Spent today visiting the U of Minnesota-Twin Cities with my younger daughter. It was quite an experience. Won't go into it in detail, but here are a few impressions:

1. It was a dazzling and overwhelming experience. The variety of academic and activity programs is incredible. It is truly a point of pride for the State of Minnesota, and I would imagine takes a back seat to very few state universities in the nation.

2. They spend one helluva lot of money. One building we toured had just undergone a $50 million dollar renovation, including the complete reconstruction of the original ceilings, right down to the genuine gold leaf painted on them.

3. They give away a lot of freebies to the students, and deeply subsidized services and activities. Like $62 transit passes providing unlimited MTC and light rail transportation and $55 season tickets to all Gopher football games (attended via the free shuttle to the Metrodome). Like a free fitness center that far exceeds the cost and quality of the facilities for pro sports teams like the Timberwolves at Target Center. Like free computer and internet access all over campus, with a student to computer ratio of 2:1. Those things are great for students and their parents, but let's not kid ourselves- the taxpayers are getting the bill for them. Think about that next time they ask for a tuition or fees increase, or more money from the legislature.

4. THE BIGGIE. I learned to my astonishment that the U has a program called "The U of M Founders Free Tuition Program". What is that? It's a scholarship program covering the entire U of M system.

Long story short- EVERY ADMITTED STUDENT THAT QUALIFIES FOR A FEDERAL PELL GRANT IS ENTITLED TO 100% FREE TUITION AND FEES IN THE U OF M SYSTEM. Here's the link to the program.

http://www.founders.umn.edu/qna.html

To those who say we don't provide enough opportunity for low income students to access higher education- I have only two letters to give you. B as in B, S as in S, as Joe Soucherey would say. And that ain't Bachelor of Science, either. Check out the back end of a bovine for clarification.



Last edited by thrice on Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

I'm very pleased that we are helping low income students go to the best university in our state, if not the Midwest.

Just can't help but get a little bitter when trying to figure out where I'm going to come up with about $35,000-40,000 per year for my two daughters who are not eligible for financial aid, despite the fact that the figure represents the lion's share of our family home income.

And hearing all too frequently how stingy we taxpayers are in helping those less fortunate. God bless those low income students, and good luck to them. Just wondering how many years. Or maybe months. Or maybe minutes. Or seconds their parents worked to send them to college. I ask for no sympathy for my situation, but I'll be damned if I'll take the blame for theirs.

I hear what you're throwin' down, thrice. I agree and disagree.

I went to the U and worked for the U as an honors advisor, so I have pride in the institution as well as a unique perspective.

The first thing I want to say is that if your daughters aren't eligible for financial aid, then they should get their asses in gear and get some academic scholarships. My parents paid for my school and I am forever grateful to them, since our financial situation didn't make me eligible for financial aid, either. However, I didn't just take my parents money and run. I contributed by earning an academic scholarship that brought my tuition down to the resident level (which made a big difference coming from a state that had no reciprocity agreement).

The other thing I'll admit is that high school was easy for me. No one really challenged me and since I'm a pretty naturally smart guy, I was able to breeze right through with straight As. Combined with all the extra-curricular activities and volunteer opportunities I participated in (which are ESSENTIAL to a successful scholarship application), I looked like an AMAZING student...on paper. I was admitted to the honors program, blah, blah, blah. But, guess what? I was a slacker. Having not been challenged in high school, college was a huge shock, and I did pretty poorly my first two years until I got my act together. But, it still wasn't enough to graduate with honors, even though I worked for them and told a new class of freshmen each year how they could do it. Now, I wasn't bad at my job just because I wasn't the best student. In fact, I think that made me better at my job (though some on here would probably shame me into thinking of myself as a disgusting pervert because I didn't graduate summa cum laude).

My point here is this...high school affects how people look on paper. But, you can never guarantee how someone will actually do in college. A student could come from a great home, come from a great high school, come from a wealthy family, on and on and on, and it doesn't guarantee that they'll continue to be successful. Likewise, a student without all of those advantages won't necessarily be a failure.

