<p>Not against grants for need. However, the middle class is be raped (see Taxguys posts) and there is something wrong with schools not recognizing merit. It sets up the entitlement mentality and does not encourage our brightest resources for the future. We will need our brightest to be scientists, doctors, engineers, etc.; or, would people prefer these get jobs outsourced also?. Engineering has, and will be outsourced as other countries invest in themselve.</p>
<p>How's this for a radical idea: Take all the money being spent in Iraq and send everyone to college for free.</p>
<p>Then the oil execs and war profiteers will lose their possessions except for the lamp and a few bulbs but their kids will have a good education. Yeah, maybe at one of the liberal arts finishing schools where they'll study development economics and post-colonial theory and lose their sense of entitlement. Just an idea.</p>
<p>As for the value of a liberal arts education, those of us daily in the trenches want to report that if we end that we WILL have a generation who doesn't know where Wales is, think the Victorians came before the Renaissance and don't even know the story of what happened in the Garden of Eden.</p>
<p>Oh by the way when we began THE TEMPEST not ONE student knew that word meant storm and not one looked it up!!!!!</p>
<p>So, sure, take away their grants, send them all to vocational school. Have them know nothing, understand nothing and be unable to make any connections. Works for me!</p>
<p>Oh, and it costs more to keep a minority kid who did too much blow in jail than to send him to Harvard. Maybe we can raise taxes and just put all the low income kids in jail? Fire those namby-pamby liberal college professors and hire more prison guards.</p>
<p>Works for me.</p>
<p>College and education is part of an economy. Most people associate education with wealth and prosperity. By all means, the more knowledge and education one has, the more chances go up of a financially prosperous future. There are however problems with trying to send everyone to secondary education.</p>
<ol>
<li>Many kids have no desire whatsoever to go on to college. We are on a college forum, and therefor the vast majority here are interested in attending college. Approximately only 65% of high school seniors go on to college. The vast majority of them aren't stopped because of finances. Just that they don't want to.</li>
<li>The national average of college graduates is only about 26%. Many people decide to get a college education throughout their lifetime. The majority will get their degree much later in their lives.</li>
<li>You CAN'T raise the standard of living to all people. In any economy, outside of a purely Marxist or socialist environment; there are tiers to the economic ladder. E.g. Poor, lower class, middle class, upper class, rich, etc... To try and put all people into a better financial economic class, artificially inflates the economy. A prime example is the "Minimum Wage". When the minimum wage goes up, because people whine how people can't make a living on the minimum wage, the higher non-minimum wage earners, union workers, etc... all demand that they too get a pay raise. Their argument is that if an unskilled worker in a community can get a pay raise, then a skilled worker should get a pay raise. The do in fact also get a pay raise. These pay raises continue through the entire economy. The cost of doing business goes up and the serivce/product provider eventually raises the price of their goods and services to compensate for the additional expenses they put out for higher wages. The minimum wage person winds up right back where they were. Nothing has changed You create an artificial economic inflation. That leads to more services and products being produced in lower economies which creates more jobs sent overseas. Those economies gradually increase and ours go back into recession. This is the basics behind economics.</li>
</ol>
<p>I'm not trying to say that some people deserve a college education and some don't. I'm saying that it should not be given to people. By leaving a college education as something that a person needs to work towards, have a desire for, promote initiative, etc... then the college education becomes an integral part of society and the economy. If you provide a secondary education to every citizen, just as we do for a primary education, then the college education looses it financial benefits. I.e. It use to be where a high school graduate could get you a high paying job. This was because not everyone had a high school diploma. Now, with a high school diploma being somewhat the norm, in order to get a high paying job, you need a college education. If you give a college education to every student, then you will basically have a lot of McDonald's and mini-mart workers with a Bachelor's degree. Again, basic economics. Unless of course you believe in a Marxist/Socialist system where redistribution of wealth is the norm. I.e. France, netherlands, Norway, etc... have a federal income tax for individuals as high as 51%, with an average of 38-42%. They also have a 19% sales tax on everything. By contrast, the USA has a high in income tax of 35% with less depending on how much you make. All the way down to 0%. Average of around 15%. Also, the highest sales tax is around 10%.</p>
