<p>“Services like In-State Angels are trying to help students and parents avoid the high price of out-of-state tuition, but some colleges frown on this.”</p>
<p>Paying out-of-state tuition is a costly issue many families have to face. Being able to pay in-state tuition for an out-of-state student seems like a dream come true. But what about the many problems that complicate the process?</p>
<p>I can witness to the accuracy of her statement, because I talked to Deana quite a few times in the process of getting my son in-state residency for UT-Austin in 2011. She was quite willing to answer my questions and help in whatever way she could.</p>
<p>I should mention that UT tightened up its rules in 2012, so we might not have been able to get in-state tuition at that point.</p>
<p>It WAS a lot of work. Then my son fell ill and he had to withdraw from school, anyway!</p>
<p>My opinion. I am a taxpayer in my state. My tax dollars support the public universities in this state. If someone wants in state tuition for their kid here…they can move here and pay taxes to support these schools. And if a student really wants instate tuition, that student can move here and work…and be independent from their parents fully…and just wait until they can do so.</p>
<p>I’m not impressed with a company that is set up to find every possible loophole to make instate tuition possible for all.</p>
<p>I completely agree with thumper1. If my sons chose to go out of state, I would have expected to pay OOS tuition. No trying to work around the system…</p>
<p>The only issue I have with the entire instate/oos scenario is when parents move. For example, we lived in one state for 5 yrs. We moved right near the end of high school. If our child had applied to that state’s schools where we paid property taxes and income taxes for 5 yrs, he would have been out of state. But someone could move there and only be instate for 12 months and be instate. </p>
<p>Depending on where you move, you can end up with a scenario where a student is not instate anywhere. (if the new state of residence requires 12 months instate before granting instate residency.) Some states will grant instate immediately if evidence can be provided that the move was not for instate tuition. (letters from employers that the move was due to employment, etc.)</p>
<p>(And sometimes transfers cannot be avoided.)</p>
<p>Texas made it fairly easy to get in-state tuition. We were not gaming the system - we followed their rules exactly. I think they were smart to tighten up the rules</p>
<p>I have to agree with Thumper and Gumby. Especially here in California, where we pay obnoxiously high taxes, and our schools are very good. But, students come here by the throngs and fill up our community colleges in order to transfer to our state universities and then they have the nerve to get really mad when they have to pay OOS tuition. Paying a little, to receive a good education in this state, doesn’t even begin to represent what we Californios’ have paid throughout the years. </p>
<p>Oh please. So the company gets 10-15 %? So if the student saves $25,000 a year…that would be $100,000 and the company would get $10,000-$15,000?</p>
<p>Seems like if someone could pay that amount, they probably could attend their OWN instate school. </p>
<p>And, this is certainly targeted towards those with the means to pay. </p>
<p>Most such people pay payroll and/or sales taxes, even if they pay no income taxes.</p>
<p>Even if they paid no taxes at all, do you really want their kids to have no opportunity to go to college and improve their chances of breaking the multigenerational cycle of poverty and dependency?</p>
<p>Of course I want smart, low income kids to have the opportunity to go to college. I was merely trying to point out that that the “I pay taxes” argument is a red herring.</p>
<p>I’ll play the devil’s advocate. Nothing in the article says that the company is helping the students defraud anyone. The rules and documentation required by state governments can be bewildering, and this company helps those who believe they qualify. </p>
<p>Is it “right” that a student is denied the in-state tuition he or she deserves under the law because they couldn’t figure out the forms to use? Is it fair that a student pays thousands of dollars more for the same education because they didn’t realize until a month too late that they should have switched their car registration to the state they’ve been living in for a long time?</p>
<p>Yes, the article is written in a snarky manner, to cast the company and its clients in a bad light. But the states set up the qualifying criteria as strictly as they wish, including the documentation they require, and these students are trying to cope with that system. If the criteria are so loose that non- legitimate residents can get in, that is a change in law that may be appropriate, not anger towards kids and companies trying to work with the existing rules. We may have “heard” of an example of fraud, but that shouldn’t be the basis for condemnation of the group.</p>
<p>I think this is a good example of the press manipulating its readers into outrage. It could have just as easily been written from the opposite perspective: a bright start-up company helping kids meander through a bewildering legal forest, enabling many kids to get the education they deserve but otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford! Same exact facts, but different spin. </p>
<p>If a resident is living in one state & has their car registered in another because " they didn’t realize" they should have switched it. This sounds like a lot of folks in CT who had their cars registered in other states to avoid paying car taxes here in CT. The state of CT finally started cracking down on these people. How can they not know?</p>
<p>Our state flagship is very close to the state line. Its OOS tuition and fees are about the same as in-state tuition and fees for the state it borders, and it isn’t nearly as selective admissions-wise. Students from this state and others flock to this school. If all the OOSers left, it would probably have to close. </p>
<p>Disproportionately high OOS tuition rates are a shell and ball game. And people who think paying their instate taxes entitles them to that discount? are naive. Its the OOS premium that subsidizes the cost of education for IS students. It’s an easy fee to increase for the politicians, like “sin taxes” and hotel and rental car fees. Impose huge costs on people who don’t vote in your jurisdiction so you can take that money and apply it elsewhere.</p>
<p>This outfit is no different than public transportation lobbyist and other like groups that “work the system” to their clients benefit.</p>
<p>Public colleges are subsidized with public funds, such that in-state tuition does not cover the cost of education. Unless the taxpayers of the state want to subsidize OOS students as well, OOS tuition supplements are required.</p>
<p>I have no problem with sin taxes for schools that I support through my taxes. Why should I subsidize students from another state? If they want to come here then they should pay a premium. That’s why schools like Alabama are the oddity. I understand why they are doing it (bringing up the quality of their student body) but some time it will probably hit a wall (hopefully after MY kid graduates college).</p>
<p>^typical off shoot of the protectionist mind set. schools addicted to OOS revenue, spend more money promoting themselves to OOS students, building facilities and engaging in activities that cannot be supported by IS student revenue only. It’s a death spiral and one day, OOS students realize the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes and the IS student’s and families are left holding the bag.</p>
<p>The UMN-TC difference between IS and OOS is 5k. Are MN taxpayers subsidizing OOS students? hardly.</p>