OK, here’s a statement that should spark some debate—We should not be increasing the Pell funds, we should be eliminating them and all other need-based government aid.

How can we on the one hand lament how we are falling behind in the world and on the other hand reward mediocrity? I don’t believe that everyone needs to go to college. There are too many jobs that just don’t require a college education.

What we need to do is provide merit-based aid so that any college-bound student, regardless of their financial means, can attend college. Whether it is the [stereotypical] inner-city poor, the suburban rich, or the squeezed middle-class, if a student has shown that he or she has what it takes to succeed in college, then thay should be given that chance.

sjz, at 8:30 am EDT on September 25, 2006

In theory sjz’s comment is okay...but, in the real world the playing field in high school is not even and not all students get the opportunity to take classes that will allow them to show their capabilities (no AP, etc). There are many students out there that need an opportunity to get away and be allowed a chance to shine. However, I also have to admit that there are some who make it to college who are not four year degree students but who would be very successful with specific job training.In other words, we need both need-based and merit-based to be most productive.

jody, at 9:31 am EDT on September 25, 2006

What is merit?

SJZ: What is merit? Is it the ability to spend thousands of dollars on Kaplan programs and private tutors to raise SAT scores? The fortune to have been born in a school district with enough money to offer 15 AP classes? The problem with your theory of merit-based aid only is that it perpetuates the cycle of poverty for those in need. Unless you are suggesting that merit based aid is handed out to the top, say, 10% of every high school class regardless of the school’s standing or the kids’ SAT scores, the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty will not be available. Then again, maybe you are suggesting that the cycle of poverty is good, since “there are too many jobs that don’t require a college education.” Seems like you’re also suggesting that school success is dependent only on some set of internal factors that have nothing to with environment, family situation, or class. Which is counter to pretty much every piece of research that has been done on the subject. Read up.

SRK, Attorney, at 9:31 am EDT on September 25, 2006

I for one would like to have more information on the “too many jobs that do not require a college education.” Fundamentally, do they pay a living wage? I for one see this as a primary factor in the social disintegration of our society. How much income must one earn to purchase an 1100 sq. ft. modest home in your town? What is the average home rental fee in your town? How much income would the average person need to have to pay the mortgage or rent on such a home and still be able to meet all the necessities (needs, not wants and desires)? Would the average person, with no college education make enough money to live in decent living conditions and adequate food, clothing and transportation? Could they afford to have a family? I fear not. Most of the middle-class labor intensive blue collar jobs no longer exist. Today one must be literate and computer skilled. We like to think that our young people are both but the truth is that although they may be able to text message faster than I can keyboard, a great majority, don’t read, can’t spell, and cannot attach a document to an email. Video games may be a great eye-hand coordination builder but they excite the brain and agitate the average individual. The cell phone and its multimedia system allow the user to truncate and obfuscate the language to such a degree that many students are unable to write a complete sentence and worse yet, are irritated that one would insist that they do so. The more we de-intellectualize our daily lives the more we will suffer the loss of jobs to workers abroad while we de-stablize our society. I’m sorry but I belive sjz is sorely ill-informed about the number of living wage jobs available to those who lack some level of post-secondary education.

Wanda Clifton-Faber, PhD, Project Director at BMCC, at 1:30 pm EDT on September 25, 2006

Rhetoric vs reality

President Bush actually recommended an increase of $100 in the maximum PELL award in his last budget. Congress then nixed it in their budget and left PELL flat (except for those in math and science related disciplines “carrying a full-time load.)

While there are indeed jobs that both pay well and do not require a college degree, most of those jobs do require some level of post-secondary education or training. Traditional careers even in the trades now have scientific, mathematic and/or technological components that require some level of college education beyond high school embedded within certification.

There are precious few remaining well paying jobs requiring merely a high school diploma and those jobs are not plentiful in major population centers with high costs of living. Detroit and the Northeast used to be bastions for such jobs which are now disappearing rapidly and just as quickly changing the faces of the towns and cities affected.

KED, College President, at 5:20 pm EDT on September 25, 2006

I have differing views on Financial Aid. This is what I think:

Institutions should be forced to reduce costs for education for students in order to receive Pell Grants. I think there should be a formula where the schools have to aggree to set tuition levels for Pell Grant recipients in order to receive the funds.

I would also take one more step. I would require the School to back the students by paying 20%-40% of the students tuition out of their own pocket. In other words they would be required to put their own money where their mouth is. It is one thing when a school receives money from the government, and it is another issue entirely when the school has to make an investment in the student.

The cost of books is a major expense for schools and students. I think paying $100.00 or more for a book is highway robbery. This is a major area where schools need to start demanding some help from lawmakers. I find it unjustifiable what students are forced to pay for a book that they will use for few months and sometimes not even be able to sell back to the bookstore. There needs to be some pressure applied to this industry. There seems to be no real competition for a lower priced textbook.

I think this investment by the school would make a school more interested in the welfare of students, and more vested in their success. Schools may also be better advised to dropping students from financial aid sooner if it looks like they are able to upkeep higher standards.

Another option may be to reward institutions based on their graduation rate from valid 2 and 4 year degree programs as well as their students success rate at finding employment. The Student’s ability to find employment is the best way to judge the success of an program. There is no better way to quantify success by an institution than to see a high employment rate of graduates.

Charles, Programmer Analyst at Lewis & Clark Comm Coll, at 2:55 pm EDT on October 9, 2006