Jackson Free Press

New York Times is reporting:

The federal government will be able to require millions of college students to shoulder more of the cost of their education under the new spending bill approved yesterday by the House and Senate. [...] Nearly 100,000 more students may lose their federal grants entirely, as Congress considers legislation that could place more of the financial burden for college on students and their families.

The cutback stems from a revision to the formula governing virtually all of the nation's financial aid. Last year, the Department of Education changed the formula on its own, angering members of Congress who contended that it was a backdoor way of cutting education spending without facing the public. The department retorted that it was merely following the law.

In response, Congress passed legislation in the fall of 2003 to suspend the new formula for at least a year. The Senate put forward the same measure this year, and many members of the House said they also expected the new formula would wait at least until Congress updates the Higher Education Act, which will probably take the better part of the coming year.

But keeping the old formula in place for another year would add an extra $300 million in grants for college students to a program that is already running at a shortfall, the Office of Management and Budget said. So, the bill approved yesterday, brokered by Congressional leaders in a conference committee, eliminates a provision that would have barred the Education Department from changing the eligibility formula. A Senate staff member who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that the White House insisted the provision be dropped, citing the shortfall, and House Republicans were adamant in their agreement to do so.

"They are throwing students out of the opportunity to seek a college education," said Senator Jon S. Corzine, the New Jersey Democrat who wrote the amendment to stop the changes last year, and introduced a similar provision this year that did not survive the conference committee. "It is now clear to me that this was a backdoor attempt to cut funding from the Pell grant program."

We're trying real hard right now not to say we warned you.

Previous Commentsshow

Maybe we won't need a draft after all. The kids that can't afford college can just enlist.

kate

Nov 22 2004

RE: Warned---about what? The possiblity that the government (Taxpayers) will NOT be the source of providing for everyones COMPLETE college education? FWIW, working a bit prior to/during school and summers to earn the money to pay for (100%) of college and advanced degree work has worked quite well for many folks who are not looking to anyone else (not even family) to pay their way thru school. For others the generosity of family/friends combined with working a bit has been the means of making their plans come to fruitition. For others, PRIVATELY funded grants/scholarships (yes, they are out there, folks) have made college/advance degrees possible for people to obtain their education. Bottom-line---a college education is completely available to ANYONE who wants it. It may not be totally FREE (or paid for by TAX dollars)...but it is available and can be had at an affordable cost to anyone who truly wants it to happen.

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

The possiblity that the government (Taxpayers) will NOT be the source of providing for everyones COMPLETE college education? You know, B Chan, employing that level of reading comprehension, reasoning and exaggeration would not even get you a passing grade on No Child Left Behind tests. Catch up, why don't you? No one has said that the government should be the "source of providing for everyones COMPLETE college education?"

DonnaLadd

Nov 22 2004

Hi Ladd, Nice put down (regretfully, something that I can apparently count on receiving after posting here---perhaps my comments are not welcome here? ). Although you did not say, with that type response I can only guess that my post contained info that you disagree with or found inaccurate. Is it something we can discuss? (If so, I am interested.) Despite whatever comprehensional shortcomings I may harbour, I note no effort on your part to clarify just what warning you might have previously issued. I can (and did) only guess as to what you meant when you indcated that "We're trying real hard right now not to say we warned you." Would you be willing to at least clarify/answer my original question---warned about what? (Or do I just get to guess what you mean and take snide comments?) Regards,

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

B Chan, I apologize for the swipe; I realize it was snarky. However, please re-read your own posts. You never make an entrance here that implies that you want to discuss anything -- only to lambaste others whose opinions are diffferent fro yours and exaggerate arguments that are not your own. It is simply ridiculous to try to boil down a criticism of the inevitable Bush cuts to higher-education assistance (the "warning," if it's not obvious to anyone) into saying the critics of the cuts automatically "providing for everyones COMPLETE college education?" That's ludicrous, B Chan, and if you make those kind of silly statements, people are going to respond in kind. Otherwise, drop your snideness, and I'll drop mind. Deal?

