I don't consider loans or scholarships a free ride, although I would contend that anyone smart and dedicated enough to get a scholarship probably has a pretty healthy family situation to begin with.
Sports scholarships are bullshit though. Why should someone get a free education because they have a good arm? Does that mean I should get to play on the football team if I'm a whiz at physics?
Dude, you are so looking through the microscope at the cell and missing the entire animal, much less the population at large. Anyone smart enough and dedicated enough to get a scholarship has a good family? Oh, wait, I see...we're throwing out all those 'equal opportunity' type scholarships that I missed out on by being a white male from a middle class family. I couldn't get the native american scholarship, the grant for kids with one leg and a sneezing allergy, the money allocated for degrees that were not in my field of study. There is an absolute fuckton of money handed out every year, and a lot of it IS NOT based on being 'smart and dedicated'....but I understand all those people fully appreciate the free ride they get simply based on being 'different' 8) Let's focus back to your comment, because I'm confident I just ran off on a useless tangent. The comment was, they 'probably' have a good family. I would say it is 'possible' but not necessarily probable. Maybe we're (I am?) quibbling at semantics here, but I have seen too many kids
earn scholarships based on performance and ability who were not in a Beaver Cleaver family to let that fly. Yes, there are a lot who exist, but there are a LOT who aren't in that situation but still earn the free-ride. I'm calling bullshit on that one.
To look at sports for just a moment, let's take a bigger perspective than this one student. If it is a major sport, the University gains a lot from having this athlete attend - both in terms of sports awards recognition AND increased media awareness. Surely you heard about the outrage of football players unable to be paid whilst the school rakes in millions in tv contracts and memorabilia sales (jersey anyone?)? So, in one sense, the scholarship is the only way of paying back these kids for what they provide the school - call it whoring or whatever you want, but giving these scholarships is minuscule to what the school gains in return for having these athletes attend. It then falls to the athlete to seize the opportunity and actually learn something from his courses, as opposed to making the attendance record and focusing on trying to play in the pros. But let us not forget, there are a LOT of less popular sports played, and those student-athletes are also given scholarships without bringing much, if any, money or recognition back to the school. So, those ought to be tossed out as well? I beg to differ. You (Kyk) decry that money is given to kids because they swim fast or play tennis well, and that money is better spent on kids who have broken families or low income? Who are you to decide that besides being a non-sport playing, broken family, non-income have not? Fuck you and your lack of athletic ability.
For some of those student athletes, if it weren't for the sports scholarship, they wouldn't be able to attend college and earn a degree. You sound as if you assume they all come from full homes and adequate income. An assumption, which you cannot backup. Several of them know damn well that this 'sport' *is* their job and they can't fuck it up because it is *how* they are paying for college. Just like you, they have to earn their way through school, and I assure you they appreciate similar to the way you do. But if you screw up a class and have to retake it, you simply are in for another semester doing make up courses and spending a little more out of your pocket, perhaps working overtime at your job. Them? They lost the scholarship, they are out...to bad, so sad, solly cholly, gtfo. There is no overtime to work at a job, their overtime is busting their ass in the library to ensure their grades stay up to snuff WHILE working their sport well enough to remain on the team.
I never played a college sport. But I really think you are missing A LOT of the big picture on those who have. You don't have their background or perspective, don't assume it's easier or better than yours. Don't do that, unless you want to debase your entire argument as just that - your argument, your opinion without much concern for anything beyond what you personally see and feel. And we both know that isn't a discussion, that's a bitch, a whinge, a waste of our time.
I understand the jealousy. In Australia we're lucky in that we have a program called HECS. This basically means that we don't have to pay anything upfront, however once we're in the workforce and earning over a certain amount of money, our wages will be garnished. I think this is a fantastic system and one I'm eternally grateful for.
....
I also knew a lot of 'trust fund kids' whose parents gave them money while they were studying, whereas I had to work. At the end of the day though, who's going to have had a better life experience?
Okay, enough Kyk bashing on my part...let's move towards the real discussion here. UAN presents a very interesting solution, one I'd be happy to see in place as well - but it kind if is already, in the way of student loans. I've no qualms about people who are unable to pay for an education going through to earn the degree and either work during school to allay the costs or taking on student loans or similar debt programs as outlined above. I think all of us would agree this is acceptable, I'm just pleased to see how Aus handles it.
The last bit, one more echo of my earlier point - who is really better off at the end of it all?
...I do feel like it was handed to me, and I don't feel like I completely earned it. That said, I wrote all of the papers, took all of the tests, and now have a degree with no debt. For that I am very thankful.
It is what it is Kyk. I'm no less of a person for being born into a rich family.
This, I think, is another key part that's being stepped over - how you get to college is one thing. What you do there is another one entirely, and it falls to the individual to actually gain from their college experience. They become master beer pong champion, or they learn how to run a business and provide for their family. It's on them where they end up when they come out of college, and in that instance I'd lean towards those who paid their own way as having a head start on the others in most cases.
That's sort of the point. You are more of a person in a certain way
...
I think it's important for people to come to terms with, and be vocal about the inequities of life. That doesn't mean bitching and whining that the guy next to you has more, but asking relevant questions that shed light on individual situations, and asking ourselves as a society what we can do to fix them.
I find people getting sorry and defensive about having their College paid for as disingenuous. I have yet to see one person come in this thread and say, "Yeah, I got a full ride. I'd like to see education reform" or "I'd like to see more scholarships for people in unique situations."
No, it's just "Yeah, I got a full ride. I got lucky. Get off my nuts."
If you are the future philanthropists, then I'm a little worried about socioeconomic disparity in the coming years.
Get off our nuts. Yes, you could have done better at avoiding the obstacles you laid in your path if you were better coached along the way, sorry - life ain't fair. I'm not going to apologize or feel bad for my lot in life - I didn't pick it, I made the best of it I could. Likewise, I'm not going to lament the areas where I got shafted and had to overcome things other people didn't. Am I going to complain about how I keep myself in continual debt because I never learned the value of money or how to juggle multiple responsibilities like working full time, going to school (full?) time, and pehaps having a family at the same time? No. Everyone's life is different - better in some ways, worse in some ways, but different. I'm not going to judge them and say they should be ashamed, or should change their ways. Like Mehm said - it is what it is.
BUT, But, but.....Kyk wants us to look at society and change they way it is. Okay, let's take a step back and try to evaluate that. Most of what's presented here is based on family and income. But is that where we should draw the line? Why? Because Kyk said so, and provided his life as an example to support it? What about kids that don't learn as well, have reading or comprehension issues, do we need to dumb down college courses so everyone has the same shot at learning the material? What about those who come here and English isn't a first language, do we need to diversify and have our courses taught in 25 different languages? How about access? Should we ban cars, since not everyone can afford them and the associate parking dues? Should we only allow bikes in that case? Surely everyone can afford a bicycle and that would be fair and equal to those less fortunate.....or can not everyone afford a bike?
NO, No, no, TLB - he was trying to address the inequality of access to college based on financial status (and to an extent, family support). Okay, so we'll try to fix society by working on 1-2 of the dozen or so pillars that will carry the status quo....gotcha. Pardon me while I piss in the wind over here, as I think it will be more productive. At least here I can whistle a tune whilst I do it, rather than listen to that incessant whine I hear coming from Kanada
Because that is what I see this thread as - less of a 'here is a problem, how can we fix it' and more of a 'Kyk got the short stick in life and wants people to feel bad they got a better deal'. Sorry, I'm not buying that one.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
But at least i got a good final mark.