As our leaders in Washington know, something’s got to give when it comes to higher education. Both sides of the aisle have marched their preferred program up the steps to the guillotine, and we’re waiting to see which one gets a nice shave.
On one hand, President Obama is considering eliminating the subsidized interest on government-subsidized student loans, increasing the amount college students would need to pay back over the course of their loans. At first, this proposal would only affect graduate students — who, as you may know, are already strapped for cash — but it could later be expanded to include everyone who receives a federal student loan.
On the other hand, House Republicans favor a measure to cut spending by scaling back the amount of money distributed via Pell grants.
They propose reducing the maximum amount for the award to $4,705 — a drop of 15 percent from the current maximum of $5,550.
Both of these programs are targeted at students already struggling to get a higher education: The subsidized amount of a federal loan is determined by a student’s FAFSA, as is the Pell grant.
The difference between the two is what income bracket they help most.
The federal loans help a wide range of students, with 69 percent of those with subsidized loans coming from households making less than $50,000 a year.
In contrast, the Pell grants are specifically designed to lend a hand to the poorest students, with 97 percent of the recipients coming from households with incomes less than $50,000 a year.
If we had to pick one to cut, it’d be a difficult decision, especially for people who understand how hard it is for many college students to make it through college without incurring massive debt. If pressed, however, we’d have to side with the president on this matter.
We don’t understand how it seems more feasible to scale back help to those who need it most.
This is especially true when we are presented a viable second option which involves spreading the costs around considerably more.
Some of us have student loans, and the last thing we want to see is our interest rates increase. However, if we have to pay a bit more on these loans in exchange for giving underprivileged students a chance to succeed and break the vicious cycle of poverty, we’ll fork the cash over.
We’re still questioning the president on some points of his decision, however. The fact that he has done a 180 on interest rates hasn’t escaped us: The federally subsidized student loan rate will slide down to 3.4 percent on July 1, but Obama would have it double to 6.8 in 2012.
We also wonder why the change has to start with the graduate students, who have notoriously unstable financial lives.
Both choices have their downsides, but that’s always the case with budget cuts.
Whatever decision gets made, we’re prepared for the uproar afterward.
Or at least an uptick in angry letters.
