Get Schooled

By JustMe

January 11, 2007 08:08 AM | Link to this

As an educator, I am very torn about HOPE….

I love that students in GA have an advantage regarding college costs. But, I do think that some of the students are not deserving and so the money is wasted. Some students are really not “college worthy” and some students go to college to party until the money runs out.

Maybe the HOPE requirements should be raised?

Also, I hate that some of the “shady” colleges have sprung up just to take advantage of the free HOPE money and also students. I think that the college getting any HOPE money should be heavily regulated.

By Lee

January 11, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this

I think that HOPE has enabled many students to go to college who otherwise might not have considered it. HOPE is not without problems, however. We have blogged about this on numerous occasions, but the two biggest complaints seem to be 1) pressure to inflate grades at the high school level, and 2) the large number of students who go to college for a year, lose HOPE, and drop out.

A simple solution to the above would be to make HOPE a reimbursement program. That is, the student pays their tuition up front and is reimbursed based on successful completion of course work. There are many programs and student loans available for those students who come from low income families.

A reimbursement program would place the responsibility back onto the student to perform, IMHO.

By Janine

January 11, 2007 08:24 AM | Link to this

Good morning, all. The original intention of the HOPE was a good one…but as they say, “the road to H—- is paved with……” . When the HOPE began,I don’t think anyone at the time thought about the downside, the most obvious of which is grade inflation, and students who are victims of grade inflation often do not perform will enough to keep the scholarship. However, since it should be clear to the Gov. and the legislators by now that there are problems… and since we all should learn from and correct mistakes, it’s time to take good look at the reqirements and make changes. So, while I don’t think all that money was wasted, the requirements for HOPE are in desperate need of revision . If that doesn’t happen soon, then I would be among those who say we are wasting a lot of money.

By jim d

January 11, 2007 08:28 AM | Link to this

Well said Lee.

To address the question. NO hope has not been wasted.

The points I’d like to make are.

(1) it has enabled students that may not have had an opportunity otherwise to advance their education.

(2) I don’t think we can even say it is wasted on those that lose it if they walk away with even a little more knowledge.

(3) check the stats—even those that lose it often continue on after taking a short break. After having a taste of college many will continue that may never have gone in the first place.

(4) if these were funds being ripped from taxpayers wallets they might be a waste, but these funds are being given freely and were the lottery ever abolished here in Ga. people here would simply go to neighboring states and be supporting their educational systems without benefiting ga. students. Now that would be aa waste!

By harvey

January 11, 2007 08:38 AM | Link to this

As a high school teacher, I hear many of my students talking about HOPE and how they plan to use it. Far too many think HOPE gives them a free year to party. They often say when they lose HOPE, they will get serious about school or go another college closer to home or one that is not so expensive. I think HOPE started off as a great idea but is being abused. Rather than a grant program, perhaps HOPE should be a reimbursement program. Let the student pay for college one semester at a time. If they make the proper grades, they are reimbursed for that semester. If not, the student is responsible for the cost of their excess partying.

By jim d

January 11, 2007 08:41 AM | Link to this

One other thing that is often overlooked re: hope funds.

It’s not just for college bound. but includes. “PRE-K” EARLY EDUCATION.

This program relies heavely on hope funding
http://www.gov.state.ga.us/press/2006/HistoryofLottery_Expenditures.pdf

with Hope now being 12 years old we should expect to start seeing real results if early education is truly helping kids.

By KA

January 11, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

COST of running the Lottery Corp. and funding HOPE; NOTHING to the taxpayers, as it is self-supporting; BENEFITS; Over a billion $$ have gone toward educating Georgia students, accomplishing the Lottery mission to keep our best HS grads in state, resulting in higher academic standards at all GA colleges and universities, thus producing a better educated young adult work force. HS grade inflation is the shame of the ADULT admins and educrats who allow it in their schools, and they should all be fired! Show me where the %’s of those failing out of college have skyrocketed, because I don’t believe it. I do know many who lost their HOPE, but buckled down to earn it back. No program is perfect, but the HOPE benefits far outweigh the costs! Don’t change a thing!!!

By Janine

January 11, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

Bridget….I understood that the $500 million you mentioned [and were asking opinions about] was the part of the lottery money that is designated for scholarships, and that there is other lottery money designated for funding the Pre K /early childhood education that jimd mentioned.

By catlady

January 11, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

With all its problems we have well documented in earlier blogs (including that the Gov. did not consult with the college financial aid people ahead of time, but they were to implement it with no additional money for personnel, no real look at independent evaluation, etc) HOPE has had three positive effects, I THINK (see comment above about meaningful evaluation): students and their parents who might not have considered it are TALKING about going to college earlier, fewer good students are going out of state (the best go anyway if they want to), and the HOPe grant component has opened up technical training to a bunch of folks who might not have taken the training otherwise.

If they were asking me (and if I had access to the data to put together the big picture in an unbiased way—this is my area of expertise) it could be better targeted, but that will NEVER happen for political reasons. What you see is what we will always have. The only tweaking will be due to shortfalls, when the same students will be eligible for a smaller piece of help.

I agree with jim d that college experience, in and of itself, can be very enlightening even if the student does not finish after losing HOPE. (It is like the blog about interning and shadowing—often you find out what you do NOT want to do). A concern I have is that these same students are saddled with loan debt for those “wasted” semesters that they were partying. I think HOPE enables us to say, “Well, you had your chance!” to those who, for whatever reason, blow it. And since it is still a “voluntary” program—you don’t HAVE to play the lottery if you don’t want to—morally I don’t have a problem with that. Some folks think it isn’t right to tempt folks who don’t have much money to spend it on games of chance, but I am willing to grant all adults the ability to waste their money anyway they wish (lottery, Hummers, whatever) as long as it is legal.

I agree with earlier posters about changing it to a “pay back” program, but that will NEVER HAPPEN. And it will exacerbate the pressure some college profs already get to “keep the student eligible.”

One effect I suspect HOPE has had is in the number of dropped classes. Students see they cannot get a B and drop the class, wasting time and resources. It increases time to completion of degree, plus uses the class spaces for students who drop the class when others are waiting for a seat. Colleges could do something about this, but seem to have done the opposite, making it more possible to drop the class after a longer period of time. Again, pandering to HOPE.

As long as the colleges have such a vested interest in the program, substantive changes will not take place, even if someone stood up to the political ramifications of trying to improve HOPE.

By WhatWillBridgetDo?

January 11, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this

Jim d: Apologies for missing your earlier take on the “damn fine job” our host is doing. I only have one specific complaint: our past host (Patti) seemed to have a willingness to tackle issues that somehow didn’t make the paper and report back on the blog. I don’t see that with the new host (nor do I see the new host willing to discuss her reticence to be a more active participant). Are these not valid concerns? Is not the purpose of the blog to extend coverage past what the print edition of the paper gives, and as an extension, tackle issues that don’t make it to the paper? This is not an ad hominem attack on our host mind you, but rather a critique of specific behavior. Surely you’re not suggesting that the only two choices a blogger should have are blind obedience or moving on to another blog?

By Bridget Gutierrez

January 11, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this

Janine: You’re correct. The amounts I cite reflect only those spent on HOPE or other college scholarship programs. Readers can check out how much is spent on Pre-K through the link I provided to the governor’s budget.

By KA

January 11, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

WWBD, Bridget told us that she is what she is, and that is she’s a busy reporter, she’ll pose the questions but not participate, and she’s not biased…. in other words we can take her or leave Get Schooled. I think most of us enjoy our interaction here enough to hang in and HOPE the topics improve.

By catlady

January 11, 2007 09:38 AM | Link to this

And a comment about PreK. It has sure been a godsend to parents and daycare centers and some schools. It has even (like Headstart) gotten some kids out of rotten home situations earlier which should be helpful. I will be very interested in any reliable, non-cheerleader research that comes out on the effects of preK. Our problem is because it is a self-selected program, it will be hard to come up with any meaningful comparisons pre/post by time or cohort.

No matter what, nothing will happen to it, either, except maybe expand it to three year olds. Folks feel ENTITLED to it now, just like other programs which may or not be worth the cost.

By jim d

January 11, 2007 09:49 AM | Link to this

Cat,

Regardless we should see improvements in literacy rates that don’t seem to be happening.

By jim d

January 11, 2007 09:52 AM | Link to this

cat, unfortunately it appears that many parents (tennis moms) are not only looking upon pre k as an entitlement but are using (read abusing)it as a form of day care while they’re out doing whatever.

By SET

January 11, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

The very name of this program is wrong. Money and education should not be spoken of as if it is a roll of the dice.

Money should follow talent. The funding should have SAT cutoffs so that tax dollars are not being thrown away on speculation. People that are actuarily not likely to stay in college, much less complete a program that increases earning power or produtivity, should not be receiving tax dollars.

So I don’t think the Hope program should be paying people to take “Black Studies”. I don’t think there should be taxpayer grants to people in the bottom 60% of national SAT test scores. The grants should emphasize areas the taxpayers have an interest in supporting - sciences, engineering, agriculture, voc ed such as nursing and police academies, whatever, with lesser amounts for English Lit. Postgraduate grants should be similar with state loan programs offering loan forgiveness for people who complete their programs and work in the state for a period of time and/or work in civil service, including teaching for a period of time.

I’d prefer these education finance programs to not become another welfare program people can take and fritter away.

Adding a reimbursement program to the mix is a sound idea. This would ensure the taxpayers actually got some results for the money that is after all taken from the workers of GA and given to the non-workers in hopes they’ll become workers. I don’t think the entire program should be reimbursable only. A mix of several deals at once should help develop more talent from more backgrounds.