So, while I get your point, it's kind of a non-point. Especially since no one's "blaming" you for their circumstances. I know raising the cash to send your kids to school will be hard, but think how hard it will/would be for people not as well off as you. Do you think your children are more deserving of a college education just because you make a little more money than some other kid's parents?

And, finally, I just want to let you know that while tuition, and sometimes books, are paid for by the federal grants, it doesn't always cover student fees, which are the actual dollars that pay for the computers and bus pass programs.

Actually, NoMN, the Founder's Program specifically states it pays students' fees for them on their webpage.

No, I'm not at all saying that less financially fortunate kids don't "deserve" to go to the U of M. In fact, I don't think anyone "deserves" it. You get in life what you're willing to pay for, one way or the other. What I'm rejecting is the oft-repeated notion that we taxpayers are a bunch of cheapasses who are unwilling to help out our poorer bretheren and are, by extension, responsible for holding them down. It's one thing to have financial aid available. It's quite another to have a program that AUTOMATICALLY provides a free ride to every single kid who is accepted to the U of M and is eligible for a Pell grant. I think that's great. But to the ones who accuse us of Scroogism, I would ask- how much more help can we give than FREE?

I guess I don't see anyone calling you a scrooge, thrice, so I'm just confused why you're so angry about this.

What I react to, NoMN, is a continual drumbeat in our community at large, as well as here, which repeatedly suggests that the poor in our community are so because we, as a society and as taxpayers, refuse to share our resources and provide them with a means to escape poverty. Particularly the most wealthy in our community and society. We are, in effect, Scrooges who let people die poor simply for lack of our assistance, if you believe those who peddle that rubbish.

My position is that for reasons beyond my comprehension, the many means we have provided for people to better themselves and their life circumstances are not being taken advantage of by far too many people. The opportunity I saw described in the U of M Founders' webpage left me speechless. I would guess it highly likely that any graduate of the Minneapolis School System with a 3.0 GPA or better would have an excellent chance of acceptance at the U of M, particularly if they could demonstrate "extenuating circumstances" and financial need. Bully for them, I say. Let's give every opportunity for the best and the brightest of the Inner City to gain the professional skills to lead their communities out of the wilderness. I'm all for it.

What scorches me is the blaming that contrasts this. You have no idea what I would do to ensure my kids a degree from the University of Minnesota in a manner that didn't require me to work extra hours and result in their graduating tens of thousands of dollars in debt to entry level jobs. To see people failing to recognize the incredible generousity of efforts like the U of M free tuition program, and to see the finger pointing accusations of the selfishness of our taxpayers, is what makes me angry. And as a taxpayer, it should make you angry too.

Thrice, would you object to the program if your child, with your current income, qualified for free or drastically reduced tuition?

I ask because I think most people would agree that the financial ceiling for need-based college financial assistance is much too high. If higher taxes spread across the board would achieve that, would you be in favor?

Or is your point that the state is doing enough for poor families, not enough for you, and that taxes are still too high?

Watch out for the money that they spend on renovation. The coolness will wear off. There's the one building near the big auditorium thingey where I saw Blues Traveler perform. It's got a very old style to the building, and looks very nice. Unfortunately it was designed and built to be a temporary (I think science) building until a suitable building could be built. That was back in the 50s if I'm remembering right. I'll ask my friend about it. He likes to crab about the U.

Well, Matt, for starters, I don't object to the Founder's tuition program. I repeatedly praised it. What I object to is the false accusations that our society and community don't help the poor escape poverty if they choose to take advantage of what opportunities are offered.

