Speaking of vet school getting stupid expensive....

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

LetItSnow

Skipping the light fandango
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
20,109
Reaction score
20,911
There go those subsidized loans, starting next year: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/01/news/economy/debt_ceiling_students/

This one's been in the works a while, with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, rather than correctly being framed as "we need both Pell Grants AND subsidized graduate loans" (with money being shifted from the military to make up the shortfall), it's been painted as "gotta pick Pell Grants OR subsidized loans".

Call your senators. Before noon tomorrow. Tell them that making it harder to get through school means fewer good-salaried jobs down the road, which means less tax revenue. Tell them this is penny-wise and pound-foolish. There's little chance it will impact tomorrow's vote, but a) it might, and more importantly, b) there's a chance to impact things in committee.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Well, crap. I was so happy earlier this week when the people in charge mandated getting rid of co-pays for BC... and now this.

I hope my loans are still grandfathered in while I'm in grad school, or else I'm going to have some decisions to make.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I hope my loans are still grandfathered in while I'm in grad school, or else I'm going to have some decisions to make.

I am no financial planner, SSGT, but I have got to think that the terms you signed under can't change. I'm not aware of any clauses that allow the subsidized part of the loan to be mucked with.

The debt ceiling bill change would take effect July 2012; so it will be for loans awarded next fall. I am fairly certain the July 2012 date was picked because that's the annual date when the feds review/modify student loans.

Thanks for that link, TT. I should have thought to include that. And please, people, CALL your senator, don't (just) email. It's been my experience in the news business (and one of my upperclassmen mentioned this on our FB page as well; she apparently hashad some involvement in D.C.) that a phone call is weighted MUCH heavier than email.
 
I called one and left a message... probably sounded dumb and/or on the verge of tears because I hate voice mail, lol. The other's box was full, so they got an email. A nicely worded one. Sounding intelligent probably goes a long way in this case.
 
I'll be calling in the morning. I'm going to call FL and NJ since I'm kind of a resident of both. (I live in FL and my family lives in NJ.) I'm making my boyfriend look up the specifics tonight so I can leave an educated, concise message early in the morning.

Everyone should call! It's not intimidating! When I've called before on other issues you get an answering machine or some random secretary who says they'll add your request to the senator's list.
 
Thanks for the heads up. I just wrote to both my senators
 
Yes I called today. I HATE calling people but for this - exception made! Gahhh. The debt load we are taking on is so big already. This just makes me want to cry. PLEASE MAKE A CALL TO YOUR SENATORS!!
 
The debt load we are taking on is so big already.

For those of you doing all loans (and thus presumably max'ing out the subsidized portion every year), the difference, according to one of my schoolmates (I didn't run the numbers) means owing $10,000 more when you graduate.
 
It just really bugs me that everyone expects us (meaning all grad/professional students) to be making so much money when we graduate. It was the reason OSU saw it fit to jack up professional students' tuition by 9% every year I was there so that the undergrads wouldn't have any tuition hikes. We effectively subsidized their education, so why won't the government subsidize ours?

It also pisses me off that my veterinary degree was the only one that I had to pay for because the universities regard it as a cash cow. And MAN, did I ever have to pay for it! I would really like to know how much grant money is going into my PhD at an elite private university compared to the $150,000 I took out in loans for in-state, public school vet school. People will always want to go to vet school - but you have to pay them to study engineering.

I wrote emails to Kerry and Scott Brown last night. I was really tempted to include debt:salary ratio data in them, but I didn't because I didn't want it to seem whiny.

Sorry, apparently I need some coffee this morning!

/rant
 
I'm really annoyed that the money they are saving on this is going to go into the pockets of undergrads like the dumb****s that have loud parties right above my head on weeknights during the quarter.

I don't understand why "a more educated population" has to mean "a higher percentage of people with bachelors degrees." These are not synonymous terms to me.
 
