Normally, it would be a violation of the dormant commerce clause in the form of economic protectionism to charge out of state students more than in state students, but the Supreme Court has ruled that state governments (public universities are state actors because of the source of their funding) have a compelling interest in ensuring that the recipients of that funding contribute to the state where they received it. Basically, they want to discourage people from moving to a state for college and then taking their tax funded education elsewhere. I don’t really agree with that reasoning, but that’s the reason.
Tax subsidies. When you go to a state college in your home state, you aren’t paying nearly the full price of what it costs to put you through school. A significant portion of your costs are being covered by state taxes. If you aren’t from that state, they charge you the full cost because you haven’t been contributing to that tax revenue since you didn’t live on that state
They paid for it.
State-run colleges are built by the state. The state pays all the professors and runs everything, they’re government employees. The college if funded by tuition, sure, but state colleges are ALSO funded by the state. The state can only afford a college because they tax people who live there. It’s THEIR college. (Or, really, their parents’ college.)
(And places like Harvard simply have enough money that all their operating costs get paid from the interest. They have high tuition just to keep the riff-raff out.)
Latest Answers