Tuition Review Advisory Committee (TRAC) Meeting
MINUTES
September 25, 2013
10:00 – 11:15 a.m.
Chancellor’s Conference Room
Members Present: Warwick Arden (Co-Chair), Alex Parker (Co-Chair), Marshall Anthony, Jeff Braden,
Katherine Carroll, Paul Cohen, Krista Domnick, Matt Melillo, Alexander Racki (for Kelsey Mills),
Michael Mullen, Rebeca Rufty, Susan Ward, David Zonderman
Others Present: Lewis Carson, Retta Clemons, Steve Keto, Duane Larick, Barbara Moses, Mick
Kulikowski, John Gilligan, Dan Stancil, Douglas Reeves
Provost Arden opened the meeting and called for approval of the September 9 th draft minutes. The minutes were approved. Provost Arden called on Dr. John Gilligan for agenda item #2 “Premium Tuition
Request: College of Engineering.” Dr. Gilligan stated that College leadership is supportive of the premium tuition proposal then introduced Dr. Dan Stancil and Dr. Douglas Reeves who would lead the discussions. [TRAC members received the 22-page premium tuition proposal in advance of today’s meeting]. Dr. Stancil began.
Key points from Dr. Stancil’s presentation
 This premium tuition proposal is a joint proposal between the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering and the Department of Computer Science. It proposes to charge a tuition premium of
$2400 per semester for each full time student (and prorated for part-time & distance track students) in each masters program to be phased in over a three year period.
The masters programs are : 1) MS in Electrical Engineering; 2) MS in Computer Engineering; 3) MS in
Computer Networking – ECE; 4) MS in Electric Power Systems Engineering; 5) MS in Computer
Science; 6) MS in Computer Networking – Computer Science; and 7) Master of Computer Science.
 These masters programs are dynamic fields which move very rapidly in terms of technology and skills/knowledge-base factors. Graduates enjoy good career opportunities. Post graduation starting salaries are in the $80K-$120K range.
 Peer institutions are on the move to keep up with the rapid pace of change, and NC State students will be disadvantaged if NC State [Engineering departments] can’t keep up with peers. The tuition increase will support graduate education in various vital ways including state-of-the-art hardware/ software and new technologies; additional faculty and retention of faculty; providing teaching assistants and increases in their stipends, fellowships, internships, and recruiting incentives.
 The two departments requesting premium tuition rank among the top 5 nationally in terms of Masters degree students graduated. These departments have close ties with industry which has caused an increase in graduate applications.
 There’re currently no departmental resource allocations for financial aid. Part of the premium tuition increase will be used for merit and need-based financial aid. Approximately 70% of the graduate population is international. Financial aid to international students is based on merit because it’s hard to calculate “need” for international students due to a lack of sufficient data. Financial aid will also be used to attract underrepresented students.

The tuition premium will provide enhanced education and thus will add an extra quality and competitiveness advantage to students.

Improving the educational experience for students is the highest priority.

The current one-semester tuition for the CSC and ECE Masters degrees is $3,587 for residents. The proposed one-semester tuition for residents is $5,987 [Peer institutions’ resident-tuition ranges from $2,039 to $9,652].

The current one-semester tuition for the CSC and ECE Masters degrees is $9756 for nonresidents.
The proposed one-semester tuition for nonresidents is $12,156 [Peer institutions’ nonresidenttuition ranges from $5,225 to $16,208].
1


When compared to its peer institutions, the proposed increase will move NC State from near the bottom of the list to the middle of the list.
Dr. Stancil concluded his presentation and called on Dr. Reeves to add any additional remarks. Dr.
Reeves and Dr. Stancil agreed that they could best continue by inviting TRAC members’ questions.
Members responded.
Members’ Questions and Comments:

You have presented a very clear case with your [oral] presentation and proposal; it’s very understandable. Why is there a need for a Master of Science in Computer Science plus a
Master of Computer Science? Response: This is the traditional model across campus. The master of science degree requires a thesis and distinguishes the “research” portion of the degree from the “academic” portion. The masters degree doesn’t require a thesis. This proposal is following the model of the premium tuition for the Poole College of Management where premium tuition was proposed for all of the graduate degrees. In Engineering, the proposal is for all of the masters degrees in these two departments which, if approved, will keep tuition as a neutral factor when students are choosing degree-paths.

[Referencing page 10 of the proposal and reading from it. . . ] “There is currently no financial aid for Masters students. . . .” Is that true? Response: They’re talking about departmental support meaning there’s nothing in the department budgets for financial aid. Most of the financial aid goes to doctoral students, and international students aren’t eligible for financial aid.

