• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Public Universities Ramp Up Aid for the Wealthy, Leaving the Poor Behind

TownieDeac said:
1. Why would providing equal access to higher education come at the "detriment of the system as a whole"? You're right, it's not a reparation. It should ultimately be blind to the situation from which people come. But that's just admissions. When you start talking aid, need-based aid should be given to those who need it most on a sliding scale upwards. We don't provide free college education to everyone, that's a good thing, but it's also a complete red herring/straw man.

2. I don't see how what I left out is at all relevant, and I'm not sure how you're missing the notion that I'm putting all families in the same boat who can't pay a dime for their kids' education. And then kids' parents who can pay a dime get put in a slightly different boat. And then families who can pay $10,000 but not $35,000/year in a different boat. You know, the way we've been doing it. Except instead of taking paddles away from the poorest boats first, I'd rather take them away from the yachts first.

3. Ok.
Click to expand...

1. Because, as your article points out, when there are finite dollars available you have to figure out how to allocate the dollars in the best way possible. So, following their example of $12,000 available dollars, is it better to give the $4,000 to 3 kids so that they get to go, or is it better to give the $12,000 to 1 kid so only he gets to go? If the objective is to have the most educated populace possible, then you give the $4,000 to the 3 kids. And before you assert that it is easier for the 3 kids to find another way to get it done, recognize that as in the article, there is a way for the 1 kid to get it done as well. It is very very rarely all-or-nothing for anyone, so from the government tax dollars standpoint the focus should be on the maximizing the overall effect, not just helping those who we feel bad for.

2. It is extremely relevant because nothing is as absolute as you are making it out to be. Everyone can pay a dime, it is just a question of what else gets cut. On the flip side, however, very few people can just cut a check for the whole thing. The vast majority of people face a very large problem when it comes to the cost of college, whether they make $25k or $60k.
 
This is a faulty or slippery slope problem because then you could extend the logic to give 12 kids $1000 or 24 kids $500 or 48 kids $250 in grant funding and educate more and more (albeit of the wealthiest kids) in this scenario. Regardless, it's still a false choice.
 
TownieDeac said:
False choice.
Click to expand...

Please explain how that is a false choice. IF a school only has $100,000 in non-grant aid money to give out they can give out 10 - $10,000 blocks or 40 - $2,500 blocks. Non-grant aid money is apparently not a bucket with no bottom or we wouldnot be seeing this issue at all.
 
TownieDeac said:
This is a faulty or slippery slope problem because then you could extend the logic to give 12 kids $1000 or 24 kids $500 or 48 kids $250 in grant funding and educate more and more (albeit of the wealthiest kids) in this scenario. Regardless, it's still a false choice.
Click to expand...

Not really, because not many people are just $250 short of being able to pay for it. So it isn't an infinite slope; there are definite break points that the market seems to be hitting (again, as it is somewhat amazing to me that the current disbursements are seemingly close to pro rata across the income spectrum). And as olddke mentions, please explain how it is a false choice, assuming we are in the real world without an Obama money tree.
 
I think the end result is what angers a lot of people. You can argue the finer points and the choices and slopes, but the end result is the cycle of poverty continuing at the lowest end, which this girl's story represents, despite her hard work and determination and sheer will to succeed - the things that it supposedly takes to become financially comfortable in America.

A lot of energy is spent by a lot of politicians and their sympathizers talking about personal responsibility and about bootstraps and how they do want to help the ones who demonstrate these qualities, but then turn around and tilt the playing field against them anyway in favor of lower taxes/burden on the very wealthiest.
 
Last edited:
I can anticipate the response - that the middle class kid doesn't deserve to suffer just because he's not poor enough. I get it. But if education is going to be heralded as the ticket out of poverty, and poverty-stricken kids are doing everything right and still not getting the education, then I smell a rat.
 
WakeandBake said:
I think the end result is what angers a lot of people. You can argue the finer points and the choices and slopes, but the end result is the cycle of poverty continuing at the lowest end, which this girl's story represents, despite her hard work and determination and sheer will to succeed - the things that it supposedly takes to become financially comfortable in America.

A lot of energy is spent by a lot of politicians and their sympathizers talking about personal responsibility and about bootstraps and how they do want to help the ones who demonstrate these qualities, but then turn around and tilt the playing field against them anyway in favor of lower taxes/burden on the very wealthiest.
Click to expand...

