Fellow New Yorkers, question about new NYS free college tuition program.....

[Hikergirl]

Not everybody is going to qualify for every program every time. Yes, it can be costlier for someone with both state and private colleges. Less expensive correlation: Free admission for every 15th guest entering a park Guests 1-14, 16-29, 31-44, etc., don't get in free. No, not the same as Free tuition because that's choice, not chance.

It is the same people being cut-off, and since there is no way to discuss this without bringing in politics I won't continue.
And you are right, its not the same, in fact it is kind of a strange analogy.

 

[NY Pirate Princess]

I wonder why the current aid programs were not enhanced instead of building a new program. I haven't yet read anything that states which agency will oversee this program and monitor enforcement. Has anyone seen that?

 

[Green Tea]

Will this be the end of some smaller, private universities?

 

[MamaBelle4]

If you look back at my post you will see that I didn't fault the program, I faulted the State.
I have no issues with the program, it will help alot of families, including my extended family and some friends.

I'm hoping it is a stepping stone. I'm hoping more states follow suit and it eventually includes more middle class. If we lived in NY, our kids would super qualify, lol. Hoping it comes to PA.

I don't want to get political, but I do want to say I firmly believe Eleanor Roosevelt''s personal philosophy: "It is better for everyone when it is better for everyone."

 

[DisneynBison]

State or National Government can not give anything for Free without first taking it from someone else.

 

[rigs32]

Will this be the end of some smaller, private universities?

Doubtful. There isn't enough capacity at SUNY and CUNY schools for all. I suspect admission will become more competitive for them. Private schools often offer income based financial aid and their formula may change, but they'll still have students.

 

[Dakota731]

don't want to get political, but I do want to say I firmly believe Eleanor Roosevelt''s personal philosophy: "It is better for everyone when it is better for everyone."

How's it better for everyone? It's only good for people with college aged kids. Senior citizens, single people, childless couples, and people who have already paid for their own kids' educations will now be paying higher taxes to pay for your child. Maybe the government should buy me a house too or maybe give my daughter a car so she can get to school. Where does it end? Why do we need the government to provide for us from cradle to grave?

 

[kymom99]

How's it better for everyone? It's only good for people with college aged kids. Senior citizens, single people, childless couples, and people who have already paid for their own kids' educations will now be paying higher taxes to pay for your child. Maybe the government should buy me a house too or maybe give my daughter a car so she can get to school. Where does it end? Why do we need the government to provide for us from cradle to grave?

I assume it means if in this case young people are educated, society benefits.

 

[MamaBelle4]

I assume it means if in this case young people are educated, society benefits.

Precisely. PP said it would work out to $10 extra dollars in taxes. If PA would do this, I would gladly give my share, even if I didn't have kids that would benefit.

Offering a chance to children who live in poverty who may have had no hope of escaping that life is well worth $10. And PP keeps mentioning seniors (who I agree we do not do enough for), but those poor and middle class children are paying far more (hundreds and thousands) in SS that they'll never see a penny of because the program will likely be bankrupt before they have the chance to retire.
It doesn't seem unfair to ask for $10 for them to have a better chance at life. Especially since that $10 investment allows that child to have a higher income which in turn has them paying more to SS.

PP mentioned childless couples? It is the same as school tax. Wouldn't you rather pay a decent school tax and have those around you well educated and learning in a good environment? This college tax is the same thing.

No, nothing is free. It is about prioritizing. Some people would rather increase the military budget by billions. I'd rather spend that money investing in our veterans, seniors and children.

 

[QueenIsabella]

I think it's a false "gift". Room and board make up more than half of the annual college costs for a state school. Some students may be able to live at home, but if they can't, they're still on the hook for close to $20k a year. Some bargain! Not to mention that this kicks in after other things, such as Pell grants, are added, so it's still full freight for that room and board. I also don't think it'll only cost $10pp in extra taxes--these things always go over budget, always.

While I understand the reasoning behind requiring the student to stay in-state after graduation, it's no bargain for the student if they can't find a good job. It might be fine if they want to be a finance whiz or work in a hospital or something, but vast swaths of NY are economic wastelands. We lived upstate for 20 years (Adirondack region)--let me tell you, the biggest employers were the state--either as state workers in Albany, or the correctional facilities. Certainly not what most college grads aspire to, and not a sustainable job market. My Dh has an MSME, when he lost a job, he had a heck of a time finding more employment in the area--say, within an hour's drive of our house. There just aren't opportunities. That's why we were part of the out-migration from the state.

If they really want to attract people and business, they need to lower taxes and remove the regulatory burdens that keep business out. Stop killing energy sources (two nuclear plants closing, fracking banned--how do these things help the dying cities upstate?). Upstate has been dying for decades, but the big money (and votes) are in the Manhattan region.

