College grads without student debt are 7 times wealthier than their indebted peers

[NewsCopy]

Kids who go to college can expect bigger future paychecks than non-grads, and many will have a better chance of climbing above their parents on the economic ladder.

But according to new data, it's clear that parents who can afford to send their kids off to university without debt set their kids up for a much more comfortable future. So while college has an equalizing effect to an extent, massive wealth inequality persists between the debtor and non-debtor classes of college grads.

Vox.com

[cajun4life]

TOPS is a great program, but it needs to be reformed. It was not intended to serve every potential student. The hard standards should be increased to meet the highest entrance standards for a public university in Louisiana.

If you meet the entrance standard for LSU then you should be granted TOPS.

TOPS is not the only way to earn free tuition, so I do not want to hear that it should be more inclusive. TOPS is something you earn, it is a reward not a right.

[GeauxCajuns]

TOPS is a great program, but it needs to be reformed. It was not intended to serve every potential student. The hard standards should be increased to meet the highest entrance standards for a public university in Louisiana.

If you meet the entrance standard for LSU then you should be granted TOPS.

so every student at LSU should be on tops?
are they now?

[cajun4life]

so every student at LSU should be on tops?
are they now?

Not every student at LSU actually meets the entrance standards. They receive waivers. Or there is a sliding scale. IMO in order to receive TOPS you should have a 3.0 GPA and a 26 ACT score. Which I believe is even above lsu's standards.

If you don't meet those standards there are other opportunities to get your college tuition for free.

[Duggie35]

At some point, there will have to be a cap on how much TOPS will pay. It's a great program, but this state cannot continue to fund the rising cost of the program without continuing to hurt other programs that are just as important to the people of Louisiana.

[barchief]

Not every student at LSU actually meets the entrance standards. They receive waivers. Or there is a sliding scale. IMO in order to receive TOPS you should have a 3.0 GPA and a 26 ACT score. Which I believe is even above lsu's standards.

If you don't meet those standards there are other opportunities to get your college tuition for free.

26 on the ACT? that's a bit tough when the state average is 20.3 and even a 25 composite would put you in the top 13% of the state, so a 26 or higher would put you in the top 10%.

Chances are, if you have a 26 or higher, you are going to qualify for other scholarships as well.

In the grand scheme of things, TOPS only pays for about 29% of the total cost of a semester.

For UL, the total per semester (Tuition, fees, books, room, board) is around $6788. TOPS only covers $1963 of this, so if you don't live with your parents, you still have student loans to make.

I do think that the standards need to be raised from a 20 to a 21 on the ACT, and I also think that if you do not get your degree within 8 years of your first enrolled semester, you should have to pay back all TOPS money that was given.

Some people may say that raising the standards hurts the kids that come from less than desirable conditions, but chances are that those kids are receiving Pell grants that will take care of alot of their expenses anyways.

TOPS was meant to help the middle class parents that aren't rich enough to pay the entire way for their kids, but make too much to qualify for federal grants.

And that is what I love about the program.. it could care less how much money your family brings in... you either qualify or you don't.

And what about kids that don't do standardized tests well? One of my boys is graduating today with a 3.2 GPA, but has ALWAYS struggled in a standardized testing environment. Heck.. even his twin brother is graduating today with a 3.9+, but only made a 25 on the ACT.

[CajunRage]

I don't think the requirements need to change. What needs to change is the blind throwing of money with no requirements to keep it. Something like 60%+ goes to 1st and 2nd semester students. Students get two semesters of college for free without having to pass a class. They then drop out and that is wasted money. Students should have to take out a loan and be reimbursed when they produce passing grades.

[garmen]

http://www.taylorplan.com/about/history/

I was fortunate to hear Patrick Taylor's wife speak on TOPS in the early 2000's. The link gives the brief history of the origin of TOP's. Right now minimum GPA stands essentially where it was when it was instituted while ACT score minimums have rising over time. The quandary is how does Louisiana weigh TOP's eligibility against performance, family income and state budget funding. Original TOP's was not for every economic standard. However, it has basically become an all inclusive program so long as the academic qualifiers are met.

