<p>LakeWashington, Yes, Jordan donates scholarship money to his NC HS, inner city Chicago students and the United Negro Fund. Michael Jordan is/was also an economy. He inadvertantly supports/has supported a higher NBA salary level, the shoe industry and the advertising industry. Just in federal and state taxes he has probably given more to education than me and all my peers combined from now until we perish.<br>
Please, more Jordans.</p>
<p>The vast majority could easily afford $92/month.</p>
<p>The majority certainly could. Those who are already in hock, with major responsibility to support themselves (and perhaps their families) as described, likely could not. Remember: 24.5 years old - we aren’t talking about 18 year olds supported by their families here. And they ALL already have major skin in the game. Tuition is just the tip of the iceberg, as described.</p>
<p>But, again, it doesn’t much affect the majority. Only “them”.</p>
<p>A minimum of $2K/person tuition sounds quite reasonable to me. It’s good for everyone to have some actual skin in the game. FA still applies for room and board, correct?</p>
<p>I’m sure mini has valid concerns about many other forms of social need, and the state should address those with targeted programs. There’s no need to conflate other issues with the problem of an affordable education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Targeted programs? Who is this $2k program targeting? “Them,” as mini aptly puts it.</p>
<p>This whole thing strikes me as a stupid bureaucratic morass in the making. First, pass a stupid law requiring students to pay what appears to be a completely arbitrary amount of money towards only one part of the COA. This, of course, introduces gross inequities between students who can feasibly live at home and those who must incur R&B costs. Then, for no apparent reason, exempt athletes, military veterans, and those with merit scholarships. I’m surprised they didn’t also exempt left-handed redheads. :rolleyes: Next they will have to promulgate all sorts of rules that endeavor to make all of this “fair,” even though it is, of course, inherently UNfair to the poor, to those who live far away from a school, to those who can’t live at home because they have been abused or for some other excellent reason…the list goes on.</p>
<p>If the fee structure at the Arizona state schools needs adjusting, as has been suggested above, then do it. Don’t promulgate stupid rules like this one that are calculated for obvious political gain and nothing else.</p>
<p>This makes total sense. There is not a half motivated kid who cannot make at least $4,000 a summer if they put some effort into it. Plus, the money they made working in high school. Taxpayers should never pull 100% of the weight.</p>
<p>What is meant by “them” in mini’s post? I don’t know what that means in this discussion.</p>
<p>^ not state reps from Scottsdale :)</p>
<p>Actually it makes no sense. It probably just adds extra complexity to an already way too complicated system. While some brave institutions are removing loans from their fa packages, won’t this have the effect of adding a $2000 loan to most fa packages? Why not just make a work study job part of the financial aid package? (If it isn’t already)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, is this an answer to MisterK question as to who this nebulous ‘they’ might be…anyone going to a University in Arizona who is not a Vet, athlete or merit aid recipient. Let’s just make it fair and remove these exclusions. </p>
<p>Or, as I rather suspect the designation of ‘they’ is a tactic to make the ‘not they’ see the evil of their elitist and entitled ways as they yet again trod on another class of poor victims. </p>
<p>Really, if a university education is not worth 2K annually of your own sweat and tears, then why should it be worth someone elses’ efforts on your behalf?</p>
<p>I think the perception is that a lot of work-study jobs are payment for sitting and reading (eg gym sign in) or major related that a lot of kids not on aid get stuck doing for free. I think the issue with the 2K is that a lot of people think that they have made sacrifices over the last few years, and are annoyed if they think that college kids are not also.</p>
<p>I was very naive when I found CC. I took out and paid back student loans to partially pay for my public undergraduate degree. I had no idea that there are students who pay nothing at all until I got here.</p>
<p>Once we celebrated the day (15 years post graduation) that our loans were paid off, we then started to save for a 20% downpayment on a house. I can only wish we were only dealing with $8000 each.</p>
<p>Bay: We need to start a naive club. </p>
<p>Somewhere along the line I missed the train to - it should all be available to you, don’t worry your pretty little head about such ugly things as payment - you deserved this - take it! Let ‘us’ figure out who the ‘they’ are that need to pay for you.</p>
