<p>As un pc as it may be, my feeling is that the funding of pell pell grants was initially a very carefully planned political calculation designed to secure votes, just as the Dream Act is.</p>
<p>Just wanted to add in my own opinion, as a high school student…</p>
<p>I don’t believe it is completely fair to be cutting the spending on education. While I acknowledge that perhaps, “too much college” can lead to a “revolution”, higher education is one of the gifts that we have developed & created possible to acquire in life. It is one of those things that can truly change one’s outlook on life. </p>
<p>I would also like to point out the following from the article:
</p>
<p>And I completely agree with Luzer about that. It is also mentioned that the median age is 24, so logically, we can assume this is the reason many of the revolutionaries are of college age, or recent college graduates. It is highly doubtful that unemployment of college graduates is a large contributer to the revolution. Sure, it may have a slight hand in it, but just that–slight.</p>
<p>Personally, my family makes between $100k-$120k, so this means we really don’t get financial aid. Then consider the fact I am interested in Medicine, which means we will have a huge payment looming over us in the near future. Finally, my brother is a mere 5 years younger than me, & his apparent interest seems to be in engineering or medicine. Regardless, imagine the debt.</p>
<p>I acknowledge I am not 100% informed about everything & am speaking oppurtunistically, but I hope the government officials consider the outcome of whatever legislation or changes they may pass.</p>
<p>before removing the stafford subsidy, i think the fed government should do a few things to help with the deficit</p>
<p>*cap stafford loans (including unsub) to COA + $500
-imho CC students should not be saving up extra loan money</p>
<p>*cut pell grant funding; restrict pell grants to a narrower population and increase the size of each grant
-that way the poorest or highest performing poor students would not have to worry at all about paying for college…current pell grants are wimpy and i dont really think they have much value to the student or to society</p>
<p>*increase the interest rate for unsub stafford loans by 1%
-paying ~$15 more per month is do-able for most people, and i would be willing to pay that to ensure people arent let out of college</p>
<p>Instate tuition isn’t a big deal. In Florida it’s 5k per semester. Community college is even cheaper. If it’s really a problem just pick up a part time job or something.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this because I know at least 40 different parents from community college whom were in my classes since 10th grade who attend community college just to profit financially from financial aid. They have no real interest in getting a degree and are just taking easy classes like languages in their own language, etc.</p>
<p>Also…I think the student loan structure should be set up differently. Instead of </p>
<p>5500
6500
7500
7500</p>
<p>There should be some flexibility…if someone goes to a CC and doesn’t borrow the 5500/6500, that money should be added to the 7500/7500 to make it easier to pay for those last 2 years.</p>
<p>
As far as vocational training is concerned, I am very much in favor of the German apprenticeship model. Most young adults are trained on the job and pass a federal licencing exam to get a degree. 60% of the adult population has pursued this route to go into nursing, accounting, the culinary arts, IT work, etc. Only 13% of the German adults have an American-style college education. Those are the doctors, lawyers, engineers, politicians, managers, historians, etc.</p>
<p>Of course there are drawbacks: no broad liberal arts education after high school; you have to choose an occupation during your high school years; and it gets tricky to change careers as an adult because most apprenticeship programs are designed for teenagers. But maybe it’s a worthwhile trade-off. Do we really want to spend $100,000 for the privilege of taking a few more history classes and partying until 2am on a week night?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought they were already capped to COA. Am I wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This varies by state. In Michigan, at my public U, tuition is in the upper $6k region (about $6700 for a semester). Also, not all people in the state are within driving distance of a university (or can’t afford the car to get there- we don’t really have a public transportation system here). I work a few part-time jobs and would not be able to cover tuition (let alone other living expenses- remember that when you go to school you’re often not JUST paying for tuition out of your “part time” job) without grants/loans. Doing the math, just to cover tuition- at a minimum wage job- would require just over 36 hours a week year round. What about other living expenses?</p>
<p>I came across some interesting data this morning. It shows that in 15 western states that the ratio of tuition and fees to median household income has nearly doubled in the past 10 years for 4-year institutions. (I doubt the numbers are much different for the other 35 states.)
In 2000-2001 this ratio was 6.0% for institutions offering undergrad and master’s degree.
In 2010-2011 this ratio was 10.9%.
