If students are paying more, they deserve to know exactly why. ORACLE GRAPHIC/ARIANA RIVADENEIRA

When universities announce tuition or fee increases, frustration often follows. 

The numbers rise quietly on spreadsheets, but the impact lands loudly in students’ and parents’ bank accounts. 

At USF, newly approved increases to non-resident undergraduate and graduate fees for 2026-27 may not directly affect in-state students like me. 

But just because it doesn’t affect me financially doesn’t mean it shouldn’t matter. Students should not be expected to accept higher costs without clear, measurable explanations of how that money will directly improve their education. 

Raising tuition without detailed transparency turns students into revenue sources rather than stakeholders. 

The USF Board of Trustees proposed and approved a 15% increase to non-resident fees and non-resident student financial aid fees in January — which will be effective in fall 2026. 

This came after the BOT approved a separate 10% increase in July, making this the second out-of-state tuition hike within six months. 

In fall 2025, non-resident undergraduate fees were $381.15 per credit hour. Beginning fall 2026, that number will increase to $438.32 — a $57.17 jump per credit hour, according to the BOT meeting agenda. 

For graduate students, fall 2025 non-resident fees were $466.97 per credit hour. The approved fall 2026 rate rises to $537.01 — a $70.04 increase per credit hour.

Related: USF approves second out-of-state tuition hike in under six months 

Revenue estimates suggest a possible reason why non-resident fees are being targeted — as current out-of-state undergraduate revenue is projected to rise from $37.52 million to $42.91 million. 

Graduate out-of-state revenue is also expected to grow from $12.35 million to $14.14 million. 

Colleges operate within real financial pressures — instructional costs rise, facilities must be maintained, and faculty and staff salaries increase. 

Universities compete nationally for rankings, research opportunities and student enrollment. 

It is not unreasonable to assume that student tuition and fees will follow these increased costs. 

However, in the meeting recording and agenda, the additional revenue is said to support the quality of USF’s academic programs and student services.

When institutions justify increases with broad language about “supporting academic programs” and “strengthening student services,” something feels incomplete.

The BOT documents note that USF had not increased out-of-state fees in over a decade prior to fall 2025.

Additionally, the documents state that, even after the increases, USF fees would remain among the lowest in the state and country for out-of-state students.

Those phrases may sound reassuring, but they are also vague. 

Students – especially non-resident students who already pay significantly higher rates – deserve more than general assurances. They deserve specificity. 

Students have a right to know which services are currently underfunded and how much of the increase tied to the non-resident student fee will be returned to them as financial aid.

We want to know exactly where each dollar will go. 

I reached out to USF spokespeople to ask which specific programs or services would see expanded funding as a result of these increases. 

I was directed to the BOT meeting recording and agenda materials, and did not receive additional clarification outlining specific allocations.  

Without clear answers, increases can feel less like an investment and more like an obligation. 

Related: USF out-of-state students divided on impact of tuition increase 

I understand why the university is targeting non-resident fees. It affects a smaller demographic while still generating substantial revenue. 

USF has a predominantly in-state student population, with only approximately 12% of students coming from out of state, according to FOX 13 

From a strategic standpoint, it makes sense. But strategy does not eliminate the need for transparency. 

If the goal is to strengthen USF’s academic mission, then clarity should be part of that mission. 

Trust between students and institutions is built through openness. 

When universities communicate in sweeping statements rather than detailed explanations, they risk eroding that trust. 

I am not arguing that fees should never increase. Higher education is expensive, and maintaining quality requires funding. 

But if students are asked to contribute more, they should be shown how that contribution improves their experience in tangible ways. 

Investment should be measurable, and accountability should be visible. 

If USF expects students to accept higher non-resident costs as necessary, it must move beyond institutional phrasing and provide concrete details about how those funds will strengthen academic programs and student services. 

A stronger university is a goal most students can stand behind. Transparency is what determines whether they will.