No, I don't think my child should receive free tuition, or even a large discount. Fully tax funded free universal tuition is the socialist professor's dream that drove me from the Democratic ranks with disgust at its naked self interest. Do I think the aid ceiling's too high, to include eligibility for subsidized loans? Absolutely. I was rather shocked to see that my expected family contribution to one child's college cost per year represented about 54% of my annual take home pay. Do I think that the U of M's high annual cost is a function of unrestrained spending? Absolutely. When students at a tax funded institution are given free or subsidized access to services and ameneties only enjoyed by the very wealthiest of our state's population, something's very wrong with that picture. As I told a teacher the other day, I can't justify the U gilding its ceilings with real gold leaf, while she is buying her students notebooks out of her own pocket. At the end of the day, the money all comes out of the same pot.

I know you said you didn't object to the program. You also said you were "a little bitter" that you had to work so hard to send your kid to college, strongly questioned whether the poor parents worked hard to send their kids to college, and said, yourself, that you were "angry" that so many people say we're not doing enough to help the poor. From those comments and the tone of your posts, I didn't think the word "object" was too strong.

I guess I just don't understand why you think you or anyone should be eligible for a loan but not actual money to send your child to school. Or why you seem to think subsidized tuition is some kind of Socialist plot to... I don't know what. You said it: "Fully tax funded free universal tuition is the socialist professor's dream that drove me from the Democratic ranks with disgust at its naked self interest." Self interest? They'll have jobs even if only the rich have the money to attend their classes; why is it selfish to help someone with an education?

To be clear, I believe that in a classless society, which ours is supposed to be, we owe it to the children of people with less to level the playing field as much as possible for their access to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Not as much as their parents have, but as much as they can get for themselves, using the benefits others have grown up with. Is it unfair to rich people to give this to you, or unfair to you to give it to poor families? I guess I gotta say no. We're the richest country in the world. I don't think it's too much to ask that we want our kids to be able to afford an education even if their parents can't. Do you? Really?

Let's separate the issues and consider them so, ok Matt?

As for parental contribution- yes, of course I expect something. If nothing else, parents who see the promise of a free education for their kids could make the effort to urge their kids to study and attain the slightly above average GPA that would give them that education. That costs them nothing at all. If I knew that my kids could attend the "U" for free if they attained a B average, you can bet that I would be on their cases and making sure they got one. Not to wax nostagic, but previous generations of Americans insisted that their kids worked hard and hit the books to improve their lot in life. And considering the relatively large numbers of the children of penniless refugees who attend our universities, it's definitely still possible if one is hungry and motivated. It doesn't cost a dime to shut off the TV and point to the schoolbooks.

As for angry about the cheapness accusations, yes I am. We could disagree on degrees of difference. But when the bottom line is 100% of poor kids getting free college, then it's not a matter of degrees or subjective interpretation. 100% is 100%. What more can we give than that? All that's asked in return is a reasonable effort in high school to be eligible for admission. And that is a function of work and motivation. Doesn't cost the prospective student a dime.

Subsidized tuition? As far as public colleges and universities is concerned, all tuition is subsidized. It's just a matter of amount and degree. I seriously doubt any public university in the country charges the full cost per student. The difference always comes from the Legislature.

On the other hand, free tuition for everyone is a much different proposition. Increasing the demand for their services and creating new jobs is the lifeblood of a public employee union. If a public employee union can get a measure passed that will increase the number of new hires, it increases their financial power and their ability to mobilize large numbers of bodies to work on political campaigns for their benefactors. That's the reason that organized labor consistently backs Democrats- it's a mutually beneficial relationship. Dems deliver the jobs and bucks, and the unions deliver the bodies and cash contributions. It doesn't matter if the employees are teachers, cops or road repair workers. The principle's the same, and it's been extremely consistent for many decades. Free universal tuition would be an enormous boost to the power of University unions, and their potential benefits to their political sponsors. That's the naked self interest- nothing more.

So what's my bottom line?

I'm glad we have generous tuition assistance programs for the poor. I do expect that even if they lack the financial means to pay much toward their educations, I expect that they will make a strong effort to take advantage of their free public educations and get decent grades so they can utilize the opportunity to attend college for free. If they fail to make that effort, I don't want to hear that I'm not helping them, because in that case they have refused to help themselves.

