A year and a half ago, I wouldn’t be able to believe that people are arguing they don’t benefit from an educated society. However, I’ve since learned that there is an unimaginably large segment of the population who fear the masses being taught critical thinking skills and a true loathing of people who question them and challenge their beliefs.
Sad really. But not surprising in this environment.
“It is likely that, in many poor countries with poor economic growth, such an “extractive” mindset dominates political thinking.”
No doubt. And look where it gets them - poor as a country and instability. All out for the individual, which must seem great for those getting until it topples and folks revolt. History shows it time and again. It’s a game of political and economic hot potato, not a sustainable model.
@romanigypsyeyes Don’t forget greed.
Aren’t Pell grants part of “sowing”? And students trying to better their lives by getting more education? If your point is that some have to only sow in order that others reap, that’s not how this works. That’s not even how the sow/reap concept works. It’s not a zero sum game.
Why not comment?
"We don’t let students stay in the first grade for 4 years and we make sure they are taking math, reading, as well as some art and music. "
Yes, and if kids drop out or flunk, we don’t send them a bill for the cost of the education they attempted, because that would be insane. And THAT is what is being proposed for the Pell.
A great number of the large corporations and wealth of this company was built by the generation that benefited from the GI bill after WWII. THEY got a break from the government on their education, and look what it built. It is short sighted and selfish to think that future generations don’t deserve the same kind of hand to further their education.
Maybe around you. Those have long been cut in the high poverty schools I used to work in.
The ignorance around federal aid like Pell in this thread is disheartening but not surprising. I hear the same thing about people on “welfare” like SNAP. Example: “They just spend it all on alcohol!” Nope, it’s not allowed.
Learn before spewing. Please.
And again as previously mentioned, there is no requirement that Pell recipients take any certain classes to continue receiving Pell money. A student could take nothing but 100 level history classes for 3-4 years and continue receiving Pell as long as he completed those classes, meeting SAP. That doesn’t mean he is close to graduating if he hasn’t yet met the math requirement, the science requirement, the foreign language requirement for the degree. He could switch to engineering if the college allows and still need a series of math courses and chem classes, taking another 4 years and perhaps getting Pell for some of that time.
The bill as proposed also wouldn’t care what the student took for classes but would expect the Pell grants to be repaid as loans if the student didn’t graduate in 4-5 years. ANOTHER suggestion in the article was to make Pell recipients qualify to receive additional years of funding by showing they are making progress toward a degree. No requirement to pay back any Pell, but a requirement to show progress toward a degree to receive additional Pell funds.
Actually, there are requirements but it is up to specific schools to monitor. Here’s Cornell’s, for example. Again, if there are shortcomings, steps should be made to hold the institutions receiving the money accountable for moving their students towards progress in completing degrees. They’re accepting tuition dollars in exchange for supposedly offering degrees. Where is the accountability from that side, especially the for profits with the dismal performance records?
http://finaid.cornell.edu/policies/federal-satisfactory-academic-progress
The number of people complaining that it is not their job to “pay for my college” is astounding. In that logic, it’s not my “job” to fund medicaid, social security, and food stamps. But that’s what taxes are, it’s money taken to be put to use for those who need it, and I don’t have a problem with paying a few cents here and there to benefit the health and well being of fellow citizens. On the other hand, our military spending is absolutely ridiculous, but that is another issue.
There are requirements already in place in order to recieve Pell grants. If you want more strict requirements, fine, but don’t make them so constricting that low income students don’t even stand a chance. There is already so much pressure and stress associated with being low income and/or first generation in college.
And please keep in my mind we can’t all be priveledged enough to have parents giving thousands of dollars a year in tuition. It’s wonderful that some people have that privelege, but not everyone does, and not everyone has affordable community college options, or the ability to finish college in 6 years for various (and valid) reasons. With the increases in tuition not slowing down any time soon, college is becoming more and more inaccessible for low income students. It already feels like we have to jump through so many hoops in order to succeed; if more requirements are necessary to receive the Pell grant, they should be reasonable and need to understand not everyone can go straight to a four year college and get a degree right away, EVEN IF they are not just slacking off and taking 100 level courses (which, in my experience, is the exact opposite of what lower income students do at my school because we all appreciate the opportunity we have been given and know not to waste it). We don’t deserve any less of a chance for bettering our lives than our more wealthy peers when we have worked just as hard (and sometimes harder) to get where we are.
It might be difficult to find 40 100 level history course offerings.
I can’t see why that example even makes sense. Students do want to finish their degrees.
Re #110, I know my sample size is very small, but I know 2 people in their 70’s who are taking community college classes (mostly online) to supplement their rather meager retirement incomes with Pell Grants and other financial aid. The financial aid helps them pay for things like rent, etc. They do the work necessary to pass their classes, but they have no plans to get a degree.
