Should there be tougher standards for granting people in-state tuition

<p>I’m not saying I have a issue with people getting a CA education and moving oos. But I’m just saying it’s more costly to the ca economy. </p>

<p>And let’s be clear most UC undergrads have NOT been “putting money into the system” their parents have. Again not a problem, but let’s just be accurate. </p>

<p>If at the age of 25, I decide I want to live and go to school in CA rather than my home state, why is that a problem? If at 21 I can take my UCLA degree to NY, why at 25 is it not ok to come CA to start a new life, and in the process go to school? Do you really think thousands of 24+ year olds are moving to Ca every year to go to school, then leaving as soon as they have a degree? They’re not. The ones who come for school usually stay for at least several years after graduating. They’re putting in $$$ retroactively in a way </p>

<p>@collegedropout1
I did NOT call you an elitist. I said that statement was a bit elitist. Big difference!! :-)</p>

<p>I disagree @CSB111‌. People aren’t following the proper procedures which is why they are being denied. It isn’t impossible. </p>

<p>As a student they need to establish financial independence from parents for two years, which is the big roadblock most encounter, I would assume. </p>

<p>But once independence is established it isn’t that hard. The key is there is a long list of things that need to be changed, or added, to show CA is your home state. All easily done, but many don’t do it, or don’t complete it within the allotted time.</p>

<p>This is why I think the figures are probably low in terms of OOS --> residency. As @2016candles said, it’s far easier for transfers and those already financially independent.</p>

<p>UCLA has it set up so simply declaring “financial independence” doesn’t get you in-state tuition. </p>

<p>The only way to do this is to either be an orphan, take off a year from school and everything educational to work. Even if you can provide “financial independence”, which is two years of your own tax returns prior to applying for in state tuition (at this point you probably owe ~100k in loans), not being a dependent on your parents tax returns for years (which could be tax fraud), prove self sufficiency (usually having a court order) AND be 24. </p>

<p>Now if you decide to go school when you are older and have been working in California, then it is much easier as it should be. </p>

<p>I’m confused with what you are saying UCLA says. There is only one residency policy via the Office of the President. </p>

<p>So that we’re all on the same page I have copied and pasted both the “financial independence from parents” clause and the 366-day residency rule and indicia needed. </p>

<p>What I believe I got wrong is that the 366-day residency needs to established basically when you apply (the end of that fall term). I may be reading that wrong, though. A link to the whole policy is at the bottom…</p>

<hr>

<p>Financial Independence
To be classified a resident for tuition purposes, in addition to 366 days of physical presence and intent, a student who is not dependent on a California-resident parent must demonstrate financial independence (total self-sufficiency) for two, full years immediately preceding the residence determination date of the term for which a resident classification is sought.</p>

<p>Relevant documentation to support a finding of financial independence may include tax returns from the student to verify the student’s income, as well as W-2s, two year budget of income and expenses, official apartment rental contracts or leases, and copies of all financial documentation (bank statements, loans, trust, etc) to verify the sources of the student’s income/savings. The student must not have accepted any type of financial assistance from any individual, including California residents, during the required two years.</p>

<p>Parents’ tax returns may also be required to verify the student was not claimed as a tax dependent within the two year period. Any tax returns amended after a nonresident determination has been rendered will not be considered for the term in which they were originally provided as proof of having satisfied the financial independence requirements.</p>

<p>TERM FOR WHICH RESIDENCE CLASSIFICATION IS REQUIRED
Fall Quarter 2014 </p>

<p>LEGAL TIES MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY
12/13/13, end of Fall Quarter 2013 </p>

<p>Students, or parents where applicable, who have satisfied the 366-day physical presence requirement but have not timely obtained California legal indicia and/or continue to hold out-of-state legal indicia may be denied a resident classification. Until California legal indicia have been timely obtained and all out-of-state legal indicia have been relinquished, resident classification may be denied for subsequent terms.</p>

<p>Relevant indicia of intent to establish or maintain California residence for tuition purposes include:</p>