I expect that university officials restrain spending so that college is affordable. Clearly when the tuition at the U is double that of other state universities, somebody's gone bonkers. The $5000 per year difference I'm seeing between the U and other schools would make a big difference in my bottom line, that's for sure. And by the way, it probably wouldn't hurt to start playing things honestly with the State Lottery. As it stands now, it would appear that all the "education" funds it promised are sent right into the General Fund. They just go out with the normal state education funds and displace tax dollars. It doesn't reduce the cost of anything- just gives the Legislature more money to spend elsewhere. That needs to change. It's a lot of money.

I know that all tuitions are subsidized to some extent. All government activity, whether it be bus routes, airports, libraries or anything else, is. If anything, I'd like to see greater availability of subsidized loans. If a bank can make money on a 6% mortgage, they can damn well make money on a 6% student loan. If the gov't will guarantee them, they'll happen. And they should crack down on the deadbeats that don't pay them, too. There's no excuse that we have doctors and lawyers in our society that have walked away from enormous student loans. Try doing that with your car loan and see how long you'd be driving. Start pulling the professional licenses and jacking up the income tax bills of the deadbeats, and see how long it takes them to pay their debt to society. Won't be long, I can tell you. They'll find the money.

thrice wrote:

And that is a function of work and motivation. Doesn't cost the prospective student a dime.

Those same qualities are available to middle class students. My family was in this exact situation. I got accepted to Northwestern and Columbia, my two top choice schools (costing about $30,000 a year, each) and the University of Kansas, which gives full-ride scholarships to National Merit Scholars. Guess which one I chose. My little sister had her heart set on going to the University of Illinois at Chicago, though it meant paying out-of-state tuition for two years until she got her Illinois residence. Knowing that my parents were not in a position to pay that amount and still have any hopes of retiring anytime soon, she refused to accept their financial assistance, took out student loans, and got a job, which she works in addition to consistently getting top honors, fellowships, and scholarships. She'll graduate this spring and hopes to be enrolled in the U of M's law school by next fall. Which she will also pay for herself.

I hear what you're saying, thrice. But academic merit, hard work, diligence, focus, and short-term sacrifice shouldn't be expected only from the poor. There are plenty of ways to make college attainable for those in all income brackets.

"Those same qualities are available to middle class students."

Yes, the ability to earn SOME scholarships is available to the highest academic achieving middle and upper class students. I regret that I have not been able to motivate my kids to be straight "A" students, and bear some of the responsibility for that shortcoming.

No, the same opportunity is not available to all students. My younger daughter is considering the U of MN. Her cumulative GPA of about 3.1 is not likely to get her in, barring other factors. If she were a low income student from Minneapolis, she would undoubtedly get in with that GPA, and would get a free U of M degree. While I am very glad that poor students have this opportunity, there is no disputing the fact that the bar is set considerably lower for them, and it is much more attainable.

Congrats on your good fortune to have received a free ride from UK. I hope my daughter makes National Merit somehow. I was a semifinalist, but was offered nothing from anyone but private colleges who seem to use the jeweler's "double the price, and offer 50% off" strategy to lure students.

Kudos to your sister as well. I wish my kids were similarly motivated. They both work, but don't accumulate a lot. I'm not at all oppposed to families working and sacrificing to get their kids through school. I consider that to be a lifetime gift and legacy I'm giving my kids. But there's a big difference between working/sacrificing and financially crippling a family. When the powers that be insist that 54% of my take home income for one kid is a reasonable contribution, I believe they are insane. Or cannot do math. 36% of income is considered to be the max one should spend on housing. So 150% of that is reasonable for career education? Not in my world!

The cost of higher education is most definitely a problem; one that is getting worse and not better. I hear you, I really do. My sister will be paying back her loans for probably the rest of her working life, esp. if she does go the Law School route.

Good luck, thrice!

