AJC.com > Opinion > Opinion Talk > Archives > 2008 > December > 01 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USShould HOPE be need-based?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Most HOPE Scholarship recipients in Georgia were college-bound from the cradle. The question was never whether they would go to college, but where.
Because of the generosity of HOPE, which covers tuition and a portion of books and fees at the state’s public institutions, many now choose schools such as the University of Georgia, Georgia College and State University and Georgia Tech rather than a private campus. The rush toward public campuses will be even more pronounced this year as families confront shrunken college funds in the wake of the economic downturn.
Many parents who assumed their bright 18-year-olds would end up at prestigious and more expensive out-of-state private schools are now waxing poetic about the charms of downtown Athens or historic Milledgeville. Nationwide, public colleges and universities are seeing record applications as worried families recoil from $40,000-a-year private school tuitions.
Whenever my high school senior mentions Columbia University and the excitement of going to college in New York City, I begin ticking off all the things I couldn’t afford when I attended grad school there, including food. Wouldn’t it be great, I tell him, to join his older sister at UGA and occasionally be able to splurge on a pizza? As a middle-class parent, I’m delighted that HOPE has reduced the basic college tab of my daughter to about $10,000 a year, the cost of room and board at UGA. But on a public policy level, I wonder if it’s the best use of scarce state resources.
A Harvard study found that only 4 percent of the money spent on HOPE went to students who might not otherwise have gone to college. Would the state net more from its investment if it instead targeted HOPE to needy students for whom the money plays a decisive role in whether they go to college?
Even without HOPE, my daughter would be in college today. Our household would assume more loans, see fewer movies and eat less take-out. If necessary, we’d borrow from our retirement funds. Somehow, we’d pull it off.
Those who support leaving HOPE merit-based argue that the scholarship only demands that high school students have a 3.0 grade point average. A 3.0 isn’t an extremely high standard for students to achieve, they say.
However, it’s a high enough threshold to shut out a lot of poor urban and rural kids. For these students, higher education was always an aspiration rather than an assumption. Many have as much potential as middle-class kids; they just lack the same opportunities. Yes, those students could resort to loans, but it’s hard to persuade children who grew up in families with an annual income of $30,000 that it’s a good idea to strap on a debt load that exceeds their households’ yearly earnings.
Two weeks ago, the Kentucky state auditor advised a panel studying college affordability that it ought to reconsider the state’s merit-based college scholarship program in view of the budget crisis. It may be wiser, the auditor suggested, to channel the funds to need-based recipients. The essential question for states is whether there’s enough of a payoff to justify funding the college education of the children of cardiologists and CEOs. Would states experience a greater return if they directed limited scholarships to kids who wouldn’t go to college otherwise?
And while some argue that not everyone needs a college degree, the data indicate that the benefits of higher education extend beyond the individual to the community and state as a whole. In the next 10 years, high-skill jobs requiring postsecondary education will comprise almost half of the country’s job growth.
On average, college graduates earn 70 percent more per year than high school grads and are more likely to receive health and retirement benefits at their jobs. They live longer and healthier. They pay more taxes and use fewer government services. They commit fewer crimes and spend more money. They contribute more to charity and volunteer more.
On a personal level, I prefer that HOPE remain untouched. The increased competition for spots at UGA and other campuses has led to more rigorous high school courses and prompted students, including my own kids, to work harder. Now I can pay for college for my four children without selling a kidney.
However, on a public policy level, I can’t help but believe that HOPE provides the greatest advantages to the kids already born with them.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Shawny
December 1, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
No. That is income redistribution and wrong. Have it for all, or have it for none.
By scrappy
December 1, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
NO, it should not be need based! Middle class parents should be able to send there kids to school without selling an organ. I fell into that category where my parents made too much to qualify as “needy”, but didn’t make enough to actually afford the tuition. A lot of kids end up in this middle ground, and these are the kids that need to go college. They are usually well prepared, smart, and come from a good home - which means they are more likely to graduate once they get there.
By Okay, where to now ?
