Does Guaranteed Tuition Lower College Costs?


This post is part of an occasional series examining how California can learn from policies in other states.

California’s public universities have a volatile tuition history. Stretches without increases are followed by sharp tuition hikes. The most recent increases in 2008—during the Great Recession—followed a pattern seen throughout the US: recessions generally cause states to allocate less money to their public universities, and the universities respond to the lost revenue by increasing tuition. Other states with similar tuition volatility have enacted policies to make tuition more predictable for students and their families.

Policy: Illinois Undergraduate Guaranteed Tuition Program

Since 2004, Illinois law has guaranteed that students who enroll in any of the state’s public universities pay the same tuition for four years. Any tuition increases that occur during those four years affect only the new class of freshmen. This allows students and their families to plan for the four years of college financially. But the policy covers only tuition—so students are still subject to yearly increases in other costs, such as room and board, other fees, and books. These additional expenses represent a large portion of the overall cost of college but are generally less volatile than tuition.

How does guaranteed tuition in Illinois compare to year-to-year tuition in California? A University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign student starting in 2008 and finishing in four years knew in advance that tuition would be $9,242 for all four years, leaving the student with an overall bill of $36,968. For an incoming UC Berkeley student, tuition was a relatively low $6,262 in 2008, but that student did not know that tuition would increase 79% by the fourth year and would add up to more than $34,000.

Policy Impact

Institutions that guarantee the same tuition for four years risk bearing the cost of inflation and other external factors (such as a reductions in state funding). This risk could be handled in many ways, including dramatically increasing tuition for the newest class of students, accepting more out-of-state students (who pay much higher tuition), or setting tuition at a higher level than necessary in the first year of a student’s enrollment. In fact, a recent study suggests that colleges affected by the Illinois guaranteed tuition law have raised tuition for incoming students by 26% to 30%—or about $1,500. This has resulted in students paying about 7% more tuition on average than they would have paid without the policy. In short, these students may have traded affordability for predictability.

Lessons for California

A similar policy in California would make tuition predictable for students, but public universities would still be at the mercy of the state budget process, recessions, inflation, and other factors. The universities would have to plan very carefully or risk not having enough revenue. The current practice of setting tuition year to year may allow the state’s universities to be more flexible and responsive to changes in revenue. This practice makes tuition volatile, but it may offer students a cheaper degree.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Increasing On-Time Graduation Rates in Hawai‘i


This post is part of an occasional series examining how California can learn from policies in other states.

While 57 percent of students at California State University (CSU) earn a bachelor’s degree, only 19 percent of first-time freshmen graduate in four years. Taking longer to graduate increases the cost of the degree and delays entry into the workforce.

One reason students are not graduating in four years is because they are not taking a full course load of 15 units—about five classes—per term. For financial aid purposes, students are considered full-time if they enroll in 12 units per term—about four classes. But taking 12 units means taking an extra year to graduate. Students have many reasons for taking less than a full load: family obligations, employment, inadequate preparation for the rigor of college courses, or the cost of extra books. It is also possible that students do not realize they need 15 units per term to graduate in four years. UCLA’s Cooperative Institutional Research Program found that 86 percent of freshmen nationwide believe they will graduate in four years, but only about 55 percent actually do so. CSU may be able to learn from 15 to Finish, a campaign adopted by the University of Hawai‘i in 2011 to increase student enrollment in 15 units per term and increase their four-year graduation rates.

Policy: University of Hawai‘i’s 15 to Finish Campaign

In 2010, the University of Hawai‘i system (UH) launched the Hawai‘i Graduation Initiative (HGI) to increase college participation and completion. One of HGI’s strategies is a 15 to Finish campaign to encourage university and community college students to enroll in 15 units a term so they can graduate in four years. Other HGI strategies include creating block or cohort scheduling so that groups of students take the same courses together; reducing summer tuition; and developing academic roadmaps to help freshmen plan their course sequences to graduate on-time. The 15 to Finish campaign’s communication strategy highlights the need to take 15 credits per term and the benefits of graduating in four years in television commercials, informational handouts, and student orientations. It also markets the additional three units as “free” because tuition is the same for 12 and 15 units.

Policy Impact

The early results of UH’s 15 to Finish campaign look promising. Between 2011 and 2013, enrollment in 15 units per term rose by about 5 percentage points, to 25 percent of the UH student population enrolled in 15 units. More important, the system’s four-year graduation rate has risen 7.2 percentage points since the graduating class of 2012, to 25 percent. At CSU, the four-year graduation rate has improved just 2.9 percentage points, to 19 percent, over the same period.

