one safe place said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The Collective said:

---

Well, it covers assets too. Going to get sunk by those 529 balances. Guess I won't get divorced.

---

One of the things I resented the most was filling out my FAFSA for my son and seeing that my 529 I invested in to save for their college was being used against me. That's how the system works, it penalizes the responsible.

---

If the 529 account was for your son, isn't the purpose of it to pay for his college?

---

So if he's responsible, and sacrificed for his son...his reward is having to spend his own money.

If he's not responsible, and didn't sacrifice for his kids....it gets paid for him through assistance.

Seems fair?

---

No, I don't favor any giveaway program funded by others. I am ok with loans being available to anyone but should be subject to garnishment of wages and liens on assets to be sure they are repaid.

---

I like this idea.
The state help people out with loans in approved majors (to weed out gender studies and african history majors) and have a system where the government automatically gets paid a certain percentage (10-20%) of the salary the graduate receives as loan pay back. We don't rely on the person to pay back, it is taken out.

I like this. It helps people in need and has low chance for abuse.

Is this W2 income or AGI from your 1040?

AlexNguyen said:

---

Sigh. I am a wage slave. My son will not qualify because I "make too much".

+1 to what the OP wrote. All I know is that I am middle class and I am tired of funding everything.

---

Then I hope you're voting appropriately...

Our nation is becoming increasingly ret@rded. We will not last another generation. Not in any recognizable form.

We are committing suicide...it used to be almost unnoticable...a slow boil. Now if you don't realize that we are falling apart you have your head in the sand.

Gil Steinke, the renowned coach at Texas A&I, whose teams in late 60s could have beat everyone in SWC except tu, would tell a kid he was giving him a scholarship to come play football-- but that a letter with a check would come every month that was to be endorsed and given to Steinke as part of the process.
Surely Elko could find some walkons with free tuition!

AlexNguyen said:

---

Sigh. I am a wage slave. My son will not qualify because I "make too much".

+1 to what the OP wrote. All I know is that I am middle class and I am tired of funding everything.

---

The middle class gets the shaft like no one else. Founders would have stacked bodies long ago...and did, over much less.

Pretty much the ONLY demographic with any legitimate grievances is the middle class...they are being absolutely r@ped. That and Gen Z males (whites and asians in particular), who are constantly demonized and told they are the source of all of the world's problems, while they just get shafted in so many ways...they are openly discriminated against in school admissions and the job market.

I don't want to hear any complaining from any other group, I'm fed up with their fake victimhood. Not sorry.

so if I am semi-retired and age 56 and move back to Texas in a few months-

I can get a free Masters Degree in History from A&M?

Tuition is only a portion of cost of attendance. Happy to help

Send like people don't understand how this works. This is just a bridge program. Funded mostly by private scholarships and endowments.

AFTER Pell Grants, AFTER all federal and state grants, AFTER any and all forms of assistance public or private THEN endowments and private money closes the gap.

shiftyandquick said:

---

some of you are not happy that because this helps out poorer families, that racial-minority families might be helped out in greater proportion than white families?

---

P*ss off with this nonsense. You should be flagged for this level of race baiting.

nothing is free...lmao

infinity ag said:

---

one safe place said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The Collective said:

---

Well, it covers assets too. Going to get sunk by those 529 balances. Guess I won't get divorced.

---

One of the things I resented the most was filling out my FAFSA for my son and seeing that my 529 I invested in to save for their college was being used against me. That's how the system works, it penalizes the responsible.

---

If the 529 account was for your son, isn't the purpose of it to pay for his college?

---

So if he's responsible, and sacrificed for his son...his reward is having to spend his own money.

If he's not responsible, and didn't sacrifice for his kids....it gets paid for him through assistance.

Seems fair?

---

No, I don't favor any giveaway program funded by others. I am ok with loans being available to anyone but should be subject to garnishment of wages and liens on assets to be sure they are repaid.

---

I like this idea.
The state help people out with loans in approved majors (to weed out gender studies and african history majors) and have a system where the government automatically gets paid a certain percentage (10-20%) of the salary the graduate receives as loan pay back. We don't rely on the person to pay back, it is taken out.

I like this. It helps people in need and has low chance for abuse.

---

Universities who accept student loan money should also have a financial burden when there is a loan default. Free student loan money is the single biggest reason for all the BS degrees and the cost increases by universities. They get free money and are incentivized to grab as much of that money as possible whether the degree they are offering even has a reasonable salary at graduation to pay back the amount borrowed

LMCane said:

---

so if I am semi-retired and age 56 and move back to Texas in a few months-

I can get a free Masters Degree in History from A&M?

