<p>There's are some clear lessons here. (1) Don't be poor. (2) If you're poor, don't expect extra help paying for college.</p>
<p>This is very...very...sad...</p>
<p>Most of the students i work with are Pell recipients, and every dollar cut is going to mean more loans (and they take out a lot, and/or more hours worked (and they work a lot.) </p>
<p>Not that I'm surprised.</p>
<p>Like Garland, almost all of my students are Pell recipients. I am deeply distressed about this change. In a rural area, where we have high levels of poverty, it takes a great deal of courage for students to consider breaking the family cycle to move into higher education. This change will be devastating, and will make college impossible for many, many of my students.</p>
<p>That does not mean that the government will end up spending less money on college scholarships than it has in prior years. In fact, significant increases in the number of low-income students going to college, and the recent economic woes of students and parents who might not have been eligible for help in the past, means that the government spent more than $13 billion on Pell grants in 2004, up from about $10 billion in 2001, department statistics show.</p>
<p>For all of you who voted for Bush: Welcome to his world of helping the top 4% of wage earners and shafting everyone else.</p>
<p>The NYT is full of depressing educational news today.
I can't wait to see how many districts will force biology teachers to teach creationism to their students. Aren't our science test scores pathetic enough?
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/education/21evolution.html?pagewanted=all%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/education/21evolution.html?pagewanted=all</a>
[quote]
A Pennsylvania school district Friday defended its decision to discount Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and teach what critics say is a version of creationism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Taxguy, it may be worth to compare the evolution of federal funding of Education in the years 2001 to 2004, and then compare it to the last democrat who resided at the White House. The comparison is even more illustrative when factoring that, under the one "education" president, the country reaped the fruit of the economic benefits of prior administrations, yet cynically made the budgets stagnate. Truth in advertising does seem to be a matter in blue or red! </p>
<p>Regarding the Pell Grants, most people know that the changes in the amounts received do not change from 0 to 100%. The changes follow a gradual scale that depends from the net income of families. Students who were the recipient of the maximum Pell will still receive it. The changes in the Pell grants will impact the people who received minimum grants. The biggets changes are caused by the non-deductions for taxes paid to the State. Tongue-in-cheek, I believe that the states that impose substantial state taxes are not exactly states that Bush carried. </p>
<p>As far as Pell grants, we can safely assume that the amount of the grant is hardly sufficient to pay for a large portion of the college costs. Despite this, the funding increased by 30% in the period 2001-2004.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as Pell grants, we can safely assume that the amount of the grant is hardly sufficient to pay for a large portion of the college costs. Despite this, the funding increased by 30% in the period 2001-2004.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>More people qualified for Pell grants as income went down. I would rather have less funding and less people needing it.</p>
<p>Exactly. It is meaningless to tout that more money is being spent, if each individual is not receiving as much as before. </p>
<p>Xiggi, I know the grant doesn't pay all their costs, or even a large portion. As I said, most of my students take out large loans, and work, often 30-40 hours a week. Often they're helping pay for expenses at home. Often they're helping care for elderly or sick relatives. Many have children of their own, whom they want to bring up into more opportunities. Every dollar cut means more impossible choices. We grouse about the high price of books; many of my students literally don't have the money for them. They share, scour libraries, or go without and see the effect on their grades. It's a situation you and most of our kids will never face. This will only make it worse.</p>
<p>This will affect public colleges more than private ones, the UC system especially, where on average more than 35% are on Pell Grants. It will also affect some privates more than others -- Occidental, MIT, Smith, Mount Holyoke, Macalester, Agnes Scott, Amherst - those which are already have the largest commitment to economic diversity will be those called upon to do more. Relatively, it will hardly affect Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Davidson in the least.</p>
<p>It is easy to mix apples and oranges. </p>
<p>First, one needs to ascertain the impact ot the Pell Grant on the overall aid package, as well as pay attention to a number of additional aid devices that were created in the past 4 years. The new rules mostly impact families -or students- with income between $30,000 and $40,000. At that level, the universities that provide financial aid are meeting a much larger portion than the Pell offers. For what it is worth, a change in the EFC calculation would be a LOT more costly than the changes in the higher level of the Pell Grants. Do we really believe that losing a grant of a few hundreds dollars changes that much in the financial aid of Occidental or MIT? </p>
<p>The argument that the Pell grant helps pay for expenses unrelated to the cost of education should be evaluated in its appropriate context. Mixing education and welfare programs does not seem to be a long term solution. </p>
<p>And again, before criticizing the current administration, one should see what happened between 1992 and 2000.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>You seem to have the education funding figures handy. Could you post them?
I googled Harvard's tuition for 1992, 2000 and 2003, on the assumption that it is one of the highest (though not THE highest). Of course, this may not be the best yardstick since very few Pell grantees go to Harvard and similarly expensive colleges. I just find it a bit easier to look up tuition for private colleges than for public universities.</p>
<p>1992: $16,495
2000: $22,694
2003: $26,066.</p>
<p>I'm assuming that room and board went up by similar amounts.<br>
My question would be then: granted that education funding increased very considerably, did this increase in funding keep up with the increase in the cost of higher education?</p>
<p>I have been counseling students who are not going to go to a Harvard or Amherst, they are not even going to attend a Occidental or Agnes Scott. Try University of Southern Alabama or University of Tennessee. I don't imagine these schools have alot of aid, but we will see I guess.</p>
<p>Xiggi: I'm not calling it a welfare program. I'm talking about kids who can't afford school without help:I'm not saying the money pays for their families. It pays some of their tuition, so that the money they earn can cover other things, like books, living expenses, fent, bus fare,child care, etc. The college I work at is not Occidental or MIT. It operates incredibly close to the bone. It is mucn more "diverse" than the ones Mini mentioned, and almost every student gets a Pell grant. I see their Financial Aid notices. It's basically Pell grants, NJ Tuition aid grants, loans, and work-study. The school has almost no endowment---it's already stretching its resources to the max.</p>
<p>I really think you don't have any idea of the lives these kids live, if you don't think a few hundred dollars makes a difference.</p>
<p>And that's sad--you should.</p>
<p>"I really think you don't have any idea of the lives these kids live, if you don't think a few hundred dollars makes a difference.
