When "grants" first came into vogue back in the 1960s, the purpose behind these programs was to provide "free money" (money that didn't have to be paid back to anyone) to any student who was able to prove he or she had financial need. Today when we think of student grants and financial aid, the first two that come to mind are the federal Pell Grant and the Student Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG). These are the biggies; but there are many, many more out there.

The concept of "free money" is a terrific one, especially from the point of view of the student and family. Each and every one of us, in some capacity, pays taxes (sales and/or income taxes at either the local, state and/or federal levels). The taxes we pay support a variety of programs and efforts, not the least of which is education. Its nice to know, at the end of the day, that at least some of the tax dollars we pay in to our states and the federal government go to those who not only have proven they need them; but have also decided to put them to good use (i.e. earning a degree to better their chances at future employment and increase their opportunities for contributing to society in future). Sure, this is a utopian perspective; but, I like my rose-colored glasses.

Of course, with every governmental "gift" there are a few strings. Students have to prove they are eligible. They have to enroll in an eligible training or degree program. They have to take and complete a certain number of hours (usually) each term; and, they have to keep a certain grade point average. The hurdles aren't terribly high, but they exist. As long as students clear the hurdles; I feel fairly comfortable that my tax dollars are being used in a satisfactory fashion. I am also quite comfortable that the dollars are helping someone, who may otherwise either not enroll or not remain enrolled, move along the path towards certificate or degree attainment.

Not everyone, however, shares my rose-colored perceptions. The move at the state and federal levels is to create grant programs that have more and more strings attached to them. Its not enough that students prove need. Now legislators at all levels are clamoring to push for regulations that would require students

• to have graduated from high school with a specific grade-point average,
• to have taken specific, college-preparatory classes while in high-school,
• to have a minimum score on the SAT or ACT,
• to enroll in degree seeking programs only,
• to enroll in full-time course loads,
• to complete all degree requirements in either two years (for an associate's degree) or four years (for a bachelor's degree), and/or
• to have a specific grade point average when they graduate.

Students who don't meet these requirements, even if they have high financial need, would either (a) not receive a grant or (b) would have to repay the grant (in the same manner as they would repay a loan) at the end of their college education. Wow!

Now, I'm a supporter of accountability--at least to the extent the progress or outcome of something can be deemed measurable--and I'm also a supporter of encouraging students to be well-prepared for higher education. But, I'm also a realist. No two students have the same academic needs or paths while in high school. And if they do have a path in high school, its very likely to change once they're out. So, from my perspective, to deny a needy student a grant because he or she didn't take the right set of math or science courses while in high school or missed the grade/test marker by a couple of points is ludicrous. If a student can meet or exceed the entrance requirements set by the school or college they want to attend, has a desire to progress to a certificate or degree, and has financial need, by golly put my tax dollars to work and give that guy or girl a grant!

What about moving students through to certificate or degree completion in a timely manner? Well, what about it? Again, I live in the real world. Students work, they have responsibilities, they have children/spouses, they have lives. Sometimes, it takes a bit more than two years to complete an associate degree; or, a bit more than four years to complete a bachelor's degree. As long as the student is progressing through his or her course work and is maintaining a grade/score deemed passing by his or her school, "time" isn't really an issue. If push comes to shove, put time limits on a grant; but, don't penalize a student by making him or her repay the grant. To me, this falls into the same line of thinking as charging a person for emergency fire/police services after his or her house has been wiped out by a tornado. There's just no sense in it.

Sure, tax dollars are in short supply and we want to make sure we put them to the best use possible. But, folks, this isn't the way to do it. Have a comment or question about this issue? Write your state or federal legislator!

Until next time!

Lynn Byrne

Preparing for college admissions? Trying to find direction? Need a little help with the planning? Check out my college planning series:

• College Planning Made Easy--the planning and preparation workbook for the take charge, college-bound student,
  
• Paying for College Made Easy--a college financing guide designed to assist students and families in preparing and planning for higher education expenses; and
  
• The Great Scholarship Search--my guide for students and parents researching and applying for scholarship funding.