December 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
I really hope that “HOPE” remains untouched. What is wrong with helping ALL kids who are willing to work hard enough to earn this program, and not just the “disadvantaged”? Why should a family, who pays more in taxes already, be edged out of benefitting from this program than anyone else, if their child is willing to work hard to achieve?
Life is about choices, and too frequently these days not being held accountable for the consequences of those choices. Students CHOOSE to work hard, or they CHOOSE not to work hard…and that hard work is NOT “need based”, it is a choice to sacrifice to exceed later, and should be rewarded.
Some scholarships (i.e. HOPE) should be awarded to the students who proved they were willing to work hard and sacrifice to get good grades. Separate scholarship, loan, grant money should be available on a “need AND merit” basis to fill in the gaps. Higher education, with all of the grant and loan funding available, is available to all regardless of social stature…as long as an individual is willing to work hard and sacrifice.
By Georgia Mom
December 1, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Thank you for the thoughtful opinion! Perhaps the HOPE resources would be better spent boosting our children’s education at the elementary and under-graduate levels where it is so desperately needed. As for income redistribution, consider that the sale of lottery tickets that funds HOPE is already a redistribution of sorts.
By Mike
December 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
Hope should remain just as is, that was the selling point when we voted in the lottery. I certainly wouldn’t have voted for something that would only be available to certain groups and denied to my children.
By Elephant Whip
December 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Although I see the advantages for everyone receiving HOPE scholarships, I think it is important to remember that funds for HOPE do NOT come from taxes. HOPE funds come from lottery ticket sales. Tax-payers in higher brackets should not feel overly-entitled to them. Further, the economy probably limits HOPE not by reducing sales of lotto tix, but by reducing returns from investment of funds from sales. If the economy limits the amount of money available under this program, I think that those least able to afford college should be the last to lose HOPE.
By Peadawg
December 1, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
“Have it for all, or have it for none.” - amen!
Heck no it shouldn’t be need based.
By Matthew Rathel
December 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
I am confused as to how the “need-based” system would work with HOPE. Most students don’t make very much money in college, and I don’t think it would be fair to judge the income of the parents into the equation, as many students don’t receive money from their parents. So, if you penalize students for working during school and making money, then they will stop doing so, and if you penalize parents for helping their children out during college, then they will discontinue their financial support— either way, I fail to see how it would help students obtain a college degree.
I didn’t go to Columbia myself, but I can see a few flaws in using HOPE as a welfare system to pay for the college education of students with poor families while forcing the majority of students to take on student loans to pay the tuition costs that are covered for those coming from poorer families.
By rd
December 1, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
When I was growing up, almost any kind of aid was “needs based”, and my parents made too much money for me to receive aid. Since my parents would not pay for my college, I slugged through 6 years of working at Pizza places and nights at UPS to pay for college…. while other less fortunate students got a free ride.
What this article is saying is that “needy” students will apply for college if it is a freebie, but will not work for it. Less needy students will go anyway, and work if necessary. So our money would be better spent trying to entice the lazy rather than reward the industrious?
And since when is a “B” average in high school a high threshold for obtaining a HOPE scholarship? If you cant get a B average in a Georgia public high school, you have no business going to college on a scholarship. How about showing a little scholarship FIRST?
Finally, HOPE is not a “scarce state resource”. It is funded by the lottery. It is not money that belongs to the state, it is money that the people of Georgia decided to give to students in exchange for the allowance of state-sponsored gambling. The people of Georgia voted to give it to ALL students… not just needy students with C or D high school averages looking for the next place to go to screw off for a while.
By Jeff
December 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
Its sounds like the Ms. Downey is saying that the we should lower the GPA standards for “needy” children at the expense of those whose students who have the necessary GPA but whose parents happen to make more than $30,000 a year. If only 4% of “needy” kids can maintain the necessary GPA then thats life. It would be the new affirmative action and just breed resentment.
By RealityKing
December 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
The LOTTO is a fraud, a government run numbers scam, sucking dollars mostly from poor people. So if it were to be shut down…, more poor people would have money for college. But our education problem is not so much about how few go to college rather how few graduate with math and science degrees. Where there are no role models, there are no goals.
