chanel
Silver Member
Students in college for more than 6 years to potentially lose Pell grant - The Washington Post
Nine years to finish college?
Students in college for more than 6 years to potentially lose Pell grant
- Thread starter chanel
- Start date
Students in college for more than 6 years to potentially lose Pell grant - The Washington Post
Nine years to finish college?
So far, college has been the best 6 years of my son's life. Actually he bounced around to five different schools chasing the sports dream and did not qualify for Pell grants. He finally graduated and is now a Marine officer.
Grants and handouts should not last forever. People should be given an appropriate amount of time while maintaining satisfactory academic performance. After that, you're outta here.
Grants and handouts should not last forever. People should be given an appropriate amount of time while maintaining satisfactory academic performance. After that, you're outta here.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
>
I think a 6-year limit is a perfectly reasonable expectation for the receipt of free money. A Bachelors is often referred to as a 4-year degree but it is not that uncommon for students to need more than 4-years. Sometimes the requirements of the school in a degree field are more than 120 Semester hours (8 Semesters @ 15-hours each) because of course requirements. In addition there are those who try to decrease the overall cost of a college education by doing 2-years at a Community College and the final 2-years at a University and the University does not accept all the transferred classes. Then of course you have the professional students who keep changing majors, which extends time in school, and want taxpayers to pay for the extended time.
No problem with the reduced time limit and/or academic requirements to continue to receive the grant.
(The timing thing is what is going on with our son who is currently a "Senior" at a University (Community College route). Of course he doesn't get Pell Grants and works part-time in Information Technology support. We don't qualify for Pell Grants and have rejected student loans. He goes to school full time, works part time, and will graduate with no education dept.)
>>>>
I think a 6-year limit is a perfectly reasonable expectation for the receipt of free money. A Bachelors is often referred to as a 4-year degree but it is not that uncommon for students to need more than 4-years. Sometimes the requirements of the school in a degree field are more than 120 Semester hours (8 Semesters @ 15-hours each) because of course requirements. In addition there are those who try to decrease the overall cost of a college education by doing 2-years at a Community College and the final 2-years at a University and the University does not accept all the transferred classes. Then of course you have the professional students who keep changing majors, which extends time in school, and want taxpayers to pay for the extended time.
No problem with the reduced time limit and/or academic requirements to continue to receive the grant.
(The timing thing is what is going on with our son who is currently a "Senior" at a University (Community College route). Of course he doesn't get Pell Grants and works part-time in Information Technology support. We don't qualify for Pell Grants and have rejected student loans. He goes to school full time, works part time, and will graduate with no education dept.)
>>>>
chanel
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #4
Congrats to you and your son. I am pleased with this common sense entitlement cut. My hunch is that many of these "9 yearers" have no intention of getting a degree and may be "no show students" wasting taxpayer money. Kudos to our lawmakers for finally addressing this.
After ten years in college, I laid the law down to my son. He finished or quit and got a job. Did I mention he was 32 by this time. He was forced to quit and get a job. He eventually finished as a part time student. To this day he resents me for depriving him of an education. I can't care. I know that if he was allowed to continue, he would be in college to this very day.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
Thanks for the Congrats.
Actually we have two college students. Our son as described and our daughter who is currently a junior at a different school about 4-hours away. We're very proud of both of them. As I said hour son will graduate debt free, our daughter will have some debt. She worked her ass off as a freshman (instead of going the party route, thank heaven) and earned a full tuition ROTC scholarship. She will pay back her "loan" with active duty after she graduates. We're a military family and she looking at it as the first step in a military career.
>>>>
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
When our kids were still in High School we sat down with each separeately and had "The Conversation"! (No not that conversation, we'd already had that, this one was about funding college.)
We did high level overview of family financials as it pertained to loans and grants, the point was we were in that range where funding college would be painful since we earned to much to qualify for "free money" yet we couldn't afford to give them a free ride (which I wouldn't do anyway).
So we laid down some rules if the kids wanted us to help with college:
1. They would be required to work (and/or contribute) to their own education. No if's, ands, or buts apply.
2. The purpose of a college education is prepare them for a employment post-college, as such their major MUST provide a high degree of employability after graduation. We would contibute nothing, zero, nadda, zip, zilch toward a degree that was not. If they wanted a degree in "Psychology", "Sociology", medieval English Literature, etc. - then they would be on their own. We wanted them to pursue a career they like, but that was a secondary consideration to becoming independent as an adult.
