关于大学收费的讨论从未停歇。面对乱收费，2007年国务院出台“限涨令”，暂时稳定了收费市场;2012年“限涨令”到期，各大学掀起新一轮的收费涨价潮，引起公众的广泛争议:2016年教育部等四部门出台文件，要求规范收费标准，建立动态调整机制。长期以来，我国对收费关注更多的是教育公平，并推行政策强行干预，而忽视了市场力量。这在一定程度上造成了目前大学收费与教育服务质量分离、价格无法反映教育层级的逆市场现状，同时降低了个体对教育成本的敏感性，提高了一致性偏好带来的拥挤成本。事实上，大学收费问题不再仅是对教育公平和成本分担标准的讨论，更涉及到与大学发展、个体选择之间的相互影响，以及法律框架下，政府、大学、社会组织与公众之间资源配置和互动机制的深层次治理问题。 本研究正是立足于学费的价格属性，以大学收费为切入点，重新梳理其形成机制，深入挖掘其对于个人选择大学所产生的影响，形成政府、大学、个体之间良好的互动关系，以期由成本信息为杠杆撬动并完善高等教育财政体系。因此，以新制度主义为理论起点,本研究构建了制度目标一制度成因一制度选择一制度创新的分析框架，采用混合研究方法,以大学收费为突破口，讨论政府、大学、个体之间围绕收费而展开的互动机制，构建了大学收费和个体选择行为的逻辑模型;并通过中美制度比较、数据统计推断，进一步明晰不同制度环境下大学收费的形成机制，以及与个体的选择行为之间的逻辑关系。具体来说，研究主要回答以下三个问题:(1)大学收费的生成机制是什么，在平衡教育服务供给与市场需求过程中的决策机制是什么;(2)大学收费制度，如何影响个体选择大学的行为;3)中美不同制度安排下，学生的决策机制存在哪些差异。 论文共分为四部分: 第一部分是绪论，主要交代了研究缘起与选题说明，综合考察了现有研究取得的成果和存在的不足，勾勒出了研究的基本框架结构,并标明了本研究可能创新和努力的空间。 第二部分为第二、三章，从核心概念和理论基础出发，对大学收费行为、个人高等教育选择行为、个人感知价值以及大学收费体现的高校治理等四个议题展开了文献综述。在此基础上，提出了相应的研究假设，并确定了多阶段组合时序与混合研究方法。 第三部即第四章是制度成因，以制度分析为逻辑起点探讨大学收费制度的成因，建立了两个理论模型:一是以大学性质与地位为出发点的收费机制模型，二是以认知门槛为前提的个人选择行为逻辑模型。 第四部分为第五、六章制度和行为选择，是对上一章理论模型的验证过程。这部分选用充分体现价格机制的美国大学为例，通过对公立、私立、州立三所典型大学的案例研究，提炼美国大学的收费形成机制，并通过美国1179所大学的数据规律进行统计推断，验证了收费的形成机制，梳理了由此体现的大学财政治理关系。在此基础上,通过个案访谈的质性研究对结论并行验证。虽然我国还未真正建立起完善的收费治理体系，本研究依然转入中国场景下的个体选择研究场域，通过质性研究和对中国大学生1700多人的量化研究，比较分析且并行验证国外和国内不同制度安排下的收费机制对个体的选择行为影响。 最终，第七章得出研究结论如下: 大学分层定位在收费形成机制中的作用，根据制度安排的不同而不同:美国大学的分层和定位，在收费形成机制中具有决定性作用;而中国大学，由于更多受到政府管制，大学分层定位在收费形成机制中没有得到体现。美国私立大学收费的逻辑，更加符合一个遵循大学地位、生源规模、师资力量、资助奖助四个层次的关系模型。而公立大学，由于受到政府管制，其价格已经不再完全是价值的体现，大学性质成为影响收费的主要因素，大学地位为次要因素。以美国三所大学哈佛大学、伯克利加州大学、亚利桑那州立大学为例，三所大学所属的教育质量分层决定其了是选择质量还是规模为先的发展路径。 个体对大学的选择行为是在一定选择集合下作出的决定，集合包括收费体现的成本信息、感知价值等。无论中美，学生选择的局限性首先源自认知约束水平，其次是学生个体偏好。差异性在于，美国的学费作为教育价值的信号得到淋漓尽致的体现，学生平衡个体特征和成本信息进行不同选择，实现大学分流。而在中国，大学的收费机制已经完全被政策管制出现严重扭曲，收费机制对学生选择不具有调节治理的制度优势，单一的分流机制造成了单一的个体选择策略和固化的大学发展模式。 大学收费对于个体的感知影响，如果制度环境宽松，信息公开透明，个体更倾向于理性取舍，对于相应的大学收费感知价值会更高;而当制度弱化或者隐匿约束条件对于选择集合的影响时，个体对于相应的大学收费可能更加消极，感知价值相对更低。美国大学在不同的收费机制中更容易有理性选择，可以有着很高的感知价值;而中国的个体对于混淆的成本分类造成了偏差的感知价值。

The discussion on university charges has never been ceased. For the arbitrary charges, the State Council issued the "Limited Increase Order" in 2007; With the expiration of the restriction in 2012, there has been a surge in college charge all over the country, which causing great concern and public controversy . In 2016, The Ministry of Education issued documents to regulate the dynamic adjustment mechanism of tuition standard .In fact, the issue of college tuition is no longer about the discussion of education quality or cost sharing standards, but also about deep problems like positive interaction mechanism between the government, social organizations, universities and the public under the legal framework, the development of universities and the choices of individuals. For a long time, China has committed to the equal opportunity for education, emphasized on government control but ignored the market forces, which caused the reaction of charging behavior to the university development strategy, and the adjusting effect of charging behavior to students' choices . To a certain extent, it caused that the price lost the representing function of university's value: status and education quality; lost the sensitivity of individual character to education costing . The study based on the fact that tuition fees still have the price attribute for university education service, and the charging mechanism established by the government, universities and individual will have impact and leverage over the governance strategies of universities and the choice behaviors of students. Thus, taking new institutionalism system as a starting point, this study builds an analysis framework of system target, system origin, system selection and system innovation. Using mixed method,taking university charging as the breakthrough point, the interactive machanism of government, universities and the public, as well as the interaction of personal cost information contained in the price mechanism and the individual choice behavior of higher education are discussed. Furthermore, the relationship between university charging and the individual choice behavior logic is expected to be cleared by this study. The research mainly answers the following three questions: 1) how the university charge system affects the individual's university choice behavior; 2) with current university fee system, what is the most important decision-making mechanism of universities in the process of balancing education service and market demand? 