I wrote emails to Kerry and Scott Brown last night. I was really tempted to include debt:salary ratio data in them, but I didn't because I didn't want it to seem whiny.

Should've included it. My money is on that they have little idea what the true impact of the legislation is and how much of a burden the debt is already without them ****ing it up even more.

I doubt it'd sway them, I doubt they care, but every bit helps.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm really annoyed that the money they are saving on this is going to go into the pockets of undergrads like the dumb****s that have loud parties right above my head on weeknights during the quarter.

I don't understand why "a more educated population" has to mean "a higher percentage of people with bachelors degrees." These are not synonymous terms to me.

Nyanko, I couldn't agree with you more ... I literally was thinking the exact same thing this morning.

I was also having an interesting conversation the other day where we were wondering if there are really just too many colleges/undergrad institutions giving out essentially worthless degrees these days.
 
Nyanko, I couldn't agree with you more ... I literally was thinking the exact same thing this morning.

I was also having an interesting conversation the other day where we were wondering if there are really just too many colleges/undergrad institutions giving out essentially worthless degrees these days.

I totally agree.

I did mention in my emails that I thought Congress should reconsider extending loans to students at diploma mills.

Education has become a business, and for-profit institutions are raking in guaranteed loan dollars. It is really aggravating!
 
I saw this on another forum:

Students to feel pinch in debt deal
WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Some students will start owingmore on their loans while they're in school under a last-minute debt ceiling deal to keep the country out of default and reduce deficits by at least $2.1 trillion over a decade.

As part of the savings to trim the deficits, Congress would scrap a special kind of federal loan for graduate students. So-called subsidized student loans don't charge students any interest on the principal of student loans until six months after students graduated.

Congress would also nix a special credit for all students who make 12 months of on-time loan payments.

The changes would take place July 1, 2012.

For taxpayers, the savings taken from the pockets of students will total $21.6 billion over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
For graduate students who qualify for the maximum amount of subsidized loans, it could tack several thousand dollars to the cost of going to school.
The idea for the cuts originally came from the Republican-controlled House, but even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proposed cutting the graduate school subsidized loans in budget talks last week.

The money saved by the student loan cuts would help pay to keep Pell Grants, which so far are maintained at a maximum grant of $5,500 a year for some 8 million poor students.

Of the $22 billion saved, $17 billion will go to fund Pell Grants, which only leaves that program $1.3 billion short, said student aid groups. That's why most groups can live with the cuts to graduate student loans.

The rest of the savings goes to deficit reduction.

"Full funding for Pell Grants is absolutely essential to fulfilling the president's goal of the U.S. once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020," said Pauline Abernathy, vice president of the Institute for College Access & Success.

The maximum a graduate student can borrow from the federal government is $20,500 a year, including $8,500 from subsidized loans where the federal government absorbs the interest rate while the student is in school. Over the course of a degree, graduate students can accrue up to $138,500 in direct federal loans, with $65,500 from subsidized loans.
A graduate student who borrows the maximum of $65,500 in subsidized loans would owe $207 a month in interest payments over the course of 10 years. But with a subsidized loan, the government pays that $207 each month the student attends school until six months after graduation.

This change would shift some $125 billion in loan volume over to unsubsidized loans and would cost students $18.1 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Graduate students would start accruing the interest rate payments while they're in school, but they wouldn't have to start making payments on the interest or the principal until after graduation. They can choose to pay the interest while they're in school.

"With the elimination of the graduate interest subsidy, it is also clear that graduate and professional school students will be hard-hit in terms of their total indebtedness," said Justin Draeger, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. "Our members are disappointed to see the pullback in loan repayment incentives."

The other big cut that Congress is targeting is a credit that all students get on the origination fee they pay the federal government to process their loans. Students pay 1% of a Stafford loan as an origination fee, but all students get half of that back unless they miss one of their first 12 payments.

The loss of that credit would cost a student who borrows $5,000 from the federal government $25. This would cost students $3.6 billion over the next decade, according to the budget office.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/01/news/economy/debt_ceiling_students/

:(
 
I totally agree.

