Daily Kos

Does the US punish independent childless college students?

Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM PDT

If you're an independent childless person, like me, and you are considering going back to school, as I have, be prepared to get shafted.  Everyone knows that federal financial aid often does not adequately cover the cost of attendence for even the most inexpensive state schools.  What you may not know, however, is that it is designed in a way that punishes independent childless students.

Curious?  Read on.

Often dependent college students decry their dependency status.  Usually it is when their parents are unable or unwilling to help them.  They believe that gaining independent status would make more funds available to them.  If they are truely independent students, however, this is not necessarily the case.

There are several different ways that the DoE determines dependency status.  The most significant one is age.  Anyone over 24 is an independent student.  The 24 and over crowd makes up 40% of college students.

While it is true that larger federal loan amounts are available for independent students, there is prejudice built into the system that works against childless students.  As a result, being indpendent may result it getting less aid, rather than more.

It's helpful to know that of the 40% of college students over 24, only 27% of them have children.  This means that over five million "non-traditional" students fall into the "independent students without dependent(s) other than a spouse" category.

Before going on, it is important to understand what is meant by EFC.  EFC stands for Expected Family Contribution, this is how much the U.S. government expect you to contribute to your own education.  Your EFC determines how much total aid you qualify for, from all sources including both federal and private aid.

Your EFC works in coordination with your college's cost of attendence.  The cost of attendence is the estimated cost of books, tuition, fees, transportation costs, and living expenses. At most colleges "living expenses" works out to be less than $1000/mo and "transportation costs" is under $200/mo.

Tuition and book expenses are calculated at the minimum number of units a student can take to be considered fulltime, usually twelve.  Most fulltime students do not take the minimum credit load.  In fact, if you take the minimum credit load you would have to stay in school at least an extra year, depending on your major you could be in school two extra years or more by going just fulltime.  This results in students having less potential funds available for living expenses, books and transportation.

Here is where things get tricky.  As mentioned before, your EFC determines the total aid you can receive from all sources.  This is done by subtracting your EFC from the cost of attendence.  The remaining amount is how much financial aid you qualify form.  For example, if your college estimates that the total cost of attendence is $20,000 and your EFC is $5,000 you qualify for $15,000 in total aid.

You cannot receive financial aid above this amount.  In this case you would receive the maximum student loan, around $8000, and would be left with a $7,000 gap.  In order to make up this gap you could try to get outside resources, scholarships and private loans.  

I chose $5,000 to illustrate another point.  A student with a $5,000 EFC does not qualify for a pell grant.  As a result, this student also does not qualify for other federal grants, such as the SMART grant.  This is significant, because an independent student who has an EFC of $5,000 makes less than $20,000/yr.

Why is that important?  Because a dependent student whose parent makes less than $20,000 or an independent student, with a child, who makes less than $20,000 would receive automatic zero of EFC.  This means that these student would receive 100% of pell grant and would also qualify for other federal grants.  The single childless person, however, does not qualify for automatic zero under any circumstances.

Take for instance the student working full time at walmart for $8.50/hr.  Their annual income is $17,680 and their taxable income is $12230.  If this student had a child s/he would receive automatic zero on EFC.  As a single person, they would have an EFC 2219.  This person would be fortunate enough to receive some grant money, but it would be less than half of what would be given to the student with a child.

The independent childless walmart worker is expected to contribute almost 15% of their net income to their education.  Meanwhile a person with a child can make up to $25,000 and still get a zero EFC, whereas the student without child making under $20,000 may not receive a single dollar of federal grant money.  It is also important to recognize that this does not just apply to single people.  A married person without a child will face the same discrimination.

Some may argue that a person with a child needs more assistance.  This is true to some extent, but it is also true that a person with a child in the same financial situation will also receive other government support that the childless person will not qualify for or will not qualify for to the extent of the person with a child, this includes foodstamps, monitary support, and low-cost housing.

The fact is, a single or married student without a child faces tremendous obstacles when it comes to paying for college.  What one has to wonder is why are independent students without dependents completely excluded from the automatic zero EFC to begin with?

Poll

Should independent students without children qualify for automatic zero EFC?

57%15 votes
23%6 votes
15%4 votes
3%1 votes

| 26 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: College, Financial Aid (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 28 comments

  •  some of this can be reduced with work-study (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, ThatPoshGirl, oceanrain

    If instead of working at Wal-mart, you have no outside job and apply for a work-study job, it tends to work in your favor, because the work-study doesn't count as normal income for most of the calculations. Such jobs also sometimes pay comparatively well; for example, work-study jobs at my university typically pay around $10/hr. But availability and pay varies widely of course.

    "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

    by Delirium on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:31:02 PM PDT

    •  But work study is limited to 20 hours a week (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      oceanrain

      and if you are trying to support yourself you cannot do it with work study.