---

No, you guys can literally look up what Aggie Assurance does and does not do instead of just bleeding everywhere and spreading stupid and incorrect information.

infinity ag said:

---

one safe place said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The Collective said:

---

Well, it covers assets too. Going to get sunk by those 529 balances. Guess I won't get divorced.

---

One of the things I resented the most was filling out my FAFSA for my son and seeing that my 529 I invested in to save for their college was being used against me. That's how the system works, it penalizes the responsible.

---

If the 529 account was for your son, isn't the purpose of it to pay for his college?

---

So if he's responsible, and sacrificed for his son...his reward is having to spend his own money.

If he's not responsible, and didn't sacrifice for his kids....it gets paid for him through assistance.

Seems fair?

---

No, I don't favor any giveaway program funded by others. I am ok with loans being available to anyone but should be subject to garnishment of wages and liens on assets to be sure they are repaid.

---

I like this idea.
The state help people out with loans in approved majors (to weed out gender studies and african history majors) and have a system where the government automatically gets paid a certain percentage (10-20%) of the salary the graduate receives as loan pay back. We don't rely on the person to pay back, it is taken out.

I like this. It helps people in need and has low chance for abuse.

---

My idea: Allow college students to sell shares in their future income (limited to 20% of income so people don't stupidly impoverish themselves). They can use the sale of this stock to pay for their tuition and living expenses. But after they graduate, that portion of their income will be withheld and paid to their patrons.

These stocks can be combined into mutual funds grouped by major, GPA range, extracurricular organization membership, etc.

Participation in the program would be completely optional, but it would be a private-sector means of getting funding for college, and the public would get a chance to literally invest in high-quality students.

Pantera said:

---

Tuition is only a portion of cost of attendance. Happy to help

---

you realize tuition encompass room and board right? hth

Vessel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Vessel said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Vessel said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

some of you are not happy that because this helps out poorer families, that racial-minority families might be helped out in greater proportion than white families?

---

"Disparate impact is bad when it hurts minorities and it's good when it helps minorities and hurts white people."

---

But if white people make less than 100k, they too would get in for free, just like the minorities.

---

It's about proportionality.

---

SCOTUS said we don't get to consider proportionality anymore. If we can do that across the board, that would make us a better country.

---

That would be great, but for some reason I'm having to explain basic proportionality concepts to the people I was responding to.

Either they don't understand that, or they're for disparate impact law when it helps minorities and against it when it hurts them.

---

No, they do have a point.

I guarantee you that this extension is being supported by the University because it DOES have disparate impact. We can point at the University for being biased here, and tell the truth.

But, I'm not one that is going to complain about laws / rules that are colorblind in execution. If we could make that the law of the land, that would be a good thing. There will be programs that are enacted BECAUE they have disparate impact, but, I think that arguing disparate impact one way or the other is bad juju.

But, you read the thread, and the only people talking about race are the ones that are criticizing the people arguing that merit should be more important than means tested, which is a racially colorblind argument as well.

It's not cool to dog on a law that is racially colorblind because it is an obvious way to socially engineer based on race due to disparate impact. If the rule is racially colorblind, argue about what is actually wrong with the rule.

But, the other side is committing the same sin. People on this thread are dismissing very valid arguments that merit should be given more weight than needs based, and some people on that thread just dismiss those valid, colorblind arguments, saying that the only reason you don't like the rule is because it has disparate impact, and therefore you are being racist. No one is arguing we need less Latinos at A&M. It is only implied by the people defending the program that the REAL reason they don't like the program is BECAUSE of the disparate impact.

The better path forward is not to bring race into the argument at all. Where is the first post that brings up race in the thread?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Muy said:

---

People who get things for free tend to expect things for free and are the first to cause problems because they don't appreciate what they were given.

---

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I know a number of people who grew up on government assistance as children and now own their own businesses. These people understand that they don't want to be poor and found a way to change the family tree. Of course, that is anecdotal, and you did say they tend to but there are times when it works.

---

Take two rich kids...one of them has a dad who teaches him personal responsibility and makes him work for any type of reward, teaching him "if you want something, you've got to earn it through hard work and save up". The other just completely spoils and bankrolls his child through life...a never ending safety net.

