<p>My total family income every year is $1572. I receive almost every type of government aid available. Does anyone know of any scholarships/aids that help out people like this? Also, the school I interested in is a performing arts school (AMDA-American Musical Academy for Dramatic Arts), so if you know of performing arts scholarships, that will help, too.
My GPA is 3.6 (unweighted) & 4.001 (weighted)
Thanks!</p>
<p>You will be eligible for Pell grant each year (5.5k) and depending on which state you are from probably a state grant. Those are not scholarships, but need based help.</p>
<p>You might also get AMDA need based grant and a merit scholarship. You need to contact schools to get a specific amount. I suspect it is not going to be enough to cover COA, making this school unafforadable to you.</p>
<p>You need to look at what kind of aid that school gives. If they have a Net Price Calculator on their website, use it.</p>
<p>Those kinds of schools rarely give much in aid. If that’s the case, then it won’t be affordable. </p>
<p>What are your SAT or ACT scores? It’s likely you may need to start at a local CC and then transfer later to an affordable school.</p>
<p>Be prepared to be selected for something called “verification” for whatever school you go to. They will want some sort of proof that your family can exist on such low income every year.</p>
<p>teachandmom,</p>
<p>she probably meant earned income. She already said that the family receives all kinds of public assistance, which is not really an income and is not reported on taxes.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>True, but even with welfare, it’s difficult to live on that low of an income.</p>
<p>There are many more programs than welfare, that make it more than possible to live on welfare and foodstamps. The most important is section 8 vouchers and health insurance program (name varies by the state). Then you add free lunches (and sometimes breakfasts ) at schools, state programs, food shelves, etc. </p>
<p>If it was that difficult to live on public assistance… you can finish the sentence.</p>
<p>It is difficult to live below the poverty line unless you have family who are heavily subsidizing you. My friend did so for many years making the guidelines for every and any form of public assistance. But those situations are the exceptions–the ones with enough family help to live like an upper middle class family.</p>
<p>Still, if selected for verification, the OP will have to come up with all of the supporting documents.</p>
<p>OP, fill out a sample FAFSA. With a zero or very low EFC, you will qualify for the PELL and if your state has programs, you might qualify for them as well. NY, for instance, has TAP. Make sure you ask your guidance counselor for a list of any and all such programs for which you might qualify.</p>
<p>Beyond the PELL and subsidization of some loans, and the availability of some loans to you, nothing else is guaranteed to low income students. It’s all up to the school. If you peruse this board, you’ll see a number of kids whose family EFCs were zero or very low and their schools simply gapped them. Accepted them, presented them with some of the automatic awards like PELL, suggested parent loans, and basically said, you can come here if you can find the money.</p>
<p>If your test scores are up there and your grades are good, you might want to start looking at some colleges that guarantee to meet financial need and where the NPC looks promising.</p>
<p>Above all, and this is something that all students should do, is have a school that you know will take you and that you know is affordable in mind. ALways have a few of those such options since anything else is a lottery ticket. Getting a financial aid package sufficient to pay teh full cost is not easy. Need is only the first step to getting qualified and most all college gap their students.</p>
<p>lerkin…I was including all those various programs into the umbrella of the word “welfare”…any kind of gov’t aid.</p>
<p>Even with all of those various programs, it’s still hard for a family to live on such a low income unless there is help from elsewhere…family, friends, etc.</p>
<p>Since I have first hand experience living below poverty line, I can tell you that while it is difficult, it is very much doable and in some ways easier than being just above poverty line. </p>
<p>While I and my immediate family are doing well now, I have some third-blood cousin relatives who are not doing that great. Some are on public assistance and some are just not making that much money. From what I can see, the ones who work and are on public assistance live better quality of life than those who are not on it (with much less worry).</p>
<p>By the way, I think public assistance is a great program if it is used temporarily. My parents and I used it for about 5-6 months when we came to US. It was tremendous help for us and allowed us to look for jobs and strengthen our language skills. However, I have seen people around me, not only my distant relatives, making conscious decision to continue staying on public assistance. And quite frankly, it bugs me.</p>
<p>I am not saying that OP’s family is like that. Even if they are, it is not OP’s fault. There are many circumstances that force people to be on public assistance. I am just saying that it is not as difficult as people make it out to be.</p>
<p>Lerkin, my husband’s cousin who was always close to him when he was growing up is struggling in raising a family with a low income but without a whole lot of public assistance. It has been terribly difficult for the family, and that is with some outright cash assistance when the problem was acutely lack of funds and the infusion directly solved the immediate issue. And not haveing a “whole lot” of public assistance still means aid in forms that I don’t believe that they even consider. They got their house through a program for low income folks, they get reduced fee and free things for their kids in terms of activities and opportunities, and their kids get pretty much free health insurance. Also, all of the kids births were paid for through the state as they have no health insurance. They apply for relief any time any hospital bills are incurred, and use free public health services for routine things. </p>