Okay, look at the actual facts set forth in the article:

"She was in her high school’s computer lab, checking her email, when she saw the message from Lincoln University laying out her financial aid package: a mix of state and federal money but nothing from Lincoln ... to attend her dream school, Lincoln University, Epps would have had to come up with about $4,000 per year, after maxing out on federal loans ... Epps had scored a combined SAT score of 820 on math and critical reading. In fact, that’s solidly in the middle of Lincoln’s score distributions for many years, according to data reported to the U.S. Department of Education"

So, what we have is a decidedly average student who, through the aid available to her, was able to pay for all but $4,000 per year for her dream school school, which from collegecalc.org costs $20,000 per year. And that is supposed to be some sob story? WTF? That is an after-school job of 8 hours per week at $10/hour. I worked 3 fucking times that amount per week during college to pay a hell of a lot more than $4,000 per year, and that was almost 20 years ago now.

This isn't Albert Einstein getting denied admission. This is an average student at a university that honestly I had never even heard of until that article, who is getting 75% of everything covered by the state and federal taxpayers, and who should seemingly be able to make up the difference pretty easily. I'm just not seeing the catastrophe indicating some grandiose soak the poor conspiracy going on.
 
94Deac said:
And it's hitting demographically on both ends of the spectrum: the young is nothing new. But increasingly, many senior citizens are now getting pinched for student loans they took out and defaulted on years ago. Your anatomical observations aside, and student loans notwithstanding, I'm asking if we're saying that the government has an obligation to provide college education. Not access, but payment/subsidies for those who do have the academic qualifications. Are we at the point where it's presumed that college is a "right?"
Click to expand...

You missed my point. The government isn't providing college education. They are backing a loan that a student has to pay whether or not they get a college education.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Okay, look at the actual facts set forth in the article:

"She was in her high school’s computer lab, checking her email, when she saw the message from Lincoln University laying out her financial aid package: a mix of state and federal money but nothing from Lincoln ... to attend her dream school, Lincoln University, Epps would have had to come up with about $4,000 per year, after maxing out on federal loans ... Epps had scored a combined SAT score of 820 on math and critical reading. In fact, that’s solidly in the middle of Lincoln’s score distributions for many years, according to data reported to the U.S. Department of Education"


So, what we have is a decidedly average student who, through the aid available to her, was able to pay for all but $4,000 per year for her dream school school, which from collegecalc.org costs $20,000 per year. And that is supposed to be some sob story? WTF? That is an after-school job of 8 hours per week at $10/hour. I worked 3 fucking times that amount per week during college to pay a hell of a lot more than $4,000 per year, and that was almost 20 years ago now.

This isn't Albert Einstein getting denied admission. This is an average student at a university that honestly I had never even heard of until that article, who is getting 75% of everything covered by the state and federal taxpayers, and who should seemingly be able to make up the difference pretty easily. I'm just not seeing the catastrophe indicating some grandiose soak the poor conspiracy going on.
Click to expand...

I was going off the first paragraph:

She was a high achiever, graduating from high school with a 3.8 GPA and ranking among the top students in her class. She served as secretary, then president, of the student government. She played varsity basketball and softball. Her high-school guidance counselor, in a letter of recommendation, wrote that Epps was “an unusual young lady” with “both drive and determination.”
Click to expand...

I get your point, and I'm not sobbing, but it is compelling nonetheless. I worked all through college too (not for tuition). But I think if taxpayers are interested in educating the future labor force through which they benefit greatly, it is in their best interest for Shauniqua to go to Lincoln and study on their dime.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
That is part of the problem. The other part is everybody likes to think they're special and everybody likes coupons. So universities give out special coupons to the kids with money who they really want and leave behind the kids who need help the most. Public universities are basically private nowadays with so little money coming from the state. I heard today that UVa is only 10% public funded.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely a huge part of the problem. If government forces our public universities to operate like private universities, we probably can't get upset when they start acting like private universities.

At the same time, to what extent is this attributable to wider availability of student loans? In other words, do the schools feel less obligated to provide grants to the needy because they feel like anyone can borrow enough for college anyway?

WakeandBake said:
I think the end result is what angers a lot of people. You can argue the finer points and the choices and slopes, but the end result is the cycle of poverty continuing at the lowest end, which this girl's story represents, despite her hard work and determination and sheer will to succeed - the things that it supposedly takes to become financially comfortable in America.