Lessons for California

CSU’s 2015 Graduation Initiative was successful in raising six-year graduation rates. As the system launches a new 2025 Graduation Initiative, which focuses in part on increasing four-year graduation rates, campuses should consider implementing a media strategy to inform students about the three “free” units per term that will help them graduate on-time. One campus, Cal State LA, has already started: it launched a 15 to Finish campaign in August 2015, in anticipation of its transition to a semester calendar.

A system-wide 15 to Finish campaign could also persuade some campuses to stop discouraging students from taking 15 units if they work. It would be more helpful for campuses to inform students they need 15 units a semester to graduate in four years and give them estimates of the number of homework hours created by this course load, so they can make their own decisions about how many units to take each term.

This kind of messaging could also help UC and the community colleges increase on-time completion rates. It could be a relatively simple way to create more room for new students and increase the number of college graduates in our state.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Race and College Admissions in Texas


This post is part of an occasional series examining how California can learn from policies in other states.

Passed in 1996, California’s Proposition 209 prohibits colleges from considering race as a factor in admissions. Partly as a result, the University of California (UC) system does not fully reflect the diversity of the state’s high school graduates, a cause for concern among many observers. This disparity is even greater at the most elite campuses: UC Berkeley and UCLA. Other states facing bans on race-based affirmative action, including Texas, have developed alternative policies to address racial equity in college admissions.

Policy: Texas’s Top 10% Plan

In 1998, Texas instituted a two-part plan to promote diversity at its universities in response to the state’s ban on race-based affirmative action. The first part, the Texas Top 10% Plan, guarantees admission to any public Texas university to students in the top 10% of their high school’s graduating class. The plan relies on the fact that Texas high schools are highly segregated by race and income to produce a diverse set of students with guaranteed admission.

The second part of the plan fills any remaining spots at public universities with students from outside of the top 10%, and allows campuses to consider many factors, including race, during this process. This second part is being called into question in the Fisher v. University of Texas affirmative action case that was recently argued in front of the Supreme Court.

Policy Impact

Following the law’s implementation, the top school in the state, the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin), saw more applications and enrollees from traditionally underrepresented high schools—those with high concentrations of minority students, from rural areas or small and midsize cities, and from less affluent regions throughout Texas. The policy also likely encouraged Latino students to apply and gain access to top Texas universities. Today, a majority of UT Austin students are top 10% students. The policy, however, did not produce the same diversity levels as affirmative action.

Lessons for California

UC already has a program called Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC), which guarantees admission for eligible students who are in the top 9% of their high school. Unlike the Texas plan, ELC does not guarantee students admission to the school of their choice—they are only guaranteed a spot somewhere in the UC system. Students who are eligible but do not get into their campus of choice are offered a spot at a campus with space—most often UC Merced. In 2014, over 11,000 UC-eligible students were referred to UC Merced, but very few enrolled.

UC’s guaranteed-admission plan has not led to high levels of diversity at its elite campuses. But would a guaranteed-choice plan like Texas’s work in California? A recent report by the Civil Rights Project shows that California has among the most segregated K–12 schools in the nation, so guaranteeing top students a spot at their preferred UC campus may give students in underrepresented groups across California a path to the top universities that ELC does not currently provide.

More research is needed to determine how California’s most competitive and prestigious public universities would deal with even higher demand. Texas’s results show that guaranteed admission alone can’t produce the same results as affirmative action, but it might be a part of an effective plan to remedy underrepresentation in California’s top universities.

Learn more

Does Free Community College Grow Enrollment?

This post is the first in an occasional series examining how California can learn from policies in other states.

Tuition-free community college has garnered increasing political support over the past two years. In his recent budget requests, President Obama proposed legislation entitled America’s College Promise to make community college free nationwide. Three states—Oregon, Minnesota, and Tennessee—already have free community college programs, while nine more are considering legislation to create similar programs.

Supporters say that making community college more affordable will increase enrollment and graduation. But will free community college increase overall college enrollment, or will it merely shift enrollment from four-year colleges to two-year colleges?

