PDA

View Full Version : Thank you Obama...


R.Perez
Apr 2, 2010, 08:33 PM
The student financial aid offerings this year were AWESOME!

Just finished accepting my financial aid award for this school year....

The Pell grant is higher than ever, there was an extra $2000 in supplemental grants on top of the already increased Pell grant.

There was enough offered in subsidized loans and grants, that I was able to pass on the unsubsidized ones altogether!

Woohoo!

Oh and the interest rates on subsidized loans are lower than ever as well, and getting lower. By 2012 the interest rate for subsidized loans will be 3.5%

All the loans are direct from the Government! No Complaints here!

Badandy
Apr 2, 2010, 11:40 PM
Woo hoo, free money! Thanks so much Obama! Forget the fact that the government shouldn't be giving students money for college and the fact that our debt is ridiculously high!

NT1440
Apr 2, 2010, 11:45 PM
Woo hoo, free money! Thanks so much Obama! Forget the fact that the government shouldn't be giving students money for college and the fact that our debt is ridiculously high!

All they did was keep the banks from getting free checks, student loans were mostly backed by the government anyway....

quagmire
Apr 2, 2010, 11:45 PM
Woo hoo, free money! Thanks so much Obama! Forget the fact that the government shouldn't be giving students money for college and the fact that our debt is ridiculously high!

Just curious why? I would think it is a good thing for our government would help students afford to further their education.

I know my friend who works her butt off, but will be having a hard time paying off the college she is going to. College is ridiculously expensive. Our government should encourage students to go to college and if money is a hurdle, we should give them a loan.

R.Perez
Apr 2, 2010, 11:48 PM
Woo hoo, free money! Thanks so much Obama! Forget the fact that the government shouldn't be giving students money for college and the fact that our debt is ridiculously high!

So only kids rich enough to afford school should be able to go?

You can't exactly work full time and go to school full time.

I am doing a federal work study, so I do technically have a job while in school.

Aren't you student? How do you pay for your schooling if you don't mind me asking?

Surely
Apr 2, 2010, 11:53 PM
Woo hoo, free money! Thanks so much Obama! Forget the fact that the government shouldn't be giving students money for college and the fact that our debt is ridiculously high!

Wow. What a shortsighted comment.

This country will only get stronger with more well-trained and better educated people.

And it's not "free money". These students earn those grants by working hard and achieving high grades.

R.Perez
Apr 2, 2010, 11:56 PM
I have held a 3.97 GPA since I started College 3 years ago.

quagmire
Apr 2, 2010, 11:56 PM
I have held a 3.97 GPA since I started College 3 years ago.

Nerd! :D Can you do my physics HW and tests please?


:p

Surely
Apr 2, 2010, 11:57 PM
I have held a 3.97 GPA since I started College 3 years ago.

I'd say you've earned those grants.

Well done.



And..... nnnnnnneeeeeeeerrrrrrrdddddddd :D

R.Perez
Apr 3, 2010, 12:12 AM
Nerd! :D Can you do my physics HW and tests please?


:p

HAHAHA. While I am good at math, cruised through College algebra with an A without even doing homework (homework wasn't part of the grade, only tests), I am actually a social science major.

I still haven't decided what I want to do, I am either going to grad school to try and become a college professor, or I am going to go to Law School.

My Dad is an Electrical Engineer so I think that has something to do with my math whiz skills.

Anyway, I almost flunked out of high school. I was 60 credits behind, but I made it up and graduated with a 3.5 GPA.

Unfortunately being so behind, I graduated only doing the bare requirements, no college prep courses for me.

After working full time for years, I got tired of feeling like I had no career path and life was a dead end.

So at 23 I got back into school, if it wasn't for community college and financial aid, I never would of made it.

Now I am at University of Hawaii and life is great, getting a good job at some point would be great but at this point I just LOVE learning. I have always had a passion for social and environmental justice issues. In high school no one told me you could get a degree in such things, if they had I may of done much better.

I used to be an AP student, but lost interest at the beginning of high school. I am really glad I finally got back into it.

quagmire
Apr 3, 2010, 12:21 AM
I know what you mean. Middle school is when I lost interest. It came back in High School and I graduated with a 3.55 GPA and had 6 credits coming into college from taking AP US History.

I am one of the lucky ones though. I can remember things greatly and didn't often study. This enabled me to have a job through senior year get home at 9:30 PM and fall asleep and wake up at 1-3 am and go, " Oh Crap!" and do HW. Due to my ability to just remember information( including APUSH material!) I still managed to pull A's and B's.

bobber205
Apr 3, 2010, 01:12 AM
Woo hoo, free money! Thanks so much Obama! Forget the fact that the government shouldn't be giving students money for college and the fact that our debt is ridiculously high!

I hate to even say this such Badandy's usual has posts of such quality and depth, but this post sounds like something ITN would write. No reasoning for the opinion expressed and very black and white. :confused:

Badandy
Apr 3, 2010, 02:20 AM
Just curious why? I would think it is a good thing for our government would help students afford to further their education.

It is indeed a good thing, but is it what they should be doing? Again, it really conflicts with my views on limited government. Just because something is a good cause in general does not mean that it should be the government's business to subsidize. Also, my comment was in response to a huge increase of the already very-generous grants the government gives.


I hate to even say this such Badandy's usual has posts of such quality and depth, but this post sounds like something ITN would write. No reasoning for the opinion expressed and very black and white. :confused:

I think this issue is very black and white, though. Unless I'm mistaken, the University of Hawaii is a public university, and as such, has far lower tuition costs than private universities. What do you pay for tuition per year at Hawaii, R.Perez?

About the ITN comparison, bobber, I wrote it in a rush before I had to do something.

So only kids rich enough to afford school should be able to go?

No. I can only speak about California since that's where I've lived my whole life, but we have a huge system of Cal State and University of California schools where tuition is heavily subsidized. The tuition cost of these places (especially if you do two years at state school and transfer to a UC) is not prohibitive for people who work and/or whose parents put something away. The costs are remarkably low compared with private universities and, like I said before, definitely possible with the previously dedicated resources for this purpose.

I am doing a federal work study, so I do technically have a job while in school.

What do you do? What's the time requirement?

Aren't you student? How do you pay for your schooling if you don't mind me asking?

A combination of things including merit-based scholarships, organization scholarships, my money, and my parents' money that they've saved for this purpose. If my financial situation were different, however, I would have done two years at a cal state system (about $5,000 per year in tuition) and then two years at a UC.

.Andy
Apr 3, 2010, 02:28 AM
It is indeed a good thing, but is it what they should be doing? Again, it really conflicts with my views on limited government. Just because something is a good cause in general does not mean that it should be the government's business to subsidize.
When you start opposing things that you agree are "good" for nothing more than the sake of ideology it's time to question the validity of the ideology.

Badandy
Apr 3, 2010, 02:33 AM
When you start opposing things that you agree are "good" for nothing more than the sake of ideology it's time to question the validity of the ideology.

The problem is that there exists an immeasurable number of good things. If the government invested in every single cause that some segment of the population found worthwhile and beneficial it would need to spend an even more obscene amount of money per year. That money has to come from somewhere and it would have to come from increased taxes, which would come disproportionately from the wealthy. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a lower tax burden for all segments of the population and more discretionary money to spend/invest on the things I value. The day we give the government carte blanche (if we haven't done so already) to invest in everything they think is worthwhile (read: anything even a couple constituents ask for) is the day where they cease to even have the concept of fiscal responsibility in the back of their minds.

