- 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 9:49 am to Fratastic423
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:49 am to Fratastic423
Before the state should even fathom changing the award to need-based, they should increase the requirements to receive and maintain TOPS.
If the reward isn't feasible as currently structured, they shouldn't immediately cut funding to higher income families. There are already a plethora of programs catering to low-income families. TOPS should explore other options before they do the same.
If the reward isn't feasible as currently structured, they shouldn't immediately cut funding to higher income families. There are already a plethora of programs catering to low-income families. TOPS should explore other options before they do the same.
1
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:51 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
What's better?
I personally think it should move to the sliding scale need based award. Which we have been discussing may or may not be the most popular thing.
quote:
f my tax dollars help fund TOPS, why should my child not benefit just because I'm successful?
This statement could be used in almost any government program. Should I have to pay into TOPS at all if my kid doesn't go to college or a college in LA even though I am successful? What about public schools, or roads that I don't use, unemployment benefits for oil workers, etc. For me, I am okay with using tax dollars to provide an opportunity for poor kids to attend college even if my son may not get that same benefit.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:52 am to slackster
quote:
Before the state should even fathom changing the award to need-based, they should increase the requirements to receive and maintain TOPS.
We are on the same page here.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 9:56 am to Fratastic423
quote:
I personally think it should move to the sliding scale need based award. Which we have been discussing may or may not be the most popular thing.
Why? Like slackster said, there is a plethora of need based programs already.
quote:
This statement could be used in almost any government program
And that makes it any less relevant how?
quote:
For me, I am okay with using tax dollars to provide an opportunity for poor kids to attend college even if my son may not get that same benefit.
Well, good for you. You already pay into programs that do that. So why do we need anther program like that?
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:02 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Why? Like slackster said, there is a plethora of need based programs already
I would be fine it is stayed in its current form. But if we are talking about having to change the program since the state appears not interested in disconnecting themselves from controlling tuition, I think the sliding scale provides more holistic benefit to the state than capping the award and giving everyone the same amount of money. The sliding scale IMO ensures that students who want to go to college have that opportunity. Is it necessarily "fair" to rich families, maybe not. But overall I think it has a larger impact on the state's education level.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:05 am to Fratastic423
quote:
I think the sliding scale provides more holistic benefit to the state than capping the award and giving everyone the same amount of money.
I guess I'm just not seeing why. Are lower income students more intelligent and all they need is a chance?
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:05 am to Slippy
Unconditional republican love though, Yes?
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:09 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
the university is at max capacity with high salaried positions and yet they are reluctant to offer eliminating or consolidating any of those positions, let alone eliminating some of the waste within tlower levels of their own bureaucracy
I keep hearing people throw this around in generalities, but have yet to hear anyone name a specific job or position that LSU has that other schools don't that is causing all this supposed waste.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:10 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Are lower income students more intelligent and all they need is a chance?
I think that finances hinder some students from being successful in college. So if we are cutting the amount of money dished out to all students, it has a much greater impact on those who were struggling with their finances to begin with. If the program's goal is to get students of LA to go to college, I think the sliding scale does that because it gives the student at every level the money necessary to hopefully be successful.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:12 am to Fratastic423
I graduated hs in 1987 so TOPS wasn't around and I had no idea until today after reading about it that it started indeed as need based (had an income cap, don't see that info listed). It changed in 1997 but I don't see any comment as to why it got changed.
Does anyone know? I'm just curious.
LINK
Does anyone know? I'm just curious.
LINK
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:14 am to Fratastic423
quote:
I think the sliding scale does that because it gives the student at every level the money necessary to hopefully be successful.
But what if a student who has rich family but is given none of his family's money wants to go to college using TOPS? That student would be SOL compared to a poorer student, even though that student has no money to his own name.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:15 am to tigerinthebueche
quote:
the state general fund revenue to the school has dropped from $235 million to $108 million, but LSU’s self-generated revenues have gone from $190 million to $347 million.
So, assuming "self-generated revenue" mainly means donations, the state is basically cutting its contribution by an amount roughly equal to anything the university generates through donations. The result is that donors are not really helping the university by giving it additional money, they are just assuming part of the state's burden of supporting the university and freeing up that money for the state to spend on something else. Wonder how long LSU will be able to keep getting people to donate if this keeps up?
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:16 am to Slippy
So we won't give you money, and we won't let you make your own. Gotcha.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:17 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
But what if a student who has rich family but is given none of his family's money wants to go to college using TOPS?
In order to get other benefits from the government that student/family would be advised that the student files their own taxes and the family no longer claim that student to be a dependent. If the family wants to get the tax benefit of claiming that student as a dependent, the family would then be considered responsible for their share of the students education. (which is what happens now for student loans or other financial aid opportunities)
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:18 am to tiger91
quote:
I had no idea until today after reading about it that it started indeed as need based (had an income cap, don't see that info listed). It changed in 199
I don't recall its ever having been need-based. I thought it was always available to anyone who graduated from a Louisiana high school with the requisite GPA.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:19 am to Fratastic423
quote:
In order to get other benefits from the government that student/family would be advised that the student files their own taxes and the family no longer claim that student to be a dependent
How does that help someone who isn't 18 and has already graduated high school? They just get left out their first year of college?
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:22 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
How does that help someone who isn't 18 and has already graduated high school? They just get left out their first year of college?
I don't have a good answer for that.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:22 am to LNCHBOX
TOPS was also seen as a way to cut down on the "brain drain", which is that a significant portion of the best and the brightest have been leaving Louisiana for educational and employment opportunities elsewhere.
TOPS was instituted as a mechanism for Louisiana to retain it's own students, thereby an investment in future economic growth.
TOPS was instituted as a mechanism for Louisiana to retain it's own students, thereby an investment in future economic growth.
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:24 am to G Vice
quote:
TOPS was also seen as a way to cut down on the "brain drain", which is that a significant portion of the best and the brightest have been leaving Louisiana for educational and employment opportunities elsewhere.
TOPS was instituted as a mechanism for Louisiana to retain it's own students, thereby an investment in future economic growth.
That's the rationale legislators used to remove the income cap from the law. It was originally a merit and a need based program.
This post was edited on 5/20/15 at 10:25 am
Posted on 5/20/15 at 10:24 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
don't recall its ever having been need-base
The link I posted said that it started with an income cap.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News