<p>Our style of government and capitalist economy, with all it's faults, has proven to be still the best in the world. Even our poorest people live a much higher standard of living than many around the world. Our system allows anyone to achieve and acquire anything. In many societies, there is no incentive to have ambition or initiative.</p>
<p>P.S. Mythmom; all those great attributes you claim a Liberal Arts education give people and contribute to our society and culture; I learned those in HIGH SCHOOL!!! I learned geography, art, literature, civics, etc... in high school. I didn't need a college education to read Shakespeare or learn where Wales is.</p>
<p>I believe that's "whales are". ;) That was an interesting lesson in economics.</p>
<p>Hey, mythmom, maybe those namby-pamby college professors would be HIRED as those prison guards ;) </p>
<p>I have to admit I am stunned at the ferocity of this discussion. I certainly don't think the financial aid system is close to being perfect, but I never realized how angry people were about it. I can't help but wonder as a FA recipient if this anger is conveyed to your sons and daughters, who in turn must resent those students who ARE receiving help. </p>
<p>DH and I have advanced degrees, but work in rather low paying jobs. No complaints, we are leftover hippies and still into peace and love and helping mankind. We have never resented our friends who make a lot more money (although I occasionally looked longingly at their new homes or cars). I always knew if we had wanted the big bucks, we could have gone into a different field of work. </p>
<p>When DD2 was accepted at college we were the fortunate recipients of a generous financial aid package. We certainly didn't talk about it to anyone, but I can't help but wonder now how many families look at us with disdain. We are so grateful that the philosophy of her school is to attract the best students from all walks of life. Without the aid, she would have been going elsewhere (as was the case with DD1 who was accepted at a school with less generous $$ support). I also wonder what kind of discussion has been going on in the homes of her roommates whose parents are paying full-freight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those schools that do succeed in attracting students who will enhance their programs will continue to offer merit scholarships.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Enhance their programs or enhance their USNWR rankings? I have not seen any evidence that attracting a few high-scoring students will actually enhance any particular program at a school. I have not actually seen any school claiming that it does. The professors still have to teach to the class not to the few high achievers.</p>
<p>I can see the argument that states may want to stem the flow of high achievers to neighboring states. Isn't that more an indictment of that state's educational system that needs to be fixed with more funds to improve the programs for all? Incenting a few kids who would not attend otherwise with scholarships will not change the overall system. Most often the yield on such scholarship awards is less than 1 in 10. Most don't buy into the proposition. </p>
<p>In Connecticut, where I live, the state has poured billions into UConn to make it a more attractive destination for high achievers. They have built new classrooms, labs and dorms, hired new professors, improved the curriculum. It may not be Yale but UConn is attracting a wide swath of students from all socio-economic groups including a substantial number of high achievers from the entire region. Compare that to the UMass system which is chronically underfunded and where no amount of merit scholarship money is going to fix systemic problems. UConn still has a few merit scholarships, largely targeted at minorities and low income groups, essentially another form of need-based aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stunned is a good word. Maybe milder than I'd use.