.Andy
Apr 3, 2010, 02:44 AM
The problem is that there exists an immeasurable number of good things. If the government invested in every single cause that some segment of the population found worthwhile and beneficial it would need to spend and even more obscene amount of money per year.
Nobody claimed the government should be involved in everything that is good. This is a strawman. On the contrary. Each and every initiative by the government should be weighed up by it's pros and cons and the good it does society overall for the cost. Blanket rejection on the grounds of ideology adds nothing constructive and is an intellectual cop-out.

That money has to come from somewhere and it would have to come from increased taxes, which would come disproportionately from the wealthy. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a lower tax burden for all segments of the population and more discretionary money to spend/invest on the things I value.
As exciting as talk of "tax burdens" are, investing in things like education and healthcare more than pays for itself in the "tax burden" long run and benefits the whole of society financially and socially. I'd rather everyone receives education and healthcare than a few dollars more for personal discretionary spending. Nobody is about to run out of spending money.

The day we give the government carte blanche (if we haven't done so already) to invest in everything they think is worthwhile (read: anything even a couple constituents ask for) is the day where they cease to even have the concept of fiscal responsibility in the back of their minds.
This is the same strawman as the first paragraph.

R.Perez
Apr 3, 2010, 02:56 AM
Wow its amazing to me that you fail to recognize the positions of privelage that you enjoy and has allowed you to have the position that you are in. You talk about the cost of school as if tuition is the only burden. Tuition for me is 11,500 a year and just my rent is another 13,000 a year on top that. The so called generous pell grant of $5500, hardly covers it. I will write more when I'm not typing on a phone.

Badandy
Apr 3, 2010, 03:09 AM
Each and every initiative by the government should be weighed up by it's pros and cons and the good it does society overall for the cost.

I'll agree with this as long as you understand that it's my view that society would be greatly benefited by a government that intrudes, excises, and influences as little as possible.

For example, Person A has $100 and Person B has $50. Would you view it as a societal good for $25 to be transferred from A to B? In my view, you'd weigh the pros and cons, much like you said. A "pro" would be that Person B is better off than before while a "con" would be that the money might have been taken from Person A in a way that is either unfair or would result in a mindset that someone else might view as undesirable. Similarly, while dedicating an increasing amount of our country's perilously strained budget to university grants might be something you think is worthwhile, many others would find an increasingly excising and dependency-creating (the loss of money that can be spent with individual discretion to pay for more government services) government a long-term societal problem.


Blanket rejection on the grounds of ideology adds nothing constructive and is an intellectual cop-out.

Yes, it is.


Wow its amazing to me that you fail to recognize the positions of privelage that you enjoy and has allowed you to have the position that you are in.

Yep, you know my exact position and how appreciative or unappreciative I am for the things I have in life.

You talk about the cost of school as if tuition is the only burden. Tuition for me is 11,500 a year and just my rent is another 13,000 a year on top that.

And you talk about the cost of shelter as something the government should provide you with or subsidize you for.

itcheroni
Apr 3, 2010, 04:56 AM
Nobody claimed the government should be involved in everything that is good. This is a strawman. On the contrary. Each and every initiative by the government should be weighed up by it's pros and cons and the good it does society overall for the cost. Blanket rejection on the grounds of ideology adds nothing constructive and is an intellectual cop-out.


As exciting as talk of "tax burdens" are, investing in things like education and healthcare more than pays for itself in the "tax burden" long run and benefits the whole of society financially and socially. I'd rather everyone receives education and healthcare than a few dollars more for personal discretionary spending. Nobody is about to run out of spending money.


This is the same strawman as the first paragraph.

I completely agree with weighing the advantages and disadvantages of government programs and it is exactly why generous student aid is a problem. I want as many people to get a good education but guaranteeing loans and giving grants does not necessarily achieve that end. College didn't use to be prohibitively expensive before the government took a larger role in higher education. This video gives a good explanation of the economic impact of government guaranteed student loans (and grants).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIcfMMVcYZg

Basically, the argument shouldn't even be about wealth transfer from the have to the have nots. The benefit that is derived from the loans and grants are not even worth it. As a percentage of the average worker's wage, college tuition has skyrocketed since the government tried to take cost out of the equation. Now, students can't afford college without these programs when before they could have worked a part time or summer job to pay for all their school costs. The only difference is that the students are stuck with a much larger bill. The video gives some statistical figures.

By the way, I'm not crapping on R.Perez for what he's getting. I think everyone should try to get benefits they qualify for while they still can. I've enrolled in a masters program in large part for financial reasons, to defer my enormous law school debt.

.Andy
Apr 3, 2010, 05:39 AM
For example, Person A has $100 and Person B has $50. Would you view it as a societal good for $25 to be transferred from A to B? In my view, you'd weigh the pros and cons, much like you said. A "pro" would be that Person B is better off than before while a "con" would be that the money might have been taken from Person A in a way that is either unfair or would result in a mindset that someone else might view as undesirable.
Frankly this is a ridiculous example and not even remotely what we are talking about. Nobody even mentioned the prospect of equalising pay across society or just to make people "more well off".

Similarly, while dedicating an increasing amount of our country's perilously strained budget to university grants might be something you think is worthwhile, many others would find an increasingly excising and dependency-creating (the loss of money that can be spent with individual discretion to pay for more government services) government a long-term societal problem.
The basic premise of education (and one that is tried and tested) is one of increasing the skill set of the individual and making them more employable in the long term. Education absolutely does not make people "dependent" on the government. Again the catchy ideological talking points are overtaking intelligent discussion.

I completely agree with weighing the advantages and disadvantages of government programs and it is exactly why generous student aid is a problem. I want as many people to get a good education but guaranteeing loans and giving grants does not necessarily achieve that end. College didn't use to be prohibitively expensive before the government took a larger role in higher education. This video gives a good explanation of the economic impact of government guaranteed student loans (and grants).
I can't watch your video where I am unfortunately but I'm incredibly wary of any source that puroports a single cause of rising cost. It's no doubt that some programs (govt or otherwise) whilst well-intentioned have negative consequences, which is why any program put into action needs to be periodically reviewed, audited, and dynamic.

Basically, the argument shouldn't even be about wealth transfer from the have to the have nots.
Catchphrase of "wealth transfer" aside, when it comes to education providing equitable access is something we should definitely strive for. The "have nots" as you put them are the one's must vulnerable to economic downturns. They're the one's least likely to have access to education. They're the one's least likely to come from a situation where there is an emphasis on education. They're the one's least likely to be in the position to take on education. Educating the "have nots" is a boon for the whole of society. It increases the GDP (benefits everyone), decreases unemployment rates long-term (benefits everyone), decreases crime rates (benefits everyone) and on and on. And I most certainly support any rational intervention that tries to accomplish this.

R.Perez
Apr 3, 2010, 05:42 AM
Educating the "have nots" is a boon for the whole of society. It increases the GDP (benefits everyone), decreases unemployment rates long-term (benefits everyone), decreases crime rates (benefits everyone) and on and on.

Actually higher unemployment is good for most employers.

An over saturated job market leads to lower pay and more work hours each individual person has to put in.

Unfortunately high unemployment is bad for everyone else.

.Andy
Apr 3, 2010, 05:47 AM
Actually higher unemployment is good for most employers.