Which son is more likely to be a deadbeat and possibly a complete degenerate? It's a tale as old as time...our welfare is the way it is by design. It's downright sinister. And now democrats are hooking unvetted third world migrants on the government teet as soon as they step foot on our soil. They do not want people to advance.

BusterAg said:

---

Vessel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Vessel said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Vessel said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

some of you are not happy that because this helps out poorer families, that racial-minority families might be helped out in greater proportion than white families?

---

"Disparate impact is bad when it hurts minorities and it's good when it helps minorities and hurts white people."

---

But if white people make less than 100k, they too would get in for free, just like the minorities.

---

It's about proportionality.

---

SCOTUS said we don't get to consider proportionality anymore. If we can do that across the board, that would make us a better country.

---

That would be great, but for some reason I'm having to explain basic proportionality concepts to the people I was responding to.

Either they don't understand that, or they're for disparate impact law when it helps minorities and against it when it hurts them.

---

No, they do have a point.

I guarantee you that this extension is being supported by the University because it DOES have disparate impact. We can point at the University for being biased here, and tell the truth.

But, I'm not one that is going to complain about laws / rules that are colorblind in execution. If we could make that the law of the land, that would be a good thing. There will be programs that are enacted BECAUE they have disparate impact, but, I think that arguing disparate impact one way or the other is bad juju.

But, you read the thread, and the only people talking about race are the ones that are criticizing the people arguing that merit should be more important than means tested, which is a racially colorblind argument as well.

It's not cool to dog on a law that is racially colorblind because it is an obvious way to socially engineer based on race due to disparate impact. If the rule is racially colorblind, argue about what is actually wrong with the rule.

But, the other side is committing the same sin. People on this thread are dismissing very valid arguments that merit should be given more weight than needs based, and some people on that thread just dismiss those valid, colorblind arguments, saying that the only reason you don't like the rule is because it has disparate impact, and therefore you are being racist. No one is arguing we need less Latinos at A&M. It is only implied by the people defending the program that the REAL reason they don't like the program is BECAUSE of the disparate impact.

The better path forward is not to bring race into the argument at all. Where is the first post that brings up race in the thread?

---

This is the point I'm making. People don't want to do merit based tests because it has a negative impact on minorities, disproportionately. Then they see this policy which has a clear intent of disproportionately helping minorities and they are fine with it.

Anything other than merit is silly and clearly racially motivated.

This is a completely unfair policy. So the kid whose parents make 150k, but didn't save anything for college, has to pay full fair in loans?

But the kid whose parents made 95k gets free tuition?

First kid could be sandbagged with 120k in debt and the other goes free.

Insane.

Burdizzo said:

---

As the old saying about healthcare went, "If you think it's expensive now, just wait until it's free."

---

Followed by: "Suture yourself."

BusterAg said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

Damn, I guess I will drop the bomb on my wife that we are getting a divorce. Stinks, because I am kind of fond of the old gal, but free tuition is free tuition! I wonder if that would work?

---

Just do what any good Dem would do:

1) Find a foreign Chinese student of the opposite gender of your child.
2) Get your Chinese student to agree to pay for a 2 bedroom apartment for your child until they both graduate where they will live together as roommates.
3) Get your child to marry the Chinese student, which will give the Chinese person residency.
4) Your child can divorce after they graduate.


Now, the Chinese student gets to stay in the US, the only income that is relevant to FASFA for your child is the income of your child and their spouse, and your child gets a free place to live while they are in college.

Everybody in your family wins, and the United States loses.

If you look at this and say: "that's really unfair to all the taxpaying citizens in the US," you probably shouldn't do what I posted above, because you are not a Democrat, and may have trouble sleeping. Or, if you do identify as a Democrat, and you think that this might impact your conscious, you are just living in denial of your true self. I recommend WWII documentaries to cure that.

---

I think your sarcasm meter may need some adjustment.

one safe place said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The Collective said:

---

Well, it covers assets too. Going to get sunk by those 529 balances. Guess I won't get divorced.

---

One of the things I resented the most was filling out my FAFSA for my son and seeing that my 529 I invested in to save for their college was being used against me. That's how the system works, it penalizes the responsible.

---

If the 529 account was for your son, isn't the purpose of it to pay for his college?

