<p>Well this sucks. I’m glad I read CC though, because I have the feeling that I won’t be getting a letter till around November. At least I’ll know now why the money never showed up. I really wish they were continuing it, as it is a useful program, especially compared to some of the other things the gvt spends millions on.</p>
<p>It’s definitely a shame. My daughter has received the Byrd Scholarship the past three years and we were hoping it would continue for her final year in school. When I emailed the head of the Department of Education for my state, he indicated that there was still hope that “continued” students may get their scholarship money. But it was absolutely definite that no new students (current high school seniors) would be receiving funds.</p>
<p>I didnt even know that someone nominated me for that scholarship until I got that email yesterday.
How much money do they usually give a student?</p>
<p>^ $750/semester renewable each year subject to funding. I called my state today to see if my S had any chance getting the money for the next three years. I was told that they do not know if funding will be continued for current award winners but no new awards will be made. I dashed off an e-mail to my two senators just to voice my disapproval that a paltry program like this doling out 42 million dollars a year was axed.</p>
<p>My daughter, now graduated, was a recipient of the Byrd Scholarship. We sweated through the Bush administration when it seemed constantly on the chopping block (bet there wouldn’t have been a problem if it were named the “Patriot Scholarship”), but I am stunned that the Obama administration has done this. Robert Byrd managed to stay alive long enough to vote for Obama’s health care and this is the respect he gets in return. Cold move.</p>
<p>I have written my congressman, my senators, and the White House to protest. I suggest everyone do the same.</p>
<p>Speaking as a taxpayer, I can’t think of any reason for the federal government to bestow $42 million each year on high ranking students who have the qualifications to get merit awards at many, many colleges and who may have adequate finances to pay for their own educations anyway. There are many needs in our country–this isn’t one of them. Just because a program has been around for a long time doesn’t mean it’s justified or worthwhile.</p>
<p>^ i agree–and my son was a recipient. i don’t understand the whining happening here. if your first notice that it was being discontinued was a post on college confidential then i suggest u get out more. it was in the news for weeks, along with other awards that were eliminated (acg and smart grants). </p>
<p>schools will likely replace this award with their own funds for kids who received it and had it cut midstream. not like it was a whole hell of a lot of money. nice to have, but…</p>
<p>also agree with comment #15. not a surprise AT ALL.</p>
<p>This merit award was portable and could be used at top-tier colleges that neither offer merit awards nor would replace one. For a student getting need based FA reduced by this scholarship, it will hopefully be replaced. Without doubt those kids who were mid-stream had every reasonable expectation they would be awarded a scholarship they earned which had been reliably funded their entire lives.</p>
<p>With all due respect Yaledad, your kid attends one of the richest colleges in the world. Does it really need the extra $750 from hard working taxpayers bussing tables? It is one thing for a federal program to support poor kids who attend their instate public Uni, but the justification for giving extra aid to those that attend wealthy schools like HYP is beyond comprehension.</p>
<p>I doubt Yale or Princeton would really leave a kid in the lurch over something like this anyway. Other schools might, but if you’re at one of the best schools for financial aid I think they’ll find some way to spot you the $750, especially if the only reason you have the gap is because of the federal budget rather than because your EFC went up.</p>
<p>The problem with the discontinuing of the scholarship is that it sends a bad message. We’re constantly hearing how education is a top priority in this country and then for a measly 42 million dollars savings this program gets cut? There are hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars that could be cut but would raise more of a ruckus so it won’t happen. If I were middle class I would be VERY angry over this because of the statement it is making - not only with regards to our governments’ view of education but also its’ view of the middle class.</p>
<p>I think S was going to miss our unweighted GPA requirement by a few hundredths. Now I don’t feel so bad.</p>
