4 ms·
The word "manipulate" is dysphemism for "audit" in my opinion. As I commented below, I don't care how the money is spent as long as it is THEIR money. The feder
by ayakang31415 2y ago
The word "manipulate" is dysphemism for "audit" in my opinion. As I commented below, I don't care how the money is spent as long as it is THEIR money. The federal funding is tax payer's money, and it should be spent according to the will of the people in this country. If the tax money was spent to favor your family members because you are an alumni, I am sure other people would have problems with it.
- otteromkram 2y agoAlumni aren't taxpayers or people?
- ayakang31415 2y agoI don't think it is fair to accept Alumni as a sole recipient of lots of tax money for unfair admission.
- nashashmi 2y agoAlumni are not recipients of tax money. They are funding the university with their own tuition expenses.
- ayakang31415 2y agoOn average I guess alumni contribute more through donation than they receive through the financial aids. I don't know the numbers on this topic, so please pardon my ignorance.
- nashashmi 2y agoAlumni of the university contribute in more than one way. But most importantly, they are considered an important network factor in getting the student adjusted and proud of where the student goes. Universities market their name as a good place to study. And children of alumni are the prime markets for them to get prospective students from.
- nashashmi 2y agoIf you want colleges to behave in a certain manner, the word manipulate is correct. Federal funding goes to institutions that uphold the federal Govt, not those that oppose it. The federal govt works in the interest of what its representatives seek. Those representatives are enforced by a variety of constituents including corporations, NGOs, non profits, and individuals. You believe that taxpayers should say where the money goes. In such cases, it only goes back into the taxpayers pockets.
- ayakang31415 2y agoI am not sure where the line lies. If you fund a program that is not run by the government, say 100 billion dollars, should the government not "manipulate" how the program runs? I believe there should be some sort of accountability. To my knowledge the government spends over 7 billion dollars on Pell grants, and if the government has little to no say in whom it should be awarded to, it makes no sense to me. If the University decides to accept less qualified students through legacy admission and give the money to them, it should be challenged I believe. add: come to think of it, I guess private university can just not accept financial aids from the government and keep their own admission policy if they have enough money to subsidize students who need financial aids. Whether you like it or not, federal money comes with (or should come with) strings attached (or manipulation in your words)
- nashashmi 2y agoManipulation and accountability are two different words. Manipulation is when you take an existing program, provide the students who go there with an aid package, and then condition the program to change because you are providing its students with a benefit. That’s not accountability. Pell grants are not given to universities. They are given to students, who choose the university. The student has a say where the student goes and where the pell grant goes. Pell grants are responsibilities of the student. The only workaround is to blacklist the university to ever be chosen by the student, because the govt will not allow the student to get aid. That’s akin to a terrorist list.
- 2y ago