For the eighth year in a row, University of Calgary students face proposed tuition and fee increases.
At the Oct. 6 Students’ Legislative Council (SLC) meeting, Acting Deputy Provost Dr. Justin MacCallum and Vice-Provost (Student and Campus Experience) Verity Turpin presented proposed tuition and fee increases for the 2027-28 academic year, including a two per cent increase for domestic undergraduate students, five per cent for international undergraduate students and a four per cent increase in mandatory non-instructional fees (MNIFs).
The proposed increases would amount to approximately $15 to $30 more per course for domestic students depending on their program and approximately $18 more per semester in MNIFs. International students could see increases of several hundred dollars per course.
Citing the Gauntlet, MacCallum acknowledged that the provincial government is considering significant changes to Alberta’s post-secondary funding and tuition framework. MacCallum noted that the current tuition and fees consultation process will continue under the existing tuition framework until further updates are heard from the Alberta government.
MacCallum explained the tuition and fee increases are intended to help address rising operational costs and maintain existing university services.
“Every year, our costs go up, even if we don’t do anything new or different,” MacCallum said during his presentation.
MacCallum attributed the university’s financial pressures largely to inflation and declining provincial funding. He explained that provincial operating grants and tuition revenue account for approximately 80 per cent of the university’s general operating funding, making provincial budget decisions a significant factor.
While the university reported total revenue of just under $1.9 billion in the previous fiscal year, MacCallum noted that approximately 46 per cent consisted of restricted funds, such as research grants, which cannot be redirected toward general operating expenses.
He also explained that Calgary's average rate of inflation has been approximately three per cent annually over the past decade, increasing the cost of maintaining university operations.
“All of the things that the university does cost more money with time, even if we’re not doing anything new,” said MacCallum.
According to MacCallum, the university must balance its budget annually, leaving two options to address rising expenses: finding operational efficiencies where level of service can be lowered to align with the total operational funding or increasing revenue.
“If you look at where we were 10 years ago to where we are today, it’s a $78 million shortfall,” MacCallum said. “Just to put this into context, that’s the operating budget of the Faculty of Science, so that’s the equivalent of 275 professors, about 150 support staff and about 300 graduate students [...] if we had sustainable funding, we would have that equivalent to additional resources in our system. It’s actually somewhat worse than that because the university has grown in student population over this time from about 33,000 students in 2015 to just under 39,000 students now.”
According to MacCallum, scaling the cost to the growth in student population widens the gap, making the funding deficit equivalent to the university’s three largest faculties: science, engineering and arts.
MacCallum explained the different ways the university is trying to lower their costs. Compared to other academic research universities in the province, the University of Calgary’s administrative costs are the lowest. Citing Statistics Canada’s Tuition and Living Accommodations (TLAC) survey, MacCallum noted that domestic tuition, international tuition and MNIFs fall in the bottom third of the U15 on average.
“I’m not telling you this [...] to say you should be thankful,” said MacCallum. “These are sort of proof points that we’re doing everything that we can to keep costs as low as we can and keep our services as good as they can be in a very, very tough physical environment.”
Following MacCallum’s presentation, Students’ Union (SU) Vice-President External Mahad Rzain presented feedback gathered by faculty representatives from Arts, Education and Kinesiology during on-campus consultations in late September.
The following questions were presented to students:
- Rate your reaction to these increases on a scale of one to 10, one being negative, five neutral and 10 being positive.
- What impact would an increase have on your budget?
- If you can improve three things in your faculty, what would it be?
- Any other comments you would like institutional leaders to know?
Of the 118 students who participated in the quantitative consultation, 68 per cent rated the proposed increases at the lowest available score of one on a scale of one to 10. Only three respondents rated the increases five or higher with no score being higher than seven. Nine participants assigned a score of zero despite it not being an available option.
Rzain said affordability and financial insecurity were among the most common concerns raised by students, many of whom described struggling to cover basic necessities such as food and housing while managing tuition and other expenses.
Students expressed concern that higher tuition would force them to work longer hours, potentially affecting their academic performance and contributing to burnout. Some raised the possibility of having to withdraw from university altogether.
