General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStudy: Financial aid shifted to the affluent. You pay more to go to college if you are poor
If you come from a relatively low-income family, there’s a strong chance you are. In fact, you may be subsidizing the education of a student from an affluent family.
Why? Because many colleges, with limited pots of financial aid money, are cutting off the students that need the most help paying for college. Instead, colleges increasingly are using financial aid money to lure more affluent students. This is the finding of a study by the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank that used Department of Education data to examine what hundreds of colleges are charging students of various incomes.
The finding, of course, is good news for affluent students from families that haven’t been able to save enough to pay the astronomical cost of college. With costs of many private colleges around $50,000 a year, and home-state public universities approaching $25,000, even affluent families feel poor when trying to figure out how to pay for college. So doctors, lawyers and a multitude of highly paid professionals are delighted when there are grants and other “merit aid” for their children, who don’t fit the model for financial aid.
But while skyrocketing college costs have become a burden for most American families, poor families are really in trouble, according to Stephen Burd of the New America Foundation. Students from families with incomes of $30,000 or less are being required to devote more than half of their income to pay for educations at hundreds of colleges, he says.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/college-financial-aid-shifting-toward-the-affluent-study-says/article_7bf8adb1-8b4a-56b0-87f4-1092e544ea1b.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)I'm quite sure they think it's their god-given right to dominate society.
For rich people who don't think this way, please try harder.
lastone
(588 posts)The next president of the United States of America, Bernie Sanders!
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)
Bibliovore
(185 posts)The linked article has little to say about public colleges, so I checked the report that's linked from that article, and found a bit more:
https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/12813-undermining-pell-volume-iii/Undermining-Pell-III-3.15bba9018bb54ad48f850f6f3a62a9fc.pdf
"While the problem is not as extreme among public colleges and universities, it continues to rapidly escalate. In the face of steep state budget cuts over the past decade, public colleges are increasingly adopting the “enrollment management” tactics of their private-college counterparts – to the detriment of low-income and working-class students alike. In fact, nearly half of public four-year colleges examined now leave the most financially needy students on the hook for more than $10,000 per year. Back in 2010-11, only about a third of these public institutions charged the lowest-income students that much. ....
"Overall, too many four-year colleges, both public and private, are failing to help the government achieve national college access goals. They are, instead, adding hurdles that could stymie the educational progress of needy students or leave these students with mountains of debt after they graduate."
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)And she'd renegotiate student loans of graduated students so the government wouldn't be making a profit on them.
What she wouldn't do is raise taxes on lower and middle income households so that public college tuition would be free to everyone, including the wealthy.
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)Put zero tax on middle and working.... No Loans to pay back...
It's a .5% tax on stock speculations, sort of like a process fee.
Sounds better to me....
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)to build an entire system of education on it. Governors -- the majority of which are Rethugs -- will never accept such a matching-funds plan so we'd have to find a different source of funding which, because of the huge cost involved, would have to touch the middle class.
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11222482/bernie-sanders-free-college
Bernie's plan: matching funds for states that want to eliminate tuition
Sanders's own summary of his College for All Act makes it pretty clear that the act would not, in practice, eliminate college tuition. What it would do instead is offer federal matching funds on a 2-to-1 basis to states that want to increase higher education spending in order to eliminate tuition:
This legislation would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities.
Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.
To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
There are two relevant things to note here.
SNIP
One is that the 2-1 match for eliminating tuition is much less generous than the 9-1 match offered by the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, yet many states have chosen not to expand Medicaid.
The other is that because the College for All Act requires qualifying universities to reduce reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty in addition to eliminating tuition, in practice the federal match is worth even less than 2 to 1.
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)I see you posted an opinion piece... I could post an opinion piece that talks about why it would likely work... And we could go tit for tat using 'articles' that are someone's opinion.
All of this is THEORY...really. Your article I mean, all of which says, well this could happen, or this.....predicting a nice little outcome (agaisnt it of course) ....describing possible outcomes, as if they know for a fact Specs would slow. It's speculation...
Yes we want to stop the specs, that was part of the 'reason' for implementing the tax - a win win, if they slow down, he raises the tax to 1%..... Problem solved.
And let me explain it a different way. We have a large number of toll ways in Dallas where I live, the tolls keep going up, I just keep on paying them. Other people don't drive them now, that's why they increase tolls sometime...
Or how about cigarette tax, keeps gone up the more people stop smoking, there are still smokers paying more taxes... Maybe theses comparisons don't make sense...
You think Specs will stop altogether? Highly doubtful, but if they do...we find another place in Wallstreet to cover it.
The Vox article basically just set up a bunch of flow chart steps on predicting if this, then this, and then this.... then it doesn't work...
