<p>I don’t believe that this is true for highly networked majors such as
IB.</p>
<p>I don’t think that it’s even true on its face.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s your opinion and it was unstated.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I had all but one year of both of my degrees paid for by employers.
The number of adults in universities and colleges is huge. But I
simply answered your question with an eye to more experience about
those that attend college.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Why wouldn’t the student just use the FA to pay off the Stafford
immediately? We’re still in the throes of the mortgage bubble. We
still have a student loan bubble. Teenagers these days are incredibly
naive about debt. Haven’t you ever read kondreytieff theory?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that the responsible would be happier without your
Rumpelstiltskin-like approach.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not if they’re 17.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You familiar with the concept of co-signing?</p>
<p>As people have posted, you are not obligated to take out a loan for a student’s education. You could work or not to go the school. It’s not any more fair to ask a parent to take out a loan than to ask a student to take out a loan. If you want to say it is not fair to ask one family to pay more than another family for the same service, I would go along with that. But to say it is ok for you to get FA, but it is so unfair for you to have a student loan when someone else doesn’t, that’s self serving.</p>
<p>Whether it’s fair or not, we all live with our parents’ choices. I will say it here again, “there should be a test required for everyone to take before he/she is allowed to have children.”</p>
<p>I have a nephew going to CC in California for something like $30/credit. Full time, that would be $900/year. You want to force him to take out $5,500 in loans per year for $900 in costs? That’s nuts.</p>
<p>Oh for pete’s sake. Gabba is not talking about adults, because they’re not judged on their parents’ income. He/she is not talking about your nephew, because (I presume) he is not getting fin aid.</p>
<p>Some crazy points of view here, but I have to admit, the concept that the first $5000 of aid whether merit/grant/etc. is a Stafford is really not such a far fetched concept. In the case of BCEagle this kid would obviously not need a full $900 and may not even be receiving aid of any kind so I don’t understand the example or how it fits the argument.</p>
<p>Student A and Student B both graduate with a degree in engineering with similar GPA and resume. I don’t know about IT, but in engineering, their job offers will be within a narrow range. Outliers will be due to exceptional personal attributes, or less desirable locations, etc. Student A had a full or near full ride, due to financial aid, his parents paid 0, and he will graduate debt free. Student B will have $20K in debts, because his aid included loans and he couldn’t meet the gap without them, although his parents paid their full expected contribution of $20K/yr.</p>
<p>That’s not fair, and it doesn’t matter if the full rides are few in number.</p>
<p>“Some crazy points of view here, but I have to admit, the concept that the first $5000 of aid whether merit/grant/etc. is a Stafford is really not such a far fetched concept.”</p>
<p>For those that like debt bubbles, yes.</p>
<p>“In the case of BCEagle this kid would obviously not need a full $900 and may not even be receiving aid of any kind so I don’t understand the example or how it fits the argument.”</p>
I understand your philosophical point however reality supports the current system more than your philisophical point. Students from financial situations that would result in full FA rides are much less likely to finish college than other students and the #1 reason are financial issues. Maybe their family does not have health insurance and an issue comes up, or the student was working while in school but needs to increase their hours, or the student contributes to the families day-to-day income, etc. These kids are already behind the eight ball because of their family’s economic situation … asking them to take on debt would vitually guarentee a high percentage of drop outs and defaults. I believe in some sense our disagreement revolves around a definition … it sounds like you’re arguing for the rules for everyone … I’m arguing for similar ability to pay for school for everyone … and not requiring loans for folks with $0 EFC moves us in that direction a little bit.</p>
<p>We don’t like debt either, although I think work study is OK. My issue is fairness. Maybe none of the kids should have debt as part of their fin aid.</p>
<p>I have to agree – everyone talks about middle class kids helping and having some skin in the game – why shouldnt all Finaid start with 5500/loans?</p>
<p>The simplest solution is to make college far more affordable. The community college system has done a pretty good job at this to the point where most do not need financial aid for tuition and fees (housing is another matter). The costs of community college expenses in states where it costs more can be partially or mostly offset by tuition credits and deductions for those families below the phaseout amounts. These amounts are raised considerably for 2009.</p>
<p>“We don’t like debt either, although I think work study is OK. My issue is fairness. Maybe none of the kids should have debt as part of their fin aid.”</p>
<p>We had the discussion of the European model a while ago.</p>
<p>“I have to agree – everyone talks about middle class kids helping and having some skin in the game – why shouldnt all Finaid start with 5500/loans?”</p>
<p>According to an MIT professor’s blog, MIT COA should be reduced to a flat $20,000 for all. Right now, he believes they dig to find out just how much you have, and take it all. What do you think? It would be harder on lower income kids, but there is an awful lot of scholarship money available that requires financial need. Surely kids that are accepted by MIT could obtain scholarship money. Maybe that would make up some of the gap for them.</p>
<p>The European model is just for the top students, is it not? I’m pretty sure my kids would qualify, but I wouldn’t want to deny college to others, and I suspect many Americans would disagree with that.</p>
<p>I get calls from my schools and my son’s school for donations. Paying for two at a time makes that harder. It would be easier to donate if prices were lower. As it is paying for college is done with after-tax dollars so it’s actually a lot more than the sticker price. A lower sticker price would enable additional contributions to the school for scholarships that would be tax deductible so there would be tax advantages for the parent in addition to scholarship recipients.</p>
<p>The purpose of higher education (for the most part) is to enable young adults to earn a decent income and pay taxes on that income. Philosophically, education expenses should be tax deductible though they currently (for the most part) are not.</p>