Jim Webb (D, Va.) has offered up a bill dishing out a slew of new incentives.
I, as a brand new E-5 with no plans for re-enlisting, am a huge fan of both Sen. Webb and the new Bill.
Comments? Concerns?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I don't really feel like reading it, but am planning on joining in a year. What do I get? :-D
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Looks like jacked up monthly pay, a housing allowance, and some kind of gov't/college partnership to pay your tuition.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Any GI Bill which fails to dispense somewhat close to minimum wage to pay for 4years of fulltime college/etc education for servicemen and ex-servicemen who served during a time of war is insufficient. Any GI Bill which fails to provide perpetual free medical&psychological care for all servicemen and ex-servicemen who served in a war zone is insufficient.
Now to read Webb's proposal...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm okay with raising benefits to make sure that school really is affordable. What with rising college costs, it seems only fair that the benefits also rise to meet it. Though to be honest, I'd much rather there be a bill to reduce the cost of college, rather than a bill raising payouts for college. It just makes it harder for low income students to go to college without serving in the military, which almost looks like they are being forced to if they want to have any hope of paying for higher education. But so long as we tie the promise of a four year education to military service, it only seems fair that it actually be paid for.
I'm less certain about the housing part of it. I'd need to see the details, but if the living expenses part is really that extravagent, then I don't support that part.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think the E-5 married couple housing allowance sounds a bit much but everything else sounds great.
I think the DoD opponent sounds like a dishonest weenie.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nah. That "DoD official", whether DubyaAdministration toady or Pentagon martinet, is being quite honest in expressing his hatred for the idea that regular soldiers ought to have the same opportunities that he did. After all, the only thing he has to prove to himself of his superiority to working grunts is his suit and similar apparel*.
* Which is why civilian-grade Humvees were shipped into Iraq to replace the armored Humvees being sent back to the States during the early part of the Occupation: Heaven forbid some combat troop think that his life is as important as a stateside desk jockey's right to feel important.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:I don't really feel like reading it, but am planning on joining in a year.
Wow, not reading the fine print and planning on enlisting? Every recruiters dream! Posted by Tufel Hunden (Member # 11514) on :
The current GI bill is definitely inadequate compensation for a servicemember to gain a college education, especially when that is such a large draw for many people in their late-teens and early twenties to join the service.
The rate of BAH for a Married E-5 in my homestate of Ma, is around 1500 a month! My girlfriend who attends a state school In Ma pays $5,565 yearly to live in a Dorm Room, and I know that you can Rent a pretty nice apartment for around $1200-$1400 ($1400 being on the high end of merely a nice apartment) near a state school without having to actually hunt. If my understanding of how the new GI bill would work is correct this definitely seems extravegant to me.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If it means we have a chance that more of those coming home will emerge from their military service as college graduates with bright prospects rather than bitter individuals with scars and nightmares, I'm for it. The returning veterans deserve better, and God knows money has been squandered on far more wasteful and foolish things in the last five years, with less to show for it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Having seen military families be crammed into housing much too small for them because they couldn't afford anything big enough, my views on that may be different; I don't think military families should be limited in size because pay and housing allowances aren't high enough. But that may be a regional thing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Having seen military families be crammed into housing much too small for them because they couldn't afford anything big enough, my views on that may be different; I don't think military families should be limited in size because pay and housing allowances aren't high enough. But that may be a regional thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Having seen military families be crammed into housing much too small for them because they couldn't afford anything big enough, my views on that may be different; I don't think military families should be limited in size because pay and housing allowances aren't high enough. But that may be a regional thing.
Isn't that a separate issue from college tuition and related costs? Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that military families shouldn't be penalized for family size, or that family size should be affected by your pay/housing allowance. I'm just wondering how that'd change housing allowances for college students on the GI Bill. I guess my feeling would be that there'd need to be different levels of housing allowances depending on your situation maybe, but I don't know what they'd be, but I don't think a single man or woman getting out would need nearly the same amount as a parent with a couple kids. But then at the same time I wonder if they should get extra money when they get out of the military and into college or if the spouse should get a job to help cover the remaining costs, just like any other family would have to. I'm not sure about that one. But I do think that a flat $1,500 a month, if that's what it is, for housing is too much.
