<p>Are there folks here who do not believe that kids whose families are Pell grant eligible should NOT get very generous grants? Everyone I know feels that is the right way to go. The problem comes with where the cut off line is drawn for "needy". Those who don't make the cut, but still can't pay for college start looking at who is getting some money, and that's where much of the trouble begins.</p>
<p>Skygirl, merit money is merit money regardless of who gets it. But many "scholarships" have a need component to them in that they are available only to those who are eligible for financial aid.</p>
<p>Regardless of how much money I have, with the exception of traveling abroad (he did go to France with my brother at mostly my expense), my son wouldn't have done any of the things below or allowed me to do any of the things that some other parents apparently did. He wouldn't have taken a prep class if you paid him to go. He would never allow me to do his work for him. Complain about a grade?? Nope, when an art teacher gave him a F he wouldn't let me call the school. Cheat?! I don't think so! Taught him calculus? Not a chance there either. Wow, I must be bad, non-rich parent. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The LACs that offered her the aid saw her as fresh out of the box smart (as one admissions person called D-referring to the fact she had no prep other than a great public HS).
[/quote]
How would colleges know whether or not a student had prep?</p>
<p>Parent income, value of parental assets, lack of involvement in expensive enrichment activities, summers spent in programs that were of no expense to the parent (state programs and merit scholarship awards to programs), and only taking the SAT one time all suggest limited family economic resources and that the likelihood of enhancement is small. Of course, like most judgment calls, one can never can determine with 100% accuracy. Admissions people also are making judgments based on financial aid needs and levels of accomplishment. I imagine that is what led to the comment from the adcom that met with D.</p>
<p>I have read some, but not all the posts on this thread, and on others that imply all the problems in todays colleges result from upper income urms being admitted to top tier schools. Of course, I exagerate, but my point is from where I sit, an individual or group of individuals success is so complicated, it is beyond any one theory or group to solve. When I say "where I sit" I mean a second generation AA woman who comes from an exteneded family that coninues to struggle. Perhaps that is why I choose to work with kids in juvenille hall where white kids are rare enough to be called "the white kid". The stories behind the stories there boggle the mind. Three out of four kids I saw last time had had their mothers murdered. And not a day goes by when I don't think "there but the for the grace of God...". In spite of how overwhelming the whole thing is I feel I make a difference just by virtue of me existance ( I know...that can be said of many). There are still times when I think in spite of my sons good fortune, he is doomed...For those of you who say me or my D need no outreach, I'd have to disagree. There is much we didn't know before an invite to one of those diversity things. We never would have considered an LAC. Didn't even know what it was. I'm sure this is true for most first generation folk, but it takes a generation or two to figure this out, and perhaps to pay back that outreach investment. Every time I feel a little bad about our good fortune I remeber my dad, and how far he brought our family in a generation. He was a Native American/"Negro" man born in Alabama in 1913, and managed to make his way to Columbia for grad school ( where he says his Phd/dissertation was denied because it "wasn't time for a Black man). My husband, first gen college in his family, and now, like me , an MD, graduated there in the eighties. Some of us finish. Guess it was time. FWIW, my kid rocks stereotypes every day, and like someone posted earlier,we are blessed ( ??!!) enough to be paying full price at her private university.</p>
<p>As sueinphilly pointed out, this is how the system is "supposed" to work. Hopefully, FA allows one generation of students to become prosperous enough to pay full ride for their kids and subsidize the next generation. If there is one obvious and glaring injustice in the system, it is subsidized vs unsubsidized Stafford loans. If these loans are for the student, why make a distinction based on the income of a parent. A student loan should be a student loan, the same for all students. If there is an underlying assumptions that parents will be the ones paying it off, hence a middle class student gets an unsubsidized while a lower class student gets is subsidized, then just call it a parent loan and let's be done pretending.</p>
<p>The issue at hand is one of the perception of basic fairness. People feel that low-income kids can make a decision where to attend that is, to an extent, divorced from economic realities. Middle-income kids have to make a much tougher choice --- an economic decision, or ask your family to become low-income for a substantial period of time. This is where all the anguish is coming from. However, the reality is that this is the situation only at those very few schools with huge endowments that can afford to meet full need. These schools dominate the discussions at CC. For the vast majority of student population that attends schools with limited financial capabilities, the poor and the middle class get soaked proportionately.</p>
<p>Just chiming in to say a great, big thank you to all of you who have posted on this thread. Yesterday, I FINALLY got an interview for a financial aid job (it will take place later this month). I worked in f/a many years ago, and I am trying to get back in. One of the things I have to do for my interview is write an essay. I am able to choose from several options, but I have decided to do one that asks: Should scholarships be based on merit, financial need, or a combination of the two? There is MUCH food for thought on these pages. I'm going to rock!! :)</p>
<p>kelsmom, you have a alot of info and anecdotal stories to based your essay on. I think a cc educated parent would make a good FA officer. best of luck to you.</p>
<p>Thanks, gladmom and sueinphilly. I have learned so much more about financial aid in my years on CC. I knew the rules & regulations - now I know how the "customer" really feels (so many personal experiences).</p>
<p>I agree with Sue in Philly. I grew up in an area served by VISTA volunteers in the hills of TN with no running water. My father had 7 siblings, my mother had 9 siblings - raised subsistence farming. My father finished grade 8. My parents had 7 children, 6 of whom finished HS - and I went to college. How? With an SEOG, a BEOG, a bunch of loans, and a grocery bag (literally) full of scholarships. Oh - and three jobs during the school year, two in the summer. I finished in 3 years, because it was cheaper to do it faster. I had been working since age 14. (and I'm not yet 50 in case some readers are thinking this must be ancient history!)