A reimbursement program tends to support those who already have families who are investing in the children than a pure grant program which is “open” to fatherless children with no capital behind them. Take the total education assistance budget and splitting it into several programs is a good idea. You don’t totally cutoff the fatherless types but you make it clear that GA’s education assistance isn’t “Little Sisters Of The Poor” either…

By KA

January 11, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

Are there stats published on how many pre-K program kids have tennis moms?

By BRYANT

January 11, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

IF THINGS DON’T COME OUT IN THE WASH, THEY WILL COME OUT IN THE RINSE. LET THE HOPE ARRANGEMENT REMAIN AS IS. BY THE END OF THE FIRST GRADING PERIOD WHEN THE GRADES COME OUT, EVERY ONE WILL KNOW WHO IS COLLEGE MATERIAL AND WHO ISN’T. A SIMILIAR ARGUMENT CAN BE RAISED FOR THE ACT/SAT TESTS. WE DON’T NEED THOSE TESTS. AT THE END OF THE FIRST SEMESTER THE SERIOUS STUDENT WILL REMAIN AND THOSE PLAYING AROUND WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE. IT’S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. THE TESTING SERVICES ARE MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR SHAKE DOWNS THAT THE ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM HAS BOUGHT IN TO. THINK ABOUT IT !!!COLLEGES DON’T PROFIT FROM THEM, AND STUDENTS DON’T PROFIT FROM THEM. THEN WHO DOES PROFIT FROM THEM?

By KA

January 11, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

SET, The funding for the Georgia HOPE Scholarship program comes from the proceeds of the sale of Lottery tickets, not taxes. People buy lottery tickets for a chance to win a $$ prize. Lottery winnings also provide additional revenue for Georgia as large prizes are assessed for State income taxes. The HOPE scholarship only requires that HS grads have “B” averages, and that they maintain a “B” average in college. HOPE eligiblity is reassessed after specific numbers of college hours taken, and if the GPA drops below a “B” then students lose the HOPE, but can regain it at the next eleigiblity checkpoint if a “B” average has been earned.

By BRYANT

January 11, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

DEAR SET, FOR THE RECORD, THE HOPE GRANT IS NOT FUNDED BY TAX MONEY. SO WHEN “BLACK STUDIES” IS BEING FUNDED, NOT TO WORRY, IT IS NOT COSTING YOU ONE THIN DIME. THIS FORUM IS A WONDERFUL PLACE TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS BUT LET’S GET OUR FACTS STRAIGHT FIRST. T.S.

By KA

January 11, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

BRYANT, Please turn off the ALL CAPS! You are shouting at us.

By WhatWillBridgetDo?

January 11, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

KA: Went back and read Bridget’s intro: didn’t see where she said she wouldn’t participate (and in fact she did right after my post, but wasn’t willing to address it) I can’t imagine she’s any busier than Patti was, and Patti took time to, (and this is the important distinction) address concerns that bloggers brought up that they might not through other channels due to fear of retailation. And comparing Patti’s comments on discipline to Bridget’s I do feel Bridget shows a bias toward just how devastating the lack of support for discipline truly is. It doesn’t mean she’s a bad person or anything; I just wish she was willing to address this, and those who think she’s “doing a damn job” would have the courage of their convictions to address it as well

By JAYBEE

January 11, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Dear SET, Do you think the HOPE funds would be better spent if they funded “European History” or “English Literature”or the works of “William Shakespeare”?

By KA

January 11, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

WWBD, It was in a post in a thread in response to our comments about her. I’ll try to find it. I did not mean to imply anything negative. I look forward to getting to know Bridget and for her to get to know us, and reading between the lines and as you said coming up with stories behind the published material. Bridget should be aware that she is not just posting topics for discussion. She is moderating a public forum, the best kind, where people of all backgrounds come together and talk honestly with each other, inform each other and debate solutions for our problems in education.

By Lisa B.

January 11, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

I think the good things gained from HOPE far exceed the negatives. My husband and I discussed the abuse factor in HOPE and I mentioned the idea of turning HOPE into a reimbursement program. My husband teaches at a technical college, and is opposed to a reimbursement plan. Many, if not most, of my husband’s students are from low socio-economic backgrounds, and the cost of tuition would be impossible for them to bear. When HOPE quit paying for textbooks, my husband really had to scramble to find creative ways to help his poorest students acquire books. My husband’s program has a 99% job placement rate for its graduates. I’d really hate to do anything to HOPE that would end the opportunies offered to our most needy students. To some students, paying first then getting reimbursed would simply be impossible.

I really thought those bright, yet poor students were a major target of HOPE. Don’t forget that universities aren’t the only colleges that HOPE pays for. Technical colleges are incredibly valuable in this state, and most of those students receive HOPE, and a very large number of them keep their scholarships.

By Ernest

January 11, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Great comments again! Count me in the group that feels the positives of HOPE far outweighs the negatives. Though taxpayer dollars are not used, we still want to ensure we are getting a good return on this investment. I still like the idea of ‘indexing’ the HOPE award based on a combination of SES, GPA, and SAT/ACT scores. I don’t think this would happen though…

Lisa B. brought up a good point about the original objectives of HOPE, to assist those who were capable yet lacked the financial resources to continue their education. As KA mentioned, we are also providing a financial ‘carrot’ to help keep some of our brightest students in state.

A friend mentioned today that she noticed a higher GPA requirement (3.2) for those going the tech school route. Is anyone else aware of that?

By Lifer

January 11, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

To those who think the HOPE scholarship has increased the quality of student accepted to college, or graduated in the state, let me give you a picture of the kinds of students in college now. I work at a college within the University System of GA, and I am going back to college at GSU.

There is a 20-year-old in 300-level International Business classes that cannot locate Mexico on a map. She asked if she could choose another South American country instead for her assigned project.

There is a 19-year-old in 200-level French classes that asked at the end of the semester, “What’s the difference between a pronoun and an adjective?” She also asked if her responses needed to be in French, or could she just say it in English because it is easier.

Another 19-year-old wondered if Holland was near Italy, as she was going to Portugal and wanted to see the “neighboring countries”.

I don’t know where the break-down in education for these students is, but it happened at some point. They are not the exception, they are the rule. I definitely long for the “good ol’ days” with math drills, language drills, diagraming sentences, and other such skills that teenagers and young adults do not have today.

By Lisa B.

January 11, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Ernest,

I don’t know about the 3.2 requirement for Tech school, but I’ll find out.

By meme

January 11, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

I would really like to see the numbers of how many students who were granted a HOPE actually finished college. I know personally that my nephew started and then got involved in drugs and never even finished the first semester.

By KA

January 11, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Lifer, whcih GSU? Georgia State University, or Georgia Southern University?

By Lisa B.

January 11, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Ernest,

My husband is a teacher/department head at a Georgia technical college. He handles admissions for his program, and turns in paperwork for HOPE. He just told me they have not heard anything about an increase in GPA to receive HOPE at the technical college level. He would know, because he would have to oversee paperwork processing, funding, etc. of for his students.

By KA

January 11, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

I agree with Lisa B. the poorest students at the tech schools probably would not be there if they had to raise the funds first. Regarding the so-called wasted years of HOPE, the worst case scenario when a student loses HOPE and fails out of school, I would argue that his exposure to higher learning and what little education he gleaned are NOT WASTED. We don’t know if some years later when the student has matured that he might go back to college and succeed. In fact I know plenty of older students who were not ready for college, or who failed out as teens and now in their late 20’s, 30’s and even 40’s are in college working toward a degree. We need to take a longer range view of the benefits that will accrue 20, 30 or more years from now. HOPE Scholarships are like Bread cast upon the Waters, given with the HOPE of positive returns, but the uncertainty that accompanies any human venture.

By Lifer

January 11, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

KA - Georgia State University, “a research institution”

By Ernest

January 11, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this

Slight correction to what I said earlier. Go to: Hope Award Regulations. In section 7D of Freshman eligibility requirements, it says one must have a 3.2 average in career/technical core curriculum subjects. A 3.0 is required for those taking a college prep curriculum. Interesting they make the distinction.

By Ernest

January 11, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Point of clarification again :(. My 12:32 post referred to Degree seeking students attending a public institution. This is from a 98 page document listing all the requirements and I took above from the first section. After reviewing this further, I see different requirements for those seeking a diploma/certificate. I saw that the those with a GED are eligible for $500 grants.

By KA

January 11, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Lifer, thanks, and consider the demographics of the majority of the undergrad population at GSU. Georgia State began as a night school so that working people could go back and get a degree or an advanced degree. In the past ten years GSU has dramatically expanded their undrgrad program to serve the more traditionally aged college student as well. GSU is located smack dab in the middle of Atlanta, and it largely serves the local population. Many of its undergrads are probably APS grads, and so you can see why they missed pronouns and geography….that’s the fault of their admins and educators. IMO it’s not accurate to blame the HOPE scholarship program or to generalize as to the readiness and excellence for ALL of Georgia’s HS grads, college students, and universities based on your single experience at GSU.

By JustMe

January 11, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

For those that believe that the funding of HOPE is not from taxpayers, you are sadly mistaken. The problem with lottery money is that it is from the segment of the population that can least afford it (research has supported this finding). So in essence, lottery money is taking from the poor. IMHO, that is a tax on those people, so it really is not “free money.”

I have a thought for another use of this money… Why not put some in the retirement funding and health care for educators? Perdue keeps saying that this State money is drying up, so why not allocate some lottery money towards it?

By HSTeacher

January 11, 2007 01:11 PM | Link to this

Ernest, the requirements for HOPE at Technical colleges are the same if a student is trying to acquire a two year degree. However, if students attend tech colleges for diplomas (1 year) or certification (months), their gpa can be below a 3.0. I agree with posters who stated that the HOPE benefits far outweigh the negatives.