Just to play the Devil's Advocate, thrice, why is your youngest daughter's GPA only 3.1? You made a comment earlier that "had you known" about this free tuition program, you would have encouraged your daughters to work harder. Why didn't you just encourage them to work harder anyway? My parents always taught me to work hard even if there's no prize in the forseeable future. With all due respect, you're kind of making it sound as though you found out some information a day too late, and now you're just pissed off about it. I really hope that's not the case, because you sound like a pretty rockin' dad.

The U of M has ridiculous tuition as compared to other state schools, for sure. But, it's also an amazing institution. And the reason its tuition is ridiculous is because of the legislature...so, maybe you should direct your anger at them instead of the Democrats. I'm a Democrat, and I'm not blaming you for poverty...that's the root of my confusion with this entire topic. I guess I just don't see where you see this blame coming from.

The paying for college issue has always been big in my family as well. My sister wanted to go to William & Mary, or Northwestern, and was accepted to both. She ended up at the University of Iowa because she got a Presidential Scholarship, an academic scholarship that paid full tuition, and she wasn't even a National Merit Finalist. She was extremely jealous of me for getting to go to the U of M because she didn't want to go to school so close to home. Well, tough s**t, sister. There are a lot of things I could have chosen to be jealous of her for, were I that petty. Life is full of unfairness, and I think the sooner kids learn that, the better.

One lesson in unfairness that my sister learned while applying for scholarships and financial aid? My parents combined income was too high to qualify us for any federal aid. But, she had this friend, Natalie, whose parents had been divorced for a few years, and whose combined income was actually greater than my parents'. However, since her parents were divorced, Natalie's Financial Aid application, by law, only considered the income of one parent, even though the parents had joint custody.

I don't know if the law still allows for this, given the prevelance of divorce these days (this happened 12 years ago during those dirty Clinton days...). But, since you're a divorcè, thrice, I'd suggest taking a quick moment to realize that your kids do have advantages other kids don't have...is that fair?

Devil's Advocate session over...

I'm not going to lie. Paying for college sucks. Best of luck, dude.

nomnnice wrote:

I don't know if the law still allows for this, given the prevelance of divorce these days (this happened 12 years ago during those dirty Clinton days...). But, since you're a divorcè, thrice, I'd suggest taking a quick moment to realize that your kids do have advantages other kids don't have...is that fair?

I've always been told that until I'm like 25 or something like that I have to include both my dad and my mom's income on financial aid forms so that they can take them both into account despite the fact that they're divorced and I was raised wholly by my mom since like age 3 or something.

And I think the situation was the same for my friend when he was in college in 2000 I think it was. Maybe 2001. He lived with his dad right there on the edge of poverty. His mom on the other hand was doing pretty well. Didn't matter that he never saw any of her money. He still had to list her income and he had to take that hit in the financial aid.

Thanks for the encouragement and best wishes from you both. I appreciate it.

Yes, I wish I had pushed the schoolwork harder. For reasons I won't get into, I thought it was more important to praise and encourage them than to aggrevate some badly battered little psyches. All money issues aside, I think that was the more important goal of my parenting method, and I don't regret it. As for help from the other parent- long story short, fageddaboutit. It ain't gonna happen. Whatever my kids get for college will be from my efforts and theirs.

No, I don't blame the Democrats- despite the fact that they do run our legislature, and there has always been a very unhealthy quid pro quo between the DFL and the Education Industry.

My upset is rather generalized, and it comes from a rather general theme we hear- that poverty would be eradicated if we would only give more, and that we're too stingy to do so. Nick Coleman will lecture you all day about it. Nonprofit operators will too- despite the handsome paychecks some of them get for their "charity work". Myron Orfield will tell you that if you'd just pay more taxes and build a housing project across the street from your house, poverty would be history- just don't build it across the street from him, please. I'm just tired of the endless exhortations to give more, without any expectation of effort from the other end. There shouldn't be any shortage of young people pounding down the doors of our universities for a free college education. When there's a waiting line, talk to me about giving more, and I'll do it.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/05/03/71834

AFSCME, the public employee union now threatening to strike the U of M system, wants free or discounted tuition for their family members as part of their benefits package. Assuming a full time student dependent, that would be worth about $5000 per year per student. Some proposals would increase the percentage based on years of service.

