Since everyone needs to eat and a place to live, whether they are in college or not, it would be reasonable to exclude $H from the COA.
Not accepting pre med classes taken at a CC is NOT a policy designed to keep out the kids who do a legitimate two year stint at a CC and then transfer to their flagship U. It’s a policy designed to keep out the kids who intentionally try to take Orgo (and the other “hard” classes) at an institution where they believe they’ll get an A, instead of at their own, degree-seeking institution. It became too hard to have multiple policies on where the pre-req’s need to be taken (if a kid does a class during HS at a dual enrollment situation- does that count? A kid goes abroad during junior year- does that count?) so the “official” policy is that med school applicants present a transcript from a degree seeking institution which shows all classes taken.
It doesn’t prevent kids from “auditing” a class at an “easier” institution and then taking it again (the audited class won’t show up on their transcript) which is some bizarre way of having your cake and eating it too. But I don’t think it’s fair to blame med school application policies for discriminating against community colleges. They are just trying to create a level playing field among the thousand + institutions which produce students who end up applying.
Every professional field gets to determine some level of competency for its practitioners. Would that the law schools (especially the bottom fishers) could adapt a policy so they aren’t accepting kids who end up taking the bar four and five times without passing…
But shutting out students who start at CC from medical schools is collateral damage from such a policy, and likely a contributor to medical schools being predominantly populated by students from high SES backgrounds.
Med schools are populated by students from high SES backgrounds because of the cost of med school- tuition, living expenses, the fact that NOBODY can work a meaningful job while in med school, deferred income during the modestly paid years of residency, etc. That’s the barrier to entry- no bank of mom and dad to fund all those years of living with no income.
To claim that the issue is CC- wow, I’d love to see that evidence. Even kids from middle class families are too tapped out to help with the kind of loans required for med school. That’s your issue- not community college.
Yes, the cost of medical school itself is a barrier against those from low SES backgrounds. However, that does not mean that there are not additional barriers, of which the disdain for CC is one. Others include the cost of applying to medical school and the required pre-med extracurriculars that low SES students may not have time for due to needing paid work to help pay for school.
There are working groups and industry leaders discussing some interesting options. There is conversation around college loan 401k programs. Pretax dollars removed from your pay to extinguish college debt. Corporate Matching allowed up to 100 percent of your contributions. Deductible to employer and tax free to recipient. Lower out of pocket net cost and matching.
Also many are talking about recruiting packages that will include direct loan reduction programs upfront. Sign on for a extended period of time and loan is repaid up to a certain level. Tax free to employee.
With competition increasing for young talent, companies want to get in the game. And it also will slow down the constant merry go round on recruiting with a mobile gen z cohort.
The only answer to the student debt and cost crisis is for inventive govt and industry partnerships
@lookingforward So you are not in favor of more aid and you are not in favor of more loans. You really have no suggestion for the kids who can’t live at home. I understand that you feel they should be able to do that, yet many can’t. Whether the parents are unable or simply unwilling, it isn’t the fault of the kid. It shouldn’t be all that difficult to determine who is college ready – we aren’t talking about admission to Harvard. That seems like something standardized testing should be able to accomplish. I agree that 40k would be a heavy load to payback – but given that the average post college job pays 60K, and even lowly humanities degrees net an average of 50k, it should be possible with frugal living.
To the original question-
I think the FAFSA EFC is fairly reasonable. Let’s fund grant aid to match that.
I said, not in favor of it, per se. Not just throwing more money out there. I’d like to see the kids considered, their actual strengths and probability of benefitting from a college degree vs other options. Not just this “chicken in every pot” idea that all have to go, that it magically secures their futures, every college grad’s future.
And yes, I do feel family support is essential, even if it’s a challenge. In my experience, most lower SES kids who thrive in hs and go on to a solid college experience DO have family support, one way or another. It’s what encourages them and sets their goals, in the first place. (Whether or not their parents had any educational advantages.)
It isn’t necessarily easy to determine who’s college ready. There’s no test, it’s not GPA, or some club title. We’re talking the complexity of personal desires and traits, a measure of self knowledge, and more.
As for “average” salaries, NOT. Neither of mine started at 60 or even 50. One worked her way up and past that, the other not even close. Some of those numbers are thrown off by high end tech jobs, kids on CC who start over 100k.
