<p>“very interested in hearing more about your D’s PA program.”</p>
<p>OHMom - If your D can get into a 3/2 program, do it … provided she’s sure she wants to be a PA of course. My D in in PA school. The acceptance rate for her class was 3%.</p>
<p>PS, CC could really use a comprehensive thread on PA programs.</p>
<p>OHMom:
She goes to Marywood University in Scranton, PA. They have great merit scholarships (automatic with admission for various GPA/SAT score levels). There are a whole bunch of PA programs in PA, most at private universities. Some are on the western side of the state, closer to OH. One of the other moms on this board had a kid at Gannon, up near Lake Erie.</p>
<p>The 3+2 program is the safest route to go, as it is incredibly difficult to get into the Masters program otherwise. Marywood had about 2 dozen openings for the grad program last year because they were increasing the department size. They had over 800 applicants for those slots. </p>
<p>(To stay closer to topic): My kid would have preferred med school, but this way she is out working sooner and has much less debt.</p>
<p>kkmom “Said daughter received an Obamacare grant toward her Masters in Physician Assistant. It is meant to address the shortage of primary care medical providers. In order to receive this help, she will be required to serve in a primary care field in an underserved area, and will earn about 1/3 less every year than she would have if she’d stayed in her favorite specialty of emergency medicine, or chosen some other specialty. So she IS making a sacrifice, but probably not in the eyes of many.”</p>
<p>Your daughter’s situation is different from someone who is getting a discount just because they can’t afford the school. She’s earning the grant by committing to service for a period of time. The grant serves a public purpose.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone’s directly arguing that a FA applicant should make room for a full pay. They are just saying that everyone should pay the same. I understand that the effect of this viewpoint is to exclude the FA applicants and the slots would instead be filled with full pay. The establishment of high schools, community colleges, 4 year universities and various other higher learning institutions serves a public good. The taxpayers fund all of these institutions in whole or in part. The issue as I see it is whether everyone is entitled to attend regardless of the ability to pay. High Schools - Yes. Community College - open for debate but tax dollars are best spent here IMO. University level - differences in opinion as noted in this thread.</p>
<p>That’s a nice gig for kkmom’s daughter. It’s worth noting that federal funding of medical specialist residencies is being cut.</p>
<p>Well, sewhappy, that should make most people on this thread happy. Federal money at the graduate level is more debatable than helping undergrads.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It means capital / machinery / etc. that can be used instead of labor in some cases. Payroll taxes increase the cost of labor, making it less competitive against non-labor inputs to production, to the extent that they can be substituted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Payroll taxes apply only to labor income up to a certain limit, so they are regressive that way. Also, wealthier people often have a higher percentage of income from non-labor sources (some of which are also favored in the income tax).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In this case, government money for research or fellowships is likely motivated by the desire to get useful research out of the PhD students. Of course, not all of it is useful, but it is sort of like investing in startups, although the desired (somewhat speculative) output is not necessarily measured directly in monetary terms.</p>
<p>1k is definitly enough</p>
<p>Absolutely not.</p>
<p>The funding to help lower income students should come from other sources.</p>
<p>Many kids try to go to college and have to pay their own way. But then, they can only get help paying if their PARENTS have lower income. They should not have to try to work to come up with more money to pay for the tuition of lower income people who may or may not have help from their parents. It is just not right.</p>
<p>On that note, I went to Iowa State. They ear marked a bunch of money back then for out of state students who were black. And every black student I met on full ride came from a well off family. So, I was legally an orphan who had to take out 100% student loans to go, while others, from out of state (which makes it worse because it was a public state university), got full rides just because of their race. And those kids had cars and nice clothes and vacations and money to fly home when they wanted and everything else. I was homeless, but deemed less desirable because of my race. I spent one Thanksgiving sleeping on benches around campus because I had no place to go.</p>
<p>Cue the violins. Even within the school people in some majors are subsidizing other majors. English is much cheaper to offer than engineering yet they often pay same tuition.</p>
<p>Actually, kkmom, what is going on is that the federal government expressly wishes to reduce the number and availability of MD specialists in order to cut costs. Fewer specialists mean reduced access to specialists which will lead to lower costs. Or at least that’s the hypothesis. Medical residencies have long been funded through federal dollars. They are being significantly cut. My guess is your daughter’s funding comes from the federal government and in pursuing a PA or NP pathway she is very much in synch with the model being implemented.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>At my son’s school, Engineering, Science, Math, Music, Art and Graphic Design, Management, Health and Environment majors pay “College Fees” to defray the higher costs of their majors. Interestingly, the highest fees are for Music majors.</p>