<p>Legal Indicia of Intent</p>

<p>• Proof of paying California state income tax on total income, including income earned outside the State of California, since the date residence was established in California;
• Maintaining a California ID or driver’s license;
• Maintaining a California vehicle registration;
• Registering to vote and voting in California;
• Registering for the Selective Service in California;
• Establishing eligibility for social benefits with agencies within California;
• Establishing a California State Business or professional license.</p>

<p>Other Indicia of Intent</p>

<p>• Establishing a home in California where permanent possessions are kept;
Using a California permanent address on all records;
• Presence of a spouse, registered domestic partner, or child in the state;
• Remaining present in California during academic breaks;
Maintaining active savings and checking accounts in California banks
Maintaining active memberships in California; professional, social, religious or merchant organizations;
• Maintaining memberships/credit with California merchants;
• Employment in California;
• Applying for loans, scholarships, grants-in-aid, or other such assistance from a California source</p>

<p>Conduct that may be inconsistent with a claim of California residence includes:</p>

<p>• Returning to the prior out-of-state place of residence during academic breaks, or residing out-of-state for an extended period;
• Attending an out-of-state school as a resident of the state in which the school is located;
• Paying taxes in another state or country as a resident of that state or country, or not fulfilling tax obligations to the State of California;
• Maintaining an out-of-state driver’s license or identification card;
• Voting in another state;
• Obtaining a loan or financial assistance requiring residence in another state;
Holding a permanent resident visa for another country</p>

<p><a href=“UC Legal - Office of the General Counsel | UCOP”>UC Legal - Office of the General Counsel | UCOP;

<p>@2016Candles “But I’m just saying it’s more costly to the ca economy.” Did you read the post that I made directed at you? Because I already refuted this claim. It is not costly to California because the student’s parents are paying for the services that their child is using. When they leave the state, they stop paying taxes, but they also stop using the service. While the child is using the service, the parents are paying for it. However, this is not a problem, because the child’s parents have already pick up the bill for the education when they paid taxes to that state. Children are dependent on their parents, so it makes sense that their parents would pick up the bill. So it does not make sense to compare this situation to when out of state students attend the UC system.</p>

<p>If at the age of 25, I decide I want to live and go to school in CA rather than my home state, why is that a problem?</p>

<p>I want to make this VERY CLEAR! I am not trying to prevent out of state students from attending a UC school. I am saying that if someone has not live here for a good portion of their life, then they should not qualify for in state tuition. You seem to be confusing the two issues. Read back to the posts you have made, because you keep talking as if I wanted to ban out of state students. I don’t! There is no problem with you coming to California to attend a UC school. I just think it would be fair for you to pay out of state tuition since you have not been paying taxes to California </p>

<p>If at 21 I can take my UCLA degree to NY, why at 25 is it not ok to come CA to start a new life, and in the process go to school?</p>

<p>If you want to move to NY with your UCLA degree than you are fine! Why? Because California was already gotten money out you and your family for the last 21 years. You have already contributed money to help fund the UC system that you used. When an out of state students comes, how do we know if he is going to stay in the state? He could stay in California, but thenagain he might not, which would leave the bill to us, the California Tax payer. </p>

<p>“Do you really think thousands of 24+ year olds are moving to Ca every year to go to school, then leaving as soon as they have a degree? They’re not. The ones who come for school usually stay for at least several years after graduating. They’re putting in $$$ retroactively in a way”</p>

<p>How do YOU know their intentions? Can you tell what is on their mind? Why do you think this when there is nothing to tell you otherwise? </p>

<p>I am just speaking from what many people who have tried to get in state tuition at UCLA have said both on here, reddit and from people I’ve talked to. </p>

<p>I had a big long scpheel typed up, but simply put, the ones who are trying to get in state tuition are going to be freshman from OOS. That makes up the probably all of the OOS tuition base. </p>

<p>If you are transferring from an OOS school, you are going to pay OOS tuition. If you are from out of state and attending a CCC and transferring, you are going to pay OOS tuition unless you are older. I don’t see people from out of state CC transferring to UCLA or any UC (I don’t think it is possible). </p>