DonnaLadd

Nov 22 2004

Also, FWIW, my family didn't have one dime to help me with college. I went to college with a combination of federal grants and private scholarships and three jobs at one time -- and that was to Mississippi State. I don't know a single person who believes that the government should pay "for everyones COMPLETE college education." Big, fat ole red herring.

DonnaLadd

Nov 22 2004

B Chan, why is it bad for the gov't (taxpayers) to help people pay for college? And, yes it's possible to do college with no help - but it's tremendously difficult for kids who are the first in their families to go, whose parents maybe don't speak english, don't have access to good guidance counselors, don't know how to navigate the system, etc.

kate

Nov 22 2004

"And, yes it's possible to do college with no help - but it's tremendously difficult for kids who are the first in their families to go, whose parents maybe don't speak english, don't have access to good guidance counselors, don't know how to navigate the system, etc. " - Kate It's also difficult for independent, young adults to get grants and loans if they have existing jobs that barely pay a car note and mortgage/rent. For instance, because of my salary, I would have an extremely difficult time finding ample assistance for a university because I make "too much" even though I'm barely making it without the added costs of college tuition. I know many, many people in the same situation... For many, the grants and loans are hard enough to acquire and cuts are not going to make that any easier for anyone. All this on the heels of the military needing more manpower... It seems rather convenient to me. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will but nothing this administration does (now including Congress) surprises me or comes across as genuinely interested in the commonwealth.

kaust

Nov 22 2004

LAdd, First, let me be blunt---if my posts in this forum have been snide or ìlamblastingî of others---your posts/responses to me have been outright disrespectful. There is absolutely no parity in my supposed ìsnidenessî and the ìsnarkyî comments/remarks made by you (and which I have politely characterized as ìsnideî). Unlike you, I have never made any personal comments about or characterizations of you or any other participant, person or group of people and/or their associations in any of these JFP forums. As for ìlamblasting others whose opinions are differentîÖI almost have to laugh --- just who is it that I have lamblasted? Please give me an example---- because your off the cuff talk is sounding REAL cheap on this one, Ladd (and very much like the kettle wrongfully calling the pot black). It is very clear that you do not agree with the content of some of my posts. But rather than provide some substantive response, you choose to throw out comments concerning my intellect, comprehensional and/or reading skills (characteristics which, for all you know could very well be an issue). Your response above bears this outÖ[rather than just saying that ìwe had warned that Bush would be cutting ed. assistanceîÖyou have to go on and note the ì"warning," if it's not obvious to anyoneî----helloÖnot all of us are reading and recalling every word posted.] RE: It is simply ridiculous to try to boil down a criticism of the inevitable Bush cuts to higher-education assistance (the "warning," if it's not obvious to anyone) into saying the critics of the cuts automatically "providing for everyones COMPLETE college education?" UhhhÖwho said that? Not me. My post was a question concerning your ìwarningî. Having no idea what your warning had been, I merely posited a guess as to what you might have warned about. A simple method of beginning a discussion, as many people understand ---all you had to do was provide a polite response as to just what your warning had been and note that my posited guess was incorrectÖsimple, really. RE: Otherwise, drop your snideness, and I'll drop mind. Deal? Rest assured, I will continue to NOT make comments concerning your (or any one elseís) intellect, comprehensional skills, reading ability or other personal characteristics and/or association(s). What about you? Tell me, just how should one fashion a post to evoke discussion here? Please fill me in on the proper format or direct me to some place where proper protocol is posted. Be specific, pleaseÖand realize---many things are just not ìobviousî. Regards, PS ñ As for your previous (and obvious) ìwarningî concerning the Bush cuts--- so, are these cuts a bad/good thing? Why? (Good point for discussion, maybe???)

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

1 of 2 Ladd RE: Also, FWIW, my family didn't have one dime to help me with college. I went to college with a combination of federal grants and private scholarships and three jobs at one time -- and that was to Mississippi State. My guess is you would have made it happen come heck or high waterófed money or not. Not everyone has that drive/initiativeÖwhy should they have any of your tax paid money? ...