<p>The science and engineering departments at son’s school also bring in large amounts of research-related revenue. It’s pretty clear that the ability to bring in research money is more important that teaching skills there.</p>
<p>I’ve seen statistics showing that engineering majors earn more on average than humanities majors, which means they are more likely to be able to repay their loans. The interest rates on federally guaranteed students loans do not reflect this, so humanities majors that get federal loans are receiving larger subsidies. In a private student loan market (which I would prefer), engineers would likely pay lower interest rates on students loans than English majors. Discussions of which majors are being subsidized should consider differences in loan repayment rates by major.</p>
<p>Good students are more likely to graduate and repay loans than weak students. Guaranteed loans therefore subsidize weak students more than good students. Again, a private loan market would discriminate by measures of student ability, such as GPA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Math seems to be the odd one in this list, as math courses mostly do not seem to require expensive labs or consumables other than chalk or whiteboard marker (unlike engineering, science, art, architecture, etc.).</p>
<p>Some schools use differential tuition for some majors–most do not.Florida is thinking about charging Engineering majors less because they are more needed in FL than English majors.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Math majors have requirements for one computing course and four lab science courses. Some of the math courses also use specialized software that’s available in the computing labs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Guess colleges differ on this. [Pure</a> math majors at Berkeley](<a href=“http://math.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate/major/pure]Pure”>http://math.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate/major/pure) have only math courses among their major requirements (they also have general College of Letters and Science requirements, although lab or otherwise “expensive” courses are not required). Among the listed required, semi-elective, or in-major elective courses, only numerical analysis seems to require more than a classroom and chalk/markers (note that statistics is a separate department and major).</p>
<p>Of course, [applied</a> math majors](<a href=“http://math.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate/major/applied]applied”>http://math.berkeley.edu/programs/undergraduate/major/applied) may need to take more “expensive” courses, depending on their areas of application.</p>
<p>Perhaps colleges can just add a lab fee for students who take “expensive” courses, since charging by major does not fully account for students who change majors, or take more or fewer of the “expensive” courses as either major electives, or as non-majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very true - but you have to acknowledge that the taxes paid for higher education are paid by upper-income folks over their entire work lives, not just the four years their kids attend school. </p>
<p>But I always find it kind of amusing when some upper-income parent gets irate because DD/DS didn’t get into the flagship state college of their choice - “I paid taxes, and they’re selling those seats to OOS students.” Yeah, what did you pay in taxes for that school? $10 a year? You think that entitles you to a guaranteed seat for your kids?</p>
<p>But this also hints at another political problem - IMO, my state should tax middle and upper-income taxpayers with children and large corporations, sufficient to subsidize state higher educational expenses to the extent that it’s affordable for almost everyone in-state (say $2k/year in tuition.) Won’t happen, because those same taxpayers will demand room be made for their children in the university of their choice - as I said, this already happens even at the relatively modest support levels state unis receive, and there stands a ready supply of politicians to demagogue the issue. </p>
<p>As for the original point, well, no, it’s not “fair” - but given the cost of attendance in higher education, you really need to find some way to provide access to lower-income students.</p>
<p>A more “fair” way might be to weight things more to “low/no-interest loans” than “grants” - if higher education is the path to earning more income, why shouldn’t they be expected to pay for their educations, after they graduate? That’s what thousands (millions?) of middle-income students are faced with. And they’re not interest-free …</p>
<p>Anyway, the fundamental problem is using terms like “fair” - in a system that treats people preferentially, because of their income, race, or achievements, there must always been someone on the negative side of the equation. The fewer categories of those who’ll receive preferential treatment, the better - why should a school give an upper-income lacrosse player or an upper-income racial/ethnic minority scholarships (assuming those are the reasons for the scholarship/grants) while denying low-income “white” students? </p>
<p>IMO, “income/resources” should be the only basis for financial aid (with certain possible exceptions, like returning veterans and the like.)</p>
<p>No, redistribution needs to happen explicitly via taxes (something I am more than happy to support).</p>
<p>Redistributing on tuition seems to be a somewhat backhanded way of achieving the same goal and has the perverse effect of discouraging students to go. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the general public to have more students graduate college, not just those who pay a tuition. Therefore redistribution must come from the general public, and not just those who pay tuition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do I correctly infer from your happy support that you either do not pay a lot of taxes, or that you are independently wealthy?</p>