<p>Some on this board believe that colleges and universities are wrong-headed in giving grants to poor people so that they can attend that particular college. They wish all need based funds to be loans regardless of parental income or situation. How do you feel about that and what would their proposed change mean to those schools?</p>
<p>I can understand "Helping" break the cycle of poverty. I don't however believe in full grants and scholarships based on need. </p>
<p>My suggestion would be; If the average student accepted to Harvard is only going to pay $15,000 a year for school because of aid; then why not just make the cost of attending the school be $15,000. I understand that many of the schools aren't giving out the actual aid, and they in turn are actually still receiving the full $50,000 a year for the "Subsidized" education.</p>
<p>In these situations, I believe the aid should be proportionately equal. I.e. Aid should be such that the students attending the school should all end up paying the same thing. After all, once they graduate, they both have the same education and start off on the same footing. They all have the potential of making roughly the same amount. Parents who worked their butt off an are able to help their kid shouldn't be penalized for being able to. In other words, I shouldn't have to pay $20,000 a year for my child to attend a school while another student gets in with no debt just because they are poor.</p>
<p>Another problem I have is especially at the high priced LAC schools. People go to these schools; pay $30-$50,000 a year, and get a degree in English, History, Art Appreciation, etc... Sorry, but that is NOT WORTH $50,000 a year. Except for maybe 2%; students aren't going to get a job paying enough for those type of degrees. Whether I believe a degree in Art History is a waste of an education or not, the fact remains that it isn't worth the same price as a degree in Engineering, Science, math, etc...</p>
<p>Here's the view of one poster :
[quote]
If you take two families of similar middle or upper middle backgrounds, and one family spends all the money that is earned, and the other saves money, the family that spends all the money will get more aid than the family that saves.</p>
<p>The family that saves will be expected to use some of that savings to pay for school. The family that didn't save, but could have, gets to keep what they bought, plus now gets aid.</p>
<p>Is that fair?</p>
<p>Maybe if the spendthrifts were forced to sell their belongings
before they received any aid, this concept would become clearer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And who would judge THAT? LOL</p>
<p>Sell your belongings, but we'll let you keep one change of clothes and that lamp.</p>
<p>and here's another idea of note from the anti-grant bunch:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've always thought FA was "bass-ackward" as they say, by having the goal be all grants and no loans. </p>
<p>It seems more fair to me (ridiculous to expect fairness, I know) that all FA should be loans and not grants. That way, those who did not earn/save their college tuition will pay the same as those who did, just in reverse order.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would not worry nearly so much about the schools as about society and the students who go out into it after the implimentation of such a plan.</p>
<p>I wonder where our next generation of teachers, social workers, special ed assistants, non-profit organization leaders, musicians, artists, etc. would come from were all needs-based FA loans only.</p>
<p>One of the reasons I'd like my S to graduate with no/low loans is so he has the option to take whatever job he'd best like, rather than what will pay enough to service a large debt.</p>
<p>I do not want to live in a society that consists just of investment bankers, engineers, MBAs and attorneys and Wal-Mart/McDonalds/Target employees. As much as I like and value these professions and jobs, I also value others that require a college education to bring to fruition but do not pay well.</p>
<p>Not that all those who need loans eschew high-paying professions for others, but debt takes a toll on students and their options, and I'd much prefer a society that allows people to work to their greatest talents, inclinations, and interests, rather than just the jobs that will pay bills, regardless of the circumstances into which they were born and parental options over which they have no control.</p>
<p>owlice, well said.</p>
<p>have y'all read this thread? I wonder what the proposed changes (no grant) would mean to a student similar to this one . </p>
<p>
[quote]
Another problem I have is especially at the high priced LAC schools. People go to these schools; pay $30-$50,000 a year, and get a degree in English, History, Art Appreciation, etc... Sorry, but that is NOT WORTH $50,000 a year. Except for maybe 2%; students aren't going to get a job paying enough for those type of degrees. Whether I believe a degree in Art History is a waste of an education or not, the fact remains that it isn't worth the same price as a degree in Engineering, Science, math, etc...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a rather interesting evaluation of the value of an undergraduate degree. Perhaps, we should rename the schools and call them Liberal Arts Finishing schools.</p>
<p>Crumpet with your tea, xiggi? <pinkies out=""></pinkies></p>
<p>
[quote]
we'll let you keep one change of clothes and that lamp.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can I get a new shade for the lamp under this new plan?</p>
<p>Sorry, no. You should have worked harder. Oh, jeez. Sorry about the missing limbs. But que sera , sera. Now move along. I think I see a full-payer. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ouch! I didn't know the public perception of engineers had sunk so low that we are now lumped with the likes of investment bankers and lawyers! ;)</p>
<p>"The first thing we do, is kill all the investment bankers, engineers, MBAs, and lawyers." - paraphrased from William Shakespeare, Henry VI</p>
<p>Cur, </p>
<p>Dang! I was hoping for a pink one, to make up for my sallow complexion.</p>
<p>Dado,</p>
<p>No, no! Engineers are fine! But balance, balance in all!</p>
<p>(I could have said "economists." Would that have been better? :D )</p>
<p>Don't feel bad, Dad'. I think that comes directly from here:
</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, I'm just going to say this and get the @@@@ out.</p>
<p>I am not against the aid and grants to poor people.</p>
<p>I never said I was.</p>
<p>Never.</p>
<p>Actually, no, cur, it didn't; I hadn't seen any responses to your OP when I typed mine. (I'm a slow typist; what can I say?!)</p>
<p>dsatrk, would you like to explain #3 in this thread? Were you misquoted? If so , please correct it. I'd really like to know that you don't believe what you said and it was just hyperbole. (I'm serious. .)</p>
<p>If there has been a misunderstanding allowed to fester, and what you meant to say was "I support need based aid and disavow the anti-grant bunch but catch the cheaters and scammers" , then you have no stronger ally. If OTOH....</p>
<p>Where did anything in post 3 say anything about poor people, grants for poor people and aid for poor people?</p>
<p>As far as the highlighted quote you used, you have got to be kidding.</p>
<p>Cur--It's OK. I can socialize with the McDonalds employees.</p>
<p>Owlice--Yeah, I know you have nothing against engineers--some of your friends are engineers, no doubt. But would you want your daughter to marry one?! ;) Economists? Can they get a job with a bachelors degree??</p>
<p>But I seem to be getting caught in the cross-fire, here....</p>
<p>After the posts on the other thread about all loans and the bitterness to need-aid students, why would anyone think that was kidding?</p>