<p>Okay. Let’s remember state COA may start lower at state schools, but what matters is the nut left for parents to pay. We don’t qualify for Pell. State would cost us 20-25k, far more than the privates leave us. After finaid grants for our kids (LAC,) the amount we borrow is LESS than we would need for the state school. We do not get merit money.</p>
<p>What PLUS primarily does is make the high cost schools more possible for more families. Uh-uh. It also makes those state schools affordable. </p>
<p>The blame can’t go entirely on colleges- it’s too simple to say they can charge what they want because some kids will pay with loans or fed aid. Nearly all schools are budget conscious, caught between what kids want (class size, quality, amenities, etc) and what the budget allows. </p>
<p>How would we pay for reduced COA??? CA is a great example, stiffed by revolts against property taxes. They can’t afford to underwrite public education to the degree “buyers” would like and run in a huge deficit. For every fed or state dollar thrown into the mix, it has to come from somewhere- and that’s, ultimately, taxpayers. </p>
<p>And, when it comes to private merit or grants, these are sought after and collected funds the schools have- endowments. Voluntary contributions, not state or fed taxes. Just throwing my wrench into this discussion.</p>
<p>This is, naturally, a complicated issue rife with issues both technical and philosophical.
And, though very interested in the subject matter, I need to recuse myself because my own personal experience creates an inherent bias.</p>
<p>As I’ve posted previously, my parents did not have remotely enough money to pay for my college education. (I, admittedly, did not know what the FinAid opportunities were back then.) Therefore, I worked full-time while in college, paid for all expenses myself and graduated in five years.</p>
<p>For graduate school, I also worked part-time and took out two loans which I paid back in full.</p>
<p>So, I hope, people will understand if I take a somewhat jaundiced view whenever the subject of college financial assistance comes up.</p>
<p>For those who have already made commitments to schools, some sort of grandfather clause should probably take effect. However, let’s say that PLUS is now only need based. My EFC does not allow PLUS and I do have another kid in college. When he picks his college, the dollar limit will take that into account. Had that been the case for my current college kid, he would be going to one of our state schools or where he got a merit award that makes the cost more affordable. Unless we decided that it was so worth while that he gets his choice to go to this OOS public that was his first choice, that we borrow against our 401K or take money out of it. Take a HELOC. Sell our house and move to something a lot cheaper. Cut our expenses even more, make it mandatory that he works 20 hours a week during the school year and 60 hours a week in the summer, and I take on a job as well, and we beg the relatives for some handouts, sell some furniture and other home items, take my other kid out of private school…the list goes on. The fact of the matter is that being in the financial bracket I am, there are options. It’s just easier and more convenient to take the PLUS and scrimp some to pay the monthly payment. As I said, for certain income brackets, it’s a convenience, not a need and the government and all of us are subsidizing this goody. Which is all fine and good if the money could not be going to something more worthwhile which is what I am advocating.</p>
<p>Just a I am proposing that PELL should be reserved for state schools, I am suggesting that PLUS over the EFC should be reseved for the state schools. I’m really looking at eliminating PLUS altogether for non state schools. And that includeds OOS publics. If a private LAC wants a kid and is willing to throw in the money to make it possible for the kdis to come, fine. I’m all for the privatations of this. But to use federal funds so that a state school costs the same as the Private, I don’t think that is so essential. I want that state option to be lower. The private has to take care of its own, and if enough people think that the cost is not worth what it is charging, it either closes or lowers it price to where it should be without the federal milk.</p>
<p>It’s still about stratification. Yes, maybe Pells should only be for public schools. But, that points Pell-need kids in one direction. In the end, could it then perpetuate distinctions between families that have and those that don’t? Suggest privates are primarily for kids who have money? And, dictate that poorer kids can only go where “we” say you can? I thought the whole idea behind Pells for privates was to open up choices for kids who qualify. </p>
<p>I don’t think there is a simple answer. I do like the suggestion Plus loans have an annual cap.</p>
<p>Those private schools who accept PELL eligible kids have to come up with enough money that I don’t think the PELL is the factor making them accepted or not. The percentage of PELL eligible kids getting into top schools is not so great, by the way. There is a list on these boards somewhere, and even the most generous schools do not bend over that much for that group of kids. IF a PELL eligible kid has the stats to be desired, that the school has to kick in at most another $5550 is not going to be the big impediment. Schools have managed to swallow that money and integrate it without blinking an eye. This is what I mean when I say the federal amounts have been incorporated in base costs. </p>