An over saturated job market leads to lower pay and more work hours each individual person has to put in.

Unfortunately high unemployment is bad for everyone else.
Yes, but out of the two choices, the relative benefit to society overall of low unemployment is far better than high unemployment.

edit: There's also more to it than just money. Crime, health etc.

R.Perez
Apr 3, 2010, 06:31 AM
Yes, but out of the two choices, the relative benefit to society overall of low unemployment is far better than high unemployment.

edit: There's also more to it than just money. Crime, health etc.


I completely agree with you, and did so when I wrote that post.

I am simply pointing out the inequality in the fact that what is good for the employer is not necessarily good for the employee.

leekohler
Apr 3, 2010, 08:15 AM
Woo hoo, free money! Thanks so much Obama! Forget the fact that the government shouldn't be giving students money for college and the fact that our debt is ridiculously high!

Excuse me? That's exactly what the government should be doing, not fighting stupid wars.

BTW- I went to school on Pell grants, and was homeless a few times during. :mad: Don't push it. You have really pissed me off. You have no clue what you're talking about.

bobber205
Apr 3, 2010, 12:26 PM
What are students of poverty supposed to do? Does badandy seriously think everyone has this money magically saved up at all times? Sure you may start saving up when they're born, but what if there's a medical emergency or something and you have to use that money for something else?

College should be accessible to everyone, regardless of income level.

Sydde
Apr 3, 2010, 01:03 PM
What are students of poverty supposed to do?

Poor children are obviously the product of stupid, lazy or unlucky parents and thus have inherited bad genes. We should not pollute our education system with low-quality bloodlines and people who are not likely to make good use of their learning. We need to push through promising children with good genealogical heritage - like our previous .us president.
:eek:

IntheNet
Apr 3, 2010, 01:40 PM
College should be accessible to everyone, regardless of income level.

You said the same thing about health care, demanding that "government" pay for that. Now you want the government to pay for college too. How about computers? Shouldn't computers be free for all too; regardless of income level? Is Apple evil for charging hundreds of dollars when the "government" should step in and give them to you free? The fact is that one has to work hard to achieve things in life and nothing is free, nor should it. We live in a society where personal achievement acquires things like education, health care, and yes, computers. Stop demanding socialism if you want to live in the United States. Stop being lazy and demanding the "government" give you what you you need to earn. And yes, college is accessible but it requires sacrifice. Long term loans, grants, scholarships, plus parental funds, and yes, summer work may partially pay the tuition bill and you'll likely have bills when you graduate when the loans come due. That is called work - get use to it. Stop insisting that the "government" facilitate laziness...

Surely
Apr 3, 2010, 01:48 PM
How do you get that he wants the government to facilitate laziness from this statement?:


College should be accessible to everyone, regardless of income level.

Your analogy is extremely weak.

If someone can't afford something, it doesn't mean that they are lazy.

You really need to think before you type, ITN.

CorvusCamenarum
Apr 3, 2010, 01:54 PM
What are students of poverty supposed to do? Does badandy seriously think everyone has this money magically saved up at all times? Sure you may start saving up when they're born, but what if there's a medical emergency or something and you have to use that money for something else?

College should be accessible to everyone, regardless of income level.

The better question to be asking is why, as a society, we seem so intent on pushing everyone into pursuing a college degree, regardless of whether or not everyone wants or needs one.

R.Perez
Apr 3, 2010, 02:32 PM
The better question to be asking is why, as a society, we seem so intent on pushing everyone into pursuing a college degree, regardless of whether or not everyone wants or needs one.

Because thanks to REPUBLICANS and Conservative Democrats signing trade agreements that only benefit large corporations we don't MAKE anything anymore, and even if we did conservatives killed all the unions so the few manufacturing jobs left don't pay well anymore.

The American dream is dead, conservatives killed it.

If you want to make a good living in this life, you need to go to college, and not just college. A bachelor's degree is a dime a dozen these days. To make decent money you need a graduate degree or a professional degree.

bobber205
Apr 3, 2010, 04:13 PM
How do you get that he wants the government to facilitate laziness from this statement?:



Your analogy is extremely weak.

If someone can't afford something, it doesn't mean that they are lazy.

You really need to think before you type, ITN.

He might as well stop posting all together then. ;)

College is very expensive. Summer jobs aren't always enough. Parents can be dirt poor. I think having to go into a moderate amount of debt is fine but there should be some limit. It hurts our economy when new graduates are entering the work force with such a burden like student load debts.

I would think quote "conservatives" would know all about the economics of 'investing' for the future. We need to invest in our younger generations and their education.

CorvusCamenarum
Apr 3, 2010, 07:48 PM
Because thanks to REPUBLICANS and Conservative Democrats signing trade agreements that only benefit large corporations we don't MAKE anything anymore, and even if we did conservatives killed all the unions so the few manufacturing jobs left don't pay well anymore.

The American dream is dead, conservatives killed it.

If you want to make a good living in this life, you need to go to college, and not just college. A bachelor's degree is a dime a dozen these days. To make decent money you need a graduate degree or a professional degree.

I was unaware that it was absolutely essential to have a 4 year degree from an accredited institution in order to be a successful tradesperson (plumber, electrician, mechanic, etc) or that a degree in liberal arts was necessary to be a competent paper-shuffler (secretary, etc). Gosh, it must be those evil Republicans' fault for sending all the plumbing and wiring jobs overseas.

Not everyone needs to go to university, but the liberal fantasy of college degrees for all has made it seem as such. It's simple economics applied to sheepskins, the more of them you have, the less each one of them is worth (leaving the quality of each individual one aside for the moment - obviously Harvard is going to be worth more than No-Name Diploma Mill State).

If you want to make college cost less, reduce the size and enrollment of the college. Cost of my first semester of undergrad in 1994: $1200. Cost of my fiancee's last semester at the same institution in 2010 - $3500. Has the quality gone up so much to warrant such an increase? Probably not. But student enrollment has skyrocketed by nearly 50% and there are a lot more soft degree options, which means more teachers needed, and so more money needed, which means ever increasing tuition.

You can't exactly work full time and go to school full time.
The same fiancee whom I referenced earlier, and who is in her final semester of a full course load plus a 35+ hour a week job (for the last 4 years and will most likely be graduating magma cum laude), would disagree with you.

rhsgolfer33
Apr 3, 2010, 09:03 PM
You can't exactly work full time and go to school full time.

Yes you can, people do it often. There was a thread on MR a while back where a few people took full course loads and went to school full time. I'll have to see if I can find it. Its not easy, but its not impossible either.


And it's not "free money". These students earn those grants by working hard and achieving high grades.

Really? Last I checked, Pell Grants don't require anything in the way of educational achievement to get and the other grants that do usually require a 3.0 out of 4.0 (hardly what I would call high grades). The government could careless what your GPA is, if your family makes less than $x (and I believe X in the case of Pell Grants is around $50k) you're eligible for the grant.

GPA can help you get funding from your school (especially in the case of private institutions) and outside sources, but it doesn't matter much for government grants like the Pell Grant.

. You talk about the cost of school as if tuition is the only burden. Tuition for me is 11,500 a year and just my rent is another 13,000 a year on top that. The so called generous pell grant of $5500, hardly covers it.

Well for quite a few people, especially in California where we have UC's and CSU's all over, living with parents and commuting is an option that most disregard. I've lived at home my whole undergraduate career and its saved me over $40,000.

