cptofthehouse

One purpose would be to make higher education more attractive and possible for those with low income and to make those schools that are most affordable and accessible to those for whom income/assets are an issue to be the more desirable options. That means putting a lot more focused money on the state schools and community colleges.

Another issue I want to address is that of certain programs that have a high rate of employment upon completion with good salaires. Nursing has been one of them along with medical technology and some engineering programs as well. The accessibility of some of these programs are very poor. Which means that if someone who needs college money wants to take such courses of study, the only recourses available are the private schools. For such programs, loans should be permitted on a basis that the market dictates just as it does with MBA, Medical school and other professional school loans. If a student drops out of such programs, the loans are no longer available. Someone looking a a pharmacy program, nursing, physician assistant, accounting is highly likely to to be able to pay back loans. Courses that can be used for transfer into these type of programs should be in community college programs as well as local state schools. I don't think it's anywhere near as high of a risk to lend money to someone who has managed to satisfactorily complete a solid two years of college and wants to give a lucrative career path a go.

There are so many issues that make it very difficult for those for whom finances are an impediment to get a college degree. We say "community college, community college" and when the time comes to transfer from that community college, these kids are at the bottom of the barrel for any financial aid or merit money the way transfers are treated in our system. That is something to be addressed as well. Perhaps permitting the use of Stafford loans to be accumulated for future use if a student chooses to go to a community college or local state school so that double the amount is available for junior and senior years.

I know some young people who managed to get Pell and Staffords for local college options really when they did not need it. The way some schools calcualte COA for commuters as being the same as those who are living on their own permits them to get their hands on money for living expenses. Though they are borrowing the money, there is no incentive not to use it as they will just use it. If some incentive is given to have the money available,perhaps in greater amounts or maybe even form of grants for those who do complete Freshman and sophommore years and embark on upper level courses, that may get rid of that abuse, misuse, or not a good use of those funds.

cptofthehouse

I'll tell you what really bugs me that I see here in this area. There are a number of private schools that cater almost entirely to those with low income or who don't know their schools. They make it quick and easy to enroll, and the more need you have, the better. They basicaly take the PELL, Stafford, and TAP money from these kids and the completion rate, the quality of education, the courses are just not there. Kids go there because the truth of the matter is that the public unis and community colleges are more selective, more bureaucratic, do not have the space, the amenties and the service to accommodate those kids. If these privates were truly providing a service, I would not feel the way I do about them, but it looks to me that all they are doing is stripping the federal money and then some from those who most need and who just don't know enough about the education system. You don't see the higher income kid going to these schools. By making the state schools a good quality, smooth running, high service desirable place to go with faciilties to deal with those who need some extra work to get up to speed, we can get a more equitable system. I see the beginnings and traces of this in that there are some very fine commuter colleges and community colleges out there. It can be done. I hate seeing the money that is out there being siphone out by organizations that are there just to get them. We end up with very much a two tiered system that way.

kelsmom

Rather than eliminate Pell for private schools, why not deal with private schools that are causing the problems you have identified? I disagree with making federal aid ONLY for state schools. I do not believe: "One of the major reasons for rising tuition at private colleges is because these schools know that the needs of low income applicants will be met with federal aid." The needs of low income applicants at private schools are definitely not being met with federal aid! The schools still need to kick in money from other buckets. I don't like the idea of penalizing every school (and every student) for the sins of the few.

By the way, state schools are raising tuition all the time. Would the above reason then also apply to state schools that have rising tuition? Why is it okay for state schools and not for private schools? Frankly, the rising cost of education at all levels is out of control & needs to be dealt with. Removing options for students is not the answer, though.

Romani is correct in that some states have very high tuition. Our state, Michigan, is one of those states. But the problem with tying federal aid to tuition is a slippery slope, folks. Why do you think Michigan's tuition is so high? Part of the answer is that state funding is not on par with that of other states. If you tie federal funding to state costs, would you not then expect to see state's pull back their own funding once the feds start to finance state schools? I certainly do.

I don't know the answer to the original question. What I do know is that costs are skyrocketing, and families are being priced out of the education market. Middle income families are especially hard hit by this, as they have only loans as options at state schools. My backhanded answer is that federal aid is not the answer ... controlling tuition and housing costs will go much farther in assisting families with educational affordability. Throwing money at the problem only seems to fuel the fire.

lookingforward

And so, without state generosity, state schools are not always the most affordable. Anecdotes are just tales, but the example. of my friend's twins: each with a 9k Fafsa EFC. "A" is at a highly desirable public, left with about $18k for the family to pay, before Staffords. (And less aid, 2nd year.) "B" is at a private. After grants, left with about 16-18k to pay (again, before student loans. This kid's aid kept at the prior year's level, for soph year.) Both are top performers.

But where does the funding come from? If states are cutting back on library hours, funding to fire and police, reducing other public services, eliminating staff, etc, where do these funds exist to bolster the public colleges? Would we pay more in taxes to better float higher ed? What about families where kids are not headed to college or are past those years?

It's too simple to say, cut back salaries, eliminate duplicate services. As it is, colleges are lowering thermostats in winter, delaying capital improvements, even maintenance, relying more on adjunct faculty, reducing departmental admin, increasing class sizes, etc. No, someone can name one or two that don't "seem" to be, but the efforts are there.

(corrected to show 18k, not $18.)

KKmama

And the funding for colleges sure isn't there now. PA state profs are preparing to walk off on strike.

cptofthehouse

I'd like to take the Federal funding away from the privates and give the money to the state schools to be used in areas needed to strengthen their programs. One will still get differences among the states. States rights are a touchy issue, and we are not going to be able easily standardize anything, and I am not for the federal government doing that.

KKmama

But, again, that would mean that the majority of lower income kids would not have a chance of attending private schools. You'd be similar to the old "seperate but equal" days before affirmative action in the south for public education. Which were separate but no way equal.

Many private schools are also strapped. They can't make up the difference if fed money is taken away. And private schools could still keep raising costs as long as there are upper middle class and rich parents willing to pay any cost to keep Johnny and Jane from having to attend state schools, where under your policy, would have the rep of being schools for those who can't afford better.

bluebayou

I concur.

Fair point, but flip side of that the question is whether tax payer funds should be going indirectly to wealthy Harvard students. Harvard has more money than Congress and could easily afford to give the low-no income students full rides absent a Pell.

All cash is fungible. If 100 low-no income students attend Harvard, they bring with them $5500 each, or $550k; i.e., over a half million bucks. That is a half million $ that H can spend on other things, such as enriching its own financial aid policies and boosting the definition of " financial need" above $175k.

It's not about keeping the poor kids out, but supporting the public schools more.

So what? If the purpose is to provide a college education, the taxpayer -- who is footing the bill -- gets the best bang for his/her buck through the public colleges and universities.