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.
Yes, they can do well, but at lower rates than everyone else. In the UW-Madison example I gave, there was about a 20% difference in 4-year graduation rates between Pell Grant students and the student body in general. Why spend taxpayer money to get inferior results? What sense does that make?
You're making the wrong comparison.
The comparison shouldn't be between students who received Pell Grants and those who didn't. It should be between students receiving Pell Grants and those same students if they did not receive Pell Grants.
It's like a investor deciding to invest. Does she make that decision based on the fact that she'll only make 80% as much as someone else? Or does she decide based on the fact that she'll make twice as much for herself than if she didn't?
It's senseless to think all those students belong to the same "group"
It's senseless to think taking away Pell Grants is going to improve outcomes.
It's senseless to not look at the big picture, and see that college educated people have far great earning potential over the course of their career, and that all Americans benefit from that. Pell Grants are a very small investment that pays off many times over.
A small investment?????
Are there things like Pell Grants for Truck Driving school or Plumbing School? Why not?
How's that Forestry degree working out?
"Almost half of all recent college graduates are working at jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, according to a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
That same New York Fed study found that more and more recent college graduates are taking low-wage jobs and working part-time while fewer and fewer of them are working full-time at high-quality jobs."
"In fact, if they don’t have an advanced degree, graduates with a bachelor’s degree in psychology will likely be working as a human resources assistant, mental health technician or sales associate.
This analysis leads to a final reason why Sally can’t get a good job with her college degree.
The comparison shouldn't be between students who received Pell Grants and those who didn't. It should be between students receiving Pell Grants and those same students if they did not receive Pell Grants.
I disagree. My comparison is apt. Taxpayer money is being wasted on a group that gets inferior results.
We make the same mistake in K-12 public schools, as well. Some of the most highly-funded public school districts have the worst results. Camden, NJ, Washington, DC, etc.
What is the college graduation rate of students who don't receive PELL grants?
I posted the example from UW-Madison. A state university. Pell Grant receivers' 4-year graduation rate is 20% below the general student poplation's rate. And it can be noted that the Pell Grant recipients drag down the general student population's rate.
We know which group underperforms. Why do they get taxpayer funding while those who can achieve at a 20% higher rate, don't?
Huh. People in and around poverty--at a macro level--underperform compared to those in higher income groups...Shocking. They get taxpayer funding because they need it. Even at a 67% graduation rate, that's thousands and thousands of new college graduates each year, students who needed the financial assistance.
So you're arguing for more taxpayer money to be spent on raising the cut off for Pell Grants? What do you want to raise it to?
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.