Posted by Tufel Hunden (Member # 11514) on :
It isn't a flat $1500 a month, BAH is dependant upon the living cost of your area but higher ranks get more housing allowance and those with dependants get even higher allowances. If a servicemember actually does have dependants or a spouse they may need the extra money but a blanket rate of a married E-5 would be extravegant for a single servicemember.
I suppose they can't really do a case-by-case benefiet system with the GI bill though, so that rate of allowance should pretty much take care of everyone.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: if the spouse should get a job to help cover the remaining costs, just like any other family would have to.
This is a real problem for military families, for several reasons: 1) For families stationed overseas, the spouse may not even speak the language of the country they are in, making it hard to find employment. 2) The military is often not a 9-5 job. For some families, the spouse in the military can come home and watch the kids for a few hours, while the other spouse heads for their part time job, but if one spouse is gone for several-month deployments, then the childcare costs quickly outweigh the benefits of a job. 3) Military families move around a lot, even stateside, and military spouses don't get to establish their career in any one place, because they have to move before they can get settled. Many employers are hesitant to train someone who may be gone in 6 months or a year.
The government (well, some of them) understand that when you're in the military, your whole family serves their country. That's why there are special provisions for military families.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hank, From what I can tell, Lyr was talking about the spouse of a servicemember going to college, to whom those problems don't really apply.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
On the question of retention, from what was said, the full 4 year package is only available after 36 months of active duty service.
From my quick search, Marines in Iraq serve 7 month tours. Most other units serve 12 months (although that has been extended during the surge). The suggested downtime from a tour is 12 months.
I could be totally off here, but it looks like you'd generally be in for at least 6 years and serve 3 tours of duty to receive the full benefits. At that length of time, I think recruiting is a more important consideration than retention.
---
I'd also expect the DoD, if their plan of making the college payments transferrable goes through, to unleash a PR campaign trying to convince spouses and children to ask for them, thus depriving the service member of an attractive alternative to military service.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Active duty" doesn't refer only to tours. It basically means "not on reserve status."
Edit: this bill might use another definition of "active duty" of course.
Wow, that definitely changes my impression of the bill. I was conflating active duty with being on a tour of duty. I'd have to see some numbers before I could really form an opinion now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Hank, From what I can tell, Lyr was talking about the spouse of a servicemember going to college, to whom those problems don't really apply.
Thanks, that's what I meant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Though to be honest, I'd much rather there be a bill to reduce the cost of college
Never going to happen. And thank goodness -- college costs are very complex, and trying to legislate them down is a horrible idea.
Try convincing students/parents that more expensive schools are not automatically better (studies show that the easiest way for a school to increase both number and quality of applicants is to raise tuition in the neighborhood of 10-20%). Or get the magazines that rate colleges to change how they do it, so raising tuition (and internal aid) doesn't raise a school's score.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Even that doesn't help when the "value" schools start to cost now what the big state schools costed five and ten years ago. I wanted to go to MSU but couldn't afford it when I started school (ages ago), and I ended up at a local, but still very good university that cost less than half as much as MSU did then. The cost at my school has skyrocketed since they, despite getting excellent reviews for their programs, some of which are ranked ahead of MSU and U of M.
I didn't specify that legislation would somehow cap or limit what a university would be able to charge for college (if that's what you assumed I meant), I left it open ended specifically because I don't know all the complexities involved and I don't know which solutions would work best. It could even mean more grant money, or no interest loans for everyone, I don't know, but the costs are out of control.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The more grant money available, and the more below-market interest loans, the higher tuition will get. Now, it shouldn't be enough to offset the benefits of the grants or the loans to those who get them, but it will increase the costs for people unable to receive the grants or loans.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What makes them linked like that?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have read reams of analysis, but none of the suggestions I have seen are realistic.
One of the problems is that, like medical costs, the issue is comparative. Many other costs are not going up as much only because so many things are done partly or entirely by computers. But a computer cannot teach a class, and online classes have limited uses and don't really take all that much less instructor time. I saw a good analysis of that aspect a while back . . .