Policy: Tennessee’s College Promise
Tennessee’s College Promise program—the model for the federal America’s College Promise program—offered its first scholarships to students starting college in the 2015–16 academic year. This program is part of a larger effort to increase the state’s percentage of college graduates from 32% to 55% by 2025.The program provides “last-dollar” scholarships that cover the remaining cost of tuition after a student has used all other available federal, state, and local grant and scholarship aid. Funded by state lottery revenues, Tennessee’s College Promise program will cost an estimated $12 million and provide scholarships to nearly 15,000 students in its first year.

Policy Impact
Initial results suggest that free community college may shift enrollment, rather than growing enrollment. According to an article in the Tennessean, community college enrollment rose by nearly 14% following the program’s implementation, while enrollment at the state’s public four-year institutions decreased. At the University of Tennessee at Martin, enrollment declined by 13% in one year. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga also saw declines in freshmen enrollment, while two nearby community colleges saw dramatic increases.These preliminary results run counter to national trends, which have shown a shift in enrollment away from community colleges to public four-year institutions since 2010.

Lessons for California
California’s community colleges play an essential role in our higher education pipeline. They often serve non-traditional and underserved minority students, and provide workforce training to help students ascend the economic ladder. If providing free community college increased enrollment and graduation, this could lead to higher earnings, more tax revenue, and reduced demand for social services in the state.

But there’s a chance the policy could limit degree production. According to our research, students who begin their postsecondary career at a four-year college are much more likely than those who enroll at a community college to earn a bachelor’s degree, even when controlling for student characteristics. For example, students from low-income families who begin at a four-year college are, on average, two to three times more likely to finish their bachelor’s degree, regardless of their high school GPA.

Other approaches to making college more affordable might have a bigger impact. In California, two-thirds of students already receive free tuition, and about 90% of the cost of attending community college comes from living expenses. Increasing state awards for non-tuition educational costs would be a logical step to improve student access and educational attainment. The Cal Grant B access award currently provides low-income students with up to $1,656 to help pay for items like books, housing, and food. If funding for this award, which started in 1969–70, had kept up with inflation, it would currently by worth over $6,000, nearly four times its current value.

Compared to other states, California ranks 47th in sending our high school graduates to four-year colleges. Improving access and affordability is vital, but California should make sure that policies also increase students’ likelihood of earning a bachelor’s degree, so that more individuals have the opportunity to realize the myriad benefits—economic and otherwise—that these degrees confer.

Figure source: Author’s calculations based on logit regression models using College Futures Foundation student data. Students followed for six years. Data and methods available in Technical Appendix A of the report Making College Possible for Low-Income Students.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Video: Improving Graduation Rates at California State University

California State University (CSU), the nation’s largest university system, has steadily improved graduation rates, but there is more work to be done, PPIC researcher Jacob Jackson told a Sacramento audience last week.

The system still struggles with graduation gaps. Historically underrepresented students are much less likely than their peers to get degrees. Even though the system has higher six-year graduation rates than similar universities, it lags behind in the share of students who graduate in four years. This comes at a high cost to both the state and CSU students.

As CSU launches a new initiative to improve graduation rates, Jackson and fellow PPIC researcher Kevin Cook coauthored a report analyzing the system’s progress to date. The authors also describe promising strategies that could help CSU reach its goal of increasing graduation rates and cutting graduation gaps in half by 2025.

Learn more

Read the report, Improving College Graduation Rates: A Closer Look at California State University
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Testimony: Closing California’s Workforce Skills Gap

Hans Johnson, director of the PPIC Higher Education Center and PPIC senior fellow, testified before the Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 2 on Education Finance in Sacramento yesterday (May 17, 2016). Here are his prepared remarks.


The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) projects that between now and 2030 California will fall 1.1 million bachelor’s degrees short of workforce demand.1 Closing this gap will require substantial improvements in access to four-year colleges, transfer rates from community colleges, and completion rates among students who enroll in college. In this testimony, PPIC identifies specific goals for access, transfer, and completion at California’s public colleges and universities, and increases in private colleges that together could close the workforce skills gap.

Our work on this issue emphasizes that closing the workforce skills gap will require strong improvements in college enrollment and completion among underrepresented groups, including low-income students, first-generation college students, Latinos, and African Americans. California cannot succeed economically unless gaps in educational attainment are eliminated or at least substantially reduced. A forthcoming report from PPIC will show how new goals for access, completion, and transfer will improve equity in California.

