<p>Carolyn posted this on her site. </p>
<p>This proposal sounds awful to me. I think that it will mean more institutional forms, more profile schools, less seats at private 4 schools (except at institutions with higher endowments) for lower income students (even less chance to afford a 4 year public schools than today), and less financial help for the poor and the middle class. What a mess! Thoughts?</p>
<p>It is awful for any middle class student thinking about private schools where they may need federal aid in order to attend. Especially these points:
"the administration’s plan would eliminate grant and loan programs such as Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and Perkins Loans that many campus officials favor. And by calling, as Tucker’s proposal does, for an end to the practice of basing the value of a student’s federal aid package in part on the cost of attendance at his or her college, it is likely to face opposition from higher-tuition colleges, particularly private ones."
"Under the department’s proposal, the government would calculate a “federal student aid target” (which would be the maximum amount of federal grant and subsidized loan funds that the neediest student could receive), and its recommendation is that that amount be the average cost of attendance (tuition and fees, meals and housing, books and supplies) at two-year public colleges. (That target amount would increase by the rate of growth of the Consumer Price Index each year, even if actual tuitions increased more or less.)
Then, the government would calculate a “federal student aid commitment” — the amount an individual student qualified for — based solely on the adjusted gross income and tax exemptions of the student or his or her family."
"That amount — roughly $10,000, in current dollars — would cover about 60 percent of the cost of attendance at a typical public four-year college and a third of the total cost of an average four-year private institution."
As we all know, their estimates of costs of attendance are usually on the low side. :(</p>
<p>This I am not getting:</p>
<p>
[quote]
and determine the amount of aid a student would receive not based on how his or her financial situation aligns with the cost of attendance at his or her college of choice, but on the relationship between the average cost of attendance at a two-year public college and the adjusted gross income and tax exemptions of the student or his or her family.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay so it looks to me that - if you are destitute you <em>might</em> get enough to attend the local community college - which most kids can pay for with a job anyway.
If you are not destitute you won't get anything. Ugh.</p>
<p>Well, 10,000 is about twice what the max Pell is now, so, that doesn't sound so bad. Maybe I'm missing something (haven't read the whole thing yet) but it sounds like a potentially major increase for the neediest students.</p>
<p>Note--they are counting room and board, books and supplies, in that two year college estimation.</p>
<p>JustAmomof4, this is what it sounds like to me. I must say, that where we live, not everyone can attend CC without either R&B or a car. Not all areas have public transit that is practical. Tuition and fees cost about 5k per year. It is the R&B, or car and associated auto expenses that really run up the true cost.</p>
<p>Also, some of the comments afterward on the Higher Ed site reflect a total misunderstanding of how aid works. Someone posted--how would a lower income young man from Hawaii pay for Columbia under this plan? Well, I will promise you this--Obama didn't afford Columbia because of federal money. The vast majority of his aid would've been institutional, as it is now.</p>
<p>Federal aid has never been very high--a 10,000 ceiling would be a huge increase.</p>
<p>Am I missing something here?</p>
<p>Well, I know many families with a range of income between $80-110k. Some currently have kids at private schools and some have kids at out of state public schools. All are 4 year schools. Some of these families currently receive some help. Some privates offered merit aid and FA grants (understood that these are institutional funds) and full or partial subsidized Staffords (federal help) ,and W/S (federal assistance). Some OOS public Us offered subsidized or partially subsidized Staffords (federal assistance). It sounds to me like the subsidized Saffords will no longer be available for students with families in this income range (and perhaps the same will apply to students with family incomes below 80k), and w/s might be effected too (based on 2 year residential college costs, not cost of attendance anywhere).</p>
<p>Ah, I do see that the 10K counts loans too. I did miss that. Right now, max sub stafford plus Pell is probably around taht much.</p>
<p>If I am not mistaken, the $10,000 FA includes loans, not just grants. (cross posted with post 9). And yes, I agree with northeastmom about the nonavailability for stafford loans and ws. It is what made our D's school affordable for us. Glad she is a junior so we probably won't be affected. Now to help current hs students figure out a plan.</p>
<p>thanks for the article link. i would have concerns about this proposal.</p>
<p>Not only are they talking about basing it on the average cost of a 2 year school but that they will increase it only by
[quote]
by the rate of growth of the Consumer Price Index each year, even if actual tuitions increased more or less
[/quote]
. The average tuition and fees increase at our State Us (in my State) the last 2 years has been between 9-10% so the 'target amount' would soon be outpaced by even 2 year schools.</p>
<p>It does say that the target amount would be covered by Pell and subsidized loans and that unsubsidized loans would be available (with limits) for higher cost colleges
[quote]
the government would calculate a federal student aid target (which would be the maximum amount of federal grant and subsidized loan funds that the neediest student could receive),
[/quote]
. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For those other institutions, she said, *unsubsidized loans and federal loans for parents would be available though capped by annual limits * to cover much of the rest of the cost.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that were the case the quoted $10,000 it would actually be higher than the current maximum for a freshman as far as Pell and subsidized Stafford are concerned ($4731 Pell and $3500 Stafford making $8231) but would be less than what is currently available to the neediest students with Perkins (though I have heard on CC that that was already less available this year) and SEOG. </p>
<p>They have tried to get rid of SEOG over the last few years and it has neer gone through. Even though my Daughter received it this year I have always wondered why they do not roll it in with Pell and pprtion it more fairly. Our school awards it to those with a 0 EFC and I think it is unfair that somone with an EFC of ,say, 200, is entitled to no SEOG but with an EFC of 0 gets $2,000 (the max at her school).</p>
<p>I see no mention of Work Study, ACG, SMART. I hope they are not planning to do away with those.</p>
<p>I don't see this proposal going any where. This is a lame-duck Congress and a lame-duck administration. Obama will probably have his own proposal -- I can't imagine him going with a plan proposed by an outgoing Bush appointee.</p>
<p>fireandrain, I hope that you are right about this!!</p>