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 [email protected]