I wonder if they are also looking for admissions preference, and if it is currently being practiced? That would be an interesting fact to know.

http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i19/19a02301.htm

I didn't realize the U already had a free tuition program for their employees.

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/policies/benefits/regents/index.html

So now maybe I know how to get my master's degree and get my kids' college paid for at the U of M. All I need to do now is get a job there!

Many private colleges and universities have some sort of free program for students who have parents working at the school.


(edited to say "many", not "most", and "private" as well)



Last edited by The Godfather on Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

I'm pretty intimately connected to this particular issue, and I can tell you that there is currently no program in place that pays tuition benefits for employees' family members, nor is there likely to be one. There is the Regent's Scholarship, which allows employees working at least 75% time (30 hours a week) to take free classes themselves. I take advantage of that benefit myself. Just had my first day of Arabic class today.

"Many private colleges and universities have some sort of free program for students who have parents working at the school.

(edited to say "many", not "most", and "private" as well)"- The Godfather

Well of course, GF, and your key word is "private". As they say, the butcher's children usually eat very well. Main difference being that the butcher pays for his kids' pork chops. He owns them. The Regents of the University don't own the University, nor do they pay for anything. We own the University, and we pay for it.

I know it sounds nit picky, but I've never heard of public employees being given the services of their employer for free when the public is charged for them. Would Minneapolis give its employees free water service, send out a crew to trim their yard, or provide free WiFi? Would Hennepin County give its employees discounted property taxes, or send a crew to shovel their driveway? Me not think so! In fact, I've seen municipal employees fired for parking their cars in government owned ramps to avoid fees, despite plenty of available unused space. It's a different world, to be sure!

Here's some more info on the program:

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/policies/benefits/regents/

The money for it comes out of the same kitty that pays for health insurance for employees. After a certain amount ($2500) I believe, it is considered income and taxed. It's a wonderful benefit, and one I'm proud and grateful to take advantage of. When I worked at Manhattan Toy, employees were given samples and overstock to take home or give as gifts. When I worked as a tour guide, the van in which I drove around dozens of German tourists also served as my home. Every job has its perks and benefits and this is a terrific one. So far I've taken Microeconomics, Gender and Global Politics, Acting for the Camera, and now Arabic. I wish more workplaces offered as much to nurture the whole employee: mind, body, and soul. We'd probably be a happier nation.

I have no problem with college employees or their children getting a free education. It's kinda like allowing the family of an employee to use her health insurance. Yes, it's a great benefit, but especially in the case of fulltime University employees who aren't necessarily in the top pay bracket--groundskeepers, sanitation and security staff--a well-earned one. I question the assertion that this is any kind of burden to taxpayers; the classes are already there, after all, and unless the class is full and the student is keeping paying students out, who loses?

mattsciple wrote:

I question the assertion that this is any kind of burden to taxpayers; the classes are already there, after all, and unless the class is full and the student is keeping paying students out, who loses?

I have had to wait until well after the general enrollment period to enroll in my classes. I don't know without looking into it if that's due to my use of the Regent's Scholarship or if it's because I'm not an "admitted student," meaning I'm not enrolled in a degree program, I'm just taking classes because I'm a dweeb.

But let me say again: the benefit is there for employees working at least 30 hours a week, not their family members.

"But let me say again: the benefit is there for employees working at least 30 hours a week, not their family members. dora"

Point taken. I would still have no objection, in theory. It's certainly no more onerous or unfair than legacy admissions.

mattsciple wrote:

I have no problem with college employees or their children getting a free education. It's kinda like allowing the family of an employee to use her health insurance. Yes, it's a great benefit, but especially in the case of fulltime University employees who aren't necessarily in the top pay bracket--groundskeepers, sanitation and security staff--a well-earned one. I question the assertion that this is any kind of burden to taxpayers; the classes are already there, after all, and unless the class is full and the student is keeping paying students out, who loses?

