infinity ag said:

---

titan said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Not fair, but good for society as long as those students are majoring in something useful.

---

"Women's Studies"?
"Black Studies"?
"History or art"?

---

None of those including the last are directly useful. An argument can be made that they should not be subsidized. You could say subsidizing should go toward making one capable of then generating their own tuition pay-offs, so asking those who are having to pay all like the OP, any should go to useful, rather than aesthetic fields.

---

People are free to do majors like this if they have the interest, but not expect others to pay for them. These are hobby majors. I also like to study history but I know it does not pay the bills. If I want to do a PhD in ancient Greece, it should be on my own dime.

---

Agreed. Your sentiment is what had in mind, and you said it better. Absolutely correct about the bills.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

If your kid isn't smart enough to get scholarships, you can either pay, or he can take out debt, or he can be a plumber.

Not sure why tax dollars should be used for any of this

---

Join the military......get the G.I. bill......works perfectly,

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Is it a fair program?

Just pondering as I hit the "Pay" button for the entire amount minus some merit scholarship amount for my sons next quarter tuition and fees at a state school where the system provides need based aid to over 70% of the students.

Some of us work harder, save more and pay more in taxes get to pay tuition and fees in full while more than half the students are subsidized.

---

It's not fair. And it creates a giant financial burden for most of the people who are disqualified from receiving it.

Like most subsidies, it punishes success.

Viper16 said:

---

itsyourboypookie said:

---

If your kid isn't smart enough to get scholarships, you can either pay, or he can take out debt, or he can be a plumber.

Not sure why tax dollars should be used for any of this

---

Join the military......get the G.I. bill......works perfectly,

---

That's sounds perfect for those receiving free need based aid.

pfo said:

---

Scholarships should be based solely on merit as judged by standardized test scores and grades.

Who's the smartest and who works the hardest is the right formula for our capitalist country to produce the best results.

And I agree that STEM majors should get the scholarships and crap majors should be paid for 100% by the student.

---

apply the same ideas towards financial need, but change the name to societal need

What do people think about race/gender based admits and scholarships? Or should it be based on ability to pay only?

I feel it is unfair for a white or asian kid from a well-to-do family who worked very very hard to get top grades and 1600 SAT be not considered for a top school like Harvard or Stanford, while a black kid from a ghetto with average grades be admitted.

Let the black kid get a free education from a community college or a state school but not a highly sought after school like Harvard, MIT, Stanford. One's ghetto-background is not a qualification.

Every 1-2 years there is a CNN article on a kid who got into 'all Ivy league schools". Even before I click the link, I know all about the story. I can predict that it is a black or Latino kid (more likely a female), and not a white/asian kid. Why is this? Seems very unfair to me. The poor kid who gets in with lower grades is also called a DEI candidate all his life. Other kids of his race who get into places the hard way are also tainted by the DEI slur when they should not be.
Note: There are some exception cases to the above but usually it is some DEI situation.


Read the comments.

At a minimum they should be able to meet the grade expectations, regardless if have vast money or zero.

The grade level should not be lowered to admit. That just the starting point.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

As soon as those criteria include parent's financial wellbeing, the system is flawed.

Why should the student's parents' financials have anything to do with it?

College offers education for ADULTS and as adults, they are ultimately responsible much like their own medical bills.

---

Totally agree. Parents don't have any responsibility for their adult children's education.

I chose to pay for my kids college, but that was 100% a choice, not an obligation.

---

I'm doing the same now to the extent that our kids can't earn enough through the summer. We are doing this so long as they are invested and diligent so they can get the full experience and not have to work like we did to pay for ours.
One is a Junior on Squadron 23 of the Corps currently and the other is a sophomore at OSU. The one in the Corps is getting a great experience.
They both know that a degree from a university is adults and not something we owe them. It's working well I think.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Is it a fair program?

Just pondering as I hit the "Pay" button for the entire amount minus some merit scholarship amount for my sons next quarter tuition and fees at a state school where the system provides need based aid to over 70% of the students.

Some of us work harder, save more and pay more in taxes get to pay tuition and fees in full while more than half the students are subsidized.

---

I've experienced multiple sides of the situation.

When I was in high school we were dirt poor. I had an older brother already in college. I got a small scholarship from the Houston Rodeo and that was it for financial aid. I got nothing from A&M. I applied for another scholarship and was a finalist, but it went to a girl whose parents were loaded. I thought that sucked at the time, because I really needed it. I also couldn't get student loans, so I graduated with a pile of high interest credit card debt that took me many years to get paid off.

When my oldest was born, my wife went to the bank and started a college fund the day after we brought him home from the hospital. We doubled the monthly contribution when the second kid was born, and kept it going every month for 25 years. Neither kid received a penny of aid from A&M. My daughter had the valedictorian scholarship to cover the first year, and that was it. Both kids also got part time jobs and worked while in school. They both graduated debt free with money still in savings, which is something we are all very proud of.

In the time in between I started a business and it was very successful. We wanted to give something back to the community, so we started giving a scholarship every year to a local senior. And I remembered how bad it sucked to see a girl whose daddy drove a Porsche get a scholarship over me, when I couldn't afford lunch.

And I told the scholarship committee to make it needs based because I didn't want to pass over a kid who needed it, in favor of a kid who already has it.

So it sucked to be a poor kid missing out on scholarship money that went to wealthy kids.

It also sucked to watch my kids get passed over for everything because of my income level. At high school graduation they announce all the scholarship offers and total amounts, and my kids had pretty much nothing, in spite of being top students. They didn't realize it was my income and not their academics that made them be passed over.

So basically, it sucks from both sides.

infinity ag said:

---

What do people think about race/gender based admits and scholarships? Or should it be based on ability to pay only?