<p>Yes Pardullet, by all means let’s have more teenage Thai girls sewing $200 Nike Air Jordan shoes for 2 bucks a day. I’m certain that those girls’ families are thankful for the great boost that those 2 bucks, courtesy of his Airness, has given to the local economy.</p>
<p>“I can only wish we were only dealing with $8000 each.”</p>
<p>But the students most affected aren’t only dealing with $8,000 each. That’s the point. And no - they aren’t paying “nothing” either. My d’s books this year came in at $3,200. Living expenses? Oh, wait, if their tuition is paid, they can live on ether.</p>
<p>But just load the $10,000 (most don’t graduate in four years) on top of everything else…after all, it’s only “them” that have a problem with it.</p>
<p>mini, who is this “them?” You seem to have a point you want to make, but you’re leaving us guessing. Please make your point!</p>
<p>Impoverished students don’t have “skin” to put in the “game.”</p>
<p>It isn’t a “game” for them.</p>
<p>They will either get an education because it is possible, or they will have to drop out and work, more than they are, most likely, already working. We are not talking about people who don’t already have a job, here, when we talk about impoverished students.</p>
<p>So many have to leave school because they can’t afford the time it takes away from work to be in class or to do their homework. The six year graduation rate in this country is really not great, and I would be very interested to know how that breaks down along socio-economic lines. I would bet that the majority who never finish never finish for financial reasons.</p>
<p>Of course, our state, most states, aren’t much better. So, I’m not pointing a finger at AZ. it’s a national issue, though this bill seems to be more straightforwardly aggressive than most. Most legislatures are simply getting rid of scholarships and funding for higher education, no headlines, quietly.</p>
<p>
But they ‘should’ be paying for themselves. Why would anyone think they shouldn’t be? And many of those who don’t graduate in 4 years could if they tried to and plenty don’t try so let’s not automatically up this to $10k just to try to make the argument better. Maybe if they knew they’d have to spend more money to stay longer they’d try harder to graduate in 4 years or less.</p>
<p>What’s with the “it’s only ‘them’” mentality? Is this some kind of variation of the ‘1 percenters vs everyone else’ or the ‘haves and have nots’ mentality? Many of us were once in the position of people who had next to nothing and still managed to meet our obligations on our own.</p>
<p>And to put it in perspective, it really is only $8K since they’d have all the other expenses, including living expenses, regardless. </p>
<p>It’s quite the entitlement minded person who believes that they’re somehow ‘owed’ this by others and are bitter if they don’t receive as much in freebies as they desired.</p>
<p>Yes, I would say somethng about the fact that very few top universities in our country even offer “merit” aid, anymore, and choose to offer only need-based aid, but that is misleading, as well, considering they don’t accept nearly as many impoverished students as the state universities do.</p>
<p>I guess it’s just a matter of cost-benefit analysis.</p>
<p>Most truly impoverished students do not live the “life of riley.” They work already. They have to pay for clothing, food, gas, transportation, books, lodging, and they aren’t being assisted by their parents, sometimes they are assisting their parents, at the same time. </p>
<p>Do we want to have equality of opportunity or not? That is the question.</p>
<p>The very same people who will scream yay!!! for this idea of billing impoverished students, will stand in a line and “defend” their right to 3X the amount of social security they paid into the system. Who do they think is going to pay for their benefits, if not the “educated” population. Look at it as an investment in your own future when you educate these kids. We are all so much more reliant on their success than you might think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m a “have”… and I paid for my education on my own, but have you looked at the cost in inflation adjusted dollars of a college education today? Have you located any new middle class wage manufacturing jobs out there for those who cannot afford a college education? </p>
<p>Comparing this America to the America of your youth is silly and uninformed.</p>
<p>They’re not “owed” anything. YOU benefit - directly, in the form of taxes, and less dependence on social welfare. </p>
<p>Remember: 24.5 years of age…</p>
<p>And to put it in perspective, it really is only $8K since they’d have all the other expenses, including living expenses, regardless. </p>
<p>Right. They can work two jobs, care for parents and kids, and go to school full-time. After all, it’s only $10k (not $8k) on top of everything else.</p>
<p>And it’s just “those people”.</p>