UNC Should Keep Tuition Frozen

At the September meeting of the UNC Board of Governors Budget and Finance Committee, the UNC System announced that, for the first time since 2017, institutions may be allowed to increase in-state undergraduate tuition. The System’s “2026-27 Tuition and Fees Instructions” directed institutions that they “may propose increases up to 3% (only applies to newly enrolled students).”

Instead of raising in-state undergraduate tuition, the UNC System should continue to support long-term efficiencies. The System’s presentation on tuition and fees cited several reasons for possibly approving in-state increases this year. According to the presentation, the System has “achieved meaningful gains in affordability, absorbed multiple years of inflationary cost increases, and experienced an enrollment rebound.” It also noted that North Carolina is “anticipating a tightening state budget.”

Despite these observations, UNC System institutions should continue to keep tuition frozen. Purdue University in Indiana and institutions in the State University System of Florida demonstrate that a continued freeze is possible. Purdue University recently approved its 14th consecutive freeze on tuition and mandatory student fees. Tuition and fees have been frozen in the Sunshine State since 2014-15, two years longer than UNC’s tuition freeze. In-state tuition and fees at the flagship University of Florida are just $6,380.

Instead of raising in-state undergraduate tuition, the UNC System should continue to make strategic changes to support long-term efficiencies, including:

• Eliminating vacant positions: UNC schools should end vacant positions, especially if they have been vacant for more than six months (as UNC-Chapel Hill has already begun to do).
• Ending low-productivity programs: UNC schools should continue performing regular academic program reviews and discontinue or merge undergraduate academic programs that graduate fewer than 10 students per year. Graduate programs should also be scrutinized for effectiveness.
• Slowing pay increases for highly compensated administrators and faculty: Pay increases for highly compensated employees should be smaller, as a percentage of salary, than increases for employees with lower compensation.
• Reducing the headcount of non-faculty administrators: Martin Center data show that non-faculty staff headcount increased by 14.6 percent from 2015-16 to 2024-25 despite enrollment increasing by just 10.2 percent. UNC institutions should centralize and reorganize administrative functions to achieve savings.
• Continuing the Faculty Retirement Incentive Program: As I noted here, “The Faculty Retirement Incentive Program (FRIP) provide[s] institutions with flexibility, improve[s] university productivity, and save[s] money in the long run.”
• Improving facilities use to decrease the need for new construction: The Martin Center’s recent policy brief provides more information.
• Pinching pennies: A president of Purdue, Mitch Daniels, showed that counting even seemingly insignificant expenditures can make a difference. (I wrote about Purdue’s cost-cutting here.)
• Increasing out-of-state tuition, including at NC Promise schools: UNC institutions must raise out-of-state undergraduate tuition at least enough to cover all educational and related expenses. As I wrote here, North Carolina taxpayers and in-state students have to pick up the tab for out-of-state students when their tuition doesn’t meet this bar.

I’m confident that our institutions and our university system can find the necessary savings to keep tuition frozen. North Carolina parents and students will thank them.

Jenna A. Robinson is president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.