The basic goal of education is education, right? That is the goal repeated endlessly by our government and our institutions of higher learning. Colleges are designed to provide opportunity and information for individuals to increase their livelihood and contribute to society. This noble goal is a great theory to lie all of the logistics of education upon, but when held to close examination, it crumbles faster than a softly baked chocolate chip cookie. If colleges are primarily interested in learning, why are there billions of dollars invested into educational institutions of every sort? Why is the cost of college increasing at an ever-growing rate? And finally, why are more and more students investing in college?

The answer to all of these questions is easy if you first understand that economics, not philosophy governs the American Institutional System. Students are simply investments in a complex game that few players even understand that they are playing. The cost of college is increasing because more and more students are attending universities and colleges of every kind. The law of supply and demand dictates that as the supply of college graduates increase, the demand for them decreases, devaluing their education. While this trend can be explained by simple economics, the rising cost of colleges is a direct result of the scarcity principles and supply and demand. As the demand for college graduates decreases, the demand for college education grows, resulting in a market where colleges are allowed to drive the market, and students simply become the market players. This trend is so evident in fact, that comparisons can be made between the average high school senior, and a professional athlete competing on a free agent market. The process of education has become so marketable, that collegiate markets actually mimic real life markets, and the impacts of such a surefire trend are certainly profound when analyzed with relatable results and market systems.

While there are multiple types of players in any market scenario, since we are investigating the claim that collegiate choice decisions have evolved to mimic professional sports free agency, it is appropriate to look at the recent market trends of NFL free agency last year (2015). Within the opening week of NFL free agency in 2015, several big name stars had found new homes, and the economics behind their decisions were relatively simple. While the philosophical idea for all players is that they join teams they want to win games with, hoping to work hard with their teammates to take home the Lombardi Trophy come early February, the truth in this market is found in the incentives players seek rather than any vague ideological goal. Former Detroit Lions Defensive Tackle Ndamukong Suh had found a new home in Miami with a new deal worth 114.3 million for six years, making him the highest paid defensive tackle in Football. Unless you buy into the mantra of “any given Sunday”, the Dolphins have been stuck in a decade of mediocrity, and their odds to win this super bowl this year stand at an unimpressive 40/1 even with Suh. So if Suh wasn’t moving to Miami to increase his chance at winning a ring, then what was his incentive? If you follow the dollars, Miami’s offer had no equal in terms of financial incentive, and while signing with his former team might have given Suh the best chance to win, he decided that the money was too good to pass up, creating a great example of our first kind of stereotypical individual in this free agency market: “The Money Grabber.”

While you might be inclined to think that every player employs Suh money grabbing philosophy, Randall Cobb stands out as a great example of our second and third kinds of stereotypical individual in this system. Cobb signed for two years and 21 million with his former team the Green Bay Packers despite confirmations that he could have received a substantially greater amount of money from other interested parties. One view on the decision might be that Cobb believes the Packer’s have a great chance to win a super bowl (a view that is undoubtedly marked with supportive information), but by looking at Cobb’s personality and his career, it is more than likely that he felt a certain sense of loyalty to the team that put him on the map as a skilled athlete. This means that Cobb is somewhat similar to our second and third stereotypical individuals: The “Prestige Seeker”, and the “Hometown Hero”.

Finally two more individuals dominate this market best evidenced by players such as Demarco Murray, and those dozens of players with big question marks and low ceilings who quickly and gratefully locked up contracts that sounded logically sound. Murray is a special case in the fact that he was the NFL’s leading rusher in the 2014 season, quickly brushing aside questions related to his durability to claim multiple accolades with the Dallas Cowboys. The Cowboys were prepared to offer Murray a deal that appeared to mimic market value for your average running back ( a position that is undervalued in today’s NFL) , but Murray quickly scoffed at the offer believing that his talents were worth more. Teams started to throw money at Murray in free agency, including his former team the Dallas Cowboys, but after news surfaced that Murray was not the Cowboy’s priority, Demarco quickly bolted to the Division Rival Philadelphia Eagles, who offered a relatively good financial package for 40 million with over 20 million guaranteed (reportedly not the highest), but promised to treat and respect Murray like the star he believes he is. In economic terms, an individual like Murray is dangerous because he or she forsakes logic and finances to embrace their own emotionally charged agendas, possibly pursuing revenge as in Murray’s case, or some other abstract goal. We can call this fourth individual “Dangerous Dan”.