Well, actually the comparison to health care isn't valid. Employees who carry family health insurance normally pay a higher rate than employees who carry only single coverage, unless one's employer is extraordinarily generous. Those who use the additional benefit pay for it. In most organizations, free health care is a relic of the past.

Sure, a free tuition benefit would be a nice thing for lower paid employees- of course, as I mentioned before, if they are under $50,000 family income, their kids are eligible for free tuition anyway under the Founder's scholarship program.

Capacity is a question. Any service business/organization bases its finances on the number of heads served divided by the number of paid employees. If there is that excess, unused capacity, why not divide it among the numbers of middle class students who can qualify academically, but cannot afford to attend the school? Even if they attended at half price, they benefit the school's bottom line and operating budget. Like you say, an empty seat generates no revenue. As was stated in another thread, the Census Bureau calculates the national median household income at $48,200. The Founder's site says that 2/3 of families with incomes under $50,000 are eligible for Federal Pell Grants, and are entitled to free tuition at the U if accepted for enrollment. That seems to indicate that there are one helluva bunch of people who are dancing on that borderline, and if there's excess space available, they should have first shot at it at a discount. Under the current system, at least in theory and entitlement, the President of the University at $450,000 per year gets to budge them. The rich don't need this benefit. The poor already have it. The middle class gets left holding the bag.

thrice wrote:

The rich don't need this benefit. The poor already have it. The middle class gets left holding the bag.

The vast majority of U employees taking advantage of the scholarship ARE middle class. If you'd like to take advantage of it yourself, there are plenty of jobs available at the U.

Yes, I think I covered that option in a previous post.

The question still remains- if there is excess class space available, why can't the U offer it to a wider range of students at a discount? I'm sure the employee numbers are a relative trickle, so let's not even factor it in. As things stand now, at most universities, if the Federal FAFSA formula says you get no aid, you get no aid. Period. So in effect, are seats sitting empty now because the schools won't make their own independent decisions about tuition relief? In a way, it's really no different than a store putting items that are slow sellers on the clearance rack. They get back, to some extent, the cost of buying and stocking them. If they've got an obscure class in Intermediate Macro Widgetry with poor enrollment, and some kid could use the credits, why not discount it? The professor is going to get paid, whether they have 50 students or 10. The kid gets the credits. The school gets half the cash it normally would, which is 50% better than nothing. Failing to do so is just bad business- the equivalent of Northwest Airlines sending off a plane half empty rather than adjust fares on an asset that is expiring and will soon be worthless. It's just plain stupid.

thrice,

One way to ensure your kids get financial aid is to start not claiming them as dependents on your taxes. Without them being your dependents, they have qualified themselves by being low-income.

That does sound like a big risky thing to do but if they are old enough to work they are old enough to be filing their own taxes.

Then file for the grants. They ought to be able to qualify just for being low income. Which is what any teen/young adult is, if they are working minimum wage or just a little over that.

bwoodsdesign wrote:

thrice,

One way to ensure your kids get financial aid is to start not claiming them as dependents on your taxes. Without them being your dependents, they have qualified themselves by being low-income.

That does sound like a big risky thing to do but if they are old enough to work they are old enough to be filing their own taxes.

Then file for the grants. They ought to be able to qualify just for being low income. Which is what any teen/young adult is, if they are working minimum wage or just a little over that.

That's not necessarily true. Even if Thrice didn't claim his children as dependents on his taxes, FAFSA still requires students to report their parents' income. They don't care if you are considered a dependent or not. The only benefit I had from having my parents not claim me was that I got residency in a different state. That was a big help, don't get me wrong, but it did not make my eligibility for financial aid any different.

I don't recall the rules right now, but I think independent status for FAFSA probably involves how old you are and marital status as well. In any event, I need to retain my kids as dependents anyway, because if they're not it moves me into a different tax filing status with a much higher rate.