Possible change to Bright Futures (limiting majors)

Parents Forum
1

Note: I think the title of this article is clickbait, in that it polarizes an issue that shouldn’t be.

I’m not sure how popular this idea is in Florida but it seems to pop every so often (I remember seeing it a few years ago, and in the end it led to cutting BF for everyone. Now BF is back to 100% and 75% tuition funding depending on academic achievement.)
The basics seem very short-sighted, or might indicate not understanding how Higher Education works.
The article doesn’t state the obvious: beside Primary Teaching, Nursing, and Engineering, most majors do not “lead directly to a job”.

In addition, most seniors in HS do not “apply to a major” and then end up in a job that their major directly feeds into.
College is not like Trade school or Career AS: Welding-> welder, HVAC technician-> HVAC technician job.
It doesn’t work like Math major-> mathematician, History major-> historian.

Add a bit of complexity: there’s quite a bit of change between what rising seniors* think they want and what 21 year olds want, between what rising seniors think they can do (everyone a doctor!) and what college shows them is possible, including way more professions and paths than they thought existed at 17.
(*Most seniors who apply to their FL public universities do so over the summer or early Fall.)
How would it work?

Most majors require an internship to “lead to a job”, the major, alone, would lead to nothing (even a CS major who’s never had any job or internship or experience may not be that in-demand); some fields would be very employable as a major/minor combination whereas the major alone might not (Women’s Studies+HR, Marketing+Statistics or Data Science…); some “look” directly employable but aren’t (thinking of Criminal Justice, Dental Hygiene… at the BS level, when an AS is sufficient) and finally… many require graduate studies (Health professions, Law School, Secondary School teaching, Social Work…) and are thus not “directly employable”.

In addition, many public universities in Florida don’t require students to apply for a major and some have “entrance to major” requirements with secondary admission after Sophomore year. UF, in particular, admits without regards to major, figuring out that if they take the best and brightest from the whole state, they’ll sort themselves out once they get there.

As a result, if only specific majors starting freshman year were funded, almost all Florida students would lose access to Bright Futures…
The impact of this idea is staggering.

I don’t really have a question, beside: do you think this could pass?

3 Likes
2

I hope it fails. I really dislike regulations like this. I think it’s a back door method used to generate massive cuts to a program that won’t be visible to the general public.

4 Likes
3

I read the article. My first thought is that this is a sensible approach to subsidizing public education. At worst, this bill is a great starting point for discussion.

1 Like
4

I really don’t see how/why it’s ‘sensible’ to provide scholarships for students who choose Engineering, Nursing, or Primary school teaching, but cut out all the general majors that build their path through experience + future social workers, future lawyers, future doctors, future secondary school teachers, and all other professions that require graduate school.
I don’t see how it’d be fair to the state residents’ children, to the residents themselves who’d need all these people and their services, or to the universities which are trying to build topnotch reputations (including UF trying to get into Top10 Publics nationally) and which would end up losing the students who wish to major in anything “unapproved”, ie., an awful lot of subjects.
I don’t see how “I want to cut access to our State Grant program for 90% high school students” is a positive.

4 Likes
5

I think that we have different understandings of the contents of the proposed legislation.

My understanding is that those who select priority majors receive more funding than those who elect other majors rather than being fully cut-off.

6

People respond to incentives. I don’t know that “incenting” kids to declare majors for which they are unsuited serves the public good. So we want a lot of nursing candidates who can’t pass their boards? That seems like a waste of resources. Do we want prospective engineers who flunk out rather than starting in a major which suits their talents?

I am not a Florida resident and don’t have a dog in this hunt- but seems like bad public policy, and a great way to ensure that Florida colleges become overrun with departments past their capacity to teach… with other departments begging for students.

A little Soviet in its intent, no? Tell everyone to grow wheat- even if a farmer’s soil is better suited to corn or sweet potatoes?

7 Likes
7

Part of it also is that the State would need re-evaluate each semester (according to the article), meaning a kid could choose that major because BF is the only way they can afford college, then that scholarship would be taken away. The permanent re-evaluation would also create majors headaches and mountains of paperworks (or, lots and lots more university administrators?)

@publisher:
right now, there’s a 100% tuition (about $7,500) and a 75% tuition scholarship. These are based on meeting advanced benchmarks in specific subjects (AICE, AP, IB courses), test scores, and community service/volunteering hours.
I agree that we read this differently: If I understand you correctly, you read this as “most majors would receive only part of the scholarship they academically qualify for but some specific majors would receive the full amount”?
One could, I guess, also read this as “All students who want to major in Engineering automatically qualify for 100% BF even if they don’t meet the other benchmarks” and thus other majors would need to qualify according to the benchmarks in order to get 100%BF whereas no such limits would be placed upon would-be engineering majors.

1 Like
8

Years ago when BF first started, the requirements to earn it required stats that are a lot lower than they are now. Then they raised them a little, then they raised them a lot. Now to get the full award, you have to have an ACT of 29, a foreign language (2 years), more core classes than are required to graduate from high school.

In 2016, the raise the award to cover full tuition plus $600/yr for books. It’s also possible to lose BF by not taking 12 credits in a semester (or if you fall below), not having the right gpa, taking a year off school. A lot of lower income students do lose BF just because they can’t afford to go full time or the gpa falls. There are warnings, but once you lose BF it can’t be reinstated. It is an award from the state so the schools can’t do anything about it.

After they increased the requirements and increased the money, I really thought there would be an overhaul as more kids from the wealthier high schools were earning the awards and the diversity numbers weren’t there as they were in say 2010. It’s a great program but not an even distribution to students.

