<p>When both of my kids were young my wife and I sacrificed a decent chunk of our income every single month until we had bought enough credits(In WA state’s GET program) to cover full tuition for four years at our state’s flagship. At the same time we were putting aside 15% of our income into our retirement plans. We also moved into a pricier city to take advantage of a very good but not elite school district. I guess what I am saying is that I understand that savers will feel a bit of resentment towards those that get very good if not nearly fully funded financial aid packages. I don’t. Our financial choices have given our family the freedom to make college decisions based only somewhat on financial considerations. I am glad that we are not subject to the whims of financial aid. There are two caveats to my position. I can’t stand it when I read posts that say so and so got a full ride at a school that does not offer merit aid. I spent too much time delving into such claims to see if some schools did in fact have merit possibilities of which I was unaware. Nor do I enjoy reading posts that are critical of just how stingy certain schools are with financial aid. Be thankful that they are offering anything at all.</p>
<p>CPT- you and I usually agree (for years now!) so I want to understand your position.</p>
<p>Make Pells available to kids with a C average from HS who can squeak into a college with open enrollment, low retention rates, and abysmal drop out rates, but deny Pells to kids who can get into JHU or CMU or Northwestern where they’ll be helped, counseled, and most likely, get to complete a BA in 4 years? I don’t get this- why not provide federal assistance to the kid who is on a track to become a surgeon vs. the kid who will drop out of open enrollment U after 3 years of struggling with Freshman English comp?</p>
<p>I understand your point that we need to increase access to everyone- whether they live on the number 7 subway line in NYC or some remote town with no higher ed options- but denying Pells to the kids most likely to provide a “payback” to the taxpayers in the form of becoming educated and productive citizens seems quite counter-productive to me.</p>
<p>Yes, if Harvard and Yale want a kid from a disadvantaged background enough, they will find the funds to pay. But the schools with endowments just below those levels will be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The money’s got to come from somewhere, and I have no problem knowing that a very small portion of my tax dollars will end up at elite private U’s in order to subsidize what is in the absolute- a very tiny number of poor kids who end up in these places.</p>
<p>Try whacking away at the billions of dollars spent in the last month of life on medicare patients… endless and expensive procedures and tests and surgeries on terminally ill people. I’ll join you in THAT pity party-- of course families want "no expense spared’ since they’re not paying for it! Too bad Sarah Palin got to “own” the death panel issue before more rational heads were able to grab it.</p>
<p>Sigh. It’s a limited pie. The HYP and Williams’ of the world could easily raise the list COA to cover the loss of Pell Grant dollars (especially since they admit so few Pell grantees and have so many full-pays). Raising the list price would make them look more “exclusive”. Actually, I hardly think anyone would notice.</p>
<p>But what about the Alleghenies, Franklin and Marshall’s, William Penn U., Albertson Colleges? Where would one draw the line? I think it makes more sense (I won’t make any arguments about “fairness”) to have Pell Grants follow the student. And then provide far, far more funding to community colleges and second tier state universities - the places where most people, for better or worse, get their post-secondary educations.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I certainly agree.</p>
<p>Personally I think of the PELL grant belonging to the student and laws restricting use of PELLs to state schools has the affect of possibly reducing the choices of some of the poorest of our college students … I have trouble seeing how limiting the options of these poor students away from some top schools is a good thing.</p>
<p>I have the feeling that those top schools would just make more money available should pell grants go away. If you give students more money, the colleges will raise their prices to accommodate the inflation.</p>
<p>
The problem with your solution is all the students are qualified for merit and that is why these institutions do not give merit aid. I bet it would really chap your you know what if the kid already getting fin aid was more deserving of the merit award and also received that. Do you feel that they are undeserving of merit because they were already getting need based aid?</p>
<p>These terms are so squishy, in any case. H. doesn’t give “athletic scholarships”, right? Well, how come all of a sudden they have wonderful football and basketball teams? It’s easy - they found a way to offer (a-hem) “need-based” aid to upper middle-income kids so they wouldn’t choose schools that gave them full-ride athletic scholarships elsewhere. Or is that “merit” aid? It’s all a bunch of euphemisms. It’s all simply a matter of discounting from list prices that they set to begin with.</p>
<p>I think that there should be a GPA req’t attached to Pell. I don’t think anyone with a 2.0 should get it. That’s just a waste. </p>
<p>And, I do think that when divorced parents have been involved with their child (shared custody, child support, etc) then both parents’ incomes should be on FAFSA. Only the cases where the NCP has been an absent parent should their income be excluded.</p>
<p>But saying that someone who is passing their courses “shouldn’t get” pell grants, especially when those with Pells are likely to come to college having had a less priveledged education than those who do not need aid, isn’t logical, to me. I mean, I “see” your point, but I don’t see how it makes sense.</p>
<p>Anyone who is passing their courses should recieve the pell if they are qualified. Kids with Pells are frequently still living at home, sometimes taking care of family, working outside jobs. The pell doesn’t cover the COA, by a long shot. These kids are already at a disadvantage, and to put them on a grade policy Joe Full Pay doesn’t have seems counterproductive, imho.</p>
<p>However, I struggle to find an answer for “why should anyone get any aid at all?”. Because you don’t have to attend an expensive school to be successful.</p>
<hr>
<p>While it is certainly true that you don’t have to attend an expensive school to be successful, consider the fact that there are MANY who cannot even attend an inexpensive school without aid. We who do not have to choose between paying our rent and feeding our children often forget that we are so very fortunate compared to so many. I worked at an urban U with a huge Pell population. There were some very capable, very poor students who would not have been able to attend without assistance. They lived at home. They took CC courses to cut costs. They still needed the aid. The only hope for breaking the cycle of poverty is education. Some will only get through high school, but many can & should attend college. Assisting them with aid is a wise investment.</p>
<hr>
<p>I think that there should be a GPA req’t attached to Pell. I don’t think anyone with a 2.0 should get it. That’s just a waste. </p>
<hr>
<p>I disagree. SAP will weed out those who aren’t going to make it … the regs were really tightened up this year, and that will be a better measure than just pure GPA.</p>