By Danny O
December 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
Newsflash to Mike and others who think that HOPE has never changed: When it was created by Governor Zell Miller, it capped eligibility at incomes of $66K, which was moved to $100K a year later, and then removed altogether. HOPE was not originally envisioned as a way for upper income families to send their kids to school on the cheap, but that is what it has become.
I think HOPE should remain intact for middle class families. But a family with two kids making over $250K? They don’t need the help, they’ve got resources to pay for higher education. (However, I wouldn’t be opposed to a sliding scale that provides some portion of help to families near a maximum threshold.)
Also, it’s not income redistribution, because it’s not funded through income tax. HOPE scholarships come from lottery tickets that don’t win. How many cardiologists and CEOs do you know that play the numbers every week?
By WhatSheSaid
December 1, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
While you’re correct that HOPE, for the most part, doesn’t determine IF someone attends college or not it most certainly has a huge impact on WHERE they attend. By keeping our best and brightest students in Georgia for both school and career, our economy has benefited. To continue to attract new business development, we need top homegrown talent ready and waiting.
HOPE has revolutionized our state’s higher education system. I was in the pre-HOPE era, and my high-achieving high school classmates all fled to out of state schools, scoffing at my choice to attend UGA. Now high schoolers know they must be at the top of their game just to be considered for admission to UGA, and UGA has more Rhodes scholars than any other state university in the country. Georgia College and State? Also competitive admissions now, but hardly recognizable from what they were prior to the trickle-down effect of higher competition to get into UGA and Tech.
As for middle-class parents being willing and able to borrow from their retirement accounts to fund full tuition? No economic planner would recommend putting a child’s college expenses above the need to fully fund one’s own retirement, even when times were good and 401K accounts had twice as much money in them as they do today. Georgia certainly wouldn’t benefit from the next generation of retirees with no means of support because they spent it all on sending their kids to college.
Keep the HOPE as the lottery legislation intended, for ALL Georgians.
By J.D.
December 1, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
Absolutely NOT!!! The HOPE scholarship should be for all students that make sacrifices and put forth the effort to achieve. Whether they need it or not shouldn’t have any bearing.
I know a lot of well-to-do and needy families, both with kids that couldn’t care less about their scholastic possibilities.
I don’t know if it’s apathy or ignorance, and frankly they’re the only ones to suffer the consequences for their short-sightedness.
Leave the HOPE program exactly as it is, in other words to the ones that DESERVE it. Mess with it and make it based solely for the needy ones and I’ll stop supporting it.
By Danny O
December 1, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
P.S. If you wanna check my facts, go to: http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/ct0303/news0303-hope.shtml
By Rogue
December 1, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Need-based HOPE: sounds like socialism to me.
By ND
December 1, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
It should not be need-based, but the threshold to qualify should be an A average in high school, not a B average.
By Lady
December 1, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
Need-based? Urban and rural kids have easier competition. Assume kid A and B are equally smart. A goes to a Fulton County school and B goes to a Atlanta City school. Of course, B will have an easier time getting a 3.0. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if every affluent kid “emancipated” or became independent their senior year.
By jeff
December 1, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
Typical AJC editorial looking to take from one segment of achievers just because they have a few dollars in their pocket. Just another example of why I stopped subscribing long ago. Amazing.
By name
December 1, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
No. That is income redistribution and wrong. Have it for all, or have it for none.
Just like universal health care, amirite?
By Enough is Enough
December 1, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
Leave HOPE as is. Anything else is wealth re-distribution, being patriotic, wealth-envy, being fair, or whatever else you want to call it…
There are simply some individuals who either are not capable of academically handling college or have no personal drive but instead want and expect government entitlements “based on need”…
By Edie
December 1, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
What are you saying. if you are a loser, didn’t go to college, didn’t bust it to get ahead, you and your kids are rewarded with subsidized low interest federal loans and need based scholarships? For what, your meager efforts?
And conversely, if you sacrificed, and busted it to get ahead, a college education, your kids get well punished? No federally subsidized loans, no need based scholarships, and now no HOPE? Whoa, what lessons are we teaching?