Say 36k. After taxes, that’s 2250. Subtract rent (exhorbitant, in some areas,) food, utilies/cell, transpo, clothes, free time interests, any insurance costs, and more. What’s really left? And you think not all kids can live at home?
You looked at the high end possibility more kids could become doctors, eg. But the average college grad is not going to med school. Or working in engineering. They become our admins, teachers, entry level sales folks, might work for non-profits, and more. The degree itself works no magic.
No argument with any of this.
The kids who go into teaching or work for non-profits can use PAYE to make the payments reasonable and discharge their debt after ten years.
I understand your points, but what is your answer to the kid who is qualified and eager for college, but whose parents won’t support him? Do we just consider that kid an outlier and not worry about him?
Isn’t sliding scale basically how it is now? It just starts at 10-20K, depending on where you live, and tops out at $75K - but that 75k applies to people who couldn’t possibly afford 75K a year.
There is an extremely good reason why current financial aid policy doesn’t care about unwillingness. If it did, you would have an explosion in the number of parents who became “unwilling”, given the financial incentives. Yes, some kids lose out, and it is not their fault.
I just looked at the payback calculator, for 27k loans and a 36k or 48k salary, and via PAYE, the total paid is more than double, with interest, over time. And not much lower than on the std monthly cost on the 10 year plan.
I don’t think subsidizd loans are eligible, don’t know enough abou this. But longer debt repayment is not all it’s cracked up to be. It’s a ball and chain.
@hebegebe I do understand this. I’m arguing in favor of letting the kids take loans without needing a parental signature, not arguing for full rides to all kids with recalcitrant parents.
Most upper and middle class parents provide their kids with some degree of support when they turn 18. Middle class or above parents who won’t cosign any loans and kick their kids out of the house the day they graduate high school with nothing but a gym bag of clothes and a $100 graduation gift are going to be in the extreme minority.
Where it can hurt the most is for kids who transfer from CC to get the last 2 years of college and they can no longer commute but the COA is too much to handle. Current case on CC forums right now. These are the kids that get to me. That’s when I wish I had a fund to help out.
But this major change to the current state will require lots of related changes. It may require kid glove treatment at first. a smaller group and careful application of resources, a hunt for $ sponsors.
I’m not sure what this means.
In the US, students are guaranteed a ‘free and appropriate’ education for k-12. They are not guaranteed the best the state has to offer, and even within a district the quality of schools can vary. Students get transportation most of the time, but they are expected to live at home, eat (for the most part) at home, and provide their own clothing. Sometimes other programs like SNAP or LEAP or Section 8 pay for the food and heat and housing, but the school system doesn’t.
Now we are talking about education to be free until, basically, Grade 16 and not only that the school/govt should pay for the food and housing too? And they should get to go to the flagship if they get in? No one should have to settle for community college if there is something better available? A 5 year old can’t be expected to work while in school, but an 18 year old can.
I think community college is available at a reasonable price in almost every state. It may not get the student into medical school, but it’s better than not going to college at all. It’s not fair that some students can’t live at home any more after graduating from high school, but we as a society have decided that at 18/h.s. graduation, they are adults and responsible for their own care unless the parents agree to provide further support. There are other programs that will provide education like the military, employers like Starbucks or UPS, but the new hs grad has to seek them out and agree to the terms.
We’re not doing them a favor by allowing lower income kids to attend thee flagship university, we’re doing ourselves a favor by allowing them to reach their full potential. Do you know that A-grade lower income kids who start at community college are as likely to graduate with a 4year degree as C-grade upper middle class kids? How is that right for anyone? It boggles my mind that we don’t feel anger at a system that allows such wasted potential.
There has to be a better way to ensure the brightest minds - who manage to get into their public flagship university despite considerable disparities in environment, funding, family circumstances, school budget, class offerings… - do attend the flagship which was originally set up for them* and which their parents’ taxes have paid for just like anyone’s.
(*Elite, private colleges pre-date public universities by at least a century.)
What about making the free/reduced lunch program continue through undergraduate? It’d be win-win since it’d expand the market for farmers’ products and farmers are suffering considerably right now.