I'm of mixed feelings on this.

Given the costs of colleges - even "cheap" ones - have risen at a ridiculous rate, there's not really a way to send them withOUT assistance for many people. We look, on paper, very well-to-do, but cost-of-living here is sky-high. We could move, but the job wouldn't go with it. When I look at those "high incomes" in the article, I think "dirt poor," but again, that's because where I live it IS dirt poor (try telling that to the IRS or college-aid forms though).

So, I can kinda see the need/use of assistance.

Then again, if there wasn't so much assistance, it would be a hella-lot cheaper.

Breaking this cycle is gonna hurt, just like every other bubble.

$76,000 in that area is not rich that's for sure but it's not a good use of poverty money (esp. if you run ads about children going hungry due to evil Repubs).

Of course a separate fund for college assistance would be more honest but we are talking about politicians.

This is actually pretty normal. A huge percentage of programs aimed (or at least sold) as helping the poor instead go to the wealthy. Grants for small poor farmers? They mainly go to the rich. Either people who bought a farm for the tax benefits or multi-million dollar mega farm corps. A lot of farm housing grant money goes to new suburbs. Scholarship money aimed at poor oppressed minorities largely goes to a few wealthy members of that population. Housing deductions too largely go to high income individuals.

And here is the bad news, there really isn't much anyone can do to stop it. Rich people have more resources. It is part of the definition of being rich. While a poor family has a little time to look for charity a rich family can hire someone to do that for them. Rich people have accountants and lawyers who can scour the tax code and government programs for possible benefits as a full time job while poor families can't even understand the legalese everything is written in.

If you actually want to help poor people don't make a special program for them. Just make things better for everyone.

I think part of the problem here with my mixed feelings is based on the logic that parental income is familial income. It should be that once you are attending college, you are no longer either entitled or expected to have a piece of mommy and daddy's hard earned money.

That being said, I also understand the logic that better education should mean less welfare recipients. However, I am curious to know if that the funds are also being used by students attending trade schools and community colleges. These are places that I feel like should be making the differences in welfare recipient vs. middle income family.

$76K is the MEDIAN family income of students receiving aid.

Students independent of parents -- paying for their own college -- are judged separately, no?

Perish forbid they should keep fed dollars by helping, oh, disabled, elderly poor, and mentally ill people.

"However, I am curious to know if that the funds are also being used by students attending trade schools and community colleges. These are places that I feel like should be making the differences in welfare recipient vs. middle income family."

Bingo. There are indeed many students who, although they may come from families that have some money, are estranged from those families and are totally on their own financially. However, we're talking state schools there. Places like Albion are a different deal; they are basically finishing schools for scions. You don't get into Albion without family connections. And you don't really go to Albion for an education; you go there to build and exercise connections and set yourself up to be one of the ruling class. It's basically the powerful accumulating more powerful, and getting the middle class to pay for it.

I went to college estranged from my family.

Every year I had to call so they would make an exception because I could not get my parents' financial information.

It should be that once you are attending college, you are no longer either entitled or expected to have a piece of mommy and daddy's hard earned money. ~ Cat at October 6, 2016 6:33 AM

And yet Obamacare lets them - nay, requires them to - stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.

There are indeed many students who, although they may come from families that have some money, are estranged from those families and are totally on their own financially. ~ Cousin Dave at October 6, 2016 7:13 AM

Generally, in student aid, if you're not on your parents' taxes as a dependent, you are considered, "on your own" for lending purposes.

As Katrina's experience shows, you'll probably need to prove you're not being claimed as a dependent.

"As Katrina's experience shows, you'll probably need to prove you're not being claimed as a dependent."

Yeah, I went through an experience one year where both of my divorced parents claimed me as a dependent -- at the same time that I was living on my own, earning money as a co-op student and filing my own taxes. At one point the IRS was telling me that I couldn't take the personal exemption on myself. What a mess.

"aid helps prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies. The rationale: If students are in college, they're less likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy."

OK so maybe it's not college per se, but the cultural values of those who choose to go to college do tend to favor having children later in life. Of course if that's your goal then it might make more sense to give the aid to those that didn't already grow up with that value rather than the children of 76K median households whose parents most likely had their 2.2 children at exactly 32.4 years of age.

Then again, maybe it is college, per se. For a young woman facing a difficult decision, an education at Albion would be a lot to give up to become a young mom.

Well said, smurfy.

BTW, I mentioned in another thread that I'm grateful to my late mother for keeping me away from any school where jocks and cheerleaders rule. In the same vein, she taught me (through actions rather than words) that there's bad snobbery and good snobbery - and she definitely fit into the latter category.

Example: While of course it would be rude and wrong to be condescending toward anyone who never finished high school and didn't plan to (or toward anyone who never reads), if you have children, you're not doing them any favors when you allow them to be surrounded by kids who more or less PLAN to drop out of high school. Or kids who never read at their grade level for fun - or higher.

Unfortunately, the latter scenario can happen even in the culture of private school, what with the ubiquitousness of video games. So it becomes even harder to teach one's kids that being well-read and pro-academic (as opposed to being someone who gets good grades and then forgets everything over the summer, again and again - i.e., pseudo-intellectual) is not bad snobbery. As in, if you're a teen who actually read "Moby-Dick" for fun, how many classmates are you likely to meet who can appreciate your talking about it?

"Of course if that's your goal then it might make more sense to give the aid to those that didn't already grow up with that value rather than the children of 76K median households whose parents most likely had their 2.2 children at exactly 32.4 years of age."

Point taken, but the counterpoint is what Reynolds keeps saying: You can't make people middle class by giving them the artifacts of a middle-class lifestyle. There's a cultural disconnect that that won't fix.