<p>"Though the maximum grant will be preserved under the spending deal, students on the edges of eligibility will be out of luck next year... The maximum amount families could earn and automatically contribute nothing toward an undergraduate education would decrease from $30,000 to $23,000."</p>
<p>Deal</a> To Avert Government Shutdown Cuts Pell Grants For Up To 100,000 Students | ThinkProgress</p>
<p>This just looks like a change to the automatic 0 EFC qualifications, though it may affect the other simplified formula too. I think the reduction of eligibility from 18 semesters to 12 is reasonable considering the alternatives but I've always thought that 18 semesters was a lot.</p>
<p>Well crap :(. </p>
<p>I thought it was 32k next year to begin with, not 30k?</p>
<p>This kind of thing is so wrong, imho. We need to invest in our kids and thier education. Kids who need a Pell might also STILL have to work while in school and should have a longer time to finish college in my opinion.</p>
<p>We have this so backwards.</p>
<p>Good luck to everyone who needs this grant! I hope you get merit aid, as well.</p>
<p>Yes, I think it was $31K for this year. I don't know how much of a difference it would make in EFC for a $31K family not to have automatic 0, do you? Seems like the EFC would generally be fairly low, barring significant assets.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, I agree that most Pell recipients also have to work but it seems like the equivalent of 9 years is an awfully long time for taxpayers to fund them. The publics and CC's are getting pretty crowded and perhaps this will encourage people to stick with it and get finished quicker. I hope that this change is communicated widely to all students and Pell recipients, else we could end up with more people in debt with no degree to show for it!</p>
<p>Does anyone know if the simplified needs is going to be the same or not (under 50k)?</p>
<p>Big surprise. The government cuts spending for students, making going to college unaffordable for many of them, while the rich get richer. Why worry about education?</p>
<p>*The maximum amount families could earn and *automatically contribute nothing *toward an undergraduate education would decrease from $30,000 to $23,000."</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Why do they say such nonsense as "automatically contribute nothing"? Having a 0 EFC does not mean that someone doesn't have to pay anything. So misleading.</p>
<p>At the same time Pell grants were being cut, the millionaire surtax got the axe. Looks like the wealthy are still firmly in charge.</p>
<p>I found this to be illuminating, particularly as regards the Pell scoring rules which the House seems to be interpreting to suit their own agenda:</p>
<p>House</a> Budget Committee Is Searching for Excuses to Cut Pell Grants - Campus Progress</p>
<p>Can your EFC still be 0 even if you make above the maximum "automatic" 0 EFC.</p>
<p>I hope they don't make that change because that would take me from qualifying automatically by several thousand dollars to not qualifying by a few thousand without even a change of income.</p>
<p>Yes, AU girl, one can have a 0 EFC without the auto 0 provision. You might want to work through the formula guide:</p>
<p>My husband and I are obviously independent students and the Pell Grant news comes as quite a shock. I wonder does the below $23,000 income apply to both dependent and independent. That's an insanely low income for a family (especially if the student has children). Also, people who received X amount of money previously, under the new guidelines would they now receive less (assuming they are even still eligible).</p>
<p>It's not like the cost of living has gone down, so why they'd lower the income bracket just seems crazy to me!</p>
<p>If you think this is unfair then campaign and vote. It's the only way to get change.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The government cuts spending for students, making going to college unaffordable for many of them
[/quote]
Government spending on education does not make education more affordable. Since the Department of Education began operating in 1980, the average cost of tuition at a 4-year post-secondary school has increased from $3,499 to $21,189. (Fast</a> Facts) A good that cost $3,499 in 1980 should cost $9,606.54 today, according to inflation calculators (CPI</a> Inflation Calculator). Unconstitutional government interference in the higher education industry has done nothing but lower quality and send prices skyrocketing. If you want to make education affordable again, the very best thing you could do would be to get the government out of it completely.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We need to invest in our kids and their education.
[/quote]
Yes, absolutely we do. We need to invest in our own kids and their education. However, it's not up to the government to steal money from some people and use it to pay for the education of other peoples' kids - that's completely immoral and sends prices to the moon for the middle-class folks that don't qualify for the entitlement programs and actually have to pay for school out of pocket.</p>
<p>^^^Medwell, you (and I) will be slammed here for your post, but I agree with you.</p>
<p>As far as affordability for low income students, how about affordability for middle-class or even (gasp) upper-middle class -
I am from MN, and my blood boiled when I read the UofM Carlson school of business proposed increase of tuition by $2000 for those families who do not qualify for financial aid. So let me get it straight - I pay almost half of my income in taxes (all, not just federal) to fund programs such as the one that pays for low income students to go to school and then you also want me to subsidize the very same students through tuition too? You know, I did not have fun making those kids - they should not be my responsibility. In effect when I sacrifice to save/pay for my kids education, I am actually sacrificing to pay for somebody else's. Because if I did not have to subsidize other kids' education, I actually would not have to sacrifice so much to pay for my kids.</p>
<p>My rant is over, flame away.</p>
<p>
It's disgusting. My family feels your frustration as well. My parents don't contribute anything to my education, and yet they are forced to pay hefty taxes to subsidize the education of other kids. For the amount of money they give me, I might as well not have any parents, so why should certain people get a government scholarship (for having poor parents) when I don't? </p>
<p>The problem is that although people acknowledge that tuition prices have gotten out of hand, we simultaneously have these same people thinking that Pell grants and government-backed loans are great, wonderful things that make college more affordable. In reality, they are the sole reason that college tuition has increased in price more quickly than anything else in the economy. People need to be educated on the truth of these matters, and we need the government to get out if we ever want college to be affordable again.</p>
<p>*My husband and I are obviously independent students and the Pell Grant news comes as quite a shock. I wonder does the below $23,000 income apply to both dependent and independent. *</p>
<p>Usually, it's harsher when the 2 students are the married couple. The thinking is that more of the income can go towards COA.....rather than when there are 2 parents and the child is going to college. A family with a child in college, still has to maintain a home away from the school where the child is attending. </p>
<p>The exemption is rather low when both adults are in college.....something like $5k each? I think Kelsmom recently wrote about this when a married woman found out her H's EFC increased when she enrolled in college as well.</p>
<p>My parents don't contribute anything to my education, and yet they are forced to pay hefty taxes to subsidize the education of other kids.</p>
<p>That is a serious problem. In Calif, there are families that can't afford to send their kids to UCs, but their taxes are providing free tuition (fees) to those who earn under $80k.</p>
<p>The problem is that although people acknowledge that tuition prices have gotten out of hand, we simultaneously have these same people thinking that Pell grants and government-backed loans are great, wonderful things that make college more affordable. In reality, they are the sole reason that college tuition has increased in price more quickly than anything else in the economy.</p>
<hr>
<p>And the statistics to back up this "reality" would be ... ????</p>
<p>Does anyone know if the simplified needs is going to be the same or not (under 50k)?</p>
<hr>
<p>It's still < $50,000 in the formula guide for 2012-13, and I haven't seen anything in the proposals that would change it.</p>