I did mention in my emails that I thought Congress should reconsider extending loans to students at diploma mills.

Education has become a business, and for-profit institutions are raking in guaranteed loan dollars. It is really aggravating!

I agree. Now that so many Americans feel like they need a Bachelor's degree to find a job, it means that jobs for which no degree used to be required now receive applications from lots of people with degrees. What purpose does it serve for more people to be in debt for what are essentially paper-pushing jobs answering phones for a living? Having worked as a tutor (for a certain big company) for over 5 years, I met a lot of bright students and a lot of students that I felt were probably better off not going to college and instead maybe finding a trade or working their way up in a business.

However, their parents had the money to make huge donations to their alma maters and to pay me a good sum to raise their SAT and AP scores, so I admit I was a part of the problem :(. The universities also need a good number of students who do not qualify for financial assistance to pay the full amount of tuition in order for the schools to continue running, since they are receiving even less funds from the government due to the poor state of the economy. So, the vicious cycle gives incentives to admit more students and hand out more loans and put more people into debt. Ay yi yi.
 
Nyanko, I couldn't agree with you more ... I literally was thinking the exact same thing this morning.

I was also having an interesting conversation the other day where we were wondering if there are really just too many colleges/undergrad institutions giving out essentially worthless degrees these days.

Agreed. A bachelors degree in most disciplines doesnt really mean anything anymore. Obama is full of crap on so many levels.
 
Agreed. A bachelors degree in most disciplines doesnt really mean anything anymore. Obama is full of crap on so many levels.

Why is this sentiment credited to the president? Did he say such a thing? Or are you implying that Pell Grant funding for the poor equates wasteful spending on Bachelor's degrees? I don't follow... am I missing something here? :idea:
 
Why is this sentiment credited to the president? Did he say such a thing? Or are you implying that Pell Grant funding for the poor equates wasteful spending on Bachelor's degrees? I don't follow... am I missing something here? :idea:

Not trying to start a debate or anything.. .but for the record, Obama does want more bachelor's degrees...

Full funding for Pell Grants is absolutely essential to fulfilling the president's goal of the U.S. once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020," said Pauline Abernathy, vice president of the Institute for College Access & Success.

In his first joint address to Congress on February 24, 2009, President Obama set a goal that the nation should once again have the highest proportion of college graduates* in the world by the year 2020
 
Not trying to start a debate or anything.. .but for the record, Obama does want more bachelor's degrees...

Full funding for Pell Grants is absolutely essential to fulfilling the president's goal of the U.S. once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020," said Pauline Abernathy, vice president of the Institute for College Access & Success.

In his first joint address to Congress on February 24, 2009, President Obama set a goal that the nation should once again have the highest proportion of college graduates* in the world by the year 2020

Yeah, but there's no shame in realizing that everyone is not college material. Plus, there are SO MANY jobs that do not require college-level education and are still absolutely critical to society (i.e. electrician, plumber, mechanic, etc.). Trying to foist a college experience on every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the country is only going to give fuel to the diploma mills and devalue the useful degrees people have earned.
 
I don't have a problem with Pell Grants. Pell Grants are great, and they go to students who are motivated might genuinely have *no other option* for going to college. It's the spoiled little twits whose mommies are paying their bills who make undergrads so annoying, not the kids trying to be a first-generation graduate. But, there's no reason why they couldn't have funded *both* and avoided this spectacle where defending subsidized grad loans means you must be *oh noez* trying to take money from poor kids you heartless elitist!!!11! Basically, they're *both* important and cutting either one is a badstupidterrible idea.
 
I don't have a problem with Pell Grants. Pell Grants are great, and they go to students who are motivated might genuinely have *no other option* for going to college. It's the spoiled little twits whose mommies are paying their bills who make undergrads so annoying, not the kids trying to be a first-generation graduate. But, there's no reason why they couldn't have funded *both* and avoided this spectacle where defending subsidized grad loans means you must be *oh noez* trying to take money from poor kids you heartless elitist!!!11! Basically, they're *both* important and cutting either one is a badstupidterrible idea.

