Why are colleges fully pledged socialists?

[jc3900]

Ok, this thread is inspired based on my personal experience. Right now my parents make a lot of money. Because of this, every school calculuates my efc as full tuition + room and board. Because I knew I couldn't get financial aid from any university, I was literally strapped of the ability to go to a top rated school. On the other end of the spectrum though, you have kids who come from a big family and only make $40,000 +. They can go to any school they would like. Wherever they go, they can expect a HUGE package. My girlfriend, for instance, is in this situation. She is basically going to a very good $30,000 + school per year for only a couple thousand. This practice in my mind is known as price discrimination. I think it would be a lot better if universities took all the financial aid that they give and give one cost to everyone. Why are these top schools only affordable to the poor. That seems really screwed up to me.

[sweeps]

Financial aid is for those who would otherwise be unable to afford college. By your own admission, your parents can afford for you to go to most schools, so you're not eligible for financial aid.

Financial aid makes it so education is not just for the rich. It's important that even the poor and middle class have a chance to succeed and become productive members of society, just like your parents have become.

[jc3900]

Financial aid is for those who would otherwise be unable to afford college.

First of all, the financial aid would be given to everyone so the overall price would automatically be reduced. Second, the cost of college is far less then the benefits in income you make over your lifetime, so college is still a good decision for the poor. Third, poor people get loans for houses and cars, why not big loans for education?

Financial aid makes it so education is not just for the rich. It's important that even the poor and middle class have a chance to succeed and become productive members of society, just like your parents have become.

So do you think that if the poor had to pay the real cost like everyone else they couldn't become rich. You know after they graduate, they have mostly the same opportunities. So why couldn't they still become rich. Last I checked, people can take on debt and still became very wealthy.

[noppenbd]

jc3900, when I received my financial aid offer (admittedly quite a few years ago) I seem to remember that even though the offer "met" my need, a large portion of it was in the form of loans, both for my parents and and myself. Is this still the case for your girlfriend, or is her offer in the form of grants and scholarships?

[jc3900]

Oh yeah, she is most likely going to get loans. About $5000-7000 and that is it!. All the rest is in grants. I couldn't even apply to that school even though I would have easily gotten in because each year I would have had to throw down $32,000 per year. Now does that seem fair to give me a $148,000 dollar hit and my girlfriend a $20,000 - $28,000 hit. Why should I pay 4-7 times more than her! Even if she was in the bottom 10% of the admitted class, she would still get that rediculous aid award. I am not mad at my girlfriend, just the system.

[Scanner]

jc,

I am with you, beleive it or not, and I am one to defend the liberal side of issues often.

I think our entire gov't funded college education system needs to be revamped.

I am not sure it has anything to do with your plight but I feel loans should be given on a career-return basis.

For instance, given the shortage of nurses, the gov't may lend up to 80% of programs for that. You want to major in philosophy or political science, the taxpayor only chips in 20%.

As it stands now, the gov't just gives/lends money away indiscriminately and based on financial need, which I agree, doesn't seem right. And savings should not count towards financial aid - you don't punish a family for saving but then again, that's Reag-o-nomics - it encourages borrowing and living on the margin.

Oh, and one more thing - take comfort in the fact that a lot of the "best schools" are all just hype. State schools give you a fine education.

They asked former President Clinton if he thought that Yale was worth it and he diplomatically remarked: "It wasn't the education so much as much as I made lifelong contacts that allowed me to ascend to the Presidency."

So. . .unless you have aspirations of being a politician. . .let your girlfriend borrow for Yale, Princeton or Harvard.

They even have grade inflation at these places now - everyone gets an A. It means nothing anymore.

[sweeps]

Poor people can't afford to go $100K+ in the hole. The reality is if poor people weren't given financial aid for college, then they would go to a junior college or not go to college at all. The cycle would further reinforce itself -- the poor would get poorer and the rich would get richer. If you're a Die Hard Republican, you love that stuff I know. But our country is founded on the ideal that everyone is given a chance to succeed. If you don't like it, go to the polls and vote, write letters to your elected officials, campaign for the politicians you like, and run for office yourself.

