6-10 years ago), its findings (in isolation) should be approached with relative caution. However, our PGT+BE report breaks down this data and looks at differentials in willingness to pay by life-stage (as described above), as well as between other key sub-groups including subject area of interest, undergraduate university type, home vs. overseas students and social grade. The differences within sub-groups vary significantly and are very interesting – contact me for more information.

Conclusions

In comparison to the undergraduate market, institutions have far greater scope to set fees for PGT courses. But HEIs have to strike a balance between setting fee levels that aren’t too low or too high, that minimise rejection and subsequently boost revenues. Interestingly, there appears to be a wide range of fee levels where demand is fairly inelastic and fees could rise without killing off demand.

As 2015 approaches (the year the first £9,000 undergraduate cohort enter the PGT market), it will become increasingly important for HEIs to consider how their course offerings reflect market demand.

Our syndicated study PGT+BE provides detailed insights into the decision-making process of prospective taught master’s students, highlighting key differences between important groups of interest. As well as including qualitative and quantitative analysis, the study employed behavioural economics techniques to further unpick the process that prospective students go through when deciding on a taught master’s course. Priced at £3,250 plus VAT, the report is available now!

Contact me for more information.

John Newton, (Senior Project Manager, Higher Education)
john@youthsight.com
020 7288 8789

PGT+BE is a 100 page report. It looks at the decision-making process of prospective taught master’s students. To give a flavour of what else is included in the report, the sections are as follows:

  1. Introduction
  2. Executive Summary
  3. Appeal of and barriers to postgraduate study
  4. Postgraduate study preferences
  5. The decision-making journey
  6. How students make PGT choices
  7. Price, value, fees and funding
  8. PGT study at UG university
  9. Information sources

The report is accompanied by a Marketing Toolkit and a literature review.

YouthSight owns the consumer access panel for higher education: 70,000 current students, 18,000 graduates and 17,000 applicants and 10,000 other young people.We’ve completed hundreds of projects for our HE clients, helping over 90 universities and HE organisations obtain the insights and data they need to drive important decisions. We’ve helped policy bodies collect evidence for ground breaking reports, we’ve helped marketing directors develop winning strategies and we’ve helped Deans to create new early stage course propositions that genuinely meet market needs.Our portfolio of products is based on a clear understanding of the needs of HE professionals combined with a sophisticated approach to the ‘tools of our trade’, including qualitative and quantitative interviews, regression & key driver analysis, Price Sensitivity Meter and choice-based conjoint or trade-off techniques. Here are some of our key products and approaches:

 

More HE research snippets
HE research solutionsy
Clients and case studies

Related Posts

HE Research Snippet 24 – Could tackling the gender pay gap help unive...

1st September 2016

Gender pay inequality is big news. Last week’s IFS’s report on the topic dominated the headlines. In her inaugural speech as Prime Minis...

HE Research Snippet 23 – For PGT, The Importance Of Reputation Is Onl...

23rd June 2016

When choosing a university for a postgraduate degree, reputation becomes more important for many prospective postgraduates. YouthSight’s s...

HE Research Snippet 22 – Links with industry and placement opportunti...

26th May 2016

The sector has crossed a symbolic line. For the first time our Higher Expectations survey has recorded that, when selecting where to study, ...

HE Research Snippet 21 – When it comes to university choices, parents are...

19th April 2016

Our HE Research Snippets reveal interesting findings from YouthSight’s HE team. Please contact James MacGregor, Director of Higher Educati...

HE Research Snippet 20 – Just How Important Is Community Membership For F...

18th November 2015

Our HE Research Snippets reveal interesting findings from YouthSight’s HE team. Please contact James MacGregor, Director of Higher Educati...

HE Research Snippet 19 – Clearing students need your love...

25th August 2015

Research Snippets: Our monthly Research Snippets look at interesting and topical findings unearthed by the HE team at YouthSight. See all o...

HE Research Snippet 18 – Don’t ignore the subtleties of applicant d...

7th May 2015

Research Snippets: Our monthly Research Snippets look at interesting and topical findings unearthed by the HE team at YouthSight. See all o...

HE Research Snippet 17 – Finally, some measures we can all agree on...

30th January 2015

Vague measures of reputation and employability have long been the dominant factors in university choice. But, their meanings are ambiguous. ...