Sucks to be middle class...

Paying for College
381

<p>Sylvan, the specifics would have to be worked out and the flexibility there as funds allow. Right now, the problem is that there are some kids who cannot afford to go to college because there is not an option near by that is affordable. Even more harmful is that the community colleges are often not able to meet the needs of its students. They are not providing the adequate level of course work for transition to 4 year programs and they are not providing enough such classes. Having dealt with community colleges, I can see why people do not want to go there. A restructuring is necessary to make them a good option for those who want to continue their education. There should be courses for those who need to shore up their high school academics, professional/technical courses and courses that will prepare students specifically to 4 year schools. Santa Monica College which is a premier feeder school to the UC is in crisis trying to funnel many deserving student to the 4 year track. They don’t have the funds to do what a major purpose of theirs is. They are proposing charging extra for courses so those who can afford it can get out of there in a timely basis. This is not a problem isolated to them, but to many and maybe even most community colleges.</p>

<p>I would prefer to see more of the money that the states and feds are spending to go to shoring up this system so that more locals will be more inclined to take this route. I can’t blame students who hate the idea of community college knowing the difficulty in getting the courses needed and the quality in those courses that often exists. To me, it is a primary responsibility to get this base covered.</p>

<p>We are well on our way there, in terms of having ccs in this country that pretty much reach a majority fo students. And we have a system already in place so that they are affordable. Most ccs are priced so that those eligible for PELL can pay most of their way through that grant,and any excess costs and for those whose incomes are too high, there are the Stafford loans. So if a local stateo ption is available, most anyone can afford to go to college if commuting. </p>

<p>Once upon a time, a high school diploma was not considered essential. School ended at age 16 for those who did not have resources, because that was when the funding ended. My father did not graduate high school because he was a New Yorker at the time in an orphanage, and the money stopped at age 16, so out the door you went. There were kids who did not go to high school in Appalachia and other parts of the country because only education up to 8th grade was provided. No school bus, no high school in some areas. Now every kid has a right to go to high school, and the costs are subsidized. there are some populations, on some islands I know, where there are so few high school kids that they are boarded for high school and, yes, this is paid by the state. </p>

<p>We are transitioning into a time when a college education appears to be desired by many people. I think it is time that it is made available to all just as high school is. As I said before, we are almost there. Our system is set up so it isn’t going to take a whole lot more to do this. But it will take money. I doubt we’ll get more funds to do this without a champion to lead this charge, but it can be done with funds at hand. I believe that the funds out there should be allocated differently than they are right now. From the bottom up is what I believe, so that a college education is accessible and available to more people rather than using it as a lottery for those who are using the money to go away to college when there are options nearby within commuting distance, or to supplement private college costs. </p>

<p>What most colleges do right now when you get financial aid is just take that PELL and Stafford and act like they are giving it out. It’s not their money. It’s the government’s money. And what this has done is just raise the costs accordingly. I just saw an example on this board where Hopkins simply recalcualted the aid to eat up that Pell grant when student showed eligibility for it. THey were going to pay that amount towards the students need, till they saw that the federal money was there. Sluuurp, and it was gone. The few kids who do get to use these funds to go away to school, and fewer yet who use those funds towards private college costs would have that money go towards a shored up local system. I really don’t see why the government and tax payers should be paying for room and board of a select few kids. If a college wants those kids, they can pay for them with their own fiancial aid and scholarship funds, or the parents have to pay. With good, strong, local systems in place, the need to go away to school would be reduced. The system would be more of a continuation of high school. People don’t expect to go to boarding schools and when they go, they don’t expect the state do pay for it or the government, UNLESS THERE IS NO LOCAL OPTION AVAILABLE. So it should be for the first two years of college. That is my opinion.</p>

382

<p>“It sucks to me middle class”. I have a choice between paying for my children’s college education or buying a new automobile; I have a choice between taking that skiing trip and paying for my children’s education; I have a choice between buying the latest electronic gadgets and large screen HD TVs or paying for my children’s education. Yeah, it sucks to be middle class. So why did I work full-time while attending university full-time? Oh, yes, to stop being poor and become middle class. </p>

<p>The entitlement exhibited by middle class people is stunning. It’s ironic that the very people who begrudge benefits for low income people demand them for themselves.</p>

383

<p>Cptofthehouse,</p>

<p>I am sorry but I disagree with the premise of your message: College as an extension of high school.</p>

