Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently the rules for Pell Grant eligibility have been tightened. Here are the two major changes:
1) You can only receive the Pell Grant for 12 semesters, six years, or whatever comes first
2) No Pell Grants in the summer
3) Family income to qualify is now $23,000/yr. It used to be $32,000/yr.
I don't necessarily disagree with the first stipulation...even though I myself took 7 years to earn an AS degree and BA degree (so I'm glad I received the Pell Grant for all of that...because if not, I would be in even more debt). With the second stipulation, I personally always opted to not collect the Pell in the summer since it was subtracted from your award for the Spring and Fall. My university offered a discounted tuition rate to encourage summer class enrollment, so it wasn't so bad.
However the last stipulation is devastating in my opinion. If anything, the income level should have went up...not down. I really feel for middle-class families trying to send their kids to college nowadays. It seems that all the avenues for financial help are being shut down to them.
I don't necessarily agree with #3 either. I would have preferred to see the following changes:
1. Pell Grants awarded to needy students (under median income $47k or whatever) with a class standing of top 5% (adding in the merit factor). I would also raise the amount of Pell Grants. There's no need for the cost of tuition to hold these students back.
2. In place of Pell Grants, mid-high quality students (top 30% or so) receive a student loan with 10 years of subsidized interest (in addition to other loan options). This loan would have a lower maximum income requirement.... say $25,000.
We have to make sure more funding is funneled to the brightest of students with need. Not all students with need. Adequately investing in those who show the greatest potential will have a bigger payoff than saddling the entire middle-class with federal loans that cannot be dismissed.
1. Pell Grants awarded to needy students (under median income $47k or whatever) with a class standing of top 5% (adding in the merit factor). I would also raise the amount of Pell Grants. There's no need for the cost of tuition to hold these students back.
"Top 5%" is very relative. A "top student" at one school would just be "above average" at another (I myself went to 9 different primary and secondary schools. My class position varied a little from school to school). If anything, maybe it should be tied in to SAT/ACT results. Not that it would level the playing field completely -- but would help. Also, I would expand it to 10% of students, since larger high schools tend to have a much tighter distribution of grades (i.e. you may have 2 or 3 students who could be considered valedictorians.)
"Top 5%" is very relative. A "top student" at one school would just be "above average" at another (I myself went to 9 different primary and secondary schools. My class position varied a little from school to school). If anything, maybe it should be tied in to SAT/ACT results. Not that it would level the playing field completely -- but would help. Also, I would expand it to 10% of students, since larger high schools tend to have a much tighter distribution of grades (i.e. you may have 2 or 3 students who could be considered valedictorians.)
Good suggestions though.
I should have been more clear. I meant top 5% at each school should qualify. I don't think it's fair to compare inner city students directly to suburban students.
My previous idea was to scrap Pell Grant altogether. And just go with the second option of having interest-free loans for well-performing students with needs.
I'm not completely sold on federal financial aid. We went thousands of years without it and did just fine. But I don't expect us to all of a sudden yank it from a system which now (unfortunately) depends on it.
What always annoyed me about Pell grants is that when I was in school, you had to be enrolled full time to recieve enough to cover finances. Doesn't work out that nicely if you also work full time. The job will always have to come first if you want to keep the roof over your head.
What always annoyed me about Pell grants is that when I was in school, you had to be enrolled full time to recieve enough to cover finances. Doesn't work out that nicely if you also work full time. The job will always have to come first if you want to keep the roof over your head.
Do you have to be full-time? The Department of Education's page on the Pell Grant says that you have to be a full-time or part-time student. However, that doesn't really mean so much; in that a school may find ways not to award the money if there is a shortfall.
There have been several semesters where I was taking only a part-time credit load. In fact, on of the arguments against these new rules is that it works against part-time students; since many take longer than 12 semesters/6 years to earn their Bachelor degrees. I honestly don't recall if I collected the Pell Grant as a part-time student. Maybe others could shed some light on this by relaying their own experiences.
I should have been more clear. I meant top 5% at each school should qualify. I don't think it's fair to compare inner city students directly to suburban students.
My previous idea was to scrap Pell Grant altogether. And just go with the second option of having interest-free loans for well-performing students with needs.
I'm not completely sold on federal financial aid. We went thousands of years without it and did just fine. But I don't expect us to all of a sudden yank it from a system which now (unfortunately) depends on it.
"We" didn't do just fine; rich kids did just fine because they were the ones who could afford to go.
In other words, you seem to be saying that it's fine for a C student to be able to go anywhere he can get in because his parents are rich. It's not fine for an A- student (would likely would not be in the top 5% at his school) to go to college because he can't afford it.
I understand that the current system is in shambles, but taking away financial aid for poor people is IMHO not the way to go.
I should have been more clear. I meant top 5% at each school should qualify. I don't think it's fair to compare inner city students directly to suburban students.
My previous idea was to scrap Pell Grant altogether. And just go with the second option of having interest-free loans for well-performing students with needs.
I'm not completely sold on federal financial aid. We went thousands of years without it and did just fine. But I don't expect us to all of a sudden yank it from a system which now (unfortunately) depends on it.
Adding the "merit" into the Pell standard is just setting the government up for hefty lawsuits and quite frankly, I would agree with them. A top 5% at many schools wouldn't be top 50% at our school. If you want to impose a merit aspect, impose a base ACT/SAT score because it's a national standard test. A kid that graduates top 5% having never taken an AP class, finished high school with Algebra II as their highest math, etc. should not be rewarded over those kids taking multi-variable calc, 4-5+ AP's/year while maintaining a high GPA, but might not be top 5%.
If a student qualifies for a Pell, there are merit stipulations in the award already, applying to what they do in college. It's more than reasonable.
"We" didn't do just fine; rich kids did just fine because they were the ones who could afford to go.
In other words, you seem to be saying that it's fine for a C student to be able to go anywhere he can get in because his parents are rich. It's not fine for an A- student (would likely would not be in the top 5% at his school) to go to college because he can't afford it.
I understand that the current system is in shambles, but taking away financial aid for poor people is IMHO not the way to go.
High performing students got grants and scholarships. Those going to college were the brightest and the wealthiest. Academics has always been reserved for these folks until recently.
Adding the "merit" into the Pell standard is just setting the government up for hefty lawsuits and quite frankly, I would agree with them. A top 5% at many schools wouldn't be top 50% at our school. If you want to impose a merit aspect, impose a base ACT/SAT score because it's a national standard test. A kid that graduates top 5% having never taken an AP class, finished high school with Algebra II as their highest math, etc. should not be rewarded over those kids taking multi-variable calc, 4-5+ AP's/year while maintaining a high GPA, but might not be top 5%.
If a student qualifies for a Pell, there are merit stipulations in the award already, applying to what they do in college. It's more than reasonable.
Fair enough, use the SAT/ACT scores.
The merit stipulations in the award are nonsense. You can attend a random state college and achieve all Bs and still keep your award.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe others could shed some light on this by relaying their own experiences.