2. The purpose of a college education is prepare them for a employment post-college, as such their major MUST provide a high degree of employability after graduation. We would contibute nothing, zero, nadda, zip, zilch toward a degree that was not. If they wanted a degree in "Psychology", "Sociology", medieval English Literature, etc. - then they would be on their own. We wanted them to pursue a career they like, but that was a secondary consideration to becoming independent as an adult.
Our daughter degree major is Mathematics, which is a highly desirable area desired by the military and which provides high employability if the military doesn't work out as a Math Teacher (Math typically being a critical shortage area for teachers). Her Plan A is a military career, Plan B is teaching math (High School in the short term, eventually getting her post-graduate degrees and teaching at a University). Our son degree major is IT/Business, and as I said he currently works part time in IT. He's doing very well at work and there have been some indications that they will take his job full time once he graduates. He and some technical buddies are also exploring their ability to start their own business in the IT field once they all finish school.
Mom and I were sweating bullets about having two children in college at the same time. I'm very proud to say that our kids have come through with their part of the bargin with flying colors and I think in the process they have gained a deep understanding of the value of an education because it hasn't been a free ride. They've learned a lot from the experience way beyond simply what is going on in the classroom.
>>>>
Last edited:
chanel
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #10
We have two in school at the same time also. The younger one is in a 5 year engineering program and loves it. (Straight A's first semester) The older one will hopefully be done in 5 years as well. He loves his major, but I'm fearful that it's not too marketable. He wants to be a comedy writer. If he switches majors or wants to go to grad school, he'll be on his own financially. We gave them both "x" amount of money and when that's gone - we're done.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
The best thing that parent's can do for their kids college (IMHO) is plan early. There is a lady I work with who is a single parent of a 5-year old and I've had this conversation with her (not trying to push, just give her some ideas). There are basically two basic types of programs: Pre-paid and the new Deferred Savings. She found the idea of setting up a deferred education savings account interesting, I suggested she could contribute what she could afford but more importantly family members can also be encourage to make small contributions at Chistmas, birthdays, etc.
We setup pre-paid accounts for out two kids starting in 1994. They were guaranteed 2-years at a university each (which is what we could afford) and proceeded to make payments for the next 14 years. That's what our daughter used her freshman year prior to getting her scholarship (the remaining year she can apply to grad school). Our son used his contribution by going to a Community College for two years (lower cost) before transferring to the University. That means his account paid for about 3.5 years of his program instead of just 2-years. Our daughter gets a small living stipend from the military and both work part-time jobs which covers expenses.
What bites many people in the arse is that they think of school in terms of tuition and don't realize the rest of the cost associated with - well - existing. Food, lodging, medical care, transportation, text books, lab fees, etc., etc. At our daughters school tuition is about $8,500 (in-state). The rest of the expenses are estimated by the school at $12,924. Her personal expenses actually went down this year because she could move out of the Dorm into an apartment (Dorm fees and Meal Plans can be pretty expensive). Based on her calculations, her expenses are about 20% lower this year living on her own instead of in the Dorm.
We've been very blessed on how this has worked out. Part of the blessing is the pre-planning (mostly by my wife) of finances years ago and part because each has taken that help we could provide and leveraged it into something better by their own efforts.
>>>>
Last edited:
BillyV
Antidisestablishmentarian
- Oct 31, 2011
- 592
- 118
- 78
Can someone explain to me again why the Pell grant program or any financial needs program is needed or fair, when loans are available? Education is an investment you make in your future which will repay you in greatly increased future earnings. For what reason shouldn't anyone who goes to college have to repay the government? Why should some get that benefit for free?
This isn't a rant against the poor, but let's take an example: Student A lives in a middle class family who make a bit more than would qualify them for financial aid; Student B is from a poor family. As A and B are basically both adults, neither has the right to expect support from their parents, nor are the parents obligated to provide it. So A and B both go through the same program at the same school and, at graduation, both go to work at the same company making the same salary, same future growth prospects, and with the same ability to repay their student loans. A begins making payments on $75,000 of debt, say $5,000 per year for 20 years (I don't know what the actual repayment would be). B has no debt, and can use that additional $5,000 per year towards a car loan, home loan, clubbing on weekends, whatever. How could this possibly be how this was intended? Were we trying to punish the children of the middle class?