Fast Forward - my S is finishing his first year this month at a private LAC with a nice merit scholarship, and us parents paying our EFC. He's working. This "merit within need" scholarship seemed equitable to us. He turned down other better financial offers because he liked this school better and we felt we could sacrifice to come up with the $$ needed to make it happen. While it would be nice to have more scholarship $$ (with the merit within need - the scholarship is full tuition - EFC) I always think if I were on the university committee deciding how to use our resources - I would vote for this system. Admissions is need blind, but if you are considered for the top scholarship, they want their dollars to go where they are needed the most.
Many times when I read on these boards questions from people about assets, college savings, etc. I always think "I don't understand - why don't you want to pay for college?" but I don't post it because I don't want people to get mad at me. This is an investment. I'm with Sue - I'm proof that the system worked.
PS - of the 5 schools where S was accepted, 3 gave aid almost to the dollar (as someone asked about above) it's just that at some schools all the money was gift, while at others there was work study and subsidized loans. Only two of the schools had us paying less than our EFC (but one was zero).</p>
<p>I do not begrudge anyone financial aid if they truly need it. In my "neck of the woods" there are some self-employed folks living like kings and getting quite a bit of need-based aid. I also think that both parents should have to be working if they are able before need-based aid is given. Why should someone sit home just to keep their aid? Once again, it is not a problem for those who truly have need but their is abuse of the system...and that is a problem!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also think that both parents should have to be working if they are able before need-based aid is given.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"...if they are able..." is the key phrase here. Some parents are unable to work because of health issues. Some non-working parents may be caring for children, disabled family members or aging parents. I foresee difficulties with providing proof of these activities. </p>
<p>Regarding the "self-employed people living like kings and getting quite a bit of need-based aid", it is my experience that most people are not forthcoming about the state of their finances. Unless you are actually looking at someone else's tax returns, bank accounts and college financial aid packages, it's impossible to know what the real story is. They may not be telling you the truth about many things. If their financial picture is as described, they may be breaking laws or falsely reporting to FAFSA. If they are caught, there are penalties. Not a risk that I'd like to take.</p>
<p>I work two jobs. I don't mind if someone who is a stay at home mom gets aid. Her choice and the choice of the college at how it wants to allocate resources.</p>
<p>As for self-employed: H is self-employed, and for most people, no not all, it's a nightmare: No health insurance, or very self paid for health insurance, no paid holidays, no paid vacations.</p>
<p>Some of our "perks" are bartered services when H can't get customers to pay that they owe him. Believe me, I really didn't care about the walk pavers. And besides the guy did a terrible job.</p>
<p>Nor do I can about the leaky bathroom redo. It will cost a fortune to fix.</p>
<p>I would rather have the money owed us go to college where it belongs.</p>
<p>At times it is surprisingly hard to get usable cash out of a business.</p>
<p>I am not talking about folks who are unable to work...small children, aging parents and, most certainly, health issues. I am talking about people not working to keep their aid. Abuse just like in other government programs...</p>
<p>I think it will be tough for kelsmom to reflect the major viewpoints from this thread in her essay. In the meantime, I am writing my closing argument.</p>
<p>foto2: Do you mean that if a parent "chooses" not to work that their kid shouldn't get aid?</p>
<p>Whether or not a parent is unable to work or has the luxury of choosing not to work, the logistics of proving whether or not a parent "is able to work" would be quite complex and require a whole new bureaucracy.</p>
<p>The FAFSA formula assesses an amount the second parent "should" make, so choosing not to work actually is penalized. I think it's a $!0,000 per year expectation for a nonworking parent in a two parent family with one wage earner.</p>