<p>i really just hate it
if the 4caster things efc is accurate, i'll basicaly be screwed and will be filled with debt up to my eyeballs some way or another
its my dads fault for being mildly successfuly in life i guess</p>
<p>First of all, FAFSA doesn't "do" anything. It is simply a form that is used to collect information used by the government to determine your family's financial strength. Student and parent income and asset information is used in a formula that Congress mandates, which yields an EFC (estimated family contribution). The expectation is that first and foremost, the family bears the responsibility for the student's education, to the extent that they are able. "Able" is determined by the Congressionally mandated formula. Parents are expected to pay the EFC through savings, current income, and future income (borrowing). </p>
<p>"Fair" is not often used to describe the EFC. However, it is APPLIED fairly. Everyone is judged using the same formula.</p>
<p>If your dad is successful, he can afford to assist you with college costs (certainly more than unsuccessful parents are able to assist their children). He may not want to, but he CAN. That's the key.</p>
<p>If you will need to borrow so much, you might consider schools that cost less.</p>
<p>What's unfair is taxpayer money being used to pay for people to get degrees in theater and English literature and other nonsense.</p>
<p>You're fortunate that your Dad is successful. Not 'screwed" at all, seems to me.</p>
<p>Glass half full or half empty, I guess.</p>
<p>Rocket Surgery, as a family supported by professional theater and an English major among our offspring you should know that we pay taxes too... as do countless other former English and theater majors. ;)</p>
<p>Yup, I'm using federal and state grants to get a degree in Comparative Religious Studies. Horribly unfair. :-)</p>
<p>Well, I think that using tax dollars to subsidize education is wrong in general, but I can see the benefit of sending people to college to get useful degrees (useful to society, not just useful for them).</p>
<p>Rocket, a strong society includes many things --- those who serve our arts community are no less important than hedge fund managers, lawyers, CEO's, etc.</p>
<p>Rocket, I don't think you can view someone's major as "nonsense". That is a personal choice for students. What someone chooses for a career is up to them, isn't it? Financial Aid from the federal government provided by taxpayers cannot exclude certain majors! That would certainly violate our rights wouldn't it? </p>
<p>Video Game Design is now a college major, I am sure many Americans would view that as "nonsense" but it exists now and yes, federal government loans & Pell Grants etc. will help provide American students in achieving their dream in getting a degree in Video Game Design. I used Video Game Design as an example, I have nothing vs. it. It seems like something new & innovative for college students to consider.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can't? That's funny, because I do.</p>
<p>
<p>Well, it could.</p>
<p> [quote=slumom] That would certainly violate our rights wouldn't it?
</p>
<p>No, it would just take away a privilege. No one has the "right" to someone else's money.</p>
<p>How could the government justify subsidizing some degrees but not others? It would be considered discrimination. If the government stopped subsidizing education altogether, then the economy of the US would drastically decline, as we would lose most of our skilled labor. We wouldn't have enough teachers, doctors, judges, etc.</p>
<p>Quite honestly, Federal financial aid was created to provide US Citizens and certain eligible non-citizens a right to a decent education. It wasn't designed to fully pay for that education, but assist students in paying the cost.</p>
<p>Your understanding of certain degrees and thier usefullness must be rather limited, as theatre major and English lit major degrees serve many purposes within a civilized society.</p>
<p>
<p>Yuck. I hate how that word has been bastardized. Do you discriminate between food that tastes good and food that tastes bad? Should employers discriminate against incompetent applicants?</p>
<p>Since the government can decide whether or not to give grants at all, it follows that they can decide who to give grants to. There's no difference between "discriminating" against people with low GPAs or people whose extracurricular activities don't meet some arbitrary criteria and "discriminating" against people who plan to use the grant money to "deconstruct" irrelevant books.</p>
<p> [quote=NikkiL] If the government stopped subsidizing education altogether, then the economy of the US would drastically decline, as we would lose most of our skilled labor. We wouldn't have enough teachers, doctors, judges, etc.
