While many Gamecocks were distracted by the snow and early rush of midterms, a legislative move in the statehouse was silently introduced and could cause financial chaos for the university. House Bill 3795 was proposed in the 126th General Assembly and would radically change Gamecock demographics.
Starting July 2026, if passed, this bill would require at least 70% of admitted applicants at all public institutions of higher education in South Carolina to be in-state residents. At first glance, this seems like a victory for South Carolina taxpayers. However, there are underlying consequences that could fundamentally alter the cost of education for all students.
In order to understand the associated risks, we must take a look at the numbers. In fall 2025, USC welcomed a record freshman class at 7,829. Of this class, approximately 51% (almost 4,000) were South Carolina residents. This near 50-50 split is not accidental: it's a factor for keeping in-state tuition so low for the university.
For the 2025-26 academic year, undergraduate tuition for full-time South Carolina residents started at $12,688. For out-of-state friends like me, our tuition began at $37,376. This roughly $25,000 annual premium paid by out-of-state students acts as a massive subsidy that helps to keep the university financially functional. For seven straight years, this very subsidy has helped in-state tuition to remain flat and affordable, while out-of-state residents have suffered increases over the years, including the recent 3% growth.
If H. 3795 passes and receives the governor’s signature, USC would be legally required to accept 20% less of its highest paying students in order to make room for more residents. If tuition prices were to stay the same under this new bill without a new funding source, the university would most likely be looking at a severe deficit.
Swapping just 1,500 out-of-state spots, roughly 20%, for resident students would result in an estimated $37.5 million annual loss in tuition revenue if we used the same numbers from the current academic year. While this amount may seem immaterial in a $2.3 billion annual budget, this “rounding error” is the very reason that tuition for in-state students has remained at a “freeze” for seven consecutive years. This missing revenue will have to be made up elsewhere. Unless the university gets guaranteed funding from the state legislature, this bill could hurt the very students it claims to protect.
You might think you get the point by now, but there is a critical piece that we have not clearly addressed yet. This mandate applies to the applicants it accepts for admission to the university, not those who eventually enroll. Let that sink in for a second.
Within the theory of college admissions, “yield” is everything. Out-of-state students often have a lower yield, which means they are accepted but choose to attend another university. By forcing a 70% quota on the group statistically more likely to enroll, this bill is ensuring the final student body class will be more in-state heavy than the legislation intended. This creates a revenue bottleneck. If the university is unable to get enough out-of-state students to fill the budget, it could lose the ability to fund scholarships, faculty hires and campus projects.
It is easy to support a bill that pushes for an easier path to USC for South Carolinians. It sounds like common sense. But the economy disagrees. With South Carolina’s plan towards a 0% income tax, the state is already looking to tighten the purse. Can the Palmetto state afford to pick up the tab that H. 3795 would create for its universities? If not, the burden will fall back on students through higher costs of attendance.
The debate over H. 3795 is a classic struggle between access and excellence. While the bill prioritizes access for South Carolinians, it threatens the fiscal stability that has allowed USC to reach a historic total enrollment of over 46,000 students.
As Gamecocks, we must ask: Is a "more local" university worth a potentially more expensive or less resourced one? Before this bill reaches the House Education and Public Works Committee for a final vote, we owe it to ourselves to look past the emotional headlines and reveal the true cost of preference. Whether we are in-state or out-of-state, this affects us all.