<p>I’d actually be fine with the loan schools receiving the pells if they were limited to the pell. For example, if you are going to accept pell eligible students, then you must limit your charge for R&B plus tuition to pell +Staffords and offer work study for spending and travel money.</p>
<p>Otherwise you can’t have the pell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really couldn’t care less about saving “public dollars” since there is no such thing as “public dollars” only tax dollars. However, I also don’t buy the expense of colleges today. If what we want to do is educate our citizens, then I guess we have to pick how we will do it. The current method isn’t working for a large section of the population. </p>
<p>Why do you think that is? I don’t think it’s because we aren’t throwing enough “public” dollars at the already tax exempt universities.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, I have a hard time following your post. </p>
<p>Public dollars is a proxy for government dollars. Public spending a proxy for government spending. Tax dollars represent a part of the public income, but hardly its expenses. If our spending were limited to a tax dollars, we would not have to borrow ourselves in oblivion. So, perhaps, we should assume that we both talk about non private spending, and not about tax revenues. </p>
<p>If it was not clear enough, I do not think that we can spend ourselves out of our problems by throwing more money at public institutions, especially our educational ones that have an abysmal history of living well beyond their means and expecting magical elves to save them as a matter of routine and giving them another lease of life with all the sinecures and benefits of yesterday. </p>
<p>I remain perplexed why curtailing the access of students to private schools that will absorb the lion share of the student’s expense appears to be a good idea. Penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.</p>
<p>Captain, the ludicrous part is the one that aims to restrict students to use their financial aid at private school. This is what I wrote:</p>
<p>"“Again, I do not understand why we would think about imposing such restrictions. Not that such a ludicrous idea could be implemented as federal funds could not decouple state owned universities from their private counterparts.”"</p>
<p>Increasing the funding of community colleges is a different matter. And, if it helps presenting a perspective, I attended a community college for two full years in one of those dual credit projects. Not a full time experience, but one nonetheless.</p>
<p>But, xiggi, they aren’t absorbing the “lion’s share” of the students expenses. If they were, then we wouldn’t have kids borrowing the way they are borrowing to get through these privates. What they are doing is absorbing the lion’s share of the future earnings of the students BEFORE they even confer a degree.</p>
<p>I don’t think either of us have it right on this one, because unless the privates and, in my state, publics, become more affordable, it’s going to be immaterial pretty soon, if it isn’t already. A huge swath of kids just can’t afford this education and I’m not sure our economy can afford it, either, long term.</p>
<p>The reason public colleges are not as affordable as they used to be is that state support of the institutions has decreased. So, what if we threw extra federal money at the publics? Recent history suggests the state legislatures would cut funding dollar for dollar (or worse) and the public schools would be no more affordable than they were before.</p>
<p>California’s 10 UC campuses are free for those making less than $80,000. This doesn’t count room and board, but there are also 23 CSU’s and innumerable CCs, all of which are essentially free for low-income CA residents, and certainly there is one within driving distance of most CA residents.</p>
<p>Now I am totally confused. Wasn’t this discussion about precluding the rich schools to receive funds from Pell or SEOG grants and bridging the gap with their own funds? Wasn’t this about schools spending 95K and subsidizing the rich. </p>
<p>Are we not moving the goalposts to advance the idea that the Pell grants are a small part of the total COA or even smaller than the Mini number. If a school has a low or no loan policy, does the difference not represent a lion’s share. I did talk about graduate from UT at Austin with 64,000 debt versus debt free at HYPS – not the other way around. And that is the world I know. </p>
<p>Obviously I am talking about the HYPS on this world, and not about a school that has to rely on massive amounts of debt, which is the domain of poor privates and public schools.</p>
<p>This discussions swings from very rich schools that will be “fine” without Pell to the same not having to cover the gap with gaps. Apples and oranges, that is for sure.</p>
<p>I have no money on either Xiggi or Mini, but I think the focus above is too narrow to make the argument meaningful. After all, the HYPS combined undergraduate enrollment, as purely stated, is about half of Arizona State’s alone. Even adding in all of the institutions that offer no merit aid (as an objective measure of a school’s “richness”, we’re not talking about many lives.</p>
<p>Apples to Apples, Xiggi-- State Flagships compared to privates with the same acceptance rates and general student body. </p>