I am sure Obama would have preferred to fund both, as he has never been a proponent for education cuts of any type. Which is why I am not sure why the poster singled him out as if it weren't the GOP that hijacked the economy with this debt ceiling formality and refused to pass any of the bills that did include such cuts. If anything, Obama went to bat for people like us and we should be honest about the realities he was facing with our pathetic, divided congress and Tea Party influence. Blaming the president for these cuts is completely misdirected. Yet, I do realize that this is not a political board. And I've already said to much... :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, but there's no shame in realizing that everyone is not college material. Plus, there are SO MANY jobs that do not require college-level education and are still absolutely critical to society (i.e. electrician, plumber, mechanic, etc.)

That's so true that it's painful.

I was stunned throughout my entire ungrad experience that on the first day of each and every single class, you could immediately spot the handful of people that had no business being in school. If we could get those people out of college and into something more consistent with their abilities/goals/work ethic, that right there would free up a fair bit of money for people that should be in college. And, it would funnel those folks into jobs where they could be productive contributors.

I'm not about taking *opportunity* away from anyone ... but I think it's foolish to squander education resources on people who aren't really making good use of them.
 
I am sure Obama would have preferred to fund both, as he has never been a proponent for education cuts of any type.

Woah, woah, woah. That's actually not correct. Obama pushed for cutting the subsidized loans at least as far back as his 2010 State of the Union (so, Janary 2010). He supported it for precisely the 'reason' it was done as part of the debt ceiling bill; to use the money to prop up Pell Grants instead.

That's one of the reasons it was IN the debt ceiling bill - everyone knew it had bipartisan support.

Back then (Jan 2010) the CBO was saying that that move would save ... I forget .. something like $80B over the next decade (why they said $80B then, but $22B now I have no idea).
 
That's so true that it's painful.

I was stunned throughout my entire ungrad experience that on the first day of each and every single class, you could immediately spot the handful of people that had no business being in school. If we could get those people out of college and into something more consistent with their abilities/goals/work ethic, that right there would free up a fair bit of money for people that should be in college. And, it would funnel those folks into jobs where they could be productive contributors.

I'm not about taking *opportunity* away from anyone ... but I think it's foolish to squander education resources on people who aren't really making good use of them.

Wow. This sounds almost fascist. Do you propose we institute a program where people are employed as undercover agents monitoring undergrad classes and recording the names of Pell Grant recipients that do not seem to meet your perceived standards? How do we begin culling the herd of those "with no business being in school" and let them know that something "more consistent" with their laziness and immaturity awaits them in their future?

I am sure some people fall through the cracks of any program like this and could be deemed as recipients of wasted resources. However, studies have shown that "Pell Grant recipients graduate in shorter time frames than others" and "academic achievement, as measured by grades in the major, was only slightly lower for Pell Grant recipients."

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/22/pell

And some more stats from the article since I usually prefer empirical data over anecdotal hearsay:

3.5 or higher (undergraduate GPA by major)
Pell Recipients 46.2%
Non-Recipients 50.6%

I know people are frustrated by the recent cuts to subsidized loan programs. However, there really is no need to redirect our feelings onto poor, underprivileged Americans that benefit from the Pell Grant program.
 
Do you propose we institute a program where people are employed as undercover agents monitoring undergrad classes and recording the names of Pell Grant recipients that do not seem to meet your perceived standards?

There's no reason to exaggerate my comments. I could just as easily respond with "Do YOU propose that we pay people to go to school and keep them there if they get straight F's?" Not very useful, though, is it? But that would be exaggerating your points to the same degree you're pushing mine.

How do we begin culling the herd of those "with no business being in school" and let them know that something "more consistent" with their laziness and immaturity awaits them in their future?
I'm not exactly sure. A certain required GPA is an obvious path, but there are clear problems with that, too (grade inflation).