      •  depends on what you mean by support I guess (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        oceanrain

        You can't earn enough to actually pay for college outright, but you can usually manage things so that the total income plus loans covers the total expenses---the lack of outside income makes you eligible for up to the maximum $12,500 for unsubsidized Stafford loans. The tradeoff is that you end up with more loans, and more interest payments if they're the unsubsidized ones. How much this matters depends heavily on your field---if you're in, say an engineering degree program where you're almost guaranteed to make $60k+ upon graduation, the loans are basically just a cash-flow problem and can be paid off without a lot of trouble later. If you're in a field where starting salaries are more like $30k, then it's a much bigger problem.

        "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

        by Delirium on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:37:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ThatPoshGirl, oceanrain

    this kind of wording is the exact same usage that's prevalent in the "oppressed white men" line of complaint.  It's a less accurate form of wording you're using here.

    This is not "punishment", at all, but privilege.  Punishment is when you get followed around the store because you're black, or the machismo/conventional management thinks your "unkempt" appearance means you're a thief or similarly suspicious. Whatever.

    Anywho. It's not that much of a privilege, it's just one that childless people go without.

    It should be recognized. Parents get a lot of "yeah buts" in this country.  Many of us at this point in history cannot afford to have children in a way that was not the case decades or even a few years ago.

    Plus, he knows what crapped out means, which will help him explain his condition on the morning of November 5 - PBCliberal

    by Nulwee on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:32:04 PM PDT

  •  This is a big can of worms that goes way beyond (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ThatPoshGirl, oceanrain

    funding a college education. Not one that we should go into right now, IMHO, for fear of getting crazy and off track from our concerns about who will be our next president. But at some point the whole idea of going forth and multiplying should be addressed, and whether we should favor those who reproduce in a world of increasing scarcity.

    FWIW, I love children and welcome all children born. But I wish people would think long and hard about adding more to the equation, for the kids' sake.

    •  I don't agree that we are forced (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      marina

      into a world of increasing scarcity, because we don't just live in the world - we live in a universe teaming with resources, and if we tap into that, we aren't faced with that problem.

      That said, I also think we really do have to start a discussion about children, and get people to understand (at least as much as possible) just how much of a financial/resource burden they are, and thus we end up with problems - its not so much against the children, as it is against the parents.

      If you have kids, the most important job is being there parent - and that means giving up a lot, that people are necessarily ready to give up, and is why people need to think long and hard before they have kids.

    •  And who is going (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      marina

      to support you when you're 85?

      Even if you choose not to have children, we do need to have the next generation coming along.  Indeed, without children of your own, you'll be even more dependent on the tax monies and good will provided by the children of others.

      The time for action is past. Now is the time for senseless bickering -- My T-Shirt

      by Frankenoid on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:03:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need a generation of WANTED children (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        marina, FerrisValyn
        Probably the most specious argument made by anti-choice zealots is that abortion is robbing us of the kids who will pay taxes and support the older folks. But unwanted children are much more likely to be the ones who end up dropping out of high school, having mental and emotional problems. living in poverty and going to prison; they are much less likely to be the ones graduating from colleges and becomes doctors, teachers and social workers. Note I said LESS likely, not that it can't happen or doesn't happen even somewhat frequently, so spare me the story of the brave unwanted person who becomes a success.

        We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

        by anastasia p on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:07:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Precisely (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          marina, VClib

          and not just wanted, but they have to be the main focus of the parents.  And people who are considering having children have to understand that they have no greater job than raising their kids, and need to be prepared to scarifice a lot.  

        •  Oh please (0+ / 0-)

          you are imputing a meaning that simply isn't there

          The commenter wrote:

          whether we should favor those who reproduce in a world of increasing scarcity

          My response is to that comment, period.  Childless by choice people boo-hooing over how unfair it is that parents have "advantages" in the United states gets really old, really fast to those of us in the real world.

          The time for action is past. Now is the time for senseless bickering -- My T-Shirt

          by Frankenoid on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:20:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I actually think people who wait until they (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            marina, VClib

            are financially able to care for children the way they want to should be rewarded.  Why is there so much pressure in the US for women to pop out kids before they are 25?  Why not put pressure on people to wait until they are in their 30s and stable.

            •  That implies that (0+ / 0-)

              reproduction is logical, or that it can be controlled.  It isn't, and it can't.

              One can be as cautious as possible, and still end up pregnant.  I did -- my eldest son was conceived despite the use of condoms and diaphragm.  Timing sucked pond water: we'd just bought our house (literally -- I conceived while we were moving in!), which had sucked up all our savings, it needed major renovations, and the plan was that we'd wait a couple of years before having kids, pouring money into the house rather than daycare.  Well, that didn't work out, and 15 years later, we're still renovationg the house.  But until one is in that situation with an unplanned pregnancy, no matter how one theoretically believed one would handle it, one doesn't really know (just like child rearing.  You can have the greatest theories in the world, but they don't mean jack shit when you're confronted with your unique child).

