Several private universities in Syria have announced their approved tuition fees for incoming students for the 2026–2027 academic year. In some institutions, fee increases exceeded 100% compared to the previous year, when calculated in US dollar terms.
For instance, one private university set the credit hour fee for the Faculty of Pharmacy at 11,000 new Syrian pounds—equivalent to approximately $84—compared to $40 the previous year, representing an increase of nearly 110%. Another private university set the credit hour fee at 20,000 pounds (approximately $152), compared to a fee ranging between $40 and $45 the previous year, representing an increase between approximately 240% and 280%.
The announced fees apply exclusively to incoming students, as the universities that published their rates confirmed that returning students will continue paying the fees approved at the time of their initial enrollment without any increase. Consequently, the direct impact of the decision is concentrated on the enrollment prospects of the incoming cohort and does not affect previously enrolled students in the same manner.
This sharp rise has sparked concerns among many students and parents. Private Syrian universities serve as an alternative option for students whose secondary school exam scores do not qualify them to study their desired majors at public universities; therefore, the fee hikes not only influence the choice of university, but may also entirely deprive some students of the opportunity to pursue their preferred fields of study.
University administrations attribute these increases to rising operational costs across their facilities, particularly expenditures on energy, fuel, maintenance, and equipment, in addition to the need to raise salaries for faculty and administrative staff. Furthermore, recent salary increases approved for public university employees may have heightened the pressure on private universities to improve compensation packages to retain their staff.
Nevertheless, rising operational costs alone do not fully explain a twofold or threefold increase in tuition fees, unless universities clarify the exact scale of their increased expenditures and the proportion that will be allocated toward improving staff salaries, equipment, and educational quality.
On the other hand, the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research has not yet issued a centralized decree setting tuition fee caps for the new academic year or clarifying the criteria on which universities based their calculations. This contrasts with the 2025–2026 academic year, when the Higher Education Council set the credit hour ceiling for Syrian students at $40 for pharmacy, $30 for engineering programs, and $20 for other faculties.
The unilateral announcement of fees by universities prior to the issuance of centralized regulations points to a regulatory void that has allowed each institution to price its services at its own discretion. Moreover, delayed intervention by the Ministry risks turning the announced rates into a fait accompli that will be difficult to amend once the university admission screening (mufadala) begins and students register.
This surge poses a substantial financial burden on Syrian households amid declining purchasing power and low average incomes. It may force some families to borrow or deplete their savings to enroll their children, transforming the cost of education from a transitional expenditure into a long-term financial liability spanning the entire duration of study.
The increase also deepens disparities in access to higher education; a student's ability to pursue a desired specialization will increasingly depend on their family's financial capacity rather than academic merit alone. If prices remain at the announced levels, private higher education could become increasingly restricted to affluent households, after having been accessible to varying degrees to some middle-income families.
The inflated fees may prompt some students to compare the cost of studying in Syria with tuition abroad, as the financial rationale for staying diminishes when local fees approach the cost of education overseas. While this does not necessarily entail large-scale emigration, it increases the likelihood of students leaving the country to study, with their academic relocations potentially evolving into permanent settlement—thereby bringing the issue of youth and brain drain back to the forefront.
Furthermore, raising fees without tangible improvements in educational quality, facilities, laboratories, and staff compensation risks reinforcing a transactional dynamic where the student is treated as a customer and the degree as a commodity. This not only entrenches negative stereotypes about private higher education, but also incentivizes universities to compete over revenue rather than academic quality and accreditation.
At the same time, the increase may backfire on universities themselves if it leads to declining enrollment or the migration of students to lower-cost institutions, indicating that higher tuition does not inherently guarantee increased revenues. Some universities may later be forced to offer discounts or partial scholarships to attract students, demonstrating that unilateral, uncalculated pricing can jeopardize the stability of both the educational institution and the student.
In this context, informal student calls have emerged urging a demonstration outside the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research to demand a ceiling on tuition fees. The emergence of these calls reflects a shift in grievances from individual complaints to collective pressure, and protests could expand if the admission screening commences without ministerial intervention or clarification.
Ultimately, state oversight of private educational institutions serves as a safeguard to balance the sustainability of the educational process with the profit motives of these institutions. Intervention by the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research should not be limited to imposing a uniform fee ceiling; rather, it should establish tiered caps based on specialization and cost, mandate that universities justify any increases by linking them to improvements in salaries, facilities, and educational quality, and expand scholarship programs and flexible installment plans.
If the Ministry fails to issue regulatory guidelines before the admission screening process begins, the announced rates are likely to become the de facto baseline for registration, reinforcing universities' pricing power and undermining the Ministry's ability to regulate them later. Conversely, early intervention can ensure the viability of private universities without making financial capacity the primary determinant of access to higher education.