I agree with alot of what you say…especially the drug clause in financial aid, just stupid. As usual, thanks for chiming in brother.

This is a fantastic subject to write about. I think directly subsidizing college students is far more efficient than donating to universities, who usually spend funds on faculty needs rather than student needs. Another good reason to fund college students directly is because government-based financial aid does not always work.

In my home state of New York, dumbass Geroge Pataki cut down the amount of state aid a student can recieve. As a result I have been going to college with only federal aid for the last three years, and have had to pay for 10 percent of my tuition (via a Sallie Mae tuition payment plan, which has its own administrative fees) as well as books and transportation. I have not purchased any school books for the last three semesters, having to make friends with classmates just so I can share their textbooks or using reserve copies (if available) at my college’s library.

What state a college student lives in dictates the terms of their eligiblity for state-based financial aid, because federal aid often does not pay enough money.

Another flaw with government-based financial aid is also the political aspects of eligibility. I’ve been going to college since 1996 (dropped out twice, went part time a few semesters) and until 2000, only a felony conviction would bar you from receiving federal financial aid. However, George W. Bush changed all that by forcing the U.S. Dept. of Education to bar any students from federal aid if they have had ANY DRUG-RELATED CONVICTION. Bear in mind, brother, that a conviction can be anything from a summons for possession or community service and not necessarily jail time.

This is a messed up condition, considering that many poor young people have often grew up in neighborhoods where drug use, dealing and trafficking was commonplace and many young people have often turned to the drug trade as a source of income when there are no jobs available, especially when local Deminnazis fight hard to keep big employers like Wal-Mart out of cities like New York.

The messed up part is when young people get caught with a simple possession charge, serve their time and try to go legit by going to college and pursuing a means of income that doesn’t involve looking over their shoulder and then they find out they can’t get any federal aid to help pay for college. And if you’re poor, no federal aid means no college, which means the only thing left for them is a low-wage job in a world where a college degree increasingly determines how far employers will allow you to advance within a company, and of course selling drugs, which will eventually land you more jail time.

Anything to keep the brown and black men down, I suppose, since the drug game is a male-dominated industry. My college is located in a predominantly African-American neighborhood, and female students outnumber male students four to one. And most of the male students are, like me, not African-American.

My university, the City University of New York, has recognized this same sad phenomenon at their other black campuses and are trying to figure out how to get more black men in college. They set up the Black Male Initiative (http://www1.cuny.edu/academics/oaa/initiatives/bmi.html) to try and attract black men. This program reflect racist perceptions to me because it suggests that black men are either too lazy to go to college, are not interested in learning or are too dumb to understand how a college degree will help them.

I know a lot of brothers, black and Latino who would like to go to college, but lack the funds to do so and have drug-related convictions. The Black Male Intiative should focus instead in removing that stipulation from the federal financial aid eligibility rules or at least directly subsidizing black men who cannot afford college.

BTW, I don’t give a shit how long or short your posts or comments are. Just keep on keeping it real, and you’ll be all right!

INTOO

I’ve had a dream for the last few years that I would

I didn’t call anything a low income policy. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m just offering more sides of the debate based on my knowledge of higher education, policy and funding. I didn’t rebut your claim, because based on the evidence I’ve seen, I don’t know what’s more efficient.

I don’t advocate increased funding for the UC in the hope that tuition/fees will remain level or even decrease. In fact, UC has been simultaneously getting increasing funding from the state (not that it’s much, and waaaay less than it was in the past) and increasing the cost of attendance through fee increases. The Governor and heads of CSU and UC struck out this deal in 2004. In that deal they decided that up to 33% of the fee increases could be “returned to aid” for students who need financial assistance. In one year, they kept the RTA at 25%.

Btw, you have yet to rebut my claim that directly funding low income students (and undocumented immigrants, if you like) is more efficient than funding Universities in the hopes that tuition will drop. That is really the heart of my claim…but if you want to champion lower tuition rates for UC’s, of which 95%+ of the students are not low income - and a large percentage are in fact upper income - and call that a low income policy, that is your choice. But I respectfully disagree.

Anyway, to keep this short (not that you know anything about short comments), when higher education researchers examine high tuition/high aid models they discover that the high aid doesn’t really come through. Also, a lot of low income students who are eligible for higher education don’t apply when they see the price tag because they and their families don’t know much about how financial aid works. Finally, increasing fees does hurt low income students. Just ask those who can’t get financial aid ’cause they’re undocumented.

California made a commitment a long time ago not to charge tuition. Even now, the only people who pay tuition at a place like UCLA or UCSD are the non-resident students (out of state, international). Us resident students pay “fees”. Eh, same difference.

Oh, one more thing. I got a lot of financial aid as an undergraduate. My fees were subsidized completely by Cal Grants and I got other federal grants, private scholarships. I also worked (I think work is good, as long as its not too much) and took some loans. Students from similar backgrounds as me are doing the same now, but they’re also taking out more loans and graduating with more debt for the same education. That sucks.

Wow. That wasn’t short at all. Now I know how your comments get so damn long.