<p>Right now there is enough Stafford money available that every student who wants it pretty much can have it. But it is not a bottomless well of money. For every kid who takes a loan, there is a cost in the administrative end of keeping track of it and trying to get it back. Even with the government going after those who are deadbeats on student loans, I know some of my peers who got away with it. The government lost a lot of money going after those who reneged on their loans. It’s all an issue of where to put the amount of money allocated, and where to put any extra money if it comes. There is little agreement on how that should be done.</p>
<p>Obama has chosen to put the extra money that is being infused into the system in tax credits at this time and increasing PELL categories. Other ideas are on the burner, but I don’t think much else has been made into law. Correct me if I’m wrong here. What else is a possibility in the works right now?</p>
<p>GabbaGabbaHey,</p>
<p>I agree with you. If my D is expected to take out a loan and do work study as part of her fin aid, why is another student not expected to, just because her parents make less? This is unfair to students with wealthier parents. And no, we won’t be paying off our kids’ loans, either.</p>
<p>"And if I make $45K and have to pay $20K next year for tuition, and some other parent makes $30K and only has to pay $5K … I’m better off than that person. I’d rather make the $45K than the $30K … even though in my hypothetical the cost-differential is the same. "</p>
<p>So, if you made $75K and had to pay $50K for tuition, that would be OK?</p>
<p>"I don’t worry about what the next person over is paying. "</p>
<p>You seem very concerned with what those you consider more affluent pay for college. And you accuse them of being snobs, regardless of the evidence to the contrary that is presented to you. But it makes it easier to resent them, I suppose.</p>
<p>The entire system is unfair to students who have wealthier parents, who have parents who are willing to pay, who have parents who have more knowledge about how this all works. Also the terms differ from college to college. There are colleges that offer full rides for kids that they want regardless of need, while the kid who has full need is offered loans, work study and is gapped to boot. This is like one big market place where you try to fit the offers with your situation. </p>
<p>When a college puts together a financial aid package for someone who qualifies for need, most of the time, it is putting in more goodies for kids they want the most. One kid might get all grants offered and can even pay his EFC with Stafford loans, whereas another kid may be offered the unsubsidized Stafford as part of the package. Heck, I’ve even seen PLUS in packages. It’s all about how much the school wants the kid and how much they have to offer the students that they want this year. It is not about fair. It isn’t fair that some schools are need aware, most don’t meet full need, nor is it fair how need is defined.</p>
<p>We will be getting extensive financial aid for the first time this fall, as we will have one at State U and another at a private. Without the aid, my D would not be going to a private this fall. But I do feel guilty paying this, when I see on CC that many won’t be going to their dream schools because their parents won’t/can’t pay the price. </p>
<p>I don’t blame the parents for this. Just because FAFSA says you can afford something doesn’t mean you can.</p>
<p>Cpt, I agree with you totally. It’s amazing how my D’s packages differed from school to school.</p>
<p>I don’t feel guilty, but I do wish that money was the issue in college choice. I have seen a number of kids of all financial situations have to take a route that was clearly not the best for them. Sometimes it builds character. Sometimes it doesn’t work. The real heartache is when you see kids in an environment that is not good at all, but they cannot get out of it because of lack of money. It’s not as though it is easy for an 18 year old to find a job that could support his own place to live. Here in this area, it is especially difficult. Without parental support, it is difficult for kids.</p>
<p>GGH - you are griping about having to take out a loan when others don’t because they make less money than your parents. What about people that make more than your parents and have to pay full fare? Is that fair? What about people that didn’t make more money than your parents, but were better about managing their money and were able to put more money away for their kids’ education, should they be penalized?</p>
<p>It’s interesting it’s always fair when you are receiving the benefit, but not when someone else is getting more. I see more of an entitlement from people making less, to expect other people to make up for their shortfalls. </p>
<p>My husband and I also decided to have 2 children after being married for 5 years because that’s what we could afford.</p>