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

2 of 2 ... RE: I don't know a single person who believes that the government should pay "for everyones COMPLETE college education." OK. Well then, for the sake of discussion (howís my protocol?) 1. should taxpayers pay for any part of someone elseís college education? If so how much? And why? 2. Are the proposed cuts to FED education assistance a good/bad thing? 3. Will any cut at all to the ed. Assistance budget be ìtoo muchî? Why/why not? 4. Is everyone deserving of/entitled to having at least part of their education paid for by taxpayers? Why/why not? Personally, I am a proponent of educational assistance---namely student loans (that actually get paid back)---they let young people take FULL responsibility for their education (thru full repayment of the loan and then some---just try to obtain certain professional qualifications without paying your student loans). This is what I had (parents income too high to qualify for free money---but not so high that they were rolling in the dough). Grants were not available to me---. Like you I made my college ed. happen without family financial assistance---a couple of guaranteed loans and money I earned from full time work (and foregoing spring break travel). The loans were nice to have availableÖbut they were very definitely paid back in full, plus interest, plus all the fees the lenders tagged on to ìprocessî the loan. (unlike you, my scholastic achievements were not impressive enough to persuade others to offer me a scholarship--congrats on your scholastic achievement, btw). Many of my friends were in the same boat. That said, I also saw plenty of money (Fed, family, worked for, etc.) wasted by folks too busy partying to appreciate and take advantage of the wonderful opportunity called ìcollege educationî. The beauty of a college education, I believe, is that after obtaining those new skills, a young person is now in a position to earn a better income and then pay off the loans(and then some)---on their own...and have a good feeling about having done it themselves and leaving the taxpayers no worse to boot. Scholarships are another great vehicle for financing education---if you work hard enough in your studies/sports etc., you can be rewarded for those efforts thru scholarships that finance your education. That said while I believe ed. fin. assistance is a good thing---I find it hard to believe that any cut to the fed ed. assistance budget will be ìtoo muchî and therefore is a bad thing. Those that want to make it (college) happen WILL make it happen---regardless. RE: Big, fat ole red herring. Uuuuuuhhhh ñdoes this mean that this is a topic that is not up for discussion?

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

RE: It is simply ridiculous to try to boil down a criticism of the inevitable Bush cuts to higher-education assistance (the "warning," if it's not obvious to anyone) into saying the critics of the cuts automatically "providing for everyones COMPLETE college education?" Uh, I'm quoting you, Chan. You said those words right above. They were the ones that drew my snide response. And I'm not seeing a different interpretation than what you said. Here's the whole quote again: RE: Warned---about what? The possiblity that the government (Taxpayers) will NOT be the source of providing for everyones COMPLETE college education? Chan, I'm not going to have a big hoohaa with you. I apologized for my snarky comment, and I meant it. It was mean, and I realize it. Please note, though, that I was not attacking your overall intellect, etc., (I don't know you; how could I?)óonly that, in this instance, that you were so blatantly twisting something into an untruth that it was laughable. One of the rudest things people do on these boards is to come here, grab someone's comment about something and twist it into the most extreme interpretation, then throw it back in a na-na-na-boo-boo way. You did that with that comment, I believe. That, in no way, promotes discussion. We have continual respectful dialogues on here between people who don't agree on particular issues, but who aren't trolling to try to turn someone else into an extremist and then rant and ridicule them for it. We're just not a site for that kind of, er, dialogue. And you'll often see people apologize here when they do get snarky. We're all human, and words (especially your own when twisted) can sting. My point above, although rudely made admittedly, is that your reasoning and exaggeration on trying to imply that *I*, apparently, think that the government should be "the source of providing for everyones COMPLETE college education," in your words, was insulting. No, I do not believe those cuts are a good thing. I think I've made that clear. You, however, have not said why those cuts are not a good thing. You have exaggerated what was being argued, and not tried to discuss the intricacies. Feel free to do that if you like without further twisting of my words.

DonnaLadd

Nov 22 2004

RE: Big, fat ole red herring. Uuuuuuhhhh ñdoes this mean that this is a topic that is not up for discussion? Nope, it means that your point, as it was made, wasn't logical.