SET, HOPE does not come from your tax dollars, so don’t worry, it’s not welfare. If you don’t want to support it, don’t play the Lottery. Remember, these programs are designed to help those that need help. Of course there will be those who abuse the system, but far more benefit; which in the end benefits us all.

By KA

January 11, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

JustMe, I believe the Ga. Lottery Corp. also did a study and found that most players are MIDDLE CLASS. IMO if the poor lottery players who are on public assistance or work but receive low income credits (welfare)are likely spending a dollar they received from a government entity that is funded in part by taxes that I pay. I think they are wise to choose investing my tax dollar on education rather than buying cigarettes, beer or liquor.

By OldSchool

January 11, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

Both my girls easily qualified to receive HOPE. The oldest received an amount each year that made a very small dent in her Berry College fees. The younger was by far better off financially…she qualified for the Academic Common Market out of state waiver (MTSU) because Georgia schools did not offer her preferred major (RIM).

I qualified for the critical area teacher version of HOPE which is a total JOKE. I “borrowed” about $1500 and paid it back immediately to stop the harrassment. They sent me bills for repayment even though I had not graduated yet! One bill came before the grant check had even made it to the university for my tuition.

By local student

January 11, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

Thank you, JustMe.

People refer to cigarette taxes and liquor taxes. Both are voluntary, but they’re still taxes. Plus, the lottery is a state monopoly…Revenues collected from other state businesses (like parks) aren’t dismissed in a cavalier fashion.

And I think some of y’all aren’t really considering Bridget’s question. Could the lottery taxes have been put to better use? The fact that some students get a benefit from HOPE isn’t a debate, it has produced some good things. But the money could be spent on more pre-K or early childhood education, teacher salaries…the list is endless.

Personally, I think spending the funds on kids at an earlier stage would have a much greater effect. Concentrate on reading skills in the lower elementary grades. But that wouldn’t make Dunwoody rich folk happy that they can send their kid off to party on someone else’s dime.

By HSTeacher

January 11, 2007 01:19 PM | Link to this

JUSTME,

HOPE is NOT tax money. We HAVE to pay taxes, you don’t have to play the Lottery. It’s a choice people make; play or don’t play. While I think HOPE is great, I seldom play the Lottery. It all comes down to what is important to you and how you choose to spend your money.

By Blind Homer

January 11, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

Lifer - the stated objewctive is not to increase the quality of Georgia high school graduates or college entrants. However, at least as measured by SAT scores, it has increased the quality of students entering the top end, Tech and UGA. And it seems the cost is pretty minimal, dollars that otherwise would have been spent on……? Grade inflation is more of an unintended consequence that needs to be dealt with by the school systems, than a cost of the Hope program per se. Needs testing would adversely effect program success, and it’s unlikely adding a minimum qualifying SAT score would be much of an improvement (there is a reason UGA puts more admissions weight on high school grades and curriculum). Changing to a reimbursement program sounds like a great idea, unfortunately not a politically expedient one.

By Blind Homer

January 11, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

local - Bad analogy, the purchase of the alcohol or cigarettes is optional, as is gasoline or property for that matter, paying tax on those purchases is not an option. So the comment about “taking from the poor” is slanted and untrue, much like saying it’s unfair to send reservists to Iraq.

By Me

January 11, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this

People move to Georgia to take advantage of Hope. That is the real reason for hope as far as any politics are concerned. The education end of it is just a way to make it all happen.

By jim d

January 11, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

Now there’s another twist.

Should one have to be a resident for a given period of time before they qualify for Hope? and should students that spent their entire life here but transfered out of state in their senior year be elgible?

By local student

January 11, 2007 01:51 PM | Link to this

Um, I didn’t say anything about “taking from the poor”. I did say something about the rich. My comment about rich Dunwoody folk was an admittedly un-PC statement similar to the one in the last line of your post. Making HOPE a reimbursement program would be politically inexpedient because it would upset a large number of people who are middle/upper class, and who vote. But please, don’t mistake me as class-warfare obsessed. The fact that lottery money generally goes from poor to rich isn’t one of my objections.

And I understand y’all have some latitude about calling what’s collected from the lottery taxes. But it is still money collected by government, and it’s not “voluntary” in the sense that A) it isn’t optional if you want to buy the ticket, and B) technically if you want to gamble in Georgia, it has to be through the state. I realize these are points that y’all gloss over, but they are true.

And really, isn’t buying gasoline or paying the toll on 400 “voluntary” also? Yes, more people consider a car necessary, but it isn’t like you’ll actually die without one.

And traveling on 400 is even more voluntary than buying gasoline. Would you dismiss sloppy spending of the tolls collected there?

By SET

January 11, 2007 01:52 PM | Link to this

BRYANT: thanks for the correction on the source of the Hope Money.

Lotteries are taxes, just like inflation - they are a tax on the poor, the primary payers of lotteries. The revenue collected from state lotteries still carries an obligation to the people to spend wisely.

JAYBEE: Thanks for picking up the “bait” statement. Of course Western Civilization is more important than Black History or any other ethnocentric study. What do you think got the USA (and human civilization) where we are? Anyway the point I’m making is that the state funds given to students is an investment by the people in produtivity. State Money should follow talent and production. Speculation is fine by throwing state funds on proven losers is wrong.

I believe we should make funds available for (undergrad) Nursing students and (graduate) Pharmacy students for example because we need more of both - and those occupations can be counted on to return tax money to the treasury in the form of future income taxes. Many fields of study in the different states have a reasonable expectation of decent returns.

Allowing someone to run up a $50,000 tab for training to be a receptionist on the other hand is not responsible use of state funds. This looks like a large tab - but in CA people are borrowing/taking huge amounts of $$ sometimes without regard to the merits of their future earning power. The result is certain vocational colleges with massive student loan default rates because the graduates don’t achieve the earning power to repay the loans. Turning the loan funding to grant funding doesn’t solve the problem. If the proposed career doesn’t justify the investment, the capital should not be given to the student. Money doesn’t grow on trees, even lottery money.

By TopicForBridget

January 11, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

Hey Bridget - you may already be thinking of this for a blog topic. How about a blog about the tax changes proposed by Richardson and how they would affect school finance? My understanding is that he wants a 5% flat income tax plus a 5% sales tax. It would replace everything, including local property taxes for schools.

I thought that the sales tax to fund education idea had died a quick death a year or two ago because it got so much opposition… Well, it’s baaaack!

By Lifer

January 11, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

My original comment was regarding others’ posts that the HOPE scholarship has increased the quality of HS grads. I was countering that is not the case.

While GSU started as a night school in Atlanta, it is far from that now. It is the 2nd largest college in the state. UGA started off as an agricultural school; clearly, it is no longer simply for farming. While many of the students at GSU may come from the city of Atlanta, many more come from the surrounding counties and across the state.

I think that changing the HOPE to a reimbursement program would be a positive change. If reimbursements were timely, a student would only need the initial semester of tuition, as the reimbursement would cover the next semester and so on… My experience with college students (professionally and personally) is that they would squander the first reimbursement on clothes or a stereo system and cry later about not having the money for their studies. They are teenagers without the full ability to see past the immediate future.

By the real EW

January 11, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this

Good twist; if a student can move here in their senior year and qualify for a HOPE scholarship then I should be able to move to Florida in my daughter’s senior year to qualify for in-state tuition. But guess what – I can’t. I think there needs to be at least a three year period of residency.

By local student

January 11, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

Perhaps if I study harder I can someday approach SET’s abilities. Good post.

And a point that I think KA brought up earlier: HOPE benefits even those who “blow it” after a semester. While yes, many students do return to school, there are downsides to having unprepared and just plain lazy kids around. Imagine being a real student rooming with someone who’s only there to party.

It’s nice if someone gains incrementally in knowledge or experience, but the costs of distractions to other students and faculty should be considered. Not to mention the extra classes that must be scheduled (as cited before) etc.

But I’ve posted these thoughts before. Most of y’all have heard them.

By luvs2teach

January 11, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

What if the eligibility requirments for HOPE were the same as qualifying for in-state tuition? You need to be here for one full calendar year, I think, so that would prevent moving during all and even slightly before senior year. Maybe it could even be further modified to HOPE eligibilty AFTER the first full year of in-state tuition eligibilty - then it would weed out those who might only use it to party.

I think the “life experience” argument is a good one, but not at the expense of the program - I would rather see it go to a reimbursement program than have to undergo more severe cuts.

My daughter has kept her HOPE through her sophomore year, but 2 of her roommates have not. One of the two went back home to live, but did continue in school - the other had a baby…

By KA

January 11, 2007 02:32 PM | Link to this

I agree that party minded college students are a distraction and a drain on resources, but do you think that HOPE has enabled that many more party animals to go to college than would have gone? There’s always going to be a contingent of class skipping party-goers. Has the percentage risen because of HOPE?

By meme

January 11, 2007 02:39 PM | Link to this

SET - you have got to be kidding. Do you really believe that the poor are forced to play the lottery or are you just trying to start an argument?

By jim d

January 11, 2007 02:45 PM | Link to this

reimbursement can work. by making it a interest free loan up front and forgive the debt provided the student maintains elgiblity.

Should they fail to maintain elgibility the loan becomes due with a low interest rate repayable on a 48-60 month contract.

This would force some students to take a bit of personal responsibility for themselves. Those that are there to party would soon learn the price of having a good time.

While I’m sure there is waste within the system I really don’t think we could have found a better use for the money. Well, except for the 7 figure bonuses that have been handed out to directors.

By SET

January 11, 2007 02:48 PM | Link to this

Local Student: I was once assigned to a roommate at UC Berkeley who was a drug dealer. After 2 days I realized what was up and told the RA’s to move me that day or I call the cops. They did and the dealer kept dealing.

