Should Student Loans be Eliminated?
November 18, 2008 12:01 pm Access, Loans, Personal and Family ContributionSome aid administrators view borrowing as a good thing for students, regardless of their background, because it teaches fiscal management and makes a student feel invested in his or her education. Others argue that borrowing creates inequity by placing a heavier burden on lower income students and say loans should be replaced with grants for students with financial need. Still others think borrowing to pay for college is inappropriate regardless of income and should be phased out.
Now it’s your turn:
- What role should loans play in helping students pay for college?
- Should all undergraduate students be expected to borrow? None?
- What about graduate students?
November 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
What role should loans play in helping students pay for college?
Everyone should be allowed to get student loans and as much financial assistance needed to get their education. It does not matter what your income is or where you come from.
Loans should play a major role like helping a student 100% no matter what the circumstance is.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
How come we never hear about the horrors of borrowing 20K to buy a car that immediately depreciates? I like to think about student loans like a chain saw. A chain saw is a very valuable tool when it is used for its intended purpose. I recently had a couple trees blow over in a wind storm. The chain saw let me cut them up, clean up the mess and be done with it. However, I did not try to use it to cut my sandwich at lunch. That would have been a disaster.
Student loans should be used as intended—to help pay the costs of going to college and not as a way to avoid working and to supplement life style choices. Student loans are a necessary funding item. Would it be great if everyone could go to school for free, but that is unlikely in this world.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Blaming student loans for the amount of exorbitant loan debt that students are accumulating is like killing the messenger. The real harbinger here is the the overall cost of education including tuition, fees, books, not to mention recent housing costs, transportation, and cost of living.
As far as grants to pay for education are concerned, don’t we have those (although limited)? Sometimes the loans are just an easier option. Maybe we as financial aid administators need to make sure the students know their options and/or have access to the information they really need instead of just offering them student loans as an easy way out.
Why don’t we encourage industry participation through a REAL work-study program that would provide REAL work experience for students in their related fields, along with providing businesses with federally subsidized lower salary trainees who might continue working for these companies after they complete their education.
Whichever way you look at it - - grants or loans - - both usually come with a price. Either the student pays or the taxpayer pays, sometimes and/or eventually they wind up being one and the same.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:49 am
Peggy hits it spot on.
If you want to reduce borrowing, the cost of a college education must be reduced.
What is a good enough college education? Yes, it’s nice to have the best, but right now the system is so clogged that even a mediocre school can charge relatively high prices.
What will take down the cost of a college education is either reduced demand or increased supply. Walmart solved this years ago for consumers and brings us good enough or marginally good products at very low prices. I’m not saying all college education must be commoditized, but look at the consumer market for regular goods. You can ALWAYS buy premium goods elsewhere, but Walmart set the floor with wide availability and high supply of commodities. Low prices resulted.
If education is to drop in price, economics fundamentally has to be obeyed. Increase supply or decrease demand and the rest will follow, including reduced reliance on student loans of all kinds.
Christopher Penn
Financial Aid Podcast
http://www.financialaidpodcast.com
December 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
Is this suggestion of the eliminatino of student loans some more of that good sound reasoning or reasoning that sounds good? In the absence of free lunches, the idea begs the question, “How are the dollars distributed via a block grant any less expensive that those made available via the generation of debt?” Rising costs of post-secondary education are not going to be mitigated by trading debt dollars for debt dollars.
The role of debt for both undergraduate and graduate students is, for some, an integral component of the process - it is the “cost of doing business”. Would the debtless-perfect-world be preferred over the real world? Of course, but what’s the point?