 

[TwoMisfits]

It's really a taxpayer gift to the NY colleges, since they now no longer need to offer any free money to in-state NY students under a certain salary nor do they need to worry about those students' ability to pay the full bill...those state colleges are who will benefit the most under the plan. And they'll be able to raise base tuition at will to get themselves more and more benefit...without worrying about reducing their student numbers (since they can't price out people not actually paying the tuition).

 

[Gracie09]

How's it better for everyone? It's only good for people with college aged kids. Senior citizens, single people, childless couples, and people who have already paid for their own kids' educations will now be paying higher taxes to pay for your child. Maybe the government should buy me a house too or maybe give my daughter a car so she can get to school. Where does it end? Why do we need the government to provide for us from cradle to grave?

The purpose of the bill to for people to be educated in NY and stay there and pay taxes and build their lives. The money they pay in taxes over a lifetime of working will pay back the investment may times over. The arguments you make for people who may not benefit for the program are the same arguments made for any similar type of program - social security - when it was started there were people who did not benefit from it, or benefited from it without paying for it, or who died before they could benefit from their payments into the system. Medicare - same arguments. We all benefit from an educated population.

 

[Gracie09]

I think it's a false "gift". Room and board make up more than half of the annual college costs for a state school. Some students may be able to live at home, but if they can't, they're still on the hook for close to $20k a year. Some bargain! Not to mention that this kicks in after other things, such as Pell grants, are added, so it's still full freight for that room and board. I also don't think it'll only cost $10pp in extra taxes--these things always go over budget, always.

While I understand the reasoning behind requiring the student to stay in-state after graduation, it's no bargain for the student if they can't find a good job. It might be fine if they want to be a finance whiz or work in a hospital or something, but vast swaths of NY are economic wastelands. We lived upstate for 20 years (Adirondack region)--let me tell you, the biggest employers were the state--either as state workers in Albany, or the correctional facilities. Certainly not what most college grads aspire to, and not a sustainable job market. My Dh has an MSME, when he lost a job, he had a heck of a time finding more employment in the area--say, within an hour's drive of our house. There just aren't opportunities. That's why we were part of the out-migration from the state.

If they really want to attract people and business, they need to lower taxes and remove the regulatory burdens that keep business out. Stop killing energy sources (two nuclear plants closing, fracking banned--how do these things help the dying cities upstate?). Upstate has been dying for decades, but the big money (and votes) are in the Manhattan region.

While the bold may be true, there are ways to reduce the cost of room and board. Living off campus is often less expensive especially with roommates. If they stay in the dorms the first year, they can apply to be an RA in subsequent years. Often room and basic boarding plans are included.

NYS has had economic wastelands for decades. People cling to the old ways and old technology. Fracking is not going to solve all the problems in upstate ny and will cause many more. I don't know what kind of engineering work your dh does, but my engineer husband can't go a week without multiple calls from headhunters for jobs in and around NYC. The construction boom there and that is coming means he will always be employed in the region if we want to stay here.

 

[QueenIsabella]

While the bold may be true, there are ways to reduce the cost of room and board. Living off campus is often less expensive especially with roommates. If they stay in the dorms the first year, they can apply to be an RA in subsequent years. Often room and basic boarding plans are included.

NYS has had economic wastelands for decades. People cling to the old ways and old technology. Fracking is not going to solve all the problems in upstate ny and will cause many more. I don't know what kind of engineering work your dh does, but my engineer husband can't go a week without multiple calls from headhunters for jobs in and around NYC. The construction boom there and that is coming means he will always be employed in the region if we want to stay here.

That's all well and good, but they still have to get through that first year. And you can't assume you'll get an RA position--they're in demand, for exactly the reasons you state. There's also no guarantee that they'll get a job in their field upon graduation, so it's taking a huge chance that they might get additional loans, on top of any they might have from room and board costs.

My DH is a nuke, as am I, and neither of us wouldn't field a call from a headhunter in the NYC area, so I have no idea what might be available there. We're happy where we are. It just saddens us to see the lack of opportunities for people we know back in NY--we would have loved to have stayed there. We would never encourage our children to move back there, either. Our oldest will stay in the northeast, I think, the younger three will be southerners (again, I think--one's in elementary, one's in middle school, so it's early yet).

 

[4shinystars]

Will this be the end of some smaller, private universities?

