2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This full empirical research paper explores the impact of block tuition across different demographics. While much attention has been paid to college accessibility, particularly regarding elite school admissions and overall affordability, less focus has been given to how institutional policies—such as tuition and fee structures—affect different degrees and students disproportionately. These structures not only make certain degree programs more expensive but can also effectively impose varying tuition rates on students pursuing the same degree. This issue is especially pronounced in engineering programs and can counteract financial aid efforts aimed at supporting underrepresented or disadvantaged students.

Motivated by the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG-4) on equitable education, this research adopts the equity measurement framework outlined in the Handbook on Measuring Equity in Education. We use the impartiality measures proposed in the handbook to assess the fairness of block tuition systems across racial groups.

Our central research question asks: How equitable is the impact of block tuition structures for students of different races? Block tuition refers to the practice of charging a flat rate for a range of credit hours, but this policy is implemented differently across institutions. For example, at , students pay a flat rate for enrolling in 12 to 15 credits, which equals the cost of 12 credits, effectively giving those who enroll in more than 12 credits a discount. Conversely, at , students are charged a flat rate for 12 to 18 credits, based on the cost of 15 credits. This setup results in students enrolled in fewer than 15 credits paying more per credit, while those taking more than 15 credits pay less.

These policies offer discounts that are not accessible to all students, disproportionately impacting those who cannot enroll in 15 or more credits due to time constraints, financial limitations, or course availability issues. Engineering programs, in particular, are affected by this inequity because they tend to require more credits than other programs, offer limited flexibility in elective choices, and have stringent prerequisite structures. As a result, engineering students often miss out on block tuition discounts, are forced to take extra, non-essential courses to reach the minimum credit load to realize a discount, or need more semesters to complete their degrees—leading to higher overall costs.

This research examines student data from multiple universities to compare the effective block tuition discounts and the number of credits earned at graduation based on race for both engineering and non-engineering degrees. The analysis centers on the average discount or premium per credit hour resulting from different block tuition policies. Using this as the basis of an impartiality measure, we find that these tuition structures disproportionately benefit certain groups, providing financial advantages to some demographics over others.