<p>Wouldn't want anybody to miss out on the thread conveniently placed in the Financial aid forum. Some interesting stuff. Some same old same old. Some different posters. </p>
<p>
[quote]
if the government just lived up to the entitlements they
have promised and we have paid for it would be a huge
step forward
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you be more specific about which entitlements the government promised you that you did not receive? Thank you.</p>
<p>I'd like to see students of every economic circumstance have equal choices.</p>
<p>Me too.
Starting with Pre-K.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wouldn't want anybody to miss out on the thread conveniently placed in the Finacial aid forum. Some interesting stuff. Some same old same old. Some different posters.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that thread is linked to the one in which Curmudgeon calls me a hater of the poor, because I believe FA should be loan-based. Nevermind that I am the grandchild of a blanket factory laborer and farmer so poor he could barely feed his only son. :)</p>
<p>Who wants to pull the ladder up after her. ;)</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>'d like to see students of every economic circumstance have equal choices.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Me too.
Starting with Pre-K.<<</p>
<p>There's a lot of truth to this, EK.</p>
<p>NSM, has a take on this on the other link I think worth posting here, too as she has a perspective different than some other full-payers.
<p>I don't feel my sons have been cheated because they had the very good fortune to grow up in an educated family that's definitely not rich, but still has resources that most people lack.</p>
<p>I've taught college at a public university that had many low income students. I've also mentored low income high school students. I've seen the depth of their financial struggles, which typically were heartbreaking. Even with grants, they graduated with staggering debt.</p>
<p>IMO anyone who thinks that only loans should be offered to students is either hopelessly uninformed or shockingly callous and selfish.
</p>
<p>It is easy to say that everyone should have an equal opportunity, but some folks are so impoverished that even a "free ride" to college isn't enough.</p>
<p>I had a brief career as a teacher. I remember driving one mom and her child to an appointment. The mom was 27 years old and had few teeth. Her pants were held together with safety pins. She had 7 chidren, all of whom had some sort of special needs. She talked about wanting to get a job. I wondered whether anyone would even hire her as a maid, given her appearance. (Besides, what would she do with her houseful of disabled kids while she worked?)</p>
<p>Someone coming from that sort of home would not even have the money to buy the clothes to apply for a job to earn money to go to school. A "free ride" to school does not usually include a clothing allowance or a literal ride to school. When we are talking about dire poverty, the person almost needs to be "adopted" by a person of means, church or other organization to provide them with the things that everyone else takes for granted.</p>
<p>"Let them eat loans" as someone on cc paraphrased the attitude of some.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Me too.
Starting with Pre-K.<<</p>
<p>There's a lot of truth to this, EK.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There sure is IMO
I've used this analogy before- to show the difference between a student from an upper middle class household where the parents have college degrees and one from a household & is first gen college with other challenges like possibly abuse/neglect or at minimum less access to quality K-12 education.</p>
<p>Think of the upper middle student as having a top of the line gary fisher road bike- great tires, 21 speeds & he is well rested and nourished. His "competitor" has a single speed junker that is warped but intact & he has stayed up all night taking care of his siblings while his mother works her 2nd job.
They race through the city and woods, the finish line is at the college.
The boy with the new bike is just an nth faster- however the college decides to admit the boy on the junker, reasoning that if he can do so well with a piece of crap bike, on two hours of sleep, what could he do with a new bike, with 8 hrs of sleep & good nourishment?</p>
<p>If you are just comparing the bottom line of " who won", then it doesn't seem "fair" for the slower rider, to receive the win. But if you look at potential , then you might decide that the " handicapped" rider could go faster and farther under different conditions.</p>
<p>"I don't begrudge others for their disappointment in not being able to make the finances work for the college of their choice."</p>
<p>Nor have I ever, on this thread & on previous threads from 04 on. I begrudge others for venting their disappointment on the backs of those who maybe for the first time in their lives received an actual opportunity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
NSM, has a take on this on the other link I think worth posting here, too as she has a perspective different than some other full-payers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, not surprisingly, as she is the daughter of a dentist who got a full ride to Harvard.</p>
<p>"Because that's the same as the victims having no recourse. Most of the individuals who cause accidents have nothing, and have no insurance, so there's nothing to take from them and give to the victims. If there's criminal negligence, the state can pay to keep the perpetrator in jail, but that won't cover the cost of the victim's wheelchair. You're imagining money coming out of thin air...in other words, no recourse."</p>
<p>Thank you, Hanna. And, of course, the specific person who was negligent <em>is</em> still liable. As you say, though, they're often judgment-proof. (Unless their liability is covered by auto insurance.) I should also add that the implication that the concept of vicarious liability is some sort of recent innovation (invented, no doubt, by "liberal judges"), is absurd. The doctrine of "respondeat superior" has been around at least as far back as St. 13 Ed. I -- in other words, at least as far back as 1251 C.E.</p>
<p>Donna</p>
<p>
[Quote]
The doctrine of "respondeat superior" has been around at least as far back as St. 13 Ed. I -- in other words, at least as far back as 1251 C.E.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>And I bet lawyers were getting 1/3 of the proceeds (+expenses) back then also ;)</p>
<p>Wow, this is a douche thread.</p>
<p>I mean the idea behind it is somewhat understandable but the way its coming out from some folks it's basically just reverse entitlement: "We're rich, b-itch! We deserve it because we can afford it!"</p>
<p>While I do agree that some people tend to rely on financial aid a bit too much. ("I want to get a full-ride so I can relax this summer instead of work") financial aid is a GREAT social tool that ensures that society grows and that potential isn't wasted. That brilliant and driven kids aren't limited to community colleges and get to live up to their potential despite not having a trust-fund attached to their name.</p>
<p>I didn't think this was an anti financial aid thread (though it may have morphed into one). I saw it more of a anti whining thread.</p>
<p>"Nor have I ever, on this thread & on previous threads from 04 on. I begrudge others for venting their disappointment on the backs of those who maybe for the first time in their lives received an actual opportunity."</p>
<p>And, statitiscally, there aren't that many of 'em.</p>
<p>Yes, but there are at least 3 highly-educated parents on this thread alone who are reaping the benefits of FA for their own children. The opportunities their children lacked are very different from the examples given above.</p>
<p>bay,</p>
<p>In my state we all pay state tax based on the same %
of income. That tax supports the state college system,
and 3 state related universities, yet access is largely
determined by income - high income. Why should anyone
pay tax for something that is not accessible, as if the Feds
took our social security payments for 50 years and then
announced "sorry but we're only giving it out to the rich."
I believe all taxpayers who pay in are entitled to access.
I suggest increased support for the state system and a
sliding scale based on income for access. I believe that would
also impact the privates and cut costs for everyone, rich
and poor.</p>
<p>It is a shame that our society seems t</p>