<p>polarscribe we are talking about the unfairness in even the loan system. Read my post a few posts back. We are talking about the unfairness on loans that should have NO bearing on what a parent’s income is since they are taken out by the students themselves. One should not accrue interest immediately while the other waits until the student gets out of college because of a parent’s income level.</p>
<p>
Also, to add to that comment, there is no guarantee the lower EFC student will get the “maximum” in subsidized loans. We are in the lower EFC range and one year my daughter’s unsubsidized loans ($4,230) was significantly more than her subsidized ($2,970).</p>
<p>Gosh polarscribe can you see my point instead of having to nitpick and go off the subject? I don’t care if student B has to take out some unsubsidized loans-we are only talking about the ones that ARE subsidized and have to be repaid by the STUDENT upon graduation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s no obligation. The family can tell the kid to go out on their own and pay for college themselves. Some families do that. </p>
<p>Increasing aid to more middle class families so that their students don’t finish college with heavy debt is a great idea. Harvard and a few other schools do an excellent job of this, because they have great big endowments to pull from. Schools that have smaller endowments, or which rely on public coffers, have more limited financial resources. If there is, say, $10 million of subsidized loans and $10 million of grants (pulling random numbers from the air), you can divide it up all kinds of different ways among families earning $50k, $80k, and whatever else. Schools that say they meet full need will push it all to the lowest-income families. Schools that want to recruit certain students will push some of the grants to merit aid. </p>
<p>Another school may decide to fold all the grants into keeping sticker price as low as possible, and tells everyone to pay sticker. They divvy up the loans under their control to everyone regardless of income. The kid from the $50k family ends up having to take out private loans to close the gap between sticker and what the family can afford to pay. Same for the $80k family. The kid from the $180k family doesn’t take loans, because the family can afford to pay for the whole shebang…but they take the subsidized loans anyway because it’s a free loan.</p>
<p>No way to make it entirely fair to everyone. Frustrating, for sure. The best way for strong students to work around the system is by looking at lots of options, and find schools that will be affordable.</p>
<p>Here’s another agreement with shadow.</p>
<p>I’m actually a very liberal person, but realistically I have to question how many of the recipients of Pell grants and state aid are not academically ready for college. I wonder what percentage of federal or state grant recipients wind up not completing college?</p>
<p>In Indiana the 21st century scholars program that will pay full in-state tuition for low-income students continues, but the Byrd Honors scholarship for high academic achievers got cancelled.</p>
<p>My son was accepted to Purdue. 2 years ago with his >3.9 (U) GPA and 31 ACT he would have automatically received their top scholarship which this year is worth $10,000 per year. But apparently they received complaints that other students were deserving and dropped their automatic awards in favor of a ‘holistic’ review of their 7 page application with a single essay and NO recommendations and my son not only was not awarded their Trustee award for $10,000, but also was not awarded either of their Presidential level awards of $8,000 or $4,000 per year.</p>
<p>When did it become politically incorrect to award high achievers???</p>
<p>*In many states, the community colleges are nothing more than grade 13. Going there doesn’t guarantee transferring into a better 4-year college, and it is a lot harder for transfer students to get fin aid.
