New bill 'Robin Hood' of college financial aid

House Editorial

New legislation from Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives could lead to a substantial decrease in federal funding for the financial aid programs at the country's most wealthy Ivy League schools.

In a Robin Hood-esque system that allows the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, the time has come for legislation that could more evenly distribute federal money among the less opulent universities in the nation.

Republicans argue that much of the $1 billion or so dispensed by the national government for financial aid is not distributed fairly. Ivy League schools received five to 12 times the nationwide median of financial aid per applicant in 2000-'01, according to a Nov. 3, 2003 article in The New York Times.

The article cites Stanford University as an example, which receives $211.80 for every student who applied for financial aid, whereas the median for all the nation's colleges — public and private — was $14.38 per student. The University of Wisconsin-Madison received 21 cents per applicant to run its low-interest Perkins loan program.

The article also stated Times researchers found a national trend in which "the federal government typically gives the wealthiest private universities, which often serve the smallest percentage of low-income students, significantly more financial aid money than their struggling counterparts with much greater shares of poor students."

And while it may initially seem appropriate that higher-cost institutions should receive more money, some private schools cost just as much to attend as Ivy League schools.

Additionally, many schools with substantial endowments and fewer lower-income students are capable of providing more aid, while many state schools do not have the same capabilities. The current system ignores this disparity, cheating the majority of the nation's schools and students out of greatly needed money.

Currently, federal financial aid is given as a base amount to supplement the institution's program. Historically, federal money was granted on "an individual, almost negotiable basis," according to the Times article. It continues to state that, since the '70s, educational experts — not formulas — often determined aid distribution.

In 1980, Congress passed a formula to rectify the imbalance. In practice, however, the formula only applied to new money entering the program, never correcting the old inequality.

The only fair alternative is to recreate the financial aid system into one that considers the needs of all college students, not just the inflated prestige of the Ivy League.

A new formula could redistribute federal money based on the need of an institution and its students, better supporting lower-income students at schools holding smaller endowments.

Throwing hundreds of dollars per student in financial aid to such a small percent of Ivy League students benefits far fewer people than if the federal money was distributed fairly — that is to say, based on necessity.

The point of financial aid is to offer assistance to those who most need it — and most of the Ivy League doesn't.