We have endless money for war, no one worries about how to pay for it or our taxes dollars going up?
this fear of "oh no" the middle or lower class would have to more taxes under Bernie is nonsense to me.
middle class and lower are paying a Huge share of there income already, because supply side shifted a lot more to us. ... And getting endless war and exactly what else for our dollar?
What the hell kinda benefits are our big tax contributions getting us?
I went to college from 84-89, I was able to pay for a years tuition, working part time each summer for min wage. ( as were my peers). Looking at the Spring 2016 tuition rate at same school. Increase is 1000% and to do what I did in the 80's, min wage would need to be 36.50 and hour today.
So forget free college anyway, I think Bernie might have to give a little on that.
but I would sure like to see college be as affordable as it was in the 80's.
Bottom line is, I don't think we'll get anywhere near that with Clintons proposal.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)a third of the money for free tuition, just as it is a fact the Obamacare required states to chip in one-tenth of the money for the Medicaid expansion (after 3 years of having to chip in nothing).
The Rethugs control the majority of the statehouses. Why do you think that the Governors who turned down Medicaid expansion, because in three years they would have to fund 10%, would agree to a tuition program that required them to chip in 1/3 of the cost?
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)Theres no mention about passing part off to states on his campaign website, where the detailed proposals and his plans of how to pay for it our available. It could be he nixed that part. Campaign site has information and data indicating the spec stocks would bring in 120 bil Which is more than the Vox article claimed is needed to fund the whole thing. (70 bil)
So is there any confirmation anywhere that confirms states paying a portion is still in play? If so, I can't find it. Is it possible the writer of the Vox piece is just assuming the legislation and the plans he detailed on his campaign site are the same?
His campaign site seems to indicate the program would be fully funded with the taxes, the information is detailed so I'm not sure why he'd leave it out about the states...
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)4 yr. tuitions ranges from a low of $4000 to a high above $17K.
How could they fairly pay for full tuition in such extremely varying amounts to the 50 states? Are they going to lower all the states' tuitions to $4K? Raise them all to $17K? Not a chance.
The only thing that makes sense is he still has in mind his original proposal: offering cost matching so the states that want higher reimbursements will have to kick in more, too. But saying that doesn't sound nearly as fun as "FREE TUITION FOR EVERYONE."
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)According to his campaign site the initiative would be fully paid for by the tax alone....
That's why I hold little value on opinion pieces, and this is from Vox, I'm not familar with that website...
But let me confirm to you, the articles I've seen from the Wall Street Journal on everything Bernie are loaded with Spin.... And get dizzy reading them...lol
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)who accepts the 2 for 1 matching funds deal. They turned down the 9 for 1 Medicaid expansion so it seems highly unlikely they'll go for a free tuition plan that requires the states to kick in a third of the money.
Avalon Sparks
(2,566 posts)On his campaign site, in the details of his free education plan program and the document on how it's paid for state:
The program would cost around 70 billion/yr
Projections for the tax on speculation are 120 billion/yr
The program is fully paid for with the tax
There is nothing about states paying a portion.
karynnj
(59,506 posts)largely paid for the CHIP programs which provide health care for poor children. It has always been easier to raise these types of taxes than the income tax or property tax.
Arguing about Sanders' program vs Clinton's program is like the arguments in 2008 over their health programs. After all the major fights over the differences in the plans, the fact was that it came down to what could pass Congress. Briefly having 60 votes in the Senate and control of the House, allowed the ACA to pass with absolutely no spare votes in the Senate and few in the House. In fact, the House had to pass the bill that passed the Senate with no changes -- because the normal process of the House and Senate working together on a conference bill including compromises from both sides would not have passed when we lost a MA Senate seat.
What is important here - is that BOTH Sanders and Clinton have made it a goal to make college affordable and to deal with the weight of the burden so many carry with huge college debt ... and not getting the high paying jobs anticipated that could have paid them off. Where there are difference is more in subjective opinions on how much political capital and energy each would bring to pushing Congress to work on this. The logjam is likely to be that the House is pretty tightly controlled by the speaker and he can block bills from even coming to a vote. This may be an issue where either Democrat would need a huge amount of help from activists making this a voting issue for 2018.
pnwmom
(109,000 posts)to the hurdles involved for either of them in getting needed changes through Congress.
Let's hope that either of them can -- along with the GOP's urge to self-destruct -- help to elect a better Congress.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Instead of subsidies, they will import teachers and pay them less, getting maybe four teachers for the price of one now. Same with healthcare and IT and perhaps energy installation because they are expecting a building boom because of the TTIP energy deal, many new homes will have to be built, the older buildngs will be deemed too expensive to heat. So we will have to have loans to families with good credit to relocate into new housing somewhere hopefully not too far from the cities they used to live in.