<p>It’s still been very difficult and stressful. I would not trade that life, for any of the “free stuff” or benefits that they may get, but it’s a swap that could be done if it were so difficult.</p>
<p>Not having the money is not the whole problem in low income situations. It’s often the fuel thrown to what might be a smaller fire when a situation or disaster or catastrophe occurs. Having a competent, logical, caring, able parent who is willing to learn and become informed is the most important thing for a kid. We see kids on this board often whose parents make very good incomes, but have it tied up in things so that paying for college is not possible. Those kids may have it a lot harder than those who have parents dedicated to make it happen for their kids but don’t have the money. </p>
<p>My dear friend sold their house, bad market and all, and moved into a small apartment in a not so upscale area, sold her van and bought a small used car (but can now walk to work!) when it came time for her daughters to go to college. Those girls both went to expensive private schools that the parents felt fit them the best, and they didn’t get a dime of aid form those school. The sale of the house which resulted in really just a small nest egg, but resulted in a good monthly savings on housing expenses, is what paid for their education. The girls did have to work and borrow, as did the parents, but they made it happen. But you don’t see many middle income or upper income families willing to make that drastic cut. I know I was not willing to do so. To be in that mind frame is much more beneficial to the kids than the amount of money, but there are times when the problem is purely the money.</p>
<p>Cpt,</p>
<p>I think we differ a bit in our approach to this. I know it is going to sound cold, but having kids is a choice. The cousin made a choice to have not one, but what sounds like at least 2 kids. Why should tax-payers subsidize that choice? </p>
<p>And you make a very astute observation: we don’t see many [whatever income] families willing to make drastic cuts. It is their choice too. In this case, they have only themselves to blame for consequences. </p>
<p>Believe me, I am not a model of financial responsibilities. Growing up with not much and then moving here and being poor for a long time, I now want to enjoy life. I also have to admit that I was very naive with regard to merit-based financial aid and with regard how fast tuition increased over the years. Nevertheless, I made my choice not to scrimp too much and not go into debt for my children education (and not let them go into debt). I only will have myself to blame that my children would not go to the schools of their choice (if they are lucky to be admitted there). But I am fine with my decision (and the kids will get over it eventually :)).</p>
<p>Anyway, my point is that for the most part people have to accept the consequences of their decisions. I am not a cold hearted … by the way. I understand that in case of illnesses in the families or some other perfect storm of bad luck, the consequences are not people’s fault. And for these kind of situations I will always support safety net programs.</p>
<p>It’s not just the parents who are paying for the consequences of having those children, but the children themselves. The ultimate costs of not helping these children have the best chance of becoming self sufficient are far higher to society than increasing those possibilities. Not to mention that in this country, it is unconscionable to not medically treat children who need such care because their parents don’t have the means. Heck, you gotta treat the adults as well, in many scenarios. All about being a civilized society. </p>
<p>The problem is that when people do not accept the consequences of their decisions, it can adversely affect all of us. Some of these programs are not there because supporters of them have such warm caring hearts. Many times, bail outs are done because the effect of not doing so are catastrophic to others. I work with a lot of people who do not, can not, will not accept the consequences of their decisions, and it affects a lot of other people. </p>
<p>My DH’s cousin has 3 kids, and like it or not, they are costing well into the 6 figures in annual costs to tax payers. If an investment far smaller than that can get some of those kids out of the rut they are in, it will save all of us money in the long run. I wish the older two had applied to some college or other higher education program of any kind. I would have paid for it myself with my own funds.</p>
<p>CPT,</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I think we tried for many decades the approach you are advocating. I don’t see improvement on a large scale.</p>
<p>Maybe in your DH’s cousin’s case, it is the money well spent. However, I still object to that spending. That person should not have had 3 kids if he could not afford them. In the words of incomparable Judge Judy: “I did not have fun making those kids, why should I pay for them.” Having children is not a right, or at least is not the right that does not go hand in hand with responsibility of taking care of them.</p>
<p>On a larger scale with all these programs we still did not eradicate poverty and literacy. I know several teachers in one of the poorest and the worst performing school districts in my state. The state puts a lot of money into that district (they get substantial additional funding). The end result is that there is no measurable differences. By the time those kids get to kindergarten, they are already lost generation. I don’t think it is normal for an 8 year old to threaten the teacher with a knife or for a bunch of 3rd graders to beat the teacher up. But this is what is happening. The kids learned that behavior at home. Maybe the kids would not be in that situation (either not born or put up for adoption), if their parents would not be receiving public funds for having those kids.</p>