So the question I have is do you support:
1. Raising the academic standard to help control cost? or
2. Leave academic standards alone and limit eligibility based on household income?

Either option will bring howls from the masses who are negatively affected by a change.

[garmen]

26 on the ACT? that's a bit tough when the state average is 20.3 and even a 25 composite would put you in the top 13% of the state, so a 26 or higher would put you in the top 10%.

Chances are, if you have a 26 or higher, you are going to qualify for other scholarships as well.

In the grand scheme of things, TOPS only pays for about 29% of the total cost of a semester.

For UL, the total per semester (Tuition, fees, books, room, board) is around $6788. TOPS only covers $1963 of this, so if you don't live with your parents, you still have student loans to make.

I do think that the standards need to be raised from a 20 to a 21 on the ACT, and I also think that if you do not get your degree within 8 years of your first enrolled semester, you should have to pay back all TOPS money that was given.

Some people may say that raising the standards hurts the kids that come from less than desirable conditions, but chances are that those kids are receiving Pell grants that will take care of alot of their expenses anyways.

TOPS was meant to help the middle class parents that aren't rich enough to pay the entire way for their kids, but make too much to qualify for federal grants.

And that is what I love about the program.. it could care less how much money your family brings in... you either qualify or you don't.

And what about kids that don't do standardized tests well? One of my boys is graduating today with a 3.2 GPA, but has ALWAYS struggled in a standardized testing environment. Heck.. even his twin brother is graduating today with a 3.9+, but only made a 25 on the ACT.

Not true on the part I highlighted as to the programs original intent. However, it has dwarfed over the years to be an all-inclusive program exclusive of household economic status.

It is a great program and became a model for the nation but like every good government run program, over time it has become an out of control giant that requires yearly debate on "How can we afford it". That's the part that scares me. They will take a great and well intended program and destroy it in the name of (pick em):
Equality
Fairness
Entitlement
yada yada yada.

[don63]

You do know this saves our athletic department some money. In state athletes use TOPS to save us money. Should we give it back?

[CajunRage]

You do know this saves our athletic department some money. In state athletes use TOPS to save us money. Should we give it back?

Surprised the NCAA hasn't come down on us for this....

[barchief]

Not true on the part I highlighted as to the programs original intent. However, it has dwarfed over the years to be an all-inclusive program exclusive of household economic status.

It is a great program and became a model for the nation but like every good government run program, over time it has become an out of control giant that requires yearly debate on "How can we afford it". That's the part that scares me. They will take a great and well intended program and destroy it in the name of (pick em):
Equality
Fairness
Entitlement
yada yada yada.

It should not have economic qualifiers tied to it. That's what Pell grants are for. If you make the academic standards, you should get TOPS.. period.

Why should middle class families get saddled with mountains of student loan debt when the Fed pays for poor people to go to college, and rich people can pay their own way?

[barchief]

You do know this saves our athletic department some money. In state athletes use TOPS to save us money. Should we give it back?

TOPS doesn't "save" our program money, especially in the equivalency sports such as baseball and track. They are only allowed to give out a certain amount of money spread across the entire team (and Track and Cross Country are combined, so they have to share money).. period... TOPS only comes into play if the athlete does not meet certain academic standards (if I remember reading correctly).

Does it help us as far as keeping some in-state athletes here? of course. But it is not "saving" us money.... if the magic number is 50K as far as what a program can give out, that's the number. The student athlete would have gotten TOPS with or without playing sports.

It's a negotiating tactic when you are being recruited... kinda like shopping for a car... always negotiate the price first, then tell them you have a trade in. When being recruited, get the offer, then figure TOPS on top of that.

[BeauCajun]

http://www.taylorplan.com/about/history/



So the question I have is do you support:
1. Raising the academic standard to help control cost? or
2. Leave academic standards alone and limit eligibility based on household income?

Either option will bring howls from the masses who are negatively affected by a change.

No question for me. I go with #1.

[CajunRage]

No question for me. I go with #1.

#3. If you take money from the state and don't graduate, pay it back.