[markusk]

The Ive League schools have a "need blind admissions" policy. That is, they base the selection only on one's academic/extracurricular achievements. If and when one is admitted, then they look at the family's finances to determine need.

The good news is that these top schools, due to their large endowments, are now giving grants only (not loans) AND increased the income levels of fiancial aid recipents. In short, even families with 6 figure incomes get financial aid (all grants, no loans).

If I were to do it again, I would shoot for the moon and apply to the top tier schools, as well as a bunch of "safety" schools.

[m3racer]

I certainly wish the Ivy league school I went to offered me more grants and scholarships. I have roughly $220,000 in student loan debt thanks to the Ivy league system. Was it worth it? It's a tough question to answer. The bottom line is if you want to get a great education than, "you have to pay to play."

[jc3900]

I am with you, beleive it or not, and I am one to defend the liberal side of issues often.

Believe it or not, you are as far away from me on this one as I can think. Why on earth would I have the government fund education. That is just another way to screw taxpayers.

Poor people can't afford to go $100K+ in the hole. The reality is if poor people weren't given financial aid for college, then they would go to a junior college or not go to college at all. The cycle would further reinforce itself -- the poor would get poorer and the rich would get richer. If you're a Die Hard Republican, you love that stuff I know.

First off, under my plan that aid would go to lower the cost for EVERYONE, so they wouldn't exactly be paying the full price. Second, If I told every poor person who is in college right now that financial aid was ending and that the cost was $100K to attend, almost all of them would still do it because the benefits far outweigh the costs. Thirdly, rich people wouldn't pay a 100K to go to college unless the benefits far outweighed the costs, so to say poor people wouldn't go to college is rediculous. The only way you can win this one is if you say poor people(who want to get ahead in life) are to stupid to realize the importance of finishing college and the benefits it will give you.

The Ive League schools have a "need blind admissions" policy. That is, they base the selection only on one's academic/extracurricular achievements. If and when one is admitted, then they look at the family's finances to determine need.

The good news is that these top schools, due to their large endowments, are now giving grants only (not loans) AND increased the income levels of fiancial aid recipents. In short, even families with 6 figure incomes get financial aid (all grants, no loans).

If I were to do it again, I would shoot for the moon and apply to the top tier schools, as well as a bunch of "safety" schools.

When i say top school, I don't just mean IVY. What I am saying applies to almost all the schools out there.


On a totally different note: Even if you were a millionaire, I wouldn't want you to get penalized by a higher college cost at the reward of another students financial aid package.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Devil's advocate here: jc3900, are you applying to only private schools? I'm wondering if you think that states should not even be in the business of operating universities and colleges. If everyone should pay their own way through, why should I pay taxes to make it cheaper for you (or the poor or anyone else) or even to make available a university at all? Shouldn't we just close down our state schools?

[InDebtInDC]

The Ive League schools have a "need blind admissions" policy. That is, they base the selection only on one's academic/extracurricular achievements. If and when one is admitted, then they look at the family's finances to determine need.

Everybody has beat around this issue but no one has brought it up.

There are two (2) forms of financial aid:

1) need-based aid created under Title IV of the US Code,
2) merit-based aid based on the student's record, background, and performance provided by any kind of organization.

The argument is that if you are a well-qualified candidate, your entire college education would be merit-based aid and you would not need to get need-based aid. The second part of the argument is that the student and the parents are required to exhaust their entire assets before need-based aid will kick in.


Your argument would be that need-based aid should be eliminated completely, and we should go to a 100% merit-based aid system.


Please be aware that lawmakers attribute poor academic performance to low income. So the idea of need-based aid is to help offset some of the inequities faced by low income students.


I did not provide my own opinion on this topic. I just wanted to frame the discussion in a way that facilitates comprehension.

Carry on

[tmango]

Everybody has beat around this issue but no one has brought it up.