A lot of energy is spent by a lot of politicians and their sympathizers talking about personal responsibility and about bootstraps and how they do want to help the ones who demonstrate these qualities, but then turn around and tilt the playing field against them anyway in favor of lower taxes/burden on the very wealthiest.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this. I'm all for taking a closer look at entitlements, but when you have someone who is essentially asking to add to the tax base, how can one conclude that investing in making that happen is a bad idea? When you have a person asking for the tools to contribute to society, why would you want to deny them that?
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/tuition-costs-by-country-college-higher-education-2012-6?op=1

Once again, it may be instructive to look at what competitive economies are doing in this regard. To no one's surprise, most Western countries have found a way to make college orders of magnitude more affordable for their citizens than the US.

Also, follow the money. Who is benefiting from these high college costs? Directly, the rapidly multiplying and richly paid administrators. Indirectly, the upper tier of the income distribution, who have found yet another way to pull the ladder up behind them.
 
I'm in a meeting in DC mostly about 2-year terminal tech degrees that lead directly to tech jobs. One of the people on the committee runs US HR for a major foreign auto manufacturer. One of the most interesting things he said is that some 2-year programs are advertising themselves as a cheap way to start toward a 4-year education. Students who have the money to go to the local university are starting at local tech instead. They're essentially taking public resources from students from lower socioeconomic status that these programs typically serve.
 
olddke said:
Please explain how that is a false choice. IF a school only has $100,000 in non-grant aid money to give out they can give out 10 - $10,000 blocks or 40 - $2,500 blocks. Non-grant aid money is apparently not a bucket with no bottom or we wouldnot be seeing this issue at all.
Click to expand...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Not really, because not many people are just $250 short of being able to pay for it. So it isn't an infinite slope; there are definite break points that the market seems to be hitting (again, as it is somewhat amazing to me that the current disbursements are seemingly close to pro rata across the income spectrum). And as olddke mentions, please explain how it is a false choice, assuming we are in the real world without an Obama money tree.
Click to expand...

By false choice I mean it in the sense of the term as regards logic and argumentation. By which I mean I think through collective exhaustion you could come up with a better way.
 
Deacon923 said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/tuition-costs-by-country-college-higher-education-2012-6?op=1

Once again, it may be instructive to look at what competitive economies are doing in this regard. To no one's surprise, most Western countries have found a way to make college orders of magnitude more affordable for their citizens than the US.
Click to expand...

Okay, but from that same chart, the rankings of those "more affordable" schools suck. The US has 51 of the top 100 universities. Most of those other countries have 2 or 3, and some have none (I will however give you Sweden, for a multitude of reasons, but unfortunately we will never be Sweden). This is just an extension of your same argument that other countries have more affordable healthcare, but said healthcare also sucks. The outcome is not apples to apples, we are completely different than other countries in a variety of ways. [name redacted] was more affordable than Coach K, who would you rather have and pay for?
 
PhDeac said:
You missed my point. The government isn't providing college education. They are backing a loan that a student has to pay whether or not they get a college education.
Click to expand...

You're missing mine. Are we moving to the point where people are viewing a college education as a right and wanting the government to pay for it, not provide a loan. The tenor seems to be growing.
 
PhDeac said:
I'm in a meeting in DC mostly about 2-year terminal tech degrees that lead directly to tech jobs. One of the people on the committee runs US HR for a major foreign auto manufacturer. One of the most interesting things he said is that some 2-year programs are advertising themselves as a cheap way to start toward a 4-year education. Students who have the money to go to the local university are starting at local tech instead. They're essentially taking public resources from students from lower socioeconomic status that these programs typically serve.
Click to expand...

This goes back to my earlier point. What is the purpose of the public secondary educational system ... is it to produce the best possible educated workforce possible, or is it to serve a certain socioeconomic group?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Okay, but from that same chart, the rankings of those "more affordable" schools suck. The US has 51 of the top 100 universities. Most of those other countries have 2 or 3, and some have none (I will however give you Sweden, for a multitude of reasons, but unfortunately we will never be Sweden). This is just an extension of your same argument that other countries have more affordable healthcare, but said healthcare also sucks. The outcome is not apples to apples, we are completely different than other countries in a variety of ways. [name redacted] was more affordable than Coach K, who would you rather have and pay for?
Click to expand...

But we rank below other 1st world countries in health care
 
WakeandBake said:
But we rank below other 1st world countries in health care
Click to expand...
Only in those polls that we consider methodologically flawed for the pupose of perpetuating 'Murican propaganda. It costs a lot of money to advance medicine, and for some reason, Americans alone have to bear that burden. Apparently big pharma just gives away their medicine to nations with socialized health care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top