<p>The government doesn’t “expect” anything from a family – no one is required to ever apply for financial aid. It just sets its standards for granting financial aid on certain assumptions.
The rationale behind setting an arbitrary age of 23 before a student is considered independent is based on a number of factors:</p>
<p>1) The government doesn’t want to pay taxpayer money subsidizing the college educations of the children whose parents have significant income or assets, given the reality that generally college-age students do receive financial support from their family. </p>
<p>2) The government wants young people to join the military. The current financial aid structure provides a powerful incentive for young people who do not have parental support to defer college and join the military, or at least opt for the reserves. In other words, the government does not want to subsidize the college educations of young people who would otherwise join the military, but for the government money. </p>
<p>I’m not defending the system, just explaining it. It’s a policy based on some basic assumptions about the way things usually work – and it ends up hurting people whose family structures are unusual – but government policy has to be based on statistical norms. That is, when they pass a law that provides X, they have to be able to project out how much it will cost in expenditures, and that means creating a specific set of rules.</p>
<p>The kids who are hurt worst, I think, are the ones who really are living independently, supporting themselves - at a young age. The system really penalizes a 22 year old who has worked full time and then applies to college, having to report their previous year’s earnings and whatever they have managed to accumulate in savings. My son was in that position for his junior year of college… so I know how tough it can be.</p>