Financial Aid Rules for College Change, and Families Pay More - New York Times

In view of the nation's state of employment opportunities and greater demand for college education even for lower paying jobs, why don't we just go and change the financial support structure to make sure fewer low income families can afford sending their children to college. Some quotes from the New York Times are illustrative:

Financial Aid Rules for College Change, and Families Pay More - New York Times: "Taken together, these changes, some based on overly optimistic predictions of inflation, have required families to count a greater share of their incomes and assets toward college expenses before becoming eligible for financial aid. As a consequence, tens of thousands of low-income students will no longer be eligible for federal grants; middle-class families are digging deeper into their savings; and some colleges are putting up their own money to make up the difference.

'This is not what we intended,' said Joe Paul Case, the financial aid director at Amherst College, in Massachusetts, who helped develop the formula that the government now uses for the bulk of the nation's students. 'There is certainly more duress than we had in mind.'"

Of course, this is certainly not what was intended, so the administration has hurried to "fix" things for the next year:
"Some economists consider the administration's economic assumptions deeply flawed. The department's estimates for inflation were, in fact, far enough off that it has now revised the formula it will use for the 2006-2007 school year, much to the benefit of families with assets. But the latest round of changes will not help parents in the coming school year."

Need a change? well why not help families WITH assets because who cares about the ones without? I am sure it makes sense - the poor are already poor it's the not quite poor yet that need help... ahem, ok... If there is anything in this country that I think everyone should have an opportunity for, its education. Because regardless of their background, people with higher levels of education are less likely to commit crime, better capable of economic growth, more likely to cross class lines, more likely to be more tolerant and open to ideas. So... well, why don't we just cut that opportunity right off for families that are too poor. Who cares about them anyway?

I am not being fair. The article clearly states that all families have been hit hard with these changes (assets or not). The Department of Education has been trying to cut costs, and where best to cut if not in Pell grants - just reconsider how to count assets into "what families can rely on to pay for college". Congress and the department had beenfighting on this point for a while. A slightly more drastic measure was blocked by congress in 2003 but (maybe because it got more republican recently) congress has made allowances and concessions this year.

"Still, some college officials say the hand-wringing is unwarranted. Whatever the changes to financial aid, they say, students as a whole have rarely stopped pursuing degrees and college attendance rates remain high nationally."
Of course, they will just pay more, or just the most disadvantaged will fall out of favor or not maybe just those, those that fall between the most disadvantaged and those with just enough money. Regardless, education getting more expensive in this country is wrong, simply wrong.

"What the changes will probably do, many university officials and parents contend, is have a disproportionate impact on middle-class families, especially when it comes to tapping their assets.

"For the middle class, it means greater pressure put upon them to cobble together college funding at schools that are becoming increasingly expensive," said James Boyle, president of College Parents of America, an advocacy group. "It's another middle-class squeeze.""

Another in a series this administration has put together. And the lovely generalization of "students as a whole" or "nationwide" tends to ignore the problem at hand - these new rules are demanding more for education from a subset of the population that is rarely capable of paying the price because its so damn steep. Education should be affordable if not free, because it's so damn important to survival. This administration, however, seems to think otherwise. Big surprise.