<p>Sorry if this is an inappropriate forum for this topic - I wasn’t sure on where to put it.</p>
<p>I have always been curious as to the reasoning behind charging out-of-state students a larger amount for tuition than in-state students. The two main reasons I can think of off the top of my head are:</p>
<li> Out of state students are more likely to live out of state after finishing college, and are therefore less likely to benefit the state.</li>
<li> Taxpayers do not want to pay for out-of-state students.</li>
</ol>
<p>In regards to the first reason, what are the statistics that support this?</p>
<p>In regards to the second reason, do taxpayers really want to pay for in-state students either? And if they do want to pay for in-state students, then what is the problem with having taxpayer money “follow” the student out of state if they choose to attend an out-of-state school? Also, are out-of-state students somehow seen as less deserving simply because they did not live in the state out of pure chance? Isn’t this system hurting out-of-state students through no fault of their own?</p>
<p>Finally I am interested in any reasons people can think of for or against an alternative system:</p>
<p>Instead of have a “Michigan public school” or a “Kansas public school” or whatever, you eliminate the bureaucracy and only have “public schools.” All taxpayer money that presently goes to fund state public schools now funds nationwide public schools. Therefore, all students at a given public school will pay the same tuition. The result that I can see from this is:</p>
<li> Smart kids aren’t restricted to going in-state just because of money: net benefit to the country.</li>
<li> Former in-state students pay slightly higher tuition.</li>
<li> Former out-of-state students pay greatly reduced tuition.</li>
<li> Since there is the same number of schools and the same number of students, a poor school shouldn’t suffer problems with enrollment (unless they already did).</li>
</ol>
<p>Grum - While the current system MAY be suboptimized, and your suggested replacement less so, there are significant obstacles to making this particular change. The first is that institutions naturally work to overturn rules that are onerous to them. Since there's been no suggestion of uprising over the subject of out-of-state tuition, we should probably conclude that institutions are satisfied with the current system. Another substantial obstacle is the concept of "home rule" -- that people who live in an area have the "right" to set rules for their local area. </p>
<p>In short, this is not a straightforward matter of "as out-of-staters we're being discriminated against" or "the current system makes no sense when one looks at where a university's students work and contribute after college."</p>
<p>I don't know that the current system IS "suboptimized." State schools are paid for by state taxes. Handling education is a state right, not a Federal one. If you want a national (Federal) college education, you can certainly apply to get one -- at the service academies. These schools have a national (read: federal) focus.</p>
<p>Why would someone in, say, Michigan want their (local) tax dollars going to support my state's landgrant school? Why would I want my (local) tax dollars going to support, say, Oregon's (state) public university?</p>
<p>If you don't like the public university options in your state, you are in a good position -- living in the state -- to lobby for improvements to the system. You can vote out state legislators who do not work to improve your state U; I, living elsewhere, cannot.</p>
<p>Of course, we give illegal aliens in state tuition, but stick it to legal US citizens that happen to live across an imaginary line on a map. Makes great sense...</p>
<p>The way things are now, states get to choose how much to invest in higher education. Some invest a lot, and have world-class universities. Others don't invest as much, and don't have such good schools, but that's their choice. If all public universities were funded more or less equally, they would all be mediocre. There is no political will, at the federal level, to fund them to a level of excellence.</p>
<p>I think it would be very difficult to standardize state support. For example Wyoming pays approximately 40% of a residents costs to attend the University so the tuition is quite low for those students while Montana only pays approximately 18% of the same cost and in-state tuition is significantly higher to make up the difference.</p>
<p>In addition, one time state financing of new buildings and other projects has to come into play somewhere.</p>
<p>I believe government works best when it is as close as possible to the voters and people. Each state can decide on the quality of its Universities at the local level and residents can have more impact. At the federal level this is much more difficult to do. A state that really values education would have little chance to improve the education for its residents in a federal system.
