Free College for Poorest Students Puts Ivy League to Shame

[Simply_Uno 1]

While I understand that students need to consider the economic factors of the type of field they are going to major in, I don't think they should let that be the dominating factor.

Agreed, they can always eat cake.

Who's the aristocrat in this argument?

I would love to live a reality in which I am the aristocrat.

you can A.J. just allow your third eye to lead you to nirvana

[alienlovechild 75]

I agree that as a nation, we need to encourage students to excel and pursue careers in Math and Science, I don't think the lack of those types of graduates is because universities aren't attracting them. In fact, many Math and Science departments of universities are overrun with foreign students.

So how will handing out money to all American college students rectify the situation? Do we need more sociology majors?

What happened to your market failure point?

[jundp 191]

While I understand that students need to consider the economic factors of the type of field they are going to major in, I don't think they should let that be the dominating factor.

Agreed, they can always eat cake.

eta: true, but what does one do with a degree in philosophy? Seriously? I mean, I had a degree in English and pretty much all I could do was go back and get another degree

I was being sarcastic.

I agree with you.

Sarcasm meter was off last night. Usually I can detect it

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I agree that as a nation, we need to encourage students to excel and pursue careers in Math and Science, I don't think the lack of those types of graduates is because universities aren't attracting them. In fact, many Math and Science departments of universities are overrun with foreign students.

So how will handing out money to all American college students rectify the situation? Do we need more sociology majors?

What happened to your market failure point?

I guess you're asking why should we give out federal student aid to students who aren't pursuing a degree that isn't lucrative? For one, because the job market, especially on a global scale is too volatile to say 'no more sociology majors.' Secondly, getting a degree in particular field doesn't pigeon hole a graduate from not finding a good salaried job doing something else. My father, for example, was an Ag/History major...worked for Dow Chemical right out of college but ended up spending 25 years at a university, retiring as Director of Auxillory Services. I had a former brother in law with his Masters in Sociology...he was once working for Coca-Cola in the marketing dept and getting paid a very good salary.

College graduates, regardless of their field of study, benefit from their college education and it makes sense to support federal student aid programs. To encourage students into fields of study in Math and Science, federal student aid can be focused to offering more grant money in those fields.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I did my BA and MA in English. I have a pretty good career that doesn't involve flipping burgers. A liberal arts degree is a pretty good foundation for a lot of good jobs, as long as the recipient is flexible about their careers and willing to learn new skills (I did additional course work in statistics).

I also manage a Dartmouth grad at work - no one will ever be able to convince me the extra $$$ it costs to go to th Ivy League over State U is necessarily worth it as far as education goes, though it will give you a few more connections.

[Jenn! 918]

I don't understand why the schools themselves can't implement better financial aid packages themselves, without relying on federal aid.

My high school, for example, just implemented a sliding tuition scale. If the household income is less than $75K, tuition is free. You don't pay the full amount ($37.5K) until the household income is $250K. Now the endowment there is only $1B. Why can't these ivy league school do something similar?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't understand why the schools themselves can't implement better financial aid packages themselves, without relying on federal aid.

My high school, for example, just implemented a sliding tuition scale. If the household income is less than $75K, tuition is free. You don't pay the full amount ($37.5K) until the household income is $250K. Now the endowment there is only $1B. Why can't these ivy league school do something similar?

I agree. Maybe Ivy League schools don't want to create 'new money?' ...you know, keep it in the club.

[Fandango 1,439]

Why should they have to?

[Jenn! 918]

Why should they have to?

They shouldn't *have to*. If they only want to attract one type of student, then I guess they are free to do what they like. Not beneficial to the overall educational experience IMO.

[Fandango 1,439]

Why should they have to?

They shouldn't *have to*. If they only want to attract one type of student, then I guess they are free to do what they like. Not beneficial to the overall educational experience IMO.

I'd prefer a merit based scholarship system as opposed to purely financially or quota based. Life isn't free...you want it bad enough, you work to make it happen.

[Jenn! 918]

Why should they have to?

They shouldn't *have to*. If they only want to attract one type of student, then I guess they are free to do what they like. Not beneficial to the overall educational experience IMO.

I'd prefer a merit based scholarship system as opposed to purely financially or quota based. Life isn't free...you want it bad enough, you work to make it happen.

You have to be good enough to get into the school in the first place though. It's not like they're just handing out money to whoever wants to go to their school.

If a school really wants the best and the brightest, then they will be willing to subsidize them, if necessary. Otherwise, what they're really looking for is the richest and good enough.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Jenn!

[Fandango 1,439]

Why should they have to?

They shouldn't *have to*. If they only want to attract one type of student, then I guess they are free to do what they like. Not beneficial to the overall educational experience IMO.

I'd prefer a merit based scholarship system as opposed to purely financially or quota based. Life isn't free...you want it bad enough, you work to make it happen.

You have to be good enough to get into the school in the first place though. It's not like they're just handing out money to whoever wants to go to their school.

If a school really wants the best and the brightest, then they will be willing to subsidize them, if necessary. Otherwise, what they're really looking for is the richest and good enough.

But it only accepts the poorest students, which is ironic because it's a reverse elitism, lol. Many academic scholarships are based purely on academic achievement and has nothing whatsoever to do with financial means.

[Jenn! 918]

Why should they have to?

They shouldn't *have to*. If they only want to attract one type of student, then I guess they are free to do what they like. Not beneficial to the overall educational experience IMO.

I'd prefer a merit based scholarship system as opposed to purely financially or quota based. Life isn't free...you want it bad enough, you work to make it happen.

You have to be good enough to get into the school in the first place though. It's not like they're just handing out money to whoever wants to go to their school.

If a school really wants the best and the brightest, then they will be willing to subsidize them, if necessary. Otherwise, what they're really looking for is the richest and good enough.

But it only accepts the poorest students, which is ironic because it's a reverse elitism, lol. Many academic scholarships are based purely on academic achievement and has nothing whatsoever to do with financial means.

Sorry, maybe some confusion...I was referring to the example that I had posted about my high school that does tuition on a sliding scale for anyone who is accepted, not the college mentioned in the OP.

And I don't think that such a system should take the place of any merit-based scholarships either. I don't think a college with only poor kids is any better than a college with only rich kids.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Jenn!

[Fandango 1,439]

Sorry, maybe some confusion...I was referring to the example that I had posted about my high school that does tuition on a sliding scale for anyone who is accepted, not the college mentioned in the OP.

And I don't think that such a system should take the place of any merit-based scholarships either. I don't think a college with only poor kids is any better than a college with only rich kids.

Oh ok, then we pretty much agree....

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

While I understand that students need to consider the economic factors of the type of field they are going to major in, I don't think they should let that be the dominating factor.

Agreed, they can always eat cake.

Who's the aristocrat in this argument?

I would love to live a reality in which I am the aristocrat.

you can A.J. just allow your third eye to lead you to nirvana