U.S. Bill introduced that requires student Pell Grants to be repaid if degrees are not completed - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Saber15;52902102]In Florida, state scholarships require you to repay the scholarship if you drop a class after getting the money, and they drop you if your GPA or credit-hours per semester goes below a certain level, so you have to bust your ass to recover if you fuck up a class.[/QUOTE] That's absolutely stupid. Why the fuck would you incentivize students not dropping a class? There is literally nothing wrong with dropping a class before the drop deadline if you realize that it's above your scope. Forcing students to remain in classes no matter what will just make them more apprehensive and careful when selecting classes, which [I]will[/I] lead to them graduating later since they can't take on harder loads while retaining a way out if it's too much work.

Education should be free instead of awarding these grants, that would ensure that the grant money is being spent on someones education, not as a free cash injection. With that said, I don't see why it's unfair for grants to be made under conditional circumstances. If completing your classes is more than you can manage, maybe you shouldn't expect free money? If the grant money becomes essential to live, you should receive financing from some other scheme, not your educational funds. Living funds and educational funds are separate issues that need to be treated differently. An education grant isn't going to help someone in the same circumstances as someone outside of education, so don't shoehorn education grants into solving those societal issues.

[QUOTE=angrytoiletry;52904320]thats a really dumb comeback; like how often does this shit happen that made you think this was a good idea to post? not to mention there's a thing called putting the child up for adoption[/QUOTE] [url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sexual+assault+college+campuses&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjyPap8snXAhVqxVQKHZkNCP8QgQMIKzAA[/url] To summarize: A fucking lot of rape happens on college campuses.

[QUOTE=phygon;52904931]That's absolutely stupid. Why the fuck would you incentivize students not dropping a class? There is literally nothing wrong with dropping a class before the drop deadline if you realize that it's above your scope. Forcing students to remain in classes no matter what will just make them more apprehensive and careful when selecting classes, which [I]will[/I] lead to them graduating later since they can't take on harder loads while retaining a way out if it's too much work.[/QUOTE] You pay back what they paid for that course. You don't pay back the full scholarship. (Unless you stop below a total hours limits, which is generally somewhere around 12 hours per semester)

You know, I'm curious. What happens when there's not enough people for positions that need college/uni level knowledge if this (and/or the tax clusterfuck that taxes nonexistant money) causes a worse case scenario where people simply don't go to college/uni due to being simply too expensive?

[QUOTE=nagachief;52906108]You know, I'm curious. What happens when there's not enough people for positions that need college/uni level knowledge if this (and/or the tax clusterfuck that taxes nonexistant money) causes a worse case scenario where people simply don't go to college/uni due to being simply too expensive?[/QUOTE] I could imagine that potentially, employers would start paying for their employees to go to school for the training and education they need to do their job. Or if not, I guess we'd see attempted automation of a [I]lot[/I] of jobs, or businesses simply shrinking (or possibly even going under) due to suddenly not being able to find qualified workers to keep up with the workload.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52906144]You'd see companies subsidizing education in exchange for contract work. Like this "hey you can go to medical school on our dime, when you finish you work for us for x years".[/QUOTE] To be fair, that sounds pretty neat. Though a horrible way to force companies to do that.

[QUOTE=nagachief;52906108]You know, I'm curious. What happens when there's not enough people for positions that need college/uni level knowledge if this (and/or the tax clusterfuck that taxes nonexistant money) causes a worse case scenario where people simply don't go to college/uni due to being simply too expensive?[/QUOTE] Businesses would actually invest in worker training for once, I mean that's what they used to do, but they don't any more because that's not something shareholders approve of. That or move to places where the government does provide a supply of trained workers.

[QUOTE=nagachief;52906108]You know, I'm curious. What happens when there's not enough people for positions that need college/uni level knowledge if this (and/or the tax clusterfuck that taxes nonexistant money) causes a worse case scenario where people simply don't go to college/uni due to being simply too expensive?[/QUOTE] 3 likely possibilities come to mind, the first (and most likely, on account of it already being the case for trade schools) already being detailed a few posts above. the other possibilities are that colleges lower prices back down to something more reasonable so they start making money again, or a college education becomes something worth buying again due to less competition in the market. I can think of no negative outcome, other than the slim possibility that college becoming even more unaffordable has no effect on the perceived worth of a college education and people keep buying in at even more inflated prices, leading to nothing other than more debt