</p>
<p>Non sequitur. If there were no "free" (note the quotes) money, a lot of people would stop going to college, sure; but this would cause the cost of higher education to decrease dramatically. (If supply of a good or service remains the same but demand for that good or service falls, the price for that good or service falls.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And here I was thinking that it was designed to fatten the pockets of the gatekeepers (i.e., the universities). Silly me!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This comic from Natalie Dee says it all:</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>Rocket Surgery, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Fortunately, you are not in charge of financial aid in our country. For that, I am thankful.</p>
<p>"You're fortunate that your Dad is successful. Not 'screwed" at all, seems to me.</p>
<p>Glass half full or half empty, I guess."</p>
<p>Absolutely Correct!</p>
<p>My dad supports a family of 5 and he earns almost NOTHING!
put it this way, my EFC is $0.00.</p>
<p>Yes I'm glad, but it sucks that I can never enjoy fine things in life cuz of my dad's "success"!</p>
<p>Rocket Surgery, but what do you think about teachers with degrees in English Literature? Or lawyers who chose to double major in Philosophy and History during their undergraduate education? Or national museum curators with degrees in Art History? Or CEOS with Degrees in English? </p>
<p>I'm just curious.</p>
<p>
<p>I'm just curious.
</p>
<p>Teachers are an exception. Lawyers are a virus: the only reason we need more of them is because their numbers are increasing (sort of like warmongers--you only need more of them to defend you because more of them are attacking you).</p>
<p>This national museum--is it an art museum or a natural history museum? If it's the former, then no, I don't think that the government should be subsidizing art museums or their curators. If it's the latter, then an Art History degree doesn't qualify them for the job.</p>
<p>I never said that English was a major which doesn't justify subsidy (assuming the argument against all subsidies has been given up). It's a bit of a borderline case: not as deserving as pre-med or one of the hard sciences (or even some of the social sciences), but more deserving than, say, gender studies. (From Wikipedia: "A part of Butler's argument concerns the role of sex in the construction of "natural" or coherent gender and sexuality. In her account, gender and heterosexuality are constructed as natural because the opposition of the male and female sexes is constructed as natural." Any time an academic starts using the word "construct" or any of its forms, you know that they're feeding you a line of bull. But I suppose that I only feel that way because of the social construction of the concepts of "academic" and "bull". I must meditate on this...)</p>
<p>If we're going to subsidize things like comparative literature, why stop there? Why not pay for people to study chess for four years? Or video games? I'd love to get a grant to compare and contrast Grand Theft Auto and Sim City.</p>
<p>What it boils down to is this: when a scientist, engineer, mathematician, entrepreneur, or inventor makes a breakthrough, everyone in society benefits and eagerly reaps the rewards. When someone deconstructs War and Peace in a way that hasn't been done before, society receives no tangible benefit. Even artists don't impart the same sort of tangible benefit that scientists do. You could be the greatest painter in the world, but if I've never heard of you or don't like your work, I don't benefit at all. Not so with, say, penicillin. ;)</p>
<p>Rocket, thanks for your opinion. It really comes down to where the lines are drawn as there are courses and venues of study that are not supported by government aid. Also there are majors where there are more opportunities to get aid. I know that at one school where my son applied, the only merit aid offered was in a few fields, and I think those majoring in those subjects would also get preferential packaging in financial aid as well.</p>
<p>My husband would probably agree with you as he is not happy paying for a BFA for one of my kids. Truth is, most of the kids who do graduate with that degree do not go into the field directly but use the skills and knowledge gained in studying that area to bring more breadth and fresh insights in professions where there are not many people who know as much about those things. In one enterprise where my H was involved, the most valuable board member graduated from Juilliard, and his knowledge of how the performing arts works was essential in getting a grasp on some situations.</p>
<p>With all due respect, Rocket Surgery should start his own thread if he wants to discuss which majors don't deserve public support. Maybe over in the Ayn Rand forum...</p>
<p>
[quote]
How could the government justify subsidizing some degrees but not others?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The feds do this all the time (as do the states). Go search for how many federal science internships exist for college students and compare those to internships available for Lit majors? Look at the extra money states are giving prospective teachers if they major in math or science. The point being that there is nothing in US law that prohibits discrimination by college major.</p>
<p>Rocket, and others, your opinion is just that, but I am really glad you are not in charge.... But here are some interesting facts. I have two brothers. One is an Ivy-educated lawyer who has never practiced, but has been a financial adviser for many years. He used to have, probably, close to a seven figure income. Certainly high sixes. He is out of work. My other brother was in top management-- also top six figure salary. He is also out of work. Neither one of them owns his own home. None of this is their fault, as they are both extremely bright, talented men. It is a sign of our current times. I have two BA degrees and an MFA degree and am a high school teacher of languages, after having taught and practiced art and art history. I own my own home, I have a respectable (five figure) salary which is not going to disappear, and my D is the very grateful recipient of financial aid and scholarships at an Ivy League school. She is studying art. I have no desire for her to do anything other than what her heart desires, and I am very proud of her and grateful that she lives in this country and can do anything she wants.</p>