The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Arizona: College is only for the rich and athletes
Kyougu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46487781/ns/local_news-phoenix_az/#.T0aJ6vEgdbk
So basically Arizona students will now have to pay 2k extra (which won't be covered by financial aid unless they apply for it separately). Athletes are except.
Anyone find this a huge problem? I lived at home when I was going to college, and I think scrunging up 2k extra to pay for school would have really been hard. And I worked a full shift.
Students at Arizona's three state universities will have to pay -- or borrow -- at least $2,000 a year to get an education under terms of legislation approved by a House panel today.
Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said students should have some "skin in the game.'' He said students will take their schooling more seriously and be less likely to drop out if they have made an investment.
"I really believe that when something is given to you, you don't have the appreciation of having put in some work,'' agreed Rep. John Fillmore, R-Apache Junction.
He said $2,000 out of $9,000 annual tuition is not that big a deal. Even with books and fees, Kavanagh said that adds only another $1,500 a year.
So basically Arizona students will now have to pay 2k extra (which won't be covered by financial aid unless they apply for it separately). Athletes are except.
Anyone find this a huge problem? I lived at home when I was going to college, and I think scrunging up 2k extra to pay for school would have really been hard. And I worked a full shift.
Kyougu on
0
Posts
Whattttt.
They are just adding an extra 2k to all tuition on the board, just because?
No, it means that at least $2000 of your tuition has to come from non-needs-based scholarships or grants.
Say you pay $2k in cash and $7k in needs-based scholarships. That's okay.
$2k in merit-based scholarships and $7k in needs-based scholarships. That's okay too.
$2k in loans and $7k in needs-based scholarships. That's okay too.
$1k in loans and $8k in needs-based scholarships? Not okay. You need to take out $1k more debt to go to school.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So basically, fuck off.
Now, $2,000 isn't that bad. If all you have to take out to get a BA is $14,000 that's really nothing. But on the other hand, what makes athletes so special that they shouldn't have some skin in the game, too?
What this amounts to is a $2K tax on students for the sole purpose of making those students pay more money. Which is pretty much bullshit.
It's an extra $2,000 for anybody receiving Federal Student Aid, and it can't be paid for with scholarship or grant money.
Athletes don't have to worry about it.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Holy shit, what an asshole
Kavanaugh's quote:
...reminds me of this: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/22/394647/schwarzman-skin-in-the-game
It is a way of justifying flagrantly regressive policies.
It seems to reflect the idea that poor people aren't invested in society because they're not paying enough money. No, they're not invested in society because we're not investing them. Social involvement is mutual.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yehp
And that they care more about the colour of said skin then anything else.
Scottsdale, AZ., everyone!
I could kind of see the point if they were cutting need based scholarships, while increasing academic scholarships for low income students, because well, it's pretty fucked up if you're getting a free ride and carrying a 2.2 in Communications, but this is just a myopic dick move.
Thing is, what is there to sue over?
Arguably students who have full ride scholarships now might have standing to get their contracts honored, but states retain the power to set any tuition level they want.
This isn't about money. It's a tactic to keep poor & middle class people from having good educations.
I just can't get over the gall over the people quote on this.
By the time they've finished trying to argue why they have the right to discriminate against a dollar based on how it was earned or why it was given, I imagine it's going to cost them at least half a million in man-hours at their justice department.
Man I really hope people just transfer to other schools, and new graduating high school students do not even apply to state schools.
If they're land grant, they're not state universities iirc.
My undergrad was a a land grant school and while the state of florida had no control over tuition and certain other things, they could still mess with things like bright futures and other ICUF coverage areas.
Why do they always ignore sales tax?
Or the myriad of other (federal) taxes they still pay.
Income tax is not the only tax that exists.
because it's clearly not the kid whose parents are paying for his education while he drinks himself stupid and coasts with Cs and Ds, who would incidentally be totally unaffected by this bizarre legislation
i don't think there is someone thinking "we really need to keep poor and middle class people from having a good education." that's not what the republican mindset is. that's just the result of their mindset. they don't hate a student because he's poor; they resent a student who is, they feel, being propped up by the state and not earning what they're getting. in this guy's mind, he's forcing people to earn what they're getting.
You're misunderstanding the issue. The state isn't setting a tuition level, it's refusing to allow schools to accept some money based on the source of that money. A dollar is a dollar. All dollars must be honored equally.
So when the board of trustees of a privately-funded scholarship program with a needs based criterion award a student $8,000 in scholarship funds, but the state refuses to honor $1,000 of that grant, there's $1,000 in actual damages right there. Boom. Lawsuit.
From my understanding of the article, outside scholarships can still be used to cover it. What they're doing is telling state schools they can't give full ride tuition to anyone other than athletes (which I imagine could be open for legal challenge).
So basically it's the state telling its colleges and universities how much of a free ride they can give which is within state doe purview.
It's bullshit dickery, but from my understanding it's 100% legal bullshit dickery.
Same thing both sides!
Because doing well enough in school to get a scholarship isn't earning your keep.
I'm wagering that "Welcome to life" was just what he decided to say instead of "Being dicked out of a college education builds character".
False. It discriminates against money from all needs-based tuition sources, not just those funded by the state. Got a Pell grant? Too bad.
By the way, anyone else catch later in the article where it mentions that the guy who said this:
never actually went to college?
Way to legislate other people's lives based on your own sour grapes, you unconscionable asshole.