[Referencing page 4, item 2 of the proposal. . . ] A correction needs to be made in the proposal--Graduate students are no longer eligible for subsidized federal loans, and Perkins allocations will be extremely rare for graduate students.

[Referencing page 4, item 3a of the proposal. . . ] The actual indebtedness levels of these departments’ graduates is not available because 70% of the students are international, and the
Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid can’t measure the need (thus the indebtedness) of this population. The office can determine it for domestic students.

If the premium tuition is approved, will the financial aid be merit-based? What format will it be? Response: Currently, it’s in the form of fellowships where no work is associated. We’ll need to develop an application process for awarding financial aid.

How are the fellowships and financial aid handled separately? Response: Fellowships are competitive offers to the best students to help fray the cost of enrollment and are not designed to cover the entire cost. Financial aid is awarded to strong, qualified students who don’t have the financial means to attend.

[Referencing page 9 of the proposal. . . ] Enhancing the student experience is a criterion the
UNC-Board of Governors will consider when the premium tuition proposals are submitted.
Your proposal allots a small percentage for enhancing the student-experience. This doesn’t jive with BOG expectations. Response: The 55% for faculty and teaching assistants [shown in the list on page 4] is for the departments to enhance and support instruction. Also, the 5% for professional development, etc. enhances the student experience through ensuring professionally developed faculty, teaching assistants, internships with industry.
 A member’s suggestion following the response: Include a written paragraph describing how
Teaching Assistant support will enhance students’ programmatic experience.
Georgia Tech’s online engineering degree program (at a tuition of $7000) was mentioned in the context that NC State is requesting to raise its tuition while Georgia is lowering theirs. It was noted that Georgia Tech and some other universities are beginning to look at volume of degrees
2

produced at a lower cost as a way to generate revenues. It was further noted that Georgia Tech’s online engineering initiatives are supported with a $2M AT & T grant.

If the premium tuition is approved, tuition for these engineering degrees will still be less than tuition for other premiums on campus and will be less than most of NC State’s peers.

Will the additional money from premium tuition stay with the departments. . . other monetary allocations won’t be pulled from the departments? Response by Provost Arden: No, allocations won’t be pulled, and this [tuition premium] money will stay in the departments.
 I’m concerned about the disparity growing between departments as some departments are able to charge premium tuition and others aren’t. Response by Provost Arden: Yes, but that’s a reality. This [TRAC] committee has the ability to approve premium tuition based on the market value as drivers and the positive enhancements to the degree programs.

We collect ETF [Education & Technology Fee] money from students. Engineering got a larger percentage than some other colleges. If Engineering gets premium tuition, should the
ETF get readjusted? Response: The ETF is primarily from undergraduate students although graduate students pay some ETF. Engineering used to charge a computing fee which was reduced when we got ETF. Most of what’s proposed in this premium tuition proposal goes for things you can’t do with ETF funds.
After there was no more discussion, Presenters from Engineering left the meeting.
Provost Arden reminded TRAC members that voting on the premium tuition proposals will occur during the next meeting.
Provost Arden proceeded to agenda item #4 “Preliminary testing of different tuition rate scenarios.” He referred to the 9/17/13 memo and instructions document from UNC-GA’s
Charles Perusse which members received in advance of today’s meeting. Provost Arden summarized the document by reiterating the fact that President Ross indicated he doesn’t plan to recommend any tuition increases for in-state undergraduate students. Provost Arden, said, therefore this committee shouldn’t make recommendations for raising tuition for in-state undergraduate students. He asked whether TRAC members had any questions about the document.
Members’ Questions and Comments:

The document mentions need-based financial aid as an allowable use of tuition revenue. In the premium tuition request we just heard, at least some of the money would be merit based allocations; is that allowable? Response by Krista Domnick: The document might not be using the federal definition of need . The majority of the Engineering Masters students in the proposal are international, and it makes sense for the departments to give merit awards as need can’t be measured for international students.

Is there anywhere in the final recommendation to voice a concern that there’s no tuition increase for in-state undergraduate students in that this [CITI: campus initiated tuition increase] is the only spongible money on campus? Response by Provost Arden: I think such a statement wouldn’t be well received and likely wouldn’t have much impact. The TRAC’s final recommendation will go to the chancellor, and Chancellor Woodson will write a recommendation that will go to the NC State Board of Trustees. He wouldn’t put a statement like that in his recommendation. I think we’re better off to operate within the guidelines
[specified in the instructions document].
 [Reading from page 1, paragraph 3 of the document] “. . . a campus may submit a proposal for such increases if extraordinary hardships are created by this prohibition on resident
3

