Is it outmoded to have different in-state and out-of-state tuition rates?

<p>With so many states being broke today, do you think they should do away with differing in-state and out-of-state tuition rates?</p>

<p>If yes, what policy changes would you propose in its place? Admission preference for state residents? Financial aid eligibility for state residents only?</p>

<p>If no, then who should qualify for in-state rates? Taxpayers? Not everyone pays taxes (e.g. the poor) What about property taxpayers who own vacation homes in state?</p>

<p>Do you think the present policies are fair to families?</p>

<p>No. Even if the state U’s are not totally funded by state residents the state taxpayers are still supporting the state U’s. State U’s have a mission beyond educating college students as well. They are a great resource to their state- at least in Wisconsin. The primary mission is tho educate state residents- outside the college boundaries/all over the state- in many areas. The fact that many public flagships are also great U’s and draw OOS students is a bonus both for the instate and OOS students.</p>

<p>Fortunately the US does not classify its citizens according to their income level. Nor do the states within their boundaries. Living in a state gives you rights, priveleges and responsibilites- not being rich or a property owner. Not all renters are poor. Families benefit from public education from kindergarten through college- if it is good in the state. </p>

<p>I suspect the OP is a midwesterner, possibly from Illinois, who dislikes the extra costs of attending Wisconsin or Michigan. Many from Chicagoland will have vacation homes in one of those two states and pay property taxes. They have to choose pros and cons to where they live. One of them is the college flagship. Until the entire country raises its educational standards and opportunities to that of the best states we should keep current residency requirements. Texas has its oil money, low taxes and many lousy schools for example- they could redistribute their wealth to improve the lot of all residents (“no child left behind” means those ahead have to slow down).</p>

<p>I don’t think OP lives in the Midwest, but in the time zone GMT+7. I do not think the IS OOS should change.
I do not live in IL, but S went there and received a scholarship that brought cost to IS.</p>

<p>D will likely choose IL (although she has not officially so “no” to the others) for her fully funded Ph.D.</p>



<p>Your question makes no sense.</p>

<p>Schools are supported by tax dollars from parents of in-state students and parents expect some kind of a discount from their in-state schools. Out-of-state students are looked at as a funding source for state schools.</p>

<p>Are you asking if rates should all be at the out-of-state levels? That would make in-state parents unhappy as they provide funding in terms of tax dollars. Should they lower out-of-state rates to in-state levels? Where do they make up the revenues?</p>

<p>I figured perhaps the OP meant a minus instead of a plus since an Asian wouldn’t be asking these questions. I also agree some of the questions don’t make sense- eg how does going broke make a difference? Jumped in with responses because of arguments from OOS adults on forums who don’t seem to get why they can’t have it all. Residency is determined by where you live (reside), not income or property ownership.</p>

<p>State taxes subsidize state colleges. Many states, due to tax revenue shortfall from sour economy, are cutting back funding to state colleges. </p>

<p>I’m just posing a philosophical question.</p>

<p>So state colleges have to charge someone more to make up the difference.</p>

<p>Parents of out-of-state students don’t vote.</p>

<p>Who are you going to charge more?</p>

<p>No. Many, many low and middle income kids can ONLY afford their universities because of the low in-state rates.</p>

<p>In Michigan, we have some of the highest tuition in the country and some of the lowest state contributions to our universities. I’m seeing right now what would happen if states pulled out funding. It’s not pretty.</p>

<p>Yes, in-state should pay less. Even if the state contribution has decreased over time, the state has in the past helped pay for the physical plant. Its like if your parents bought you a house, and said you have to let your sister live there. You say OK. When the mortgage is paid off, you say well parents, now since you are not paying, I am going to kick out younger sister.</p>

<p>"Schools are supported by tax dollars from parents of in-state students and parents expect some kind of a discount from their in-state schools. Out-of-state students are looked at as a funding source for state schools.</p>

<p>Are you asking if rates should all be at the out-of-state levels? That would make in-state parents unhappy as they provide funding in terms of tax dollars."</p>

<p>I appreciate tax-paying parents expecting a break for contributing all those years. But what about in-state parents who don’t pay taxes (i.e. the ones on public assistance and who contribute negative taxes).</p>

<p>From your argument, shouldn’t state taxpayers, in general, be eligible for some kind of discount? (e.g. people who own vacation homes in the state and pay substantial property taxes, but do not reside in the state. What about people who own a business in the state and pay business taxes and contribute sidnificantly to the state’s economy)</p>

<p>I’m just hypothesizing, so posters here, please don’t get all bent out of shape. No, I am not bitter, as some people conjectured, about being or not being eligible for in-state rates for some other state, as my kids will probably not attend a state school.</p>

<p>This raises an interesting philosophical point IMO. If a state U gets 10% of their funding from the state (like mine does) then shouldn’t IS students pay 10% less for tuition than OOS? Shouldn’t a resident’s discount be proportional to the funding that the school receives from their state?</p>

