OPINION & EDITORIAL
Pell grants badly misrepresented
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Lavilla Capener:
Related Stories:
- Pell grant accessibility to hurt the workforce (September 25, 2007)
- Students need Pell Grant help (March 31, 2005)
- Bush benefits (February 7, 2002)
- 20 words to ponder (February 3, 2005)
- College Republicans fight for fiscal sanity (September 13, 2005)
by Lavilla Capener
Friday, September 28, 2007
I was disappointed and frustrated with John Schwendel's column in The Badger Herald ("Pell grant accessibility to hurt workforce," Sept. 25). The author distorted the facts regarding Pell grants and instead relied on unrealistic hypothetical situations and shoddy logic to prove his point.
Mr. Schwendel’s column was about a bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis., that makes Pell grants more widely available to college students. Mr. Schwendel's basic claim is that because Pell grants give students who are normally unable to afford college the opportunity to pursue higher education, that “marginal students” as he called them, will choose college instead of directly entering the workforce. Although this ludicrous situation may be true in a few instances, most students who qualify for Pell grants are people who genuinely want to pursue higher education, but their financial situation prevents them from doing so.
As a student recipient of financial aid, I am deeply offended at the author’s assertion that Pell grant recipients are simply going to college to avoid working. He makes the assumption that those who qualify for Pell grants are not smart or ambitious enough to attend college, yet do so out of an unwillingness to enter the workforce. Mr. Schwendel claims that "deciding to attend college is easier" but students later regret the decision when they cannot handle the workload. I'm unsure who these people are that Mr. Schwendel references, but most students do not decide to attend college on a whim and certainly do not believe that it will be easier than working full time.
Mr. Schwendel claims that Mr. Kagen's bill will not benefit anyone. "The help it provides is trivial at best," he writes. I disagree. If a Pell grant is the difference between someone getting a college degree or working a dead-end job, then it has served its purpose. One wonders about the potential doctors, public servants and scientists who would have their dreams crushed if Pell grants did not exist.
Mr. Schwendel also characterizes Pell grant recipients as free loaders who are living large with their government grants. He says, "After all, the bill will make it easier for many students to buy a couple extra rounds at the bar this weekend." First of all, the current maximum Pell grant is $4,310, which doesn’t even cover in-state tuition at UW-Madison, let alone other expenses such as books, housing or food. Secondly, the characterization the author made about Pell grant recipients spending their grant money on alcohol is condescending at best, if not outright insulting.
Finally, Mr. Schwendel claims that politicians, namely Mr. Kagen, "traded one vote on a bill for thousands of student votes on a ballot." His insinuation that Mr. Kagen is attempting to buy student votes only demeans the progress Congress is trying to achieve. As a student and constituent in Mr. Kagen’s district, I am proud that he is leading the charge to expand financial aid for students. The author’s misrepresentation of the facts and Mr. Kagen’s motivations are frustrating because they contribute nothing to the rational discourse. They merely work to cloud the debate regarding higher education and lead to misinformation and ignorance.
Lavilla Capener
UW sophomore, political science and journalism capener@wisc.edu
Anonymous (September 28, 2007 @ 11:05am):
You're expecting common sense from an economics major? There's a reason sociopaths and autistics are attracted to the discipline -- econ can justify their lack of interest in others.
Anonymous (September 28, 2007 @ 11:28am):
How many minutes until the comments are inundated with college loan sharks/"econ" majors preaching about how the private sector will save us all.
Anonymous (September 28, 2007 @ 2:41pm):
What facts did he distort?
How is 'students who can't afford to go to college and don't want to get a private sector loan because they see it as a bad economic investment, meaning they won't make enough money to pay it back when they get a job and enter the workforce' an 'unrealistic hypothetical situation?' Or did you mean that an increase in the number of people with degrees driving down wages for people with college degrees is an 'unrealistic hypothetical situation?' Neither is.
"most students who qualify for Pell grants are people who genuinely want to pursue higher education, but their financial situation prevents them from doing so."
He wasn't saying people who apply for Pell grants don't want to go to college. He was saying that economically/financially, for some, aka the 'marginal students' (marginal meaning teetering on the edge of going or not going, not marginal academically) it doesn't make financial sense to go to a traditional four year college, at least not right away.
"I am deeply offended at the author's assertion that Pell grant recipients are simply going to college to avoid working."
That's not what he said at all. It's not to avoid working, but to do something that in that situation becomes financially equally easy or easier than working and is more fun. Why are you insulted that he thinks people like fun and expanding their minds and will do so if it becomes feasible? His column didn't insult you, it just confused you.
His is a complex idea that is difficult to communicate, especially in an environment where people have been indoctrinated into thinking that formal education is the best thing in the world and saying anything else is heresy.
"He makes the assumption that those who qualify for Pell grants are not smart or ambitious enough to attend college"
Not all of them, but a few. A few who will drop out and really be hurt by this legislation. Why are you focusing on that when his main idea is that it will drive wages down?
"yet do so out of an unwillingness to enter the workforce."
Not unwillingness, but aversion. Who really wants to enter the rat race? That is not a bad thing.
