A Republican senator from Mahomet proposed some additional restrictions on the Illinois MAP grant (aka Monetary Reward Program), which serves about 140,000 low-income students in the state of Illinois. These restrictions include requiring recipients to staying and working in the state of Illinois for 5 years after graduation, lest they pay their once-free grant aid back in the form of a loan, and graduating within 4 years.
Hold up.
Low-income students receiving *full* MAP grants (and Pell) grants STILL won't be able to cover the full cost of a year's tuition at all of the state 4-year schools, much less make a dent in any of the private ones, so they're more likely to be working (probably a lot) and enrolling in fewer hours (even if they maintain full-time status), so they may have a harder time graduating in 4 years anyway, especially as the number of enrollment in community colleges and 4-years with low retention rates is higher among lower-income students. But this is what Sen. Rose says about his package to reign in MAP funding: "I hope that its not too drastic or draconian. I hope it would serve as an incentive."
An incentive to do what? How about leave the state instead? The same students can easily get in-state residency and tuition in many of our neighboring Midwestern states. Good bye, socioeconomic diversity in higher education in the state of Illinois.
....Okay, well at least the senator is proposing again to ban MAP aid from being used at for-profits.
http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150223/NEWS/150229794
There are times when politicians seem so disconnected from the community around them, this is one of those times. I don't think he likely has had anyone in his family or anyone he even knows that has benefited from a program like this. Or if he does they were one of those students that needed an incentive to graduate like the 4 year rule.
ReplyDeleteI do however understand his sentiment in trying to find ways to make up some of the funding that this state just does not have to give. I mean something has to give and give a lot! At least he is trying, not effectively trying, but trying none-the-less. Putting barriers on students that already may have multiple barriers in front of them will hurt the overall economy more than help it.
I do see the whole 5 years without leaving the state item as more reasonable. It is in line with a lot of other scholarship or tuition tied items like funding for med school or teaching that if you stay in said area or teach in a given community for so long you don't have to be responsible for paying it back. That's essentially what this is, its a requirement that they give back to the community that supported them by staying in state for a set amount of time.With that said, as mentioned this grant pays no where close to the actual amount of tuition and other costs so it's not saving anyone from the burden of loans or other funding they may need to go after.
While I don't agree that this is the way to go, playing a bit of devils advocate here are my questions: Are there not some things that could be changed about the MAP though that would benefit everyone involved? Or would cutting the program all together, saving the state $373 million, be actually better than implementing the restrictions?