<p>M2CK, there are many benefit programs that ignore assets…food stamps, HEAP, school lunches, etc. I had a discussion about this with a community action coordinator recently and it was very enlightening. She said they have a number of people who have low income but substantial assets and was concerned that their clients who are truly poor would have their allocations cut due to this. Also, HEAP is a fixed amount of the budget and is distributed on a “first-come, first-served” basis, although it’s automatically given to food stamp recipients where I live (and maybe elsewhere too). She said it wasn’t a problem years ago because people generally wouldn’t seek help before exhausting other alternatives. Times/attitudes have changed I guess.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the problem seems to be that the year round Pell was utilized at a higher level than they anticipated and, combined with the increase in the Pell amount and the increase in the number of Pell-eligible students, there’s no money to pay for it. Kelsmom can probably give better insight on this, but I don’t think most low-income college students actually want to go to school year round since it’s a pain to find courses at their own schools, due to limited offerings, and Pell can only be used at the school where the student is enrolled in a degree program. So, they can’t just take classes at any school near their home during the summer and get Pell. Also, all of the low-income kids I know really need to work during the summer. But, they may have to make up classes during the summer if they can’t get into them during the regular terms, changed their major, or failed/withdrew from some classes. Or, as in my D’s case, if the program requires summer study. Otherwise, I’d bet that most of them were trying to accelerate their graduation dates, which seems like a good thing. IIRC, there’s a study out (NCES maybe) that shows graduation rates for Pell recipients are much lower than average and I think there have been a number of programs that have been trying to correct that.</p>
<p>Sk8rmom, I suspect some of the increase in summer useage came from the bad economy. More and more schools are offering summer internet classes and when junior can not find a summer job, parents and kids will try to make the best use of the summer.</p>
<p>if the Prez wants to demonstrate real leadership, perhaps he should recommend eliminating Pell/Stafford eligibility at his alma maters. Columbia and Harvard are plenty rich enough to make up the difference – and they would. Why should taxpayers in Arkansas pay so kids can attend Harvard? When we have most major cities with HS dropout rates in excess of 50%, should we really care if MIT has a few more poor kids attend?</p>
<p>The ‘savings’ could be used to continue to assist those that attend instate publics.</p>
<p>I think it is premature to assume this will actually happen. Congress has been supportive of the Pell grant program, and I would take a wait-and-see attitude on this.</p>
<p>*M2CK, there are many benefit programs that ignore assets…food stamps, HEAP, school lunches, etc.</p>
<p>She said they have a number of people who have low income but substantial assets and was concerned that their clients who are truly poor would have their allocations cut due to this.*</p>
<p>Again, there can be some thresholds that would let “really low income” people keep a certain amount assets untouched.</p>
<p>But, since we’re a country that is broke, people should NOT be able to keep $500k+ (non home/non farm) in assets without an expectation that some of it should be used. I think everyone needs to keep in mind that when state/fed benefits are being paid out of such people, they are being paid with the tax dollars of people who DON’T have such assets. People sometimes act like this money is coming from some nebulous source…it’s coming from taxpayers…many who are struggling to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their family’s heads (and they aren’t getting Pell or free lunches). We should not be robbing modest income people so that low income people with seriously large assets can keep them. </p>
<p>In the instance that I was talking about, the family had a paid-off home and major stock assets which netted enough revenue for the family to live on without working. It’s ridiculous for such a family to qualify for full Pell…there was no reason for the parents not to be working except for the fact that they didn’t “need to”. That is totally fine…except for the fact that they then qualified for full Pell because of how FAFSA formulas are set up. Ridiculous! </p>
<p>I agree that some limit of (non home/farm) assets should be protected…maybe the first $250k for low income folks. Unlimited amount? NO. That’s just crazy.</p>
Many state schools do not do it that way. The schools in my state are all pay per credit hour. So if you do 12 hours it is 12 x $xx. If you do 16 it is 12x $xx. </p>
<p>The point of the summer Pell was to help low income students get done quicker. It seems ridiculous for them to have the system up for a year then say there is no evidence it is helping students graduate more quickly. Obviously there would be no evidence yet.</p>
<p>*Many state schools do not do it that way. The schools in my state are all pay per credit hour. So if you do 12 hours it is 12 x $xx. If you do 16 it is 12x $xx.
*</p>
<p>Wow…I wonder how typical or unusual that is for charging instate students? </p>
<p>I only have experience with 3 different states’ way of doing this…and none charge by the hours for instate students as long as there were taking a “full load”. They all charge the same price whether you’re taking 12 credits per semester or 16/17/20 credits per semester. In these 3 states, only those taking less than 12 credits were charged “by the credit hour.” </p>
<p>I realize that every state may not do this, but some/many do.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think charging various amounts for full time instate students can discourage kids from graduating in 4 years. When money is tight, it can be hard to justify taking more than 12 credits per semester if you’re going to have to cough up more money so that you can take a “real full load of 16/17 credits.” </p>
<p>I wonder if these schools/states changed their policies if more kids would graduate quicker.</p>
<p>Many state schools charge by the credit hour. I know the 4 adjoining states to the North, South and East and West of us do. I never realized schools ever did it a different way till I learned it in CC.</p>
<p>So, I guess these states’ tuition that is put on Collegeboard must be based on some “set number” - like 15 credits a semester. Boy, that can be a bit misleading when comparing prices and a student is an engineering major who must take 17 credits for many semesters in order to graduate on time.</p>
<p>Also the COA on which FA is based is based on an average number of credit hours. I don’t think my daughter has ever taken as low a number of hours as her school’s COA includes. Thank goodness for her tuition waiver scholarship. That has made her choices a lot more flexible.</p>
<p>Our state schools charge by the credit hour, too. COA uses an average. One issue I find is that many of our students take the minimum for full time - 12 credits - per semester. Since this is fewer credits than it takes to be on track to progress a year in school with two semesters, school stretches past 8 semesters. This tends to increase the amount of loans borrowed. Summer Pell allows these students to stay on track, although the Pell is less than summer charges … and loans are often maxed out for the year by the time summer rolls around. It’s a vicious cycle.</p>
<p>Kelsmom, any thoughts on why so many students at your school only take the minimum? Are most of these student local so it’s just easier to space it out and take summer classes? (Not that summer classes are easier with the breakneck pace of them!)</p>
<p>Our publics charge a flat rate for full-time tuition but per credit if it’s under 12 or during the summer. Sometimes 4 classes is all that my D can get into unless she just wants to take random courses of interest, although it’s usually a mix of 3 & 4 credit courses. This is the first semester she’s only been enrolled for 12 credits at her home school, but is taking another 3 credit course through a different college because two of her required classes were only offered in one section and, naturally, those were at the same time.</p>
<p>sk8rmom, I am not sure. Maybe it’s cost (12 credits keeps full grants, but adding more credits increases the cost). Maybe it’s preparation (too many classes may be too rigorous for some of our students). Maybe some must work. Maybe others have too long a commute to handle more classes. I suspect it’s all of these … different for different students.</p>
<p>That’s true…the Republicans are looking for steeper cuts. The bipartisan debt committee recommended cutting all Pell grants by 50%, so I suppose we should be thankful that President Obama cares enough about the program to propose an alternative and, as kelsmom said, Congress has been supportive of the program as well.</p>
<p>Some other programs are also on the chopping block…</p>
<p>This is very disappointing. If I can’t get a Pell Grant, I can kiss college goodbye.
I’m watching his press conference on CBS right now. He says he “feels our pain.” -_-</p>