President Bush’s newly released federal budget proposal
for 2005 calls for increased funding for Pell Grants: scholarships
awarded by the federal government to financially disadvantaged
college students.
The Pell Grant system is packed with problems. Above all else,
it swells the federal government’s control over education
while assailing individual liberty and personal responsibility.
But the trouble with the program is not merely structural or
practical. Pell Grants function under and promote a new and
dreadful system of morality.
For centuries, the United States has been a country of values;
we value the hard-working and criticize the lazy. In effect, we
accept ideals, set standards and pass judgments.
This has been the reason the United States of America has
flourished. While other countries treated money as an arbitrary and
irrelevant factor, we held it as a significant representation of
one’s skills, value and prominence. And since the United
States accepted the smartest, most capable students into its
universities, it is now home to the best doctors and scientists.
And since it is home to the best doctors and scientists, it
contributes the most to the world at large.
Yet, in recent times, a counter-movement has taken hold at our
universities. Today, the difference between academic success and
academic failure is largely ignored and denied.
It is in the context of this larger trend that the Pell Grant
system must be examined and understood.
At first glance, the Pell Grant system seems to allocate funds
based almost completely on need. According to the Department of
Education, Pell Grant recipients must meet three criteria. First,
they must have financial need. Second, they must have a high school
diploma or GED certificate. Third, they must be a student at a
college or university.
Upon further examination, a fourth criterion can be found. The
scholarship recipient must, according to the Department of
Education, “meet satisfactory academic progress standards set
by the postsecondary school (he is) attending.”
In accordance with federal law, UCLA “establishes,
publishes, and applies” standards for satisfactory academic
progress. In its publication “A Guide to Satisfactory
Academic Progress,” UCLA’s Financial Aid Office
outlines these eligibility requirements.
Included is a vague reference to a “qualitative
standard” that “relates to GPA and is verified by your
school or college.” The singular mention of a “minimum
GPA” is not explained or elaborated upon.
Based on documents I saw in the Financial Aid Office at UCLA,
Pell Grant awards have nothing to do with GPA. They are based on
financial need alone. (Other colleges like UC San Diego and UC
Davis require a 2.0 GPA minimum.)
Furthermore, the satisfactory academic progress standards of
UCLA give far more attention to quantitative standards, term counts
and unit counts. To be eligible for the grant, one must take on a
measly eight units per quarter (the number increases after three
terms). Successful completion of units requires an A, B, C, D or P
grade in a given course.
The low standards are lowered still. The publication reads,
“Withdrawal after the first day of classes during a quarter
counts as a quarter attended when determining overall term count
eligibility and unit count eligibility.”
It appears that the Department of Education is doing everything
reasonably possible to eliminate an academic requirement
altogether. A dubious minimum GPA standard, light unit requirements
and lax eligibility standards in general make Pell Grants a system
of spoils, not rewards.
This brings us back to the thesis: Pell Grants characterize a
new and dangerous system of values that has taken hold of the
United States. The system promotes the smart and the slow equally.
It hands out money based not on talents or potential, but on
financial status.
The argument here is not that a student’s socioeconomic
background is irrelevant to his performance and potential. The
argument is that the difference between a determined, diligent and
ambitious student and a careless, unscrupulous and sluggish student
of equal affluence must be defined, highlighted and considered.
For too long, politicians, bureaucrats and admissions officers
have run the university as if it were a political machine. They
have changed the question from, “Who deserves to be
favored?” to “Who needs to be favored?” In doing
so, they have changed the standard of society from objective to
subjective; they have promoted the bad at the expense of the
good.
Financially disadvantaged students should be helped. But they
should be helped through a legitimate system and with a sense of
dignity.
They deserve it; we deserve it. And the future of our country
depends on it.
Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.