There are even worse things than just having roommates and classmates who are unprepared, lazy or only there to party. You can be assigned a criminal roommate who steals your things and steals your credit cards and your identity, or gives your name when he’s arrested.

I’ve heard that the modern trend is single bedroom dorms - and/or pre-selected roommates. Because schools are undiscriminating the students have to discriminate themselves for their own protection. Too bad, so sad.

As a lawyer I have warned college students in the strongest terms that they cannot afford to room (even for a day) with a narcotics user (or other criminal) or one who associates with users (or other criminals). When the search warrant is served everyone often gets arrested and booked (if they are investigated your name gets linked to theirs in the police intelligence files also). You will never get an arrest entry off your rap sheet. A few understand this warning, many have to learn the hard way.

Backgrounding for professional licenses is serious and getting more so. Backgrounding for government positions such as law enforcement positions include interviews and/or records checks on all former roommates and neighbors going back to age 18.

In the DC area there are huge numbers of intelligence community employees (both government and private contractor) who do (among other things) such skilled labor as emptying wastebaskets and filing, who have backgrounds done on them that are this intrusive or more. You would not believe what they are paid for filing and emptying wastebaskets (no one without US Gov’t security clearance can enter these buildings and work areas) - we are talking about a lot of workers without a 4 year degree.

This brave new world is very unforgiving of people who have blemishes, especially when they have applicants in line who don’t.

To get a student loan or grant here you have to be registered for the draft if male and regardless of gender, cannot ever have had a narcotics conviction (MJ included). Is that true of the GA Hope grants?

By jim d

January 11, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

SET,

LOL, my friend.

Taxing the poor with a lottery ticket that they are not being forced to buy?

I don’t think so. The poor may buy an occassional ticket but the vast majority of players are middle class.

Define poor for me will you?

By Tay

January 11, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

As a FA Rep, I think Hope has not been wasted. I think HOPE is an incentive for students to strive to be their best, academically. What parent wouldnt want their child to get As and Bs in high school. HOPE is motivation for the average student to do better. I believe the HOPE requirements as is are hard to meet at times. The transformation from High school to college is so hard that many students have a hard time transitioning. I commend the student who transitions well and maintains a high enough GPA to continue to receive the HOPE.

I dont think HOPE should be looked at as “poor peoples fund” or anything else negative. It should be looked at for what it is.

• An incentive and motivation for students to maintain good GPA’s. -A way for alot of students to go to school, who otherwise might not have had a chance -A good way to increase enrollment in schools -A step in the right direction towards to future

By WhatWillBridgetDo?

January 11, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

KA: Thanks for the post. Really wanted to advocate for our host to be a moderator and “read between the lines” as you put it. I was really surprised the regulars didn’t have a strong opinion on this; and very disappointed that our host couldn’t at least address what IMHO, is a very valid issue concerning the scope of this blog. It is what it is, so I’ll move on for now. For those who think I beat a dead horse, well the horse don’t mind, and I could use the exercise…

By Blind Homer

January 11, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

Lifer - Now you’re right. With more kids having opportunity to go to college, the schools should have gotten tougher to better prepare more graduates for college work. Instead they were bullied by the entitlement crowd, i.e., “Why shouldn’t 95 IQ Manuel get B’s and qualify for the Hope?” A lot of the money goes to kids that have little chance of graduating as well as kids that don’t need the money. It’s not perfect, or even particularly efficient, but I still think we’re better off, and safer, because of it.

By jim d

January 11, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

SET,

Nope we’re raisng smart crooks here.

By Blind Homer

January 11, 2007 03:07 PM | Link to this

local - PS is mostly BS. And, obviously, that’s needs testing that would upset the upper/middle classes, not reimbursement. They could afford to wait for the money. Adding minimum SAT requirements wold upset the lower SES, as some of them appear to be qualifying purely on grade inflation. Why not mandatory psych porofiles to measure their desire? I’ll bet half of the 1st year flunk outs are the apathetic, entitlement accustomed, PC-based kids public schools are cranking out instead of educating.

By justathought

January 11, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

I was on HOPE my freshman year of college. I easily qualified for it because I boosted my GPA my senior year by taking easy electives. I didn’t have to study in HS and I even took honor courses. It was a bit of a shock when I got to college. I thought I could get away with doing what I did in HS. (It didn’t help that I chose to go to Waffle House instead of class a few too many times.) I understood that and got my butt back in gear. But, my parents also held me accountable for my actions. Not something you see as much anymore. Many of my friends lost it too, for various reasons. Very few dropped out b/c of it. Some took time off or transfered closer to home or to a cheaper school. The majority of us went on to graduate. The money wasn’t wasted on us. No money of education is ever wasted. I still graduated and my GPA wasn’t that greatest but I sure learned a lot and had a blast. And honestly, when was the last time your employer asked you what your college GPA was? I work in higher education and feel that too many students are pushed into college b/c they can go for free. College is not the route for every HS graduate. Sometimes its just setting them up to fail. I think that also parents are counting on HOPE to pay for their child and then when they lose it they can’t help them out when it used to be you knew if you could afford it or not before you started. Now its becoming playing the lottery with your education. Every semester we would cross our fingers (just like the when we watch them pick the lotto numbers) to see if we still qualified for HOPE. College funds are becoming a thing of the past. HOPE has helped to raise the quality of students going to GA schools. Many institutions have had to raise their admission requirements to help with the influx of applicates. However, just because you can get a 4.0 doesn’t mean you have common sense.

real EW: you only have to live in FL for 12 months to gain residency and then in-state tuition. That’s what I did for graduate school.

By luckydog

January 11, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

3 points:

C. I’ll tell you who really loves the Hope: Auburn and Tennessee and Clemson, where parents of B students are dropping 20k a year into other states’ coffers because UGA is off limits.

By local student

January 11, 2007 04:23 PM | Link to this

SET: scary roomate story.

But yes KA, I do think HOPE has measurably increased the number of unprepared students. And just IMHO, they aren’t quite like the typical rich-kid drunks. After all, when you waste mommy and daddy’s money right off the bat, they’ll probably give you a hard time. Wasting anonymous taxpayer money is a lot easier. Maybe that’s the difference! Before HOPE, you could only be a slacker if your parents could afford it. Now most everyone has the chance! God Bless America and the Great State of Georgia!

I get the feeling that some of the totally clueless kids are ones that weren’t really pushed by their parents (or themselves) to attend college. It’s just kinda—-there.

That’s why I’m quite agreeable to the idea of reimbursement. It does sort out those who just really wouldn’t be there if it meant making any sort of effort or taking a small risk. Under the current system, there’s no penalty at all.

One last point, brought up by luckydog: whether you agree with the whole lottery thing or not, HOPE is a tremendous transfer of money. Any time you set up such a system, it will have undesirable side effects like bloated buracracy, ridiculous pricing increases, H.S grade inflation…the list goes on.

Which goes back to Bridget’s question—is the money well-spent?

By erin

January 11, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

I also had the HOPE and I also lost it my freshman year - not because I failed to make decent grades but because I failed to make outstanding grades. That was my own fault, but like just a thought, I think a lot of that was because high school, where I made fantastic grades without really trying, really didn’t prepare me and my classmates well enough for what college would require of us.

I took time off, went to a smaller, community college and then moved out of state where I finally finished my degree.

It took me longer after I lost my HOPE scholarship and it certainly wasn’t the easiest way to get an education, but I DID get one and I went on after that to make the Dean’s List at both subsequent schools I attended as well as earn scholarships.

But as for HOPE itself? I love that it gives people from families like mine the chance to go to college. I never would have been able to go, period, if it wasn’t for the HOPE.

And although OF COURSE there are those who will abuse the system (shouldn’t happen, but unfortunately does), I say if it goes to help even one person like me, then it’s worth it.

That may sound too Pollyanna, but it’s true. I know of many people in the same situation I was in, whose families could not have afforded to send them to college who were able to go and make something more of themselves because of it.

By erin

January 11, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

I wanted to add that I also support the idea of making HOPE a reimbursement plan …

If that means the family would pay and then be reimbursed, though, that would still leave out a number of kids who really DO want to be there and just can’t do so otherwise.

So maybe for kids whose families have a documented need of a certain amount, the family could use it like a loan, only the money would be used, after grades come in, to pay the loan instead of being reimbursed to the family.

By KA

January 11, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

lucky dog, you said, “It’s kept some students in state, but it’s also made both Tech and UGA unattainable to anyone but A students.” UH, I think most of us would agree that it’s a GOOD thing that our top tier universities have such high standards and so many “A” student applicants! Many “A” and “B” students who don’t gain admission to Tech or UGA go to the second tier universities and colleges, which have also seen improved academic standards. And I’d rather that our “B” students go to Tenn., S.C. and Ala. than our “A” students, because that means that HOPE has slowed the brain drain to out of state colleges! Did you know that Tech has 3-2 programs with a variety of schools in the State for their engineering majors? You spend 3 years at the first school then transfer and complete tow years at Tech. I know students who have completed these programs successfully. I am not sure if UGA has any 3-2 prgrams with other schools.

By luvs2teach

January 11, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this

“It’s kept some students in state, but it’s also made both Tech and UGA unattainable to anyone but A students. If you go to a relatively good high school and get mostly B’s, you’re now stuck with Ga. State (not exactly a traditional college experience) or the secondary colleges like KSU and GCSU.”

And why is that a bad thing?

By local student

January 11, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

Great story, erin. I appreciate hearing from someone who was technically a HOPE “failure” but who really did benefit so much from the program.

In the end, it’s hard to quantify how successful the program is, since there are obviously many folks like you who wouldn’t look like a success in a statistical analysis, but who are in real life.

By Ernest

January 11, 2007 04:54 PM | Link to this

Erin:

Thanks for the reminder of what the HOPE scholarship was about. Sounds like it provided an opportunity for you to see what you were capable of once you applied yourself.