And honestly, a part time job can cover a large chunk of those expenses. People outside of government grant eligibility because of their parents income, but who's parents aren't paying for college often work to pay a large portion of those expense. I made in the $10-$15k range working 20-30 hours a week and taking 16-20 units at the same time while pulling a similar GPA to yours as an accounting major. Its definitely do able. Could have covered living on campus easily. As I said earlier, I lived at home, so this money could have covered all of the tuition at one of the two state schools I'm within 20 minutes of and left me with plenty of gas money and spending money for the year leftover. I'm fortunate in that I didn't need to do either and in that I was able to attend a private college on a large scholarship, so my income was essentially entirely disposable. If circumstances wouldn't have worked out so well, however, that money would have likely gone towards living on some other schools campus.

Excuse me? That's exactly what the government should be doing, not fighting stupid wars.

I agree, we should spend less on wars and divert some of that funding to education.

I don't oppose financial aid, I do think we need a different system though, we'll see how Obama's changes go.

Zombie Acorn
Apr 3, 2010, 09:05 PM
Never have been eligible for pell grants.. its ******** that some students get them while others whos parents probably pay twice the load in taxes get screwed. I should at least see the same benefits if not more, now I get to pay 8-10% on my private loans instead while some other kid gets free money.

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 01:45 AM
Never have been eligible for pell grants.. its ******** that some students get them while others whos parents probably pay twice the load in taxes get screwed. I should at least see the same benefits if not more, now I get to pay 8-10% on my private loans instead while some other kid gets free money.

Do you have any idea what you have to do to be eligible for Pell grants? I had to live by my own means for 2 years. That means working to support yourself on your own, free of any parental assistance. Whine all you want, but Pell grants are hard to come by.

I'm getting really tired of this BS from you and others. Pell grants are not just given out. You have to prove you need them, and it's not easy to do.

Yes you can, people do it often. There was a thread on MR a while back where a few people took full course loads and went to school full time. I'll have to see if I can find it. Its not easy, but its not impossible either.



Really? Last I checked, Pell Grants don't require anything in the way of educational achievement to get and the other grants that do usually require a 3.0 out of 4.0 (hardly what I would call high grades). The government could careless what your GPA is, if your family makes less than $x (and I believe X in the case of Pell Grants is around $50k) you're eligible for the grant.

GPA can help you get funding from your school (especially in the case of private institutions) and outside sources, but it doesn't matter much for government grants like the Pell Grant.



Well for quite a few people, especially in California where we have UC's and CSU's all over, living with parents and commuting is an option that most disregard. I've lived at home my whole undergraduate career and its saved me over $40,000.

And honestly, a part time job can cover a large chunk of those expenses. People outside of government grant eligibility because of their parents income, but who's parents aren't paying for college often work to pay a large portion of those expense. I made in the $10-$15k range working 20-30 hours a week and taking 16-20 units at the same time while pulling a similar GPA to yours as an accounting major. Its definitely do able. Could have covered living on campus easily. As I said earlier, I lived at home, so this money could have covered all of the tuition at one of the two state schools I'm within 20 minutes of and left me with plenty of gas money and spending money for the year leftover. I'm fortunate in that I didn't need to do either and in that I was able to attend a private college on a large scholarship, so my income was essentially entirely disposable. If circumstances wouldn't have worked out so well, however, that money would have likely gone towards living on some other schools campus.



I agree, we should spend less on wars and divert some of that funding to education.

I don't oppose financial aid, I do think we need a different system though, we'll see how Obama's changes go.

California has some great education programs. The rest of the US doesn't even come close to it though. Don't pretend it does. The rules vary state to state.

.Andy
Apr 4, 2010, 01:47 AM
I'm getting really tired of this BS from you and others.
Probably won't want to read many more PRSI threads tonight then Lee :). Our friend has been in quite an antagonistic mood......


edit: the sea ice thread will make you want to poke your eyes out :p

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 01:56 AM
Probably won't want to read many more PRSI threads tonight then Lee :). Our friend has been in quite an antagonistic mood......


edit: the sea ice thread will make you want to poke your eyes out :p

Whatever. People like Zombie and Badandy are really pissing me off in this thread. They don't have a clue.

dukebound85
Apr 4, 2010, 02:01 AM
Do you have any idea what you have to do to be eligible for Pell grants? I had to live by my own means for 2 years. That means working to support yourself on your own, free of any parental assistance. Whine all you want, but Pell grants are hard to come by.
.

Here is what I don't like

1) Can't get Pell Grants for grad school
2) Did the FAFSA and I had to use my income I made as an engineer (2009 income)......which I no longer am working as
3) Had to state how much I had in my bank for FAFSA reasons.....should have boughten a car and all these toys rather than save it up as that will only hurt my chances of aide by saving

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 02:06 AM
Here is what I don't like

1) Can't get Pell Grants for grad school
2) Did the FAFSA and I had to use my income I made as an engineer (2009 income)......which I no longer am working as
3) Had to state how much I had in my bank for FAFSA reasons.....should have boughten a car and all these toys rather than save it up as that will only hurt my chances of aide by saving

You've lost me...:confused: I got Pell grants because I had absolutely nothing.

dukebound85
Apr 4, 2010, 02:08 AM
You've lost me...:confused:

just harping on the FAFSA and how they determine aide

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 02:13 AM
just harping on the FAFSA and how they determine aide

Well, I had nothing, that's why I got them. And when I say nothing, I mean it. It took me years in Chicago to actually buy things I thought I would keep forever because of that. I kept myself light because I figured life for me would always be on the go- never knowing when I might have to move on. I didn't even own a bed til I was 38 because I was afraid would just have to get rid of it. Now I have a good collection of antiques. I still have that homeless paranoia though- like it's all going to be taken from me at any moment, even though I'm pretty sure it won't. It's not a fun way to feel, and I'm just now coming to terms with it.

It's like- wait, Lee you have finally done some things that might get you a permanent home. But if you've never been there, you don't know what I mean. I imagine you've never been abandoned by loved ones. I would not wish that on anyone.

Ttownbeast
Apr 4, 2010, 02:13 AM
Pell grants require and average GPA of 2.0 (letter grade C or better overall) or above if your GPA drops below this for one term your grant status is put in warning if it remains there the next term you are suspended and do not get the grant money until you can get your GPA back above 2.0.

You can fail a subject but the average of all subjects for a seasonal term must be high enough to prevent the GPA from falling below the lowest recorded grade to maintain grant eligibility otherwise you might wind up paying out of pocket for a term and working on getting your total GPA back up to acceptable levels in order to receive eligibility again. The poor just don't coast through as is assumed the poor still have to do the work in class and might actually learn something in the process.

rhsgolfer33
Apr 4, 2010, 03:07 AM
California has some great education programs. The rest of the US doesn't even come close to it though. Don't pretend it does. The rules vary state to state.

I'm definitely not, I understand how good California's public university system is in comparison to the university systems of many states. I personally chose not to participate in it, mainly because I wanted to go to a small school and I got a scholarship at a private university that allowed me to attend for a similar price to a public school in California; without that scholarship I would have ended up at one of the CSU's or UC's. They're good schools, but I'm quite happy that I didn't have to attend and deal with the bureaucracy, difficulty getting courses, and budget cuts that my friends have experiences.