<p>I understand that your thinking comes from good intentions. I just think since this way did not get good results, maybe we should try a different approach by making people face the consequences of their decisions.</p>
<p>I have to verify for sure (I have heard that on the radio and I don’t know original source), but our neighboring state adopted a policy that a family can only receive public assistance for 5 years lifetime. After that if they cannot take of their children, the state will by taking the kids away. After the state adopted that policy, all of the sudden the out of wedlock births rate dropped and so did the need for public assistance.</p>
<p>Oh, and you also said that the kids did not go to college. Are they stuck into low paying jobs? What is the success in that? Where is the return on investment?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, it’s hard. So what?</p>
<p>But the kids are there. And they have no jobs. Their parents have very low paying jobs and are pretty much stuck. I’d like to see those kids go into some program that will give them a higher chance of getting jobs that will make them self sufficient.</p>
<p>They have no jobs right now, the two that should, and one is pregnant with all health care paid by the taxpayers, and there have been health issues. The father is underemployed. We are looking at more dole here. </p>
<p>I have a friend whose daughter made a number of very poor choices in life, but she did get into a nursing program and completed it. All on the tax payers’s dime and more. But she is now supporting her children, making a decent wage and paying someone to watch her children while she works, contributing more to the economy that way. Without that nursing degree, she would where my cousin’s daughter is heading. Dole and more dole. There was no investment in terms of educational opportunities for my cousin’s kids, so they won’t be finding jobs for much more than minimum wage. </p>
<p>The cost of foster care for kids taken away from families is very high as in the infrastructure needed to enforce child snatching and the legal cases to be made to justify it. I doubt the state is saving any money that way. No one is getting any welfare in this situation, but a lot of other benefits, namely health care which as I said before is going to be well in the 6 figure range. </p>
<p>Part of the problem is that there are not many jobs available in that area. I have another friend stuck in such an area too, and it is really a problem with her kids. There simply is no work. Work that high school kids would be doing are being fought over by adults. It’s really a bad situation.</p>
<p>I always worked as a young person, had to do so. But the jobs also seemed to be available for the taking then. We live in an area where there are jobs, though maybe not for a living wage with the high cost of living. But there are others that are not so fortunate.</p>
<p>I don’t know the answer, don’t pretend to know it, and I don’t think you are cold hearted. I am taking it all in, because some of these things are close to home and are going to involve some decision making on my part. I wish I knew the answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are making my point. With all the taxpayer money spent, the end result is another person who cannot support herself! It is a never ending cycle. I would bet my house that that girl would not have gotten pregnant given her circumstances, if she knew that there would be no help for her from the government.</p>
<p>I hear what you are saying about jobs though. It is pretty tough everywhere. More so in some areas than others. However, sometimes people have to do what they have to do. After tech bubble burst and then 9/11 happened, my husband was unemployed for 13 months. When it became obvious that he would not be able to find a job in the area, he started to look out of state. He eventually landed a contract job in Memphis, which he had for 2 years until the economy improved and he found a job in our home state. He lived in Memphis and came home every other week for a weekend. I felt horrible for him, but he did what he had to do. </p>
<p>We were stuck too because of our house (which is a completely different story), but it was unsellable. Yet, we found a way to make it work, by sacrificing my husband’s time with our son. </p>
<p>I know I take a hard stance on many issues, but I live the way I preach. There was a time when both my husband and I each had a full time job, a part time contract job, worked on growing our business and were raising a family. Why should I feel sorry for someone who is not willing to get a second job to rise above poverty level?</p>
<p>I don’t think for one second that government aid would make any difference in her pregnancy. I don’t think she even thought about the medical care and certainly did not anticipate some of the high cost issues that arose in the pregnancy. She isn’t getting any welfare since her state doesn’t have any for the baby. Maybe WIC, but she has no idea about that. I can positively say that the financial implications did not make a difference in this case, neither to her nor to the father to be. </p>
<p>So she’ll have an infant, no job, no money to pay someone to watch the infant while she works…so what’s to happen next? Throw her in the streets, to the shelters,if she doesn’t give up the baby to adoption? I would not be able to throw out my child in those circumstances. Just couldn’t do it. So she’ll be staying at her father’s home, caring for the baby on her dad’s dime, that he doesn’t really have to spare. A downward spiral here. </p>
<p>I am not really qualified to make any solutions here though I have my theories. But I feel the same way about these situations as I do about financing college. Cover the base needs for the many first. It’s better for all to do it that way. Those on the top will soar anyways and the opportunities will be there. I don’t see success for a society that has a large underclass. Those that are entering economic boons that way are not places I , or most people would choose to live.</p>
<p>I was asking if anyone knew of any performing arts scholarships/merit aid…I didn’t ask for rants about how poor people can be…</p>