<p>What is a “Comp. Divine” and what is “3.5 Ed.”?</p>
<p>
Generally somewhere between poor/working class and rich. Obviously not the “middle X%,” as the exact middle of all people would be closer to poor than rich, since there are so many more poor/working class people than rich people.</p>
<p>
Nevermind, thought your name was a D&D reference.</p>
<p>But I still want to know what is a “Comp. Divine” and what is a “3.5 Ed.” and what is “D&D.” :)</p>
<p>I’ll PM you, since this is way off topic for the thread.</p>
<p>My daughter was to receive a Byrd Scholarship. We are “middle class” based on last year’s income; by next year, we’ll probably be at poverty level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the US government is in heavy debt, and trying to cut out unnecessary expenses.</p>
<p>A merit (non-need) based award is a government gift, and if the government can’t afford to be giving gifts, then it is something that falls much lower on the priority scale for government spending than money used to fill needs.</p>
<p>I agree with bluebayou as well – I’d like to see Pell’s going only to students attending public universities, or at least a government mandated cap on tuition that can be charged to any student receiving a Pell grant. When my d. was eligible for Pell money at a private college, the college was charging us ~$15K over and above the FAFSA number that qualified her for Pell – so it was using one number when asking for the federal government handout (the money went to the college, not us) – and an entirely different number when figuring out how to spend its own grant money. I don’t really see how that benefited my daughter.</p>
<p>On the other hand, when my son was supporting himself and paying his own way through college at age 24 & qualified for Pell, the amount was enough to pay his full tuition at his state college, with extra left over to go towards his living expenses. (Not so any more, as college tuitions have increased dramatically over the past few years). So I think that the taxpayers were getting more bang for their buck with my son – a full year’s college education rather than a small fraction. </p>
<p>I do think that poor kids should have the opportunity to attend elite private colleges --so the reform I would want to see would be that Pell grants could go only to private colleges which agreed to meet full need based on the FAFSA EFC. No gapping of Pell recipients allowed.</p>
<p>The Byrds were killed today by Congress, along with a number of other Federal scholarship programs. Others were cut today. The intent is to emphasize need based scholarships with the available federal money.</p>
<p>that’s a fair intent. i agree that need should take priority.</p>
<p>the byrd scholarship, in particular, seemed a bit sloppily organized. at least here in california.</p>
<p>I really like what Florida has set up with the Bright Futures scholarships. Seems like more states need that. It would be a fine system for merit-based aid by the state for state schools. Then, the priority could be on helping the poor and working class with the most need and who are less likely to attend college due to finances.</p>
<p>^^ Disagree BillyMc. FL Bright Futures is funded by the FL Lottery. The vast majority of lotto tickets are sold to people of a low socioeconomic class. Thus the profits made off of immorally ripping off people who can’t afford it (and whose kids probably won’t go to college, or at least not make the requirements for the scholarships) go to typically white, middle-upper class people who never buy lotto tickets so that they can send their kids to college, and the cycle repeats. Lots of people are calling it a “reverse Robin-hood effect”</p>
<p>[Are</a> Bright Future scholarships going to the right students? - Education - MiamiHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/02/2147312_p3/are-bright-future-scholarships.html]Are”>http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/02/2147312_p3/are-bright-future-scholarships.html)</p>
<p>People want the lottery. Those putting together this lottery can put the money towards whatever they wish. Keeping the brightest young people in state benefits everyone. Keeps the educational standards in state higher. </p>
<p>For those who are truly low income, PELL will pay for tuition in state pretty much for any student. Not room, board and expenses but tuition. And to qualify for that, you just have to get accepted to college, and there are any number of open enrollment schools. To keep these state colleges at high caliber, you need the high caliber students who can afford to go away, out of state to college. That they stay in state for the Bright Futures, enhances the quality of the these schools making the good choices and good opportunities for those who cannot afford to go out of state. </p>
<p>I agree that PELL, Bright Futures and other such government monies should NOT go to the private colleges and the savings be used to reduce our deficit or enhance the public schools. Many colleges just take these funds and build their cost structure around them.</p>
<p>
States generally have lotteries, at least this one is going to something good. As for the students in need, please note the rest of my post:
And, if you happened to read the whole thread, my previous post:
Thus, you can see my focus on the poor, while providing a merit scholarship not to any university, but to state universities. If I recall, you yourself have made posts about the plight of middle class students whose parents for one reason or another are unable to pay for college. Well, Florida’s Bright Futures Scholarship helps with that.</p>