undergraduate rate increases for 2014-15.” Can we justify the hardship that this would cause
NC State? Response by Provost Arden: The Board of Governors wouldn’t see NC State as being in a hardship situation. Response by Co-chair Alex Parker: We shouldn’t have to justify hardship; hardship presents itself to situations.
Provost Arden distributed a graph titled “Peer Institution 2013-2014 Undergraduate Tuition and
Fees” which included resident and nonresident tuition bar graphs for NC State and each of its 16 peer institutions.
Lewis Carson led the continuing discussions for agenda item #4. He displayed a spreadsheet on the wall screen which could be manipulated to illustrate the effects of various tuition increases on total revenue, and the effect of various percent allocations toward allowable uses. He read through the spreadsheet as members looked on. He explained that the various data pieces are built into the spreadsheet to allow for a full discussion.
Provost Arden said he thinks the percent tuition increase will not be taken as a serious need if it’s too low and hovering around 3% and suggested that the TRAC consider an increase-percent that hovers more around 6.5%.
Note : During past years, the 4-year UNC-GA tuition plan placed a 6.5% cap on tuition increases for in-state undergraduate students which is why 6.5% is referenced above.
Members understood and offered up several tuition increase scenarios starting with an increaseamount of $1200 for out-of-state undergraduate students which nears the 6.5%.
Co-chair Parker expressed a concern that he wouldn’t want the committee to recommend a high percentage to “make a statement.” Provost Arden agreed and said TRAC isn’t interested in burdening students with high tuition but that we want to continue growing the university and want students to continue seeing NC State as a good value.
Another member reminded the committee that even with a $1200 increase NC State would still have the second lowest tuition among its 16 peers.
Members’ Questions and Comments:

If we do this increase, the money will come back to the campus, right? Response: Yes.
And, this could be a good thing for the NC State. When the Legislature mandated a 12.3% tuition increase [effective in 2013-14] for everybody except NC State and UNC-Charlotte, those students had a 12.3% increase and the money didn’t come back to the universities.
You don’t have the flexibility with Legislative increases that we have with CITI.

Is the 6% increase the minimum increase TRAC can recommend? Response: No, we can recommend a higher percentage [for these categories of students].
Lewis Carson plugged-in an $1800 tuition increase which was about 9%.
Members’ Questions and Comments:

With the higher figure [$1800] can we increase the percentage-allocation for financial aid. . . like increase it to 40%? Response by Provost Arden: We may not be able “to sell” anything higher than 25% for need-based financial aid. There’s significant thought that it’s a tax on the student population who pay higher tuition to support the need based population when they, themselves, aren’t eligible to receive the support.
4

Provost Arden asked whether there’s a strong feeling about the graduate tuition rate increase.
Member Melillo voiced his concern about how financial aid support is distributed to Masters and
Doctoral students and asked whether the tuition increase has to be for all graduate students. His comments sparked a brief discussion about the differential between graduate in-state tuition and graduate out-of-state tuition, its effect on the tuition remission, and the bottom line to the amount of funds required in the graduate student support plan (GSSP). Member Rufty reiterated that the larger the tuition remission, the more money required for the GSSP and said the strategic plan to grow the doctoral enrollment means the GSSP is important noting that it’s a delicate balancing act. She said our ability to support doctoral students will influence things.
Lewis Carson plugged-in an increase of $800 (about 11%) for in-state and $800 (about 4%) for out-of-state graduate students.
After a member expressed a concern about the “bargain” tuition rate that out-of-state graduate students are getting as compared to in-state students, Provost Arden explained the rationale for keeping the differential at a minimum so as not to increase the amount required for the GSSP.
He said the tuition percent-increase for out-of-state students is lower even though the dollar amount of the increase is the same as the dollar amount-increase for in-state students.
With Provost Arden’s explanation, a member asked Lewis Carson to plug-in an increase of $600
(about 8%) for in-state graduate students and $800 (about 4%) for out-of-state graduate students.
Members’ Questions and Comments:

If the University needs money, why would we lower tuition? Response by Provost Arden:
These [figures on the spreadsheet] are all increases. The $600 for in-state graduate students vs. $800 is showing sensitivity to the tax payers.
 Students in other disciplines like Social Work and Education don’t have their tuition subsidized by employers and have lower earning projections. The tuition increase could affect their enrollment decisions.
Provost Arden acknowledged that the meeting had gone beyond 11:15 AM and asked members to think about numbers and percent-allocations to continue the discussion during the next meeting.
Lewis Carson agreed to send the spreadsheet (with the updated 2013-14 need-based and GSSP numbers) to Retta who will email it to TRAC members in advance of the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 AM.
Next Meeting:
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
10:30 AM – 12:00 Noon
Chancellor’s Conference Room
5