*</p>
<p>Well, that should change - The CCs that aren’t “up to snuff” would soon be demanded to deliver a more quality product if more “good students” were choosing that as their only affordable option… Frankly, many state unis also have a “grade 13” for all those kids who can’t start in College Math or College English. </p>
<p>The Calif newspapers annually report the high % of incoming frosh at UCs and CSUs that must take (apologies for the common slang term used) “dummy English” and “dummy math”. The % is often staggering…often 50%!!! Those kids should have to go to a CC first…even for just one year! or take those classes over the summer at a CC! </p>
<p>No wonder the CSUs and UCs are hurting…they’re having to provide profs for “pre-college” classes. And, those English classes have to be SMALL (to grade the essays) so those are super expensive. </p>
<p>Have you ever looked at how many sections a good-sized college must offer for Frosh Comp (which is college level)??? You should. My kids undergrad offers a staggering 171 sections of English 101 (frosh comp) with limits of 24 kids per class. And, about 5 of the sections are for ESL students with a limit of 18 kids per class. The school also offers 31 sections of the honors version with 18 per class. So, over 200 sections for students who still need Frosh Comp I credits That’s for 6000 frosh of which probably 20% have AP/IB credit so they won’t be taking EN 101 and another % must take “dummy English”. Since funding the real college class is a costly venture, to fund a per-college English class is just ridiculous. The faculty list for English profs is huge because you can’t have one prof teaching more than 2 of these sections because he/she couldn’t grade the work…which is also why the sections have to be small.</p>
<p>Anyway…it’s unreasonably to think that “going away” to school should be the standard. I know that CC is full of families that think so. There is a segment here on CC that has had the goal from birth that their child is going to go to a pricey (often NE) private. For some cultures, that is expected and therefore heaving planned. And, often these families have the means to fund these goals because they have high incomes and/or know that they will be inheriting a good amount at some point, so funding a pricey college experience won’t hurt them in the long run.</p>
<p>I don’t know if it’s guilt or the fact that some convince themselves that they MUST provide a fancy go-away experience otherwise their kids won’t be successful, so they think it’s similarly necessary to have gov’t fund that for others. They seem to think that it’s mean or cheap to question funding the “sleep away” part with gov’t funds. It would be one thing if that was afforded fairly, but since it’s such a pricey endeavor, the ones who barely don’t qualify really get hurt. The OP is an example…lowish EFC and hugely gapped. </p>
<p>But, think about it…most families can’t afford a second home, so why could they afford to pay R&B…the cost can often be the same as paying for a second home! We already know how financially devastated many families are when parents split and suddenly the same income is supporting the family home and an apt for the other parent. To think that most families can pay for (often multiple) kids to go away to school is just not likely.</p>
<p>I’m actually a very liberal person, but realistically I have to question how many of the recipients of Pell grants and state aid are not academically ready for college. I wonder what percentage of federal or state grant recipients wind up not completing college?</p>
<p>Right…there probably should be some kind of GPA req’t or something. There are states with such cheap CCs that some go to school just to get Pell money in their pockets.</p>
<p>*I understand that the current system will require major changes. But, the current system does not work: not for 81K+ families and not for the state of California as a whole. (I have my own story to tell how “well” the system works in San Francisco for a 4 kid family making low 6 figures but having one child born with heart defect). *</p>
<p>That’s why Calif needs to use FAFSA or similar to determine eligibility…not an income cut off. Any pricey family health issues, not covered by insurance, might be addressed thru prof judgement. I’m not sure if EFC changes or not. </p>
<p>CCs and Pre-med students are an issue, but since only a small % of kids declaring pre-med as frosh end up applying to med schools, it’s not reasonable for states to start all the pre-meds at Univs. Maybe there could be a GPA/SAT minimum req’t to get enough state aid for frosh year at a Uni? After all, the chances that an ACT 25/2.9 GPA kid ever applies to med school is slim…those kids get weeded out after Bio or Gen Chem I. </p>
<p>As for whether the CC pre-med pre-reqs are good enough…Maybe the CCs BCMP classes need beefing? After all, who is taking those classes besides pre-meds and STEMs? The others are taking the lighter versions…the ones for “non-majors” and nursing majors.</p>
<p>When did it become politically incorrect to award high achievers</p>
<p>Actually, a long time ago. Ever look at how little extra funding is given to the Gifted programs for public K-12?</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>that is why I mentioned merit. </p>
<p>In general the only hard part for transfer student to get is merit aid (not need-based aid).*</p>
<p>Not true. Most transfers with need don’t get great aid pkgs either. Few schools give great aid to transfers. UCs are an exception because of B&G for those earning less than $80k. CSUs have Cal Grants for tranfers, but this state is one of the exceptions. Most privates and publics give lousy aid to transfer students.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>It seems fundamentally unfair if your S accepted Purdue with the understanding that he would have his $10K scholarship renewed (as long as he met merit requirements) & then was dropped because he didn’t qualify under their “holistic” review. That would mean that you had to pony up significantly more than you & S bargained for, perhaps turning down other offers/awards that were as or more competitive.</p>