And that's sad--you should."</p>
<p>Garland, rather than being offended by your "you should" comment, I simply would like you to realize that you know absolutely nothing about my personal situation and my financial situation. And for no other reason that I never shared that kind of information on this board. I do attend a very pricey university but the cost to my parents is less than two hundred dollars, and less than that if factoring all scholarships. I do not doubt that you have intimate knowledge of families that have a zero EFC, but so do I for having helped a few dozen friends fill their FAFSA in the past eighteen months. </p>
<p>It is based on seeing the results of that process that I gave my opinion that the impact of Pell Grants is not that great. Again, the impact of finally using revised tax tables -which was a result of the Higher Education law passed in 1992- does nothing to one family EFC. Sensationalist reports seem to intimate that a family could lose the entire $4,050 in Pell support and that is simply not true. The changes will occur for families that are graduating from the program because they exceed the allowable earnings. </p>
<p>Let me also add one element that may be surprising. A lot of students do NOT apply for financial aid in a timely manner, and assume that the school has an obligation to fund their expenses. In addition, I have found that a great number of students who qualify for the maximum amount of aid do not seek many alternatives. Scholarships that require a little more than filling a few forms and submit an essay remain untapped. I cannot count how many times I had to nag my friends to submit the simplest of forms, and even write their essays. Feel free to believe that I seem oblivious to the difference that a few hundreds makes, and I will know that my efforts brought a lot of changes, mostly for others. </p>
<p>Lastly, I would be remiss not to address the situation of the families who do NOT qualify for Pell Grants. Again, based on the process of filing for finaid, I have to come to realize that the greatest hurdles are facing the families that are not poor enough to qualify for the most generous aid. The sad reality is that there is not enough money to provide affordable education for all. It is probably very hard for a family with a zero EFC to send their children to school, but it does not get that much easier for a large number of middle class families. Even in different degrees, sacrifices are always hard.</p>
<p>There's no doubt that many students are going to feel a crunch from the Pell grant budget next year. But, I always like to go to primary sources when looking at complex issues. As a journalist myself, I have found time and time again that vital information tends to be left out, either intentionally or not, from what ultimately is put out into the media.</p>
<p>With that in mind, I went to the source - the congressional hearings database where this topic has been discussed and debated in committee and on the floor of both the senate and congress over the past six months or so. Several key things to keep in mind - there is one pot of education funding in the federal budget. Included in that pot are programs such as Title 1, which helps funds state/local k-12 initiatives, funding for special education programs and Pell grant funding. All of these come from the same budgetary pot. They always have.</p>
<p>Anyhow, since 1996, the Federal Education budget has grown at an average rate of 12% annually. It's now 2 and a half times as large as it was in 1996. The growth in education spending under Bush has been pretty consistent with what it was under Clinton. But, since Bush came into office, Pell grants have actually increased by $856 million. More than 1 million college students are receiving pell grants today than they were under Clinton. I was surprised to find that out myself.</p>
<p>Now, we're facing a deficit. Seems to me that quite a few people were upset about that issue during the election and perhaps rightly so. So, we have to set some priorities. The education budget proposal has a 3% increase. Of that pot of money, Bush proposed a 36% increase in Title 1 funding for k-12 schools, and a 13.3 billion increase for special education programs. Pell grant funding is actually increasing, not decreasing, but it will not increase at the rate of previous years. Yes, fewer freshman may qualify for it this year, but they will mostly be at higher income levels, not at lower poverty levels. I personally would rather see spending directed towards k-12 programs, but that's my preference - what good is a college education if you haven't made it through high school knowing how to read and write in the first place?</p>
<p>So, the question was - do we slash k-12 funding, special education funding, or take from somewhere else in the budget to pay for a huge increase in Pell grants? Just remember one thing: Bush is already spending more on education than the previous administration. Of course, another argument would be that we could take from somewhere else in the budget, perhaps military spending or spending on environmental programs or health programs.</p>
<p>If anyone is interested in reading the actual documents from the congressional hearings that discuss this from both party points of view, the link is <a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/index.html</a> Do a search on education budget hearings and read all of the back ground information. There's a lot there and I've only just skimmed the surface - I'm sure that I haven't yet uncovered the full story, but as I said, I doubt that the media has either.</p>
<p>One other tidbit that I did pick up: The Department of Education's Inspector General conducted an investigation that found $300 million in Pell grants were issued to students who didn't qualify for them, they mis-represented their incomes or other data. Wow. That's incredible. If we could only crack down on that kind of fraud, we could afford to help a lot more people who really do need help!</p>
<p>Here's another very interesting article that actually focuses on how Pell Grant and financial aid numbers have changed since the 1970's --- <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04326/414682.stm%5B/url%5D">http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04326/414682.stm</a></p>
<p>Key points:in 1970, 60% of private college students held Pell grants, 45% now do. But this trend is nothing new - it started in the 1990's when Pell grant formulas were changed. There are now 5.3 million pell grant students in the US, up from 3.7 in 1990, but of course there are also many more enrolled college students.</p>
<p>The above article is very interesting because it discusses many of the issues about the role Pell grants play in financial aid at top public and private schools.</p>
<p>Hey. . .we had to finance the new presidential yacht somehow. </p>
<p>(See the fine print in the recently passed Appropriations bill.)</p>