Grant money has to come from somewhere. Congress has only just increased Pell (and not all that much) for the first two years in a long time. Zero-interest loans are unlikely, even if we shift entirely from FFELP to Direct Loans (which is a bad idea, and something the current infrastructure absolutely cannot handle). The current low-interest loans are expensive enough.
Don't get me wrong. I would be thrilled if Congress increased Pell, increased Stafford maximums, and for good measure killed the horrible new TEACH "grants" and the ridiculously resource-intensive ACG and SMART Grants and just used that money to fund the Pell and Stafford increases.
It just seems unlikely.
And don't even get me started on my state's governor and the horrible things he's doing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
fugu, EVERYONE (well, assuming US citizenship or eligible non-citizen status) is eligible for unsubsidized Stafford loans.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What is costing more though? When I think about what it actually costs to have a university, I mean there're buildings, upkeep and maintenance to keep them running, maybe some construction to rennovate or build new things, and professor salaries. What has changed about those costs that has made tuition jump by double digit percentages in the last half decade every year (at least, that's how it is in Michigan)?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What makes them linked like that?
Short answer: if the money is available, many schools will take advantage of it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What is costing more though? When I think about what it actually costs to have a university, I mean there're buildings, upkeep and maintenance to keep them running, maybe some construction to rennovate or build new things, and professor salaries. What has changed about those costs that has made tuition jump by double digit percentages in the last half decade every year (at least, that's how it is in Michigan)?
Necessary construction. (Many schools are building, retrofitting for earthquakes or other issues, fixing old or outdated buildings.)
Students expect a lot more "value added" items -- new computers, broadband internet, cutting-edge labs, smart classrooms, etc.
Subsidizing internal aid. Many states have cut back on subsidizing state schools by huge percentages. So have quite a few private scholarship sources.
More non-traditional students, ESL students, students with special needs. They need support systems, and those cost money.
Last but not least, Congress, in their infinite wisdom, has made federal financial aid more convoluted and complex every year. Schools therefore need more personnel in their financial aid, compliance, research, and legal offices.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I should say, those who cannot or do not receive the grants or loans.
And rivka has the cause right. If the cost is cheaper for students, quantity demanded will go up. Since the cost for the schools does not go down, in order to meet the higher quantity demanded, they charge more per person.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Necessary construction. (Many schools are building, retrofitting for earthquakes or other issues, fixing old or outdated buildings.)
Under Construction, Like Always?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I should say, those who cannot or do not receive the grants or loans.
That works.
*refrains from responding to having another button pushed* Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Necessary construction. (Many schools are building, retrofitting for earthquakes or other issues, fixing old or outdated buildings.)
Under Construction, Like Always?
Yup. I believe there was one quarter in my senior year that I did not have to detour around construction to get to any of my classes. And the library had just been fully reopened.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
O-1 housing in San Diego is over 2k a month without a spouse. Nice.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Since I'm all for 100% socialized medicine in the US, I think that all service personnel should get that benefit.
Since I'm also for 100% free education, I agree that all service people should have their education paid for as well.
As an incentive to recruitment, having those benefits accrue to military personnel when the rest of society does not get them is probably a good idea -- if our goal is to increase recruitment.
It basically means that more people who can't find another way to fund their education or healthcare (or whatever other benefits are in the overall package) will find this option attractive.
Of course, there are those who would join no matter what. But the question isn't whether those folks would join anyway, but how many other folks who would otherwise just join the stateside labor pool will be convinced by this package that they should join the military.
Ultimately, I think it's preying on the economically disadvantaged, but I also believe that people who join the military get a raw deal now and we should support efforts to improve it. Subsidized health care, subsidized education, all sorts of Socialistic ideas like those. I'm for all of them! And, seriously, let's make sure those systems work, and work well, so we can use them to model programs for the rest of the people in the US.
I learned recently that enlistees have to pay for their own uniforms (except the 1st one -- or was it one-per-year? I forget). I think that's appalling. If you are expected to put your life on the line, the least we can do is make sure it doesn't cost you money to do so. That's insane.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I should say, those who cannot or do not receive the grants or loans.