Should we all just sit home and let the government pay for our medical expenses, food, and college expenses? Hum … sad times we live in.
By sharon
December 1, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
The HOPE should remain merit based. If a student can’t or won’t maintain a 3.0 GPA in high school, would he or she maintain a 3.0 in college? A student should have to work to earn and maintain a scholarship, not get one based on their family’s income. Keep the SCHOLAR in scholarship.
By What
December 1, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
Danny O. at 11:58 - $250K and sliding scale — I think not.
Again, why should success in life be penalized and poor choices in life be rewarded???
By local student
December 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
it’s not income redistribution, because it’s not funded through income tax.
You could say the same about any type of “optional” tax, why do you think lottery proceeds are not subject to sane rules? What about sales tax on a useless chunk of fruitcake? You don’t need that crap any more than you need a lottery ticket.
By Jim
December 1, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
If it becomes ‘need-based’, i’ve bought my last lottery ticket!!!
By Jim
December 1, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
One thing that everyone is forgetting is one of the side affects of the HOPE scholarship. The state schools are so much better now than prior to the scholarship. The reason — competition for the education. Smarter students were willing to go elsewhere (private schools or schools in other states) for a better education. If you move to a needs based system you get rid of the competition for diligent and smart students.
By Yep
December 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
I think we should get rid of the Hope Altogether!! Create a true scholarship program based on superior merit. There is enough gratuitous grades given at the high school level now to undeserving students to let take advantage of the Hope, so much that it blocks real students from attending the college of their choice now. I say raise the GPA limit to a 3.5 and provide a ride through grad school if the student can keep their grades.
By Frequent player
December 1, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
I play the lottery frequently. Not in huge amounts but I enjoy the fun from a chance to win the lottery. With that being said, if the lottery becomes need based then I will no longer purchase it.
If you want it to be a scholarship based on need, then turn it into a charity and give it to needy children. This is just a volunteer tax to help pay for some education.
If you change the rules, you will end my desire to play.
By Bob
December 1, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
HOPE was the only reason I didn’t go to Cornell.
Stupid HOPE! I always regretted that choice.
By Sandra
December 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this
I did not qualify for HOPE when it first became available because I was not an incoming freshman. I was a non-traditional student (married w/2 kids)just trying to make it from tuition bill to tuition bill as we made too much to qualify for aid, but barely enough to pay the tuition. Luckily in my junior year I was able to receive HOPE to supplement my PELL grant. Even at that, I hit the maximum number of hours attempted before I graduated and still had to take a student loan. My parents bought lottery tickets and joked that they were helping pay my tuition $1 at a time. Thanks to HOPE I am now a teacher. However, I still don’t make enough to pay for my daughter’s tuition. We’re hoping she can graduate before HOPE runs out. And now we’re the parents buying the lottery tickets to pay for our daughter’s education $1 at a time.
By Shawny
December 1, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
Don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. If so, throw it out, and vote it in based on new rules, or leave it alone (the better choice).
By Samc
December 1, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
If I had the income to buy, finance or save enough to purchase a $50,000-$70,000 auto, an 8,000 sq.ft. home and other various trappings of the good life, I wouldn’t accept free money to send my kid to college. It wouldn’t seem a morally defensible choice. Some income threshold for HOPE scholarships seem appropriate. It doesn’t mean you don’t maintain the “B” average requirement.
By Jim
December 1, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
The Hope Scholarship grants do not need to be changed. It has to be “earned” by students, therefore it is a priviledge deserved, not a right. Government loves to change things due to funding cuts, so that monies can be diverted to other parts of the budget (the Ga House already attempted this with lottery funds once before[late 90s?], and were thwarted by the schools). The public should hold their feet to the fire.
By rd
December 1, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
The problem is, Samc, while YOU would set the limit at a $50,000 auto and an 8000sqft home, OTHERS would set the limit at a $20000 auto and any kind of home ownership at all! Where do you draw the line?… someone else will draw the line lower.
