<p>I don’t think there is any 1 solution that will make all parties happy. Is cutting pell grants a good idea? No, it would hurt too many kids chances at an education. Is going to a purely merit-based system a good idea, again no. It is one of those idealistic ideas that just is not realistic enough for a few reasons. Let’s pretend that there are different cut-offs for government grants at say 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, and 4.0. One challenge that instantly comes to mind is grade inflation. Not every high school grades the same, not every teacher grades the same. Another obstacle would be class selection. If you were guaranteed money for having a high gpa, why would you take the most challenging classes that you could? It would put you at a disadvantage to work harder for possibly a lower grade than a kid that takes just ceramics, cooking, piano, photography, etc…; as well as the most basic english and math classes up to algebra 2, and then do discrete or stats over pre-calc or calc. </p>
<p>If anything needs to change, lower the cost of a college education, or reform it a little. Instead of having requirements for a “well-rounded” education, allow students to graduate in 3 years-with classes only taken in their major and maybe a FEW elective of their choice. Students nowadays get exposed to a variety of classes in high school. In my state, for the highest degree it requires 3 years of 1 language taken in high school, so spanish 1 in 8th grade means a student MUST take up to spanish 4 to meet this requirement. Why then, should a student be forced to have a language requirement in college? This at least would allow students to save on 1 year of tuition + fees, and give them 1 additional year of earning power, or shorter time to become a doctor/lawyer etc…</p>