<p>One way for a school to make up the shortfall is to raise the percentage of OOS kids. However, some states limit that number. That is why tuition has risen faster than inflation.</p>

Thank you for taking this as a philosophical debate! That’s all this thread was intended for.</p>

<p>Let me give you another interesting IS vs OOS philosophical dilemma. You asked about property owners who have real estate in one state but live in another. They pay at least some taxes and so the question is whether they deserve IS rates. Well, lets take it one step further. This is a true story btw. I have a good friend who works the opposite shift to his wife. He gets home when she is asleep and vice versa. Since they only see each other on weekends anyway, she decided to take a big promotion 2-3 hours away in our neighboring state. They got a place and will alternate weekends in each state. So now they pay property taxes in 2 states, sales taxes, income taxes etc in two different states. Luckily their kids are out of college, but what if they weren’t? I would argue that their kids deserve IS tuition in either state (after a year of residency of course).</p>



<p>All the more reason (from the state’s point of view) to give those of their children with the motivation and ability to attend and succeed in college a chance to, in order to break the multi-generational cycle of poverty that would otherwise consign them to a lifetime of low productivity (meaning low tax revenue for the state) and high cost (due to need for public assistance and other public services needed due to poverty).</p>

<p>State universities exist at least partly for the reason that a better educated population means a population that pays more taxes on its higher pay levels, while costing less in welfare type things. In other words, the subsidized tuition is an investment in the state’s population’s economic future that will reap dividends in future economic productivity. That is a rather different mission from the historic mission of some private schools, which was to preserve the largely inherited status of high social status families (remnants of this mission exist today in the legacy preferences at some, although these are likely retained, and sometimes copied by state universities, due to a desire to attract more alumni donations).</p>

<p>Of course, when the states defund their state universities, their historic mission is at risk, since the state universities may not be able to afford the historic mission and may have to find money somewhere to replace the lost funding from the state. Defunding the state universities is like a farmer eating his/her seed corn.</p>

<p>I was hoping to spark a spirited philosophical debate, but realized lol that no one is going to argue against their pocketbook interests to support eliminating or even reducing the discount for IS. As for the OOS residents who contribute tax-wise, they are S.O.L. because they have no legislative representation in that state. The bottom-line criterion for who gets IS rates is not who pays the taxes, but who is a voter.</p>

<p>And I strongly agree that it is in a community’s interest to break the cycle of poverty and educate its poor residents.</p>

<p>Raising kids is a highly pragmatic matter. To think anything else shows naivete.</p>


<p>I think it is wise to offer IS rates for state residents because I view the discount as investment in the future. If my state can get bright kids to stay for college in the state it will send a strong message to potential employers who are considering opening headquarters or a new branch in the state. Usually when kids stay home to attend college, they are more likely to look for a job locally too. Having educated workforce is a plus for potential employers (having favorable corporate tax policies is a big plus too, but that is not the topic of the discussion).</p>

<p>So I am OK that every IS kid can get discount regardless his parent contribution. Where I draw the line is when the college openly starts charging students from higher income families higher fee to subsidize students from lower income families. I am looking at you - Carlson School of Business (!) at University of Minnesota (proposed, not implemented yet).</p>


I think this might be the case in some states, but it does depend on the rules within each state. I KNOW it is true for children of divorced parents in some states.</p>

<p>Taxation without representation happens if you do things in multiple states.</p>

<p>Property taxes mostly go for local stuff in most states. The income and sales taxes go to the state government so paying property taxes may not be applicable to state colleges. There are all sorts of edge-cases but our laws would be much bigger if we tried to deal with all of those on an exception basis.</p>



<p>The usual approach is to increase the sticker price where full-pay students subsidize
financial aid for lower-income families. This is the model that many states are using
to keep college affordable for low-income families. Sure, it’s income redistribution
and colleges are actually proud of it. If you, as a higher income family don’t want
to participate in the transfer of wealth, then don’t have your kids go there. They
do this at my son’s school and are openly proud of it and it doesn’t bother me -
the sticker price is still at a considerable discount to full-pay privates.</p>


<p>I am not talking about financial aid. I am talking about tuition rates. My taxes already subsidize IS tuition discount, Pell grant, State Grate, subsidized loans, etc… Apparently it is not enough. Now, a kid of higher income parent needs to be charged a higher tuition rate? Forget about fairness. It is not a wise decision. All it is going to achieve in that particular situation is that bright MN kids from higher income families will attend higher-ranked reciprocity WI flagship, which coincidentally has lower tuition rate anyway (even without proposed rate hike). I wonder what they are going to do if there will be nobody left to pay for their genius idea.</p>

<p>The fact that this proposals comes from Business school should probably explain why UofMN is lower ranked than WI.</p>