I doubt it. Those who don't need to worry about financial aid will still choose private colleges, and private colleges will still offer aid to those students that need it.
My youngest is a now Jr at Alfred University in NYS, When she was deciding where to go to college, after the financial aid offers came in , she found that AU cost the same out of pocket as a SUNY school she was considering before the new program. Private institutions get more endowments and alumni support, which usually means more aid, both need and merit based. For many families making less than $100k, the final cost is a huge factor.
As far as those saying live off campus-my DD gets a grant that covers more than half of her room and board. She could not afford to live off campus. Also it isn't that easy to become an RA. There were 80 applicants for 5 open spots, since current RAs can stay on till they graduate.
I'm curious as to why so many are upset about the staying in NY requirement. Is 2-4 years really that huge a deal? It's a big state, not just NYC. It is not going to ruin your entire life or career. I know few people who have had the same job since college. We love living in upstate NY, but our priorities were family, cost of living, and quality of life/education, not $$$. DH is a mechanical designer and has had opportunities to move, but the pros of staying always outweigh the cons of leaving.

 

[erin1715]

I'm a NYer and would move in a heartbeat if we didn't have family here. I am still paying for my education 10+ years later, and now I get to pay for others too - yay NY!

 

[Jen and Ashwin]

That's all well and good, but they still have to get through that first year. And you can't assume you'll get an RA position--they're in demand, for exactly the reasons you state. There's also no guarantee that they'll get a job in their field upon graduation, so it's taking a huge chance that they might get additional loans, on top of any they might have from room and board costs.

My DH is a nuke, as am I, and neither of us wouldn't field a call from a headhunter in the NYC area, so I have no idea what might be available there. We're happy where we are. It just saddens us to see the lack of opportunities for people we know back in NY--we would have loved to have stayed there. We would never encourage our children to move back there, either. Our oldest will stay in the northeast, I think, the younger three will be southerners (again, I think--one's in elementary, one's in middle school, so it's early yet).

I really don't understand. You seem to be arguing it both ways. You think that offering free tuition is wrong headed, but at the same time you are also arguing that aid should be greater because it doesn't cover room and board.

In my view, NY state is basically providing families with a discount, but not a free ride. You don't get to go to college completely free because you still have to cover room and board. There is an element of personal and/or family responsibility built into this plan and I think that is actually important. The free tuition will be helpful to many students it will significantly reduce overall costs. But students will still be accountable for partial expenses as well as having to work in the state for 2-4 years after graduation. A completely free ride would negate that personal responsibility. Even students that go to college on full scholarships have gotten there through lots of hard work (academic, athletic, arts, etc.) and must maintain a minimum level of performance to continue to receive such aid. Even with greater state aid, there must still be an appropriate level of accountability and I think that is what NY is attempting to do. Only time will tell how well that works.

 

[Dakota731]

[I assume it means if in this case young people are educated, society benefits/QUOTE]

Depends what their major is. I know A LOT of college grads living in poverty so there are no guarantees. But I WILL guarantee any government program that says it will only cost the taxpayers only $10 a year will cost hundreds of times that. When has a government promise ever came in on budget? Guess everyone forgot Obamacare already.

 

[Dakota731]

It is the same as school tax. Wouldn't you rather pay a decent school tax and have those around you well educated and learning in a good environment? This college tax is the same thing.

Yeah we paid $8000 in school taxes this year on a middle class home and our test scores are worse now than ever. Most of the money goes to union teachers' pensions and benefits not to the students' education. Throwing money at a problem never solves it, and getting the government involved is always a bureaucratic nightmare. This is a pure and simple political move to garner votes by offering something else free.
What about giving free houses too? Poor children would benefit and you could get a small house for the price of a college education. For only $10 or $20 per taxpayer society would benefit so why stop there? And come on a new car would only cost $5 a taxpayer and would help the poor get to their jobs.

 

[Gracie09]

That's all well and good, but they still have to get through that first year. And you can't assume you'll get an RA position--they're in demand, for exactly the reasons you state. There's also no guarantee that they'll get a job in their field upon graduation, so it's taking a huge chance that they might get additional loans, on top of any they might have from room and board costs.

My DH is a nuke, as am I, and neither of us wouldn't field a call from a headhunter in the NYC area, so I have no idea what might be available there. We're happy where we are. It just saddens us to see the lack of opportunities for people we know back in NY--we would have loved to have stayed there. We would never encourage our children to move back there, either. Our oldest will stay in the northeast, I think, the younger three will be southerners (again, I think--one's in elementary, one's in middle school, so it's early yet).

but it is likely they would have to take out loans anyway. And no everyone can't be an RA but those were just two examples off the top of my head. There is no absolute requirement to stay in the state. If you leave early, you get an interest free loan from the state. Not too bad a deal. But again, there is no requirement for people take advantage of the program. You don't like the terms don't take the scholarship.