Financial Aid Unfair? psh, It's Absurd!

Paying for College
21

<p>I agree that we’re penalizing even the high-achieving middle and upper class students because of their parent’s relatively small successes. </p>

<p>It’s disillusioning for middle class students to work hard, get top test scores, get great grades, do tons of chairty work, have great extracurricular, etc. to get nothing just because they’re middle class. We told these middle class kids to work hard and it will pay off. How? They get into top tier schools then get stuck with huge student loans to pay for it? We’re rewarding people for being poor, not for achievement.</p>

<p>Middle class students who get 4.0 GPAs, top test scores, etc. can wind up with debt, while students who may or may not have similar GPAs, test scores, and work ethics might get a full ride just because they’re poor.</p>

<p>I have a problem with penalizing hard-working middle class kids just because of their family’s middle class status. It’s not fair to reward kids slacking off just because they’re poor. Nor would it be fair to give a millionaire’s kid a full-ride necessarily. It’s the middle class high-achieving students that suffer. They worked hard and made all the right choices, getting into top schools. Their parents do all the right things, working hard full-time jobs and making a living to support themselves, not living off the taxpayers dime. Yet, we punish these middle class kids and their parents who actually work hard & achieve.</p>

<p>I also have a problem with the mentality that everyone should get financial aid. Why should poor students and not middle class students who have better test scores/GPAs? Why should anyone get financial aid, for that matter? Is a college education something we’re all entitled to for free, whether poor or rich? Lastly, can our nation even continue to afford giving poor students financial aid… let alone giving middle class aid? </p>

<p>Also, what criteria based on merit, if any, have we set for need-based aid? </p>

<p>Should a student get to spend 5 or 6 years half-a**ing it at college with mediocre or bad grades just because they’re poor? </p>

<p>Should a poor but high-achieving student receive more aid than a low-achieving poor one?</p>

<p>Should a middle class student get a full ride from taxpayers just because they had high GPAs and ACT scores? Should poor students have to maintain a certain GPA to get aid?</p>

<p>What cut-off do we draw? Should any family who makes under $50K get a full ride? How about $100K? What’s the line we need to draw? Clearly a family making a few hundred thousand a year could (much) more easily come up with $5,000 than a single mother working full time minimum wage who only makes $15,000 a year. That doesn’t mean that an average middle class family could cough up $50,000 a year for college easily, if at all. How do we account for what’s an acceptable amount of sacrifice by the parents to help their kids pay for college? </p>

<p>Who should be responsible for educating oneself— the student, alone? The parents? The taxpayers? No one?</p>

<p>Should financial aid then be only in the form of loans, making students 100% responsible for their own educations? (Minus whatever their parents can or will contribute?) Who is responsible for this? What benefit is there for the students vs. the taxpayers?</p>

<p>Should poor students have to have certain ACT scores and high school GPAs to get aid?</p>

<p>Should we only give aid to certain majors who will later benefit society? Teachers? Doctors? Social workers? Engineers? </p>

<p>Do we only give aid to poor students whose families have a full-time (but low-paying) job? Do we give aid to poor students whose families haven’t had a job in decades? Do we give more financial aid to poor students who have single mothers who work 80 hours a week in low-paying hard labor just to try to afford a bowl of soup for dinner?</p>

<p>Do we give extra financial aid to kids whose parents didn’t go to college? Why?</p>

<p>Do we give financial aid to a poor student who screwed around with a 2.0 GPA?</p>

<p>Do we give extra financial aid to a poor student who had a 2.0 GPA, but had bad grades because they worked the night shift cleaning restaurants in high school and taking care of their siblings? Do we account for financial hardships, ill family members, bad neighborhoods?</p>

<p>Should we base aid on personal life choices and stop rewarding poor life choices (choosing not to work, running up credit card debt, spending every dime so you don’t have savings that can be considered on your kid’s student financial aid applications, choosing to continue to have kids as a single low-income mother, etc.)? </p>

<p>Do we give more financial aid to students who have had something unforeseeable occur, such as a family illness, instead of poverty that resulting from bad decisions (single mother continuing to have kids)?</p>