In our baseline scenario, which is based on current practices and procedures, California’s public and private higher education institutions will produce 3.1 million bachelor’s degrees between 2015–16 and 2029–30. This baseline scenario assumes that the state’s college enrollment rates, completion rates, and transfer rates will remain at current levels.

Our “closing-the-gap” scenario charts a course to producing 4.2 million bachelor’s degrees over the next 15 years. In this scenario, the total number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2029–30 would be 60 percent higher than in the baseline scenario—and it would be 72 percent higher than the number of degrees awarded in 2014–15. Such dramatic increases are not entirely without precedent. Between 2002–03 and 2014–15, the annual number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by California’s public and private universities increased almost 50 percent. Gains in earlier periods were even more impressive. For example, between 1964–65 and 1979–80 the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded at CSU increased 95 percent.

In the recent past, growth in the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded at UC and CSU was fueled primarily by increases in the number of students who enrolled in college and secondarily by increases in completion rates. Even though the share of high school graduates entering UC and CSU did not change appreciably, enrollment increased as the number of high school graduates grew.

The California Department of Finance projects that the number of high school graduates will not change substantially over the next fifteen years. This means that increasing the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded will require changes in three key thresholds in the education pipeline from high school to college to degree.

  • First, the share of recent high school graduates eligible for and enrolling in four-year colleges will need to increase.
  • Second, persistence and completion rates for students enrolled in college must increase.
  • Third, the number of students who transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges (or return to college) must increase.

The exact mix of improvements in these three areas is not set in stone. Our closing-the-gap scenario is based on empirical trends, and our current focus is on public institutions. We assume that private colleges will keep pace with those in the public sector, continuing to produce about a third of all bachelor’s degrees awarded each year. Also, we have not incorporated applied bachelor’s degrees awarded by the state’s community colleges, as those numbers are still very small. This means that UC and CSU together would need to produce an additional 730,000 bachelor’s degrees over this period and private colleges would need to produce an additional 340,000 bachelor’s degrees (a total of 1.1 million) to fully close the degree gap by 2030. Private nonprofit colleges would account for the vast majority of the additional degrees awarded by the private sector.

Our initial closing-the-gap scenario sets the following targets for the state’s public colleges and universities:

  • Eligibility will increase 5 percentage points over current levels at UC (the top 17.5 percent of high school graduates will be eligible for UC, up from the 12.5 percent share set by California’s Master Plan for Higher Education) and 6.7 percentage points at CSU (the top 40 percent will be eligible for CSU, up from the top third). These new eligibility levels will be phased in over an eight-year period.
  • The number of transfer students will increase 35 percent over baseline levels. These increases will be phased in over a five-year period.
  • Completion rates will increase 9 percentage points at UC and 17 percentage points at CSU. At UC, completion rates for students who enroll as freshmen will increase incrementally from 83 percent in 2016 to 92 percent by 2026. Completion rates for freshmen at CSU will increase incrementally from 57 percent in 2016 to 74 percent by 2030. There will be similar increases in completion rates for transfer students at both institutions.

CSU will account for most of the increase in degrees awarded over the entire projection period—it will award 481,000 additional degrees, compared to UC’s increase of 251,000. This is both because CSU is a larger institution, enrolling many more students than UC, and because CSU has much more room for improvement in graduation rates. Private nonprofit colleges would also play an important role, adding an additional 206,000 degrees. Other additional sources, such as private for-profit colleges, online degree programs, and bachelor’s degrees awarded by community colleges, will also need to play a role (see Table 1).

Most of the projected increase in degrees awarded at CSU comes from improvements in completion, while increased eligibility accounts for almost half of UC’s increase. Increased transfer rates will also be necessary to close the gap (see Table 2).

Of course, this is just one scenario for closing the workforce skills gap (our interactive model is available upon request). In the future, we expect to develop alternative closing-the-gap scenarios; we will also examine the potential impact of shortening the time it takes students to get their degrees. Additional work should assess the role that private institutions might play. Other scenarios might involve different assumptions and targets. But, however it is accomplished, closing the gap will lead to better economic outcomes for all Californians, increased state revenues, and reduced social service demands.

