• Home
• Mission Statement
• Value Added
• Reports to the Board
• Chancellor's Speeches
• Chancellor's Biography
• Budget Presentations
• Strategic Planning
• Partnership with TCSG
• Contact Us

Home » Strategic Planning

Tuition Policy Direction

Adopted by the Board of Regents, April 12, 1995

The University System of Georgia

GOALS:

BACKGROUND:

A Tuition Study Committee, with thirteen institutional and System representatives chaired by Senior Vice Chancellor James E. Cofer, has completed a survey of tuition practices and issues. It discovered the following comparative patterns:

• Georgia is generally a very low tuition state--and getting relatively lower. During the past five years, Georgia's tuition has increased less than any other state's. Georgia's 23% tuition increase at the research universities was five percentage points lower than the next lowest state's. Massachusetts was on top with a 141.2% increase.
• Overall the University System of Georgia's current tuition and fees were found to be near or below the middle rank when compared with those of the Southern Regional Education Board's fifteen states. The University System's two-year colleges were the exception: their in-state tuition and fees are in the top third among their regional peer institutions.
• The University System's tuition and fees are even further below national norms--although the two-year colleges are less so than the others--since the average SREB state's tuition is low relative to the rest of the nation. Comparisons of the research-doctoral universities UGA, Georgia Tech, and Georgia State each with ten national peer institutions, moreover, found all to be below average in tuition and fees.
• Again excepting the two-year institutions, the undergraduate tuition gap between most University System institutions and their regional and national peers has recently increased, because Georgia tuitions have increased at lower rates than both SREB and national averages. In other words, most University System undergraduate tuition-and-fee charges are not only relatively low, but getting relatively lower.
• UGA's graduate tuition also ranks lower--and increasingly so--than both regional and national peer medians, although Georgia Tech and Georgia State's graduate tuitions are holding steady at about the middle of their regional peers. Graduate tuition at all senior colleges remains well below the middle of their peer groups, although some may have moved up slightly relative to regional peers in out-of-state graduate tuition. Georgia and a number of other SREB states charge undergraduates and graduate students the same tuitions, despite the significantly higher cost of graduate education. Since that practice is far less common outside the Southeastern states, and graduate students are generally charged higher tuition rates than undergraduates because of the higher cost of graduate instruction, Georgia's graduate tuition and fees rank extremely low nationally.
• Excepting only the University of Georgia, out-of-state tuition and fees of University System institutions (including the two-year colleges) rank near or below the middle of SREB institutional peer groups.
• Generally, the regional rankings for the University System's in-state tuition and fees are just a bit lower than those for out-of-state tuition and fees. And for many in-state students, HOPE scholarships make the tuition cost zero. Over 25,000 University System students received HOPE scholarships totaling over $25 1/2 million last year.
• Comparing tuition charges to instructional costs (taking instructional expenses for undergraduate and graduate students together), in-state tuitions are expected to cover on average about 25% of instructional costs, out-of-state tuitions 75% of instructional costs.
• Institutions now have authority to set their own mandatory fees, upon approval by the Board of Regents. Those fees differ widely, reflecting institutional choices regarding services to be offered, as well as some local differences in costs. Such fees support the general quality of campus life and are therefore applied to students residing on- and off-campus, and equally to full- and part-time students, who share the right to use the campus services and activities supported by fees.

The overall tuition picture is also complicated by several exceptions. Georgia State University and DeKalb College--probably to accommodate their commuter-student origins--make all their tuition charges on a per-credit basis, computed by dividing 15 credits (a standard full course load) into the standard full tuition (which elsewhere applies to all loads of 12 credits or more). Some professional schools charge tuitions that are higher than their institutional standard, and Georgia Institute of Technology charges $600/year more than the other research universities for out-of-state tuition. The out-of-state tuition picture also includes a variety of waivers of the out-of-state differential (the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition, currently termed the "non-resident fee" ). One of these is a matter of institutional discretion, by which institutional presidents can waive the out-of-state differential for international students up to 1% of fall enrollments. Another is the Board's "contiguous counties" waiver for out-of-state students who reside in specified counties contiguous to our institutions. Note that this latter is a unilateral policy of generosity on the part of the Board, not the result of reciprocity agreements by which the other states involved offer similar waivers for Georgia students attending their colleges and universities. The System's idiosyncratic terminology of "matriculation" (for in-state tuition and an equivalent proportion of out-of-state tuition) and "non-resident fee" (for the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition) can also complicate national communication and comparisons.

All told, current tuition patterns do not provide tuition incentives for attending the System's two-year colleges (principle #18), nor do they favor undergraduate over graduate students (principle #24).

IMPLEMENTATION:

After fifteen years of accelerated growth, the University System is now seeking to accelerate quality also. The priority given, by the Board of Regents' vision and guiding principles for "Access to Academic Excellence for the New Millennium," to strengthening institutions and their academic programs toward national preeminence requires a stronger resource base. The state has been most responsive during this budget year. It is appropriate that students, as the University System's chief beneficiaries along with the state, share the responsibility for increasing that revenue base. In determining the level of student responsibility, this policy differentiates tuition charges to maximize the access of Georgians to the state's public educational resources and the use of the System's two-year colleges as access cornerstones.

