How many students on this forum get financial aid?

[kogase]

I'm applying for college right now. I'm hoping financial aid will be easier for me because my family is relatively poor. My father has... maybe -$200 in the bank at all times. I suppose it depends on where you go to school though. I'm looking to apply to some private schools with more liberal financial aid policies.

 

[liluqt]

I got financial aid all throughout my 4 years at college and made it out with no debts. Thank God! Graduating and learning to live on your own is hard enough as it is.

 

[Engineer]

Let's see....the faithful see the US moving from a manufacturing economy to a high-tech service economy built on the educations of the American people. We plan to spend $13 TRILLION over that 5 year period yet cut $39 billion, with 1/3 being from STUDENT LOANS?

13,000,000,000,000 spending: 39,000,000,000 cut (.3 %) with 13,000,000,000 cut from student loans? :roll:

Without loans and financial aid, I would not have been able to go to school and that is with me AND my wife (full time) working.

The government, in my opinion, could cut thousands of pork projects (Iraq comes to mind with it's 100 billion per year pork budget to Haliburon and companies alike) and continue the "investment" in educational loans. The Chinese and Indians are graduating engineers and scientists at an alarming rate (much higher per capita than the US).

You're new high tech service job with include phrases like..."would you like fries with your new PC?"?

Bunch of deficit whores who make trinket cuts in the wrong areas! :|

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: wiredspider
Wow how the heck do you ger 0 EFC? My EFC is always 10K+ except my parents don't even make 10K a year! I make close to it, but sucks having to pay for all of my schooling up front like this.

No idea how they come up with it. I know this year it was easy b/c my mom started a business and everything came back negative...so that's why that's zero. The year before, I have no idea how it happened. My g/f's parents make much less and her EFC was around 1k, while my parents were around $800.

That said....my school sucks with FA b/c I have a low GPA🙁 All I got were low interest or no iterest loans that did not cover the whole cost. I'd imagine that i would be around 80K (maybe even more) in debt by graduation. All sources point to no graduate school for me🙁 Oh well, atleast I still have my guitar.....

 

[GT1999]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Let's see....the faithful see the US moving from a manufacturing economy to a high-tech service economy built on the educations of the American people. We plan to spend $13 TRILLION over that 5 year period yet cut $39 billion, with 1/3 being from STUDENT LOANS?

13,000,000,000,000 spending: 39,000,000,000 cut (.3 %) with 13,000,000,000 cut from student loans? :roll:

Without loans and financial aid, I would not have been able to go to school and that is with me AND my wife (full time) working.

The government, in my opinion, could cut thousands of pork projects (Iraq comes to mind with it's 100 billion per year pork budget to Haliburon and companies alike) and continue the "investment" in educational loans. The Chinese and Indians are graduating engineers and scientists at an alarming rate (much higher per capita than the US).

You're new high tech service job with include phrases like..."would you like fries with your new PC?"?

Bunch of deficit whores who make trinket cuts in the wrong areas! :|

We have a greedy, old, haggy gov't thanks to Bush.

 

[JS80]

Solution: Low interest Loans

 

[skimple]

Did any of you even read that article?

"Within higher education, the single biggest cut appears to be in the profits of lenders. Under current law, banks get to keep the excess money when the amounts that students pay in interest exceed the rate of return that the government has guaranteed. That would end. Lenders would have to refund the difference to the government, meaning billions of dollars."

So, the statement that this represents a "cut" is based on the assumption that lenders re-use that "excess money" to offer more student loans, and by forcing banks to give the "excess money" back to the government, it will reduce the amount of money being used for student loans.

Absurd. The bill actually makes no change to the total amount that each student can borrow.

This is a politically motivated article, and if you buy into the headline without actually understanding what the article states, then perhaps you need to go back to school and take some critical thinking classes.

 

[vi edit]

Anyone read past the first paragraph?

Yes there are "cuts", but much of that is taking money out of the hands of the banks that offer the loans and by increasing interest rates and redirecting that money to the decifict.

Obviously it's not a great situation, but it's a very sensational/emotional headline and opening paragraph.

Yes you'll pay more, and there may be less opportunities but it's not like they are cutting out 13 billion available in loans like the headline makes it out to be.

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: skimple
Did any of you even read that article?

"Within higher education, the single biggest cut appears to be in the profits of lenders. Under current law, banks get to keep the excess money when the amounts that students pay in interest exceed the rate of return that the government has guaranteed. That would end. Lenders would have to refund the difference to the government, meaning billions of dollars."

So, the statement that this represents a "cut" is based on the assumption that lenders re-use that "excess money" to offer more student loans, and by forcing banks to give the "excess money" back to the government, it will reduce the amount of money being used for student loans.

Absurd. The bill actually makes no change to the total amount that each student can borrow.

This is a politically motivated article, and if you buy into the headline without actually understanding what the article states, then perhaps you need to go back to school and take some critical thinking classes.

Was just about to quote this .... proves allot of people are just " headline " readers ...

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: skimple
Did any of you even read that article?

"Within higher education, the single biggest cut appears to be in the profits of lenders. Under current law, banks get to keep the excess money when the amounts that students pay in interest exceed the rate of return that the government has guaranteed. That would end. Lenders would have to refund the difference to the government, meaning billions of dollars."

So, the statement that this represents a "cut" is based on the assumption that lenders re-use that "excess money" to offer more student loans, and by forcing banks to give the "excess money" back to the government, it will reduce the amount of money being used for student loans.

Absurd. The bill actually makes no change to the total amount that each student can borrow.

This is a politically motivated article, and if you buy into the headline without actually understanding what the article states, then perhaps you need to go back to school and take some critical thinking classes.

If a Democrat was in office and there was a Democrat Congress I predict the media would healine it as something like Bank Profit from Education Stopped or somehow say it's an INCREASE in education not a cut.