December 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am
I don’t think that loans are the problem. Financial literacy, or the lack there of, is the problem. If a student can’t pronounce “promisory”, chances are, they don’t know about borrowing. Yes, regardless of training, some students will abuse the process. But it would be wrong to disallow those who truly need additional funding a chance to receive it.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:19 am
Educational loans have enabled individuals to achieve educational goals, which would not be attainable without this funding. Borrowers invest in their future by borrowing to pay educational costs. The loan maximums are woefully low and do not reflect the today’s educational costs. Students, not parents, should be able to borrow up to their cost of attendance less other financial aid from federally supported loan programs. This would eliminate the need for higher cost private loan funding for both the student and the parent. The standard repayment period of ten years was developed in the 1950’s, when a mortgage was repaid in fifteen years. Repayment must be extended to twenty years, which is a more reasonable payment period. I don’t believe that loans should be eliminated. Loans are a student’s investment in their education. A person may not see the value of a free gift but does understand the value when he/she is paying for it. My son would leave his bicycle - that we bought him - in the year, at a neighbors or out in the rain. When he earned money to buy his own bicycle, he took much better care of it.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
Loans are a necessary part of educational funding. Unfortunately too many students try to “live” off their loans and use them to replace regular earned income. This is especially true as we see more “non’traditional” age students returning or entering college. This indicates a need as “Peggy” indicates, for a “real” work study program. FWS funds are maxed out early on our campus, we cannot get enough. If studies indicate that students perform better academically when they have closer connections to their college, this is something to seriously consider, this means to engage them on campus. This not only gives work experience to students, but can also greatly assist college departments. The USD should consider granting more work study funds, to allow students to lessen the need for loans. For example, student commits to working in exchange for loan reduction, like the loan forgiveness program, but it takes place during their time at school. In addition, States contributing less funds yearly to their institutions should be closely looked at by someone in Washington. This places a burden on institutions who try to supplement high need studednts with their own campus funds.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:36 am
If society values education, then access should not be limited through cost. Loans should be eliminated. Many other countries have found ways to provide a college education to their citizens without putting them in debt for the rest of their life.
Keep in mind too, that student loans are very different than car loans, credit cards or other types of debt. You can turn your car in. You can file bankruptcy if needed with your other debt. There are serious repercussions for those actions, but in extreme cases they may be needed.
Even banks and corporations use bankruptcy to reorganize their debt. Yet, students don’t have that option with student loans. Is that fair?
One might want to also compare the availability of student loans to the rise in college tuition over the years. Which came first? The loans or the tuition?
Eliminate student loans and private college discounting will vanish, prices will drop, and access to higher education will increase.
Not only that, but more students will major in the subjects that they really care about, such as art, music, social work, etc. Many today can’t afford to do that and still pay off their loans.
Student loans are just plain bad.
FA Guy
December 1st, 2008 at 9:42 am
Very few students realize what they are getting themselves into when they sign up for thousands of dollars in loans. Most students I went to college with attended college to have fun, become their own person, and study something they enjoy (regardless of whether their degree has any marketability). For them, loans are just something that they will worry about years in the future. That is all fine and well until they graduate and have to start dragging this ball & chain of student loans through life.
Is this how we want to teach “fiscal management” to students?
December 1st, 2008 at 9:52 am
What role should loans play in helping students pay for college?
Education is a priviledge available to everyone. I believe that student loans offer choice, teach responsibility and share in the cost of education. Parents/guardians should not be the sole providers of an education.
However, the student loan program has become very complex. No guarantee of servicer with ECASLA, no guarantee of interest rates or borrower benefits if the loans are sold, variable interest rates dependent on program & year. Lets simplify the loan program, one interest rate, one loan and increase the amount a student may borrow. Perhaps limit what the student may borrow to direct costs only, and exclude living expenses.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:56 am
Rolling all the federal grants into the Pell grant and appropriately raising the amount of the maximum Pell would be the first step in simplifying the process for students and schools.
I can see the both sides of the argument for and against student loans and I tend to lean to the for side of the argument. If higher education is totally free then many students will waste the gift.
I think the current federal mentality on post bachelor’s degrees is correct; grants for the 1st degree and loans or pay your way for subsequent degrees.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am
There should be one grant program for the neediest students. There should be one loan program which is subsidized while the student is in school. A student should only be allowed to borrow for direct cost, i.e. tuition, fees, books and supplies. A student should be able to borrow an unsubsidized loan for room and board IF the student stays on campus or does not live at home.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am
Whether we like it or not loans have become the only option for many students. No one would argue that we would rather have grants amd scholarships available instead of loans, but no one (the federal and state governments, nor schools) has been willing to provide the funds necessary to fill the gap necessary to significantly reduce the levels of lending.
While I do not feel comfortable with the amount of lending some students are taking on to attend college, it is a free country and if they choose to borrow, it is their choice.( I know some will suggest they have no choice, but ultimately there are plenty of affordable college choices that do not require huge loans).
December 1st, 2008 at 10:38 am
What role should loans play in helping students pay for college? I think that it depends. In order to make student lending a good option, we need to create responsible student lending.