Remember when a reporter asked Obama what he considered “rich”, and got no answer? Then , he would raise taxes on those above $250k… and then it became $200k…. and then his VP said it would be $150k? You see, the line for “rich” or “wealthy” gets drawn lower and lower and lower.
If you have no home, then those with a home are “wealthy”. If you have no car, then those with a car are “wealthy”.
Unfortunately, the “wealthy line” gets drawn on a political basis…. what ever definition delivers just over 50% of he votes becomes the new “wealthy”. So if a politician thinks that limiting Hope scholorships to families making $50k (or $75k, or $100k) will deliver more than 50% of the votes, that is the line that gets drawn. Rather than choosing students based on merit, they would choose students based on wealth envy and political hackery.
This cannot be allowed!
By Paul W
December 1, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
Not no but HELL no. This possibility was raised when the lottery was passed and assurances were given that this would not occur.
If it becomes means driven it will be just another welfare program. Also, the parent’s income does not reflect their WILLINGNESS to fund a child’s education. If the child earns HOPE- which is not as easy as many think- they should receive it.
By Tom Tom
December 1, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
There are no “rights” to things like health care, guaranteed income, or educational scholarships. Earn it or do without, I don’t like having to support people outside of my family just because they made poor choices or chose not to make the attempt to better themselves As for HOPE, make the grades and get the scholarship, miss the grades and you have no one to blame except yourselves.
By Thinknot
December 1, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Samc@ 3:17pm - a morally defensible choice and an income threshold…let’s see, we pay approx $8000 in property taxes but cannot (will not) use the Dekalb county public school system, received nothing from the “tax rebate”, will likely have to pay our “fair share” under Obama, have to pay AMT, etc…AND you want us to be penalized for our success and drive — I think NOT!!!!
By JackLeg
December 1, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
No, they should not change HOPE! Need based means that some arrogant political crony would decide who gets what. All or nothing!
By Coffeejolts
December 1, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The HOPE is a scholarship, not a grant. It is for students that achieve, regardless of income. The low income kids already get grants and handouts up the wazoo. There are organizations throwing money at any low income kid savvy enough to apply for it.
The last thing middle income kids (and parents) need is their HOPE scholarship taken from them.
By Jim
December 1, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
Absolutely no changes to the hope scholarship program. It is an equal opportunity program for all students of Georgia schools, paid entirely through the VOLUNTARY purchase of lottery tickets, games, and scratch off tickets. All students in Georgia should benefit from those stupid enough to play the lottery, knowing the odds do not ever favor the player. The Students, mine included thank you Lottery players for paying this voluntary tax that my family has never paid. We appreciate your payments for our tuition and books!
By WestGaJunior
December 1, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
The Hope SCHOLARship should be just that a scholarship not a grant for lower income families. I came from a household that brought in about 45K a year and knowing this in high school made me bust my behind to obtain the Hope scholarship. A 3.0 is not hard to achieve, and if you are not willing to work for it in high school you will not be willing to work for it in college. Let’s save that money spent on their first 30 credit hours before evaluation and give that money to someone who will work hard and later put all of their hard work back into Georgia’s economy. I am determined after my graduation in 09 to put all of the Georgia citizens hard earned money to good use as a nurse. So thank you to all of you who made my education a reality for me. I will not let you down!
By Broreg
December 1, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
Your article is so full of positive and negative contradictions that it amounts to nothing but a waste of space and time it took to read it.
Now that you can afford to send your kids to college, I bet you don’t really care either way. If the status quo remains the same, you and your family will be O.K.
You should not have mentioned (bragged) that you went to such a prestigious school as Columbia University because I immediately expected a more well constructed argument.
One thing certain, two things sure: kids that are able to attend college without help from the government or other agengy may not be the most intelligent or creative.
And you proved that.
By Heather
December 1, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this
Its not really fair to base a person’s need for financial assistance in college on their parent’s income. My parents made $50,000 a year but they did not pay for my college. I received HOPE when it started and it barely paid for half my classes. It has since improved and pays much more now. But I racked up plenty of loans and worked registers as an 18 year old kid. Who decides who’s needy? I was needy because my parents (who made decent money) would not pay for school. My grades also earned it.