“Something missing from the data, which bears highlighting as well, is that Alberta’s youth unemployment rate has exceeded the national average since 2016,” said Rzain. “Students who are struggling despite finding work are only the tip of the iceberg.”
Students also questioned whether the quality of their education and campus resources justified the increasing costs. Several comments from students pointed to campus maintenance, cleanliness, accessibility and the availability of educational resources.
Frustration with additional costs associated with mandatory course materials and unpaid practicums was another concern among students.
Rzain added that students were not necessarily dismissing the university’s financial challenges.
“Students understand that the University of Calgary has expenses to meet that isn’t used for them. We didn’t receive any comments that said students should contribute nothing towards their education at all. That was not the case,” said Rzain. “Instead, what we did see was a pervasive sign of defeat.”
“Students feel that higher education is fast becoming pay-to-play in Alberta,” Rzain continued. “They want a more accessible education system, not just for themselves but for their peers. They are deeply unhappy with these increases, but because most jobs in Alberta now expect a post-secondary credential, they feel that they have no choice.”
“Whether or not the university or the province is to blame is secondary to their experience of feeling hopeless, accepting defeat and inability to feed themselves, and uncertainty whether they’ll make rent this month,” said Rzain.
During the question period, SLC members coordinated questions and statements directed to the Provost team.
SU President Gabriela Dziegielewska was not present during the meeting due to food poisoning.
Councillors echoed many of the concerns shared by students during consultation, including how the university could justify further increases while students continued to experience difficulties accessing facilities, resources and required courses.
Several representatives discussed expenses beyond tuition and MNIFs, including textbooks, software, lab equipment, specialized clothing and transportation for clinical placements and practicums.
MacCallum acknowledged that additional course expenses and hidden fees should be communicated more clearly, adding that the university should examine how it can better inform students about the full costs of their degree.
Questions also arose about compensation for mandatory practicums, particularly for students in Education, Nursing and Medicine who must complete substantial amounts of unpaid work as part of their degrees. MacCallum said the proposed increases were primarily based on university operating costs rather than these additional student expenses and committed to seeking further information about practicum compensation.
Other representatives commented on deteriorating campus infrastructure, including broken computers, damaged furniture and longstanding maintenance issues.
MacCallum acknowledged the concerns, noting that the university faces a substantial deferred maintenance backlog estimated at approximately $800 million. He said that limited purchasing power has constrained the university’s ability to address these issues.
When asked whether students should expect improvements in educational quality alongside rising tuition, MacCallum said the proposed increases would not necessarily translate into better services.
“There is less spending power. It does not cover inflation and so, I just have to push back on the notion that my tuition went up, so everything has to get 2 per cent better,” said MacCallum. “There’s a negative change in the amount of spending power available. I don’t think we can have an honest conversation if we can’t start from that.”
The discussion also raised questions about the effectiveness of the university’s annual consultations and whether student feedback meaningfully influences institutional decisions.
Vice-Provost (Student and Campus Experience) Verity Turpin named the Ahead of Tomorrow Academic Advising Impact Initiative as an example of a university priority informed by recurring student feedback. However, SU Vice-President Academic Zoe Zeritsch later pointed to advising initiatives as an area where students’ concerns have not been addressed.
“I feel as though you’re not listening to consumers. You’re not listening to the students which a university is meant to provide for. It’s kind of a broken system, right?” Zeritsch said. “We, as students, we do realize that we aren’t going to get everything we want but so far, it has felt like we have not been heard at all.”
After thanking Zeritsch for the feedback, MacCallum concluded the discussion with a criticism and a promise.
“I don’t fully appreciate the sort of coordinated questions at the beginning, it felt like I was being ganged up on for example. And that’s a tactic that gets used, but what it does is build walls,” said MacCallum.
“I can't promise that we can do everything that you want or that everything will happen in the way that you want it to,” MacCallum continued. “What I can promise you is that my involvement will be genuine and authentic.”
The proposed increases will undergo further discussions through the university’s tuition and fees consultation process before recommendations are brought to the Board of Governors for approval on Dec. 11. The final tuition and fees proposal is expected to be brought to SLC in early November.