<p>The thing is, PELL kids at private schools is not a big crowd. It’s a woefully small group of kids we are talking about. I truly don’t think that it’s going to make that much of a difference in the acceptance rate of PELL eligible kids. It’s the other $50K left that needs to somehow be funded by the schools that make them hesitate in them whether the kid is PELL eligible or has an EFC that $6K</p>
<p>That would ROYALLY screw over low income people. I know many people in my income bracket who need to take a year off or so to save up money to take classes, even in the middle of school. So now on top of saving money, we’re going to make these poor students make payments on Pell too? No, I don’t think so.</p>
<p>No, they wouldn’t be making payments if they complete the course. </p>
<p>Pell Grants are awarded per semester. If the student completes the semester with passing grades, then the “loan” would become a grant. I don’t see how that’s a problem.</p>
<p>the point of making Pell a loan first is to make people take this money seriously. Too often kids just take the money, enroll in classes, drop them, fail them, and the money went to waste. If they had to pay the money back if they didn’t pass the courses, then they’d take it seriously.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that if they fail one course that the entire Pell would be a loan. The idea would be that Pell would be restructured and if the student passes 3/4 of classes, then 3/4 of Pell would be converted to a grant. If the student flunks half his classes, then he owes for half of his Pell dollars.</p>
<p>Right, but not only is that rather unknown, that actually causes problems because students can’t resume classes while they owe the school money.</p>
<p>If it started AS a loan, then students would be more aware about the “pay back” aspect AND, if they end up with a debt, that wouldn’t prevent them from attempting again. There could be something in place to prevent multiple attempts after failed classes.</p>
<p>One purpose would be to make higher education more attractive and possible for those with low income and to make those schools that are most affordable and accessible to those for whom income/assets are an issue to be the more desirable options. That means putting a lot more focused money on the state schools and community colleges. </p>
<p>Another issue I want to address is that of certain programs that have a high rate of employment upon completion with good salaires. Nursing has been one of them along with medical technology and some engineering programs as well. The accessibility of some of these programs are very poor. Which means that if someone who needs college money wants to take such courses of study, the only recourses available are the private schools. For such programs, loans should be permitted on a basis that the market dictates just as it does with MBA, Medical school and other professional school loans. If a student drops out of such programs, the loans are no longer available. Someone looking a a pharmacy program, nursing, physician assistant, accounting is highly likely to to be able to pay back loans. Courses that can be used for transfer into these type of programs should be in community college programs as well as local state schools. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as high of a risk to lend money to someone who has managed to satisfactorily complete a solid two years of college and wants to give a lucrative career path a go. </p>
<p>There are so many issues that make it very difficult for those for whom finances are an impediment to get a college degree. We say “community college, community college” and when the time comes to transfer from that community college, these kids are at the bottom of the barrel for any financial aid or merit money the way transfers are treated in our system. That is something to be addressed as well. Perhaps permitting the use of Stafford loans to be accumulated for future use if a student chooses to go to a community college or local state school so that double the amount is available for junior and senior years. </p>
<p>I know some young people who managed to get Pell and Staffords for local college options really when they did not need it. The way some schools calcualte COA for commuters as being the same as those who are living on their own permits them to get their hands on money for living expenses. Though they are borrowing the money, there is no incentive not to use it as they will just use it. If some incentive is given to have the money available,perhaps in greater amounts or maybe even form of grants for those who do complete Freshman and sophommore years and embark on upper level courses, that may get rid of that abuse, misuse, or not a good use of those funds.</p>
<p>I’ll tell you what really bugs me that I see here in this area. There are a number of private schools that cater almost entirely to those with low income or who don’t know their schools. They make it quick and easy to enroll, and the more need you have, the better. They basicaly take the PELL, Stafford, and TAP money from these kids and the completion rate, the quality of education, the courses are just not there. Kids go there because the truth of the matter is that the public unis and community colleges are more selective, more bureaucratic, do not have the space, the amenties and the service to accommodate those kids. If these privates were truly providing a service, I would not feel the way I do about them, but it looks to me that all they are doing is stripping the federal money and then some from those who most need and who just don’t know enough about the education system. You don’t see the higher income kid going to these schools. By making the state schools a good quality, smooth running, high service desirable place to go with faciilties to deal with those who need some extra work to get up to speed, we can get a more equitable system. I see the beginnings and traces of this in that there are some very fine commuter colleges and community colleges out there. It can be done. I hate seeing the money that is out there being siphone out by organizations that are there just to get them. We end up with very much a two tiered system that way.</p>