By luvlee
December 1, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this
I say leave it as it is. My son qualified for the HOPE initially but lost it and even though I told him if he lost it he would have to get his own loans and work twice as hard to get it back. Did he listen, no, but he realized how right I was after he lost it. He was able to get it back thank goodness. There was no way I was going to tap into my retirement accounts for his college. Congratulations to WestGaJunior, you make your parents proud.
By parent of 2 college kids
December 2, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
I am sure someone else has said this, but you have to understand that if a kid can’t maintain a 3.0 GPA in high school it is going to be very difficult for them to succeed in college. The HOPE does help kids who would not otherwise go to college. They are able to get other assistance from the govt. to pay for the rest of the tuition. We are middle class and I have one child in private college and one in public and I pay about the same for both. HOPE pays some to each. At the public college my son attends I still had a balance on his tuition even after HOPE paid. It is needed for everybody.
By Rick
December 2, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Very few “at-risk students” qualify for HOPE. I think HOPE should be for all, but it seems that it isn’t. Students who attend high schools in high-income areas qualify for HOPE at much higher rates than students who attend schools in other areas. In fact, it seems that the more a student would need HOPE, the less likely it is that they will qualify. Children from higher-income homes do better in school, on average, and thus have many built-in advantages that makes it easier for them to qualify. The percentage of students qualifying for HOPE at one school should not be greatly different than at other schools. Or to put it another way: If a student attends Northview High School, they’ll be more likely to qualify than if they attend a Clayton County Public School. This seems unjust.
By Joel
December 2, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
Maybe those kids with a GPA 3.0 would be better served with military service (which will pay for most or all of a state university tuition anyway) or entering the workforce for OJT. College does not create success—college graduates make more (generally) because they are stubborn enough to get through school and this carries over to success in a career.
By collegepop
December 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
The students who qualify do so because they attend class and do their work and study. You say 3.0 “is a threshold that shuts out poor urban and rural kids”. Thats BS. Those students who don’t qualify now aren’t going to be any less urban or rural if you give them a scholarship they don’t earn. Do you think they will suddenly become 4.0 college students?
By Bill
December 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
HOPE most definitely should NOT be need based. Having put four daughters through college and applying for aid that was never made available because I made “too much money,” HOPE was a welcome relief for my last student. Other aid is available for the “need-based” students. It does require some effort on the part of the student to apply for it!
By DA
December 2, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
If you really want to reform HOPE, PELL, and the likes make it a loan instead of a scholarship. If you get PELL or HOPE, go off to college, screw off and flunk out, you re-pay what you borrowed with interest. If you graduate, the loan is forgiven. I’ve seen too many of my own classmates stay slammed for a year, blow their free government money and head off into the sunset.
By YeahRight
December 2, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this
Joel 12:41 - unjust….I doubt it. The qualifications to “earn” and “maintain” the HOPE are pretty clear!!!
Let me guess…you also voted for Obama…
By Native Atlantan
December 2, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
I think the capp needs to be put back in place on the Hope program. It seems as though a lot of people are misinformed about this program. There was a wage cap when the program was first rolled out that was removed by republicans for political gains. I think the cap should be reinstated and any child that is accepted by public colleges should have their tuition paid, not just the ones that can obtain a 3.0 gpa.
By Raise the Bar
December 2, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
I say raise the high school gpa standard to 3.4 and slide it for college. Say, Frosh 3.2, Soph 3.1, JR 3.0, Sr 3.0.
By rd
December 2, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
Rick, you wrote: “Children from higher-income homes do better in school, on average, and thus have many built-in advantages that makes it easier for them to qualify…. If a student attends Northview High School, they’ll be more likely to qualify than if they attend a Clayton County Public School. This seems unjust.”