"do not believe that it will be easier than working full time."
Are you kidding? Getting a liberal arts education is definitely easier than working full time. Why else would seniors get scared of entering 'the real world?'
"If a Pell grant is the difference between someone getting a college degree or working a dead-end job, then it has served its purpose."
So has it served its purpose when more people who went to the trouble of going to college have to work dead-end, low-paying jobs anyway because there are so many people out there with degrees that the degrees become meaningless? I guess it buys four years of fun. But then why not just have government subsidized vacation loans? That would work better.
"Mr. Schwendel also characterizes Pell grant recipients as free loaders who are living large with their government grants."
Darlin', everybody at this university is a freeloader. Tuition covers 15% of the budget. The majority of us freeloaders drink, and yes, we do have more money to spend on alcohol because of our freeloading. Wake up.
"the characterization the author made about Pell grant recipients spending their grant money on alcohol is condescending at best, if not outright insulting."
It was clearly a humorous way of saying that quality of life while in college will be better, but that's about it. Students relate to drinking, ya know?
"His insinuation that Mr. Kagen is attempting to buy student votes only demeans the progress Congress is trying to achieve."
How naive of you. You don't think politicians buy votes with social programs? I'm shocked. (Well, Democrats buy votes with social programs. Republicans buy votes with tax cuts.) Get it through your head: politicians lie and the only thing they care about is amassing more power. The incentives in a system of government like ours create a situation in which behavior other than that is not only socially unacceptable, it is not viable. For proof of this, examine Ron Paul's political chances.
"I am proud that he is leading the charge to expand financial aid for students."
If you voted for him, did you give him a receipt? ; )
"they contribute nothing to the rational discourse. They merely work to cloud the debate regarding higher education and lead to misinformation and ignorance."
You don't want a rational discourse on the merits of governmentally funded tertiary education. That's evident by how insulted you got by his anti-ivory tower heresy and by how you didn't do anything to explain why his main idea, that an increase in the number of degrees awarded will decrease the economic value of the degree, thus hurting everyone who gets one, was wrong. You simply called it unrealistic without explaining how. You probably don't need to, considering 90% of the people around here agree with you, of course, so why bother with integrity?
God. It's all just so freaking elitist.
Anonymous (September 28, 2007 @ 3:03pm):
'ZOMG econ majors are nerdy and evil! They don't respect the economic impact that feelings have!'
....................... idiots.
11:05:
First of all, they're 'people with autism.' It is deplorable that you think it's ok to denigrate people who have a tragic social impairment. Just because they're not as touchy-feely and trendy as you doesn't mean you have license to act like an ass.
Secondly, common sense as you call it, indicates that as supply rises, price falls, as in "Shit, you can get these anywhere; I'm not paying that much!" Also, when price falls, quantity demanded increases, as in "These are on sale? I'll take five." So he was actually being a veritable fount of common sense.
I am not an economics major, but I have taken economics classes. Econ IS interested in people. Econ is the study of what people do with their money. It's like psychology, one of my majors BTW, + money. Macroeconomics is analogous to social psychology and microeconomics is analogous to cognitive psychology. So unless you can say that psychology majors are just psychology majors to justify their lack of interest in people, you can't say it about econ majors either.
11:28:
College loan sharks? That's the first I've heard of that stereotype. What the hell does that even mean? Is there some kind of black market of student loans that are being provided by econ majors? Weird.
The free market could save us all; it's just that we don't have a free market. Currently, what we have couldn't be called free-market capitalism, but it could easily and should be called mercantilism for clarification's sake.
Dear everyone who hates econ majors:
You just hate people who understand how money works because you don't. Do you hate everyone in the business school too? Because all that is is econ + uppity corporate culture. Pull your jealous heads out and relish the fact that your vapid asses can get laid.
Anonymous (September 28, 2007 @ 4:37pm):
You seem to not understand the multiple defintions of "marginal". Mr. Schwendel's article uses "marginal" in the economic sense, which is additional. "Marginal students" means additional students, not average or stupid.
Get a dictionary and understand an article first before you write something about it, totally misunderstanding the context.
Anonymous (September 28, 2007 @ 4:52pm):
There were two scenarios in the column. If the meaning of the word marginal was more clear to you it would become readily apparent that you agree on the first part. The only difference is that you would trade those marginals students' well being for your own. You did not even attempt to address the long term detrimental effects this decision will have on the market. Finally the fact that loans seem insufficient to many students makes them that much easier to spend on trivial things like alcohol. This is not a hypothetical, go to the bar after student loan checks are mailed. The help seems trivial in relation to all the debt they accrue. You, luckily, are in the category of students that were discussed as receiving help. It is then understandable that you do not care to understand the harm you will inevitably impose on others.
Anonymous (September 28, 2007 @ 5:51pm):
"The free market will save us all."
Tell that to Somalia!
Anonymous (September 29, 2007 @ 6:44pm):
Somalia doesn't have a free market, silly.
Anonymous (September 30, 2007 @ 10:25am):
No regulations/subsidies/barriers = free market = Somalia
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