<p>Do we take away some aid if a low-income family made bad decisions like iPhone plans, plastic TVs, vacations, alcohol, or unneeded luxury purchases? Do we require years worth of financial statements, giving aid based on the choices that family made-- whether their spending was wise, vs. bad financial choices? </p>

<p>What if a poor student’s parents don’t, won’t, or can’t get a job? Do we not give a student aid if their parent hasn’t gotten a job in a decade? Having an unemployed parent right now sure helps with financial aid. Are we rewarding parent’s who choose not to work for a decade by giving their kid a full-ride aid, plus giving the parent free housing, food stamps, healthcare, and supporting everything about their lives?</p>

<p>Do we give financial aid to a high-achieving middle class student who had less hardships?</p>

<p>What “right” does anyone have, whether poor or rich, to a college education? </p>

<p>And, who should pay for it? Taxpayers? Why? And, how much?</p>

<p>How do we decide who “deserves” entitlement programs, who has earned the aid vs. whose poverty is a result of their poor choices? How do we help those truly in temporary need without people becoming lazy, not working, bumming around, and relying on taxpayers for years?</p>

<p>It’s a curious thing how entitled our nation is becoming. For some poor people, it sometimes pays not to work. A full-time menial worker in AL makes about $14,000 per year, usually with no healthcare. If this same person instead went on disability (for diabetes, depression, back pain… name your mild condition), they could get $13,000 in SSDI, plus free healthcare. Plus, often, free foodstamps, educational aid, sometimes child-related services, and more. If they have kids, a $14,000 full-time job couldn’t support their kids with housing/food/basic expenses, let alone the cost of childcare while they are at work.They literally make more after all of the welfare entitlement programs than they do when working full-time and standing on their own two feet. We’re also not teaching them wise financial choices, and often punish them for any cash they don’t spend by taking away some of their welfare benefits. Those who work part-time too much at low-earning jobs might make “too much” and loose their welfare benefits, so they just stop working or work just enough that they don’t loose their welfare benefits. Some of these people literally earn more by not working than by working. Who wants to work when they could make more not working and get social services/healthcare, and end up being poor/low-income whether or not they work? We’re telling these menial, uneducated workers that it pays NOT to work. </p>

<p>This leads to a few issues: 1) we’re not skilled at the lower levels of society, and there aren’t enough good jobs with benefits or decent wages for menial uneducated workers 2) our entitlement programs are defeating their purpose of being a temporary hand-up, not hand-out, for people to improve their lives and rehabilitate into self-supporting individuals, 3) how do discourage people from taking advantage of entitlement programs, and how do we make work “pay” … instead of making welfare/entitlement programs more profitable for uneducated/unskilled low-income person, and 4) our GDP and national debt are nearly the same. How can our country continue paying for all of these entitlement and welfare programs?</p>

<p>What should be a human “right?” Free high school education? A free, tax-payer funded college education for low-income people? Free SSDI income for life because you have diabetes, back pain, or mild conditions? Free healthcare? What duty do we have as a nation to provide for everyone in society, at what cost, and why? And, how can we help those who need temporary help to land on their own feet again vs. enabling people to sponge off society for the rest of their lives? What duty do we have to low-income kids whose parents don’t, can’t, or simply won’t get a job? It’s not like we can really feed and house the poor kids without those benefits also helping the parents. Is having a roof over your head (housing) a right of humanity? Who should get that right, and how do they earn it? Should these things-- free college education, financial aid, welfare, food stamps, SSDI, child services, the mentally ill, the truly disabled, the disabled war veterans, rehabilitation services, etc.— have certain requirements that a person has to work towards so they’re on the path to being self-sustaining? How do we become a self-supporting society and encourage hard work, not entitlements, while also helping those in temporary dire need and those that can’t help themselves (starving babies, disabled war veterans, the very elderly)?</p>

<p>At some point, we-- as a nation-- have to decide what is a basic human right and what’s not. Whether that’s free college, free high school, housing, health care, job placement, etc.</p>