I don’t believe I know every reason a student borrows, but over the years I have seen more and more students borrow money even when they show no need for the loans. Most of our borrowers are awarded enough grant funds to cover all of their tuition/fees/books with enough left over to even receive a grant refund check. In the past, students normally wanted to borrow only what they needed or were willing to take on work-study or a part-time job to help fund their education. Now, even with our extensive one-on-one loan counseling and guidance towards other options such as work-study and scholarships, most of these same students now opt to borrow. This appears to be the easy way, not the best way, for many of these students.
If we can create a responsible lending process for all student loans and lend to students who pass a credit check, then loan program should be available to student borrowers whether undergraduate or graduate level. If we continue to lend to anyone regardless of credit history, then we are no better than the lenders that loaned money to high-risk borrowers and created the subprime mortgage crisis. Lets bring common sense back into the lending equation and create responsible lending practices.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am
Since our certificate programs use only Pell and FFEL to fund them, eliminating loan funds from students’ financial aid would eliminate half of our students from being able to fund their education here. Our default rate is so low that is seems ridiculous to throw the “baby out with the bath water.” Having helped my children through college, I agree that their own investment in their education in the form of loans provides more focus on doing well and getting done faster.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:15 am
No matter what the structure of student financial aid, an increase or consolidation of existing programs does nothing to address the true problem facing college students. It’s a wasted argument. The cost of an education is the problem…not the lack of grants or loan programs. Reduce the cost of college, and you reduce the need for financial aid. THAT is a solution to a problem. The recent increase in federal student loan annual limits was a dark day for the DOE. It did nothing to fix the problem, and perhaps only made things worse in the long run.
That being said…student loans in their current state should be eliminated. Student loans are currently being utilized at low cost institutions as means to support or justify an over-extended lifestyle. Student loans are being utilized at an extreme level to pay for expenses not associated with higher education (although within a student’s COA). Students understand how easy the loans are to obtain, and fully understand that there is no underwriting process to prevent them from qualifying. Therefore, Financial Aid Officers are being placed into the same roles as unsecured lenders or credit card representatives (only we have no qualification standards). I feel like I need a sign on my door that suggests, “This is not a bank, or a payday loan company.” What makes matters worse is that it becomes the school’s quasi responsibility when a student defaults (as evidenced by our cohort default rate). Student loans must have underwriting standards. If FAO’s are going to be responsible for monitoring default rates, the DOE must give us the tools necessary to do our job. Counseling is not enough.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
Let’s not forget the graduate/professional school population. As it currently stands, their only real source of federal assistance is loans. If they were to eliminate loans, how would these students continue their education? We’ll really be falling behind the rest of the world if we don’t have a means to support continuing education beyond an undergraduate degree.
The bottom line is that education is not free and someone has to foot the bill. With the country facing a deficit such as it is, how could we possibly then take on the elimination of the student loan program now or in the near future?
December 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am
Educating citizens should be a national priority. I would suggest now is the time to end bank-loans and move all educational loans to the Federal Direct Loan Program. Students should receive educational loans up to an mount that would cover most Public 4-year universities…say $25,000 per year @ a 2% interest rate. subsidized or not depending on need. If it is still necessary to have Parent loans then offer them at a reasonable 4% interest rate and if the parent is denied a loan then let the student borrow the full amount that could have gone to the parent.
I suspect this plan would even save money once you eliminate all bank subsidies and bailouts!
December 1st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
In Texas, there seems to be plenty of grant funds available for low income students. There is more than enough funds to pay for tuition, fees and books. I don’t believe it is inequitable for a low income student to have to take out a loan as they generally don’t have to borrow as much as a family at a higher income level because of their grant eligibility. If anything, it’s inequitable for a middle income student to have to take out more loans because they pay higher taxes which go to pay for everything the lower income student receives!
Student loan debt is good debt and keeps the student vested in the pursuit of receiving a degree. Having a student borrow should also cause a student or family to budget to keep costs down. The government can keep the cost of the loan down, for the student, by keeping the interest rate as low as possible.
The PLUS loan program is needed only if Stafford loan limits are not raised–especially for graduate and professional students. All states should offer student loans for their residents and should offer loans with a lower interest rate than the Grad PLUS loan. If the interest rate is too high it can keep the student from paying the loan back.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Loans are a necessary option for many students, regardless of income. For example, our nursing students cannot work during the time they are doing their clinicals. Loans help them during this time.
I wish there were some way that financial aid administrators could deny a loan to students who are receiving more than enough grant funds to cover their educational needs. Another option would be to limit the amount of loan a student could receive.