Great observation and question.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mythmom; all those great attributes you claim a Liberal Arts education give people and contribute to our society and culture; I learned those in HIGH SCHOOL!!! I learned geography, art, literature, civics, etc... in high school. I didn't need a college education to read shakespear or learn where Whales is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are most fortunate. In many schools, especially the ones that many pell grant eligible students attend, they would be fortunate to have such a diverse curriculum.</p>
<p>I agree, college isn't for everyone, or even most people, but for those that have a demonstrated desire, ability,and aptitude, I see no problem in the government subsidizing their education in private schools. Just because it is federally supported, those individuals have to do the work, pass the exams, etc. Full freight payors aren't giving their children an education, they are presenting a fully paid for opportunity. The solution is neither all merit based, nor all government sponsored, it's a combination of both. The imperfect system we have, albeit a very good one, tries to address this.</p>
<p>The history of higher education is full of examples of colleges, providing higher education for those less fortunate. Land grant colleges/universities, Oberlin, and Amherst, just to name a few. Thank God that you have been fortunate enough to pay whatever sum you deem appropriate to support your childrens' education. I'm sure their experience will be greatly enriched by being in an academic setting with those not as fortunate as your own. Those that feel feel "ripped off", torment themselves when you picture others not as being wise as them for having the same opportunities. Or simply not as deserving because they weren't as fortunate to be able to afford a private school education.</p>
<p>Guard yourself against such comparisons and train of thought. It is the foundation of many types of "isms", many not too popular, i.e., elitism, classism,, racism, sexism, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In Connecticut, where I live, the state has poured billions into UConn to make it a more attractive destination for high achievers. They have built new classrooms, labs and dorms, hired new professors, improved the curriculum. It may not be Yale but UConn is attracting a wide swath of students from all socio-economic groups including a substantial number of high achievers from the entire region.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some have tied that in with the immensely popular and successful athletic teams. Heck even the football team is making waves. UConn is becoming more prominent nationally because of the athletic programs and naturally, with other factors, those in that region now don't have a problem associating with that university now.</p>
<p>Huh. S got NO education in geography, save what I gave him. It wasn't taught at any of the schools he attended.</p>
<p>I don't know that he's going to get through all of Shakespeare's plays while in high school. If so, it certainly won't be because they will all be covered in school.</p>
<p>It's been a long time since I was in high school, or college, for that matter, but I do recall my college classes, whether liberal arts courses, science courses, math, etc., being much more in-depth, covering much more material, requiring much more critical thinking, than my high school courses, but hey, lots of people go through life with no more than a high school understanding of many topics, right?</p>
<p>For curm and others, remember that a lot of noise is being made in our government regarding the fact that some universities are sitting on multibillio dollar endowments. Why is this the government's business? Due to the tax exempt nature of these 501(c)(3) entities. THese billions of dollars are invested in large part in the stock market. Good for the market, but when they sell, no capital gains tax...Yes more money for the educational purpose, but that is why a lot of people are saying that it should be SPENT on the educational purpose. There is some annoying nonsense in the tax code about using the income of a 501 (c) (3) for the exempt purpose. So if they don't use it thay way, guess who is scammed? All of the rest of the taxpayers, who don't get the benefit of these taxes to offset the government's expenses. That being said, l think that the big endowment places are making an effort to dole out some of this money by going grant only for the need as they fix it. At least the exempt purpose is being met. I think we will see more of this at the big endowment schools, but maybe not soon enough. The wheels of justice grind slowly...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some have tied that in with the immensely popular and successful athletic teams.
[/quote]
The state did not pour billions into the athletic teams. If anything the basketball team is arguably a money maker. The average GPA and SAT scores of matriculating student has not increased because of the results of the athletic teams, but because higher achieving students have a reasonable expectation of receiving a good quality education at a fair price. That said, the increase in name recognition from the basketball teams has had a spillover effect, particulalry with out of state students who did not have the university on the radar screen before.</p>
<p>anothermom2, I've made the same point many times on CC. The huge endowment schools are reacting to congressional questioning of their tax exempt status. For true. They don't escape my sights. ;) They need to do a great deal more.</p>
<p>Here's one anothermom2:
<p>The cynic in me says that is why we are seeing the "play to the middleclass" (however that is defined by the college) new financial aid programs. No loans and the like. Those are voters , son. Not only that , they are voters that vote. </p>
<p>I'd rather see a more equitable system first. The need based system even at elite schools is of scant help to many (I didn't say all) middle class students. They are still a kidney a year out of our reach.