<p>Like I said, I think we’re doing high-achieving middle class students a huge disservice and burdening them with loan debt. We told them to work hard and their dreams would come true. Oops, we were only kidding! Work hard, then you get to go into debt to pay for your own college. They see a low-income student who gets good grades and a 33 ACT score get a full-ride to college. Great. We’re happy for high-achieving people. But, that student seems their low-income friend slide by with a 2.0 GPA in high school, screwing around, and getting a full-ride just because their family is poor… while this middle class student worked hard and got no aid at all. The later of these is disheartening for a high-achieving 17/18 year old. But, I’m not sure that there is a solution. We can’t even decide what is a basic human right that taxpayers should pay for, and what someone should be responsible for on their own without help from anyone else. And, how we decide who “deserves” aid or not.</p>

22

<p>@gwgrad: yup…bingo…spot on!</p>

<p>Need only institutions will continue to be dependent upon full pays. For some this is simply another check Senior writes for Skippy…no harm no foul. Doesn’t even affect the number of vacations in 5 star hotels the family can take. For the ‘deserving’ FA recipient …also no harm no foul. What is needed is a middle class revolt. A refusal to join the stampeding heard in a panic run at all costs to what has been marketed as the ultimate goal. </p>

<p>Those elite institutions were originally places Senior sent Junior to marinate for a few years before coming back to run the family business. A place to hang, contemplate the meaning of life, maybe enter the strata of the higher ed elite. Those that attended had no financial worries and could spend 4+ years engaging in the finer things of life. Guess what…times they are a changing…</p>

<p>Continued focus on attendance as a be all end all goal fuels an ongoing feeding frenzie … like the housing bubble. But…everyone has a CHOICE not to participate. Hopefully the middle class will realize this and let the upper and lower ends of the economic spectrum battle it out amongst themselves.</p>

<p>In the mean time…find the hidden gem, the one the hoards have not yet identified and swarmed… go…get a great education…graduate debt free…enjoy your life.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Umm…well… life for the Rich will continue to be just fine…it’s life for the middle class that is in question in this case. But good example in the use guilt to shut down the discussion. Oh…whoo haa whooo haaa…we us got them richies…we be soooooo goooood. Really</p>

23

<p>Someone who is low income yet has similar accomplishments as someone from a wealthy family, is a much more desirable student at schools that don’t need their money, because they have a greater potential to achieve.</p>

<p>Students who are wealthy and are accepted to prestigious & exclusive schools remind me of the quip about GW Bush.
" He was born on third base & thinks he got a triple".
;)</p>

24

<p>^^Well, if that third baser is so despised, why should they stick around. Let them take their $$$ and start a club of their own… Oh …wait…THAT won’t work for the paradigm will it!</p>

25

<p>@dietz199</p>

<p>“Umm…well… life for the Rich will continue to be just fine…it’s life for the middle class that is in question in this case. But good example in the use guilt to shut down the discussion. Oh…whoo haa whooo haaa…we us got them richies…we be soooooo goooood. Really”</p>

<p>Hahaha! Just made my night! lol</p>

<p>"^^Well, if that third baser is so despised, why should they stick around. Let them take their $$$ and start a club of their own… Oh …wait…THAT won’t work for the paradigm will it!"</p>

<p>you’re on a roll! lol</p>

26

<p>tipa: glad it got a chuckle…this topic will bring up a whole string of emotions.</p>

<p>I’ve gone through the process with 2 kids. We live in an area where the college herd stampedes amazing force. What I truly believe, what has worked in so many other areas of my life and that of my family is being able to step of the carousel of insanity long enough to let the dizzy spell pass. IMO it is now the job of middle class families to leave those institutions which do not value their students enough to grant them merit aid. It’s really simple, one rewards what one wants. The elites do not really show any desire for the middle class. My guess, that strata of the population does not bring enough to the table. If a family is willing to stress their financial stability or if a family encourages their student to strain their financial future…well…then they are welcome. If a family can write a full check…hey come on board! If a family can provide the right student to complete the picture of generosity and altruism an institution wants to see when they look at themselves in the mirror…hey…then they will PAY for you to come on board.</p>