I'm not sure why you consider it 'fascist' that a public investment in someone's education (i.e. government grants and/or subsidized loans) ought to come with some expectation of performance. If I were to accept public money I'd be pretty darn comfortable with the public expecting me to prove that I was using it well.

I know people are frustrated by the recent cuts to subsidized loan programs. However, there really is no need to redirect our feelings onto poor, underprivileged Americans that benefit from the Pell Grant program.
Where in my comments do you see me saying that Pell Grants, generally, are a bad thing? I'm about as strident a support of education at *ALL LEVELS* as anyone you'll find. I think Pell Grants are absolutely necessary. But I also think that the money ought to be used as efficiently as possible, and there are clearly a lot of people in college right now that ought not be (based on ability and effort). It's to everyone's benefit to reduce that.
 
Last edited:
Woah, woah, woah. That's actually not correct. Obama pushed for cutting the subsidized loans at least as far back as his 2010 State of the Union (so, Janary 2010). He supported it for precisely the 'reason' it was done as part of the debt ceiling bill; to use the money to prop up Pell Grants instead.

That's one of the reasons it was IN the debt ceiling bill - everyone knew it had bipartisan support.

Back then (Jan 2010) the CBO was saying that that move would save ... I forget .. something like $80B over the next decade (why they said $80B then, but $22B now I have no idea).

Only because the Pell Grant program has something like a 20 billion dollar shortfall and the republicans were pushing to eliminate not only ALL government aid to students, but the entire Department of Education as well. Obama's proposal, also, was NOT a stand-alone initiative that hacked one thing to save another. There were a comprehensive list of measures being proposed. Here is a brief run-down:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kantrowitz/president-obama-proposes-_b_823236.html
 
Only because the Pell Grant program has something like a 20 billion dollar shortfall and the republicans were pushing to eliminate not only ALL government aid to students, but the entire Department of Education as well.

I don't disagree with that. I also don't disagree with your assertion that Obama is, generally, a supporter of funding education. I just disagreed with your assertion that "he has never been a proponent for education cuts of any type." That's simply not true. His reasons for proposing the cuts he did were arguably because he saw it as the best chance to fund what he considered a more critical component of education, but it was still a cut.
 
I don't disagree with that. I also don't disagree with your assertion that Obama is, generally, a supporter of funding education. I just disagreed with your assertion that "he has never been a proponent for education cuts of any type." That's simply not true. His reasons for proposing the cuts he did were arguably because he saw it as the best chance to fund what he considered a more critical component of education, but it was still a cut.

Fair enough. I think we agree for the most part. The biggest problem I had was the notion that Pell Grants are being wasted on slackers that should be pushed into fields more suited to their abilities and inclinations. Statistics show otherwise. And during a recession, these individuals are hit even harder. I guess I'll have to do a few more spay/neuters each week to make up for the subsidization cuts. Cheers. ;)
 
Wow. This sounds almost fascist. Do you propose we institute a program where people are employed as undercover agents monitoring undergrad classes and recording the names of Pell Grant recipients that do not seem to meet your perceived standards? How do we begin culling the herd of those "with no business being in school" and let them know that something "more consistent" with their laziness and immaturity awaits them in their future?


Wow relax there tiger. fascism.......seriously? Whats next? Are you going to pull the racist card with anyone who disagrees with you. F--king californians...
 
Fair enough. I think we agree for the most part. The biggest problem I had was the notion that Pell Grants are being wasted on slackers that should be pushed into fields more suited to their abilities and inclinations. Statistics show otherwise. And during a recession, these individuals are hit even harder. I guess I'll have to do a few more spay/neuters each week to make up for the subsidization cuts. Cheers. ;)

Statistics can't show what you're claiming.

pooter said:
I don't have a problem with Pell Grants. Pell Grants are great, and they go to students who are motivated might genuinely have *no other option* for going to college. It's the spoiled little twits whose mommies are paying their bills who make undergrads so annoying, not the kids trying to be a first-generation graduate.