</p>
<p>It's an issue that is on my mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The state did not pour billions into the athletic teams. If anything the basketball team is arguably a money maker. The average GPA and SAT scores of matriculating student has not increased because of the results of the athletic teams, but because higher achieving students have a reasonable expectation of receiving a good quality education at a fair price.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No college has the type of advertising budget that being on national and regional TV several times a week can bring. Students, boosters and alumni want to identify with a winner and U Conn has been that for years now (Women's BB and soccer, men's BB and football). The ripple effect was a commitment from all sources of funding to propel U Conn into a top notch academic institution. The exposure garnered from the athletic programs made the state sponsored funding more palatable. The same thing happened at Cincinnati following the success of the Huggins era Bearcats. A billion dollars was committed to the infrastructure and school to make it a more viable institution. UC is currently ranked as a second tier school, IIRC. Same thing for Ohio State. As the championship appearances keep racking up so does the number of applicants, avg ACT scores(27 now) , number of NMF and boosters who choose OSU. </p>
<p>My appologies for the hijack.</p>
<p>With that being said, even with grants, Ohio public schools are among the most expensive. OSU, UC and Miami all have price tags over $22,000. OSU and UC have endowments over a billion dollars but UC has about 35,000 students and OSU over 50,000. Per pupil expenditures aren't as impressive as with other schools with either smaller enrollments or larger endowments. It's probably a factor in my S FA package being the least affordable compared to his other options. And the OSU offer was more than 60% off including merit and grant money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They can remove the college's tax exempt status if they don't spend down some of their endowment to make college more affordable. Endowments have risen by incredible numbers while tuition is continuing to go up. Just like other "non-profits" the government will remove their tax advantaged standing and treat then like any other business.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think that it is ever going to happen and the current financial aid policies at HYPSM and other well endowed schools were largely in place well before any cries for increased spending. Over a decade ago, these schools found their financial aid policies vindicated among accusations of collusion. </p>
<p>It would hard to claim that the very elite schools are not doing enough to help low and middle income families afford an education. At MIT, it costs the university more than $100,000 per year to educate an undergraduate. 65% of students are now on financial aid with student families often paying much less than the EFC through various adjustments in how the college treats assets and income. They even provide full financial aid to international students. They are certainly making their $10 billion endowment work to make an education more affordable. </p>
<p>The bottleneck is currently at the level just below the colleges with mega-endowments. Schools like Brown and Cornell with smaller endowments are struggling to offer comparable packages to HYPSM, but will have to in order to remain competitive. Top LACs are following as well. </p>
<p>The irony is that the schools with the greatest dependence on merit aid to attract high achieving students are the ones bringing up the rear. Schools like Emory, Duke, WUSTL or USC are not particularly generous with need-based aid. Unless you are some type of academic star they are convinced would otherwise enroll at Harvard or MIT, you are essentially out of luck.</p>
<p>OK...if we're going to talk politics...I would vote for putting the money we are spending on the war in Iraq towards funding college educations. The reality is that the amount the U.S. is spending on this war could help finance the college educations of all students currently attending college.</p>
<p>It would hard to claim that the very elite schools are not doing enough to help low and middle income families afford an education. </p>
<p>Ain't hard at all. Just ask the hordes of middle class families on cc who don't have those schools on their radar at all because of FA policies. Are all of them just selfish buggers who don't care enough to fund their children's education?</p>
<p>cd, as to the "selfless" giving of the elite schools having absolutely nothing to do with potential problems with congress over tax empt status, baloney. They hear the hoofbeats.</p>
<p>Regarding the UConn posts, as a resident of CT with a high-achieving D who applied to UConn and on the low-income side, she received no merit scholarships and very little need-based aid. Five other comparable institutions to which she was accepted all provided generous merit money. She ended up at another state school which has cost us just about the same as UConn. This is the problem with alot of state universities: they want out-of-state applicants and often gloss over high achievers in their own state. In UConn's case, most of their scholarships go to athletes and minorities. This was a real slap in the face in my opinion as they took the attitude that they could have cared less whether my D attended. Other schools showed alot more interest.</p>