- 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
LA Higher Ed board troubled by number of TOPS recipients from millionaire households
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:21 pm
quote:
Louisiana Board of Regents members said it was “very troubling and disappointing” to find out that over the last 10 years, TOPS funding paid the college tuition for more than 11,000 Louisiana students whose parents had an income of $1 million or more.
In a report to the board Wednesday, Susannah Craig, deputy commissioner for academic affairs, said the scholarship program has funded the tuition of more than 11,000 students from millionaire households over the past decade.
Board member Collis Temple III asked if “there was a way to put a cap on income” for TOPS recipients.
“I’m in a fortunate situation… My children will probably qualify for TOPS when the opportunity presents itself, but I wouldn’t mind saying ‘You know what? They earned it, but I’m still going to pay (their tuition) if they decide to stay in state because that money can go to somebody else,’” Temple said.
“Am I crazy for that?” he said.
LINK /
Well, for the first time in maybe ever, looks like I agreed with Jan Moller on one thing. If TOPS is supposed to be merit, definitely need to raise the academic requirements. Of course, he then went into the argument about how and why ACT scores should be eliminated.
This post was edited on 10/22/21 at 2:08 pm
68
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:23 pm to ragincajun03
What about the thousands of minority scholarships that exist? Don’t see any white folk complaining about that
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:23 pm to ragincajun03
Nb4racism
Second post and already too late
Second post and already too late
This post was edited on 10/22/21 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:24 pm to ragincajun03
Something, something...I wish people could be judged on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:25 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
Board member Collis Temple III
Frick these Temple idiots. slumlords. Done worse to this community on the backs of the poor and the poor neighborhoods in town. Lives in a $5 million house. Just shut the frick up already.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:25 pm to El Segundo Guy
Collis Temple needs to STFU and worry about the people that are getting iced in the parking lots of his fine business establishments.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:25 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
If TOPS is supposed to be merit, definitely need to raise the academic requirements
There is a TOPS Honors award that gives some extra money above tuition, requires a 27 or higher and a 3.5. But I agree, the basic award requirements are entirely too low
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:29 pm to ragincajun03
This dude is just 100% ignoring PELL programs, which is needs-based and supplements the difference in tuition not covered by TOPS. As a bonus the state doesn't have to pay for it.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:29 pm to ragincajun03
A) I’m quite surprised there are that many students going to LA colleges with household incomes of $1MM or more.
B) The ACT is the best single factor for predicting college success and nothing about your son who is an engineer with a 16 on the ACT changes that.
C) the original intent of the program was needs-based, but as long as they keep it merit-based, they shouldn’t have a cap.
D) the merit needs to go up
Eta- I confused Taylor’s Kids with the original TOPS in part C.
B) The ACT is the best single factor for predicting college success and nothing about your son who is an engineer with a 16 on the ACT changes that.
C) the original intent of the program was needs-based, but as long as they keep it merit-based, they shouldn’t have a cap.
D) the merit needs to go up
Eta- I confused Taylor’s Kids with the original TOPS in part C.
This post was edited on 10/22/21 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:30 pm to OldManRiver
They tried to raise the requirements in the past, but a certain group of legislators blocked it since they thought it would disproportionately affect the lower income group.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:30 pm to ragincajun03
Wow hat started out as a vehicle to help more kids go to college is turning into a vehicle to punish smart kids from middle to upper middle class households.
frick Louisiana, man.
frick Louisiana, man.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:32 pm to TDsngumbo
quote:
middle to upper middle class households.
Does not equal $1MM in income.
Middle and upper middle class households seem to be okay for now, but I get your drift.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:32 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
would also make scholarship distribution more equitable.
How bout the kids who don’t do well on the ACT now, actually study and raise their scores ? That’s a better way to have more equitable distribution.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:33 pm to ragincajun03
Temple so full of shite. Would back door some payment while fronting he is paying. Piece of shite.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:33 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
getting rid of the ACT requirement
Good in principle but not good in reality.
A 3.0 at a large private or parochial school in most cases is not the same as a 3.0 at a small rural public school.
Get ready for GPA inflation if the ACT requirement is removed.
That is why the ACT was part of the deal in the first place. It shows whether you really did make legitimate As/Bs/Cs in high school and are likely to succeed in college so that the TOPS funds are not spent on someone who will not be able to get a degree.
This post was edited on 10/22/21 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:35 pm to ragincajun03
They should make tops more difficult to receive. It will never happen because even less of the students who "need" it would receive it. The reality is, as of now, if you don't qualify for TOPS, you should not go to college. WAYYYY to easy to receive.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:36 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
Moller said getting rid of the ACT requirement — which he said has racial and socioeconomic disparities since wealthier students can pay for tutors or take the standardized test multiple times — would also make scholarship distribution more equitable.
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:39 pm to ragincajun03
How can I get me some of them Go Grants?
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:39 pm to slackster
quote:
middle to upper middle class households.
Does not equal $1MM in income
I disagree. Most parents with college age kids are in their mid 40s or so and it’s not all that uncommon for most people nowadays to have around ~$1M in assets by then. Assuming they’ve been contributing ~10-15% to a 401k since their mid 20s.
This post was edited on 10/22/21 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 10/22/21 at 1:40 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
“I’m in a fortunate situation… My children will probably qualify for TOPS when the opportunity presents itself, but I wouldn’t mind saying ‘You know what? They earned it, but I’m still going to pay (their tuition) if they decide to stay in state because that money can go to somebody else,’” Temple said.
“Am I crazy for that?” he said.
No, but just because you want to pay for something you're getting for free doesn't mean you should make everyone else do so.
quote:
“The problem with TOPS is that it’s a merit-based program that doesn’t require an awful lot of merit,” he said. “If you want to make it truly merit based, you could raise the GPA requirement.”
This would have the exact opposite effect of what they are trying to do.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News