I'm a first generation in both college and graduate school student. I will be the first one to tell you that I should not have gone to college right out of high school. I obviously had/have the capacity to do it but I didn't have the drive at the time. Almost certainly any money that was spent on my first year and a half of college was a huge waste as far as return on investment (which is really what government funding of education is all about, simplified). It's not a stretch to say that this is the case for others. Immaturity and laziness are not class-specific.

But aside from that, what's the point of giving more people opportunities to get bachelors degrees if it means driving down the value of the degree in the first place? And if everybody in the country has a bachelors degree, it seems like the value of such is considerably lower. Then you have to go to graduate school to compete, where you can't get any subsidized loans. ;)

Why feed into this kind of cycle?
 
Last edited:
Statistics can't show what you're claiming.



I'm a first generation in both college and graduate school student. I will be the first one to tell you that I should not have gone to college right out of high school. I obviously had/have the capacity to do it but I didn't have the drive at the time. Almost certainly any money that was spent on my first year and a half of college was a huge waste as far as return on investment (which is really what government funding of education is all about, simplified). It's not a stretch to say that this is the case for others. Immaturity and laziness are not class-specific.

But aside from that, what's the point of giving more people opportunities to get bachelors degrees if it means driving down the value of the degree in the first place? And if everybody in the country has a bachelors degree, it seems like the value of such is considerably lower. Then you have to go to graduate school to compete, where you can't get any subsidized loans. ;)

Why feed into this kind of cycle?

I agree, I was very not prepared for college right out of high school way too immature and not realizing how much effort to put into the subjects, im ashamed my parents paid my first couple semesters to........for what? makes me ashamed
 
I wasn't prepared for college either. I wanted to take a yr off to be sure of my path but my parents said that if I didn't go then that they would not pay. (Little did they know that I would be the only one (of 4 kids) to complete a college degree.)

Now, I am finishing a 2nd BS and have significant overall improvement. Plus I am doing it with a family, work, etc....
 
Wow relax there tiger. fascism.......seriously? Whats next? Are you going to pull the racist card with anyone who disagrees with you. F--king californians...

It's called rhetoric. And I backed backed up my actual argument with statistics that clearly showed the error in thinking that Pell Grant recipients can be equated with the students "with no business being in school" whom we need to remind that something "more consistent" with their laziness and immaturity awaits them in their future, which was the posters original assertion.
 
But aside from that, what's the point of giving more people opportunities to get bachelors degrees if it means driving down the value of the degree in the first place?

How exactly does making Bachelor's Degrees more accessible to low-income Americans drive down the value of the degree? Sorry, I don't follow.
 
It's called rhetoric. And I backed backed up my actual argument with statistics that clearly showed the error in thinking that Pell Grant recipients can be equated with the students "with no business being in school" whom we need to remind that something "more consistent" with their laziness and immaturity awaits them in their future, which was the posters original assertion.

Okay, now you're making assumptions and putting words into my mouth, and quite frankly, it's irritating.

I was not asserting or implying anything about Pell Grant recipients in my original post, and LetItSnow explicitly says she isn't talking about taking opportunity away from anyone.

My comments are more directed toward diploma mills and non-accredited for-profit schools.

Here is exactly what I mean.

The reason there is an education bubble in this country is because the "college experience" is hawked on everyone. Up until twenty-some years ago, there was a huge demand for college, when only the most qualified applicants were accepted. In response to that demand, diploma mills and non-accredited schools opened en masse and started extending admission to people who were not qualified enough to attend traditional, accredited schools. The problem compounded as these schools realized that they could cash in because guaranteed federal loans were extended to their students, and consequently, even more schools opened and existing schools started gouging their students for loan dollars. Now, we have thousands of graduates with degrees of questionable usefulness who have a significant risk of defaulting on their loans. The result? Those of us who graduate with meaningful salaries will have to subsidize their defaults. Here is a recent article for you to peruse, if you want some hard data.