I feel it is unfair for a white or asian kid from a well-to-do family who worked very very hard to get top grades and 1600 SAT be not considered for a top school like Harvard or Stanford, while a black kid from a ghetto with average grades be admitted.

Let the black kid get a free education from a community college or a state school but not a highly sought after school like Harvard, MIT, Stanford. One's ghetto-background is not a qualification.

Every 1-2 years there is a CNN article on a kid who got into 'all Ivy league schools". Even before I click the link, I know all about the story. I can predict that it is a black or Latino kid (more likely a female), and not a white/asian kid. Why is this? Seems very unfair to me. The poor kid who gets in with lower grades is also called a DEI candidate all his life. Other kids of his race who get into places the hard way are also tainted by the DEI slur when they should not be.
Note: There are some exception cases to the above but usually it is some DEI situation.


Read the comments.

---

Supreme Court already declared affirmative action illegal. So has the state of California. But they get around this by using socioecomic hardship score to continue the affirmative action like admission criteria.

The "All 8 Ivy Club". In recent years it is all female or non-white.
You can see the trend.

https://theivyinst.org/students-accepted-to-all-eight-ivy-league-schools

I couldn't find a single Indian kid in the list, and we know Indians are obsessed with Ivy League Schools.

infinity ag said:

---

The "All 8 Ivy Club". In recent years it is all female or non-white.
You can see the trend.

https://theivyinst.org/students-accepted-to-all-eight-ivy-league-schools

I couldn't find a single Indian kid in the list, and we know Indians are obsessed with Ivy League Schools.

---

nm

infinity ag said:

---

What do people think about race/gender based admits and scholarships? Or should it be based on ability to pay only?

I feel it is unfair for a white or asian kid from a well-to-do family who worked very very hard to get top grades and 1600 SAT be not considered for a top school like Harvard or Stanford, while a black kid from a ghetto with average grades be admitted.

Let the black kid get a free education from a community college or a state school but not a highly sought after school like Harvard, MIT, Stanford. One's ghetto-background is not a qualification.

Every 1-2 years there is a CNN article on a kid who got into 'all Ivy league schools". Even before I click the link, I know all about the story. I can predict that it is a black or Latino kid (more likely a female), and not a white/asian kid. Why is this? Seems very unfair to me. The poor kid who gets in with lower grades is also called a DEI candidate all his life. Other kids of his race who get into places the hard way are also tainted by the DEI slur when they should not be.
Note: There are some exception cases to the above but usually it is some DEI situation.


Read the comments.

---

Racial preferences in admissions due to a desire for "diversity" that have existed for almost 2 generations. The ugly truth is that racial groups (not individuals) have different median IQs that distribute fairly consistently along the bell curve.

I'll give the example that I have personally experienced, which is law school. You generally need around a 170 IQ to be competitive for the T14 (read historically elite) law schools. There are generally around a dozen (12) black male applicants that score a 170+ annually. The are generally around 4500 students admitted to the T14 schools annually. Blacks usually make up the second largest group, behind whites, that take the LSAT every year.

Do you see the problem? Finding a black male student at a T14 law school would be like spotting a unicorn if the entire admissions process was merit based.

So they discriminate against whites and asians and have for decades.

Wealth redistribution

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

What do people think about race/gender based admits and scholarships? Or should it be based on ability to pay only?

I feel it is unfair for a white or asian kid from a well-to-do family who worked very very hard to get top grades and 1600 SAT be not considered for a top school like Harvard or Stanford, while a black kid from a ghetto with average grades be admitted.

Let the black kid get a free education from a community college or a state school but not a highly sought after school like Harvard, MIT, Stanford. One's ghetto-background is not a qualification.

Every 1-2 years there is a CNN article on a kid who got into 'all Ivy league schools". Even before I click the link, I know all about the story. I can predict that it is a black or Latino kid (more likely a female), and not a white/asian kid. Why is this? Seems very unfair to me. The poor kid who gets in with lower grades is also called a DEI candidate all his life. Other kids of his race who get into places the hard way are also tainted by the DEI slur when they should not be.
Note: There are some exception cases to the above but usually it is some DEI situation.


Read the comments.

---

Racial preferences in admissions due to a desire for "diversity" that have existed for almost 2 generations. The ugly truth is that racial groups (not individuals) have different median IQs that distribute fairly consistently along the bell curve.

I'll give the example that I have personally experienced, which is law school. You generally need around a 170 IQ to be competitive for the T14 (read historically elite) law schools. There are generally around a dozen (12) black male applicants that score a 170+ annually. The are generally around 4500 students admitted to the T14 schools annually. Blacks usually make up the second largest group, behind whites, that take the LSAT every year.

Do you see the problem? Finding a black male student at a T14 law school would be like spotting a unicorn if the entire admissions process was merit based.

So they discriminate against whites and asians and have for decades.

---

I think you meant 170+ LSAT.

I saw my daughter struggle with 174 LSAT and 3.9 GPA while many Under Represented Minority status students were getting into top 3, Harvard Yale and Stanford easily at least as it appeared. Daughter did go to a T14 Ivy Law and now she's working in NYC. Seems like against all odds.

LoL. Yes LSAT.

I had a 3.89 with a 170 and ended up at Georgetown with a 1/2 ride.

I would have skated into Yale, Harvard, or Stanford on a full ride if I had been black or brown. Most of my black classmates had low 160s and even some high 150s LSATs.

For whatever reason, the T14s have made a conscious decision that having only 30 or so black students amongst the 4500 T14 law school enrollees every year is not ok and have boosted them accordingly.

Then they also get minority-only On-Campus interviews (OCI) for those coveted BigLaw 2L summer spots.

I summered at a big firm, got my offer, but hated it.