Local News

UNC Tuition Going Up for Some Students

Posted November 15, 2007

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— The University of North Carolina Board fo Trustees on Thursday unanimously approved tuition increases for all graduate students and out-of-state undergraduates on the Chapel Hill campus.

Tuition will go up by $1,250 a year for undergraduates who aren't North Carolina residents, $400 for resident graduate students and $800 for out-of-state graduate students.

Tuition this academic year for full-time, out-of-state undergraduates is $19,353. In-state students are charged $3,705.

Chancellor James Moeser called for the increases, which he said were relatively modest, to cover the rising cost of educating students.

The Board of Trustees rejected Moeser's proposal for a $400 increase for in-state undergraduates.

23 Comments

Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • whatelseisnew Nov 15, 2007

    elcid89 -You and I have only talked about a couple of taxpayer funded institutions. I agree that, there are many that must be funded by the taxpayer. Roads, schools, justice system, government itself, social services programs, nowadays the list seems endless. Many of these services and institutions we all need and use, some things only certain segments of the population need and use, but there is an end benefit to our society at large. I simply would like to explore alternative ways to pay for some things. My ideas might be viable or not. The main reason I seek less costly options is we have some huge problems in this state. Roads and other transportation needs for one; I don't know much about it but I understand North Carolina provides little in the way of Mental Health facilities. So you never know, I might post an opinion on another topic that you agree with someday.

  • whatelseisnew Nov 15, 2007

    Chupacabra

    I have no answer for you on that one except as much as possible people are going to have to put their own money away. Many states have implemented tax free savings plans to encourage people to save. Of course, that only benefits those that can save. The costs will continue to rise. So I am afraid that unless colleges can find a way to reduce cost we will reach a point where even with tuition assistance people will decide it is just not feasible. As eclid89 pointed out even with tuition assistance for a four year degree any student would spend at least 40,000. Without it it is 80,000. So my thought is: is it less expensive to pay the 40 then have to pay taxes to support the tuition assistance, or just pay the 80. As the tuition rises the question still stands, because the state can only take so much from each taxpayer to apply to the assistance. There is a tipping point where programs are too expensive. My idea might be all wet; perhaps the current way is the best way.

  • elcid89 Nov 15, 2007

    "So since you know that I am correct and you are not able to make a reasonable counter-argument, you characterize me in a way that is entirely incorrect."

    I know that you believe yourself to be correct. Since I disagree with the basis of your argument, there's little to be gained in discussing it further, given that it's a subjective question which neither of us are likely to budge from. I simply am not going to cede any ground on the concept of taxpayer funded organizations. I find them beneficial, and you do not. End of subject.

    "I do not want taxpayers to have to pay for my responsibilities. In turn I do not want to pay for other taxpayers responsibilities"

    Which I believe I characterized as the basis of your argument several posts ago. I'm not going to support your contention, therefore there is nothing for us to discuss.

  • Chupacabra Nov 15, 2007

    How about thinking about this from a perspective other than "what is this going to cost me now". What is the cost to this nation if college is too expensive for much of the population. Where will the next round of scientists, computer technicians, etc. come from? Education has traditionally been partially or fully publicly funded because it is considered in the publics best interest to have an educated populace. I would much rather partially subsidize public education and live in a well educated nation then sit on my little pile of "savings" while living amongst burger flippers that are priced out of school.

  • whatelseisnew Nov 15, 2007

    eclid89
    I made no assumption about where you went to school. I simply did not understand your answer to my original question. So since you know that I am correct and you are not able to make a reasonable counter-argument, you characterize me in a way that is entirely incorrect. You know nothing about me, except for this. I do not want taxpayers to have to pay for my responsibilities. In turn I do not want to pay for other taxpayers responsibilities. I am more than willing to help people that are in need, people that are unable to take care of themselves. You believe in government taking money and spending for things except of course unless you don't agree with it. Example since paying part of the tuition is a worthwhile investment that surely you will agree, generous person that you are, then that should apply to any college, including an ivy league school? Hmmm oh unmiseraly one? Bet your response is no.

  • elcid89 Nov 15, 2007

    "eclid89

    You indicated a number of 500,000. So lets assume 250,000 of that was your own personal educational costs and the other 250,000 is your tax dollars that will be applied to current and future students education."

    This is an erroneous assumption. I was stipulating ~$500K of direct cost related to my education, and that doesn't take into account private secondary school, also directly paid for. Furthermore, that scenario involves schools like Harvard, Georgetown and LSE, not UNC. You are assuming from the avatar that I am an alumnus. This is also an erroneous assumption. I am an employee.

    So, you are comparing apples to oranges, and your goal remains the same. You don't want to contribute to anything that doesn't directly benefit you, and you are constructing these scenarios in an attempt to justify that. I do not agree with that attitude, I do find it to be miserly and self-centered, and I'm not going to waste effort lending it credence by debating over it.

  • elcid89 Nov 15, 2007

    "elcid89

    Okay so because you do not like my position to resort to calling me names. I have one child that graduated from private school. It was paid through a combination of loans and some scholarships he obtained. It cost no one else money beside myself and him. (guess that makes me miserly and self-centered) My second child is in year 3 at a UNC school. Taxpayers are paying for almost 10,000 of the tuition. I would prefer that other taxpayers not pay that. (Somehow that makes me self-centered and miserly). Guess I do not follow your logic."

    I called you nothing. I characterized your position as miserly and self-centered. You are following my logic quite well, and you know as well as I do that what you would prefer is not that other taxpayers don't have to pay for your child's education, it's that you don't want to contribute to the education of any children but your own. Yes, that's miserly and yes, that's incredibly self-centered.

  • whatelseisnew Nov 15, 2007

    eclid89

    You indicated a number of 500,000. So lets assume 250,000 of that was your own personal educational costs and the other 250,000 is your tax dollars that will be applied to current and future students education. Under your not selfish and not self-centered plan it costs a citizen 250,000 (of course assuming they have your tax burden) Under mine it costs them 80,000 at todays current costs. Ahhh whats the better deal here? See what I look at it total burden. At some point the Government will exhaust the citizens ability to pay. When that happens, things go bad very quickly. So in areas where each individual can carry their own load I would like to see that happen. For other areas, we have to share the cost, things like roads other infrastructure, police, and so on. The state is carrying a lot of debt and so our the counties and the cities, and forget about the Federal Government. Those guys think a billion dollars is just a small tip.

  • whatelseisnew Nov 15, 2007

    elcid89

    Okay so because you do not like my position to resort to calling me names. I have one child that graduated from private school. It was paid through a combination of loans and some scholarships he obtained. It cost no one else money beside myself and him. (guess that makes me miserly and self-centered) My second child is in year 3 at a UNC school. Taxpayers are paying for almost 10,000 of the tuition. I would prefer that other taxpayers not pay that. (Somehow that makes me self-centered and miserly). Guess I do not follow your logic.

  • elcid89 Nov 15, 2007

    "College is way over-rated and way over-priced."

    That's a value judgment each person must make for his or herself, and it's really dependent on one's perspective. For some, being a plumber or truck driver (et al) is an entirely satisfying occupation and the resultant standard of living meets their wants and needs. Others desire more intellectual paths or greater rewards and choose other paths as a result. Neither is any more valid than the other except for the person choosing them on an individual basis.

    That said, don't troll. It's a waste of our time.

More...