<p>Not everyone should be going to college, because not everyone is smart enough, hard-working enough, etc. Sorry, but college is a privilege. A student should either earn it through their grades (merit scholarship) or buy it through paying full tuition. Yes, it will result in those with lower income and sub-par stats being shut out of college, while their richer counterparts being able to obtain education. On the other hand, it is really not that different from Harvard using z-list to appease their alumni to make sure they still have enough support for low income students.</p>

<p>Instead of focusing on letting everyone get a 4 year degree, we should be focusing on making everyone employable and for many it should mean vocational training. </p>

<p>I also believe that just focusing on college or vocational training is not enough. We need to make sure that every child gets adequate education in public schools. The problem is that throwing money at the urban schools is not going to solve the problem. There should be a change in mentality, where parents have to be involved in raising their ownchildren. There is a reason, why Asians are considered ORM - it is not because they are inherently smarter than everyone else. It is because they are extremely hard working and because their parents are involved in their children education - beyond what schools offer.</p>

<p>Anyway, getting back to the topic. No way and no how I would support college to be an extension of high school.</p>

384

<p>Yes, arbitrary income thresholds are just crazy. They don’t take into acct family size or number in college. To give a large grant to someone who earns $79k and ZERO to someone who earns $81k is just stupid. </p>

<p>*Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2collegekids
I’m thinking of some kind of mileage limitation. Such as, if you don’t live within 50 miles of a college (CC or univ), and you’re needy, then aid would be provided.</p>

<hr>

<p>So that would be your criteria? 50 miles? And how rigid would you want to be with it? Assume for a minute that you’ve just been appointed czar of making the new rules for every state in the country (not just California).
*</p>

<p>I just used 50 miles because that’s what I’ve seen some schools use as a criteria for getting a waiver not to live on campus as a frosh. Since a number of colleges use that, they must have done some kind of research into that to determine that further than that is “too much” for a student to commute. I’m not saying that as some kind of “my rule”…lol. </p>

<p>Each state would have to analyze each of their publics to determine a proper distance. A college that is located in some harder to reach spot (rough terrain, whatever), might have a 30 mile rule.</p>

<p>There couldn’t be a one-size fits all rule for every school or state.</p>

385

<p>

I would think there is a difference between using 50 miles as a metric within which students could <em>choose</em> to commute, and setting that as the distance within which they were <em>forced</em> to commute. I asked because obviously some kind of criteria would need to be set, but as you say there couldn’t be a one-size fits all rule. </p>

<p>The town in which I grew up (no longer live there thank god) is in the mountains of Pennsylvania. The nearest campus on which one could at least get a start on college is 30 miles, but over half of it is through National Forest. It is mountains, and treacherous. In the winter it can take over an hour. If you slid off the rode (or worse), help could be a long time coming. Are there students who commute there? Probably. I would never let my kids do so.</p>

<p>There is a community college 50 miles away, also through the Forest, also dangerous. In bad conditions easily two hours. Also across the state line, so OOS tuition. I seriously doubt that many students in the town opt for that. There is no way I would have a kid take that on as a commute.</p>

<p>Several posters have rather blithely stated that “many” or “most” kids have an option within commuting distance. Without stats to back that up, I’m a little skeptical. </p>

<p>Each state seems to have their own sort of higher ed system. While each state does have different needs and population dynamics, one would think that some of the systems must work better than others and that the states would study what others are doing and implement the best aspects as applicable.</p>

386

<p>But if a family can’t pay for room and board or even contribute to their childs education, what is the likelihood that they could pay for a car for the child, and the gas and likely repairs for driving a car 50 miles back and forth everyday? Many families can’t afford a single car, don’t live in an area with public transport and are o ly 40 miles or 30 from a college of some sort, so h
The system would have to bs so complicated that it is unlikely we would be able to implement it. And again, if someone lived 49 instead of 50 miles it would end up just like the 80k cutoff</p>

387

<p>*Several posters have rather blithely stated that “many” or “most” kids have an option within commuting distance. Without stats to back that up, I’m a little skeptical. *</p>

<p>While I don’t have stats, logic tells me that CCs and state schools are set up in more densely populated areas reaching as many students as possible. Even my poor little state has very few populated areas that don’t have a CC or public U within a close distance.</p>

<p>Yes, I agree that a “firmly set XX mile” rule might not work either, but there should be something. Maybe if one school has a 50 mile limite, then provide some kind of smaller aid for those who live in the 30-49 mile range. </p>

<p>The alternative to provide R&B for every low income kid isn’t an option either. It’s just too expensive and it encourages kids to “skip over” their local school and go elsewhere when their majors don’t require such. </p>

<p>As for needing a car, well, gov’t can’t provide everything. If the kid needs to work a couple of years first to get himself a car, and then go to school, then so be it. </p>

