Quote:
Originally Posted by lyrelyre
I don't think this is crazy. The point of in-state tuition is to give a break to the people who have been paying the taxes that support the institution. If a student hasn't been contributing to the economy of a state I see no reason to reward him or her with in-state tuition. Additionally (and this is a broad generalization from very brief research), approximately half of people settle in the same state in which they were born. Thus, statistically, charging in-state tuition to those who are actually from the state continues to contribute to the economy and culture of a state.
|
I hear what you're saying. I'm just cautioning prospective out-of-state students that even if they think they are following the rules for gaining in-state status, it may not happen for a number of reasons. In fact, the safest course of action would be to assume it
won't happen.
One nice thing about being a G.A. or a T.A. (for grad students) is that such a job may
automatically confer in-state status.
I was in my thirties, had worked and supported myself for many years, and had also worked and paid taxes in my new state for a year and a half before I applied for in-state status (the "rules" for what they were worth, stated that one year would be sufficient.) Still, no deal. In fact, I was charged more than 100% of the cost to the state of my education. (And I've been teaching the most difficult children that this state has to offer for the past dozen years.)
Which is fine. Whatever. But it ended up feeling like a business deal. When a representative from my alma mater calls and asks me for a donation, basically I just laugh at them. And I tell them that I already paid.
Threaded Mode
