Pricing Models for Education Abroad

A pricing model determines how an institution sets the costs for education abroad programs. It can vary by institution and program type, including options like home school tuition, a flat fee on top of the program's cost, or a hybrid model.

• Pricing models are connected to other institutional factors, such as the office budget/funding model and billing structures. Institutional priorities and leadership also impact the price students pay for the experience.  
• Additional costs like passport fees and personal expenses are usually not included in any pricing model. The home institution does not charge these, but they are often estimated for students to use with their personal budgets.  

Institutions may use different models for different program types.

• Exchanges typically follow the home school tuition model. Funds may go into different accounts, like deferred tuition accounts, rather than the general office/institutional account.
• Faculty-led programs vary by institution. Most depend on whether students pay regular tuition, discounted tuition, or no tuition for the abroad course, plus extra costs for housing, faculty travel, and other expenses. 
• Direct Enroll Programs and Programs Offered by Provider - vary by institution.

There is not a universal "best" or most "equitable" pricing model, as critical research and standardization of models have not occurred. 

The following are some of the models encountered and an attempt to define them. Please note that slight variations could still occur even with these definitions, depending on how the institutions implement them.

• Home School Tuition Model—This model has the institution assessing home school tuition (HST) prices to students as they would any other semester. While there is some debate regarding mandatory fees with this model, student activities, technology, and even facilities fees can be included and billed.
  • Many private liberal arts institutions use this model in some form (see hybrid).
  • This is also the model for most bilateral exchanges.
  • It is good to note if this is the sticker price for tuition or a discounted rate.
• Flat Fee Model – As titled by Brick et al. (2005), this model has the institution charging the actual price/sticker price of the program plus a flat study abroad fee/administrative fee. These fees range in amount (generally in the low 100s up to several 1000s) and are retained by the home institution. It is important to note that this is a study abroad fee, not an application/submission fee. Another similar structure is labeled as the Advising, Placement, Academic and Administrative Costs (APAAC) model mentioned in Heisel & Kissler (2010) and Ogden, Alexander & Mackintosh (2018).
• Hybrid Options – Some institutions offer their own unique models that are not listed above. Examples of these models that Meyer (2023) in their research and discussions with others have seen or were described include:
  • Home School Tuition PLUS – the home institution charges home school tuition with various combinations of campus pricing for housing and/or meal plans. When meal plans are unavailable abroad, institutions may pay out meal stipends directly to students.
  • Home School Tuition PLUS Sticker Price — In this case, the institution requires students to pay the home tuition and any additional program costs from the provider. One institution had a system where the home school tuition was subsidized or reduced, and the sticker price for the program itself was charged. Another institution that used this model in the past (has since changed models) provided large scholarships to lower the tuition costs.
  • Sticker Price — Institutions charge students the program's cost without any flat or administrative fee. However, institutions may still assess an application fee.
  • Tuition-Based Flat Rate — Some institutions may charge students a flat rate based on home tuition but not the actual home school tuition amount. For example, if tuition is $26,000, the institution instead charges all students going on programs $24,000. This would include any administrative fees or costs from program providers. This is not necessarily the discounted tuition rate; however, it could be based on that.
  • Tiered Model— In this model, different programs of the same type (i.e., program providers) will have different rules. For example, during Meyer’s (2023) research, they came across an institution with six levels that approved provider programs fell into. These included negotiated rates or discounts for some program providers, special discounts for other program types or locations, etc. 

Several survey responses in the post-NAFSA survey highlighted that administrative fees are charged in addition to tuition and program costs. 

• Administrative fees cover costs related to running the study abroad office and managing student support services. Depending on the program's complexity and duration, these fees can range from small amounts (e.g., $150) to more significant sums (e.g., $1,200 or $2,000). The fees tend to be higher for institutions that utilize the flat fee model.
• These differ from application fees or costs associated with the application review or completion process.
• Some respondents in the post-survey discussion mentioned that they do not charge an application fee or were interested in ending the current practice.

Financial aid was another well-mentioned theme that relates to pricing models. 