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 03:19 AM
I'm definitely not, I understand how good California's public university system is in comparison to the university systems of many states. I personally chose not to participate in it, mainly because I wanted to go to a small school and I got a scholarship at a private university that allowed me to attend for a similar price to a public school in California; without that scholarship I would have ended up at one of the CSU's or UC's. They're good schools, but I'm quite happy that I didn't have to attend and deal with the bureaucracy, difficulty getting courses, and budget cuts that my friends have experiences.

There you go. Some of us had choices, and others not so much.

rhsgolfer33
Apr 4, 2010, 03:38 AM
There you go. Some of us had choices, and others not so much.

And that's why, even in my libertarian/conservative financial leanings, I can't support removing a financial aid program. I wish there were a little bit tougher GPA requirements for things like Pell Grants, but I definitely think they should exist.

There are people who deserve to go to college who simply can't afford it, that shouldn't stop them from bettering themselves. Its precisely why the private college I go to gives out a lot of scholarship money and its why the government should continue aid programs. I do, however, agree with the notion college is not necessarily for everyone and that young people shouldn't be forced down that path; we need better alternative programs that can teach trades that can provide a decent wage to young people as well.

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 03:47 AM
And that's why, even in my libertarian/conservative financial leanings, I can't support removing a financial aid program. I wish there were a little bit tougher GPA requirements for things like Pell Grants, but I definitely think they should exist.

There are people who deserve to go to college who simply can't afford it, that shouldn't stop them from bettering themselves. Its precisely why the private college I go to gives out a lot of scholarship money and its why the government should continue aid programs. I do, however, agree with the notion college is not necessarily for everyone and that young people shouldn't be forced down that path; we need better alternative programs that can teach trades that can provide a decent wage to young people as well.

My GPA was crap, but here I am. The same GPA requirements should apply across the board. They should not be more stringent because you have no money.

dukebound85
Apr 4, 2010, 03:50 AM
And that's why, even in my libertarian/conservative financial leanings, I can't support removing a financial aid program. I wish there were a little bit tougher GPA requirements for things like Pell Grants, but I definitely think they should exist.



I dunno, I think the kids that need the Pell Grants the most are those who do NOT have the support of their families school wise and therefore may not be as privileged to have just their attention focused on school. SOme may have jobs, raising siblings, etc who need more help than those who are able to only go to school and do well (and more then likely I would wager, have better income families)

rhsgolfer33
Apr 4, 2010, 03:54 AM
My GPA was crap, but here I am. The same GPA requirements should apply across the board. They should not be more stringent because you have no money.

Well I'd make them the same across the board for everyone. I just think 2.0 for a Pell Grant is a little low, even 2.5 would be better. I probably spent an average of about 30 minutes per day doing homework in high school and was able to pull a 3.4 in the standard college prep curriculum. My golf time to study time was at least 10:1. :D

I guess the colleges are really the filter, you probably won't need a Pell Grant with a 2.0 as an 18 year old freshmen because you probably won't get into a four year college.

I dunno, I think the kids that need the Pell Grants the most are those who do NOT have the support of their families school wise and therefore may not be as privileged to have just their attention focused on school. SOme may have jobs, raising siblings, etc who need more help than those who are able to only go to school and do well (and more then likely I would wager, have better income families)

Good point.

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 03:57 AM
I dunno, I think the kids that need the Pell Grants the most are those who do NOT have the support of their families school wise and therefore may not be as privileged to have just their attention focused on school. SOme may have jobs, raising siblings, etc who need more help than those who are able to only go to school and do well (and more then likely I would wager, have better income families)

You nailed it, Dukey. Try going to school and being pulled out of class repeatedly because your aid did not come through soon enough. And yeah, they announce it in front of the whole class. :eek:

Then if you have a job on top of it to pay for housing, it adds even more stress. It becomes 24/7.

Well I'd make them the same across the board for everyone. I just think 2.0 for a Pell Grant is a little low, even 2.5 would be better. I probably spent an average of about 30 minutes per day doing homework in high school and was able to pull a 3.4 in the standard college prep curriculum. My golf time to study time was at least 10:1. :D

I guess the colleges are really the filter, you probably won't need a Pell Grant with a 2.0 as an 18 year old freshmen because you probably won't get into a four year college.



Good point.

I never got above a 2.5 in college. I was mostly trying to figure out where I was going to sleep a lot of the time. If a 2.0 is passing for everyone else, then it should be fine for a Pell grant too.

Ttownbeast
Apr 4, 2010, 04:12 AM
To initially qualify for pell grants you have to want to go to college and be below a median income as a tax payer or your parents earnings as tax payers must be below that income for the prior tax year. The poor student still has to prove that they deserve to continue earning the grant while in school to justify the funds being spent on them by doing the work, this is not a handout.

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 04:52 AM
To initially qualify for pell grants you have to want to go to college and be below a median income as a tax payer or your parents earnings as tax payers must be below that income for the prior tax year. The poor student still has to prove that they deserve to continue earning the grant while in school to justify the funds being spent on them by doing the work, this is not a handout.

It's a struggle, to be sure. But when you're working full time to pay for your housing while going to school full time... you have to prove that. Even then, they don't believe you. It's horrible. It's not like they say, "Here's free money!" You really have to have a need for it. Getting Pell grants was a real trial for me. I don't even want to go into things I had to do to survive back then. It was awful. I went to soup kitchens and worked off whatever I could.

People like Badandy have no idea what that is like.

School? Yeah, I wanted it. But I didn't even know what I was going to eat or when on a daily basis. So how are grades supposed to be good?

Ttownbeast
Apr 4, 2010, 04:55 AM
It's a struggle, to be sure. But when you're working full time to pay for your housing while going to school full time... you have to prove that. Even then, they don't believe you. It's horrible. It's not like they say, "Here's free money!" You really have to have a need for it. Getting Pell grants was a real trial for me. I don't even want to go into things I had to do to survive back then. It was awful. I went to soup kitchens and worked off whatever I could.

People like Badandy have no idea what that is like.

School? Yeah, I wanted it. But I didn't even know what I was going to eat or when.
Macncheese or ramen noodles by the crate and if youcould afford the luxury kechup an hot sauce, but that didn't stop the occasional bottleneck at the financial aid office which delayed funds for half a term that forced a student to sell blood plasma. it got so bad when I left school that even selling plasma didn't cover costs and I had to leave school because my federal work study paychecks weren't coming in on time.

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 05:00 AM
Macncheese or ramen noodles by the crate and if youcould afford the luxury kechup an hot sauce

Lots of Ramen noodles. I could get some ground beef from the soup kitchen once in a while. But what to do with it? I couldn't even afford Kraft macaroni and cheese. That was 99 cents! :eek:

BTW-I will never eat Ramen noodles again. NEVER.

Ttownbeast
Apr 4, 2010, 05:04 AM
Lots of Ramen noodles. I could get some ground beef from the soup kitchen once in a while. But what to do with it? I couldn't even afford Kraft macaroni and cheese. That was 99 cents! :eek:

BTW-I will never eat Ramen noodles again. NEVER.

a good shopper got the 10 for a buck off brand mac and cheese from the factory seconds grocery store that had some sort of Arabic writing on it and bought that at a discount because the case was damaged LOL

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 11:07 AM
a good shopper got the 10 for a buck off brand mac and cheese from the factory seconds grocery store that had some sort of Arabic writing on it and bought that at a discount because the case was damaged LOL

Not available in rural Ohio.

it5five
Apr 4, 2010, 11:46 AM
Here is what I don't like

1) Can't get Pell Grants for grad school
2) Did the FAFSA and I had to use my income I made as an engineer (2009 income)......which I no longer am working as
3) Had to state how much I had in my bank for FAFSA reasons.....should have boughten a car and all these toys rather than save it up as that will only hurt my chances of aide by saving

1) Because you're not poor. I didn't get any Pell Grants either, but I'm not sitting here whining about it. I just didn't qualify - big deal. Other people needed the money more than I did. Pell Grants are for undergraduate education only, if I recall. Didn't you get a fully funded offer with a stipend anyway?