There are two (2) forms of financial aid:

1) need-based aid created under Title IV of the US Code,
2) merit-based aid based on the student's record, background, and performance provided by any kind of organization.

The argument is that if you are a well-qualified candidate, your entire college education would be merit-based aid and you would not need to get need-based aid. The second part of the argument is that the student and the parents are required to exhaust their entire assets before need-based aid will kick in.


Your argument would be that need-based aid should be eliminated completely, and we should go to a 100% merit-based aid system.


Please be aware that lawmakers attribute poor academic performance to low income. So the idea of need-based aid is to help offset some of the inequities faced by low income students.


I did not provide my own opinion on this topic. I just wanted to frame the discussion in a way that facilitates comprehension.

Carry on

well put.

[jc3900]

Devil's advocate here: jc3900, are you applying to only private schools? I'm wondering if you think that states should not even be in the business of operating universities and colleges. If everyone should pay their own way through, why should I pay taxes to make it cheaper for you (or the poor or anyone else) or even to make available a university at all? Shouldn't we just close down our state schools?

Oh man did you hit that out of the park. That is exactly my view. If only I had your eloquece. Yep, education is not at all a function of government period. For those of you who own a home, you probably don't even want to know how much money you pay up to have your two kids go through highschool for free.

The argument is that if you are a well-qualified candidate, your entire college education would be merit-based aid and you would not need to get need-based aid. The second part of the argument is that the student and the parents are required to exhaust their entire assets before need-based aid will kick in.


Your argument would be that need-based aid should be eliminated completely, and we should go to a 100% merit-based aid system.


Please be aware that lawmakers attribute poor academic performance to low income. So the idea of need-based aid is to help offset some of the inequities faced by low income students.

Yes, I would like to see a system where you can only reduce the cost of an institution by merit aid only. Any institutional financial aid would be eliminated and given to everyone so that the cost of attending all around would be reduced. Lawmakers may attribute poor academic performance to low income, but is taking away financial aid going to keep poor people from going to college? No it won't stop them from going to college and that is because the benefits outweigh the costs greatly even if you have to borrow the money to get through.

[InDebtInDC]

Lawmakers may attribute poor academic performance to low income, but is taking away financial aid going to keep poor people from going to college?

This argument has already been made on both sides in Congress. I'll try to summarize their findings.

Assume four groups of students:

1) High-income, high performance
2) High-income, low performance
3) Low-income, high performance
4) Low-income, low performance

Based on Congress' opinion, group 1 and 3 will receive merit-based aid and will not have to resort to need-based aid, or if they do resort, the amount will be very little.

Group 2 and 4 will not qualify for merit-based aid, and will most often have to resort to lower-ranked schools if they do decide to go to college at all.

Congress wasn't concerned with group 2 because their parents can foot the bill. The rationale here is that there is no excuse for high-income kids to perform poorly in school.

Group 4 is where Congress wants to focus on because they consider this goup "at risk". Given the choice between food and tuition, most people in this group will choose food. When given the choice between working to make ends meet or school, they choose to drop out and work to feed their family.

The reason they believe is that the student's socioeconmic condition affect their ability to perform well in school. People in Congress think that low income automatically = gangs and violence in school.

Within group 4, you have 2 subgroups:

4a) students who will not go to school no matter what,
4b) students who want to go but cannot afford to go.

Group 4a doesn't pertain to this argument because they do not draw need-based aid.

The only alternative for group 4b is to take out private loans. Congress was afraid that people in this group wouldn't qualify for private loans, or would easily fall victim to predatory lending (low-income people = easy prey for this type of lenders).

Congress wanted to guarantee that group 4b would definitely make it to school and lift themselves out of poverty. In the long run, group 4b and their children will not drain the welfare system.

As I said above, the system penalizes group 2. The rationale is if you have money and you do poorly in school, you're on your own.

Again, none of this is my personal opinion and the argument has been made in Congress. I'm just summarizing arguments that have been discussed in the past.