<p>However, if you truly want to argue about the lottery, which has a negligible effect on poverty and is generally deplored by the wealthy “moralists” that are far more responsible for creating poverty, then so be it. Fund the scholarships another way. But it’s a good option, so long as we remain in a broken system.</p>
<p>
I agree, that would be a much better system. However, I would couple it with expanding the Pell EFC range, as mandating this provision will likely lead to many places meeting the need of Pell recipients but shorting those just barely above the Pell line, since there will be less FA money for them.</p>
<p>It would be much more effective to direct at least half of the funding that currently goes to Bright Futures and put it towards state grants for the poor, since they are more likely to go in-state to college anyway. The fact is, Bright Futures is outgrowing its means, and parents of middle/high schoolers who are relying on it now may find that it’s not there when their kid goes to college. Instead of raising tuition, like the state of FL is now considering, it should keep tuition the same and do away with much of Bright Futures as it is, and reserve the money for low-income students. A small portion could be kept for the highest achieving students for the purposes of keeping them in FL. As it is, the requirements are much too low for middle-upper-class students, but too high for low income students. Furthermore, a large percentage of upper-middle class families have already invested in FL Prepaid- one of the oldest/largest prepaid tuition program in the country. This means that when the student gets Bright Futures, it is in the form of a check that can be spent on anything- this money would be much better spent on paying poor students’ tuition. Thus, FL tuition should remain low as it has been in the past (attainable/a good deal for middle-class families) and Bright Futures needs to be cut in order to sustain itself so that it can keep the highest achieving students in FL, while funding low-income students’ college education.</p>
<p>Okay, I can see your point. It’s interesting, and perhaps they should change it (the lower level scholarship has required scores below the US average). Still, I think it is helpful. But again, I did say to focus on the poor. Bright Futures is ultimately beneficial to the state, so keeping it in some form while increasing aid to the poor would be ideal.</p>
<p>
More like the means are being shrunk. Funding is constantly being cut by a conservative state government (even though a Republican started the program).</p>
<p>
Technically, it goes directly to paying tuition. But I see what you’re saying, it means money can be withdrawn from FLPP at a reduction and used on other things.</p>
<p>No, it is outgrowing its means- it is funded by the Lottery and since the amount of students who qualify increases each year (and the vast majority gets the scholarship renewed) while lottery sales have not, or even decreased, it is outgrowing its means. And w/ the state being over $2 billion dollars in debt, it’s not going to, nor should it get any other state funding unless the program changes who it funds.</p>
<p>The Florida state government is constantly cutting the percentage of lottery funds that go to BF. Further, the debt stems largely from the lack of a Florida individual income tax and very low corporate income tax.</p>
<p>
This is false, using the accepted tiers. So unless you define each tier as being like 10-20 schools, you’re wrong.</p>
<p>^^Exactly. Few colleges meet full need, perhaps 50-75 including LACs?</p>
<p>Spot on, [66</a> colleges claim to meet full need.](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/02/18/colleges-that-claim-to-meet-the-full-financial-needs-of-students]66”>'No-loan' Financial Aid Colleges: What to Know)</p>
<p>Keep in mind, however, that all of them have their own methods of calculating what “need” is and that the vast majority of them include loans in “meeting full need.”</p>
<p>From the article.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the first comment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the third comment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you see, there’s no objective “meeting full need.” Any school can claim to meet full need, as they are allowed to calculate need however they like, and meet it with interest-bearing loans.</p>
<p>Pell Grants should have been cut instead.</p>
<p>All top-tier institutions practice need-blind admissions and offer full need-based support. (All Ivies do so. Stanford and MIT do so. Based on a previous post as many as 66 institutions may do so.) Students with financial need pay nothing.</p>
<p>In contrast, all top-tier institutions eschew merit-based support. Students
with FAFSA EFCs even a cent over $60,000 pay full fare, even if their
families cannot contribute or choose not to contribute.</p>
<p>Why should the government be duplicating need-based support for those who
already can get it from their institutions?</p>
<p>Why should the government be eliminating merit-based support for those who
cannot get it from their institutions?</p>
<p>Most important, why should the government be endorsing mediocrity by
providing educational support through a mechanism that does not require, or
even consider, educational merit?</p>