For the record, my daughter is in her fourth year undergrad premed, with a 3.9 average and no debt because my wife and I have paid 100% of tuition and books, and she lives at home (we also pay all the living expenses). I am lucky to be in a position to do this; it is my responsibility to ensure that she has a way to earn a living, and I don't mind a bit. But at the same time, I know many parents who would rather have a new car and let their kids fend for themselves. Is it fair for some students to be reliant on parents who are not obligated to contribute even if they could, when others are not just due to financial reasons?
This isn't a rant against the poor, but let's take an example: Student A lives in a middle class family who make a bit more than would qualify them for financial aid; Student B is from a poor family. As A and B are basically both adults, neither has the right to expect support from their parents, nor are the parents obligated to provide it. So A and B both go through the same program at the same school and, at graduation, both go to work at the same company making the same salary, same future growth prospects, and with the same ability to repay their student loans. A begins making payments on $75,000 of debt, say $5,000 per year for 20 years (I don't know what the actual repayment would be). B has no debt, and can use that additional $5,000 per year towards a car loan, home loan, clubbing on weekends, whatever. How could this possibly be how this was intended? Were we trying to punish the children of the middle class?
For the record, my daughter is in her fourth year undergrad premed, with a 3.9 average and no debt because my wife and I have paid 100% of tuition and books, and she lives at home (we also pay all the living expenses). I am lucky to be in a position to do this; it is my responsibility to ensure that she has a way to earn a living, and I don't mind a bit. But at the same time, I know many parents who would rather have a new car and let their kids fend for themselves. Is it fair for some students to be reliant on parents who are not obligated to contribute even if they could, when others are not just due to financial reasons?
Mad Scientist
Feels Good!
- Sep 15, 2008
- 24,196
- 5,434
- 270
How did my Dad manage to graduate USC Dental School in 1965 without any Pell Grants? 
I'll have to ask him sometime.
I'll have to ask him sometime.
chanel
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #15
I just had this conversation with my son re: the OWS "student loan forgiveness" bullshit. We started saving early as well, but I believe we are the exception and not the rule.
Anyone who would allow their child to take on $200,000 in debt should be ashamed of themselves. Those kids should be protesting their own households - not the banks.
College is ridiculously expensive and of course middle class kids get screwed. Don't even get me started on athletic scholarships. Wouldn't it be nice if aid was based on grades and merit, instead of "need" and the ability to throw a frickin ball?
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
Personally I think part (notice I say "part") of the problem is the mindset of students (and parents to in some cases) that they have "to go off to school" for their college education. I noted earlier that at my daughters school for in-state tuition the cost is about $8,500, however when you add room, board, and other fees the cost jumps to over $20,000 each year. A mindset I suggest is actively promoted by Universities.
Now, my wife works at a local University (not the one my son attends) and they currently require all freshman and sophomore students to live on campus in the Dorms and to have a meal plan and there are rumors that they are looking at requiring juniors to live on campus. The smoke screen is that it provides a more controlled academic environment for the students and boosts student performance, the reality is that it provides an additional revenue stream for the school as a whole. When students live off campus and minimize use of the on campus eating those are dollars not spent at the school. In addition to requiring (currently) freshman and sophomore's to live on campus the students home location has become part of the admission process (not formally, and you won't see it in writing anywhere) but students from the local area that might qualify for an excemption to live on campus are turned down so that out of area students are admitted to keep Dorm occupancy levels (and revenue) up.
Our son lives at home, while attending an area University and working. His only costs are tuition (about $7,800) a year, books (about $800 a year), and parking fees (about $300 a year. Big difference on the budgeting for school between $8,900 per year and over $20,000 per year.
>>>>
Last edited:
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 136,333
- 28,246
- 2,180
whitehall
Diamond Member
Sounds reasonable to me.
chanel
Silver Member
- Thread starter
- #20
Because many athletes (not all) do not meet the minimum standards for entrance. There are many bright talented students who get no money, because in this country, throwing a ball is valued much more than playing an instrument or some other skill.
Trust me. I work in a high school. Recruiters don't come to personally visit our honor students.
Similar threads
