Author: Lindsey Downs

Distance education has come a long way since WCET conducted a survey to better understand the relationship between the cost and price of distance education in 2016. The results of this survey were published in the 2017 study Distance Education Price and Cost Report. That survey found that although 75% of respondents indicated that distance education and face-to-face students paid the same tuition, once fees were added into the equation, the majority of distance education students, 54.2%, paid more for their education than their face-to-face counterparts. Survey respondents also indicated that distance education generally costs more, but there are instances when it costs less if cost reduction is a specific goal of the distance offering.

After notable changes to the digital learning landscape by a global pandemic and the explosion of emergency remote instruction that came with it, we have seen increased interest in student enrollment in online courses.  In 2024, IPEDS reported that 63.94% of all students were enrolled in at least one distance education course. Although this is down from COVID-era levels, it is significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels.

This high number of students taking at least one distance education course and the continued increasing price of higher education speaks to the need to revisit the study and determine what, if any, connection between the price and cost of distance education exists.

As a result, WCET surveyed United States institutions over the summer about the costs and price of distance education. The result is our new report, Distance Education’s Disconnect: Understanding the Relationship Between the Cost and Price of Distance Education.

2024 Study

Invitations to participate in the survey went to all WCET members and distance education leaders listed in the Higher Education Directory.

Survey participants were instructed to submit only one response per institution. There were 171 unique institutional responses.

Although we had hoped for greater participation in the survey, this is similar to the response to the 2016 survey. Because of the low number of responses, we cannot generalize the survey findings to all of higher education.

However, given the high number of public institutions represented in the survey, 73% of all respondents, the data may be especially indicative of public higher education.

A Note About Definitions

In our work in this area, we define cost as the amount of money that the institution spends to create, offer, and support instruction. Price is defined as the amount of money that is charged to a student for instruction and includes tuition and fees. We also used the IPEDS definition of distance education.

Conclusions on Cost and Price

The report draws seven conclusions on the cost and price of distance education.

1. The majority of distance education courses, 55.6%, are funded the same as face-to-face courses. This may indicate that distance education is becoming a more mainstream form of instruction and is less often segregated in self-funded units. In 2016, only 48.7% of respondents indicated that distance education courses were funded the same as face-to-face courses.
2. Differences in tuition and fees between distance education and face-to-face instruction often correspond with the level of the institution. The higher the Carnegie classification, the more likely that different policies for face-to-face and distance education exist. Still, the overwhelming majority of institutions, 63.2%, reported no different tuition and fee policies. This is over a 10 percentage-point increase since 2016 and suggests that distance education is being treated much like face-to-face instruction and may suggest the growing integration of distance education into the institution.
3. Modality is increasingly irrelevant when determining the price of distance education. A little over 74% reported that tuition is the same regardless of modality. However, differences in distance education fees do exist. Even though approximately half reported that distance education and face-to-face instruction had the same fees, almost 31% reported that distance education fees were higher.
4. The costs of distance education are normalizing when compared to face-to-face instruction. In 2016, in nine of the 22 cost categories respondents were asked about, distance education costs were more than face-to-face costs. However, in 2024, only six (regulatory costs, technologies, instructional design, creation of learning materials, assuring accessibility and ADA compliance, and faculty development) were more expensive than face-to-face instruction. 
5. The total price (tuition and fees) of distance education is beginning to align with face-to-face instruction. A little over 34% reported that the total price of distance education was the same as that of face-to-face instruction. Still, more than a third (39.6%) reported that the total price of distance education was higher, and almost a quarter (24%) said that it was less than face-to-face. When compared to 2016, this indicates that we are beginning to see an alignment with face-to-face instruction. In 2016, 54.2% indicated that the price of distance education was greater, 26.8% the same, and only 19% indicated that it was less than face-to-face instruction.
6. Distance education is not, however, resulting in significant cost savings. Across the 21 categories in 2024’s survey, there were no categories where the majority of distance education courses cost less than face-to-face instruction.
7. Price continues to be disconnected from cost. In 2016, 10.6% of respondents indicated that the price of their distance education courses was connected to their cost, while only 10.9% of the 2024 respondents reported a connection between price and cost.

We are aware that some legislators continue to believe that distance education should cost less than face-to-face instruction. There was a strong consensus among our respondents that distance education is not inherently cheaper and may require equal, if not more significant, investments to create quality courses. One respondent succinctly put it, “Low cost equals low quality.”

Respondents indicated several hidden costs that policymakers may overlook, including:

• Technology infrastructure;
• Instructional design;
• Student support;
• Compliance and regulations;
• Increased time investment for course preparation;
• Interaction with students; and
• Providing feedback.

As institutions turn to distance education to recruit more students and improve student access regardless of time and place, better understanding the costs of those distance education courses is critical. As one respondent wrote, “It is a misunderstanding to think of online classes as a commodity or product that can be ‘served’ to limitless numbers of students once developed. (We call this the ‘just push play’ myth.) Educating one student online, through regular and substantive interaction, requires just as much instructor effort and time as educating one student in the classroom.”

Please review the full details of the responses and our analysis in our new report: Distance Education’s Disconnect: Understanding the Relationship Between the Cost and Price of Distance Education.

Explore more of WCET’s work on this critical topic on our Cost and Price Practice page, featuring past reports, related blog posts, articles, and additional resources.

This post was written by Van Davis, WCET