imho</p>
<p>I like current system because it gives choice to pay less or to pay more (in-state vs OOS). The suggested "national" system will make average price higher, for example, if in-state is $10000 and OOS is $20000, each of them will be $15000. So it will give less control over funds that family is willing to use for education. Then since everybody compalins that current price is too high already, people will start pressing goverment to subsidize higher education more. The more subsidy, the more federal control. Do you really want to go that route?</p>
<p>To follow up on greennblue's point: states choose a variety of ways in which to attract residents and businesses. One way is via low state taxes. Another is via a strong higher education system. Many states choose one over the other. It's difficult (but maybe not impossible) to choose both. It's also far too easy to end up with neither ;)</p>
<p>All these points are accurate - states have the autonomy to emphasize what they want, offer what they want, and provide a benefit to their own taxpayers who have already subsidized the state's public higher education. But some states have reciprocal arrangements with other states to offer in-state tuition to their residents under certain situations. One is the so-called "Academic Common Market" in which states have contracted to offer in-state tuition to each other's residents when those residents are pursuing majors that are not offered at a public institution in their own state. That expands the options available to the residents of all the participating states. In many states, universities close to the state border can offer in-state tuition rates to prospective students from the bordering counties of the neighboring state. That way they can be on a level recruiting playing field with other public universities in the interior of their own state that can draw in-state students from a 360-degree radius of the campus.</p>
<p>Many good points made thus far. Centralization is good for things needing it, education on a national scale is not ("no child left behind" is one example). Market forces apply to public colleges- some state U's offer generous financial aid to OOS students (eg NMS money), whereas others attract many top OOS students despite a hefty price tag- all schools are not equal. The mean or median point is not beneficial to the nation- lowering the standards at the best schools to raise them at others yields uniform mediocrity. Forcing states that spend/do less to upgrade would be ideal- coming from a high tax/good education state I would love to see every state meet the top standards. Of course, in our utopian nation all schools in all states would be equally good/the same and there would be no desire to go OOS even with equal expenses... Remember, this is another example of how our country is a collection of individual states, united for some, but not many things.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have always been curious as to the reasoning behind charging out-of-state students a larger amount for tuition than in-state students. The two main reasons I can think of off the top of my head are:<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>These may not be the only two reasons. Another way of looking at this is not that OOS students are charged more but that instate students are given a discount. And the reason why they are entitled to a discount is because their parents have been and still are paying state taxes to support the state and the college. </p>
<p>That's the way to UCs regard it. The money that students must pay consists of the two parts: a) tuition and b) fees. CA residents still have to pay the fees, but they don't have to pay the tuition because it is paid for by the state government. Since OOS students and their parents haven't been paying CA taxes all these years, they must pay both fees and tuition.</p>
<p>Piggybacking off of coureur...Many states consider it an incentive to charge a lower tuition to in-state students. This is an effort to keep them in-state once they have completed college; thus more employed (and taxpaying) citizens pumping dollars into the state/local economy.</p>
<p>Yes, consider in state tuition an incentive to keep the best and brightest at home, thereby helping the state's economy. As far as the UC's go, California isn't exactly losing residents to more popular states, so there is not an incentive to recruit or discount for students from other states/countries. States with declining economies who have trouble retaining residents might be more open to discounting tuition for out of state applicants.</p>
<p>My state takes it a step further by offering a nice merit scholarship to students to use at any school ... as long as it's in state. The idea is that those who stay in state for school are more likely to stay in state after graduation. Of course, given that it's Michigan ... it might be a good idea to actually have some jobs available at graduation for students to stay!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those legal US citizens who happen to live across an "imaginary line on a map" don't pay state taxes to the state they aren't in.
[/quote]
And you believe all illegals do? By the way, most state schools take federal funds as well. Pretty much all states contribute to that, but most illegals don't file with the IRS. It would be nice if we treated our own as well as we treat our "visitors", but then that wouldn't be PC would it?</p>
<p>Utopia would be nice, too. Fact is states are subsidizing their schools with their taxpayers dollars, taxes are high enough without subsidizing those without any investment in the state. There is a maldistribution of wealth/goods/services/jobs... And the issue of illegals is another complete topic...</p>
<p>Most Federal Funds to colleges are for either research, financial aid, or very specific programs. The privates compete on pretty equal footing for research and financial aid money.</p>
<p>bandit, please show some integrity. I was responding to your post:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, we give illegal aliens in state tuition, but stick it to legal US citizens that happen to live across an imaginary line on a map. Makes great sense...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Emphasis mine.</p>
<p>I didn't say anything about illegal aliens (though will point out now that the ones who live in my state certainly DO pay state taxes, as STATE taxes are levied on goods sold, services [such as phone/cell phone/internet, etc.), licenses, and so on).</p>
<p>It's not "sticking it" to legal citizens who DON'T live in my state, DON'T pay taxes in my state, DON'T vote in my state to pay OOS tuition in my state.</p>
<p>As I said, if citizens of a state are unhappy with the public higher education offers in their state, they can put people into office who are committed to improving the public colleges and universities in that state.</p>
<p>I think in addition to state run colleges, we should have a few federal colleges. I'm pretty sure our nation doesn't have those right? If we wanted it, the federal colleges would be top of the line and even challenge HYPS. If only our good president spent all the Iraq war money on the federal colleges... But yeah, the reason why there's OOS tuition is because people pay taxes to their own state and not others. With a federal system, since everyone pays federal taxes there would be no such thing as OOS tuition.</p>