And rivka has the cause right. If the cost is cheaper for students, quantity demanded will go up. Since the cost for the schools does not go down, in order to meet the higher quantity demanded, they charge more per person.
Isn't that a basic supply and demand argument?
How does that work when the number of students that can be taught is FIXED? I've always thought that supply/demand had something to do with, you know, supply. In this case the supply, the number of slots for students, doesn't go up or down based on demand.
Raising ACADEMIC standards as a result, now that makes sense, but cost wise? That has nothing to do with demand, it's just a money grab.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: How does that work when the number of students that can be taught is FIXED?
It is?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're saying all schools have an unlimited amount of space to accept as many kids as they want, regardless of the number of applicants?
Off the top of my head, I know this isn't the case for any of the schools I applied to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Unlimited? No. Completely fixed? Also no.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: O-1 housing in San Diego is over 2k a month without a spouse. Nice.
Yeah, and renting in a decent part of San Diego that will just about pay for a decent 1-bedroom and maybe cover your utilities.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Unlimited? No. Completely fixed? Also no.
Alright, but there's a fixed limit isn't there? At point at which they don't have any more availability? Obviously there is, or else everyone that wants to go to Harvard and could afford it WOULD go to Harvard.
I think you hit on the biggest reasons, one that I'd forgotten, earlier, when you were talking about state funding dropping for state schools. In Michigan especially funds are being slashed left and right for state schools, which is probably one of the biggest reasons for tuition increases. My tax dollars hard at work.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Unlimited? No. Completely fixed? Also no.
Alright, but there's a fixed limit isn't there? At point at which they don't have any more availability? Obviously there is, or else everyone that wants to go to Harvard and could afford it WOULD go to Harvard.
As long as the number (and it needn't be the number at every school, just some) is flexible, it will respond to greater demand.
And there are plenty of schools that would happily increase their incoming class by 5-10% in any given year. Some would take lots more.
Posted by Dionysus (Member # 11521) on :
"I learned recently that enlistees have to pay for their own uniforms (except the 1st one -- or was it one-per-year? I forget). I think that's appalling. If you are expected to put your life on the line, the least we can do is make sure it doesn't cost you money to do so. That's insane."
That's wrong. The navy, at least, gives men an initial 1200 for clothes and about 450 annually.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When my brother was in the Marines, they provided his basic fatigues and his regular uniform. If he wanted to buy a dress uniform and the saber or what not extra, he'd have to pay for it by himself, which he did, but it did nothing to impair his ability to be dressed for his job or do his job.
rivka, I'll take that as a yes. But every school is different I guess.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The number of students is fixed? Strange, as most of the large and academically prestigious schools increase their freshman class size annually. They build new buildings, find new ways to fit students in old buildings, and guarantee housing to fewer upperclassmen (who find it in the community).
Also, quantity demanded can mean the resources available to students, too. Hiring more prestigious professors is a way to increase one's 'supply of education'.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
One of the most experienced players in the financial aid field, who owns and runs finaid.com (and several other sites) says:
quote:I disagree with the contention that increasing loan limits will yield higher tuition. Tuition increases regardless of the amount of federal student aid. Limiting federal student aid forces students to borrow from non-federal sources and also limits access to higher education.
Aggregate limits on the Stafford loan have remained unchanged since 1992 and there were four years of no increase in the maximum Pell Grant, yet tuition continued to increase at the usual pace. The main concern is that for-profit institutions might increase tuition in uncontrolled fashion. After all, mean per-capita education debt at for-profit institutions is 30% (4-year) to 50% (2-year) higher than at non-profit institutions. But keep in mind that the 90-10 rule prevents for-profit colleges from increasing tuition too much. Also, increasing federal loan limits will shift borrowing from private to federal loans, making it more difficult for for-profit colleges to comply with the 90-10 rule.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This is supporting the troops, far more than supporting the war is supporting the troops.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think he is misunderstanding. I don't think that increases in financial aid are the only, or even the primary, reason for increases in tuition.