---

Of course but the point is that a 529 is treated as a negative as far as FAFSA is concerned. If you chose to save money instead of buying a new car or something then you are less likely to get aid. The person that spent their money on other things then gets the aid. Made me feel like a sucker. Then of course spending all the time filling out the FAFSA which is a requirement even if you know you won't qualify for need based aid was salt in the wound. You are penalized at every turn for being responsible. BTW, most schools don't require you to fill out a FAFSA if you just are applying for merit aid. My youngest is on a full ride OOS and we didn't have to do one for him.

1981 Monte Carlo said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Muy said:

---

People who get things for free tend to expect things for free and are the first to cause problems because they don't appreciate what they were given.

---

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I know a number of people who grew up on government assistance as children and now own their own businesses. These people understand that they don't want to be poor and found a way to change the family tree. Of course, that is anecdotal, and you did say they tend to but there are times when it works.

---

Take two rich kids...one of them has a dad who teaches him personal responsibility and makes him work for any type of reward, teaching him "if you want something, you've got to earn it through hard work and save up". The other just completely spoils and bankrolls his child through life...a never ending safety net.

Which son is more likely to be a deadbeat and possibly a complete degenerate? It's a tale as old as time...our welfare is the way it is by design. It's downright sinister. And now democrats are hooking unvetted third world migrants on the government teet as soon as they step foot on our soil. They do not want people to advance.

---

So, if you are at the top 7% of your class, and you come from a disadvantaged background, I am cool with giving you a shot at being successful in college. The very best thing about America is our economic mobility.

If you get into A&M, you are not a lowlife freeloader. Even if you get in under the 7% rule, you are still at the tops of your class when it comes to academic achievement.

Is someone at a Bridgeland high school that is in the top 8% of their class better equipped than someone that is in the top 7% of their class in their ghetto high school in Houston's 3rd ward? Most likely yes, 99% of the time.

This would be different if the acceptance rate at A&M was easy, but, it's not. Yes, this is a wealth transfer from the middle class to the lower class. But, it is a wealth transfer from average achieving middle class to high achieving lower class, which is at least better than a racially motivated wealth transfer.

Eliminating this policy would hurt poor white kids the most. If you have great grades and no DEI boxes to check, and your parents can't pay for your college, it's going to be tough sledding for you. If you are a poor black kid with great grades, you are going to get a ton of scholarships from private donors, and you will be OK.

This

BTHOtrolls said:

---

Next time, I get a donation call from A&M…

I'll let them know since we are over $100K income, it'll be necessary to hold back donations and save for my own kids as it's unknown how much tuition will be raised to fund this new initiative.

---

This is the correct answer. My Dad and I gave back a ton of money to A&M. For my Dad it was like a tithe and he was a Founding member of the Century Club in 1966 until his death in 2019 even though neither of us were wealthy. The smarter move would have been to just put all that money in our own savings for family for college and then once they were fully funded consider donating. That's my plan for any grandchildren I may have.

Vessel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Vessel said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Vessel said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Vessel said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

some of you are not happy that because this helps out poorer families, that racial-minority families might be helped out in greater proportion than white families?

---

"Disparate impact is bad when it hurts minorities and it's good when it helps minorities and hurts white people."

---

But if white people make less than 100k, they too would get in for free, just like the minorities.

---

It's about proportionality.

---

SCOTUS said we don't get to consider proportionality anymore. If we can do that across the board, that would make us a better country.

---

That would be great, but for some reason I'm having to explain basic proportionality concepts to the people I was responding to.

Either they don't understand that, or they're for disparate impact law when it helps minorities and against it when it hurts them.

---

No, they do have a point.

I guarantee you that this extension is being supported by the University because it DOES have disparate impact. We can point at the University for being biased here, and tell the truth.

But, I'm not one that is going to complain about laws / rules that are colorblind in execution. If we could make that the law of the land, that would be a good thing. There will be programs that are enacted BECAUE they have disparate impact, but, I think that arguing disparate impact one way or the other is bad juju.

But, you read the thread, and the only people talking about race are the ones that are criticizing the people arguing that merit should be more important than means tested, which is a racially colorblind argument as well.

It's not cool to dog on a law that is racially colorblind because it is an obvious way to socially engineer based on race due to disparate impact. If the rule is racially colorblind, argue about what is actually wrong with the rule.

But, the other side is committing the same sin. People on this thread are dismissing very valid arguments that merit should be given more weight than needs based, and some people on that thread just dismiss those valid, colorblind arguments, saying that the only reason you don't like the rule is because it has disparate impact, and therefore you are being racist. No one is arguing we need less Latinos at A&M. It is only implied by the people defending the program that the REAL reason they don't like the program is BECAUSE of the disparate impact.