But is is NOT unjust. Children from higher income homes are EXPECTED to value education, and EXPECTED to perform academically. This expectation is cultural and familial. HOPE cannot change the culture or the failure mentality that pervades low income areas and school systems. Atlanta City schools spend more per-child than any other school system in Georgia, yet the failure mentality prevails. Clayton County has a horrible school system and problem right now, yet the CITIZENS seem dedicated to failure and refuse to do the best for the children if it means having “whitey” on the school board and in charge of the schools. HOPE cannot change these things nor overcome them. If communities will not take charge for themselves and demand excellence in the schools, regardless of the color of the teacher, the administration, or the school board, do not expect a handout from HOPE at the expense of the communities that DID demand excellence.
By AllHogwash
December 2, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
NO HOPE should NOT be needs based. It is no more unfair to exclude kids whose families are able to afford college expenses than it is to exclude kids whose families are not able to afford college expenses.
The beauty of the current HOPE selection policy is that the threshold is color and financial capability blind. Any kid that works hard enough to meet the grade point threshold gets access to HOPE funds. It doesn’t matter what the color of the kid’s skin is or whether they come from a wealthy family or from a struggling to just get by family.
IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T fIX IT!
By john j
December 2, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
My wife and I both paid our own way through college, we always worked hard to try and keep that financial burden off our kids backs. We have been fortunate and have achieved what most would call financial success. We started saving for college when our kids were 2 years old and we had a combined income of 35K. We continued to save and invest to make sure we could put them through the college of their choice, without incurring debt. That day has come and gone and we spent nearly 160K as they both went out of state, the best money we ever spent. Had they stayed in GA they both qualified for HOPE, should we have been excluded for saving for 16 years? There are more scholarships and grants available to any qualifying low income family then there ever were for children who’s parents planned and saved. If you feel it needs to be need based, get rid of HOPE tomorrow.
By CK Hall
December 2, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By JustMyOpinion
December 2, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
I’m not sure if it should be need based or not, but I think there is something wrong with the program. My son had a 2.9 final grade average and did not qualify for HOPE even though he had been in Honors Spanish and French all through high school. He was also an “A”/”B” student throughout all four years of high school, but received a low grade for his senior World History (which by the way almost caused him to not graduate). I believe he should have been eligible for HOPE and he certainly earned it throughout his years in high school, but for a .1 average which caused him to be ineligible. This was wrong. My son still had the desire to go to college so he is enrolled at a local college and we are paying by semester, because I don’t qualify for credit or financial aid, and he has no credit history (like most seniors from high school shouldn’t). Maybe in the future he will qualify for HOPE but it certainly failed him when he most needed it.
By CW
December 2, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
There is a strong sense, based on the comments, opposed to changing the HOPE scholarship policies. I found the arguments for reviewing the policies good, but there is another consideration. If HOPE were changed to need based, many, maybe most, students from middle class families would resort to loans; it often puts them in a difficult situation after graduation. If a student has a heavy loan burden can the student seriously consider lower paying jobs such as public service jobs? My guess is that they must consider higher paying jobs in order to pay off the loans. This is not in society’s interests. Also, one could argue that it is resource distribution, but the redistribution takes place in the following generations. I prefer to keep HOPE as it is and seek other sources for need based scholarships.
By Subject-verb agreement
December 2, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this
Grade inflation is the inevitable result of a merit-based program that has no common benchmark (such as ACT or SAT scores, which are factored in to scholarships in other states, such as Florida). Another result is student/parent manipulation of teachers/professors and academic employees who rely on “consumers” for their livelihoods.
According to author Paul Fussell, writing back in the ’80s, if you skim off the top 200 U.S. colleges, graduates of the remaining institutions do NOT earn any more per-lifetime than non-grads. And based on my one semester teaching college students at a tier-2 Georgia state university, those who don’t get into emory, tech, uga or morehouse arent’ getting that much bang for their lottery buck anyway.
By Pierce Randall
December 2, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
Even though HOPE pays for a bunch of kids who might have gone to school anyway, a merit-based system is important and should remain intact.
But…
That doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have an obligation to kids who have substantial college need and, statistically, aren’t likely to take up HOPE. We could start by improving low-cost community and junior college availabilty, and then add a scholarship that fund additionally by need, and uses a broader criteria than 3.0 GPA to measure deservedness within the need-based demographic. HOPE runs a pretty big surplus, and there’s no reason part of that shouldn’t fund something to help disadvantaged students, too. Even if they didn’t get a 3.0 GPA in high school.