I understand that loans are ‘entitlements’ and that we need to be fair to all. It’s just hard to understand how a student who has a permanent disability plans to repay a student loan; or why a very needy student who receives a full Pell and other grants can need a full loan.
I still have a problem understanding how a program can be an ‘entitlement’ and yet have the potential to cause a college to lose Title IV funding if students fail to repay their loans.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Most undergrads have no clue what it’s like to owe anything over $50/mo. The ‘reality’ of owing $23K-$57,500 (new UD limits and this does not include the private funds they use)is not something they understand at the time they are signing their electronic signatures on some website or MPN.
The ‘truly low-income’ student, those whose parents work for a low wage on a W-2 or receive social services income, seem to have fewer or no choice when it comes to declining a loan (which might be the right thing for that family).
If we really want to educate certain populations or improve retention and success, maybe a college affordability recipe is what we could explore together. The MIX of grants and loans could be revised along with the school’s endowment or discount rate. A formula that provides the ‘truly low-income student’ with a better proportion of these ingredients could make the difference in their ability to succeed.
And let’s get rid of all the loop holes that prevent us from delivering funds in a fair and equitable manner.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
A recent article in California touts that a degree will on average increase a student’s earnings by 63%. If a student needs a loan to attend college that seems a reasonable ROI. It is suggested that low-income students doon not attend college because they do not want to take out loans. Is it due to a lack of financial literacy and the negativity associated with loans by parents and counselors? Is it better not to take out a loan and forgo college? Would a student rather take out a loan that has to be repaided over 15 years or forego a loan and an education to stay in the same low wage job for the rest of their working life? Most students do not get enough information about loans until the entrance interview which is AFTER they have accepted a loan. It is also interesting that we say loans are putting students so far in debt that they are postponing buying cars and houses. This seems to point to America’s problem of wanting it all,wanting it now, and not being responsible for paying for anything.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:45 pm
There is no feasible and realistic reason to eliminate Student loans. For those students who are either considered too rich for the grants or too poor to pay for college out of pocket, student loans is the only way for people like us to pay for school, thus better educating ourselves in being more productive citizens. I also agree with the one lady’s comments that the cost of tuition for college is skyrocketing and unfortunately, the need for student loans is required.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
We need a loan program until either the States or the Feds (taxpayers) are willing to make public higher education free to all qualified participants. Or, until we decide to restrict access to a college education to the very poor and the very wealthy. Yes, by all means increase grant aid. But, families at every income level count on federal educational loans. If we want people to be educated, we have to provide very low cost (2%)guaranteed loans at annual amounts that actually cover the cost of a typical 4-year university. Not a straight out gift, but an obvious assistance as compared to private lending…certainly sending the message “yes, we want to make higher education accessible to all qualified participants”.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Loans are a perfectly acceptable to way to pay for a commodity. Unfortunately, at the moment, the costs of the commodity of education (bachelors, masters, and doctorate) are greatly overpriced for today’s market.
As with all things, the simpler the better, one grant, one loan, one work-study.
Of course simpler yet, fewer hands, strip the DOE to nothing more than a small (very small) regulatory watchdog for class action complaints from communities and let each individual state handle their own education. If the state of BLAH wants to spend little on education and have a population of mop slingers, so be it. If the state of TA-DA wants to spend more (and wisely), let it benefit them. How many jobs (1 DOE + 50 states) and how much money is being wasted (1 DOE + 50 states) that could be spent on “actual education”.
Or still keep it simple, do away with all state aid, put everything under the DOE and have one grant, one loan, one work-study.
December 1st, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Students should be able to get federal loans once they are in college level classes. Students who are not ready for college-level classes (those in remedial programs) should be financed completely with grants or sent back to high school to get to the point where they are admissable to a regular college program. It is unconscionable to get these students into debt when they are at such an educational disadvantage. These are generally students from lower-income backgrounds in poorer school districts, and these students traditionally take much longer than 4 years to complete a degree, which means they have to borrow more than their counterparts who have been better prepared by their high schools. This only keeps the economically-disadvantaged students more disadvantaged. Students should receive a free education through the high school level, even if that means after high school graduation. Ideally, the K-12 schools should do their jobs and not graduate students who are unprepared for higher education (including voc/tech schools) or the job world. That would save the students, the colleges, and the taxpayers tons of money!