<p>That lets out the HYPS ilk. but, as I’ve said all along, I have no interest in talking about the no loan schools. They are very few and serve a sliver of the student population who falls below the poverty level.</p>
<p>Harvard has 9-11 percent pell eligible students and Yale has less.</p>
<p>I would yank the federal aid from ALL of the privates. The very top schools which are a ridiculous minority any ways, do not need it. They take it because it 's there, and probably build their tuition rates including that as a given which has inflated costs for all schools, because though they are the tiny minority, they set the price points.</p>
<p>I see a number of small schools where EVERYONE is on financial aid. Their market is aimed at those that can’t afford the sticker price they have set, in synch with what the big boys have set, and then they discount everyone accordingly, snapping up the federal money as they do this. And sending the students and parents to borrow with federally backed loans. This whole charade is funded by federal funds. A lot of these school will be forced to charge what their true market is and many will likely shut their doors. It’ll be a big change in the way things are done.</p>
<p>That be quite a disparate bushel. I still have NO idea about the scope of the targets here. There is no rhyme or reason in what has been discussed here, and probably that is a testament to the fact … that nothing will EVER change. </p>
<p>But rather than simply rehash the irreconcilable, why don’t be we focus on the example of “yanking” the Pell from the 8 Ivy League schools. How much money would be saved and, more importantly, where would it go? </p>
<p>Are we talking about yanking the money from Penn and push more students to Happy Valley? Yanking students from Penn Nursing schools to fuel the Paterno-Spanier type of follies? Yep, that is a winner, if I ever saw one. Perhaps PSU is a poor example, as the school was singled out as one of the public that has become very pricey in terms of net pricing – in the OP article that is. </p>
<p>Or would it be to yank some Harvard students by sending the money to UMass? Fwiw, it would be better to let the great state of Mass to try again to confiscate a portion of the endowment of Harvard as a moron politician suggested a few years ago! And it is good to remember that the Pell is student-centric and not school based; it follows the student where he or she goes.</p>
<p>Bottom line? I really, really do not understand what this would accomplish, except to hurt the very precise students one thinks it might help. And, even if the schools assumed the extra cost, it would amount to a drop into an ocean of wasteful spending, misdirected investments, and dedication to many subjects that have nothing to do with education students after their high school years. </p>
<p>Again, increasing the funding of community colleges is a separate issue from a proposal to “punish” a few privates. Community colleges because of their low cost are magnets for non-residential students and are extremely active in helping students obtain grants and government loans. Just as the for-profit colleges are. How much money is there that has been wasted on students who never graduated? </p>
<p>I think that the discussion here is all about a solution trying to find a problem!</p>
<p>This is a very tricky subject to deal with as there are many simultaneous changes going on. Costs are skyrocketing, technology is revolutionizing, and class disparities are growing.</p>
<p>Some of the public flagships, notably those in PA and IL have surpassed the $30K cost level and they do not tend to meet need. Undoable for those who are needy. So yes, i would yank the money, not just from Penn to give to PSU, but also from schools like Ursinus, Albright, Juniata, York, St Vincent’s in PA, as an example More of them there are schools like Penn. I wouldn’t give a rat’s tail about Penn; it 's other schools, the many other such schools where the pain will be in such a move.</p>
<p>Neither do I; I am simply trying to understand what you are talking about. I am trying to understand which private schools are able to bridge the gaps via … grants. It seems that it should be quite easy to agree that there is a very small finite group of schools that are rich enough. See what I wrote earlier:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are we really talking about? Focusing on schools that would replace the Pell and SEOG with loans? Or simply gapping the students in the same manner that most public schools do? </p>
<p>Again, what is this supposed to accomplish? I do not get it.</p>
<p>Now, we are getting somewhere. Without even regressing to the thought that sending more money and students to that PSU might be a good idea considering its fiscal responsibility, one ought to question where it would be benefit anyone. </p>
<p>Oh well, now we know. And, all I can say, is that our success to make positive changes in our secondary and tertiary education hinges on going into the direction that is diametrically opposed to the one advocated here. Sending more money to spendthrifts and inefficient organizations will never reduce our costs. And the biggest problem faced by the poor and the middle class is that the costs have skyrocketed at the same time that incomes have stagnated.</p>