<p>The problem is that without any sort of expectations or limitations, kids will prefer “going away” over commuting from home…and that’s not affordable for public-provided aid.</p>

388

<p>Another issue with California schools is that you are only allowed to attend the Cal State in your “zone,” regardless of distance/traffic ect. Journalism program better at Cal State Long Beach? Sorry, you must attend Cal State Fullerton.</p>

<p>My children won’t have the option of attending any public universities in California and that makes me sad. But there is no way H and I are shelling out $55K (that includes OOS tuition) for a public university. It’s simply not worth it.</p>

389

<p>Another issue with California schools is that you are only allowed to attend the Cal State in your “zone,” regardless of distance/traffic ect. Journalism program better at Cal State Long Beach? Sorry, you must attend Cal State Fullerton.</p>

<p>That’s not true. Calif kids get accepted to more than one CSU…not just their nearby one. CSUs are supposed to give some acceptance preference to those who live in the area, but there’s no rule that you’re only “allowed” to attend your nearby CSU.</p>

<p>My children won’t have the option of attending any public universities in California and that makes me sad. But there is no way H and I are shelling out $55K (that includes OOS tuition) for a public university. It’s simply not worth it.</p>

<p>CSUs do not cost $55k for OOS, only the UCs do.</p>

390

<p>Whether you are supporting it or not, it has happened. Anyone can go to community college or to a number of for profit schools that have popped up. And that is what is happening. Community college does not always mean a college degree either. There are vocational courses that lead to a trade or a job as well at some such schools. Many of these courses are, by the way, good deals for those who are in a 4 year degree program as they often teach an employable skill which when paired with a degree makes for a potent combination for employment.</p>

<p>I am looking for more organization and purpose of what is already happening and out there, and making it accessible to the few who do not have this privilege. College is not so much a privilege as it is a challenge, IMO. It’s not something one has to do, but more and more high school graduates are taking this as their next step, often because they can’t think of anything else to do. But the PELL and Staffords are already out there and are nursing and supporting programs that are not fulfiling a good purpose and are not set up to do so. I also would like to see those programs that are set up primarily to milk the government cash cow disappear. I want to organize what is already there.</p>

<p>There will be no requirement for anybody. The numbers will speak for themselves which they are currently doing. But right now, the community college option, which I, and many of us so quickly recommend is a broken option in many cases where the courses are not available, the instruction is poor, the courses are not properly geared for integration to a good 4 year program, the screening to get into true college level courses is sloppy and/or non existent, and there is not a good prep system for those who are inadequately prepared academically to enter college but are willing to make that effort.
Yes, there are ccs who do all of that. But too many don’t and don’t do it well enough. So a lot of the money that is used through these grants and loans are wasted. A look at a lot of the cc success rates will tell the story clearly enough.</p>

<p>There should be no rule that says you are only allowed to attend a nearby school The obstacles in doing so are in place already, however. FIrst of all, you have to be able to afford going away to school, and the cost to pay for everyone who wants to go away to school and gets accepted to a school where room/board is necessary is prohibitive. The way the system works is like a lottery as to who gets to do this. But for many students the commuting options are poor.</p>

<p>Where I live now, there are many local options. Good ones too. But where I used to live in the midwest, that was not the case. The community college was terrible. You could not get into courses, courses were regularly cancelled, the students were poor calibre and the morale was terrible. One of my neighbors wanted to go back to school and go to medical school. It took her 4 years full time to get courses that should have been done in 4 semesters, and it would have taken her longer, except she got fed up and started getting heavy handed and aggressive. Actually Rick Santorum, played strong role in her getting what she needed that last few terms. My neighbor had her BA already, and was a straight A student in the pre med courses she was taking at comm college. Even then, she had to transfer over sooner than she wanted , to get a move on. She was in her 50s age wise and did not feel she had the time, though she had the tenacity to do this, so she had to bulldoze over others to get her program done. 99% of young students would not have been able to be as aggressive as she was and have the connections. It is virtually impossible to do this the way the system is set up. That should not be. And this scenario plays out in many ccs and regional colleges all over the US. We are wasting the money we are pouring into them, if they cannot work more efficiently and effectively for the students. </p>

<p>There is not going to be an influx of money to do this. IT will have to come from what is already in the system. I am adamently opposed to using tax money for living expenses for college when commuting options are available. That is what we are doing right now. I’d rather see more students well serviced locally than the few that are getting the money to go away.</p>

391

<p>I’d rather see more students well serviced locally than the few that are getting the money to go away.</p>