1. Hans Johnson, Marisol Cuellar Mejia, and Sarah Bohn, Will California Run Out of College Graduates? (PPIC, 2015).
Figure note (middle): “Other” includes online degrees, private for-profit degrees, and applied bachelor’s degrees awarded by the community colleges.
Photo credit: Public Affairs/Sacramento State

Assessment and Placement at Community Colleges

The assessment and placement process often represents the first point of contact between incoming students and community colleges. This process aims to evaluate students’ readiness for college-level English and math courses, and for those deemed underprepared, to determine appropriate placement into the remedial—also known as developmental—education sequence. Estimates suggest that 75%–80% of incoming community college students across the state enroll in developmental education in at least one subject.

Despite the prevalence of this process, little is known about how the state’s community colleges assess and place students into math and English courses. The last statewide survey on this topic, conducted over five years ago by WestEd, found that community colleges used placement tests extensively, but the cut-off scores for placement varied a great deal across campuses. Additionally, the survey showed that the use of other student achievement measures for placement was sparse and unsystematic.

Greater clarity regarding assessment and placement is crucial for two reasons. First, decisions made about a student’s readiness for college have significant implications for that student’s educational trajectory. In California’s community colleges, only 40% of underprepared students ever complete a degree or transfer, compared to 70% of their college-prepared peers. Research shows that developmental education may discourage students or “divert” their academic progress, as students spend considerable time and money on developmental courses, but these credits do not count toward a college degree or transfer.

Second, the possible overreliance on placement tests may be cause for concern. The Community College Research Center has found that the placement tests commonly used at colleges across the country are not strongly predictive of student success in college-level courses. In fact, these tests tended to under-place students, meaning students were placed into developmental courses when they could have passed college-level courses. This research also demonstrated that high school grades and other pre-existing student achievement data could do a comparable or better job at predicting success in college-level courses.

More comprehensive research in these areas would allow the state’s community colleges to identify assessment and placement reforms that help improve outcomes for all students. As a step forward in this effort, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is collecting survey data on the current assessment and placement policies and practices at California Community Colleges. These survey results will help pinpoint the different measures used to assess the math and English skills of incoming students and the ways in which these measures determine appropriate placement.

This research comes at an important time, since more change is underway. As part of the Common Assessment Initiative, over the next several years, community colleges will begin to use a common placement test, set locally determined cut-off scores, and enhance their use of multiple measures. PPIC’s survey will establish a benchmark of the assessment and placement process prior to the implementation of these statewide reforms.

America’s College Promise: An Opportunity for California

The cost of college has become a prominent issue in the presidential campaign as tuitions increase, student debt inflates, and candidates attempt to appeal to a growing generation of younger voters. Though candidates and policymakers disagree on the specifics, providing free tuition for community colleges has emerged as one popular policy prescription. Recently, two of California’s candidates for US Senate – Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez—voiced support for this idea.

Last year, President Obama proposed legislation entitled America’s College Promise, which would have provided federal funding to states to make two years of community college free to academically eligible, first-time students. However, Congress blocked this program, citing the $79.7 billion price tag. Additionally, the program drew criticism from a range of stakeholders.

Many suggested that providing free tuition would do very little to help with the full cost of college. In California, only about 10% of the total cost of attending community college is related to tuition and fees because state subsidies and tuition waivers cover most of these costs. Instead, the state’s high cost of living, most notably in housing, constitutes the largest financial burden for community college students.

The most recent iteration of the program has sought to address this criticism. The president’s 2016 proposed budget includes a request for $1.6 billion as part of a 10-year, $60.3 billion program that would create a partnership with states to make a maximum of three years of community college free for eligible students. The federal government would cover three-quarters of the program’s cost and states would cover the rest. Participating states must meet certain performance requirements regarding student outcomes and state funding increases for higher education. And to avoid spending on those who can more easily afford community college, students must have an adjusted gross income below $200,000.

These changes in the program benefit states with low tuition. States will receive a payment for each eligible student equal to 75% of the national average of community college tuition. If a state’s tuition is below the national average—as California’s is—the additional funding may be used for other higher education purposes. Given that California’s tuition is low but its living expenses are high, this provision would allow the state to direct the extra funding—about $1,000 per eligible student—toward low-income students to help pay for books, transportation, housing, food, and other necessities. This extra funding could help low-income students in community colleges and at public four-year colleges afford the true cost of attending college.

In response to the proposed federal program, the state legislature has introduced a suite of bills known as the California College Promise. These bills would eliminate community college tuition and direct new funding to expand eligibility for the community college fee waiver program, increase funding for the Cal Grant program, and help community colleges establish regional coordination efforts with K-12 feeder schools and public four-year colleges and universities.