<p>GGH is talking about the student’s obligation. Fin aid considers both a parental contribution and a student contribution. She’s not complaining about a parental contribution of “0” for a low income family. As for parents paying full fare, they can require their kids to contribute, as we have in the past, when we didn’t get fin aid. That’s their option.</p>
<p>My MIL consider one child to be a “hobby”. Understandable, as she had 6 (so did my parents). Managing our 3 seems relatively easy, in comparison.</p>
<p>Everyone has different ideas on what it means to “afford” children. Does it include 4 years of private college? Not for me or H, since we both worked ourselves through college, and expected our children to contribute significantly to their education costs.</p>
<p>I really don’t see any difference, whether it’s the parent or student that’s required to take out the loan.</p>
<p>No one is REQUIRED to take out a loan. Loans are options that are presented. Not too many loans are offered to students. So there is a big difference as to who takes out the loan. If it is truly a student loan, it goes on the student’s credit record and if he does not repay if for any reason, the parent is not involved. If it is a parent loan or if a parent has to cosign, he is liable for that loan if anything happens and the student cannot or will not pay. Also student loans are about 2% lower in interest rate when you are looking at PLUS and staffords which can add up.</p>
<p>You are also not required to go to the school if you don’t want a loan. Same issue/decision parents face. I am addressing the fact GGF resents having to have a loan when other students with less income do not have to take out a loan.</p>
<p>There are kids with more income who do not have to take a loan either. There are probably kids at the same income level who do not have to take a loan too. I’m don’t see what the issue is here.</p>
<p>This is an issue where a student is being “punished” with higher debt/obligation because of their parents’ income.</p>
<p>And anyway, something that is “free” in the receiver’s eyes is often less valued.</p>
<p>ALL kids who are eligible for government benefits via FAFSA are permitted to get Stafford unsubsidized loans whether they need it or not. If the parents meet credit requirement, pretty much the same goes for PLUS.</p>
<p>^ BCEagle:
[Even the poorest college student whose family income is $20K per year (and EFC = 0) will have the same earning power as me with my bachelor’s degree.]</p>
<p>This is untrue. Look at university salary surveys by major for your school or other schools.</p>
<p>**Ummm… I meant all things being equal (same degree, etc) they have the same earning power. Of course different degrees lead to different earning power. I assumed it was obvious that we’re talking about the only variable being the parent income, but I guess not. **</p>
<p>“I don’t understand why EVERY college student who qualifies for aid isn’t made to take these loans.”</p>
<ul>
<li>Some students get free rides.</li>
<li>Some students earn enough in a job to pay for college expenses</li>
<li>Some students have their employers pay for their college expenses</li>
<li>Some students are children of professors so they get a mostly free ride </li>
</ul>
<p>None of which are the students we’re talking about. You’re off-topic. We’re talking about non-athelete, non-rich, non-full-time-employed, non-professor-children students. You threw out four corner cases. </p>
<p>**We’re talking about two kids, one who qualifies for full FA, another who can only get Stafford loans. If the kid who gets full FA was asked to acquire the same Stafford loans as the other kid, ir would put millins more back into the pipeline for other students who may need FA.</p>
<p>Still I see no explanation of why we shouldn’t require that the first $5500 of FA for EVRYONE be Stafford loans. Full-grant awards make no sense. **</p>
<p>oldfort: [I really don’t see any difference, whether it’s the parent or student that’s required to take out the loan.]</p>
<p>Huh? The student is legally responsible for the loans they take. The parent is responsible for the ones they sign for. That’s how it works. If you see no difference, then how about you pay off my car for me?</p>
<p>Except for a few schools, most kids who need fa will get loans in their package. The very vast majority. There are those few schools who do not include loans as part of the financial aid package. There are also some schools who will meet financial need over a certain threshhold without loans. I don’t see what is wrong with that. There really are very, very few full grant need awards, Gabba. And those tend to be merit in aid awards or from schools that do not include loans towards need. Still as long as the aid does not exceed the COA, and the conditions are met, anyone can take out the loans. </p>
<p>Why should a kid have to take out loans when he does not need them? My son is working this year and summer and expects to take out no loans for himself. We are working towards that goal too since I don’t want to borrow. I’m don’t see what benefit there is in making any of us take out a loan.</p>