DonnaLadd

Nov 22 2004

For me, it's not about arguing what % of tuition the gov should pay for. It's about the big picture, overall priorities. $5+ billion a month in Iraq, compared to knocking out a few million in eduction support. It's wrong, and it's the ones on the edge that'll end up enlisting and getting killed, instead of going to college. It's part of an overall pattern of saying one thing (I'm the education president!) and doing another (cutting fed funding for higher ed and shifting the burden to the states). And an overall pattern of class warfare. that's what's annoying about it.

kate

Nov 22 2004

Kate ---RE: B Chan, why is it bad for the gov't (taxpayers) to help people pay for college? --- See above---I donít believe that it is. But I tend to believe it should more often be a ìI will pay you back laterî(i.e. loan) kind of thing versus a ìfreebyî(i.e. ìenjoy your neighbors moneyî). The former places some responsibility on the recipient and will (hopefully) leave the taxpayer with very little burden. It also gives a young person a feeling of accomplishment years later when they actually pay those things off (trust me, I know). ---RE: And, yes it's possible to do college with no help - but it's tremendously difficult for kids who are the first in their families to go, whose parents maybe don't speak english, don't have access to good guidance counselors, don't know how to navigate the system, etc.--- Even if the things you mention are trueÖI have to wonder how will financial assistance (i.e. ìhereís your check for collegeî) help these people---they still need to apply for the aid, right? Once you apply, you either get the aid or you donít. What navigational assistance will ìthe checkî provide? Frankly, I would think that if the kids are really ready for college, they should be able to make these things happen, regardless of parents language skills, etc. If they canít, they may not be ready for college just yet---but that is another issue.

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

Knol, ---RE: ---It's also difficult for independent, young adults to get grants and loans if they have existing jobs that barely pay a car note and mortgage/rent. For instance, because of my salary, I would have an extremely difficult time finding ample assistance for a university because I make "too much" even though I'm barely making it without the added costs of college tuition. I know many, many people in the same situation... For many, the grants and loans are hard enough to acquire and cuts are not going to make that any easier for anyone.---- My situation was similarÖafter a couple of years of working and saving some money (but not enough for the full multi-year stint), I also faced the possibility of not being able to obtain a student loan. The steps I took were to actually contact the school financial aid office and talk with the head guy of the financial aid office---he understood the problem, said it was not unique(working adults who re-enter school full-time) and that there were provisions for dealing with it, namely he had me complete certain representations that I was going full time and would not be have the same continued income during the next few years. The loans were made available----you might want to push on that door a little harderÖand good luck if you do.

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

Ladd, ---RE: One of the rudest things people do on these boards is to come here, grab someone's comment about something and twist it into the most extreme interpretation, then throw it back in a na-na-na-boo-boo way. You did that with that comment, I believeÖ. ÖMy point above, although rudely made admittedly, is that your reasoning and exaggeration on trying to imply that *I*, apparently, think that the government should be "the source of providing for everyones COMPLETE college education," in your words, was insulting. ---- Ladd, speaking of twisting---the only thing in your post other than your reference to the ìwarningî Öwas a excerpt from NYT---I happened to notice that it quoted some comments from an esteemed Senator from the great state of New Jersey. Those comments were to the effect that "They are throwing students out of the opportunity to seek a college educationî,and "It is now clear to me that this was a backdoor attempt to cut funding from the Pell grant program." While it was not set out in your post, I happen to be independently aware of Senator Corzine and his willingness to spend his New Jersey Constituents money. If anyone is willing to pay for everyones COMPLETE college education---it is probably Senator Corzine ( you know this I am sure). Thus, my posited guess. In short, it was NOT about YOU. It was not ever contemplated as an insult twist/misrep of where YOU stood were/are coming from ñand I believe you know this. It is also very hard to believe that someone with the back-handed slap writing skills you demonstrate could truly be insulted by my posited guess---although to make the claim does sound very dramatic. ---RE: No, I do not believe those cuts are a good thing. I think I've made that clear. So noted. Thanks. ---RE: You, however, have not said why those cuts are not a good thing.--- As I said aboveóI just have a hard time believing that any reduction of aid is by definition bad. I do not trust many of the folks in DC who control the strings to the purse that you and I, as taxpayers fill with our hard-earned money (Heck let me have it so I can put some of my family members thru school). Doling out that money (our money) is the way they garner favor with their constituency and hopefully maintain power. Why should I ever believe that they are really concerned about putting that money (our money) to best/efficient use? ---RE: You have exaggerated what was being argued, and not tried to discuss the intricacies. --- Uh...not sure what was being argued or what I exaggerated---sorry. Let me know what intricacies I might better elaborate onÖin the mean time I hope the above is helpful.