<p>Exactly.</p>

<p>And something that hasn’t been mentioned… Many publics are offering classes online for those who don’t live near a school. That is also a possible option for a student who lives too far or doesn’t have transportation. At a minimum, it could work for the first two years, giving the student time to get transportation or get aid to go away for the last two years.</p>

<p>I would like to see the Stafford loan amounts have more flexibility. If a student has Pell, use that for a CC, and don’t take any loans. Then, as a jr and sr, they should be given the option to borrow $15k for EACH YEAR. That is a less risky option since those students are more likely to graduate than the frosh taking out a loan.</p>

392

<p>Interesting about the Cal States. Was told by friend with two current college students that the girls would only be accepted to the Cal State in their “zone.” Obviously a misunderstanding. </p>

<p>And yes, the $55K is for UC’s.</p>

393

<p>^^^</p>

<p>your friend needs to look at the threads posted by students choosing between CSU this and CSU that. </p>

<p>And, there would be no point in applying to multiple CSUs if there were such a rule…and we know kids apply to multiple ones. </p>

<p>All the CSUs don’t even have the same majors, so another reason why that wouldn’t be true.</p>

394

<p>She was probably referring to the preference that CSUs give to their zone. They accept kids from all over but have quotas for nearby students, which makes it easier to be accepted to a local CSU.</p>

395

<p>Right!</p>

<p>I mentioned that as well. </p>

<p>Frankly, the “local preference” idea is a good one simply because of the conversation we’ve been having about gov’t aid at publics. Students with financial issues should try to go to their local school simply because that is often more affordable for the family and less costly for the gov’t. Imagine if there weren’t such a “local preference” given? You’d have all these kids getting rejected by their local CSU, and then having to pay R&B to attend one 50+ miles away.</p>

396

<p>mom2 My main concern about throwing more money at the CC is the amount of waste. It would have to be tied to some kind of admit standart. In CA. the only requirement to enroll is to be 18 years old. This is what is happening in our area ( a very poor 2nd poorest in the state) . Students get in pick up over 2k in aid which for some housholds is a serious chunk of change. They barely get by or have a probation semester and many (most) drop out. here is the data on the placement exam. 7% score high enough in math to take a college level math class, 12% score high enough to take a college level writing class. I am not making this up. The truth is I am not sure how you could design a program that would help those that really are going to move on vs the high majority who are milking the system. We are close to the border so many do not even live in the country. If they are a single mom teen parent the handouts really start to get out of hand.</p>

397

<p>The majority of students at CCs are not “milking the system.” I am intimately familiar with California community colleges, being an alum of Contra Costa College and former editor of The Advocate, the best JC newspaper in the state.</p>

<p>The fact is, CCs are the most cost-effective higher education in California. 28 percent of UC graduates and 55 percent of CSU graduates transferred from a CC. Most of the state’s nurses, cops and firefighters went to school at a CC. They play a vital role in ensuring a pathway to higher education is open to all people in the state. Compared to the other two systems, the cost to educate a student is very low, because all the frills are stripped away. No spendy dorms or fancy zillion-dollar research buildings. Just classrooms, professors and students.</p>

<p>There is a need to more accurately judge entering students’ skills and the appropriate level of class work. Some students won’t make the grade and flunk out. That happens everywhere. But it’s not remotely close to a majority. I would be very interested in the data for the school you’re referring to, because I have never heard of a CC where only 7% of students score high enough for a college-level math class.</p>

<p>For you to say that “the high majority” of California community college students are, effectively, welfare cheats, is spectacularly wrong and an insult to the millions of students who are working their butts off to better their lives.</p>

398

<p>It doesn’t take a majority to make it an issue. It’s not just the CCs , the students,milking the system but a lot of institutions who are suckling at the teat of government money.</p>

399

<p>Aren’t CCs financed with local and state taxes? Moreover, aren’t CC students also taxpayers or children of taxpayers? I detect an elitism on this thread that, frankly, is offensive.</p>

400

<p>mom2 My main concern about throwing more money at the CC is the amount of waste</p>

<p>Well, I think that if some kind of FA overhaul took place and more students were encouraged to go to CCs, then the CCs would get better.</p>

<p>I would like to see the Gen Ed classes and pre-STEM courses seriously improved at all CCs so that they are a very viable option. </p>

<p>I don’t think most students milk the system. Some are, and there needs to be tighter controls on that. Pell and other gov’t grants should not exceed CC tuition and books. </p>

<p>There are “satisfactory progress” req’ts in place. Whether they need further tightening, I don’t know.</p>