Decreasing tuition at the two-year colleges can bring them into line with the regional and national rankings of the rest of the System. Combined with differential admissions standards, a tuition decrease would be expected to attract enrollments to the two-year colleges, where the System has much of its unused capacity. A 5% tuition decrease at University System two-year colleges would cost about $4 million. Keeping tuition unusually low for in-state undergraduates would have the social benefit of maximizing incentives for higher education even for Georgians who cannot qualify for HOPE scholarships.

Raising the out-of-state tuition approximately 15% of the gap between in-state tuition and instructional cost in FY 1996 would yield $4 million. Raising the out-of-state tuition to 100% of cost in approximately equal installments over the following three years would not put it above the regional or national norms, would probably cause negligible if any enrollment decreases, and would therefore yield up to an additional $16 million. Provided that these tuition revenue gains are not offset by a proportionate loss of state funding, they could be used to furnish greater budgetary flexibility for the System. Introducing the out-of-state increases in these stages would allow current out-of-state students to plan their finances.

Simultaneously examining the elimination of the 12-month delay between state residency and in-state tuition status could prevent an increase in tuition waiver appeals--indeed make most current appeals moot. Most states have no such 12-month delay, and have developed well tested check-off criteria for distinguishing in-state from out-of-state students (e.g., assigning minor dependents the residency of their tax-deducting parent; using Pell Grant criteria for defining independent students; designating as in-state only new residents who have moved to Georgia for demonstrable purposes other than college/university attendance).

Other possibilities that involve complex variables and deserve further examination include: (1)raising graduate tuition charges, particularly in business, law, medicine, and similarly lucrative fields whose students can foresee the greatest material benefit from their educational investments, namely the higher incomes resulting from advanced degrees; (2) charging differential fees for special instructional programs or for students in special locational circumstances; and 3) expanding the current 1% institutional discretion for waiving the out-of-state tuition differential for international students.

The Board of Regents therefore directs that the Chancellor's Office and the institutions implement the following changes in the basic tuition formula, effective immediately:

• reduce tuition for Georgia residents at two-year colleges by 5%, effective summer quarter, 1995, the reduction to be absorbed on a Systemwide basis, not by the two-year colleges individually.
• beyond the FY 1996 5% tuition increase proposed for all other University System institutions, raise out-of-state tuition by stages to 100% of average costs (or 4 times in-state tuition), calculated separately for undergraduate and graduate students at the four research-doctoral universities, at regional universities and senior colleges, and at two-year colleges, by fall 1998. Increases should be phased in by annual steps, starting in fall 1995 with approximately 15% of the gap between current tuition and cost ($100 per quarter at the research universities, $75 per quarter at the regional universities and senior colleges, and $50 per quarter at the two-year colleges). Institutions will not be allowed to increase their out-of-state enrollment percentages above current levels without explicit agreement from the Chancellor.
• bring the tuition terminology of the University System into line with national patterns by eliminating the separation of out-of-state tuition into "matriculation" and "non-resident fee" components and the use of "matriculation" to designate in-state tuition.

The Board further directs that the Chancellor's Office assign to a University System Tuition Study Committee the following tasks:

• to examine the effects of raising graduate tuition charges to 25% above undergraduate tuition at each institution (representing full instructional cost), phasing in the increases from fall 1996 through fall 1998; and consider differential tuitions for various graduate professional schools, with attention field-by-field to the probable effects on their competitive positioning, as well as to the extent of financial potential reaped by their students.
• to examine the appropriate tuition level for graduate students working as research and teaching assistants (currently $25 per quarter).
• to recommend guidelines for considering institutional requests for higher tuitions at their professional schools.
• to examine the justifications for current special fees and the future potential for special instructional fees for high cost areas.
• to recommend, in concert with the Distance Learning Task Force, a policy for distance learning tuition.
• to recommend a policy for health, student activities, and athletic fees for students residing and/or studying on campuses other than their own, at approved off-campus centers, or as student-teachers located over 50 miles away; and/or to recommend possibilities for the reciprocal use of facilities at institutions closer to students' places of residence.
• to examine the possibility of eliminating the 12-month requirement for attaining in-state tuition status, as well as the process and level for settling out-of-state tuition appeals.
• to consider expanding the current discretion for institutional presidents to waive the out-of-state tuition differential for international students up to 1% of fall enrollments, to provide an additional 1% discretionary provision for out-of-state students that the institution deems to offer special talents and needed diversity to the student body (the 1:1 ratio between international and out-of-state student waivers to be adjustable with the Chancellor's agreement).
• to examine statewide, institutional, and/or program-specific possibilities for seeking reciprocal agreements with contiguous states, counties and/or foreign countries to waive out-of-state tuition for students from one area to attend programs or institutions in the other.
• to examine the arguments for and against, as well as the effects of, charging tuition on a consistent per-credit or plateau basis throughout the System.

This committee should report back in fall 1995, so that additional changes can be implemented no later than fall 1996.

In addition, the Board directs that the Chancellor's Office:

• track the effects on enrollments and tuition collection of all tuition changes.
• publicize the specific amounts and rationales for all these changes to current students and their parents, to state government, and to other stakeholders.

Finally, the Board directs that all work on the development and review of proposals be aimed toward helping the System to achieve its vision of "Access to Academic Excellence," and be guided by its Guiding Principles for Strategic Action, including, in particular, #18 and 24 on efficient use of resources, #4 and 5 student access for success, and #8 on academic excellence.

return to top