We cannot support MORE public colleges here when we are fighting them in India, etc.
karynnj
(59,506 posts)You are suggesting what is in essence a race to the bottom. Rather than educate bright talented children from poor families, you argue that we can more cheaply just "import" people with the education and skills needed.
This is a conclusion that derives from considering the USA to be a giant corporation looking to most cheaply meet its needs. Hiring 4 foreign teachers might be cheaper than grants to be used for a poor student to pay for college, but it ignores that the country is NOT a corporation, focused just on its bottom line. It ignores that giving that student the help needed allows him or her to succeed.
What you suggest has the potent to create a permanent underclass, with college being used as a bar to keep people down. I am 65, when I graduated high school, there were jobs for people who did not go to college that could fund at least a lower middle class lifestyle. In my high school, in a middle class/lower middle class town, about half the kids went to college. Many a girl went to the near by cities (or even Chicago, 27 miles away) and became secretaries or clerks, many guys went to work in the steel mills, some becoming first line supervisors. Now most of these jobs do not exist and of those that do, a college degree is often needed to even get into the door.
The moral arguments for helping students from poor families are pretty clear. However, for people for whom the concepts of economic justice do not persuade, there is a good argument to be made that knocking down a barrier would work against the dominant trend that is making the US a nation of haves and have nots. There have always been third world nations with this profile, but although someone with a good income could live a very luxurious life, I have never seen many people wanting to move to these countries.
romanic
(2,841 posts)You thought the housing crash was huge, wait until the colleges crash...
Orrex
(63,228 posts)The schools and financial agencies will be protected because 100% of the risk is dumped on the 17-year-olds who fall victim to these aggressive, predatory lending schemes. Unless the victims are fortunate enough to die or suffer permanent 100% disability, the lenders will get their money.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)amount paid back over time huge compared to the principle.
MichMan
(11,988 posts)Since student loans have been provided by the Federal Government since 2010, not sure why you would call an agency under the Obama administration "predatory" ???
Orrex
(63,228 posts)That will come as quite a surprise to the private lenders raking it in with their predatory lending tactics.
Yes, predatory.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)They declare bankruptcy and further impoverish students. Students try to escape debt, they can't.
Education no? With globalization, winners losers. Free education go Germany. Get good job there.
No unions here. Hillary. Haitii Honduras. si? Union bad, Debt good. Gold-en Sacks
Hillary!
America!
sakabatou
(42,180 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)but if people with HS educations are only making nine dollars an hour or so, how do they afford to give up half their income and still pay their bills? the math doesn't add up.
this whole higher education thing is a scam anyway; i always skipped my classes and taught myself the material at home. maybe i have ADD. maybe my teachers were crap. i don't see how that's worth several thousand dollars a year. and now they're telling us they can't afford lecturers who can speak intelligible english. :/
Baobab
(4,667 posts)paying self taught people now.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)all the interesting work i do is probono
sorry i think your point went RIGHT OVER MY HEAD 
King_Klonopin
(1,307 posts)
MissB
(15,812 posts)We were able to afford to move to a neighborhood that has an excellent small school district. The district has a (usually) 100% graduation rate and most of its graduates head off to college. There are plenty of people here that don't go off to work in the morning five days a week - they have plenty of income/resources. (Dh and I both work and we are both engineers so we make a very good income.)
Our kids have had many opportunities since Kindergarten, more so than they would've had if we'd stayed in the large urban school district. My kids are both math and science kids and have been well prepared (thanks to the resources of this school district) to apply to colleges.
We qualify for exactly zero financial aid, even when both of our kids will be in college. Our kids are chasing merit. We can afford to send them to our state schools, and we've made it clear over the years that they must get merit for anything over that equivalent amount. The schools that offer large merit are looking for kids with great "stats" - those with excellent grades, high test scores and interesting extra curriculars. It's much easier to raise a kid to those standards in a school district where the parents both embrace education and fund the local school. My oldest is deciding between two schools - one of which is dangling a nearly $200k scholarship (over four years) and one of which has so far offered $125k and might be a full ride offer. Either way, we'd pay less than our state flagships costs.
Yeah, it's unfair. When our state university costs $26k/year and a kid can only borrow $5500 their first year and Pell grants are rare and maybe $5k, it isn't poor parents that can afford to send their kids off to college.
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Getting high SAT scores are often a prerequisite to getting the most aid regardless of income. Is it any wonder SAT prep classes and private tutoring are prevalent in more affluent school districts?
Lots of the lower income kids have a hard enough time getting money to take the required tests once before graduation. The well heeled can start taking them as early as the 8th grade to bump them up in each iteration and tailor their curriculum to help fill the gaps.
