If our government made sense, federal aid to help poor college students would go to the schools with the most low-income students. Of course our government does not make sense. According to a New York Times analysis of the Department of Education's statistics, the richer, more influential schools get vastly more money per student than colleges that actually enroll the majority of poor students. Even better, our dear Wisconsin is used as a prime example of schools getting cheated out of federal money.
First, look at the Perkins Loan program. Ivy League schools hauled in around $100 for each student applying to this program. The national average for all schools was $14.38 per student applying for a Perkins Loan. Stanford was the big winner: $211.80 for each student. Now compare this to Wisconsin's allotment-and no, it is not a misprint-only $3.78 per student.
Our university received only $3.78. And how do we compare to the rich schools? Stanford received an unbelievable 56 times as much money per student for this program as our university.
Let's look at some other federal programs. For each student applying to the Pell grant program, Harvard received an extra 98 cents and Princeton received an extra $1.42. The median college received a paltry 7 cents. The New York Times did not publish a full listing of all the schools receiving funds, but it seems reasonable to assume Wisconsin falls at or below the median level, possibly far below the median level.
The Federal government also provides universities with money to run work-study programs. The national median received by colleges was $87.67 per student, with more than 100 schools, and probably Wisconsin, receiving less than $20. The needy Ivy League schools were fortunate enough to get a little more-$592 for Yale and $475 for Harvard.
What could possibly explain this huge difference in funding? My first thought was tuition costs, but the facts do not support this explanation. Private liberal arts colleges, which have comparable tuition levels, receive less money than the Ivy League schools. The New York Times article uses Sarah Lawrence as an example. At Sarah Lawrence, each low-income student will bring in $2,000 of extra federal aid money for the school, whereas at Princeton, a similar student would provide the school an extra $5,680. Note that Sarah Lawrence costs more to attend than Princeton.
This unfair distribution of federal aid arose because educational experts decided funding based on school-by-school review instead of looking at the nation as a whole. The rich schools could afford to spend more time and money lobbying for federal aid. Moreover, many of the experts making the funding decisions had ties to the Ivy League schools. Ken Redd, research director of the Financial Aid Officers Association, said, \If a school was politically savvy and well-connected enough, they would end up with the lion's share of the funds.""
These rich, influential schools certainly do not need this much federal aid. Schools such as Harvard and Yale have huge endowments, $19.1 billion and $10.5 billion respectively, and a large network of alumni donors from which to fund low-income students. If these Ivy League schools lose federal aid, they will find other sources to ensure qualified students can afford to attend.
Community colleges, which the majority of poor students attend, do not have the same resources. Less federal aid means fewer students will get loans and scholarships. This will lead to fewer poor students attending college. Community colleges do not have huge endowments and wealthy alumni; they desperately need federal aid.
Moreover, African-American and Hispanic students are statistically more likely to come from poverty than white students, and are therefore more reliant on federal aid to attend college. By withholding federal aid from the schools that serve low-income students in favor of richer, more influential schools, we are disproportionately hurting minority communities.
The representatives of our state and our university need to make the reform of this system a top priority, and not just because Wisconsin sorely needs the money. This unfair distribution system undercuts the very purpose of these grants-to ensure low-income students can attend college.
