Answer to TOPS Funding: Lower Minimum ACT

How does giving away more free money help in funding?

Should be raised to 25.

quote:

---

Should be raised to 25.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Wow, I assumed the minimum would be around 20.

---

I would have thought so as well.

Now, maybe TOPS has some sort of sliding scale like college admissions? Meaning the only way you can qualify for TOPS with the minimum of 17 is if your GPA is really high...3.5 or greater?

However, I while I know some students just aren't good standardized test-takers, I'd have to question the legitimacy of a school where a student makes a 3.5 but only 17 ACT, minus any obvious disability that would hender standardized test-taking.

(no message)

quote:

---

Should be raised to at least 20.

---

should be increased to the 23-25 range, scaling depending on your High School GPA...

Because he made a 16 on the test when he was in high school. Stupid is something that can't be fixed under the best of circumstances. A friend in high school made a 7 on it. That grade was for filling out the test sheet for his name and nothing else.

I made a 23 in the 7th grade. Granted, I'm the exception, but if you have five additional grades of schooling you should be able to pull out a 17. If you can't, school isn't for you and the taxpayers shouldn't subsidize your education. Your talents lie elsewhere, and there is no shame in that. But an investment of taxpayer money shouldn't go to an asset from which you will see no return.

More to the point of the thread, should we use a scarce resource (TOPS funding) to reward the academically inclined or to ensure greater access to secondary education for all? Before you adjust the TOPS budget, you need to clearly define the point of the program. If it's the latter, then maybe there should be a cap on the ACT score and the assumption should be that high-performing students will have access to other sources of educational funding.