3) what differences exist in the decision-making mechanism between Chinese and American students under different institutional systems? The paper is divided into four parts: The first part is the introduction, which mainly explains the origin of the research and the description of the topic. This part comprehensively reviews the achievements and shortcomings of the existing research,and introduce the basic framework of the research and indicated the innovation of the research. The second part includes the second chapter and the third chapter. This part starts from the definition of the core concepts, and conducts a literature review on college charging, individual higher education choice behavior, individual perceived value and university govemance. Then, the corresponding research hypothesis is proposed, and the research method (multi-stage and hybrid research) is determined. The third part is the fourth chapter, which is about the institutional cause. Starting from institutional analysis, the theoretical model of the relationship between university charging and individual choice behavior is established. And the other logical model is the individual choice which based on the cognitive threshold . The fourth part includes the chapter 5 and 6, which is the process of verification of the theoretical model listed in the previous chapters . Since China has not established a perfect charging governance system yet, this part adopts the statistic numbers from 1179 United States university. Using combined research method of case study and statistical inference, this part expects to clarify the different institutional arrangement relationships between charging, university and governance as well as the individual choicebehavior. Finally, the research conclusions are as follows: The stratified positioning of university has a decisive influence on the charge. The logic of charging of private universities in the United States is more consistent with a relationship model that follows four levels: university status, enrollment size, faculty strength, and financial aid. However , for public universities, because of government regulation, their price is no longer a reflection of value, and the status of universities has become a secondary factor. For Chinese and American college students, their choice of universities are both made according to almost the same kind of information, such as individual and family characteristics, school characteristics and individual perceived value, under certain set of choices. Among them, there are common rules but institutional differences between Chinese and American students in the process of individual selection of universities. The inconsistency is mainly reflected in aspects: firstly, the limitations of students' choice are originated from the level of cognitive constraints, no matter in China or in America; secondly, individual student preferences are critical to the results. In the United States, tuition as the educational value signal is very clear and vividly. Students can balance individual characteristics and costinformation according to the measurement of institution, cognitive and teaching advantage, which helps realizing college distribution. However, in China, the charging mechanism of universities has been completely regulated and seriously controlled by the policy. Price does not show the institutional advantage regulating and governing. Single division mechanism leads to single individual choice strategy and ossified university development model.