[url=<a href=“http://www.wiche.edu/publications/year]WICHE”>Year Four Final Evaluation Report : State Scholars Initiative - WICHE]WICHE</a> Publications, Papers, and Reports | Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education<a href=“search%20for%20figure%208”>/url</a></p>
<p>This is evidence that college costs have greatly outstripped household income in the past 10 years. Putting junior through college is increasingly difficult for the typical household. Simply put the cost of college is too high. Without loans and Pell grants it would be difficult for many students to attend. Pulling the rug out from under them will create difficulties for the entire system.</p>
<p>I think the best way to deal with the problem is to let the market forces that created the problem correct the problem. Demographics created a sellers market that benfitted the colleges. The Baby boomlet has passed its peak and things should be turning (slowly) towards a buyers market that favors students. Unfortunately this cannot happen fast enough.</p>
<p>fwiw:</p>
<p>There are more than a few economists who argue that the proliferation of loans/grants (“easier money”) has made it easier for colleges to raise prices such that “costs outstrip household income”. </p>
<p>I know I’m not smart enough to understand it, but just sayin’…</p>
<p>^ That is almost certainly true, but at this point I think taking them away isn’t going to do anything to bring the prices back down- so it would still be a terrible decision especially for the poor.</p>
<p>
they are, but there’s no hard cap…i know people who go to their FA office to ask for the maximum loan amount w/o giving any reason</p>
<p>Some states have defunded Robert C Byrd Scholarship already, not only to those newly awarded but also to those were already awarded in previous years. Sad.</p>
<p>I would probably have to quit school in this scenario. I come from a high school of poor but hardworking students, and most of the student body, including me, has an EFC of 0. To us, these grants/loans are the only way we can even dream of going to a coveted four year university. </p>
<p>All of my school fees (tuition, room and board, books) are currently being covered by financial aid. I’m not getting anything more or less from my aid than is necessary, which means I have to find my own source of money for personal expenses. My parents haven’t given me a single dime to help out, because, quite frankly, they aren’t able to. Our landlord comes by every month and causes a scene because my parents never have the money to pay for rent on time. I’m working two work-study jobs just to pay for my own needs, but I still have to try to save up as much as I can so that I can occasionally wire my parents money for their rent. As you can see, I have a lot on my plate and it would literally be impossible for me to continue at my university if I have to use my paychecks to pay for my fees as well.</p>
<p>Someone earlier said that they should cut down on Pell Grants depending on how much a student’s school actually costs, and I agree. Aside from the hardworking students, my high school also has a bunch of students that slack off because they plan to go to CCs afterward and live off the financial aid money. Since so many students from my high school have EFCs of 0, they get the full $5500 for their Pell Grant. The thing is, a lot of CCs (at least in my area) actually waive all of your fees if you have a low EFC. This means that they only have to pay for books, so they get a surplus of ~$5200 a year (assuming they spend ~$300 on books and are living at home). So while they get over $5000 year for cruising through high school, I get over -$5000 a year for working my butt off.</p>
<p>Every system has it flaws and the federal financial aid system does as well. The problem is that if it is cut as part of the current proceedings, it is highly likely the cuts are going to be made without studying the situations and restructuring the status quo to make it more efficient. The time to cut is when there is not an imperative need to do so, but it just doesn’t work that way.</p>
<p>Moderator’s Note</p>
<p>A reminder, off-topic political discussion will be deleted.</p>
<p>I don’t know about all these riots,but eliminating a lot of loans , including federally guaranteed loans, would substantially cut the tuition at many colleges since the demand at current prices would be substantially reduced.</p>
<p>I think they should do away with pell grants all together and replace them with zero interest or very low interest loans. Students should be force to invest in themselves. I always find people make better economic decisions when they are spending their own money. </p>
<p>If pell grants are to continue, they differently need to start making stronger requirements besides being poor. Also, they need to do something about these for profit colleges that are abusing the system. </p>
<p>Kids that get scholarships often have to keep their gpa high to keep getting those scholarships.</p>
<p>Most Pell eligible kids are already taking out Stafford loans, investing in themselves. I don’t see how doing away with Pell grants would help poor students at all.</p>
<p>Who gets decide the stronger requirements? If they can be admitted to either a 2 or 4 year school they should have the chance.</p>
<p>
I agree. I find it absurd that some people get free, non-merit-based money to go to college with when others don’t, when the only difference between the two groups of students is their parent’s income.</p>
<p>I go to a state university, and I have several friends who profit by several thousand dollars every year from the surplus financial aid they receive (none of it is merit based). None of them have jobs, and when summer comes around, these kids just stay at school and take more classes because the school will pay for them to do so. Meanwhile, I (coming from a middle-class family) have to max out my part-time job hours during school and work full-time every summer in order to be able to afford university. </p>
<p>Why is it that I have to work and spend my own money to go to college when they don’t? It’s not like I’m personally richer than they are, they drive cars (I don’t, to save money) and live in nice apartments. But because my parents have higher incomes than theirs do, they get all this free money. I work way harder than they do to go to school, plus I’m pulling a 3.9+ in engineering. What exactly does my parents’ income have to do with mine, anyway?</p>