• Those who stated they use home school tuition models mentioned a perk of this easily transferring aid on their programs. This is because the credits and all the billing appear to be the student’s standard charges. However, other pricing and billing models can complicate the portability of aid types without specific workarounds and agreements between the study abroad office and the financial aid office.
• Some respondents mentioned that institutions face financial constraints (e.g., at community colleges or small schools) that prevent charging extra fees beyond the program's core costs, leading to a simpler, more transparent pricing model.
• Access to institutional financial aid for students in programs that charge the provider’s sticker price (like program providers or short-term programs) is limited, which is a significant concern. 
• Federal aid may still apply depending on contractual agreements with partners, but many students rely on institutional aid, which can be capped and has proven harder to apply to non-home school tuition models.
• External Scholarships: Some respondents highlight that external scholarships and grants can help offset costs for some students but that internal funding from the institution is often more equitable.

• Many of the survey respondents highlighted the inequitable nature of most pricing models. These models often create barriers for many students.
• Of those who said their model was "maybe" equitable in the survey, most respondents were not sure pricing models could be equitable.
• The majority (66%) continued to feel that pricing models could “maybe” be equitable, with a tie of 17% each saying yes or no to the question of whether models could be equitable.
• The majority of those who said their model was "not" equitable were not sure models could be equitable. 
  13% said “no” models could not be equitable, while 27% said “yes” models could be, and the remaining 60% said maybe.
  Of those who said their model was equitable ("yes"), most agreed that models could be equitable.
• Conversation consensus, without any critical research or data cited, was that home school tuition institutions (HST) are seen as more accessible. This feeling also arose in the survey data in Meyer (2023).
  • One caveat to this model is that it often places financial strain on the institution or entails some limiting effect on the number of students or program types available. In Meyer (2023), the mention of a shadow budget also arose from multiple institutions using home school tuition and balancing two sets of numbers to account for the funds coming in and going out and having students subsidizing other students depending on their program’s cost versus the HST rate.
  • Another possible concern raised was provider scholarships - HST (or other internal billing models) institutions may not allow students to receive provider awards as they are listed as a discount on the provider invoice and not funds sent to the student.
• Many respondents advocated for greater transparency, simplified pricing structures, and institutional responsibility to improve equity and access to study abroad.
• Transparency in how program costs are communicated to students was an expressed need. Providing itemized cost breakdowns of the program fee and requiring students to review the program’s details before deciding to participate (e.g., through informational videos or meetings), is one suggestion made.
• Meyer (2023) found that the theme of transparency expressed was in conversation, however, when ranking priorities the survey, transparency came in last against factors such as institutional priorities, leadership, and others.
• Several respondents expressed frustration with the practice of private, "not-for-profit" providers charging high prices for programs and claiming to reinvest funding into scholarships. Some mentioned these companies generate millions in revenue, which seems inconsistent with their nonprofit status, leading to skepticism about their commitment to equity. 
   

Note:  A standard definition of "equity" and what "an equitable study abroad price entails" was not provided in the Meyers 2023 survey.

Primary Data Sources:

Meyer, K. M. (2023). Just Another Education Abroad Gatekeeper: Education abroad administrators’ perspectives on institutional pricing models and how those models impact inclusion efforts. [Dissertation]. Hamline University. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_all/4595/

Meyer, K.M., Pope, A., Voldeen, E. & Soares, M.J. (2024, May 30). The Price of Study Abroad: Equitable and Inclusive? [Conference presentation & Survey]. NAFSA Annual Conference & Expo, New Orleans, LA, United States.

Pope, A. (2023). Equitable Study Abroad Fee Policies: History, Literature, and Recommendations. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 35(3), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v35i3.762

Additional Resources:

Brick, S. H., Chieffo, L., Roberts, T., & Steinberg, M. (2005). Planning, budgeting, and Implementation. In Brockington, J., Hoffa, W., & Martin, P. (Eds.). NAFSA's guide to education abroad for advisors and administrators. (3rd ed., pp. 389-416). NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Heisel, M., & Kissler, G. R. (June 2010). Financial strategies for expanding study abroad: Models, mission, management, and means for growth. NAFSA: Association of International Educators. https://www.nafsa.org/resources/financial-strategies-expanding-study-abroadmodels-mission-management-and-means-growth

Ogden, A. C., Alexander, L. M., & Mackintosh, E. (2018). Education abroad operation management: Strategies, opportunities, and innovations: A report on ISA ThinkDen. ISA Worldstrides. https://educationaltravel.worldstrides.com/rs/313-GJL-850/images/ISA%20Thi nkDen%20Report%202018.pdf