<p>When schools do not award high achievers, they can lose many such students to other Us that DO offer significant merit awards.</p>
<p>Sorry you & S are stuck with this change in policies & it seems grossly unfair.</p>
<p>I have a friend who has a friend who is Pell Grant eligible. She received straight Fs her first quarter. </p>
<p>My friend said that this friend of hers didn’t really work hard in high school and had a 3.8 at a non-competitive high school (incredibly low for Berkeley). Why do colleges do this? They think they’re doing students a favor, but they’re hurting these students in the long run.</p>
<p>Oh, Diana. You seem to know plenty about your friends’ financial aid packages ;). </p>
<p>To be Pell Eligible, you have to meet Satisfactory Academic Progress. I don’t think your friend will qualify for Pell very long.</p>
<p>Friend of a friend story who attends a competitve school on grant and fails all classes, ;)</p>
<p>My son will just be a freshman next year, so that situation didn’t apply to us, but on the Purdue board there was another parent who commented on exactly that scenario - awarded merit scholarship, but then dropped later due to a holistic review… I would have been past IRATE!</p>
<p>But Purdue’s decision to award lower stat students while by passing some of the higher achievers is leading to them losing students to other options. I KNOW that applies in our case and have heard the same from a few others.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure what your argument is. Why do colleges do what? Admit 3.8 GPA Kids? Not have a crystal ball that tells them this student is undeserving of Pell? Can you clarify for me?</p>
<p>Oh I misread. It’s a FRIEND of a friend. </p>
<p>Who the heck sits around and talks about their friend’s friend’s academic progress and financial aid?</p>
<p>ETA:
</p>
<p>Given her later posts, I’m going to really disagree with this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are absolutely right of course. When I was writing this, I was thinking of pre-qualifying that I was talking about public schools where majority of financial aid is need-based (federal or state), but for some reason decided that it was clear from the conversation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The average UC GPA for Berkeley admits in 2011 was 4.4. Do you think a 3.8 kid has much chance to compete?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, at least I don’t spend my entire day trying to win an argument with someone years younger than me. And it’s a topic quite relevant to high school seniors at this time, actually.</p>
<p>I get it, you may or may not be “poor” and may or may not have been offended by my initial post. I have a question for you, why do you car so much about what one person thinks?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A- I’m not trying to “win” anything. I’m merely pointing out your inaccuracies. </p>
<p>B- You’re about 3 years younger than me, at the most.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because you’re wrong. It’s that simple, really. </p>
<p>Fwiw- I tried to help you. You don’t want help. I get that. It’s fine. But being bitter isn’t going to change anything. I was bitter for a big part of my life and guess what? It does NOTHING. What you need to do is to accept that things aren’t fair and work on making things work for YOU rather than whining about the system.</p>
<p>I know pell doesn’t have to do with gpa, but cal grant students have to send in gpa verification for 3.0 (I think) or above or they don’t qualify for the grant no matter how much need they have, they have to get it from other sources and I think that helps all of us in ca with good gpas significantly</p>
<p>Many of us on this board are parents,Diana, who are very interested in the information exchanges on this board because we are paying the tuitions, planning for the payment of the tuitions and filling out the financial info part of the forms. I have a lot of respect for those kids who are also on this board with questions, showing their concern in the cost of their education.</p>
<p>Whether or not THIS specific friend of a friend story is accurate or not, there are situations like this that occur far too frequently.</p>
<p>The federal government is ‘investing’ in low-income students. The theory being that this ‘modest’ investment will provide them a secure future, that they will not continue to be part of the low income population and this ‘modest’ investment in their future will alleviate long term dependency from them on government aid.</p>
<p>However if these students fail to complete their education, then the federal government has in effect just thrown that money away, when it could have been spent on much better causes.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, there are some very, very deserving low-income students that stand a good chance of succeeding and need that assistance to have the chance, but there needs to be a means to determine which students are able to succeed in college and which should be directed to a trade school or to the military or to other options more appropriate for them.</p>
<p>So far the best means we have to make this determination are grades and standardized test scores, maybe not the best means, but the best we currently have. The government needs to institute a minimum GPA/test score to be Pell eligible so they are not just throwing money away that could be helping other students who do have a chance of success.</p>
<p>Here’s some interesting reading: [Only</a> 40 Percent of Pell Grant Recipients Get Bachelor’s Degrees - Innovations - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/only-40-percent-of-pell-grant-recipients-get-bachelor-degrees/30139]Only”>Innovations: Only 40 Percent of Pell Grant Recipients Get Bachelor’s Degrees)</p>