WITHOUT a post-secondary education, American workers can hardly earn enough to support a family. With a college degree, many can look forward to mounds of debt. This is unacceptable. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity. There is no better opportunity than a good education, yet federal measures make it a privilege. Many universities, including our own, are working to better help low-income students, but these systems are far from perfect for those they profess to help, and most of them leave middle-class students out in the cold. Yvonne Hubbard, the Director of Student Financial Services, notes that students with family incomes at "about $50,000-100,000" often have the most difficult time because "they have a significant EFC [Estimated Family Contribution] and they struggle." Education should never be unattainable, but the current EFC calculations and regulations as well as limited federal loan accessibility make it so.
The crux of the issue lies with the federally defined EFC. The government assumes that parents will pay for their child's education. Then the government looks at only the income and assets of a family to produce the amount a family "should" be able to pay. In reality, families often cannot. The amount can be nearly 20 percent of the family's income, which is preposterous. The EFC is defined as the "amount of available assistance that they [parents] can provide to you from their current income and assets," as Hubbard explained. It is difficult to fathom an average family turning over 20 percent of its income every year to pay for one child's college expenses. Only income and assets are factored in, and nothing else is considered, including bills, debt, home upgrades or even situations like having a grandparent living in your house. Furthermore, if one of these situations comes up suddenly during the year (your grandmother falls ill, your car breaks down and requires expensive repairs, etc) it cannot be used to have your financial aid package reassessed. Hubbard says the government considers these expenses "personal choices." People usually choose how to spend their money, but there are also those who have money problems because of unexpected issues like previous unemployment or major expenses.There are also parents who refuse to pay for their child's education. In these situations, the federal financial aid system punishes the student.
The University recently instituted AccessUVa, an example of a good but insufficient program that is limited by federal regulations. AccessUVa's goals (according to its website) are to meet 100 percent of every student's need through grants and loans, replace need-based loans with grants for students whose family income is below 200 percent of the poverty level ($40,000 for a family of four, according to the Department of Health and Human Services), and then put a loan cap on need-based loans for all students. All of these provisions lighten the financial burden, but not nearly enough.
The main problem goes back to the EFC: families are not able to cover it. The University cannot give grants to help cover the EFC. Any money beyond need-based aid is considered income, and translates to less need. Less need means less need-based aid, so in the end, the grants cannot help. Students or parents are forced to take out loans, furthering debt. Hubbard knows of many parents who borrow from their retirement money or even put off their retirement to cover the EFC. Roughly one third of the student body takes on personal loans to cover the costs themselves, and a large portion of those are "alternative" or non-need-based loans. These private loans have much higher interest rates than federal loans. There are also limits on whether a student can take out a federal loan to cover the EFC, so the students usually go with private loans and higher interest rates.
Funding is always a problem, and if federal policies change, there are people who would take advantage of added ways for students in need to get money. Many universities, especially our own, help alleviate the burden; this university has a better financial aid program than most. However the University, like others, is exhausting its abilities and cannot go further. It is time for the federal government to make the necessary changes: expand the factors taken into account for the expected family contribution, provide non-need-based loans to students, lower interest rates, and allow colleges to give grants to help cover the EFC. If the government does this, students will be able to attend the college that they want and deserve, and we will be closer to providing equal opportunities for all, regardless of financial situation.
Ashlee Wilkins is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer. She is a first-year student in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 5 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
