Throughout the ever-long budget debate, we have commonly heard the government asking its citizens to make sacrifices — to take cuts and reduce benefits in hopes of reclaiming financial balance. Yet, the difficulty of legislating these sacrifices is determining who and how much. These two factors are the causes of many heated debates and protests.
So, let’s talk Pell Grants. This discussion revolves around two questions: Should college students be asked to make financial sacrifices just like most other voting citizens right now? And if so, how much?
The proposed cuts, which look poised to pass in the House of Representatives, would total around $5.7 billion. With about 27 percent of college students nationwide receiving Pell Grants, that would decrease the maximum yearly grant from $5500 to $4705, a difference of $845. Additionally, about 1.7 million students who receive lower yearly grants would be ineligible for the program altogether.
As someone who receives Pell Grant money, these cuts feel like someone taking money directly out of my wallet. As most of us know, the budgets of college students are quite slim. Virginia Tech tuition, especially out-of-state, will have most of us locked down with student loans for a decade or so. Add on rent, textbooks, food and a couple too many beers downtown, and that $7.70 per hour Subway job between classes doesn’t give much leeway.
The Pell Grant money isn’t just a check. It’s a semester’s rent, a month of extra shifts, more time studying and a little less stress every time I check the bank account. It’s literally three years I won’t be paying back student loans.
For some it means even more — it’s the difference between going to college or not.
As much as I depend on this federal money, I don’t believe the college student’s financial situation garners an exemption to the sacrifices asked to the typical American family, worker or individual at this time.
As much as we don’t want to admit, or act like it, being 18 years old carries with it responsibilities and therefore the expectations of adulthood, which involves sacrifices. Preventing secondary education funding from being cut just pushes the financial burden onto some other group or demographic. One of those responsibilities of adulthood is earning and working for the things you want. In this case it’s a collegiate education.
So, should Pell Grant funding be cut? Even though it means I probably won’t qualify for a grant next year, yes.
Now, by how much?
The program shouldn’t be eliminated altogether because it allows people to go to college who wouldn’t otherwise be able to without the Pell Grant money. This cause was the founding principle of the program and should be its fundamental
purpose.
The current budgetary problem with the Pell Grant program, and with most other federal spending programs, is it is bloated. Federal funding for the program has increased 400 percent over the last 10 years. This of course would be great, if the country could afford it. At one point we might have been able to, but the truth is, we cannot anymore. It’s difficult for a bloated program to be cut because it is accustomed to the excess spending.
Students who wouldn’t normally qualify for Pell Grants, like myself, received them because federal money was pumped into the system. Now that our federal budget is in a financial mess, we have to cut those programs that grew beyond their founded principles.
The Pell Grant program needs to get back to its roots and give money only to those students who wouldn’t be able to attend college without it. If we are serious about cutting spending, and we should be, then students should be asked to make the same sacrifices every other sector of our country is being asked to make right now.
A version of this article appeared in the Mar 22 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 14 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
The Constitution does not allow the federal government to pay for our college education. No federal monies should "help" us pay for school. Besides, whenever the government "helps" us pay for something, the cost goes up. It is basic economics that when more money flows into a good or service, the price goes up. This is why healthcare and education have skyrocketed well beyond the rate of inflation. Colleges can charge us whatever they want for tuition because they know that the feds, through student loans, are going to pay for it.
Reply to this Top
Lemme guess,
Your mommie and daddy had your full tuition in the bank by the time you were a freshman?
The government "helps" us pay for things like healthcare and education because this is America.
Healthcare has not skyrocketed because the government helps us pay for it. It has done so because of our ability as a society to bring ludicrous lawsuits against doctors. I have a close friend that is a surgeon. He pays $80K+ a year for insurance as a result.
The price of education has increased because getting a college degree is practically a requirement for succeeding in this country. Are there exceptions to this? Yes, but not many. For every Bill Gates, there are millions of folks working for close to minimum wage because they did not get a degree. MOST universities charge us what they do in order to stay competitive with one another. Tech, as a public institution is a steal (in or out of state). But they have to keep up with other institutions as far as services provided (i.e. facilities such as suite-style dorms and good options for food). If they don't, students will elect to go elsewhere, and Tech's reputation and academic output will decline.
Believe it or not, this is far from "basic economics."
Reply to this Top
The first two years of college I payed my way through by working 70 hours a week. The third years I dropped one job and only worked full time graveyards. Nice try though, Bob.
It is basic economics. 50 years ago, before government "helped" us pay for school, you could pay tuition simply by working summers or being a part time waiter. 50 years ago, before government got involved with healthcare, catastrophic health insurance cost less than $100 a year and Americans payed for everything else out of pocket.
If you eliminate federal grants and students loans schools will not close down. Instead, they will be forced to lower tuition for the masses of kids who can no longer afford school. Eliminating student loans is the best way to make school affordable.
Top
The healthcare argument doesn't really add up to me. What government intervention are you referring to? Insurance rates were much higher than that long before Obama even took office. Using your "basic economics", the private insurance companies paying whatever doctors bill them, combined with malpractice suits, is what drove up health care costs.
What's to stop a private company from stepping up if the federal student loans were to cease?