2) Talk to your financial aid office. If your financial situation changes drastically (like in your case), you can have them re-calculate your financial aid need.

3) You didn't have to state that information on the FAFSA. That part was optional. I remember, because I didn't put anything there (because I didn't have any money in my bank at the time) and my FAFSA was still processed and accepted.

I have my gripes with the FAFSA though. I lived independently of my parents throughout my entire undergraduate career. They did not contribute anything to my income, I lived on my own paying all of my own bills, and I worked full-time while taking a full course load (and still graduated a semester early with honors). Nevertheless, I had to put down my parents financial information on the FAFSA so they could calculate how much my parents were able to contribute. Since my parents are divorced, I always just put down my poorer parent so I could qualify for better aid. I got some grants from the university, and the rest was subsidized loans. If I was able to leave my parents off, I definitely would have qualified for better grants.

Gelfin
Apr 4, 2010, 12:08 PM
Never have been eligible for pell grants.. its ******** that some students get them while others whos parents probably pay twice the load in taxes get screwed.

Are you seriously suggesting that financial aid should only be available to students whose parents make enough money not to need financial aid?

I recall Pell Grants as being generally intended for people who would not be able to attend college otherwise. Offering opportunities for advanced education is a part of the argument that America offers equality of opportunity instead of a caste system that locks people into generation after generation of inescapable poverty. If you "get screwed" America gets the benefit of two college graduates contributing to the economic strength of the nation. If the prospective Pell Grant recipient "gets screwed" America gets the economic benefit of one college graduate partially negated by one lifelong social program dependent.

dukebound85
Apr 4, 2010, 01:52 PM
1) Because you're not poor. I didn't get any Pell Grants either, but I'm not sitting here whining about it. I just didn't qualify - big deal. Other people needed the money more than I did. Pell Grants are for undergraduate education only, if I recall. Didn't you get a fully funded offer with a stipend anyway?


Yea, and I am very thankful for it. However, the stipend doesn't cover student fees and the mandatory health insurance which is pretty pricy. Yes, you are right about them being only for undergrad.

But yes, you are right, other students need it more. Though maybe it is because I had received the max Pell Grants my last 3 years of undergrad that I was sorta expecting it...as a pleasant surprise but alas

Just sucks as I stil owe alot more in my student loans than I have money in the bank lol


2) Talk to your financial aid office. If your financial situation changes drastically (like in your case), you can have them re-calculate your financial aid need.

I'll see what comes of the application

3) You didn't have to state that information on the FAFSA. That part was optional. I remember, because I didn't put anything there (because I didn't have any money in my bank at the time) and my FAFSA was still processed and accepted.
I don't think it was optional as I look back at the application right now. But owell.

I have my gripes with the FAFSA though. I lived independently of my parents throughout my entire undergraduate career. They did not contribute anything to my income, I lived on my own paying all of my own bills, and I worked full-time while taking a full course load (and still graduated a semester early with honors). Nevertheless, I had to put down my parents financial information on the FAFSA so they could calculate how much my parents were able to contribute. Since my parents are divorced, I always just put down my poorer parent so I could qualify for better aid. I got some grants from the university, and the rest was subsidized loans. If I was able to leave my parents off, I definitely would have qualified for better grants.
I hear you.

Zombie Acorn
Apr 4, 2010, 02:06 PM
Do you have any idea what you have to do to be eligible for Pell grants? I had to live by my own means for 2 years. That means working to support yourself on your own, free of any parental assistance. Whine all you want, but Pell grants are hard to come by.

I'm getting really tired of this BS from you and others. Pell grants are not just given out. You have to prove you need them, and it's not easy to do.


You clearly haven't been in the college system for a while. All of my friends were eligible for pell grants. I have been on my own since 18, I was never eligible for pell grants. Being without parental assistance doesn't qualify you for pell grants until you are 23. If your parents make too much it bars you from pell grants no matter what.

Zombie Acorn
Apr 4, 2010, 02:08 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that financial aid should only be available to students whose parents make enough money not to need financial aid?

I recall Pell Grants as being generally intended for people who would not be able to attend college otherwise. Offering opportunities for advanced education is a part of the argument that America offers equality of opportunity instead of a caste system that locks people into generation after generation of inescapable poverty. If you "get screwed" America gets the benefit of two college graduates contributing to the economic strength of the nation. If the prospective Pell Grant recipient "gets screwed" America gets the economic benefit of one college graduate partially negated by one lifelong social program dependent.

I am suggesting that pell grants be awarded to people in need of financial assistance regardless of what their parents are making.

dukebound85
Apr 4, 2010, 02:10 PM
I am suggesting that pell grants be awarded to people in need of financial assistance regardless of what their parents are making.

True. I did know alot of students who had parents that could pay but had their kids fund school themselves.

Not that that is bad but certainly works against them when applying for aide when the people giving aide assume the parents are going to help

Ttownbeast
Apr 4, 2010, 03:43 PM
You clearly haven't been in the college system for a while. All of my friends were eligible for pell grants. I have been on my own since 18, I was never eligible for pell grants. Being without parental assistance doesn't qualify you for pell grants until you are 23. If your parents make too much it bars you from pell grants no matter what.

Untrue, if your parents don't file you as a dependent on their tax return and you file your own for the previous tax year at age 17, 18 or whatever age for that matter as you enter college your Pell grant award is based on your own income. I've known a fair share of young students who have had their parents file taxes separately and not list the child as a dependent to file on their own for this purpose to increase the amount of Pell money distributed for school based on their own earned annual income which as teenagers would normally be significantly lower than their parents considering their limited job skills, lower wages, and short work hours.

Zombie Acorn
Apr 4, 2010, 03:47 PM
Untrue, if your parents don't file you as a dependent on their tax return and you file your own for the previous tax year at age 17, 18 or whatever age for that matter as you enter college your Pell grant award is based on your own income. I've known a fair share of young students who have had their parents file taxes separately and not list the child as a dependent to file on their own for this purpose to increase the amount of Pell money distributed for school based on their own earned annual income which as teenagers would normally be significantly lower than their parents considering their limited job skills, lower wages, and short work hours.

Here are the requirements for filing indendent status. You have to meet one of these qualifications, if you do not then your Pell qualifications are based on your parents income:

* You are at least 24 years old on the day you file your FAFSA
* You are or will be enrolled in a masters or Doctoral degree program at the beginning of the school year
* You are married on the day you file your FAFSA
* You are a parent
* You have dependents other than your spouse who live with you and who receive more than half their support from you at the time you apply
* Both your parents are deceased (or were until age 18) a ward of dependent of the court
* You are currently serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces for purposes other than training
* You’re a Veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces.
* You were a foster child after the age of 13.
* You are an emancipated child as determined by a court judge.
* You are homeless or at risk of homelessness as determined by the director of a HUD approved homeless shelter, transitional program, or high school liaison.