<p>Rather than eliminate Pell for private schools, why not deal with private schools that are causing the problems you have identified? I disagree with making federal aid ONLY for state schools. I do not believe: “One of the major reasons for rising tuition at private colleges is because these schools know that the needs of low income applicants will be met with federal aid.” The needs of low income applicants at private schools are definitely not being met with federal aid! The schools still need to kick in money from other buckets. I don’t like the idea of penalizing every school (and every student) for the sins of the few.</p>
<p>By the way, state schools are raising tuition all the time. Would the above reason then also apply to state schools that have rising tuition? Why is it okay for state schools and not for private schools? Frankly, the rising cost of education at all levels is out of control & needs to be dealt with. Removing options for students is not the answer, though.</p>
<p>Romani is correct in that some states have very high tuition. Our state, Michigan, is one of those states. But the problem with tying federal aid to tuition is a slippery slope, folks. Why do you think Michigan’s tuition is so high? Part of the answer is that state funding is not on par with that of other states. If you tie federal funding to state costs, would you not then expect to see state’s pull back their own funding once the feds start to finance state schools? I certainly do.</p>
<p>I don’t know the answer to the original question. What I do know is that costs are skyrocketing, and families are being priced out of the education market. Middle income families are especially hard hit by this, as they have only loans as options at state schools. My backhanded answer is that federal aid is not the answer … controlling tuition and housing costs will go much farther in assisting families with educational affordability. Throwing money at the problem only seems to fuel the fire.</p>
<p>And so, without state generosity, state schools are not always the most affordable. Anecdotes are just tales, but the example. of my friend’s twins: each with a 9k Fafsa EFC. “A” is at a highly desirable public, left with about $18k for the family to pay, before Staffords. (And less aid, 2nd year.) “B” is at a private. After grants, left with about 16-18k to pay (again, before student loans. This kid’s aid kept at the prior year’s level, for soph year.) Both are top performers. </p>
<p>But where does the funding come from? If states are cutting back on library hours, funding to fire and police, reducing other public services, eliminating staff, etc, where do these funds exist to bolster the public colleges? Would we pay more in taxes to better float higher ed? What about families where kids are not headed to college or are past those years? </p>
<p>It’s too simple to say, cut back salaries, eliminate duplicate services. As it is, colleges are lowering thermostats in winter, delaying capital improvements, even maintenance, relying more on adjunct faculty, reducing departmental admin, increasing class sizes, etc. No, someone can name one or two that don’t “seem” to be, but the efforts are there.</p>
<p>I’d like to take the Federal funding away from the privates and give the money to the state schools to be used in areas needed to strengthen their programs. One will still get differences among the states. States rights are a touchy issue, and we are not going to be able easily standardize anything, and I am not for the federal government doing that.</p>
<p>But, again, that would mean that the majority of lower income kids would not have a chance of attending private schools. You’d be similar to the old “seperate but equal” days before affirmative action in the south for public education. Which were separate but no way equal.</p>
<p>Many private schools are also strapped. They can’t make up the difference if fed money is taken away. And private schools could still keep raising costs as long as there are upper middle class and rich parents willing to pay any cost to keep Johnny and Jane from having to attend state schools, where under your policy, would have the rep of being schools for those who can’t afford better.</p>
<p>Fair point, but flip side of that the question is whether tax payer funds should be going indirectly to wealthy Harvard students. Harvard has more money than Congress and could easily afford to give the low-no income students full rides absent a Pell. </p>
<p>All cash is fungible. If 100 low-no income students attend Harvard, they bring with them $5500 each, or $550k; i.e., over a half million bucks. That is a half million $ that H can spend on other things, such as enriching its own financial aid policies and boosting the definition of " financial need" above $175k. </p>
<p>It’s not about keeping the poor kids out, but supporting the public schools more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what? If the purpose is to provide a college education, the taxpayer – who is footing the bill – gets the best bang for his/her buck through the public colleges and universities.</p>