Top
Brady,
The government got involved with healthcare long before Obamcare. Of course, like most other programs, it was initially done in the name of "helping the troops." You know, the ones who fought in WWII. Government got involved by helping troops with medical, then old people and poor people (Medicare and Medicaid) and then in quasi private-government agents like HMOs and whatever other regulated garbage is a creature of government.
Top
"What's to stop a private company from stepping up if the federal student loans were to cease?"
Nothing. Private companies will not, though, which is why government subsidizes them. When the private sector will not fund something, that means it is not worth it. A perfect example is the housing bubble. The private sector and free market made sure that home prices rose on par with inflation. However, then government agencies Freddie and Fannie backed mortgages, government created programs to help everyone "realize the American dream," and government forced banks to lend money to people who could not afford mortgages. The result? Home prices skyrocketed as a bubble was created.
You will see with education, too. We are in an education bubble. Most of our degrees, including both of mine, are worthless. Once everyone wakes up to the fact that education is a racket, the bubble will burst.
Top
Bob,
Listen to this short Interview. Schiff discusses the housing bubble and education bubble in it. Peter Schiff is one of the few economists who predicted the housing collapse and financial crisis years in advance. He was all over TV since 2003 warning of the housing burst. In the past few years he was written best seller books, advised presidential candidates, and appeared hundreds of times on Fox Business, CNBC and Bloomberg. In short, he is not some kid living in his mother's basement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECaObYrO_Yg
Top
Matty,
Thanks for the link - I've seen Schiff several times, but he is not the only person who saw the collapse coming. Plenty of folks saw it coming, just not many respected economists.
I disagree with your assertion that private companies will not step in if federal loans are removed. Private companies already DO provide loans to students - either as a supplement to federal loans or in place of federal loans that a student might not qualify for. They're not going to stop, just because fed loans are gone. The people that operate those businesses will be more than happy to provide the services of the companies they've built to those who need them... which will be almost everyone for a decade or two.
Is that sustainable? Nope. But that bubble isn't bursting anytime soon. If the feds back out, private companies will most certainly step in to feed the dragon.
I also disagree that most degrees are worthless. I'm an engineer and I wouldn't know the first thing about my job if I had not gone through 4 years of college getting my degree. That's some serious Glen Beck garbage if you ask me.
Top
Matty,
Also, in response to your health insurance suggestions...
"before government got involved with healthcare, catastrophic health insurance cost less than $100 a year and Americans payed for everything else out of pocket"
You're talking about a time before we knew anything about the diseases we do today or how to treat them. Nobody knew what HIV/AIDS even was, and cancer treatments were virtually pointless and the attempt/survival rate for bypass surgery was extremely low.
You're also talking about a time well before 1/3 of our population was not obese, which brings about the litany of health conditions we see today.
Modern day medicine costs money, there's no denying it - but we're light years ahead of the time you're referring to. Do health insurance companies overcharge? In some cases, yes. But if I have a catastrophic accident today, and I have a choice of going to a surgeon from the 60's or a surgeon today, I'm going with the modern surgeon. Catastrophic health insurance used to cost $100 a year because the standard of care was far below what it is today.
Top
Glenn Beck is a Judas Goat. Please don't lump me in with that traitor.
Your degree is not worthless. Anything occupation that can add or aid in our nation's productive capacity is an asset. This means that we need more people like you getting degrees. This also means that we do not need people getting degrees in history, art, political science, philosophy, sociology, etc. For those most part these degrees add no value to our society.
Top
C'mon this discussion has been reasonable up to
"This also means that we do not need people getting degrees in history, art, political science, philosophy, sociology, etc. For those most part these degrees add no value to our society."
Just because you can't 'measure' everything that comes from these degrees doesn't mean they don't add anything to society. I would agree that more productive things could be done with these majors, but the humanities offer a wider perspective. Research, analysis, logic are all tools I wish more people had, not less. These degrees teach these things among many others. Not to mention these degrees are the number one bachelor 'gateway' degrees into a number of what you would call valuable.
C'mon that's too irresponsible of a statement to make
Top
C'mon this discussion has been reasonable up to
"This also means that we do not need people getting degrees in history, art, political science, philosophy, sociology, etc. For those most part these degrees add no value to our society."
Just because you can't 'measure' everything that comes from these degrees doesn't mean they don't add anything to society. I would agree that more productive things could be done with these majors, but the humanities offer a wider perspective. Research, analysis, logic are all tools I wish more people had, not less. These degrees teach these things among many others. Not to mention these degrees are the number one bachelor 'gateway' degrees into a number of what you would call valuable.
C'mon that's too irresponsible of a statement to make
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
You know our school system is a racket when they lower their entry level standards on examinations. Truth of the matter is if you don't take a course in College that will lead to a good paying job when you get out of College, don't even go, your not only wasting your time, but also your money. If you want to be a success in life you have to plan and figure out what are the top 30 maketable positions when you get out of college. This is something not many counselors or teachers will tell you, because they want to keep thier job. Lets face it, it's a money game for the schools. I don't feel government aid should be given to students that are going for business, but do believe people in Medical field, Civil Engineering etc, should get loans. What's worng with working and saving your money to call to college, if you want something bad enough you will work for Wendy's, Mcdonalds, what ever it takes. There is always a community college you can go to for the first two years, what's wrong with that, you will save thousands and thousands of dollars.
Reply to this Top