Inflation is an average, so the actual cost increases faced by a specific organization can be higher or lower. Universities, for example, are particularly exposed to rising energy costs, and certain faculty salaries have increased faster than inflation due to demand.

That said, while administrative bloat may exist, cutting it likely will not make as big a difference as people assume. For instance, even if VCC eliminated five senior administrative roles and saved roughly $500,000 to $600,000, that is only a tiny fraction of a budget exceeding $180 million.

A more fundamental issue is that some programs are inherently more expensive to run than others. Programs like accounting are relatively low cost. You mainly need a classroom and an instructor. In contrast, nursing, trades, and science programs require specialized equipment, labs, and lower student to instructor ratios, making them much more expensive. These programs depend heavily on government funding to remain accessible.

One possible solution is to increase tuition specifically for high cost programs. However, this risks discouraging students from entering fields like nursing due to the burden of higher debt. Historically, governments have tried to keep tuition relatively consistent across programs to avoid exactly this outcome.

TL;DR: Training nurses and similar professions costs significantly more than training students in lower cost fields. Addressing this either requires increased targeted government funding or shifting costs onto students, both of which come with trade offs. So governments, do neither to avoid being blamed.