Quote:
Originally posted by Betarulz!
They'll tout this around, saying that they helped numerous students get to college who otherwise couldn't by upping the amount given out in grants. Great, I'm all for that, I'm definitely in support of increasing the amount of grants available.
But in order to do this they cut loans, leaving a significant number of students unable to pay for college or graduate school. Obviously a bad thing. And so much for helping middle class Americans deal with the rising costs of tuition...this just doesn't make sense.
|
This is simply a narrow viewpoint. Increasing grants does exactly what the student loan program was intended to do - allow the underprivileged the opportunity to attend college at a reduced cost - and it does this better than loans. Up to this point, loan programs have been fleecing the government, all the while allowing people to write off the interest.
Also - it's not like loans will suddenly disappear. Many, many competitive loan programs can be found through private banking, and maybe eliminating the government fat from these programs will lead to positive competition. It's certainly worth exploring, considering the extreme waste in these programs currently.
Quote:
Originally posted by Betarulz!
I don't think that simply switching around who gets the money helps the collective at all. It's seriously just a one in/one out type of deal.
|
Using this logic, it also doesn't hurt the collective, no? And if the net result is increased efficiency, then you've helped the collective indirectly.
Let's not even stray into the 'how many people actually need loan programs, and would benefit from paying directly?' argument . . .