Hell, even Wikipedia has some interesting facts about shady practices by for-profit schools:

"Students at for-profit institutions represent only 9% of all college students, but receive roughly 25% of all Federal Pell Grants and loans, and are responsible for 44% of all student loan defaults."

(I am not pointing a finger at Pell Grant recipients, but the funds are being blatantly misused by the institutions sending out the tuition bills.)

Now, am I suggesting that we end grant programs for underprivileged potential college students? Hell, no. But I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to consider the risk involved in the loans they are extending by limiting financial aid awarded to students in non-accredited programs. It's only fair to those of us who are actually using our financial aid to have a meaningful educational experience.
 
Last edited:
How exactly does making Bachelor's Degrees more accessible to low-income Americans drive down the value of the degree? Sorry, I don't follow.

Because there is no validation process or standardization. The grant and loan programs do not distinguish between accredited and non-accredited schools for funding purposes.
 
I never said anything about socioeconomic status. I just said that not everyone needs to (or should) go to college.

These are the comments that I was responding to:

"I'm not about taking *opportunity* away from anyone ... but I think it's foolish to squander education resources on people who aren't really making good use of them."

"I'm really annoyed that the money they are saving on this is going to go into the pockets of undergrads like the dumb****s that have loud parties right above my head on weeknights during the quarter."

These are mis-characterizations of Pell Grant recipients. As statistics show that these students perform at nearly the same level as those that do not receive Pell Grants.

I do not like this aspect of the legislation one bit either. So many other available mechanisms for raising revenues and employing budget cuts. However, I do not understand why the funds low-income families get for higher education in the form of Pell Grants are being deemed by some on here as "squandered away", going to people that "don't make good use of them" and getting funneled to "dumb****s that have the loud parties" above them.
 
Okay, now you're making assumptions and putting words into my mouth, and quite frankly, it's irritating.

I was not asserting or implying anything about Pell Grant recipients in my original post, and LetItSnow explicitly says she isn't talking about taking opportunity away from anyone.

My comments are more directed toward diploma mills and non-accredited for-profit schools.

Since you are apparently making incorrect assumptions about whatever prejudices you think are hiding in my brain, let me spell it out for you.

The reason there is an education bubble in this country is because the "college experience" is hawked on everyone. Up until twenty-some years ago, there was a huge demand for college, when only the most qualified applicants were accepted. In response to that demand, diploma mills and non-accredited schools opened en masse and started extending admission to people who were not qualified enough to attend traditional, accredited schools. The problem compounded as these schools realized that they could cash in because guaranteed federal loans were extended to their students, and consequently, even more schools opened and existing schools started gouging their students for loan dollars. Now, we have thousands of graduates with degrees of questionable usefulness who have a significant risk of defaulting on their loans. The result? Those of us who graduate with meaningful salaries will have to subsidize their defaults. Here is a recent article for you to peruse, if you want some hard data.

Hell, even Wikipedia has some interesting facts about shady practices by for-profit schools:



(I am not pointing a finger at Pell Grant recipients, but the funds are being blatantly misused by the institutions sending out the tuition bills.)

Now, am I suggesting that we end grant programs for underprivileged potential college students? Hell, no. But I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to consider the risk involved in the loans they are extending by limiting financial aid awarded to students in non-accredited programs. It's only fair to those of us who are actually using our financial aid to have a meaningful educational experience.

You are wandering off onto an entirely different tangent. My comments were specifically directed to those that characterizing Pell Grants as being squandered on dumbs***s that don't make good use of them in their academic endeavors. See my last post for further clarification. Thanks.
 
You are wandering off onto an entirely different tangent. My comments were specifically directed to those that characterizing Pell Grants as being squandered on dumbs***s that don't make good use of them in their academic endeavors. See my last post for further clarification. Thanks.

