Is Higher Education Financial Aid Distributed Fairly?
Salamon's book starts off by saying that nonprofits were created to help serve the underserved when the government fails to provide adequate services (e.g., health, education). So it was a little disturbing to read a study that highlights this problem in my home state of Georgia. The Education Trust study looks at national college enrollment trends and the distribution of financial aid among the children of low-, middle-, and high-income families.
The study found that among the best-prepared low-income students, 20 percent did not go straight to college from highschool because of the availability of financial aid. Compare that to only 3 percent for the well-prepared high-income students.
The study cites the desire by universities and colleges to increase their average SAT scores to influence their U.S. News and World Report rankings as one of the reasons that financial aid is being diverted more to middle-income students than low-income students who have higher test scores on average.
So if the university's scholarships are going to the middle-income students, then the government is stepping in to help the low-income, right? Wrong. Pell grants have not kept up with the soaring costs of tuition/fees, and they only cover around 1/3 of the overall cost of higher education.
What can be done to boost the enrollment of low-income students in colleges and universities? It seems somewhat unrealistic to ask someone who grew up with a family income under the federal poverty limit to take out $20,000 in loans.
Should legislation be considered requiring a certain portion of universities' endowments to be dedicated to serving the poor?
The study found that among the best-prepared low-income students, 20 percent did not go straight to college from highschool because of the availability of financial aid. Compare that to only 3 percent for the well-prepared high-income students.
The study cites the desire by universities and colleges to increase their average SAT scores to influence their U.S. News and World Report rankings as one of the reasons that financial aid is being diverted more to middle-income students than low-income students who have higher test scores on average.
So if the university's scholarships are going to the middle-income students, then the government is stepping in to help the low-income, right? Wrong. Pell grants have not kept up with the soaring costs of tuition/fees, and they only cover around 1/3 of the overall cost of higher education.
What can be done to boost the enrollment of low-income students in colleges and universities? It seems somewhat unrealistic to ask someone who grew up with a family income under the federal poverty limit to take out $20,000 in loans.
Should legislation be considered requiring a certain portion of universities' endowments to be dedicated to serving the poor?
posted by Richard @ 5:05 PM
3 Comments:
At 7:01 PM, September 10, 2006,
Giselle said…
This point brings to mind a quote in our reading from this week.
"...college has become less affordable to families and students unwilling to incur increasing amounts of debt"(p.114).
Although the idea of entering the workforce saddled with student loan debt is distasteful to many families, it's far worse (in my opinion) to look ahead to the future of a student with no education beyond high school. In a market where master's degrees are becoming more and more commonplace, you cannot afford to NOT have at the very least a bachelor's degree. A student faced with this decision must weigh the options - 1. take out the loans and make an investment in the future or 2. decide the debt isn't worth it and commit themselves to a future of low-wage jobs with low earning potential.
To me, the decision is easy, but that's because I place a high value on education (obviously, if I'm financing this master's degree almost solely on student loans). It also surprises me, as it did Leslie, that universities (especially public ones)have to think twice about providing more funding to lower-income students. By doing so, they could truly make a difference in the future of students who would otherwise not have the opportunity - and looking at it cynically, would most likely grow up to become donors, as they'd owe their success to said university. The ability to pay (or lack thereof) should not be a barrier to an education, and universities should use their resources to assist high-achieving, lower-income students without hesitating. Sure, it's not as prestigious as attracting the leading researchers who can bring in the big bucks and the prestige, but is that really the sole purpose of higher education?
At 10:20 PM, September 10, 2006,
Richard said…
Okay, keep in mind that the study found that both public and private schools are diverting scholarship money to middle-income families rather than low-income families because of the students' higher test scores.
If these institutions have the nonprofit designation and nonprofits are designed to make their goods and services available to all, then aren't these nonprofits doing a disservice to the entire sector by creating cracks for low-income students to fall through? And it's all being done in the name of those damned university rankings?
At 5:05 PM, September 11, 2006,
austin said…
I think it is absurd that a university president's time is taken up for fundraising duties. The goal of the president is to steer the university to achieve objectives in accordance with the university's mission. Especially at a public institution, the president should not use almost 5.5 hours on fundraising. This means the president gets to the office at 8 am and focuses on university business until 11 and then starts thinking about fundraising and then goes to lunch to then spend the rest of the day with fundraising. I understand the importance of fundraising and am not put off that UF requires it, but it should not be the responsibility of the president. The president needs to spend more than 3 hours each day when trying to deal with all aspects of the university.
Post a Comment
<< Home