<p>It’s like any club…don’t go if your not really wanted.</p>

27

<p>gwgrad: Middle class students are not being penalized. I doubt if the middle class (less than $50K a year) student pays much more than a poor student. I do, however, agree that we live in the entitlement generation. Nice call on that.</p>

28

<p>Actually, I’ve been wondering about loans myself. Some colleges are loan free for poor students only. But where is logic? After graduation, all kids are expected to live on their own. Other things being equal, some will start with debt and some will be debt free by no choice of the own. If the college uses federal loans, they should be part of everybody’s packet. EFC is calculated on the ability of parents to pay, and that’s where the poorer you are, the less you should be expected to pay.
I should say we are lucky that our son chooses between schools that don’t include loans in FA for anyone. We are what is considered upper middle class (all income from work, and not much savings), and both schools offered very generous FA. We still have to make sacrifices, but it’s doable.</p>

29

<p>

I don’t agree with your dichotomy. The kid is “wealthy” enough that he gets no aid from Harvard, et al, yet all he can afford is Community College? He’s got the stats to get into Harvard, but he can’t get a whopping merit scholarship someplace else? Many of the non-ivys have competitive merit scholarships that are full tuition or even full ride for students who can get into HYPSYM. Apparently, in your book everything that is NOT HYPSYM is a community college equivalent. </p>

<p>Every so often there is another thread about how “unfair” it all is. And just as often, posters need to get an attitude adjustment. If you envy the poor, it’s easy to join them.</p>

30

<p>@sylvan8796</p>

<p>For one, as I’ve said several times in this thread, I am poor. And I never said no financial aid from said schools, I said bad financial aid. They get financial aid for some of it, they just leave a massive hole that the students are left to fill, even after their parents fork over all they can afford.</p>

<p>And I am using community college fairly accurately. I’ll admit that I shove some other small local universities with 10 percent graduation rates in there as well although they aren’t technically community colleges. As I’ve said, Public Universities including in state ones are also too expensive, and other private universities that aren’t HYPSM generally offer worse aid. Yes, some institutions have this merit aid, others don’t, and not all kids accepted to said schools are supercharged. A lot of those schools have very strict score cut offs. You’ve got a 34 great! NMSF? Even greater! 33 and 3 points shy of NMSF cutoff? ooh, sorry, but we won’t consider you. </p>

<p>A lot of merit scholarships are just further number crunchers, which are often flawed (my main problem with fin aid). They allow kids like me to come from a severely academically limited school with a consequential 4.0 into the competition pool while excluding prep school kids with 3.8’s, even though if they got away from the computer, they’d probably realize that that kid deserves a shot just as much if not more so than I do. But of course, they never do that.</p>

31

<p>-If you envy the poor, it’s easy to join them-</p>

<p>This thread isn’t about the poor, it’s about the middle class. Yes, a stellar middle class student can get good merit at lots of places. But what about the average 3.1 gpa student that just wants to go to their local public university? Yearly tuition alone at many public universities is over $10,000 these days. Most middle class parents (outside of the bubble of CC) don’t have that kind of money earmarked for college.</p>

32

<p>@sosomenza</p>

<p>That under 50k is often considered lower middle class, and they do receive help. It’s the other side of that number but short of rich that doesn’t (60k-150k) give or take some exceptions (HYPSM, I’m referring to the higher end of the range, other ivies and top privates the middle, and lower privates the bottom. Public school is often expensive for the entire category unless fantastic merit scholarship is achieved)</p>

33

<p>

And is it your view that having no money earmarked for college should be rewarded by giving them a full ride? </p>

<p>tipa891 where do you think this mass of money to give full rides to people suffering from their measley $150K incomes should come from?</p>

34

<p>-And is it your view that having no money earmarked for college should be rewarded by giving them a full ride? -</p>

<p>Well, my answer is, why not? We give free rides to the “poor” who don’t have any funds earmarked for college. Why aren’t we asking them (the poor), “why didn’t you save for college?” Why are we only asking that question of the middle class? Do you think it’s a middle class kid’s fault that their parents didn’t save for college? Is it any different of a fault than a poor kid’s parent being unable to work or refusing to work, etc.? Why do some kids get the college lottery for their parents’ station in life, and some other kids get the shaft?</p>