2contagious
Apr 4, 2010, 03:51 PM
to thread starter: I can understand your joy. You guys in the US must really need it, I have seen some of the prices for unis in the US and compared to Europe it's just :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Ttownbeast
Apr 4, 2010, 04:14 PM
Here are the requirements for filing indendent status. You have to meet one of these qualifications, if you do not then your Pell qualifications are based on your parents income:

* You are at least 24 years old on the day you file your FAFSA
* You are or will be enrolled in a masters or Doctoral degree program at the beginning of the school year
* You are married on the day you file your FAFSA
* You are a parent
* You have dependents other than your spouse who live with you and who receive more than half their support from you at the time you apply
* Both your parents are deceased (or were until age 18) a ward of dependent of the court
* You are currently serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces for purposes other than training
* You’re a Veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces.
* You were a foster child after the age of 13.
* You are an emancipated child as determined by a court judge.
* You are homeless or at risk of homelessness as determined by the director of a HUD approved homeless shelter, transitional program, or high school liaison.

That's not the entire list those are some of the qualifying factors (the OR's as they were) that can expedite the approval process sure but ultimately it comes down to who filed for you on the tax return the previous year which is actually an emancipation if you file your own taxes and your parents do not file you as a dependent. Students who have been disqualified based on tax returns usually found out that their parents were still filing their returns and listing the students as dependents as far up as age 21 even when providing no sort of financial support at all--this tends to foster resentments among family members who figure out the situation after being denied occasionally leading to IRS audits and convictions for tax fraud.

Other things left out of your list that minimally qualify one but do not expedite the process:
* No criminal convictions for drug offenses
* Personal income level
* Filed previous years tax returns based on ones own income and not
listed as a dependent on anothers tax return.

These are the three base qualifications nothing bars someone under the age of 23 from filing and earning these grants as long as they meet all three.

Zombie Acorn
Apr 4, 2010, 04:25 PM
That's not the entire list those are some of the qualifying factors (the OR's as they were) that can expedite the approval process sure but ultimately it comes down to who filed for you on the tax return the previous year which is actually an emancipation if you file your own taxes and your parents do not file you as a dependent. Students who have been disqualified based on tax returns usually found out that their parents were still filing their returns and listing the students as dependents as far up as age 21 even when providing no sort of financial support at all--this tends to foster resentments among family members who figure out the situation after being denied occasionally leading to IRS audits and convictions for tax fraud.

Other things left out of your list that minimally qualify one but do not expedite the process:
* No criminal convictions for drug offenses
* Personal income level
* Filed previous years tax returns based on ones own income and not
listed as a dependent on anothers tax return.

These are the three base qualifications nothing bars someone under the age of 23 from filing and earning these grants as long as they meet all three.

Any source for this information? My requirements were pulled from the FAFSA website. Also to meet emancipation requirements you need to send FAFSA a court order showing your emancipation. Your requirements are not even asked about on the FAFSA form. If you don't meet the requirements I listed you have to include your parents income in your filings.

Ttownbeast
Apr 4, 2010, 04:33 PM
Any source for this information? My requirements were pulled from the FAFSA website. Also to meet emancipation requirements you need to send FAFSA a court order showing your emancipation. Your requirements are not even asked about on the FAFSA form. If you don't meet the requirements I listed you have to include your parents income in your filings.

You do not I went to the FAFSA site as well and dug a bit deeper for you:

To receive federal student aid, you must meet certain requirements. You must:

* Be a U.S. citizen or eligible noncitizen.
* Have a valid Social Security Number (unless you’re from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau).
* Be registered with Selective Service if you are male and 18 to 25 years of age (go to www.sss.gov for more information).
* Have a high school diploma or a General Education Development (GED) Certificate or pass an exam approved by the U.S. Department of Education.
* Be enrolled or accepted for enrollment as a regular student working toward a degree or certificate in an eligible program at a school that participates in the federal student aid programs.
* Not have a drug conviction for an offense that occurred while you were receiving federal student aid (such as grants, loans, or work-study).

Also:

* You must not owe a refund on a federal grant or be in default on a federal student loan.
* You must demonstrate financial need (except for unsubsidized Stafford Loans).

Other requirements may apply. Contact your school’s financial aid office for more information.

Other requirements "may" apply but these are not necessarily universal

http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/faq003.htm

Zombie Acorn
Apr 4, 2010, 04:39 PM
You do not I went to the FAFSA site as well and dug a bit deeper for you:



Other requirements "may" apply but these are not necessarily universal

http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/faq003.htm

Thats for receiving federal student aid, not pell grants. Almost everyone is eligible for some amount of student aid which is basically subsidized/unsubsidized loans at lower interest rates.

Badandy
Apr 4, 2010, 04:47 PM
People like Badandy have no idea what that is like.


Come off it, Lee. Are you only going to be civil when we agree on issues? I explained my position earlier and have seen nothing in this thread to make me change it. I understand education is important, I understand a lot of people can't afford to pay a lot of money for college, and I've acknowledged both of those things multiple times. I just don't think these grants should be expanded at this time; providing for the common defense, providing for police and fire, and providing college for residents are not all equal in my book.

hulugu
Apr 4, 2010, 06:30 PM
I am suggesting that pell grants be awarded to people in need of financial assistance regardless of what their parents are making.

I disagree. If a student's parents have the fundamental ability to pay for their kid's college education then they should. Pell Grants are for students who do not have the financial backing that would allow them to get through school. If the parents are unwilling to help, that is not the University's problem.

... I just don't think these grants should be expanded at this time; providing for the common defense, providing for police and fire, and providing college for residents are not all equal in my book.

I agree that providing for a common defense and college tuition grants are not on the same level of priorities, however, the scholarship and grant system is a way for the government to invest in its citizens in a way that will further economic advantages and help the country compete in the long-term.

I'd argue that the revision of the current system will help more students to graduate with less debt which will have an economic benefit in the next decade that exceeds today's expenses. The changes also removed a problematic arrangement with banks, a system tantamount to corporate welfare, lower the expense per student while also putting more money out for 8 million students.

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 06:39 PM
Come off it, Lee. Are you only going to be civil when we agree on issues? I explained my position earlier and have seen nothing in this thread to make me change it. I understand education is important, I understand a lot of people can't afford to pay a lot of money for college, and I've acknowledged both of those things multiple times. I just don't think these grants should be expanded at this time; providing for the common defense, providing for police and fire, and providing college for residents are not all equal in my book.

Then you're very short-sighted. And you're damn right I won't be civil about this. You weren't civil with your posts in this thread, you were quite nasty. You hit a very raw nerve. I will not be talked down to by people who have no clue what it's like to really struggle. So no- you'll get no civility from me.

If any time were better it's now, when people really need education. If we're going get our economy back up and running, we need a smarter population, not a less-educated one. If you can't understand that, we have nothing left to discuss.

hulugu
Apr 4, 2010, 06:51 PM
Then you're very short-sighted. And you're damn right I won't be civil about this. You weren't civil with your posts in this thread, you were quite nasty. You hit a very raw nerve. I will not be talked down to by people who have no clue what it's like to really struggle. So no- you'll get no civility from me.

Badandy was being flippant, but I don't think he meant any harm.

If any time were better it's now, when people really need education. If we're going get our economy back up and running, we need a smarter population, not a less-educated one...