For every Erin, there are probably several ‘Junebugs’ that go to school on HOPE, party throughout their Freshman year, and never finish school. At the same time, there are several that are able to keep it throughout their college career.

I had a nephew that lost it after his 2nd year. That didn’t stop him from pursuing his degree and he will graduate next year with a degree in civil engineering.

What kind of return to we expect on this investment? Catlady and Jim D made several interesting posts after Christmas (12/27 blog) on the percentages of students that graduate from college, pre and post HOPE. They may be worthwhile reading.

By KA

January 11, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

local student, re the “tremendous transfer of money.” The Lottery is completely voluntary and whether one earns his money or take handouts from taxpayers, it is his choice as to how he will spend his money. It’s not a tax on necessities, food, clothing, drugs, gas, electricty, communications, entertainment, luxury items or property. It is NOT a TAX! It’s just a ticket in a game of chance! And the money goes to fund education. What is wrong with that? Bloated beaurocracy? The Ga. Lottery Corp. supports itself. Pricing increases? In what? And grade inflation is not the HOPE’s fault, it’s the idiot admins running the school systems and schools that allow grade inflation!

By Janis Ian

January 11, 2007 05:06 PM | Link to this

Oh, Ernest, thank you for all your clarifications. I just don’t think I could have slept tonight without knowing just exactly what you think about this matter. I’m in heaven now, HOPE heaven. It’s just so meaningful what you wrote. I just know each and every blogger who sits on the edge of his/her chair waiting to read your input for the day was just as sated as I, especially Lisa B. and her husband.

Love and kisses….

By local student

January 11, 2007 05:13 PM | Link to this

KA, anytime you implement a large third-party payer program, a certain amount of money will be wasted and/or lost to fraud. That doesn’t mean the program should be shut down, it’s just a point to consider.

Medicare and Medicaid are a good example—whether you like them or not, they have inevitably produced tons of paperwork, etc. Even insurance does that. There are clinics now that charge much less for a typical drs. visit, but the catch is that you must pay them directly. They take no insurance, no medicaid, no nothing. That’s why they can charge less.

Also, third party payer programs tend to let prices go nuts…after all, if your kid’s on a HOPE scholarship, you’re less likely to complain about tuition hikes or new fees.

As far as the lottery being voluntary, my last post had nothing to do with that. Not that my position has changed. Voluntary or not, it is money collected by the state. You have a choice as to whether you buy a 52-inch TV or not, but the taxes on that may not seem as “voluntary” to you.

By jim d

January 11, 2007 05:13 PM | Link to this

local student (LS)

I’ve enjoyed reading you thoughts on the board today. Come back tomorrow so we can continue the lesson on critical thinking. Looks like you may really be starting to get it. Well except for the lottery thing, but we can work on that too. :-)

Have a great evening.

By local student

January 11, 2007 05:21 PM | Link to this

Thanks Jim, I’ve enjoyed the give and take too.

Now I’ll go empty my brain out so you can convert me to your way of thinking on the lottery thing. :)

Y’all take it easy.

By Ernest

January 11, 2007 05:24 PM | Link to this

Gee Janis, I’m beginning to think you are smitten with me, awaiting my every post. How about lunch tomorrow at Chequers near Perimeter Mall? You can tell me all about yourself and how you REALLY feel about me over crab cakes. Tell me the time and I’ll be there.

Hugs and kisses… ;)

By KA

January 11, 2007 05:46 PM | Link to this

local student, You can hardly compare the federal medicare/medicaid programs to the lottery as those programs are funded with tax monies. Please enlighten me as to your source for the designation of the lottery monies as taxes.

By Blind Homer

January 11, 2007 05:50 PM | Link to this

lucky dog - Just a minor offset, and a voluntary one at that, to the truly horrendous mandatory law (federal taxes) transfering huge amounts of money from those that work to those that produce crack babies for a living. I’d love for Erin or Jeff or others to explain to us exactly how they never could have dreamed of school without the Hope. Ever hear of work? In state tuition, fees, and book allowance provided totals about $5K a year max. As I’ve said before, you can earn that at McD’s working 15 hours a week. Hope just allows you to go to keggers instead of Mc’d’s. I paid two people’s expenses, tuition and room and board, through UGA working at the local rubber factory pre-Hope. No wonder you flunk out, you have no work ethic. Get off your butts and break a sweat you bloody wankers!

By KA

January 11, 2007 05:59 PM | Link to this

local student, My 3 kids have all kept their HOPE throughout college, and I have been concerned about any college increases, because as tuition rises, so does the costs of room and board! I want to thank all you who have purchased lottery tickets, thus supporting the HOPE scholarship program. We saved for college for our three kids, but it always costs more than you planned for. Having the HOPE enabled us to spend money in other areas, and I like to think in our small way we stimulated the economy with our spending. And if you add up all of the HOPE recipients and their parents who have avoided going into debt with loans, and who have also had additional money to spend on home improvement, cars, furniture, consumables, recreation, clothing, etc., then I think a good argument can be made that the lottery and HOPE have stimulated Georgia’s economy overall!

By GaNative

January 11, 2007 06:11 PM | Link to this

So Brian Jay Corrigan, just because you come from a poor or minority family does not mean that the brain ceases to function. You’re a hoot of a professor.

By Erin

January 11, 2007 06:13 PM | Link to this

to BlindHomer: Well, I can’t speak for Jeff, but I worked my rear off and I can assure you it just wasn’t going to happen, realistically speaking.

Did I mention my family was poor? I mean, not lazy, but we had a streak of really bad luck with various things. My dad died when I was 18. My mom was disabled and truly, absolutely could not work. She also developed cancer and diabetes.

Even working 60, 70 hours a week, I would not have been able to make enough money in a minimum-wage job to make ends meet at home AND pay tuition and books and car upkeep and insurance and all of those other things, not to mention study and keep decent grades.

THAT is why the HOPE made the difference. For me at least.

I just consider it a real shame that some use it to goof off, get drunk and waste their time and everyone else’s money when there are people out there who truly need the help.

Those who abuse the HOPE (or welfare, or medicare, medicaid, food stamps, you name it) just make it that much harder for those of us who REALLY, really try and work ourselves into exhaustion just to have it never be enough.

That, in a nutshell, is where I was. I’d certainly not be where I am today if the HOPE wasn’t an option for me.

And by the way, when I moved out of state, I did work two jobs and too out tons of loans which I am now paying off to get me through school. It was hard, but I did it, thankyouverymuch.

By GaNative

January 11, 2007 06:15 PM | Link to this

Brian Jay Corrigan kids from poor families don’t need HOPE, they get the PELL GRANT where everything is paid for totally free.

By Blind Homer

January 11, 2007 06:20 PM | Link to this

Thanks Erin. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I guess there are lots of situations, like yours, where $20K over 4 years makes a huge difference. I wish you continued success.

By SET

January 11, 2007 06:24 PM | Link to this

Blind Homer: I work with psych profiles a lot in my legal practice. They are very expensive and are only as good as the records that can be quickly assembled for the Drs to review and confront the patient with at interview time.

No college as we know them has the time and money to get into this type of screening. They can use proxies for psych screening. SAT scores are proxies for IQ tests as is graduation from an Ivy League School, stable job histories are in some situations good proxies for drug screening, getting a driver’s licence at 16 (not 18 or 21) and keeping it in force without problems can be used to rule in or out certain social & practical problems. Credit Scores are fantastic proxies for character, judgement and drug addiction screening especially at the extreme lows.

Hope Grants (or any education subsidy) handed out willy nilly to whoever has a reflection in the mirror is a waste of state educational funds that could have been used to actually educate. I don’t have an Rx, just the observation that the program should be adjusted from time to time to put the money where it produces the greatest return for the state taxpayers.

Using a reimbursement plan and requiring performance would be prudent use of the money while cutting off some people who could have performed but had no working capital to start. Requiring a baseline SAT to participate in state educational subsidies is probably prudent to avoid wasting the $$. It would upset the demographics - as if I care. I would however if I were horsetrading legislation - insist in providing appropriate voc training subsidies to low IQ GA citizens (Not Mexican Invaders, etc.) As well as College Subsidies for the higher IQs. I believe the taxpayers need both groups worked with and in fact I’d want perhaps as much money spent on the dull getting voc training (that is expected to actually return earning power - not black studies) as I’d want spent on the brights taking Nursing and Pharmacy School. I’d just not spend $50K on a student getting cosmetology classes, barber college, etc. I would spend $50K on a Nurse or a Pharmacist. I might want to try to allocate the funds so that many more dulls get smaller grants for their shorter term training than fewer brights who’d get larger grants for longer term, more costly training.

By Jeff

January 11, 2007 06:24 PM | Link to this

My HOPE story:

All my life, my parents told me that college was something that I was GOING to do. Both of them graduated HS, and each has taken some type of post HS classes in the years after they graduated HS (my mom is actually taking one class at a time right NOW!!!!), but neither has ever gotten a degree of any type.

Me? I started at KSU - a FIRST rate insitution, BTW - as a junior in HS (yes, relating to a recent topic, I was a Joint Enrollment kid). When I walked at HS graduation, I had roughly 60 hours at Kennesaw, so I was already classified as either a sophomore or a junior at Kennesaw. This was before HOPE had payed a DIME towards my education. When I officially went on HOPE in Summer 2001, I was eventually able to complete a Computer Science degree and do everything for a Math Ed degree, though I dropped Student Teaching the semester I graduated, and therefore didn’t get the Math Ed.

I did all this while dropping quite a few classes… mostly because I under-estimated work loads, particularly at times when I had signed up for 5 and 6 classes and was working two jobs and volunteering for a third organization.