35

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, that’s what we’re doing for poor students whose parents have no savings. Some people weren’t always poor, and some may have spent on non-necessities while poor (cable, internet, mobile phones, overpriced coffee, etc.).</p>

<p>We’re also rewarding some unskilled menial workers on welfare with more, after all entitlement programs combined, than they would make full-time working at an unskilled menial job.</p>

<p>This is the difficulty. Where do we draw that line? What if a family is newly rich or newly poor? What if they’re middle class or upper middle class but have huge healthcare bills or unexpected burdens? What if the poor are poor by not spending wisely what smaller extra money they have or refusing to get a job for years? </p>

<p>Do we expect a poor family to work more hours to save up for college, and the poorer kids to get jobs during high-school and college to save up for THEIR college?</p>

<p>Do we expect middle class or upper middle class families to work extra to save up for THEIR college too? </p>

<p>I clearly don’t think that the true upper middle class should get a full-ride if they have massive disposable income. Nor do I think someone should get a full-ride <em>just</em> because they (their parents) are poor for one reason or another. There has to be some line drawn based on personal choice. Are they poor because they chose to keep having kids as a single mom? Are they poor because they refuse to get a job? are they poor because they live in a rural area where there really are no jobs? How long have they not been able to support themselves and why? Are they poor due to laziness, dire health problems, natural disaster, poor personable financial decisions? </p>

<p>It’s the middle class and lower-upper middle class families who can’t always afford large tuition out of their salaries. Even if they saved some money, the cost of college has gone up rather drastically over the years. Even if the kid “only” had to pay $20,000 a year for college, that would mean $80,000 in savings that the middle class family would have had to come up with over the years. That’s a lot. If they chose to have multiple kids, yikes.</p>

36

<p>Middle class students who get 4.0 GPAs, top test scores, etc. can wind up with debt, while students who may or may not have similar GPAs, test scores, and work ethics might get a full ride just because they’re poor.</p>

<p>Are they middle class? Or are they poor?</p>

<p>PROFILE doesn’t look at retirement savings.
PROFILE also does not consider debt or cost of living ( very much)
If you have a small business with large assets & or real estate besides your main residence, PROFILE is going to indicate you are more liquid than you feel.
Students who are competitive for schools that only offer need, have stats that should get them merit aid at other schools.</p>

37

<p>… geesh, that’s a lot of passion for the hardship of the well-off kid paying for HYPS. Now that is a first world problem.</p>

38

<p>*Even if the kid “only” had to pay $20,000 a year for college, that would mean $80,000 in savings *
No it does not mean that.
Why pay for COA out of savings? Most people dont have that. Education expenses are expected to be paid from loans/ future income, and current income as well as savings.</p>

<p>Even for those students who are getting a " full ride", at all but 3 or 4 schools, need will be met by including self help( loans & work study) as well as grants. Some schools even consider private loans to be meeting need.</p>

<p>Most families do not have $80,000 in savings to pay for college.
How do you think families pay for instate colleges?
They pay with loans for both the student & the parents, they expect the student to work during the school year and the summer and they pay out of current income & savings, including the savings bonds theyve recieved from relatives as birthday or holiday presents over the years.</p>

39

<p>

And I don’t have any extra money earmarked to add to my state tax bill to pay for that middle class kid’s education. So now what?</p>

40

<p>The problem is that colleges practice severe price discrimination.</p>

<p>While in some institutions aid is indeed aid, because the cost of the service they are providing is higher than the price charged, in many institutions aid is not aid. Aid is, again, price discrimination. In these institutions they charge the full payers to subsidize those who receive large finaid packages. The wealthy does not suffer from it, because the cost is a small percentage of income. However, middle class and upper middle class get a big portion of their income soaked dry by college tuition.</p>

<p>There was some previous threads discussing this issue. Proposals included the fact that finaid should not be sustained squarely on the shoulders of the few full payers who decide to go to college. If education is indeed a public good, perhaps a better model would be for everyone to contribute to finaid pacakges.</p>