Kathleen Massey is Vice Provost (Students) at the University of Lethbridge, where she has led student services and success initiatives since 2017. With prior senior leadership roles at McGill and the University of Calgary, she brings nearly two decades of expertise in enrolment, student experience, and academic administration.

CRI:
So, when you first heard about tuition elasticity, or started looking at your options, what problem were you actually trying to solve?

Kathleen:

At the time, the government had strict limits on how much we could charge for tuition – domestic and international, across most programs. Then the province deregulated tuition for about half a dozen programs, most of them in the international space.

Suddenly, universities had more flexibility, but it also created a lot of uncertainty. It wasn’t clear what made sense to charge – what was reasonable, and where the risk of pricing ourselves out of the market began. We wanted to be very careful about that.

At the same time, we were thinking about socioeconomic access. If you set a higher price point, how much financial aid or scholarship support would be needed to offset it? That mattered for competitiveness, but also for making sure programs remained accessible to students who couldn’t pay the full cost.

So while accessibility was part of the conversation, the core issue was deregulation. Tuition setting had changed, and I wanted an evidence-informed way to set prices – one that reflected market realities without undermining access.

We also had a sense the government might deregulate more programs, for both domestic and international students. If that happened, we needed to be ready. Tuition revenue is an important contributor to institutional financial stability, but I wanted data to guide both tuition decisions and scholarship planning.

That was really the impetus: regulatory change, and the need to respond thoughtfully rather than reactively.

“I do think institutions need to encourage not just a problem-solving mindset, but an innovation mindset. Tuition elasticity studies have existed for years, but they’re not always where post-secondary institutions start.”

CRI:

Makes perfect sense. So once you had set those tuition rates, was there anything that surprised you in terms of how students and families responded, especially around price versus value?

Kathleen:

Honestly, it worked really well.

CRI helped with the research, and we implemented what the data showed. The focus was on value for money: how price, institutional reputation, and market positioning come together. That’s really what price elasticity is about.

Using the price elasticity calculator and market data, we landed in a strong place. We attracted more students, generated additional revenue, and avoided pricing ourselves out of the market. Students and families felt the cost aligned with the quality and reputation of the programs.

We also followed the scholarship recommendations, which was an important part of keeping those programs attractive and accessible.

The key thing I’d add is that this isn’t a one-and-done exercise. Markets change, and government policy changes. With recent federal shifts around international students, those same findings wouldn’t apply in exactly the same way today.

This kind of work has to be revisited regularly – by continuing to gather data, modeling scenarios, and adjusting over time.

CRI:

That’s a great point about it not being one-and-done. Before you could implement tuition elasticity successfully, what kinds of internal conversations did you have to have? Was it easy because you had the data, or was there still a mindset shift required?

Kathleen:
I was fortunate to work for someone who really valued an evidence-informed approach. That was critical, and it really resonated with me.

The conversations with my boss were about what information we needed and how to work with CRI to structure the analysis in a way that was actually useful. I didn’t encounter much resistance, in part because this wasn’t just internal data – it included understanding our position relative to other institutions across the country.

At the time, I was the registrar, and the internal conversation was fairly straightforward: here’s how we’ll use our data, here’s what new data we’re bringing in, and let’s see if we can build a model we can actually use.

I do think institutions need to encourage not just a problem-solving mindset, but an innovation mindset. Tuition elasticity studies have existed for years, but they’re not always where post-secondary institutions start.

Often, schools look at what others are charging and try to stay within a certain range. That’s not exactly guesswork, but it’s also a limited use of evidence. Using a tuition elasticity study required some openness to doing things differently and a real commitment to being evidence-informed – not to mention a bit of an innovative spirit. 

“What mattered most was that, as government tuition policy was changing, we had something better than a shot in the dark or a quick scan of what competitors were charging.

We had a more intentional approach, grounded in data and modeling, that supported better planning.”

CRI:

Beyond revenue, did tuition elasticity have any broader impact on enrollment, reputation, or longer-term planning?

Kathleen:

That’s an interesting question. It goes back a number of years now, so I don’t remember every detail.

What it definitely changed was how I thought about scholarship funding – how to position it relative to total cost, in a Canadian context. This work required more intentional thinking about how scholarship funding is allocated and led me to make the case for reinvesting some of the additional revenue into scholarships, particularly for international students.

Those were some of the short- and medium-term changes. I think we could have leveraged it even more over time, but I left the institution not long after.

What mattered most was that, as government tuition policy was changing, we had something better than a shot in the dark or a quick scan of what competitors were charging. We had a more intentional approach, grounded in data and modeling, that supported better planning.

CRI:

For institutions that are feeling a bit lost amid constantly changing regulations and revenue uncertainty, what advice would you give?

Kathleen:

Wow, yeah – that's a tough one. We’re grappling with really difficult times right now.

Whether it’s provincial governments making changes that negatively affect tuition for a significant portion of the student body, or federal changes to international programs that have harmed Canada’s reputation, institutions across the country are trying to figure out how to respond. And tuition elasticity is just one piece of a much broader, multifaceted approach.

What I always come back to – and what the tuition elasticity work helped with – is the value of having a market-research-informed, evidence-driven way of planning. Something that lets you think things through methodically, rather than throwing a dart at a board.

There’s always benefit in understanding where your institution sits in terms of perceived value relative to the other options students have. That matters not just for setting tuition, but for understanding which programs can sustain higher rates, and how much scholarship or bursary support is needed for different segments of the population.

For me, tools like this help navigate complexity – whether it’s because government decisions are undermining your ability to plan for the future or new opportunities are emerging.

The data matters. And having tools that help you gather, interpret, and make sense of that data for planning will always be valuable. 

CRI:
Really well put. Thank you.

Kathleen:
Do you mind if I add one more thing? This is just genuinely how I feel.

What I’ve always appreciated about working with CRI – and with Kirk and others – is the willingness to think differently. To problem-solve together. To collaborate on creating or modifying tools rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all solution.

I don’t work for CRI, and I’m not paid by them, but I’ve always valued the relationship because it’s allowed me to think more creatively about my work and to solve problems collaboratively.

They listen. And then they work with you to design something that could actually help address the challenge. I’ve really appreciated that professionalism, flexibility, and openness to different approaches. It’s made a real difference for me over the years.

Want to see how CRI can help you create data-driven change in your institution? Let us know what you’re trying to achieve.

Call us at (514)-250-4495 or let us reach out.