Are you saying that, if these old people who can’t subsist on their “rather meager” pension don’t graduate, we ought to seize their belongings to pay back the Pell grants they received?
They’re doing what they can and are learning - they’re doing the work, earning the credits. If they got screwed by an employer that lost their pension or if they receive so little a month that they can’t pay for rent&food after working for 45 years, it’s on us, because we’re the richest country in the world and have people who worked their whole lives yet don’t have pensions to live on. One criterion for evaluating progress in the 20th century was that working class people no longer had to work till they die. It’s always shocking to me to see 75 year olds working as greeters. I feel so, so terrible for them. I know, some would say they do it for fun, but, really? They do it because their monthly pension is $462 a month, their kids cannot help, and they would die otherwise.
The point of taxes is that we’re a nation and, as such, we’re responsible for each other. We, as Americans, belong to a common society, and therefore contribute in the measure of our capabilities, considering that the higher we got, the more we ought to be grateful that our work ethic met the good fortune of being born in this country, part of this nation. Charity is optional, taxes are mandatory, because belonging to a country and being part of society is mandatory. Do I WANT to pay high taxes? No. But for all I gripe about taxes, I wouldn’t mind paying higher taxes, because I’m grateful for what they do. A 7 or 10 braket tax system, with higher brackets for people in the 500K range, 1 million range… would make sense to me. The fewer the brackets, the more the middle class ends up shouldering in relation to what would be the “top brackets”. I don’t agree with how all taxes are used, but I know they’re necessary to “make a society” and keep us going. I am also aware that very rich people practice “wealth optimization” that means they already get all kinds of tax breaks. First order of business in a just society would be to look at the tax optimization tactics, and close the loopholes - look at those who have the most before those who have less. (For example, it seems to me that if you have enough money to operate your own private plane, you don’t need a tax cut for its maintenance, whereas Pell grants recipients can’t go to college without the grants. BTW when they were created, Pell grants covered tuition, room, and board at public universities.)
And how would a low income Pell recipient pay back that ‘grant’? This requirement would make a difficult life more desperate. There are legitimate reasons for non-completion. And you can’t get blood from a stone.
A few years ago, I heard a story on the radio of a young man who received a traffic violation. He could not pay the ticket nor the court fees, and landed in jail. His only way out was to pay. Unfortunately, he lost his minimum wage job because he was in jail. He then needed the help of a lawyer, which resulted in more debt. It was a sad story of a life unraveling. This Pell pay back policy reminds me of that story.
But yes, let’s repeal the estate tax.
But how often do we see situations like those described in posts #106 and #111? All of the people I know who have languished in college weren’t low-income students on pell grants but rather wealthy students whose parents were footing the bill and who never learned personal responsibility.
My concern is two-fold: First, this will add another unnecessary burden on low-income students, but they can’t even rely on grants or scholarships either because another part of the bill will tax the value of their scholarships and grants as income. Basically, the entire provisions are written as to further education for the wealthy and keep middle- and lower-income students out of their perceived competition.
Sigh. I give up.
@kelsmom do you want to chime in on this?
@MYOS1634 where on Earth did I say that we should “seize” anything from “old people?” I simply said that I know two people who are going to college for the financial aid benefits and have no plans to graduate. And neither person feels that they got “screwed” by their employer; they both really liked what they did for a living and wouldn’t have considered other jobs. I pass no judgement whatsoever on either of these persons. What they are doing is totally legit and they are enjoying themselves learning various subjects.
^I actually don’t think people in their 70’s should be getting Pell grants, but that’s another discussion.
As an 2+ course/semester adjunct at a state school, I am permitted to take 1 course/semester tuition free. I take classes as a hobby, with no real likelihood that I will get a degree (and no need or purpose for one). I have to pay taxes on the tuition benefit, so I pay around 1/3 of that back to the state and the IRS. The rest is gratis the taxpayers and tuition-paying students, who are subsidizing my “hobby”.
Do the taxpayers find this irritating? Particularly those who want Pell grants repaid by those who do not end up finishing?
I don’t think this is correct. My read of this is that scholarships will remain untaxed, whereas tuition forgiveness for TAs and RAs could be taxed.
@vinyardview, I think maybe your example is an example of representativeness bias. You personally know two people pushing the limits of the program, so you assume a lot more people do. Maybe you think this is the common modality?
Maybe I suffer from the same thing? I personally know many people who have thrived from because of the program and a few who got Pell grants but couldn’t finish because of other financial and health crises. I think that this is common modality.
Often, I like to judge a policy by asking, “Which is the right way to be wrong?”
“What is the fiscal and societal cost if a small percentage of people cheat or abuse the program?” vs “What is the fiscal and societal cost if we deter deserving recipients from using the program because of fear of failure?”
Of course, as others have mentioned, forcing payback will just be silly. If this hideous policy were implemented, no one will be able to afford payback. It will cost more to try to enforce than it will recover. As my English friends say, go pound sand.