- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: House denies colleges tuition-setting authority (again).
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:05 am to Fratastic423
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:05 am to Fratastic423
quote:
Or cap the system and say everyone gets 1500 a semester (or whatever)
This is what I would propose. Maybe have different levels of awards based on GPA and ACT scores like they have now, but set it at an actual value. Universities will still set their tuition at appropriate levels as they will know how much money the state is providing to students and they will want to keep their enrollment up. Schools like LSU would likely be a little higher tuition as they would pull more students willing to pay some out of pocket.
Still allows anyone a shot a college, just may have to pick and choose which college according to your finances.
0
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:10 am to LNCHBOX
It's not as simple as you're trying to make it.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but you'd have to run some cost/benefit analysis to proper judge the idea. You see it as getting $1 back is better than $0 back, but you would also need to determine what the indirect cost would be. For instance, there is a cost associated with servicing the outstanding loans.
Additionally, you would have to determine what type of tax revenue may be lost as ex-students "suffer" under the weight of their TOPS loans.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but you'd have to run some cost/benefit analysis to proper judge the idea. You see it as getting $1 back is better than $0 back, but you would also need to determine what the indirect cost would be. For instance, there is a cost associated with servicing the outstanding loans.
Additionally, you would have to determine what type of tax revenue may be lost as ex-students "suffer" under the weight of their TOPS loans.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:13 am to slackster
quote:
It's not as simple as you're trying to make it.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but you'd have to run some cost/benefit analysis to proper judge the idea. You see it as getting $1 back is better than $0 back, but you would also need to determine what the indirect cost would be. For instance, there is a cost associated with servicing the outstanding loans.
So I'm creating jobs and getting money back? Go me.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:14 am to Fratastic423
frick. That.
The greatest quality about TOPS is that it is need-blind. If you want to scale back the costs, then increase the academic requirements, but changing to a need-based program is ridiculous.
The greatest quality about TOPS is that it is need-blind. If you want to scale back the costs, then increase the academic requirements, but changing to a need-based program is ridiculous.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:25 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
creating jobs
I don't think creating governmental bureaucratic positions is exactly considered "creating jobs"
But really, lets look at this scenario. How many students drop out after their first year (I would say most dropouts happen here). TOPS is out 1 year of money. But how many will keep pushing, because it's now not cost beneficial to drop out and get a job due to having to pay back money? They stay for an additional 3 years.
So TOPS is currently losing 1 year worth of tuition from that scenario, but now may be paying an additional 3 years for students who would have dropped out otherwise. Might make TOPS have to fund MORE students. I obviously don't have stats for that, but I think it's an scenario that could easily happen. The payback method only may change the way things work and getting back that one year of tuition may not be worth it. It would have to be researched obviously, but I'm just being the devil's advocate here.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:29 am to slackster
quote:
The greatest quality about TOPS is that it is need-blind. If you want to scale back the costs, then increase the academic requirements, but changing to a need-based program is ridiculous.
Why is that the greatest quality? It was designed to be need based but we cannot fathom helping students trying to better themselves but cannot afford to without giving rich white kids who don't need money to go to college the same money. So people threw out the idea that it was built to "keep kids in LA" rather than help poor kids get a college education to better their situation.
Look, I am all for keeping the program as it works now, giving everyone regardless of need the same money to send them to the college of their choice. However, it is not financially responsible/possible anymore. State schools should function to better the population of LA. I have no issue with giving an academically qualified poor kid more money to ensure he/she can attempt to better their situation than the state gives to a family that doesn't need it. In the end the rich kid still goes to college with/without a full TOPS. The same might not happen with the poor kid if they don't get full TOPS.
That being said, I still think the cap is the best option.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:30 am to KG6
quote:
I don't think creating governmental bureaucratic positions is exactly considered "creating jobs"
I was hoping the joke was obvious.
quote:
But really, lets look at this scenario. How many students drop out after their first year (I would say most dropouts happen here). TOPS is out 1 year of money. But how many will keep pushing, because it's now not cost beneficial to drop out and get a job due to having to pay back money? They stay for an additional 3 years.
Who is dropping out that would qualify to keep TOPS? Are you suggesting we remove the requirements to maintain it if we make it a loan?
It seems to me that TOPS would no longer be paying for that student regardless.
quote:
I obviously don't have stats for that, but I think it's an scenario that could easily happen.
I just don't see it. Unless you have numbers showing people with >2.5 GPA are dropping out.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:31 am to KG6
Why not just increase the requirement standards. A 3.0 GPA is not difficult to achieve, raise it to 3.5, this would reward hard work and make less people eligible to recieve the highest level
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:32 am to Fratastic423
quote:
giving rich white kids who don't need money to go to college the same money
Again, how do you know what kind of money the kid has access to?
