The University of California Board of Regents reviewed options for renewing its Tuition Stability Plan at a July 17 discussion item, outlining potential changes that include increasing the plan's cap from 5% to 7%, reducing the share of incremental tuition redirected to financial aid from 45% to 35%, and adding an extra 1.0'to 1.5 percentage points to the inflation index used to set cohort rates. Nathan (staff member) and Kain (staff member), who led the presentation, said campuses have used cohort revenue to support operations and financial aid but are facing budget pressures.

Why it matters: the cohort model locks tuition for incoming undergraduate cohorts for the duration of their program to give students and families predictability; changes to the cap, the return-to-aid share, or the inflation index would alter who pays and how much aid is available. "For the first 2 years of the tuition stability plan, the student self help declined as a result of the rapid increases in available financial aid," Sean Brick, associate vice provost for student financial support, told the Regents, adding the system had reached a $1 billion UC need-based grant program for undergraduates.

Board staff told Regents the plan has produced roughly $200,000,000 for student aid and about $375,000,000 to support campus operations since implementation. Staff characterized the 5% cap as a limit on a cohort's annual increase, not the guaranteed annual rate. They noted the cap shifts inflation risk: "The cap really does transfer the risk of inflation to the university," Nathan (staff member) said during the discussion.

Students and student leaders used the public comment period and the systemwide student speaker slot to oppose proposed changes and to press for more data. Aditi Haraheran, president of the University of California Student Association, urged Regents "to not renew the cohort tuition model" and warned that proposed changes would squeeze future families. Former student regent Alexis Atsilas Giza asked the Regents to collect more data before any action, saying the existing safeguards'including a 45% return to aid and a five-year reauthorization'were designed to protect low-income students. "I heavily encourage further data collection before you move forward with the item for action," Alexis said during public comments.

Other speakers raised specifics the board will weigh. June (chair, UC Council on Student Fees) said the plan's proposed changes'a cap increase to 7% and a reduction of return to aid from 45% to 35% and extended step increases'would have "tangible impacts" on students' ability to experience the university and urged Regents to consider ramifications. Several Regents thanked staff for the analysis, praised the predictability the plan has provided, and asked for more granular modeling (by income band, by campus, and showing the effect on housing and campus-based fees) before any final decision.

The board did not vote. Staff told Regents they will return with a formal renewal and modeling at a future meeting; presenters said they expect further consultation with student groups in advance of any vote. The item remained a discussion item at adjournment.

Details and next steps: staff said any renewal would be considered separately from the July 17 discussion; the Regents signaled they expect additional modeling and campus- and income-level analysis before a renewal vote. A number of Regents expressed preference for preserving predictability and financial-aid commitments but differed on whether campuses require more revenue to meet operating needs.

Ending: Regents closed the item after extended questions and public comment and asked staff to provide the additional reports and modeling requested by members and by student leaders ahead of a future renewal vote.