<p>Where is everyone getting this age 24 thing? This is where I’m confused. It seems to be said a lot. ???</p>

<p>@collegedropout‌1,

</p>

<p>So, do u think poor people on welfare in CA shouldn’t be eligible for in-state tuition bcs they “have not put in nearly enough money to justify a reduction in price”?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/forms/residenceclass.pdf”>http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/forms/residenceclass.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The first statement is being 24. If you look around, people have said they fulfilled the other classifications, but got rejected because they were not 24.</p>

<p>It’s costly to the CA economy because they are now paying taxes elsewhere. They are buying property elsewhere. They are spending their income elsewhere.</p>

<p>Who gets to decide what a long enough period of time is to live in ca before they’ve proven they’re worthy of Ca residency. If the summer before my senior year in high school my parents move from Minnesota to California, now I’m able to go to a UC and pay the CA resident price. How is that any different from me at 24 having to live in California for one year before being able to establish California residency? It’s the exact same thing. In the second scenario instead of relying on my parents, I’m doing this on my own.</p>

<p>What I’m saying about People over 24 years of age is that they are not moving around the country simply to get an education. By this age people are beginning to establish their permanent life. People are beginning to have children people are beginning to get married people are beginning to look for careers. 25 years of age and older people are not just moving to California just trying to get an education for a cheaper price. Maybe you have to be older to really understand that, and I don’t mean that in a condescending way, I’m just putting it into perspective. </p>

<p>If someone who is 25 years old decides to move to California, it’s because they want to live in California. School may be part of their rationale, but in most cases, their intent is to live in California regardless. Whether or not they change their mind at some point in the future and decide to move elsewhere, who knows. </p>

<p>Ah I see @CSB111‌, so it’s one of the options. But a person could be getting no money from parents after age 18, so could establish financial independence by 20 (#6, I think). Thx for clarification. </p>

<p>@GMTplus7 Are you saying poor people don’t pay taxes? Because they do, they pay sales tax, and income tax
Yes, they should qualify for in state tuition because they are residents of California and pay taxes. </p>

<p>@lindyk8‌ - 24 is the age you have to be in order to be (according to CA schools & FAFSA) to be financially independent regardless. You don’t have to prove anything. You don’t have to show documentation of your independence, you are independent.</p>

<p>Yes, it says that, but it still isn’t as simple as just fulfilling one of those. </p>

<p>Here is just one of the threads I’ve seen discussing establishing residency and tuition:
<a href=“Reddit - Dive into anything”>http://www.reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/298zky/california_residency_for_tuition_purposes/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Type in reddit where the stars are. </p>

<p>I see, so 24 obviously is the beaurocracy-free way to go. Get it.</p>

<p>I’m wondering, though @CSB111‌, if those ppl who said they fulfilled other of those options but got rejected because they were not 24, are missing something. Because the policy you linked to says “one of the following” needs to apply. I suspect just as ppl say they got rejected and they were a 3.9 GPA, and there goes the system – there was some other flaw that disqualified them. </p>

<p>People with low incomes pay less in taxes. Period. You have less income, so your income taxes are low. You have less money, so you have less to spend less money on merchandise. People with low incomes spend less money on it or mortgages. So since they have put less money into the economy, shouldn’t there you see these be higher than people who’ve pay more taxes?</p>

<p>Of course not. In fact people with lower income receive more financial aid from the state and the federal government. Their education is cheaper than people who contribute more.</p>

<p>@cbs111
I know there’s more to establishing residency. I was just answering her question about where the number 24 came from.</p>

<p>If you are welfare, well, regardless of where you go, you are going to get a lot of money for school, so that argument doesn’t really work. </p>

<p>Hey @CSB111‌ that last link didn’t work for me. I think part of it was redacted. Nvm I saw your edit…</p>

<p>I am going to say @CollegeDropout1‌ you started a great thread. Not quite as good as the guy whose pregnant gf was telling him to drop out of UCB, but a close second…</p>