Even if federal funding for a long term program like America’s College Promise is unlikely to materialize in a presidential election year, the fact remains that reducing the cost of college has become a prominent issue. Proposals to provide free community college have clearly resonated with a broad coalition of voters, policymakers, and advocacy groups. As congressional debate continues regarding reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which approves spending on federal financial aid programs, we can expect the conversation surrounding college affordability and access to intensify.

Chart source: NCES Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS)

Learn more

Read Higher Education in California: Making College Affordable
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Early Results from Education Reforms

California’s K–12 system is implementing an unprecedented number of reforms. The state’s school funding system and curriculum standards are new, as are all statewide tests. A new school accountability system is being developed. A number of large urban districts are changing their high school graduation requirements. These reforms are designed to equalize opportunities for students and close achievement gaps among demographic groups.

It will be some time before we know what all of these changes add up to, but PPIC researchers who examined the early results of two reforms presented their findings at a PPIC event in Sacramento last week.

California’s New Standardized Tests

PPIC senior fellow Laura Hill summarized the results of California’s new standardized tests, the focus of a PPIC report she coauthored. The scores show that English Learners and economically disadvantaged students are far behind other student groups—possibly farther behind than initially thought. As the accountability system evolves in the state, the test results are an important call to action for districts and schools struggling to help high-need students, Hill said. High-need students did well in some schools and districts, and the first-year results provide an opportunity to learn from their experiences.

College Prep for All?

Julian Betts, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, and PPIC adjunct fellow, examined a high school graduation requirement that makes college preparatory courses mandatory for all students. Major urban school districts—including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland—recently implemented this requirement, making it mandatory for students to complete the a–g sequence of classes required for admission to the University of California or California State University. Based on a PPIC analysis of the San Diego Unified School Districts’ Class of 2016, Betts and his coauthors concluded that this requirement is likely to help many students but damage the prospects of others. He suggested steps that San Diego and other districts can take to help lower-achieving students meet the new graduation goals.

Learn more

Visit PPIC’s K–12 education pages
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Reducing Tuition Volatility at California’s Universities

After sharp increases in tuition during the recent recession, the California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) systems made an agreement with the state to freeze tuition in exchange for increases in state funding starting in 2012. However, state support has not returned to pre-recession levels and the agreement runs out after this school year. It’s clear that the universities will raise tuition, but it’s not clear when or by how much.

The history of tuition increases at UC and CSU shows that periods of low or no tuition growth are often followed by large spikes in growth, most recently in response to declines in state support. California’s universities are not guaranteed a part of the budget (as K–12 and the community colleges are), so declines in state revenue (such as during a recession) often result in declines in state allocations for higher education. Universities raise tuition to make up the lost revenue, leading to volatility in tuition increases from year to year.

Instead of instating abrupt tuition increases, universities could rely on gradual, scripted changes, which would benefit students who are planning their finances around spending the next four (or more) years at a university. What kind of gradual change have we seen historically? Since 1979, tuition and fees have risen considerably at both UC and CSU—on average, about 8.6% annually at UC and about 11.3% at CSU. Some have suggested tying tuition increases to inflation, which over the same period, rose only about 3.1% yearly. In 2014, UC considered a plan to increase tuition at 5% each year for five years in an effort to make tuition increases transparent and steady—rather than unpredictably sudden and large. This plan was highly controversial at the time, but it would have resulted in yearly tuition increases that were lower than the average yearly increase across the last 35 years.

It is impossible to predict when the next recession will hit or what it will do to state revenues and higher education support. Steady increases could provide a cushion for universities if a drop in state funding occurs, and may allow them to keep to their planned tuition increases—but that depends on how the legislature responds to increases in tuition and the next recession.

When tuition does rise, the state and university systems should work together to make sure college is affordable for low-income students, especially considering PPIC projections that show a need for more college educated workers by 2030. The state’s generous financial aid programs mostly kept up with the sharp tuition increases from 2007 to 2011, but some low-income families had to pay more than they did before those increases.

The state could take steps of its own to make funding for the university systems less volatile. For example, some have suggested a dedicated funding stream, such as Proposition 98’s provision for community colleges and K-12, could limit cuts in state support for the university systems during recessions and improve their ability to plan for the future.

Chart source (TOP): University of California, California State University, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Chart source (BOTTOM): University of California, California State University.

Learn more

Read Higher Education in California: Making College Affordable
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center