Would I have gone to college without HOPE? More than likely. Would it have been MUCH harder on both me and my family? Almost definitely.

All in all, I am DEEPLY appreciative of what it did for me, and that appreciation is honestly one of the reasons that I would never want to LIVE anywhere other than this Great State. (Though I do like to vacation elsewhere, just to see what the rest of my country looks like!!)

On the topic of the blog: Do changes need to be made? I could support it. I would support the residency requirement for incoming freshmen in particular. (College transfers already have a residency requirement, as they must wait until they qualify for in-state tuition anyway.)

Could the money be spent in ways other than HOPE? MAYBE. But I don’t see the problems in education as being money problems. While I fully support raising teachers’ salaries (DUH! I’m a teacher!!), overall it comes down to student discipline as our main problem, and money won’t fix that. (As a matter of fact, the two WORST discipline SES’s are the highest and lowest. For the same reasons… the difference is that mommy and daddy give the kids everything in the high SES’s and the Government gives the kids (and mommy and daddy) everything in the low SES’s.)

By Jeff

January 11, 2007 06:32 PM | Link to this

Blind:

How did I get brought into this before I even posted on this one????

Do you have a personal vendetta against me or something?

As far as “ONLY” 5K goes: When 5K is a tenth of the FAMILY’s YEARLY income, you’re talking a serious chunk of change, PARTICULARLY when the family in question is at or near paycheck to paycheck anyway.

By SET

January 11, 2007 06:32 PM | Link to this

State created gambling schemes shiphon $$ from the poor and stupid just as handily as income tax takes $$ it from the well to do. Ditto sin taxes such as high cigarette taxes. It’s all revenue for the government. It should be spent prudently with an eye to future productivity of the people and the workers of the state. Like infrastructure and education of the workforce.

CA state income taxes are rigged so that the working poor (45K a year with kids) pay little or usually nothing in CA income taxes. They pay CA State taxes through sales taxes, payroll taxes such as State Unemployment and Disability wage taxes, property taxes, gas taxes and sin taxes & lottery purchases.

It’s better if the sheeple had over the dough without a gun to their heads (and without even having to file a tax return!).

By TechStudent

January 12, 2007 08:51 AM | Link to this

I dont think they should raise the requirements for HOPE. At some institutions, normal kids (not genius’) work their a* off for the first time and struggle to maintain hope. I have several friends who did amazing in high school and obtained hope only to find that college is much harder than high school. 3.0 is still challenging to achieve to many people at tech.

By meme

January 12, 2007 09:23 AM | Link to this

SET, I am usually impressed by your statemens. However, the statement about the poor and the lottery, I think, is way off base. No one is forced to buy a ticket.

By KA

January 12, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Question for all of you who say the poor are the majority lottery ticket buyers. Are there statistics on what percentage of their money they are spending on lottery tickets? And why is it a bad thing that they spend their money on education? Poor people in this country are poor mainly because they make poor choices in life. They never grow up and take responsiblity for their own lives. They choose to not work at their education; they choose to have children as teenagers, out-of- wedlock, and then choose not to parent their children. Then they complain that their entry level jobs don’t pay them a living wage for their single parent families of 2-5 kids. They blame everyone but themselves for their lack of success and feel they are entitled to the handouts that taxpayers give them to buy their food, healthcare and give them walking around money through the earned income credit, a yearly lump sum welfare check. If the poor choose to spend their dollars on lottery tickets, I say good for them, that they are finally making a good choice with my tax dollar to choose education. G*d willing their children will make better choices and have a shot at college with the HOPE.

By Ernest

January 12, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

KA:

In fairness, I got much of my information regarding your question from a report in the AJC a few years ago. Based on their report, a majority of lottery sales were in a zip code in DeKalb (low SES) and most of the HOPE awardees were from a zipcode in Gwinnett (moderate to high SES). I’m certain the reporter didn’t ask each person that bought a ticket what was their income and if they lived in the area. They probably simply looked at the raw data then made evaluations based upon that.

Many are poor because of the poor choices they make. Some are poor because of circumstances beyond their control (illness, death, etc.). I’ve heard the expression about the lottery being a ‘Tax on ignorance’. For some of us who play from time to time, we simply use pocket change and it does not affect our overall budget. There are cases of people using a signficant portion of their budget on the lottery with hopes of ‘getting rich quick’. I don’t think they are doing this for educational purposes (my opinion). Again, we will say it is a poor choice and an personal decision they make. In situations like this, the benefits of the lottery are questioned because it could result in some seeking government assistance to sustain themselves thus perpetuating that ‘bad’ behavior.

I like the comment someone made about income taxes transferring wealth from the haves to the have-nots while lotteries transfer wealth from the have-nots to the haves. Makes you think….

At the end of the day, I ‘hope’ HOPE is still available for my children, when they come of age!

By local student

January 12, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Ah, KA, I knew eventually you’d be straight up about how you felt about lottery proceeds. Frankly, it seems like a reversal of the happiness that some people feel when the “rich” get slammed on taxes.

Honestly, I think that if people spend money on lottery tickets, that’s their business. They should be free to gamble away. But to be so gleeful and biased about “the poor” financing the home improvements, recreation, and consumables of those you consider to not be parasites…hm. I think there’s a certain element of punishment, rather than enjoyment of the good things accomplished.

By SET

January 12, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

meme: I’m not surprised that some people on this blog think this way (poor not forced to but a lottery ticket).

They are not forced to be poor either, they are not forced to smoke either, they are not forced to have children early and often either. They are not “forced” to be born with a below agerage IQ either.

Whenever a higher status businessman or polititian operates a scheme to extract funds from “the poor” - like the payday loan industry targeting our servicemen and their families with 2500% apr loans, they always say the customer is responsible for what happens. Some people as a matter of policy agree. That’s because they project their own IQ and mores on the people involved and judge accordingly.

I suppose I’m in the business of evaluating forseeability and then assessing blame. As a lawyer we do this a lot.

So my position on the above posts is that state run lotteries are just as much a tax as state created inflation, business “licenses”, minimum wage schemes, occupational exams and education requirements, and obvious taxes, etc. These are all schemes the state runs which transfer wealth (largely to the state).

I understand that some tax is required to operate the state. I believe it is a moral imperative that the state not squander the limited resources it takes from the working public, but rather return as much value as possible from the taxation of the workers. Others may disagree with all or part of my position. To me it’s just economics.

By Lee

January 12, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

I remember years ago when the lottery was being proposed, one of the local pundits quipped “… the politicians finally figured out how to tax stupid.” Lot of truth in that statement, IMHO.

A ton of revenue has been generated by the lottery and the HOPE scholarship is a worthwhile endeavor. I’m really, really, really surprised we’ve been able to keep (for the most part) the politicians greedy little hands out of the pot.

By KA

January 12, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Ernest, Thanks, and statistics can be misleading. Comparing the lottery sales and SES’s in only two zipcodes in two counties…sorry those are not significant stats for me, because there are many other variables that can be considered.

By KA

January 12, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

local student, I’ve posted these comments before and always try to be straight up as you say. Regarding my question on stats, can you answer it? I don’t believe that the poor buy so many lottery tickets that they cannot feed and clothe their children! Show me stats and I’ll consider them. You also put words in my mouth and jumped to YOUR OWN conclusions with your comment, “But to be so gleeful and biased about “the poor” financing the home improvements, recreation, and consumables of those you consider to not be parasites…hm. I think there’s a certain element of punishment, rather than enjoyment of the good things accomplished.” I am neither gleeful, nor biased, nor did I call the poor parasites. I talked about choices, good and bad. If the HOPE keeps families and students from taking out loans and going into debt, that is a GOOD thing. And if there is money left to spend for living expenses then we do stimulate the economy, and that is a GOOD thing, too. The poor are not financing these things! They are just returning a few of the welfare dollars they received from taxpayers! No transfer of wealth either because the children of the poor, lower middle and middle class can and do benefit from the HOPE!

By Lisa B.

January 12, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

This is a great discussion with some insightful posts. I appreciate thought-provoking comments.

Thanks!

By KA

January 12, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

SET, You brought up economics. Isn’t it good economic policy that poor students who would not be otherwise be able to afford college can, with the HOPE scholarship, go to college and not take out loans and go into massive debt? The HOPE is merit based, and students must work in college to keep a “B” average in order to keep the scholarship. Isn’t it good economic policy for the State to strive to educate poor and lower middle class students who after graduation can get good jobs, support themselves, and families, and contribute to our economy? The poor in Georgia have the same shot at the HOPE as anybody else. And HOPE has enabled thousands of poor students to earn their way out of poverty. What is wrong with that?

By KA

January 12, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

SET, I don’t agree with your lower IQ generalizations about the poor. Many of the habits of the poor are cultural, learned behaviors, and basically the result of generations of poor parenting. There are the feel good stories of exceptional teachers who take poor kids, inspire and motivate through teaching, training and leading by example, and show them the way to take responsibility for their own actions and learning. And they are then competitive academically with the others that you say have higher IQ’s and ability. If it can be done on an individual basis, then the challenge is how to do this on a large scale; to reprogram a whole segment of society.

By local student

January 12, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

KA, if you don’t see that your post didn’t contain some element of a wish to “get even” with the poor, then I can’t really address the subject any more. I hope you are only being stubborn on the point to win the argument, and not through self-delusion.

And I’m not the one on here asserting that the lottery money flows from lower-income to higher income families, that is irrelevent to me. My posts have been centered around a couple of points.

First, whether the money collected (whatever you call it) is being spent in an efficient fashion.

Second, what intangible side effects (like grade inflation) have grown out of HOPE.

I did specifically agree with JustMe that the money collected from the lottery is tax money, but my point in that is that the money is being collected and distributed by the state. Whatever you choose to call it, it should be spent with the same care as in any other expenditure the state makes.