[QUOTE=Marcolade;52906118][B]I could imagine that potentially, employers would start paying for their employees to go to school for the training and education they need to do their job.[/B] Or if not, I guess we'd see attempted automation of a [I]lot[/I] of jobs, or businesses simply shrinking (or possibly even going under) due to suddenly not being able to find qualified workers to keep up with the workload.[/QUOTE] That's incredibly optimistic. Most jobs would rather you already have your certifications AND 5+ years experience. That, and potential employers will simply see it like "HA! No way in hell! They couldn't even work hard enough to keep up with their Pell Grant, and [I]you[/I] expect [I]us[/I] to pay for their schooling?!" They just love money too much.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52907092]That's incredibly optimistic. Most jobs would rather you already have your certifications AND 5+ years experience. That, and potential employers will simply see it like "HA! No way in hell! They couldn't even work hard enough to keep up with their Pell Grant, and [I]you[/I] expect [I]us[/I] to pay for their schooling?!" They just love money too much.[/QUOTE] it's not that optimistic considering several fields already use this method

Indentured servitude is not the answer to this.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52907439]Indentured servitude is not the answer to this.[/QUOTE] But it's apparently what the GOP wants.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52907439]Indentured servitude is not the answer to this.[/QUOTE] contracts and indentured servitude are completely different things and it's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise

[QUOTE=butre;52907207]it's not that optimistic considering several fields already use this method[/QUOTE] They are the exception to the rule. As I said, most employers would rather you already have certifications and 5+ years experience, especially in trade jobs in smaller towns. They see no reason to spend money on schooling for someone who's likely to just drop-out/quit/get fired because they have no idea what they're doing.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52907492]They are the exception to the rule. As I said, most employers would rather you already have certifications and 5+ years experience, especially in trade jobs in smaller towns. They see no reason to spend money on schooling for someone who's likely to just drop-out/quit/get fired because they have no idea what they're doing.[/QUOTE] My work does this and they have it in writing that you are required to work there for like a year or two after you graduate - otherwise they [B]might[/B] require you to pay it back. Considering they match 40-50% per term tuition capped at $5,000 that isn't bad at all. But yes you're right most employers are [B]not[/B] like that and would not offer such a luxury. This country really likes to stick it to those who are barely getting by don't they?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52907492]They are the exception to the rule. As I said, most employers would rather you already have certifications and 5+ years experience, especially in trade jobs in smaller towns. They see no reason to spend money on schooling for someone who's likely to just drop-out/quit/get fired because they have no idea what they're doing.[/QUOTE] it pretty much is the rule as far as trade schools go. very few welding companies for example won't put someone through school

Always remember, Republicans benefit from having a less educated population; a population who believes what they're told and does what they're told, enslaved by debt, and in a state of poverty from which there is no return.

Considering how small the Pell grant is per student, and that it's automatically applied to tuition before you see any of it (That's how it worked in my case anyway), how does this make any sense? It'd be pretty hard for people to get it and just spend it all since it will almost never cover all of the rising tuition rates anyway. It didn't even cover my school which was like 7k a year. All this would do is make life harder for people that probably dropped out due to an already difficult situation. To pay back money they probably never touched or spent in the first place.

[QUOTE=Firo;52908483]To pay back money they probably never touched or spent in the first place.[/QUOTE] I mean, I think this is a completely monstrous plan but if the grant paid off as much of a student's tuition as it covered, that student "spent" that money. They may not have held the cash in their hands, but they are the beneficiary and their costs were reduced by the amount of the grant. I agree that this is a retarded idea and it's going to hurt people who're the most vulnerable to it, but you can't really say that Pell Grants don't count as money going to the student. They just don't always become cash-in-hand for the student.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52908429]Always remember, Republicans benefit from having a less educated population; a population who believes what they're told and does what they're told, enslaved by debt, and in a state of poverty from which there is no return.[/QUOTE] Why do so many people like this comment... This comment is the epitome of what's wrong with our current political climate. Vilify the opposing argument so no neutral argument can be made. What good does an opposing argument do if [I]from the start[/I] you're already saying "Well, Republicans strive to make the population less educated because it's more beneficial to them." Have the equivalent liberal bash: "Always remember, Democrats benefit from having a Marxist population; a population that believes in equity before all else, hates Capitalism, and in a state of unwavering loyalty towards the Communist cause." Doesn't sound so nice with the shoe on the over foot, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52908847]Why do so many people like this comment... This comment is the epitome of what's wrong with our current political climate. Vilify the opposing argument so no neutral argument can be made. What good does an opposing argument do if [I]from the start[/I] you're already saying "Well, Republicans strive to make the population less educated because it's more beneficial to them." Have the equivalent liberal bash: "Always remember, Democrats benefit from having a Marxist population; a population that believes in equity before all else, hates Capitalism, and in a state of unwavering loyalty towards the Communist cause." Doesn't sound so nice with the shoe on the over foot, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] Only the GOP actually does completely shit on education and has a track record of doing so, look at DeVos for fuck's sake. While what you wrote about the democrats is not only completely false, but actually the opposite of what the democrats are. The Dems LOVE capitalism and completely shit on anything left of what the rest of the west would label conservative.