I think the Pell grants are even better because the money helps students get through school with less debt, gives money indirectly to states that are hurting—through the state college system—and in four years we'll have more teachers and engineers who can help us in the next generation.

The only significant argument against Pell grants is it allows state colleges to continue keeping tuition high, but that was going to happen regardless, IMHO.

As for the Constitutional fundamentalists—and for Badandy I don't mean this is a derogatory way—I think the founders would approve of such a system because it's ultimately a beneficial investment.

Ttownbeast
Apr 4, 2010, 07:17 PM
Thats for receiving federal student aid, not pell grants. Almost everyone is eligible for some amount of student aid which is basically subsidized/unsubsidized loans at lower interest rates.

Upon further inquiry into the subject

To be eligible for a Federal Pell Grant and most other types of federal student aid, you must:
Have financial need.
Have a high school diploma, a GED, or pass an approved ability to benefit test, or have been home-schooled.
Be enrolled to obtain a degree.
Be a US citizen, permanent resident or other eligible classification of non-citizen (see Financial Aid Eligibility for Non-Citizens).
Have a valid Social Security number.
Make Satisfactory Academic Progress for Federal Student Aid Programs.
Register with Selective Service, if you are a male between the ages of 18 and 25.
Certify by signing a FAFSA that you will use any federal student aid funds awarded to you solely for educational purposes.
Certify by signing a FAFSA that you are not in default of any federal student loan and that you do not owe a repayment of any federal student aid grant.


You are still incorrect young Acorn, and here is the source for this one:

http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/finaid/grants/pell.html

Oh and one more detail you left out of your list:

The Financial Aid Office may require you document your claim of independence under the above conditions. If you do not fall into one of these above categories, but meet certain other conditions which can be documented, you may qualify to be independent for federal financial aid (discuss your situation with a financial aid counselor). http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/finaid/glossary/indie.html

always check the fine print lad.

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 07:20 PM
Badandy was being flippant, but I don't think he meant any harm.


Here's the bottom line- Badandy and other conservatives would use the "it's the wrong time" excuse no matter what. If not that one, then another, even if the economy were like it was during the boom. They loathe putting money into education and they can't deny that.

And flippant? Well, don't be surprised when you piss people off then. It's rude and completely disrespectful of what many people have had to go through to get an education. Badandy acts as if people getting Pell grants are out partying it up in style at keggers with government money. I can assure you, that is not the case- and the government makes sure they know where that money goes.

hulugu
Apr 4, 2010, 07:47 PM
...And flippant? Well, don't be surprised when you piss people off then. It's rude and completely disrespectful of what many people have had to go through to get an education. Badandy acts as if people getting Pell grants are out partying it up in style at keggers with government money. I can assure you, that is not the case- and the government makes sure they know where that money goes.

Hey, I know, I'm in the middle of graduate school right now. I've applied to dozens of grants, scholarships, and I've borrowed money as well. I know the finances are hard, and I've got a house payment and a kid on the way—yes I'm an idiot.

I think Badandy's opinion is more refined than that, he just disagree with the expansion of the Pell Grant at a time when we're running major deficits. I disagree with him.

callmemike20
Apr 4, 2010, 08:02 PM
Here's the bottom line- Badandy and other conservatives would use the "it's the wrong time" excuse no matter what. If not that one, then another, even if the economy were like it was during the boom. They loathe putting money into education and they can't deny that.
.

Why is the government trying to get everyone a college degree anyway? Shouldn't they be focusing on K-12 first? Our college system is great, but K-12 is just horrible.

dukebound85
Apr 4, 2010, 08:14 PM
Why is the government trying to get everyone a college degree anyway? Shouldn't they be focusing on K-12 first? Our college system is great, but K-12 is just horrible.

K-12 dominates the state funding for education in CO. higher ed has been getting the shaft for as long as I can remember here due to mandatory increases in k-12 funding in the state constitution.

The culprit is the Taxpayers Bill of Rights aka TABOR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights
In 2000, an amendment known as Amendment 23 was passed. This required education spending to increase at a certain rate regardless of revenue, and lead to a greater portion of revenue devoted to education. TABOR and Amendment 23 together required that other cuts in spending be made to offset education increases, and many of these cuts were unpopular.

Alot of those "cuts" were to higher education

callmemike20
Apr 4, 2010, 09:08 PM
K-12 dominates the state funding for education in CO. higher ed has been getting the shaft for as long as I can remember here due to mandatory increases in k-12 funding in the state constitution.

The culprit is the Taxpayers Bill of Rights aka TABOR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights

I'm not talking specifically about funding, but the overall quality of the education system. More funding does not always equal better schools.

Pell Grants, in my opinion, aren't necessarily bad. However, people should really show great achievement in high school, as well as maintain higher criteria in college. In Lee's case, show that you are homless and possess a strong desire for a higher education. If your grades aren't good (as in Lee's case), possibly require that professors give written letters once or twice a semester that detail the level of commitment in the class. You can be committed, but not necessarily have good grades.

On the other hand, a college education is not a right, its a priviledge. If we pay for everyone to go to college, then everyone will need a masters to stand out. And the trend would just continue. Also, there needs some amount that the student (or parents) must pay in tuition. The government shouldn't give people free rides. Investing in your own future means that you are serious about it. It also means you will work harder to get a better job because of your desire for a ROI.

hulugu
Apr 4, 2010, 09:11 PM
Why is the government trying to get everyone a college degree anyway? Shouldn't they be focusing on K-12 first? Our college system is great, but K-12 is just horrible.

I think the major problem in college education is making sure students have the funding to get through the program. On the other hand, the problems in K-12 won't be solved by throwing money at it, principally because the problems are much more complicated and subject to all kinds of local disparities.

Badandy
Apr 4, 2010, 09:21 PM
Hulugu is interpreting my position correctly even though he disagrees with me. Lee, you've completely misunderstood my opinion and mindset. I don't really know what else to say except that you've either willingly or accidentally applied some particularly nasty attributes to me today for some reason. I already said my first post was rushed and incomplete since I had somewhere to go, but I'm legitimately puzzled why you're being like this.

leekohler
Apr 4, 2010, 09:48 PM
Hulugu is interpreting my position correctly even though he disagrees with me. Lee, you've completely misunderstood my opinion and mindset. I don't really know what else to say except that you've either willingly or accidentally applied some particularly nasty attributes to me today for some reason. I already said my first post was rushed and incomplete since I had somewhere to go, but I'm legitimately puzzled why you're being like this.

I find it extremely callous of you to think that government supporting higher education is somehow wrong. If it doesn't, we'll end up with a caste system like others have pointed out. I find it extremely disturbing that you seem to view education as less important than fighting two stupid, needless wars of choice. Your first post REALLY pissed me off, because it sounded to me as if you feel we should be leaving the most vulnerable of our population in the dust since the economy isn't all that great.

Again, how do you expect people who come from nothing, or who have been abandoned by family to get through school? Do they all have to be mega smart or great athletes and get scholarships? Because I can tell you with absolute certainty that can't happen. We need what Obama is doing probably more now than ever. We need to have more educated people if we're going to get through this and keep moving forward. I don't see how you can view this as a bad thing. It absolutely boggles my mind.

Now- I'm sorry if I got really angry with you, but this topic is a hot one for me. Anyone who tries to take education money away from people who really need it is going to get a very strong reaction from me.