              As to those who have children when they are very young, many are in living situations where childbearing seems to be the best option -- yeah, young people can make some really stupid decisions.  However, when they are in their twenties, and have realized that they previously have made shitty decisions and are trying to get out of the hole they dug, both for themselves and for their children, I think it is to everyone's advantage to give them a nice, big shovel to do the digging.  That has nothing to do with "rewarding" them, or "penalizing" people who haven't made the same shitty decisions.

              The facts are that childrearing is enormously draining physically, emotionally and financially.  We should better fund all students but, given the additional burdens a single parent faces, and the decreased flexibility a single parent has to meet the demands placed on students, I don't see easing the funding requirements on parent/students as being being a "reward" for bad decisions.  Rather, it is a means to make further education possible, in an almost impossible situation.

              The time for action is past. Now is the time for senseless bickering -- My T-Shirt

              by Frankenoid on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:41:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I never said people with kids shouldn't be (0+ / 0-)

                assisted.  But why should they get more than other people?  Does a person making $25,000 a year really need assistance more than someone at walmart making $18,000 a year just because they have a kid?  We are all trying to dig out of a huge shithole.

                And we have to realize that the student with a child may be an 18 year old (having a child automatically makes one independent) living with their parents with no living or child care expenses, while the person "without" a child may be a widow or divorcee with no work experience and no family to lean on.  Kids or no kids is not a fair or accurate metric for determining how much aid someone needs.

          •  I am not boo hooing (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            bluebrain

            Don't know where you got that idea. I said I understood the diarist's point. I also said that I welcome all children born.

            You are one of my favorites, Frankenoid, but I hope you won't assume that someone is childless by choice unless they say so. I don't begrudge other people's kids, because I love children.

            It is precisely because I love them that I don't want to see them inherit a world of scarcity, violence, and harm. I envy those who have faith that the world will right itself for them.

            •  Sorry if I jumped (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              marina

              to the wrong conclusion.  I've run into a few of the "oh you damned selfish parents wanting stuff yada yada yada" folks on dKos.  When I read that we shouldn't be "rewarding parents", my immediate thought was "oh gawd, not another one".

              The time for action is past. Now is the time for senseless bickering -- My T-Shirt

              by Frankenoid on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:50:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Answer: (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        rockhound

        I don't expect to make it to 85, because I have no health insurance, no doctor, and no money. But in any case, I never have looked at children as my own means of survival, or carrying on the family name, or any of that. I do not look for them to fill my needs.

        But even so, having children is no guarantee that they will take care of you. I'm old enough to have seen some of my best friends shunted off to nursing homes and hospices by their children, who couldn't or wouldn't take on the burden.

        Yes, I might be dependent on others' children for a while before I die. I'll try not to make it take too long.

        I also support all kinds of things for children, from arts and education to health care and so on. Because I care about the world they'll be living in, I want it to be the best it can be for them. Even if I'm not in it.

        •  But we all should (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          marina

          be able to rely on everyone's children -- not just our own.  That's part of what the social contract should be about: shared responsibility for those who need help, and help for everyone who needs it.

          The time for action is past. Now is the time for senseless bickering -- My T-Shirt

          by Frankenoid on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  College should be free (7+ / 0-)

    We all benefit from a well educated populace so we should fund our public colleges and universities via tax dollars. It works for Europe, heck it was the case in California until Ronald Reagan became governor. SIGH.

  •  See this article (0+ / 0-)

    for the flip side: discrimination against childbearing women. It's all wrong.

    At least 58 female employees at the financial news service Bloomberg are filing claims against the company after it was alleged they were sexually discriminated against after becoming pregnant.

    The workers claim their pay was cut; they were demoted; or they were denied opportunities at the company, owned by the billionaire Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. Lawyers for the women say they expect more alleged victims to come forward to join the class action which has grown from three complainants when it was first filed in September last year.

    The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is filing the lawsuit on behalf of the women, has sent questionnaires to 478 women who have taken maternity leave whilst working for the company since 1992. The women's lawyer, Raechel Adams, said the lawsuit was a "global action" and staff at Bloomberg offices around the world were being interviewed.

  •  Interesting diary (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ThatPoshGirl

    I've never compared school loans. I'm a 47 yr. old (childless by choice)woman who's gone back to grad school. I've used less loans than were actually available to me.

    I did half my grad. work while I was working, so didn't take loans. I had to quit my job last year to continue and applied for federal $. It paid for school and health insurance costs. My modest student job and petsitting jobs paid the bills.

    I guess my living expenses are much lower than most. I bought a very modest home when I started my career, paid it off and never traded up when I started making more money. No rent or mortgage has been a godsend.

    I don't know how mother's do it, but more power to them!

Permalink | 28 comments