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

Chan, reading back, you seemed to be responding directly to *my* warning; I was the only one who "warned." And I also don't see where Corzine was coming near making the exaggerated argument that you were summarizing -- that the government should pay "for everyones COMPLETE college education." But it really doesn't matter. So that this horse can get a little rest, let's agree that perhaps you meant something other than what I read in your intro, call it bad communication between us, and move along. I see that you have gotten more into the meat of the issue now, which can lead to good discussion of it. We seem to have cross-posted when I posted my last response to you. From a quick read, it looks like we agree on at least some points -- such as that all financial aid shouldn't be grants, but instead a combination of loans and other assistance. (This bill also cuts back loans, too.) Otherwise, I'm on press night and can't go deep now. I'll try to get back to this thread after we go to the printer in the next couple days. I'm *very* passionate on the topic of education, as you might have noticed. One thing: If y'all haven't read the whole Times piece I excerpted, yet, it's worth a read. The problem, many members of Congress contend, is that state taxes have gone up for the last three years, not down, making the new formula out of step with the economic environment families currently face. With the issue seemingly on hold, the Department of Education said in June that it would review the formula and seek guidance on its fairness. Without instructions from Congress to the contrary, however, department officials said that they would most likely start using a new formula, as required by law. Its effect on students could vary greatly from family to family, depending on their economic circumstances. But assuming that the department uses figures that are similar to the ones it proposed last year, as many as 1.2 million low-income students could have their grants cut, according to the American Council on Education, which represents colleges. That does not mean that the government will end up spending less money on college scholarships than it has in prior years. In fact, significant increases in the number of low-income students going to college, and the recent economic woes of students and parents who might not have been eligible for help in the past, means that the government spent more than $13 billion on Pell grants in 2004, up from about $10 billion in 2001, department statistics show. The state-tax point raises questions of federal tax-cut (and NCLB) blowback that the states are facing. And the last graf makes the point that Bush glossed throughout his campaign: while saying that the government was paying more in Pell grants, he wasn't saying that it was because more low-income students were attending college, and that more students are qualifying as low income. Gotta fly now.

DonnaLadd

Nov 22 2004

1 of 2 Kate, ---RE:For me, it's not about arguing what % of tuition the gov should pay for. It's about the big picture, overall priorities. $5+ billion a month in Iraq, compared to knocking out a few million in education support. --- For me it is about lots of plain ole wasteful spending at home and abroad (military, education, etc.). A few million here and a few million there and pretty soon you are talking about real money. As for educationÖI just do not understand why you or I as taxpayers should be forced (thru taxation) to out right pay for some elseís college education? Help 'em yes, through loans. I also know that it is much easier to spend OPM without concern for value/efficiency or benefit. ---RE: It's wrong, and it's the ones on the edge that'll end up enlisting and getting killed, instead of going to college. --- Well, if fin. aid is cut COMPLETELYÖmaybe this would be true. However, if there were merely reductions in the fin aid, I would assume that the aid would first go to those people most in need of it (i.e. those on the edge)Öin other words, the folks who come from higher income households would be the ones most likely to become ineligible (if anyone becomes ineligible). Further, those folks whose academic achievement is less than stellar will more than likely be the ones who would lose the ability to obtain fin. aid. In short, if you are not working hard to keep your grades up, or if your family makes too much money---you will be the ones most likely to lose the ability to obtain fin. aid. Am I off base here?