My parents make a lot of money. They are also not great with their money, so their high income was of little help to me personally. I needed TOPS to pay for school just as much as anyone else did. I can guarantee I was not the only student in that situation.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:33 am to Fratastic423
quote:
Education Level
Other Data in this TopicCollege Matching Patterns by Socioeconomic Factors
Students from higher-income families and students whose parents have four-year college degrees are more likely than others to earn bachelor’s degrees within six years. Differences in the characteristics and qualifications of the students account for about half of the difference in graduation rates.
Figure 2.5a: Percentage of 1999 Entrants at Flagship Universities Graduating Within Six Years, by Parental Education Level and Family Income, Adjusted for Student Characteristics
Download Data in ExcelDownload Excel Data on Completion Rates by Family Income and Parental Education Level
See Key Points
The total height of each bar shows the percentage of students from each group that completed a bachelor’s degree within six years of entering the institution. The dark segments of the bars show the adjusted graduation rate for each group. The adjusted rate for high-income students is what their rate would have been if all of their characteristics (high school GPA, test scores, state residency status, gender, race/ethnicity, and parental education) had been the same as the characteristics of low-income students. The light segments show the gap accounted for by differences in these student characteristics, including income differences for parental education groups and differences in parental education for income groups.
LINK
Yep, let's make TOPS need-based and cut funding to the group that has the highest graduation rate even when adjusted for "privilege." Great idea.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:33 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Who is dropping out that would qualify to keep TOPS? Are you suggesting we remove the requirements to maintain it if we make it a loan?
Not enough to justify a counter argument to your strategy. I think the argument could be made that some students who qualify for TOPS and get admitted but are not successful then do not have the means to pay that money back. The state gambled on a student and the student gambled on themselves and everyone lost. Now that student has a year of college debt piled onto an already shitty situation. (speaking generally about low socioeconomic students)
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:35 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Unless you have numbers showing people with >2.5 GPA are dropping out.
You do not lose TOPS if you drop below 2.5. You go on probation. You have a chance to get it back up (at least when I was there). I will admit, I can't think of people who were doing okay who flat out dropped out. But I know a good bit that went to LSU, then went back to a local school after a year. Then some of those people eventually dropped out. I think some people realize it's not for them after a year even if they can make the grades.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:36 am to slackster
quote:
Yep, let's make TOPS need-based and cut funding to the group that has the highest graduation rate even when adjusted for "privilege." Great idea.
Those students are going to college regardless if we give them money or not. Hell, I got TOPS and graduated in 4 years. If I didn't get TOPS, I would have graduated in 4 years. Would I had to make different choices in college to afford it, probably. But I still would have finished.
Why are those students from low income first generation families not finishing...largely due to funding issues.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:39 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Again, how do you know what kind of money the kid has access to?
My parents make a lot of money. They are also not great with their money, so their high income was of little help to me personally. I needed TOPS to pay for school just as much as anyone else did. I can guarantee I was not the only student in that situation.
I agree that it gets complicated. Because on both sides of the discussion you could say "why should the state reward poor choices by the family of the students?" Its not the students fault.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:41 am to Fratastic423
quote:
I think the argument could be made that some students who qualify for TOPS and get admitted but are not successful then do not have the means to pay that money back
How could you possibly decide who should and shouldn't pay it back?
quote:
Now that student has a year of college debt piled onto an already shitty situation.
Tough shite. A year of college debt is less than $10k at just about every state school. It's not financially crippling like you make it out to be.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:41 am to Fratastic423
quote:
Its not the students fault.
Which is why it needs to remain an equal award across all socioeconomic backgrounds.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:43 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
How could you possibly decide who should and shouldn't pay it back?
Not what I meant, sorry for the convoluted statement. I was saying that if it was a loan process, you are potentially making a situation worse on a segment of the population who try and use TOPS to better their life.
quote:
A year of college debt is less than $10k at just about every state school.
That's a big amount of money for some families and students, even at LSU.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:45 am to Fratastic423
quote:
That's a big amount of money for some families and students, even at LSU.
They could pay it back interest free over 5 years, and that would be at most $167/month. Or make them just pay half of it back. But at least something. Any return on that initial investment is better than the system currently is.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:45 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Which is why it needs to remain an equal award across all socioeconomic backgrounds.
And the program will stay equal in the end IMO, even though I don't think that is the best option. It is so ingrained in the education philosophy of LA that it isn't going to turn into a need based award.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:46 am to Fratastic423
quote:
even though I don't think that is the best option
What's better?
quote:That's what Pell granst and other forms of aid are for. If my tax dollars help fund TOPS, why should my child not benefit just because I'm successful?
It is so ingrained in the education philosophy of LA that it isn't going to turn into a need based award.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News