<p>We had the same problem with our son, moving from CO. to FL. Note, since he was 16years of age, he held a job, plus his college money was in a UGMA at a brokerage. Since I traded stocks, plus his part time job, there was no questions as to residency since we had to pay Federal and State Taxes for ourselves and him. Find a part time job during the school year, pay taxes, although your parents will still use you as a dependent on their taxes, and still be able to use the 1098T. Also make sure they pay tuition via credit card/bank or state checking account (yours or theirs) and you should be fine.</p>
<p>Note that a part time job won’t work in every state.</p>
<p>First of all it is not a state issue but an issue that is determined by the college. Two colleges in the same state, same town even can have different rules about who is in state and who is not for tuition purposes. It has nothing to do with what the state considers. You may be able to register your car, have the driver’s license, (and have to do this by state law within months of moving there), be a registered voter, pay state taxes, and still not qualify for in-state tuition. That’s just the way it works. It makes no sense, it’s not fair, it can be crazy, but that is the way it is. </p>
<p>Even more complicated is how the college itself enforces and interpretes its own rules. Some schools could not care less. You say you are in state, and you get the the in state rates, and that is the end of it. Some states will investigate the matter right down to splitting hairs. And, yes, you can lose your state residency for tuition at one school when your parents move out of state and not get it at an in state school of the state where they move. It’s not something that is worked out to be fair. One of the admissions folks at UMich was paying OOS rates for her kid—she told me so, when she moved there because of the one year requirement that she did not meet. </p>
<p>There are some colleges where there are a lot of OOS kids who are enjoying in state tuition rates because the school is lax in enforcing the rules. If you decide to join this group, be aware that what you are doing is not right and can change very quickly if the school suddenly notices their loss in revenue from this lack of investigation and can also get you retroactively. That it will happen, who knows? That’s the risk you take when you play that game. You also have no idea what a school will examine and cross check to determine your in state status. IF you are filing out the FAFSA even for unsubsidized loans or PLUS, it is going to be plain as day what state your parents are the resident of despite all the PO boxes and other subterfuge.</p>
<p>Mainlonghorn, I am glad that your experience this way has been favorable, and indeed some schools will do what they can to keep a student in state, especially if it is a parental move OOS after a long time as a state resident. BUt some schools make this a focus of theirs and their mission is to get every OOS tuition dollar they can, so it is an automatic OOS rate if you let them know and virtually no way of reversing it.</p>
<p>^ Good overview of some of the practical and strategical considerations, cptofthehouse. </p>
<p>Just to clarify your first paragraph–Texas is one state that does have a “residency for tuition purposes” law that applies to all public colleges, and although I haven’t researched it, I suspect there may be other states that apply a uniform rule to all colleges that receive state funding.</p>
<p>So the requirements for UT Austin would be identical for UT San Antonio? For some reason, i don’t think so. Some old family friends had a kid who they yanked out of college(an ivy)due to some shenanigans, and they sent said kid to UT San Antonio to family and enrolled him there. Not a glimmer of anything to get in state rates, and I doubt it was legit. The school just didn’t care. But when he tried to transfer UT Austin in two years, it was a whoooole other story. He was not considered a Texas resident. He got in, but OOS tution was a big snag. Also, there might be a uniform rule, but that is the base from which a college can work and set its own requirements on top of it.</p>
<p>
I think this is the crux of it.</p>
<p>^ Yes there may be a law, but …</p>
<p>Like a lot of things in life, just because there’s a law in place doesn’t mean Authorities don’t have some discretionary powers. To a degree, every citizen needs to decide to what degree they will use THEIR discretionary powers. Dinner in Manhattan with a severely arthritic MIL? Do you double-park in front of the restaurant for a few minutes while MIL makes her way to the car? Or do you make her walk three blocks to the parking garage? (Hmm, boy that’s a tough one … um, NOT.) If the law favors the OP retaining In-State status, institutional game theory suggests that NOT informing the college about parents’ move will result in fewer problems. JMHO of course … and I do realize there are people who would inform the college “because it’s the right thing to do” and then fight any status change “because the law says it shouldn’t change.” I think life’s too short to initiate that chain of events … but who am I to judge?</p>
<p>Actually, this is almost never a school-by-school issue, and always a state law issue. State law may vary by school or school type – I think California has different rules for UCs and CCs, and I don’t know about CSUs. But the source will be state law. Of course, what everyone says about enforcement attitude – that is a local thing.</p>
<p>States have very different views on this, by the way. Lots of states are happy to use their university systems as a draw to attract people (educated people! young people!), and make it easy to qualify as a resident. But the states with traditionally strong universities, and/or states that give comparatively large subsidies, and/or states that rely on OOS tuition to keep their systems running, tend to be understandably persnickety about people not from here claiming resident status.</p>
<p>There is a hidden constitutional overlay, too. While for the most part states are entitled to do what they want here, and individual OOS students are unlikely to run to federal court for relief, if a state plays the game too hard it will be vulnerable to a challenge on commerce clause / right to travel grounds. I think many people have the instinct that there could be issues if the state’s rules, if they were applied consistently by every state, would render lots of people effectively state-less. In other words, the Golden Rule. That’s what’s behind the FL/NC 12-month grace period, I think: Most states have a 12-month rule for residency purposes, so FL/NC let you continue to pay as an in-state student while you are establishing residency (for tuition purposes) elsewhere. It’s not perfect, of course, because sometimes people have to move twice in 12 months, but it’s roughly fair. Most other states seem to take the approach that if you are a resident when you first enroll, your residency will not be questioned so long as you remain continuously enrolled (except for summer vacations).</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, re: the anecodote you cited in your #45 regarding an apparent conflict in how UTSA and UT Austin handled the residency question for the same student…obviously, I can’t comment on what happened in that situation! But the published rules are the same and are promulgated by the state. It has been this way for many years. With that said, there may be uneven application of the rules from college to college; it would not be surprising that flagship UT strictly construes the requirements. I think they work very hard to help students with a legitimate claim to residency, but will scrutinize residency applications that are stretching it. Personally, I think that’s the way it should be!</p>