The better path forward is not to bring race into the argument at all. Where is the first post that brings up race in the thread?

---

This is the point I'm making. People don't want to do merit based tests because it has a negative impact on minorities, disproportionately. Then they see this policy which has a clear intent of disproportionately helping minorities and they are fine with it.

Anything other than merit is silly and clearly racially motivated.

---

Needs based is needs based. It is colorblind. I am OK with needs based programs that are colorblind. I think that investing in high-performing students from disadvantaged backgrounds is good for the country. This belief is 100% economically motivated, not racially motivated.

You can't argue against disparate impact on the one side, saying we should not, for example, draw congressional lines based on race, and disparate impact shouldn't be considered, and then, on the other side of your mouth, say that this program, which is absolutely colorblind, should be cancelled because it has disparate impact, and is just racial favoritism in disguise.

But, it's not. The fact that minority children are more likely to be poor than white children is not their fault. Programs that help poor white people as much as they do poor white people shouldn't be written off as racially motivated, because they are not.

I would ask you to make your arguments on the merits, and leave race out of it. Should we be abandoning all high-performing kids from lower socio-economic backgrounds because they can't afford college? Yes or no. If merit is so important, make you case that the program should be eliminated based on the merits of the arguments without referring to race.

*Haven't read thread, so apologies if it has been covered.

What about someone who is on their own, legally?

My parents dumped me as a dependent the year I turned 18. This allowed my piddly McD's income to be my only source. Does the school still request potential parental assets/income as a factor, or could a student on their own from a taxing standpoint get "free" tuition?

Aston04 said:

---

This is a completely unfair policy. So the kid whose parents make 150k, but didn't save anything for college, has to pay full fair in loans?

But the kid whose parents made 95k gets free tuition?

First kid could be sandbagged with 120k in debt and the other goes free.

Insane.

---

That is incorrect.

From the old guidelines:

Quote:

---

What does Aggie Assurance and tuition support cover?
Aggie Assurance covers tuition and fees for students with family income and assets equal to or less than $60,000.

Tuition support grant amounts may be offered to undergraduate students whose family income is greater than $60,000 but no more than $130,000. Tuition support grants range from $500-$1,500 based on income and financial need.

---

https://aggieonestop.tamu.edu/financial-aid/types-of-aid/grants

JB!98 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

Damn, I guess I will drop the bomb on my wife that we are getting a divorce. Stinks, because I am kind of fond of the old gal, but free tuition is free tuition! I wonder if that would work?

---

Just do what any good Dem would do:

1) Find a foreign Chinese student of the opposite gender of your child.
2) Get your Chinese student to agree to pay for a 2 bedroom apartment for your child until they both graduate where they will live together as roommates.
3) Get your child to marry the Chinese student, which will give the Chinese person residency.
4) Your child can divorce after they graduate.


Now, the Chinese student gets to stay in the US, the only income that is relevant to FASFA for your child is the income of your child and their spouse, and your child gets a free place to live while they are in college.

Everybody in your family wins, and the United States loses.

If you look at this and say: "that's really unfair to all the taxpaying citizens in the US," you probably shouldn't do what I posted above, because you are not a Democrat, and may have trouble sleeping. Or, if you do identify as a Democrat, and you think that this might impact your conscious, you are just living in denial of your true self. I recommend WWII documentaries to cure that.

---

I think your sarcasm meter may need some adjustment.

---

Right back at ya!

CDUB98 said:

---

*Haven't read thread, so apologies if it has been covered.

What about someone who is on their own, legally?

My parents dumped me as a dependent the year I turned 18. This allowed my piddly McD's income to be my only source. Does the school still request potential parental assets/income as a factor, or could a student on their own from a taxing standpoint get "free" tuition?

---

The student would have to be declared independent. For someone in this scenario, they can become provisionally independent, but the university financial aid office would have to assist the student in completing their FAFSA.

https://studentaid.gov/apply-for-aid/fafsa/filling-out/dependency

infinity ag said:

---

one safe place said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The Collective said:

---

Well, it covers assets too. Going to get sunk by those 529 balances. Guess I won't get divorced.

---

One of the things I resented the most was filling out my FAFSA for my son and seeing that my 529 I invested in to save for their college was being used against me. That's how the system works, it penalizes the responsible.

