US Budget & Pell Grants

I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the proposed House HR1 budget that would cut yearly pell grants(amongst other things) by around $800. I don't receive any grants, but I personally think that touching educational grants, especially in the midst of an economic recovery where a lot of people don't exactly have the means of paying for school, is a bad idea. It just seems to me that the savings now might result in big losses later if we don't educate our work force. Invest in the future and all that?

Thoughts?

Also, I know that the bill was defeated, but this is hardly a dead issue, it could come back up in later budget bills.

 

I have first hand experience on this one. I come from a very economically disadvantaged background. Throughout my college career, I have always qualified for the full Pell grant, full loans, etc. I have benefited immensely, and am very grateful that these programs exist.

An $800 reduction would not hurt the student; in fact, larger cuts are feasible, and arguably necessary. I routinely have $2-3k per semester given to me above the cost of my tuition and books; I am not entitled to this money, nor does it make sense to give it to me (and the millions of others receiving similar aid). Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have it. BUT, it is not an efficient or fair expenditure of tax dollars.

The aid programs currently in place are more than sufficient to cover the costs of an education, as long as the student makes reasonable choices concerning school and major. Now, if tuition continues to rise at its current rate, who knows?

 

Another way to obtain government support for your degree is to attend a state school rather than a private or for-profit school because of state subsidies of state schools. There are high prestige state schools such as UCLA and UCSB to name two.

Although with the current financial problems of many states even these subsidies are being questioned.

 

Why should states pay for universities at all though? In Florida the state constitution is clear on free public education with high standards K-12 which is fine. But university is not such a high bar I would think if a person wants to go to such schools they should foot the costs or their families. Maybe if they had to take what people could afford school costs would go down its this government funding likely driving up costs. I did some checking when my great gradfather went to the University of Wisconsin school in Madison ,I believe its well regarded, for medical school his family whose only breadwinner was a welder paid cash to send him through school (yes cash as in paper money) and the school was a basic state school for the most part. Basic buildings, solid if basic facilities and housing not frills it was a good basic school.

And for the poor didn't Pell Grants used to fill almost all the costs of university I think I read that in a book on the subject, so maybe its not a good idea but it seems Pell Grants are not nearly enough for school costs so maybe getting rid of them won't be so bad.

 

Personally, I believe that Pell Grants are a great investment. I know at my institution, without Pell Grants, most of our students would not be able to go to college.

That being said, there is a population of students that abuse the Pell Grant. They go through the motions of being a student for a few weeks, receive their financial aid refund check, and then never show up again. Is it too much to have some accountability here, such as if you earn an F or W in a course paid for by Pell Grant money, that you should have to pay the money back?

Shawn

 

I agree 100%. Financial aid is an attempt to mitigate social strata. By providing a vehicle by which the poor (me) can obtain an education, our society effectively makes it possible for people to avoid the whole "poor getting poorer" cycle. Does it work every time? Absolutely not. However, it is a necessary deterrent to class disparity.

Very true, but I'll delve a little more into this in a moment.

Actually, you do. If you receive aid for a semester, and pass no classes, then you are obligated to repay that debt (Some, myself included, will argue that this standard needs to be raised, but that is not the core point here.). It essentially becomes a student loan. You are ineligible for future aid until the balance is handled. This statute actually has teeth. The federal government can deny many professional licenses, welfare services, etc. until this is rectified. Generally, you are barred from gaining admission into another university until it is handled; it is a sort of "one strike, you're out" deal. The core problem rests in inadequate explanation of the very serious consequences of abuse of student aid, and in the very concept of allowing this much responsibility to be given to an 18 year old.

Again, the concept and the program are well-intentioned, well-founded, and, for the most part, work fairly well. However, there are administrative issues that could save all of us a lot of money. Just as Shawn says, accountability is absolutely necessary for the program to be meaningful. Without accountability, it's just a hand-out, and a bad one at that. The only thing worse than just giving a $2k cash handout to someone is giving it to an 18 year old. It is par guaranteed that the money will not be used as intended.