In a recent opinion piece in The New York Times, Sandy Baum, an economist at George Washington University, Kristin Conklin, a founding partner in HCM Strategists, and Nate Johnson, a consultant at Postsecondary Analytics, address the problems regarding federal Pell Grants.
In "Stop Penalizing Poor College Students," they write: "The problem is that the program provides support for only 12 credit hours per term, which the government defines as full time for financial aid purposes."
It is certainly true that this makes it more difficult for recipients of Pell Grants to graduate in four years. And it is also true that there are many factors at play.
There is irony in the government's categorization of full-time students to receive federal benefits when the amount of credit hours per semester is not enough to graduate on time. Keeping recipients confined to those limitations can wind up hurting the people it aspires to assist.
Keeping in mind that many colleges have a set price for a full academic course load over the semester, it is true that many do not. A recent survey demonstrates that most community colleges set prices by credit hour, according to The Times.
The majority of students benefitting from Pell Grants are attending community colleges as well as nonselective colleges and vocational schools. So the statistics demonstrate that most of the people that Pell Grants go toward are affected by this stringent, foolhardy policy.
A major aspect of this issue is that Pell students don't get any other form of federal assistance. This is what they rely upon to pay for their college education.
Helping increase access to education is an ever-important part of life in the 21st century. Very few Pell students can afford to pay for that extra course that the grant does not support. So the result is they stick with 12 credit hours per semester - they stick with what is permitted.
And as Baum, Conklin and Johnson point out, the 12-credit-hour limit becomes a ceiling. It invariably increases how long it takes them to graduate.
We would also want to point out that this diminishes the amount of people added to the workforce. Economists will dispute the positive and negative effects of that, but in order to stimulate our economy and have more people working and more people spending, we need more people in the workforce.
We need more Americans having access to higher education and, thus, able to live the lives of their choosing.
Congress should consider modifying the program to alleviate low-income students' extra burden in trying to graduate on time. It is hard enough to be of little financial means while trying to earn an education. The current strains that make it harder for Pell students are unnecessary.
What is needed now is an investigation into the program and the efficacy of the 12-credit-hour cap - which seems to have an array of problems.
Many states recognize this, too. Hawaii initiated a "15 to finish" campaign (similar to UB's Finish in Four) that is designed to increase the number of students taking 15 credit hours per semester in order to graduate on time.
But as "Stop Penalizing Poor College Students" indicates, this campaign was much more successful for the schools that charged a flat rate for the academic year as opposed to charging per credit.
This suggests that students receiving financial support from the federal government to pay for college faced more challenges sticking with the plan outlined in that campaign.
Congress should consider changing the language of its financial aid regulations. Too many students are marginalized by the logistics of the current program.
email: editorial@ubspectrum.com
