From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 11:26:36 MST
James Rogers wrote:
>
> On 1/14/02 1:31 AM, "Damien Broderick" <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see the relevance to my point, which was that those who bleat about
> > `evil' communistic/socialistic `free' education for all never seem to worry
> > about `virtuous' rich-parent-pays-&-kid-gets-in-`free' education.
>
> In my not-so-long-ago educational past the actual case was that most parents
> of all economic strata paid for their children's education. I was one of
> the few poor saps whose parents weren't paying for my education, which kind
> of works against you since the system operates under the assumption that
> your parents will be paying since most do. I don't see where the system
> needs to be fixed, beyond changing things a bit so people whose parents
> aren't paying for their education don't get hosed. As far as I can tell,
> the only people who really lose out under the current system are people who
> neither have someone to pay for their education nor qualify for one of the
> myriad of special exceptions and aid programs that basically ignore
> otherwise ordinary non-minority folk such as myself.
As stated in the 80's movie 'Soul Man', "Financial aid is for kids whose
parents are poor, not for kids whose parents are assholes".
The problem being that I knew of many students who were kids of rich
parents who abused the system: they lived in a separate home from their
parents for the last two years of high school, were paid enough of a
salary to cover rent and food for that period from the parent's
companies (i.e. little enough to qualify for financial aid as a 'poor
student'), and as a result qualified freshman year for full financial
aid as 'independent minors'.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:40 MST