I apologize. Sorry for the confusion. Both of us have found some interesting data, though.
 
I apologize. Sorry for the confusion. Both of us have found some interesting data, though.

True. I was not even aware that many of these grant and loan programs do not distinguish between accredited and non-accredited institutions. Seems like a no-brainer. Then again, we're talking about the US Congress.

Thanks again for the civil exchange. :thumbup:
 
It's called rhetoric. And I backed backed up my actual argument with statistics that clearly showed the error in thinking that Pell Grant recipients can be equated with the students "with no business being in school" whom we need to remind that something "more consistent" with their laziness and immaturity awaits them in their future, which was the posters original assertion.

Except it was lazy rhetoric. Can you show me precisely where I said that "Pell Grant recipients can be equated with the students 'with no business being in school'"? Here's a hint: the words "Pell Grant" aren't even IN the original post(s) from which you took my quotes.

Nobody said any of the things you appear to be defending. Since you're quoting me, I presume you are arguing that I said such things. I did not. In other words, you're taking my quotes (exceptionally far) out of context.
 
Last edited:
However, I do not understand why the funds low-income families get for higher education in the form of Pell Grants are being deemed by some on here as "squandered away", going to people that "don't make good use of them" and getting funneled to "dumb****s that have the loud parties" above them.

Hi what's up I take everything absolutely literally so that I can find cause to go on some kind of moral crusade.

No wait, that's you.

I especially like how you characterized my disdain for the kids above me (who I will maintain should be shot into the sun by the way) as some kind of class-based warfare such that you could make a moral argument for disadvantaged students. I have no idea the socioeconomic status of said ****bags, nor do I really care. Equal opportunity misanthrope here, thanks.

And as for how providing easier access to bachelors degrees devalues the degree, well it's pretty easy - if the number of jobs that actually require a bachelors degree grows more slowly than the number of bachelors degrees awarded, then jobs that don't actually require bachelors degrees and provide less compensation (so less value) begin to get a glut of people applying that have degrees and can't afford to pay them what they feel they are "worth." Or won't hire them because they're "overqualified." We're already seeing this now. A Thing I hear bantered about a lot is that "a bachelors is the new high school diploma." That seems ridiculous to me. Is it really in everyone's best interests?
 
Last edited:
Bc they are essentially commodities. The more there are of them, the less that they are worth.

People apply for a job with their BS ... it used to be that you could get a better job wtih a BS becaues less people had them. Now, with every online university handing them out left and right ... literally everyone has them.

You can also think of it as supply and demand. When the supply is short (people with bachelors) for the number of jobs with bachelors ... you get more benefits, you get paid more etc. bc the employers want you. When the supply is more than the demand (i.e. more people with a BS than there are jobs that require them) they will pay less, give fewer benefits bc there are too many people who are "qualified."
 
Except it was lazy rhetoric. Can you show me precisely where I said that "Pell Grant recipients can be equated with the students 'with no business being in school'"?

Nobody said any of the things you appear to be defending. Since you're quoting me, I presume you are arguing that I said such things. I did not. In other words, you're taking my quotes (exceptionally far) out of context.

It probably was lazy rhetoric on my part. I apologize for that. I should have just posted the statistics and let them speak for themselves.

This is the quote that I was referring to:

"I'm not about taking *opportunity* away from anyone ... but I think it's foolish to squander education resources on people who aren't really making good use of them."

Seems to me that Pell Grant recipients are making good use of their financial aid. Just as much as those students that do not need them.
 
Seems to me that Pell Grant recipients are making good use of their financial aid. Just as much as those students that do not need them.

And the thing we are arguing that you don't seem to be getting is that increasing the numbers of either of those pools - those who need them or those who don't - is what the problem here is. Unless it comes at the expense of the other group.

Restated, it'd be fine if it means that it some of those who weren't previously eligible for Pell Grants now are - that's not really increasing the supply. But that isn't what Obama's stated goal is...
 
Top