But they will lead to increased tuition, and nothing he mentioned is evidence otherwise. In particular, it isn't only gov't aid; the increased availability of credit to students and parents through various private education loans probably contributed fairly significantly (again, not necessarily the primary cause) to increases in tuition over the past decade or so.
The interplay with the 90-10 rule would be interesting to analyze; I wonder what the distribution of non-federal funding is for schools, particularly covariance with school size.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Russell, he was not responding to you. The quote is from another discussion; I should have indicated that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, gotcha. Most of my post still applies, of course.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you really think that the availability of credit is a primary factor, Russell? I was thinking that this particular phenomenon is more demand-driven, now that it's considered impossible to get a job without a college degree.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: I don't think that increases in financial aid are the only, or even the primary, reason for increases in tuition.
Got it covered
For no particular reason, I suspect the impact of credit/grant availability on tuition is perhaps five to ten percent of recent tuition increases (not of tuition, of tuition increases) at most schools, as an upper limit.
At prestigious schools, I expect it is higher, perhaps much higher. Top ten (to twenty) schools provide copious financial aid to many of their applicants, and soak those who can afford it. I've heard from administrators at two highly ranked schools that this idea has had an impact on tuition decisions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But that "copious financial aid" is primarily internal aid, and therefore depends very little on federal/state aid maximums.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
I'd just like to see improvements in the financial aid system, period. I get $5,000 a year in Pell Grants. That might sound okay, if I were going to a school that cost $15,000 a year, or less. That'd be a third to a half of my costs. However, I go to a school that costs nearly $30,000 a year to attend. Why? Because it's a pretty good school, at out-of-state rates. Now, on top of that, because my family technically lives below the poverty line, I can get about an extra $9,000 in subsidized Stafford loans. However, that still leaves me about $15,000 short. That $15k is made up for in more loans...that are on my parents, not me. That have to be repaid immediately, and are not deferred until the end of my college career.
Did I mention that my parents live below the poverty line? Which, y'know, makes paying off $15,000 in loans pretty hard.
So, basically, I have to choose between going to a good school and making life hard for my parents, or going to a crappy school in the state that I wanted to get away from. If my parents weren't willing to take the financial risk of those loans, I wouldn't be able to go to a good college at ALL. The system's broke, and no one seems to want to spend the money to fix it. Scholarships really don't pick up the slack, when most that I've seen either have insane competition, or pay about $500 per scholarship. Most of the school-sponsored scholarships, I can't even apply for. Why? Because I'm homeschooled. I have no GPA, no official transcripts, nothing.
And that's just the normal person's situation. If you join the military and put your life on the line for your country, so that you can someday get an education? Hell, I think that the government should swallow the bill if that soldier wanted to go to Harvard. And then they can fix it for the rest of us.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pell maximum is $4310 this year. Stafford (sub) maximum for freshman is $3500, not $9000! I'm guessing you must mean Perkins loans for the rest; unless it's the increased (unsubsidized) Stafford for students whose parents don't qualify for PLUS loans, but that seems inconsistent with what you said about them taking out loans.
How is a family below the poverty line qualifying for PLUS loans anyway? Or are they paying on private loans?
Have you discussed your situation with your college's financial aid advisor(s)? They may be able to help you find other options.
OTOH, as a taxpayer I object to the implication that you should be getting more money from the government. There are plenty of good schools that cost considerably less than $30,000 per year. While I would like to see Pell and Stafford maximums go up, there will always be schools out of any given student's price reach. That is a fact of life.
As for scholarships and no GPA, those requirements vary greatly. However, some scholarships will accept a grade on the GED in lieu of a GPA.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Perkins loans, that's right. Duh. I have a hard time keeping track of all of this stuff. As for the PLUS loans, I've got no idea. But it was heavily implied that my parents BEING poor is what gained them qualification for the PLUS loans. *shrugs* I don't know the rules, I just know that it's messed up.
I tried to talk to them about it. *shrugs* They said to do the federal stuff. So I did. I filled out the FAFSA, all that. That's pretty much all they tell you to do.
