Kyle Robisch wrote of how Bright Futures should be based solely on "need," but then he goes on to talk of how you don't "deserve" Bright Futures if you can't pull the minimum GPA and SAT.
Which is it Kyle? If it's based only on need, then merit wouldn't play a role at all. Needing something is based upon your financial bearings, deserving something is based upon your merit and credentials.
If we based Bright Futures awards exclusively on need, it would mean exhausting the last source of scholarships that many students who don't have a financial need (but academically deserve) have.
Scholarships should be based on merit and not need. Need is covered by government aid grants and loans. If people want scholarships, then they need to earn them, whether they need them or not. Bright Futures recipients who academically deserved Bright Futures have a right to be upset. They earned that money. Those who need more should really look into working harder in high school so that they are awarded scholarships not only because they need them, but because they deserve them. A student with a 4.0 GPA and a 1400 SAT score whose parents make $100,000 a year should receive a scholarship over a student with a 3.0 and a 1000 SAT who's parents make $30,000; otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to the student who worked his or her ass off.
By the way Kyle, how do you expect anyone to take your column seriously when you begin it telling us to "quit bitching"? Seriously.