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

2 of 2 ---RE: It's part of an overall pattern of saying one thing (I'm the education president!) and doing another (cutting fed funding for higher ed and shifting the burden to the states). Keep in mind that a cut in FED Fin funding along with a cut in fed taxation, means more dollars left to be picked up at the state taxation level for this. Thus, the state can handle doling out fin aid as it sees fit. In essence, you can remove the ìmiddle manî of a fed bureaucracy (paying the bureaucratic in DC does cost many dollars) from the equation and place responsibility/control of the fund closer to home. This could mean better/more relevant decision-making and greater efficiency. As a business parallelÖthere are some successful retailers who delegate purchasing powers and responsibilities to the local level. Why? Because the local level knows what works in the neighborhood and can avoid purchases that would not be appropriate (no snow removal tools in Florida, for example). Further, because the local level is responsible, when they start to get complaints about products, THEY can make the shift to another supplier or stop receiving of any further products immediately, without having to run the decision through corporate office in another far away state (i.e. decisions can be made faster/corrective actions can also be taken faster. This results in less waste/lost time/irritated customers----which ultimately means more money in the bank/less costly prices to the consumer. It is the same with governmentÖexcept government does NOT care about efficiency or customer complaints. ---RE: And an overall pattern of class warfare. that's what's annoying about it. --- RE: Class warfare---I just do not know what this means. If you are talking about the kind of warfare folks engage in when they are trying to get themselves from one class into another (typically lower economic class to an upper economic class)ÖI know a few of them. They were the folks when I was growing up who were clearly ìlower classî from a money stand pointÖwho have subsequently aspired to success as doctors, lawyers, dentist, entrepreneurs and big guys at big Cos.. If anyone had the odds stacked against them...they did. One thing that they ALL had in common was a strong desire to be more/achieve more and they worked hard at taking advantage of every opportunity presented to themÖ none of them were EVER complaining about how hard their path was---all any of them wanted was to get ahead and they were willing to do what it took, hardwork, sacrifice and persistence. This kind of warfare is the type of warfare that can be carried out in only a few places, the US being one of the most notable. It is not everywhere where someone of a lower class background can take personal action that will elevate them to a higher level of income/status/responsibility/influence etc.

B Chan

Nov 22 2004

Chan - by class warfare, I mean the Bush administration's tendency to pass policies that benefit upper classes disproportionately (eg, tax cuts) and/or policies that hurt lower classes disporportionately (eg, cutting funding for education). I don't think that making the financial aid pie smaller is better for anyone. I think you're ignoring the huge benefits reaped by everyone when we have an educated and more employable populace. Cutting education funding to fund a war is just wrong. I don't buy your arguments about how great it is to push the burden to the states - there's been enough of that already. Donna's post is more eloquent on the topic. Plus, the price for a college education has gone up far more than the inflation rate for the past 5+ years (I want to say 10 or 15, but I can't remember the citation). So, even if funding levels stay the same, they're effectively being cut by the increase in prices. I will buy into the notion that loans are better than grants - which you seem to be focusing on. But I don't buy into the notion that fewer loans are better.

kate

Nov 22 2004

To quote the article Donna linked to initially, this is one of many reasons I don't think the notion of pushing this to the states works out: Whether furnished by colleges, states or the federal government, the vast majority of the nation's $110 billion in financial aid is dictated by an intricate federal formula. Its purpose is to calculate how much of a family's income is truly discretionary, and therefore eligible for covering college expenses. Much like federal income tax, the formula allows families to deduct some of what they pay in state taxes. But last year the department significantly reduced that amount, in some cases cutting it in half, leaving families with more money left over to pay for college, at least on paper. The problem, many members of Congress contend, is that state taxes have gone up for the last three years, not down, making the new formula out of step with the economic environment families currently face. With the issue seemingly on hold, the Department of Education said in June that it would review the formula and seek guidance on its fairness.

kate

Nov 22 2004