As far as the demographics or morality of the lottery, I don’t have a position on that. You’re the one who offered up your thoughts on the subject. But for the record, I agree with the part of Lee’s post about it being a way to tax stupid. If people want to blow money on the lottery instead of paying their rent, it’s their choice. I’ve said that before.

Relax.

By jim dumond

January 12, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

KA,

Don’t know of any studies in Ga. but one was done in AZ. back around 2004 that concluded among other things that the average annual household income for a player was something like $500+ above the statewide average.

I’ve been looking for that study but haven’t located it yet.

By KA

January 12, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this

local student, You are free to express your opinions, but please think before you accuse a poster of “self-delusion” and impute my what one’s wishes are. In other words, stick to the issues! The economic and educational opportunity pies are not a fixed size, and I applaud Georgia for finding a way through the Lottery and HOPE to increase education oppotunities for ALL Georgia students. Any of the regular bloggers can vouch that I am not a biased poster. I think HOPE is administered well, efficiently, and the funds are used wisely. See my earlier post where I said that even students who fail out of college benefit by their experience. I wish education and economic success for all who take responsiblity for their own actions and earn their way out of poverty. A hand up is what is needed, not a hand out. HOPE is a hand up.

By KA

January 12, 2007 01:45 PM | Link to this

local student, I am also not here to ‘win’ an argument. I am answering Bridget’s question, presenting food for thought, and my opinions. Our best discussions in Get Schooled have been those where we have a lot of different viewpoints presented, and we all learn from each other. IMO, name calling and fault finding do not contribute to the topic.

By SET

January 12, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

KA: Really Good Question. I think you (I) have to live awhile and get burned a bit to see the answer.

You assume the poor are like you and I and if given a “chance” they can and might perform like you and I. I once thought so. I once voted for McGovern for President.

I learned like a lot of other people, that the “poor” are not like you and me. Not by a long shot. I’m not talking individuals, I’m talking about groups.

The main reason they are poor (around the USA anyway) is because of bad genetics, bad culture, inheirited addictions, IQ issues, etc.

You can’t save or change groups of poor people by giving them money - or college admission. You can help a lot by giving them discipline. I have noticed this first hand by dealing with the WWI and Korean War generation who went from underclass to middleclass through the experience of being drafted, living under military discipline, then going to school later in life through the GI Bill. I’ve seen how the parents, siblings and cousins of some of these people are in prison or still in trailer parks (the bad parks, not the nice ones) while the vets are in the professions or civil service. The difference was the military discipline followed by adult education.

And I’ve watched American Negroes (as we called ourselves at the time) got from when from things getting better every generation (literacy and productivity) up through 1960. Then we got the current disaster (downhill since 1964), because white liberals thought it was a great idea to pay anyone to have bastard children and not work - and to prevent public schools from enforcing anything (like education).

So when I approach the HOPE debate this is where I’m coming from. Throwing unearned money at “poor” people makes things worse, and I’ve seen in my lifetime how bad, bad can get. We haven’t yet seen how much more bad things will get because the economic and demographic projections look too much like science fiction for anyone to believe them. The AIDS projections alone…. The death rate projections from homicide, disease and overdoses, etc… And I’m not talking about the US Asian mortality rates here.

KA - I can take the money allocated from the Treasury and get results for the taxpayers but doing that doesn’t include sprinkling over the heads of the “poor”, be they black or white.

We’ve been doing that since Johnson’s Great Society legislation in 1964 and giving money to the “poor” makes things worse.

I’d rather build another Hoover Dam, another Bay Bridge, a High-Speed National Rail System, or nearly any other massive public works project.

And I’d start letting the “poor” starve. I’d also create irresistable tax and legal incentives to employ unskilled labor (household and commercial). And I’d remove the “protections” that prevent the public schools from actually educating and training the underclass. You can’t do these things without ending the open borders madness, so I’d have a round-up day for illegals (including the kids) and intern them in distant places until their governments can negotiate for their deportation. This would include confiscating their real and personal property. If they didn’t flee by the deadline.

I don’t have a problem with inflicting pain in order to protect the integrity of this nation, it’s borders, and the continued economic vitality of it’s people. Maybe I just don’t have the toxic alturism common among the elites.

By local student

January 12, 2007 02:09 PM | Link to this

KA, I wish I had worded my earlier post better, as it seemed to upset you. But really, the majority of your post did seem to show at least an irritability towards “mainly” the poor. If I posted that you felt entitled to taxpayer money, blamed others for your lack of success, or wouldn’t take responsibility for your life, wouldn’t you see that as a negative assessment?

Mind you, I’m not disagreeing with your point that people can (and in many cases do) end up poor through poor choices. And that the fact that they do so should carry negative consequences.

I was just pointing out that you seem to have strong feelings about the poor, and the fact that if they do support middle/upper classes, then there seems to be a “well, good!” revenge based aspect to that feeling.

Wanting justice—in the form of state-supported folk paying back through the lottery—is natural and not necessarily bad. I just thought you should be aware of it, since I think it’s an undercurrent of why the lottery is so popular. And it also might affect people’s judgement of the wastefulness (or not) of the program, if they unconsiously consider the “revenge” factor of the lottery’s getting some of their taxes back.

I’m quite willing to accept your assertion that in your opinion, the HOPE program is well run and a good use of funds. I was simply trying to point out that you might have something behind that opinion besides strict consideration of economic facts. And your posting on the poor was hardly “sticking to the facts” but I’m not complaining about that—-you have a right to your opinion.

By jim dumond

January 12, 2007 02:26 PM | Link to this

KA,

Apparently the AJC did a “who buys lottery tickets” study.

Perhaps Bridget could find it in the archives The study was mentioned by REBECCA PAUL at a NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT STUDY COMMISSION meeting on march 16,1998.

You can read her entire statement to the commission at.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/meetings/mar1698/mar16p4.html

By jim dumond

January 12, 2007 02:32 PM | Link to this

if you don’t want to read the entire thing—here’s a quick blurb.

“A market research study conducted by the Atlanta Journal Constitution found that in the metro Atlanta area the typical lottery player was a white male, he was over 25 years old, he had an annual income in excess of $35,000 and had at least a high school diploma. The research shows, and it’s in your packets, that our players were slightly older than the marketplace. We had more male purchasers then female purchasers. The ethnicity was in line with the market. The annual income skewed higher than the marketplace. In fact, over 50 percent made more than $50,000 per year. And 57 percent of our players had some college, a college degree, or an advanced degree.”

By KA

January 12, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

SET, I agree with much of what you say about the poor and their ways, and do not believe in the welfare state that has produced a class of resentful non productive ‘victims’ of society. I know I am not coming from the same mindset as the poor, and have tried to educate myself, read all of Ruby Payne’s books, the best is A Framework for Understanding Poverty. I guess I am just an optimist, a Pollyanna who believes that there is always a way to turn things around, even if it is only one child at a time. It cannot be accomplished society wide without enforcing discipline, accountability and responsibility, and many public schools are failing on that front. The Georgia HOPE scholarship is not a giveaway, it is earned, even though some HS schools practice grade inflation and not all “B” averages across the state HS are equivalent. I do think that the majority of HOPE recipients benefit from whatever time they spend in college, even and especially when they don’t keep a “B” avg and lose their HOPE, because reality hits them in the face and there is NO entitlement then. They must earn their “B” avg back to regain the HOPE.

By KA

January 12, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

jim, Thanks for finding that article, I knew I had read that. So what do all you think about the fact that “In fact, over 50 percent made more than $50,000 per year. And 57 percent of our players had some college, a college degree, or an advanced degree. Looks like the story that the poor are supporting the HOPE is revealed as a myth.

By KA

January 12, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

local student, live and learn the difference between facts and opinions.

By jim d

January 12, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

KA,

I still can’t confirm 100% that it’s myth. I’d be interested in learning how the numbers have changed over the past 9 years.

But if one stops and considers disposable income it stands to reason that people making more have more of it.

By Ernest

January 12, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

Can the bloggers give an AMEN for Rev. SET? I’ll admit I felt a little uncomfortable reading your post. I then realized I felt that way because deep down I agreed with much of it. Perhaps I have not been ‘burned’ enough and why I am ‘pollyanna’ to wanting to help. At the end of the day, I believe we are all compassionate people.

Like KA, I believe HOPE is a good thing, with faults. There are aspects of the award that could be tightened up to ensure we are getting a better return on our investment.

JimD, thanks for posting that link. I drank the Kool-Aid and ‘assumed’ the ‘light’ analysis was true. I know I’ve also seen statistics suggesting that as the lottery goes higher (100 mil+), more people in higher incomes play. Again, this analysis was done by reviewing receipts of Lottery sales in higher SES areas. Not sure if any observations/analysis was made of those actually purchasing the tickets.

By local student

January 12, 2007 04:49 PM | Link to this

One thing about the article cited, though: it lists the typical lottery player, without discussing how much the typical player spends. At least that’s how I interpret it.

If the guy making 50,000 buys one ticket, and the guy making 25,000 buys 20 tickets, is that taken into account? If that’s true, then it could be said that lower-income people do fund more of HOPE.

By jim d

January 12, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

Local student,

It’s just this itsy-pitsy thing called LIBERTY. They do still teach about that in schools don’t they?

People play and we shouldn’t discount the reason they play as being nothing. It could be that a lottery has as much social importance as buying a cookie or playing a video game. And if people are in many ways the judge of their own best behavior then why shouldn’t they also have the right to make this choice.

By SET

January 12, 2007 05:03 PM | Link to this

Ernest: I’m not a Rev, not even politically correct. I’m telling you people that when the readers on this blog start agreeing with me the end is near.