Is it any wonder that the occurrence of perfect scores has exploded in the last 20+ years? Used to be, in the dark ages ('70s grad), even one maxed out score was newsworthy. As always, the top will learn how to game or tweak the system to their advantage.
LuckyLib
(6,821 posts)admissions folks because the college wanted their son, with his high SATs and grades to enroll. Merit awards raise the university/college's profile in stats that are meaningless in determining the quality of institutions. What is really important is the high income parents (and their child) who will give big bucks in the future as alumni/alumni parents.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)are better at making more of it.
Another argument ive heard several times is that giving poor people an education just "gives them unrealistic expectations".
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)It's not so much that the poor are subsidizing the more affluent as it is that the current system favors suburbanites. Let me take two kids who are both high achieving students. If high achieving student {A} goes to a rural or inner city school, the following is probably true: lower quality of teachers; and/or high student/teacher ratio; fewer AP course offerings; less accessibility to AP/SAT/ACT prep classes and materials. High achieving student {B} in a suburban school -- even if the family is less well-to-do than those in the school -- will often have access to lower student/teacher ratios; better AP selections; better teachers; and more access to non-sports extra curriculars like band, orchestra, and debate.
As for "colleges increasingly are using financial aid money to lure more affluent students"; this is a complex topic that I will not do justice. First, let me explain a sea change that has taken place since the 1980s to today.35 years ago, your cheapest option was JC/Community College, then State College, then State University, then Out-of-state State College, then Private School. Now, unless there is a reciprocity agreement with an out of state school, or a legacy loophole, out of state schools are often your most expensive option. Meanwhile, the best private schools (the Ivies, Vandy, Stanford, USC, Notre Dame, Emory) offer exceptionally generous financial aid -- but getting into these schools is exceptionally difficult. A kid has to have great grades; extra curriculars; AP courses; and high SAT/ACT scores to get accepted to these schools, and families with $30K incomes often don't have the resources to pay for their kids to take the ACT 4 times; travel with the debate team; or sign the kids up for SAT prep classes. To their credit, many schools now pay for the AP tests.
In my state (Nebraska) a child with decent-to-good grades and test scores can qualify for the Susan Buffett scholarship and go to the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Omaha, or Kearney -- or the State Colleges in Wayne, Chadron, or Peru. Their odds of going ot the University of Chicago or Duke, however, are slim.
Here is the other thing I see. The top schools I mentioned before give, as I said, very generous financial aid for families with under $100K (in some cases under $250K) AGI. The thing is that a lot of two-income families (especially by the time the oldest kid is 18) have established themselves well enough in jobs where the family makes over $100K. These families often get told there is less help than they were hoping for at the big schools -- especially if their kid has grades that were very good, but not great. What I see these kids do is look at smaller private schools, and from what I've heard second hand from friends, family, and coworkers, it becomes like used car shopping. Sometimes it's small stuff -- register for the school during the tour and you get a $500 voucher at the school book store or a technology (read: laptop/tablet) allowance. Your kid was in band? Great! have them audition with their tuba, and if they pass the audition, we'll kick in another $5000 in scholarship money. Bunches of discounts that keep that price higher than your state college, but lower than that $25,000 per semester tuition that is listed on their website.
I could say much more on this topic, but I have a big day tomorrow and need to get to bed.
LuckyLib
(6,821 posts)Some folks who could pay the costs don't have to, keeping others whose family cannot afford it from getting help. Privilege and cultural capital mean access to free money.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Where we live in New England, really good students with high GPA's and test scores are a dime a dozen therefore you have no real bargaining leverage with the schools to get more aid. However, there are many smaller mid western schools looking to raise their national profiles by attracting high performing out of state students. My daughter went to an excellent school in Minnesota at a price significantly cheaper than even the local state college.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)The huge inflation in the published cost of attending colleges, especially private liberal arts colleges, has disguised the fact that college pricing is now an almost bewildering system of unpublished actual costs.
It'd be like Starbucks displaying a retail price of $10 for a cup of coffee but then charging each person differently based on a multitude of factors.
The people who pay the most are the ones who are both wealthy and not the highest ranking applicants. The more they want you - and it's not just for test scores, in my experience - the more aid they'll find, whether they call it need-based financial aid or merit aid.
Some are pretty upfront about merit aid being tied to high school achievement. For example, on Baylor's financial aid page, one inputs test scores, high school grades, and number of advanced classes taken, and the amount of merit aid is calculated and displayed. At other schools, the students have to apply for merit scholarships.
Merit aid is often given by schools outside of the top 30 or so colleges to very high achieving students. A student who could get into an Ivy-level school may be awarded a full or significant merit scholarship at such a college. There are many families that are just above the income levels qualifying for aid, but $60,000 per year is just way too much money.