<p>Thanks kels :)</p>
<p>
Check out what happens around the 70s/80s, when the Department of Education/Pell grants were created:
<a href=“: Image”>: Image;
<p>In general, though, when the government provides people with money to do something, prices will go up. Remember the housing bubble? GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) provided people with all this money to buy houses with. Demand for houses went through the roof, and so prices soared, since the government had allowed the housing business to artificially attract capital.</p>
<p>The same thing is happening with college, and for some reason, people aren’t catching on. If the government didn’t provide grants and back loans, colleges would be forced to keep their prices low to attract students. The government programs allow schools to raise prices as high as they want, and people will always pay them. </p>
<p>Note that in industries where the government is not involved (i.e. electronics and elective surgeries) prices go down every year, as the providers use technology and innovation to increase efficiency and save their consumers money. This is what should be happening in college education - however, the government programs have removed any incentive for schools to take such actions.</p>
<p>We live near Buffalo, NY and it was just on the news last night that Buffalo graduates starting next year, through a Promise scholarship and Say YES! to Education, will get tuition paid to a SUNY or CUNY school. Apparently, this is has been going on in the Syracuse school district for 4 years now. I have not read the fine print, but plan on it…who is paying for this?</p>
<p>I don’t buy the cause and effect in this case. The increase in tuition has far outpaced the amount of money available to the average student from federal aid.</p>
<p>Back in the days of limited or no federal aid, college costs may have been relatively low … but poor people couldn’t afford even the relatively low tuition. The point of federal aid is to allow those who could otherwise not afford college to do so. If you remove federal aid, you remove a lifeline that could allow people to move out of poverty. That (getting out of poverty) costs society less in the long run.</p>
<p>I agree that there are many problems with high college costs and many problems with the way federal aid is dispensed. However, I do not agree that there should not be aid to assist the poorest among us.</p>
<p>I DO think people need to stop being total idiots … they need to stop attending schools that cost too much. If you can’t afford it, don’t go. Patronize the less expensive schools. If more students/families refused to pay more than they can afford, schools that charge too much would figure out a way to reduce costs (maybe stop building the fancy playgrounds schools seem to think they need to be these days). The prices will eventually come down if the schools want to stay open.</p>
<p>dlbarber, arrangements like these are usually funded by private groups.</p>
<p>Kelsmom,</p>
<p>You say that poor kids cannot afford even low tuition rates. Well… the kids from middle to upper middle-class families cannot afford tuition in many fine schools. If it is Ok for those kids to either take out huge loans or forgo attending schools of their dreams, the same logic should apply to poor kids.</p>
<p>If you believe in helping poor there should be other ways then reaching into my pocket to do so.</p>
<p>
I don’t get it either. Everyone (upon graduating college) has equal ability to pay back their loans, so why should “poor kids” get free money when middle- to upper-middle-class kids do not?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s your suggestion for helping poor kids go to college?</p>
<p>You say that poor kids cannot afford even low tuition rates. Well… the kids from middle to upper middle-class families cannot afford tuition in many fine schools. If it is Ok for those kids to either take out huge loans or forgo attending schools of their dreams, the same logic should apply to poor kids.</p>
<hr>
<p>I do not believe in borrowing huge amounts of money to attend any school. Period. Therefore, I do not advocate middle to upper middle class kids borrowing a lot to attend a “fine” school. As for forgoing the school of one’s dreams, that is life … and if a CC is the school of a poor kid’s dreams, what is the alternative if he has to forgo that?</p>
<p>Am I misunderstanding? I read this as reducing the income that gets an AUTOMATIC 0 EFC, but that many families would still qualify for a 0, or very close to 0 EFC based on the full calculation. I think that there are some issues with the Automatic 0 EFC, and with the much simplified FAFSA in use now, not a lot of reason to assume that financial circumstances and assets look close to the same for all families earning around $30K.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fannie/Freddie doesn’t make prices higher provided they make loans in the correct way. Fannie/Freddie have been in existence since the Great Deal while the bubble was a recent thing because they were overzealous in buying loans that the primary market approved easily. Try to distinguish the subtle differences before making blanket and oversimplified statements like you just did. Don’t pretend you are some expert economist when you clearly aren’t.</p>
<p>Medwell, the housing bubble of this decade was funded by private banks. Fannie and Freddie played at most a minor role, and that role diminished as the bubble got bigger. Sub-prime lenders, aided and abetted by market speculators, caused the bulk of the price inflation.</p>
<p>[Private</a> sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy](<a href=“http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A]Private”>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A)</p>
<p>*Am I misunderstanding? I read this as reducing the income that gets an AUTOMATIC 0 EFC, but that many families would still qualify for a 0, or very close to 0 EFC based on the full calculation. I think that there are some issues with the Automatic 0 EFC, and with the much simplified FAFSA in use now, not a lot of reason to assume that financial circumstances and assets look close to the same for all families earning around $30K. *</p>
<p>IF it is changing how people qualify for auto 0, then I agree. It’s silly that someone can have a lot of assets, but a low income, and get an auto 0. I also don’t think student’s assets/income should be ignored with auto 0. Maybe the first few thousand in assets or the first $6k in income, but if the student has a lot in assets or income, it shouldn’t be ignored.</p>