2 Likes
9

I supposed there’s a difference between the mix of skills the legislature wants to pay to develop, and the mix the academics have come up with through the university’s processes and incentives to students. And while any major can continue on to law school and become a lawyer, an engineering or nursing major can certainly do so, so it’s not necessary to support every possible undergrad major to fill the pipeline (too full already given the poor prospects for most new lawyers) for lawyers.

2 Likes
10

The legislature isn’t paying to develop the skills- the taxpayers are. The legislature may not be interested in paying for social workers, pastors, marriage counselors, or for students to become fluent in Korean, or any of the other “strategic languages” that the CIA and NSA need. But that’s a pretty short-sighted way to view an educated workforce.

4 Likes
11

It may not be correct to assume that every politician views a generally more educated work force or state population as a benefit, especially those whose voters appear to be mostly less educated people.

4 Likes
12

I wrote to my State Senator today, she said that they have not had any hearing on this yet. I don’t really understand why they are doing this. How can they say one major is better than another. Many philosophy majors go on to become lawyers, who often become politicians. Not sure he thought about that!

13

Part of the problem is how you determine that a major doesn’t have “direct employment after graduation”, except for Bachelor’s that are “training for a specific profession” (Engineering/ABET accreditation, Elementary school teaching…)
Unless you count “graduate school after college graduation” as “direct employment”, which doesn’t seem to be the case.
If that’s the case, then all students would have to do is say they’re premed or prelaw, since those are just intentions.

1 Like
14

There’s another thread that specifically discusses cuts to Benacquisto (or elimination thereof).

15

To your Soviet reference: upon graduation, a Soviet student was obligated to work for a designated employer for at least three years without being able to change jobs. Truth be told, higher education was paid for by the state, and those who did well received a sizeable cash stipend. He who pays the piper calls the music…

16

He who pays the piper calls the music… What happened to the “innovation economy” in the Soviet Union when so many PhD’s in math, physics, and engineering ended up emigrating to the West after they fulfilled their part of the bargain?

The piper paid, but it turned into a somewhat short-sighted investment. You can “encourage” a kid in Florida to study engineering, and even make them stay for a few years after graduation. But ultimately- what’s to stop the Florida kid from putting down roots in Seattle or Austin?

17

Well, Florida would have to close its borders, of course! I think you phrased what I was trying to hint at very well. Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it.

18

Anyway… the Soviet subsidized all fields equally, their “Philology” (Linguistics&Foreign Language) departments were famously strong, no doubt because of spying needs, artists and cartoonists also (propaganda needs) and… I’m really not sure it’s the proper analogy.

A positive way to handle a need for more Engineers, Nurses, and Primary Teachers without hurting high school students, the economy, universities and their standing… would be to allocate Room&Board (or equivalent, or 1/2 R&b for year1&2, Full Year 3&4) ON TOP OF Bright Futures for students who choose this major and complete it.
Otherwise it looks like a proposal that will cut out a vast majority of students in Florida from receiving the state scholarship they earned according to hitherto agreed upon criteria. It’s quite telling the cuts wouldn’t “phase in” starting with rising HS freshmen, no, it’d cut the scholarship for juniors and seniors who followed the rules, including kids from his own constituency (where the average income for a family of 4 is 38k, 29% minors and 9.7% seniors live below the poverty line…)

The proposal linked in the thread about Benacquisto (also on the chopping block) indicates they’re interested in “majors at 60 credits”. That major would need to link to a job 60 credits later, if I understand correctly. It’s scheduled to be discussed 3/9.

19

Link for convenience: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/86 (3:30 pm, 412 Knott Building ). If you feel strongly about this, please write to committee members and make your opinion heard. The argument that “it’d cut the scholarship for juniors and seniors who followed the rules” would equally apply to OOS Benacquisto recipients who (or whose parents) will be left holding the bag.

1 Like
20

This bill is up for its first hearing on Tuesday in the Education committee. I think we need to flood them with emails against it. Please each do unique emails with different subject headings from each of you and anyone else to whom you pass this along. (You can do the same email to each senator). The democrats will vote against the bill, I’m sure. We need to turn just one Republican to kill the bill. The Republican members of the Education committee are listed below. Here is the bill. You should read so you understand what it does: https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/86/BillText/Filed/PDF. Underlined words are new language added to the current statutes.

This is the key provision they added:

(c) Eligibility for state financial aid awards and tuition assistance grants must be reevaluated each term based on the program of study to which the student has been admitted and in which he or she is enrolled. Beginning with the 2022-2023 academic year and thereafter, eligibility for such awards and grants is contingent on the student’s enrollment in a career certificate or degree program on an approved list developed pursuant to s. 1009.46(2)(a).

It also changes the way the scholarships are funded and the legislature decides the funding amounts each year in the budget.

If anyone wants to testify, you need to be in Tallahassee and it’s remote from the civic center. Obviously this is easiest for FSU students, so please see who you can round up, as well as graduate students and professors or alumni.

My legislative aide, Daphne is cc’ed here – she can help answer any questions about the process, etc.

Joe Gruters:

gruters.joe@flsenate.gov

Jennifer Bradley:

bradley.jennifer@flsenate.gov

Doug, Broxson:

broxson.doug@flsenate.gov

Manny Diaz, Jr.

diaz.manny@flsenate.gov

Travis Hutson:

hutson.travis@flsenate.gov

Kathleen Passidomo:

passidomo.kathleen@flsenate.gov

We need to stop this bill!

Thanks for your involvement,

Tina

4 Likes