Cost is a barrier, but a specific one
When people talk about breaking down barriers in education, money usually comes first. Tuition is the largest cost for most students, but it is rarely the only one. Required textbooks, software, access codes, equipment and fees add to the total, and they often arrive at the start of term, when a student’s budget is most stretched.
Open educational resources address only a slice of this: the materials. They do not change tuition, housing or lost income. That narrowness is worth keeping in mind, because it shapes what a reasonable reader should expect.
How materials costs might affect persistence
There are a few plausible routes from the price of materials to whether a student stays in a course.
Delay or avoidance. Some students report waiting to buy a book, borrowing one, sharing with a classmate or going without. If that means falling behind in the first weeks, the early gap can be hard to close.
Course selection. A student might choose fewer courses, or avoid a subject known to have expensive materials, which can slow progress toward a qualification.
Cumulative pressure. For a student already worried about money, a further bill can be one more reason to consider stopping, even if it is not the main reason.
Work hours. Needing to earn more can reduce time for study, which affects both persistence and results. This is an indirect route, and it is hard to measure.
These are mechanisms, not proven effects. Whether they operate strongly in a particular college depends on its students, the typical cost of materials and what support already exists.
What the evidence can and cannot tell us
Surveys of students often find that a notable share say cost has affected their choices about books. But a survey of what people say they do is not the same as a measurement of what changes when materials become free. Self-reports can be affected by memory, by wording and by who chooses to respond.
Studies that compare courses before and after a switch to free materials, or sections that use open texts with those that use commercial ones, are more informative, but they have well-known weaknesses. Students may not be assigned to sections at random. The instructor, the semester or the course design may also change. A reported difference may reflect those other changes rather than the materials.
Because of this, careful readers treat reported gains as suggestive, not settled. Several things to look for in any claim:
- How many students were involved, and over what period?
- Were the groups comparable at the start, for example in prior grades?
- Was the outcome persistence, a final grade, or something narrower such as a quiz score?
- Did anything else change at the same time?
- Do the authors discuss results that were neutral or negative?
A finding of no meaningful difference is also useful. It would suggest that materials cost was not the main obstacle in that setting, or that students found other ways around it.
Who might benefit most
If cost does matter, it is most likely to matter for students with the least financial margin. That includes students from lower-income households, those supporting dependants, and learners paying for their own education while working. This is a reasonable expectation rather than a firm finding, and it fits the broader worry about textbook costs for students with little spare money.
It is also worth saying that cheaper does not always mean easier. A free text that is hard to read, outdated or poorly matched to the syllabus may not help. And a student without a device or a stable connection may not benefit from digital material at all, which is the point behind the digital divide.
Other barriers that remain
Even if materials are free, students still face:
- Tuition and living costs.
- Time pressures from work and family.
- Gaps in prior preparation.
- Uncertainty about how university or online study works, particularly for first-generation students.
- Health and wellbeing challenges.
Programs that aim to improve outcomes often combine cost reduction with advising, tutoring or flexible scheduling. When improvements are reported, it is not always possible to tell which part of the package did the work.
Reasonable expectations
A fair summary is this. Removing a materials cost is likely to help some students, particularly those under financial strain, and it is unlikely to harm anyone. It is a sensible, relatively modest intervention, not a complete answer. The size of any benefit depends on the setting, and the research behind it is limited by the difficulty of separating one change from many.
For an institution thinking about adopting open texts, a practical approach is to measure what is happening before the change: how many students delay buying books, how many drop courses and why. That gives a baseline to judge against afterwards. For a student, the useful points are to check early whether required materials have free versions, to ask the instructor or library, and to remember that cost is rarely the only factor in whether a course feels manageable.
Open education can help remove one barrier. How much that matters will vary, and claims of dramatic change deserve a close look at the evidence behind them.