December 1st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I agree that students are borrowing too much that they do not have to. I have heard students for years after receiving their refund checks make remarks like “now I have beer money” or “I can go out and party this weekend ” or “it’s the Bahamas for spring break now.” Cost of attendance budgets for living expenses are too big (and financial aid administrators are under pressure from admissions and other administrators to create bigger budgtes so students can have more money); students who are not living off campus say they are so they can get more money; and independent students aren’t required to report any “in kind” support they receive and end up double-dipping in the taxpayers pockets (parents take them as tax deductions, and students still get full Pell, SEOG, Perkins, subsidized loans, even if their parents make $300,000+ and students are fully supported by the parents, so they should have no need). Students who are truly low income suffer and have to take out large unsubsidized loans just to pay basic tuition, fees, and living expenses, while others are living high off the hog since their parents pay everything and there is no consistency in schools checking to see if the student is really living off campus (and if parents are paying the rent) and whether the student should have a living expense budget component at all or be eligible for need-based aid. If the Department would close up these loopholes, there would be a lot more money to go around and more could be given in the way of grants and subsidized loans.
I support letting students borrow, or requiring some sort of self-help component, like in the old days when SEOG had to be matched with some self-help component, like work study. It’s been proven that people value more what they have to pay for. And, full time for a semester should be defined as 1/8th the amount of credits it takes to get a degree (presuming a 4-year degree). If a bachelor’s degree is 120 credits, full time status should be 15 credits, not 12, as 12 automatically extends the program to 5 academic years (10 semesters). Students need to move through school in a timely manner. Half time students should be required to complete 7-8 credits per term, and only get half of the living expenses and transportation of a full time student, and so forth. Students taking 5 and 6 years to complete a 4 year degree are a strain on the schools and on the economy–why should some students get 6 years of Pell Grants to complete what other students complete in 4 years? Why should schools have to support them with discounts in the form of scholarships or grants or money from their endowments for 6 years when the students are in 4-year programs? And why should students be borrowing for 5 or 6 years as full time students, with full time living costs, if they’re supposedly full time in a 4 year program? They shouldn’t be, and we should not be supporting students who take 12 credits/term out of choice (rather than students who may have a medical problem or other exceptional situation that requires them to need more than 4 years); change majors just to stay in school longer and get more aid and defer having to actually get a job; etc. A major is usually only 30-36 credits; a degree is usually over 120. There’s plenty of room for 2, 3 or more majors in most degree programs. Let’s get students moving through the educational process on a timely basis and get them out into the workforce to contribute to society and the taxpayers who supported them through school. Students must be educated in real-world situations, like paying taxes and repaying loans and paying mortgages, and car payments, and health care, and saving for retirement, etc. at or before the time they start college so they can see that they need to minimize borrowing and start producing the income they will need in order to be able to have things like a nice house, car, education for their children and retirement for themselves. The way things are now, there is little motivation for students to complete their education in a timely manner when they can borrow loans to live a lifestyle that is more similar to their parents’ than to what a student’s lifestyle should be. Financial aid should fund only the necessities–not cable TV and cell phones with all the bells and whistles, Caribbean vacations, lavish apartments, meals in fancy restaurants, etc. And every student should be required to work somewhere, in some capacity, while in school, if he or she wants aid. Reward the students who do what they are supposed to do (complete a 4 year degree in 4 years, or 8 semesters)–give them lower interest rates or forgive some of the loan. And make it more difficult and less rewarding for able-bodied, capable students to stay in school for extended periods. Increase the loan and work component after 4 years, and decrease the grants and/or the living expense budgets. The Department of Education needs to be more like the IRS in some ways–if your business isn’t profitable in X number of years, it’s a hobby, and you can’t continue deducting losses on your tax return. We need to put some time limits/increased course load requirements on financial aid funding. That doesn’t mean that a student with exceptional circumstances can’t get funding (like many students do through a Satisfactory Academic Progress appeals process), but that we need to raise the bar. Doing so will reduce costs all the way around.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
I am just very concerned about the two groups of students at the particular college I work at. I see them every semester, and they are either Dependent students, whose parents make too much, thus disqualifying them from grants, and have no other means to pay for school. Or independent students recently laid off in times of economic downturn, which can only get loans to pay for their educational expenses. The majority of these students would never have the chance to improve their situation, and only be able to find hourly wage jobs leaving them with a very dismal future. This will only lead to much greater problems yet unforeseen.