The fifth individual in this market scenario is evidenced by the countless players who realize that they are incredibly lucky to be able to play professional football and make millions of dollars based on their slowly diminishing athletic ability, and thus they quickly sign deals to guarantee them the most playing time, money, respect or some combination of all three. We can call these individuals “Lucky Louies”. Together, the five mentioned stereotypical individuals in this market scenario do not explain the economic choices of every player and free agent, but they do dominate the NFL free agency market, and more interestingly these individuals also dominate the market for colleges in a frighteningly similar fashion.

In looking at college decision making, let’s again say we have that figurative student A that was previously mentioned with the impressive stats and accomplishments that would make him desirable to colleges in the same way that the NFL stars were desirable to multiple NFL teams. Now let’s say for the purpose of this scenario, Student A resides in Pennsylvania, and has been accepted to Penn State, Yale, Northeastern, Duke, and Rollins College. National College ranking would tell you that Yale tops the list of Student A’s options at #3, followed by Duke at #8, followed by Northeastern at 42, Penn State at 48, and Rollins College not making the list to be nationally ranked. If Student A is our “Prestige Seeker”, his predicted choice would be simple. Yale has the most notable reputation on this list and would provide the student with the highest ranked opportunity at education. This choice would likely occur regardless of financial aid.

Now let’s complicate our scenario by factoring in finances. Student A is in a financial situation in which he is not poor enough to receive full financial aid, nor is he or she wealthy enough to afford any colleges given their current costs. Northeastern offers student A a merit scholarship resulting in a “full ride” while all of the other universities offer financial aid and no scholarships. Logic would indicate that if Student A were a “Money Grabber”, their decision to attend Northeastern would be set in stone. To further shake things up, let’s assume that Student A has a boyfriend or girlfriend attending Penn State along with most of the student’s peers. Student A’s parents are both alumni. This sounds like the perfect scenario for our “Hometown Hero” to enjoy the comfort and ease of his known success and connections at Penn State. To introduce one last factor into the equation, let’s assume that our fictitious student is a very good basketball player. The newspapers don’t exactly see it that way however, opining that Student A is a “ballhog”, and that he or she isn’t as great as people might think. While it’s true that Student A isn’t exactly “recruitment worthy”, coaches at Duke told Student A that he or she could possibly try out to make the team as a walk on player. Can you imagine how great it would feel to prove the community wrong and turn into a collegiate star!? Sure it’s a “longshot”, and sure it’s risky and completely irresponsible to choose a college based solely on a minimal chance at playing NCAA Division One Basketball, but this is exactly the kind of choice a Dangerous Dan would make!

Overall, student A is in great shape regardless. The only other thing that could ruin this great scenario would be if Student A caught a bad case of “senioritis” and decided to foolishly fail three classes by midyear, resulting in all of the schools above save Rollins College revoking their acceptance offers. At this point, the subject of our scenario swallows up their pride and attends Rollins College, considering themselves a “Lucky Louie” for even being able to attend college given their late stage failure. As you can see, any given student could easily become an individual that mimics those found on a professional sports free agent market, and the choices that these individuals make could be considered nearly identical when you consider the impacts of schooling or playing for a specific school or NFL team.

Now there remains a burning question to our NFL-like collegiate market. Is it right to sell education? Perhaps this moral question is a debate that will dominate the politics and government of 21^st Century America.