I can use the blog to vent and to float balloons. You don’t know which is which all the time… I do have a sense of humor. If I’m able to provoke the readership to recheck their calculations and to defend their earlier assumptions then I’m happy. I do wish things were different and I do think we could have more and better things for people.

I just keep seeing this iceberg off the bow from the cruiseship I’m vacationing on. I hate being the skunk at the garden party but with education and experience comes this elevated sense of smell…

You’ll be pleased to know that I’ve managed to resist entreaties to go on the bench in CA (by the defense bar no less) - and I was interviewed for a Federal Bench appointment. (The interview was a joke - they already had their candidate and wanted to claim they tried for “diverse” appointments.)

When I was younger I thought I’d like to go that direction but now I realize that some people think I’d make a great foil to use against their adversaries. And I suppose I would. Thing is, who’s turn is it today.

Nowadays I’m in (politically anyway) business for myself and I sure don’t need to get trapped trying to make other people happy. I am not registered as either major political party - I regard them as dangerously the same anyway.

I have friends who are liberal and conservative and I antagonize all of them. But they still use me for a sounding board because they want to find a way to make their philosophy actually work. Then they get frustrated when they can’t get it to work their way.

We live in interesting times. And it’s getting more so. Want to lay odds the repubs just might get PO’ed enough to impeach George and Dick and put Nancy on the Throne? Be careful what we wish for.

By local student

January 12, 2007 05:03 PM | Link to this

In the beating the dead horse catagory, the suspicions that lower-income people have higher per-capita spending, at least on a national level. I’d be curious to know if the same holds true for Georgia. Here’s a link to a 50-something page pdf—I thought I should warn ya—-

http://www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/faculty/clotfelter/lottrep.pdf

By KA

January 12, 2007 05:10 PM | Link to this

Ernest, I agree, SET’s racial and IQ generalizations about the perennially poor didn’t sit well with me either, hence my comments. SET has an excellent point that government policies created this situation. I think a change of policy could reverse the damage that welfare has wrought. Until the social policies change, we can work on helping individuals to learn that they are in control of learning, and working and earning whatever they want, they just have to do it!

By Ernest

January 12, 2007 05:15 PM | Link to this

SET: Just kidding on the ‘Rev’ comment. With me you’ve achieved your goal, getting me to consider things outside my comfort zone. You may recall, I’ve challenged you a few times for several comments in the past. I recognize what you are trying to do with your posts. I also believe you are a compassionate person.

Have a good weekend all….

By jim d

January 12, 2007 05:16 PM | Link to this

Here for my help, you are today… yes…

Beware, Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

The duke document refers to lottery collections as an Implicit tax. Here’s where we stray apart.

People aren’t forced to participate and those that do recieve something of value whether it be entertainment, actual winning, or just the anticipation of winning. In that they do recieve something of value it is not a tax.

By jim d

January 12, 2007 05:20 PM | Link to this

Ka,

Words I recall, not sure where I read them but years ago I stumbled upon the following quote and it’s just one that stuck with me.

“Life responds by corresponding ——-your life becomes the thing you have decided it shall be.”

By KA

January 12, 2007 05:29 PM | Link to this

The Duke doc. says that did NOT ask lottery tickey buyers how much they spent, SO they made some assumptions based on the frequency of playing, etc. Their conclusions rely on their assumptions, not on collected data.

By luckydog

January 12, 2007 05:33 PM | Link to this

lvs2teach: I don’t argue that making Tech and UGA attainable only to A students is not a good thing, at least on its face. I do think it’s a shame that college admissions have turned into such a numbers-chase, and that the in-state alternatives drop so far so fast if you barely miss the cut at UGA. I don’t mean that KSU and GCSU and such aren’t decent secondary schools, but that’s all they are or ever will be. And Ga State is just too weird an environment. The Georgia kids going to Auburn and Kentucky and such are not idiots. They just didn’t play the game quite as well, or had a bad semester or two when they were 15, and now they have to pay out the wazoo to go to a traditional state U.

By KA

January 12, 2007 05:36 PM | Link to this

The beauty of the blog, bait and switch the discussion ; )

By local student

January 12, 2007 05:38 PM | Link to this

Sigh. And wrong the Duke eggheads are, Jedi?

I thought of throwing that in my post, but figured that y’all are never going to admit the lottery is a tax, since you see it as voluntary. But I was gratified to see that at least someone else does. Perhaps y’all should take it up with them, as I don’t think there is any proof I could offer that would change your mind. Few people would speak of “excise voluntary donations” that we pay when we buy cigarettes or booze.

But the conclusions about who spends how much seem to be clearer to me, though I admit to only having scanned the document. It seems to agree with the testmony on the Georgia lottery about participation, but brings up the unpleasant truth of how much is spent by different groups. I bet that’s the reason the Georgia Comission specifically was told about a typical participant, rather than per-capita spending.

I thought as much when I read the article. It’s a good way to tell the truth that everyone wants to hear.

By jim d

January 12, 2007 05:45 PM | Link to this

No! No not the same! Only same in your mind. Unlearn what you have learned, you must

taxes on smokes and booze have no value as do no taxes. But when you buy a chance—you buy “HOPE” (pun intended)

By luvs2teach

January 12, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this

jim d - your 5:16 stated exactly what I was thinking - when I go to Vegas or on a cruise and choose to gamble, I look at the money I spent as an “entertainment fee” - no different than a ticket to a movie or concert. The entertainment factor IS the value. I don’t see how it can then also be considered a tax - implicit or not. You have a choice to play or not play. If you choose to play, you aren’t paying the dollar as a tax for which you personally recevie no value; you are paying the dollar for the thrill of anticipation as you scratch it off or watch the numbers be drawn.

And if you’re addicted to that thrill, well, thanks for choosing the Georgia Lottery instead of Vegas, another state, or off-shore betting - my daughter thanks you for helping to support her college education.

btw - “you” as in the collective you, not anyone in particular.

By luvs2teach

January 12, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

luckydog - don’t you think that KSU and GCSU will then be broguht up too? If Tech is only accepting the best, then even as a second tier, KSU will be getting the best of the rest…and so on and so on…

In other words, it will bring everyone up, and keep more of the best and brightest here - those Ivy League-bound will always be - but an A student that can get into Tech will have other choices - it’s nice if the HOPE lets them choose Tech.

It’s funny, we talk about grade inflation and watering down eduation at all levels - maybe this will ultimately beef it up?

By jim d

January 12, 2007 05:55 PM | Link to this

Young local student.

Nothing more will I teach you today. Clear your mind of questions. For tired am I. Mmm. Mmmmmmmm.

See you on momday shall I?

By KA

January 12, 2007 06:00 PM | Link to this

local student, wordsmithing is fun! Your Duke article specifically said they DID NOT ask participants how much they spent each time, either! They made assumptions, so it’s somebody’s best guess, not a fact.

By local student

January 12, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

The Dookies did ask how much people spent on each game when they played it during a reference period. They also asked how often they played the games. That seems a reasonable way to approximate how much someone is spending, rather than asking them “how much do you spend per year?”

The Duke survey does seem to have been conducted in a scientific manner, and by people who had no overt interest in the matter, unlike the Ga. Lottery hearings.

But if you disagree, you disagree. I think page 12 is pretty clear, and it does offer how they arrived at their conclusions, rather than a quick overview of the type cited in the hearing. And, as I pointed out, the Duke data agrees with the typical player assertion, but covers the hot potato of how much is spent by income.

By KA

January 12, 2007 06:01 PM | Link to this

local student, wordsmithing is fun! Your Duke article specifically said they DID NOT ask participants how much they spent each time, either! They made assumptions, so it’s somebody’s best guess, not a fact.

By KA

January 12, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

local student, wordsmithing is fun! Your Duke article specifically said they DID NOT ask participants how much they spent each time, either! They made assumptions, so it’s somebody’s best guess, not a fact, not the “truth.”

By KA

January 12, 2007 06:11 PM | Link to this

Sorry for the double post, my computer is tired of blogging. I am just glad that people play the lottery and we have HOPE to benefit our pre-K and college students. I’m off to buy a ticket now, and I will spend $2; $1 on megamillions and $1 on fantasy five……y’all have a nice weekend!

By local student

January 12, 2007 06:23 PM | Link to this

The exact quote, from page 10;

“they were then asked what type of lottery games they had played in the reference period, and how much they had spent on each type of game when they played that game during the reference period”

Earlier, they were asked how often they had played. So:

Statistics are fun!

I know you’re still sore at me from earlier, but really, arguing that the Duke guys were “guessing” is belaboring the point. This isn’t a scribbled account from a beer-fueled dorm room discussion. It’s a freakin’ study! Not testimony from someone who wants to expand their business into Georgia.

If their conclusions are different than what you believe, than that’s a separate issue. That most likely has more to do with how you feel about me than how you feel about veracity of the Duke study.

By KA

January 12, 2007 06:41 PM | Link to this

local student, I’ll borrow your sigh… and LOL because I’m not “sore” at you, just debating you. this appears to be personal for you, and it is not personal for me. I am debating WHAT you write, not who I think you are. Regarding the Duke “reference” periods from which they made assumptions for the spending amounts for the rest of the year, I question their use of just one period. For example when the jackpot on the big lottery games increase, many more people turn out and spend more than they normally do; some only buy when the pot is large; some spend a little more and some spend a lot more. I just think there are too many variables not included in their study. And I usually don’t believe the “truth” of anything based on statistics. Statistics only give you a starting point to understanding. To truly understand requires more study. You are on the right track though so keep digging!

By KA

January 12, 2007 06:50 PM | Link to this

I got my ticket, and hope I win the lottery tonight, and if I do I’ll throw a party for the Get Schold bloggers!

By jim d

January 15, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this

Local Student,

Back we are.

I Hope you had a great weekend and had time to consider personal responsibility and how it affects us regardless of income level.