<p>But I still think it makes sense to reward/encourage the efforts of top students (regardless of income) in this small way, and I’d like to see the scholarship continue. What good does it do to pour $$ into failing students at failing schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to ask a dumb question, but do you really believe that the middle class taxpayers don’t pay for this program? In essence, such middle class programs are paid by other middle class people. Even the far left has (finally) concluded that the current federal budget cannot be fulfilled without a tax increase on those making less than $250k. Thus, to continue such programs, the middle class will have to pay higher taxes. Now, under what logic does it make sense to raise taxes on middle class families only to return 85% (15% assumed for overhead) of that money in a scholarship to those same middle class families?</p>
<p>Sure, on the surface it comes across as penny-wise, pound foolish. But that is what the bully pulpit is for – communication & explanation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Completely unrelated and different policy question. But turned around are you suggesting that we only “pour $$ into” HYPMS et al? (And before you answer the rhetorical question, please note that HYP combined has more money that the federal government.)</p>
<p>Middle class tax payers pay for a lot of programs with their taxes and I think those making over one million dollars (like me) should be the ones to pay more taxes, not the middle class or those under $250,000. Again, it is sending a poor message.</p>
<p>With regard to your response to atomom - there are a lot of colleges between HYPMS and some of the for profit/promise the world schools.</p>
<p>But that IS the issue, amtc. There are not enough (and never were enough) families in your income bracket to underwrite all of the federal largesse. It’s simple math. As Margaret Thatcher was fond of saying, eventually your run out of people to tax. Looked at another way, we could tax you and all others with million dollar income at a rate of 100% and it would still not be enough to run the government. Or, as Willie Sutton used to say about why he robbed banks, ‘that’s where the money is…’, is similar to why taxes need to be raised on the middle class, bcos that’s where the people (and money) is…</p>
<p>I agree that the message is difficult on its surface, but what about the message of taxing some the masses so millionaires’ – not you, but others - kids can earn a Byrd Scholarship? Or the secondary message, taxing folks so millionaires’ kids can attend HYP or any other private college more readily? </p>
<p>Is that good public policy, when K-12 is sorely lacking, when the State public Unis are really hurting financially? How does that ‘argument’ get made in the press? </p>
<p>Which gets back to my original point: there is no story here.</p>
<p>Bluebayou: I believe what was happening in the Thatcher era was that wealthy people had been claiming residency in other countries to avoid the exceptionally high income tax rates. </p>
<p>You can see that today in the US - many residents of states with high income taxes claim their primary residence is in Florida, which doesn’t have a state income tax.</p>
<p>Don’t rely on information on this tread if you are currently a Byrd Scholar, check with your state. I saw W.Va will pay one more yr for the scholarship, it was on the “other scholarships” in FA thread. I called our state a few weeks ago and they felt they could do one more year and will confirm later in the summer.
Perhaps the upsetting issue for those losing the $!,500/a yr is that it relieves some of the financial burden on their families. Yet when they fill up their tank or buy food they are reminded of whats left in their checkbook and the large subsidies being paid to those corporations. Wonder how peanut farmers get over $250mil+ in subsidies. Must be a 5 x better story then a merit scholarship. lol</p>
<p>I think West Virginia is the only state that is making an effort to make up for the lost funds. This program was 100% federally funded.</p>
<p>There is some rationale. The Republicans in Congress were demanding large cuts in higher education funding, including passing a major decrease in Pell grants in the US House. To achieve a budget deal and avoid a government shutdown, the Obama administration said we need to cut something, so they cut merit programs that were not need based. States were not allowed to consider need with the Byrd program. </p>
<p>The rationale is that top students have an easier time getting into colleges with good institutional financial aid, and often are eligibile for merit aid or private scholarships. Meanwhile, if a poor kid gets his Pell cut, he is often not able to attend any college.</p>
<p>I just wish they reformed the system of which for-profit colleges are eligible for federal funding. If they went after the portion of for-profits that are manipulating the system, there would be more money to spread around to students in legitimate colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed! And I’d take it one step further: eliminate all funding for private colleges and use the $$ instead to beef up Pells. Do we really need to be taxing the masses so a kid can attend Harvard (which has more money than every state government)? Is that good public policy?</p>