BLAKE ELLIS
Contributing Writer
During the past week, Pepperdine’s financial aid department sent out letters informing recipients of Perkins loans that President Bush’s current budget proposal includes “the elimination of the Federal Perkins loan program.” In addition, a pre-written letter of objection to this measure is included in the e-mail for submission to state representatives and senators.
After reading this e-mail and receiving notification that our tuition will increase by a whopping 7.47 percent next year, I started to wonder about the benefits of ending the Perkins loan program.
It seems these past years that colleges are becoming increasingly expensive while students watch program cuts and major revisions in their universities’ academic offerings. Such is the case recently with Pepperdine and the “reallocation” of budget money. Pepperdine’s tuition will be higher than several of the most expensive (and highly ranked) United States schools this next year, all while its rankings seem to be dipping lower.
The Bush Administration stated, “problems in structures of the current student-loan programs prevent them from meeting all their policy and program objectives … these problems lead to unnecessary costs for taxpayers and prevent the program from achieving the efficiencies the market is designed to improve.”
I decided to actually read some of the budget proposal amendments to see what the government was thinking by repealing Perkins.
First, Perkins belongs to a type of federal funding called Title IV funds. These are the funds that will be cut in this coming year. Other federal loans that Pepperdine offers, such as Stafford loans and PLUS loans will remain. In fact, the yearly maximum for Stafford loans (which, like Perkins loans are need based) will increase from $3,500 to $4,500 while PLUS loans are available for the entire cost of education. By correcting the problems with Perkins, the government will be able to “use the savings to increase the maximum Pell Grant [and] increase loan program benefits to student borrowers,” according to Efund.org
I don’t mean to be overly pessimistic, but I feel as though our tuition increase and this desperate attempt to rally support by the financial aid office are linked in some way. I also know that if the school wants its students to gather in support, it needs to start catering to students in more visible and appropriate ways. When business programs are cut, major funding is being slashed, and new campuses and buildings are being built left and right, something is out of sync.
Sure, costs of doing business increase with time. CNN Money cites some reasons for these increases as 1) rising labor costs, 2) student aid: College administrations know that “one of the ways to gain greater aid payouts besides tapping alumni giving and school endowments is to raise tuition” because they assured federal loan payouts; 3) and need for prestige: many institutions feel that the more expensive they are, the more elite they might seem to potential students. The latter two concern me the most.
If Perkins loans were no longer offered, schools such as Pepperdine might have to budget their money more appropriately and perhaps yearly tuition increases might subside. With the assurance of federal money, schools have adopted a cavalier attitude toward raising the price of education, raising rates at a pace that does not show any signs of subsiding. This has to stop if our generation can even hope to provide its children with education that is even remotely affordable.
As for me, my response to the state representitives and senators might be a bit surprising. Although I understand the need for affordable and accessible education for everyone, I also think that the funding system needs to be shaken up. I urged the representatives to really think about what continuing to approve federal money for college tuition means. Namely, the unrestricted raises in our yearly tuition.
By letting some federal loan programs go, schools will be forced to shape up financially. If not, only the richest of the rich will be able to attend college — something that federal loan programs were created to combat. Who cares if you can get loans for school if you are assured to be deeply in debt upon graduation?
By passing off these loan changes as measures that will hurt students, schools are only protecting their own monetary interests.
I’m thankful that I’m graduating in April, so these unreasonable changes don’t hurt me — I just worry how much more Pepperdine can legitimately charge its students before alumni, parents and students object, and say “enough is enough.”
03-24-2005