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52908847]Why do so many people like this comment... This comment is the epitome of what's wrong with our current political climate. Vilify the opposing argument so no neutral argument can be made. What good does an opposing argument do if [I]from the start[/I] you're already saying "Well, Republicans strive to make the population less educated because it's more beneficial to them." [B]Have the equivalent liberal bash: "Always remember, Democrats benefit from having a Marxist population; a population that believes in equity before all else, hates Capitalism, and in a state of unwavering loyalty towards the Communist cause."[/B] Doesn't sound so nice with the shoe on the over foot, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Deathking15;52908847]Why do so many people like this comment...[/QUOTE] :thinking: Like seriously, explain this Marxist garbage because you're hilariously wrong and I want to hear it.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52908877]Only the GOP actually does completely shit on education and has a track record of doing so, look at DeVos for fuck's sake. While what you wrote about the democrats is not only completely false, but actually the opposite of what the democrats are. The Dems LOVE capitalism and completely shit on anything left of what the rest of the west would label conservative.[/QUOTE] Oh, I don't disagree that the GOP has an awful track record when it comes to education. But the DNC's is barely any better. How long have public teachers been treated poorly? And I would very hastily disagree with you. Just like the right, the left, has become increasingly polarized. Some Democrats and liberal are still [B]EXTREMELY[/B] communist/Marxist. Of course, this doesn't reflect most people's values, similarly to what's going on to Republicans and the "alt-right" movement.

[QUOTE=archangel125;52908429]Always remember, Republicans benefit from having a less educated population; a population who believes what they're told and does what they're told, enslaved by debt, and in a state of poverty from which there is no return.[/QUOTE] I mean, this is just actual nonsense. Poor people are more likely to vote democrat than any other income block ([url]http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/[/url]). I could easily say that democrats want to keep people poor so that they're dependent on the teat of democrat sponsored welfare. (I wouldn't say that for the vast majority of democrats because I am able to put myself in other people's shoes and not automatically assume evil intent.)

[QUOTE=angrytoiletry;52904869]thats not what i said or implied; abortion shouldn't be as restrictive as it stands, but it's not like youre stuck with the child for the rest of your life lol[/QUOTE] Considering the rising maternal death rate in the U.S. it potentially is though lol [editline]a[/editline] Let me know when we catch up to the rest of the world and have it start declining instead I'll agree that your point is [I]slightly less[/I] wrong.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52908961]I mean, this is just actual nonsense. Poor people are more likely to vote democrat than any other income block ([url]http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/[/url]). I could easily say that democrats want to keep people poor so that they're dependent on the teat of democrat sponsored welfare. (I wouldn't say that for the vast majority of democrats because I am able to put myself in other people's shoes and not automatically assume evil intent.)[/QUOTE] what the actual fuck is this nonsense

[QUOTE=sgman91;52908961]I mean, this is just actual nonsense. Poor people are more likely to vote democrat than any other income block ([url]http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/[/url]). I could easily say that democrats want to keep people poor so that they're dependent on the teat of democrat sponsored welfare. (I wouldn't say that for the vast majority of democrats because I am able to put myself in other people's shoes and not automatically assume evil intent.)[/QUOTE] [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/[/url] [editline]a[/editline] tl;dr: [QUOTE=archangel125;52908429]Republicans benefit from having a less educated population[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=gk99;52909055].[/QUOTE] That is such a gross oversimplification, and the source you're using does not pertain explicitly to Republicans or conservative voters. Trump's campaign appealed [I]specifically[/I] to lower-income, lower-IQ blue-collar workers who felt the most recent boost in the economy didn't hit them. Additionally, his talk about the border wall between mexico gave those same people a scapegoat for the actual issues at hand. To argue Trump's campaign is representative of all Republicans or conservatives is intellectually dishonest. We haven't forgotten how opposed [I]many[/I] elected Republicans were to Trump, have we?

[QUOTE=Deathking15;52909206]That is such a gross oversimplification, and the source you're using does not pertain explicitly to Republicans or conservative voters. Trump's campaign appealed [I]specifically[/I] to lower-income, lower-IQ blue-collar workers who felt the most recent boost in the economy didn't hit them. Additionally, his talk about the border wall between mexico gave those same people a scapegoat for the actual issues at hand. To argue Trump's campaign is representative of all Republicans or conservatives is intellectually dishonest. We haven't forgotten how opposed [I]many[/I] elected Republicans were to Trump, have we?[/QUOTE] Opposed him til he started winning and then capitulated like a broken animal to anything he wanted? They only recently started opposing him since his victory.