---

If the 529 account was for your son, isn't the purpose of it to pay for his college?

---

So if he's responsible, and sacrificed for his son...his reward is having to spend his own money.

If he's not responsible, and didn't sacrifice for his kids....it gets paid for him through assistance.

Seems fair?

---

No, I don't favor any giveaway program funded by others. I am ok with loans being available to anyone but should be subject to garnishment of wages and liens on assets to be sure they are repaid.

---

I like this idea.
The state help people out with loans in approved majors (to weed out gender studies and african history majors) and have a system where the government automatically gets paid a certain percentage (10-20%) of the salary the graduate receives as loan pay back. We don't rely on the person to pay back, it is taken out.

I like this. It helps people in need and has low chance for abuse.

---

Good point on the approved majors. I have a niece that goes to William & Mary and they have so many worthless majors, In this sort of system, an employer could go to a website and see if the employee has an outstanding loan balance and set up automatic payroll deductions. If a person ever goes to work and has had student loans, they will make payments on the loans.

aggie93 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

The Collective said:

---

Well, it covers assets too. Going to get sunk by those 529 balances. Guess I won't get divorced.

---

One of the things I resented the most was filling out my FAFSA for my son and seeing that my 529 I invested in to save for their college was being used against me. That's how the system works, it penalizes the responsible.

---

If the 529 account was for your son, isn't the purpose of it to pay for his college?

---

Of course but the point is that a 529 is treated as a negative as far as FAFSA is concerned. If you chose to save money instead of buying a new car or something then you are less likely to get aid. The person that spent their money on other things then gets the aid. Made me feel like a sucker. Then of course spending all the time filling out the FAFSA which is a requirement even if you know you won't qualify for need based aid was salt in the wound. You are penalized at every turn for being responsible. BTW, most schools don't require you to fill out a FAFSA if you just are applying for merit aid. My youngest is on a full ride OOS and we didn't have to do one for him.

---

This why I advise everyone that I talk to about personal finance that a 529 should only be used when all of your other tax shelters are maxed out. Retirement accounts are not included as assets for FASFA.

Put your money in a ROTH IRA, which doesn't count for FASFA, and then pay for tuition for your child out of your ROTH, which you can do with no penalties.

If you have a 529 now, and you haven't maxed out your ROTH savings, start now in converting your 529 savings into a ROTH. You might still have time to do it for 2025. If you are maxed out for ROTHs for you and your spouse, open a ROTH for your kids, and max those out, before you go to a 529.

529s are so, so inefficient, and should be avoided unless you know exactly what you are doing. Max out IRAs first.

Decay said:

---

This is stupid and shouldn't exist.

We need more merit based assistance.

I don't care who benefits more or utilizes it etc etc. this isn't a damn free lunch program. It's an education. If you want one you should earn it or pay for it. They already have plenty of scholarships that exclude people based on race, finances, gender, you name it.

This is just more budgetary shenanigans to squeeze the taxpayers harder and get more public money into a University swimming with cash and DEI make-work jobs like the Liberal Arts department.

Who voted for this?

---

I'm okay with it if we bring back legacy admission points.

BusterAg said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

Damn, I guess I will drop the bomb on my wife that we are getting a divorce. Stinks, because I am kind of fond of the old gal, but free tuition is free tuition! I wonder if that would work?

---

Just do what any good Dem would do:

1) Find a foreign Chinese student of the opposite gender of your child.
2) Get your Chinese student to agree to pay for a 2 bedroom apartment for your child until they both graduate where they will live together as roommates.
3) Get your child to marry the Chinese student, which will give the Chinese person residency.
4) Your child can divorce after they graduate.


Now, the Chinese student gets to stay in the US, the only income that is relevant to FASFA for your child is the income of your child and their spouse, and your child gets a free place to live while they are in college.

Everybody in your family wins, and the United States loses.

If you look at this and say: "that's really unfair to all the taxpaying citizens in the US," you probably shouldn't do what I posted above, because you are not a Democrat, and may have trouble sleeping. Or, if you do identify as a Democrat, and you think that this might impact your conscious, you are just living in denial of your true self. I recommend WWII documentaries to cure that.

---

I think your sarcasm meter may need some adjustment.

---

Right back at ya!

---

My son starts in the fall and will be on scholarships and my tab. Easier if you plan for it! He will proudly be a member of Outlaw 8!

Honest question: What are these multi-billion dollar endowments used for??