I also wasn't aware that $30,000 a year was an unreasonable price, if going out of state. I was led to believe that pretty much any good college that's out of state will be somewhere between $30k-$70k a year, and that a good in-state college started at about $15,000.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I just don't understand why university costs so much in the States. I was paying roughly $6000CDN for a year, including co-op fees and incidentals. I pay just over 9000 pounds in the UK, and that is the international student rate (home rate is around 3000 pounds). What makes US tuition so absurdly expensive?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The absurdly high quality of our education, no doubt.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: As for the PLUS loans, I've got no idea. But it was heavily implied that my parents BEING poor is what gained them qualification for the PLUS loans.
Highly unlikely. Unlike student loans, for PLUS loans lenders are allowed to look at certain aspects of the borrowers credit history. FAOs can also look at the parents' ability to repay and get the student additional (unsub) Stafford instead (up to that maximum).
quote:Originally posted by Human: I don't know the rules, I just know that it's messed up.
Might I suggest that before you push for changes, you do a little more research on how the system actually works? There are a ridiculous number of resources out there, and I'd be happy to recommend some.
quote:Originally posted by Human: I tried to talk to them about it. *shrugs* They said to do the federal stuff. So I did. I filled out the FAFSA, all that. That's pretty much all they tell you to do.
Again, doubtful. In most FA offices, that's what they insist you do first -- which is as it should be. But if you came back after that and asked about options, talked about your family situation, you should get more specific advice. I'm guessing that -- like 97% of students -- you did not do that.
It's not their job to chase after you.
Ask about private loans, if you don't want your parents to have a PLUS. What about work study? If you're getting full Pell and have large need, why aren't you getting any FSEOG, or did your school run out before you applied?
quote:Originally posted by Human: I also wasn't aware that $30,000 a year was an unreasonable price, if going out of state. I was led to believe that pretty much any good college that's out of state will be somewhere between $30k-$70k a year, and that a good in-state college started at about $15,000.
I have no idea where you're getting these numbers from, or what definition of "good" is being used.
Also, according to your school's website, out-of-state tuition for 2007-8 is about $15,000. I realize you have dorm fees, books, etc., but $30,000 is still rather high given that tuition.
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I just don't understand why university costs so much in the States.
1) In both Canada and the UK, university costs are directly subsidized to a large degree by the government -- that is not true here, and has not been for quite some time. Most states have made additional cuts in the past 5-10 years.
2) There is a tendency among students, parents, and the magazines which rate colleges to assume that the higher the tuition, the better the school. Studies have shown that the single thing a private college can do that most directly results in more applicants -- with better average GPAs and SAT scores -- is to raise tuition 5-10%.
If it costs more, it must be a better school, right?
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Rivka: I'm aware of the fact that PLUS loans actually look at credit history and all that. I don't know why my parents qualified or anything about that because I left the dealings with that to my parents. All I know is that they were a great source of concern to them.
I do have work-study--which is why I'm not completely broke. But that doesn't pay out into my tuition, that pays out to me, and then I get to use the money at my discretion. Also, what's an FSEOG?
Finally, the reason why it's nearly $30,000 a year--I say nearly because I admit I'm rounding up by about $2,500 dollars--is that my dorm fees are nearly $10,000, from what I recall, stacked with some other fees and bits of tuition. It all racks up to about $27,500 a year.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Work-study never pays into a student's account. That would be illegal. Many students turn right around and use the money to pay tuition or other fees, though.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Huh. I didn't even know that there WERE such things as FSEOG awards.
My main point with my first post was not to complain about my situation--well, not too much, anyway. I just think that if the civilian situation is complicated and not always functional, then it should be better, not worse, for soldiers.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: I just think that if the civilian situation is complicated and not always functional, then it should be better, not worse, for soldiers.
That I agree with.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
What steered me towards the article originally was that I'm getting out in September '09 and I have to apply to, be accepted by, and figure out how to pay for college pretty darn soon. So far I'm having trouble figuring out how to do any of the three.
If the GI Bill changes at all, it'll be right in time to confuse the oh-so-helpful VA bureaucracy when I come around asking for the payout. My phone's going to get stuck to my ear.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)