Take a look at any community with lowly educated people, and these are always problematic, dangerous neighborhoods, societies, and even countries with poor quality of life.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Loans should be available to all students because even those who are not in a low enough income bracket for Pell need assistance paying for school.
However, I wish there was a way to limit the loan amounts depending on the cost of attendance. We are a community college with a low COA, yet we have many students who max out their Stafford loans on an annual basis. Yes, we counsel them, explain the interest rates and how the burden of the debt will affect them later on, but not once has the information deterred them from asking for the max on their loans.
I wholeheartedly agree with the chainsaw metaphor Ted mentioned above. FA counselors agree that when used appropriately, loans are very helpful for students who may not have the means to pay out of pocket for their education. However, all too often we see students who abuse the availability of loans.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Lower tuition. Increase grants. Eliminate loans. A college education is not a privilege. It is a necessity. For students, but even more for society as a whole.
Huge banks and auto manufacturers can file bankruptcy to eliminate their debt, or more recently, receive billions of dollars in the Bail Out.
If the government is going to spend over $700 billion dollars to help for-profit corporations, why not spend the $80 to $100 billion needed to eliminate student loans?
It is simply a matter of priorities, and government never makes individual citizens a priority.
FA Guy
December 4th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I would love to see student loans phased out for undergraduate students. There needs to be some relief for students who are facing huge amounts of debt when they finish college, if they finish college. If the government can fork over $700 billion dollars to help Wallstreet and another $600-$800 billion for the automobile manufacturers why is there no help for students? These new grant programs are cumbersome to administer and still do not meet the needs of the neediest. They are a farce! Lets take away student loans and these ridiculous cumbersome grant programs and create a grant program that works for needy undergraduate students without all this monitoring!
December 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I agree with everyone above that student loans are a necessary component to getting an education after high school. I think it would be detrimental to eliminate student loans as it will prevent more students from getting an education. One grant and one loan program will still provide good funding for all students, especially the neediest ones.
Financial literacy is the key to successful loan management. A society that takes away to prevent damage creates more damage than a society willing to train and educate to prevent damage. Students must be educated on financial literacy. Students must be educated at home, in secondary school and again in higher education on financial literacy. Financial literacy isn’t a topic to learn in a year or two. Some of us took our entire adult lives to learn. Since our nation isn’t about to offer free college education like a few other countries, credit cards and student loans are the first steps to borrowing. If you want to eliminate loans, eliminate credit cards! Credit cards should be off limits until at least age 21.
I agree with Peggy that there needs to be a REAL work-study or paid internship program where students will receive experiences necessary to succeed after they earn their diploma.
I agree with Peggy again that the student and/or the taxpayer will pay for financial aid funding.
December 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
As a tax payer and a financial aid professonal I believe in providing educational opportunities to everyone. That does not mean as a tax payer I will pay the full cost of a students cost of attendance. Every student and parent needs to invest in their own future by helping to pay for their education and that may mean loans. Simplifing the FAFSA to the point that not enough information is collected is not the answer. A 0 EFC for a family with assets is not the same as a 0 EFC for a family without assets. 100 employees is not a small business and assets need to be considered. We need to simplify the grant programs. Stop targeting special populations by making grant or loan programs that eat up all of a universities resources just to administer. Keep it simply. Help more students help themselves.
December 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
We must do a better job of ensuring all students have access to higher education, regardless of their family’s financial circumstances. We all know that tuition costs continue to increase and financial aid is unable to keep pace. Now we need to consider all possible avenues in order to provide our students with access to higher education, allowing them to remain competitive in the global economy.
We must examine the methods in which to increase financial aid for low income students. This may be in the form of grants and low interest loans from the government. I believe student loans are a necessary component to teach students fiscal management and responsibility. However, a student’s entire aid portfolio cannot consist of only loans. There must be a percentage of grant money available to help ease the idea of repayment after graduation.
Finally, we must look at higher education as a long-term investment, which in turn means that students may be paying back loans for an extended period of time. Ultimately the benefits of receiving a college degree far outweighs the missed opportunities of an individual who does not possess one.
April 3rd, 2010 at 4:55 am
качество класное качать можна…
Продавец консультант Others argue that borrowing creates inequity by placing a heavier burden on lower income students and say loans should be replaced with grants for […….
May 12th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Я думаю, что это - серьёзная ошибка….
Ведущий специалист по договорной работе Others argue that borrowing creates inequity by placing a heavier burden on lower income students and say loans should be rep…