By Pierce Randall
December 2, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this
The HOPE Scholarship has created a social contract between families whose kids get a 3.0 GPA and the state to send those kids to college. That’s an outstanding debt the state is basically paying through a lottery every year, and that’s not going away.
But, for a variety of reasons, HOPE privileges the children of the middle class. Wealthier families don’t really NEED the system, and whatever choices they defer to take advantage of the program is still of marginal difference to them. In nicer, suburban, middle-class school systems, where teachers and counselors are mostly of the same socio-economic status and there’s wide perception of, well, hope for those kids, you see a suspicious bulge around 3.0, 3.1 for GPA. That’s because of pressure, and, well, school districts “bumping” GPAs so a large plurality or majority of their kids qualify for the program. Rural and urban school districts, at least poorer ones, don’t do that as much, because there’s not as much perceived investment in as many of those kids. Also, there are standard class barriers to academic achievement that should be noted.
The point is, the notion that your suburban, middle-class, teetering-on-3.0 kids really earned college is heavily equivocated. It’s not rejected, but we should really be circumspect about it. Especially when it’s funded by the lottery, a system at least somewhat contributing to economic ills of a lot of poor people with gambling problems. HOPE usually runs a surplus. Let’s evaluate the scholaships reserves, and if it’s solvent for awhile looking forward, let’s take the surplus and put it towards building better community and junior colleges with easy admission standards, and lets create a scholaship program that targets the needy who qualify for college.
HOPE should be fair, and to some extent, it is. It certainly isn’t elitist. But statistics that say participation in the system are class-based and demographic-based are troubling. It can’t just be a system that subsidizes the rich and middle-class. Poor participation among poor people is its own problem, and it demands a solution for the sake of equity.
By Mit
December 2, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
“However, it’s a high enough threshold to shut out a lot of poor urban and rural kids.”
But not shut out the poor SUBURBAN kids?
Many people theorize that the AJC has lost more subscribers than most any paper in the country due to its perceived biases (i.e. anti-white, anti-suburban, anti-middle class and above, etc.). I wonder why.
By delois
December 2, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
My husband and I make about $125,000 per year. Our son attended a private college because of the degree program he is in and received $3,000 per year from the HOPE towards a tuition of $28,000 per year. After academic scholarships from the school, we still had to pay $12,000 per year. So every little bit helps out - even for middle class, hardworking people like us. Sometimes people who make a decent living still have exhorbitant tuitions to pay for their kids. This money is raised from the lottery not from the taxpayer so leave it alone. I’m sure there are a lot of you out there who have benefitted from the HOPE who are anti-lottery.
By BV
December 2, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
Leave HOPE alone! If the “need based” kids want the HOPE, let them work harder instead of just saying “I should get it because my parents aren’t rich!” I went to college before programs like HOPE were available, and paid 100% of my own expenses by working multiple jobs. The only help I received was the fact that my wife worked too, to help me get through school. What ever happened to kids being motivated enough to work, instead of someone trying to justify another handout?
By Debbie
December 2, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
Let’s see….I make $40,000 a year. That puts me way out of range for any type of help for tuition or anything else. I am a single Mother, working 2 jobs and have just agreed to rent 2 bedrooms in my house to help with expenses. My son worked hard to attain grades that would insure the HOPE and worked hard to insure he kept it. Otherwise, he would not be in college or he would be taking out student loans so he could graduate in debt. If HOPE is made to be a “needs” based program, my son would not qualify because I make too much money. Somehow, that just doesn’t add up….welcome to the vanishing middle class.
By willie
December 2, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this
Everyone plays the lottery and maybe if the lower income would save some money they spend on the lottery they could afford to send their kids to college without the Hope Fund. Everyone plays everyone benefits! or cut it out and no one benefits!
By HopeMom
December 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Link to this
NO….HOPE…Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally.. the O stands for OUTSTANDING—not minority or poor…Governor Miller designed this to reward pupils for their hard work in maintaining good grades…