Fixing HOPE: What would we do if we could just start over?
Imagine you could take the wayback machine to 1993 and try to shape the HOPE scholarship based on what we know now about its growth and the state of its finances, but before public expectations were set.
You could report to the governor at the time, Zell Miller, that his brainchild would become wildly popular. You could tell him it would help lower-income students further their education and would keep many of Georgia’s brightest high school graduates in the state for college and beyond.
But you’d also have to tell Miller that HOPE’s promises would, within two decades, far exceed his lottery’s ability to pay for them. You would have to explain that having the Legislature write a blank check from its lottery account, for an ever-increasing amount set by the Board of Regents, had become as unsustainable as third-party-payer health care (another topic of contemporary interest).
And you could offer Miller your services in constructing HOPE to avoid those problems.
You could tell him of a proposal about to be made by one of his successors, a man with whom he worked for years in the state Senate, Nathan Deal. You could tell him the meat of Deal’s plan, as reported by the AJC, is to cap tuition payments at 90 percent of their 2011 levels and stop raising them in tandem with tuition.
You could tell him that this “decoupling” of HOPE and tuition, while painful, was necessary because of the third-party-payer dynamic. You could tell him that HOPE was so popular that across-the-board cuts might be the only politically feasible option in 2011.
Miller, who had won five statewide elections by 1993 and may have foreseen that removing HOPE’s income cap would help him win a sixth in 1994, may have understood that future political dilemma. But he also may have asked: Will Deal’s plan fix HOPE for very long?
You’d tell him you didn’t know, but that chances were good. Then he might ask: What effect would the plan have on those lower-income students and those brightest grads?
Again, you wouldn’t be able to say for sure, but it probably would depend on how high tuition rose — and that yet another increase likely lay ahead.
And then you might speculate that, over time, some of the lowest-income and highest-achieving students might disappear from Georgia’s colleges. And when he frowned, you could offer this alternative, an idea of how you’d design HOPE in 2011 if time and politics would allow for a do-over:
What if Georgia promised “B” students that it would pay the amount of tuition charged by the state’s two-year colleges, such as Georgia Perimeter, and those four-year schools known as “state colleges,” such as Gainesville State? Students could use the money at any college in Georgia, but they would only get as much money as those schools charged for tuition. In 2011, that’s less than $2,700 a year (compared with $7,070 at, say, Georgia Tech).
You could make the promise subject to review if those schools’ tuition rose faster than inflation over, say, five years.
That would leave the state with a good bit of money. After putting some in reserve, you could award extra money to students with, for example, a 3.5 GPA in high school and a set score on the SAT or ACT (you’d have to explain to Miller the grade inflation HOPE caused).
The college GPA requirement would remain a 3.0, so as not to discourage students from pursuing the more difficult majors.
It wouldn’t exactly fit Miller’s vision, but it would provide access to college and help retain the best students.
I wonder what he’d have said.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
154 comments Add your comment
Bill
February 19th, 2011
9:08 am
@Bill;
I think we are in general agreement. We do need a general safety net. (I hope we are there for your son). I also agree that we need personal responsibility and consequences.
Where we differ is what direction we are heading in. I think we are moving toward “winner take all”, and you seem to think we are moving toward an extreme redistribution of wealth. (correct me if I am wrong.)
Over the last 40 years, we have experienced a redistribution of wealth – from the middle and working classes, but not to the poor, to the wealthy. Warren Buffet said something to the effect that, there is class warfare, and my class is winning.
I am guessing that your reference to 40 hour low-stress jobs with a pension refers to government workers. Government pensions need to be renegotiated for everone’s benefit. They are no good for employees if they are not sustainable. However, we should also remember, that government employees by and large have accepted lower pay over their careers than the private sector. What they got in return, was more security (so they thought), and benefits. They did not hold a gun to our heads to get this. It is the deal the WE made through our representatives. In at least some cases, it was a bad deal, and it needs to be revisited. But you don’t just walk away from a contract, whether legal or social. Sorry for the diversionary rant there.
I would also add that that government employee may not simply work 40 hours a week, and the stress may not be as low as you assume. I don’t know of many who are doing better than someone in a comparable private sector job working 60 hour weeks.
Cayce
February 19th, 2011
9:11 am
Bill, while some people who are well off worked smarter, were more responsible or were more willing to take risks than those who are not, many were simply born into environments that made their climb up the success ladder much easier. If you are born on rung number 9 then getting to number 10 is a walk in the park. If you’re born on number 2 then the climb can be a tough one.
Property taxes fund local schools. If you have the unfortunate luck to be born into a poor family who lives in a poor neighborhood, then you are going to have a more difficult time getting a good education and climbing out of your birth circumstances.
I have a hard time believing that the children of people who are well off just work harder than the children of those who are not. Some of them may, but many don’t have to.
Bill
February 19th, 2011
9:16 am
Gail,
It is true that cost of college have been going up more than the rate of inflation for some time. For the last three years, you can blame that entirely on cuts in state support. UGA tuition went up by 16%, but I believe he cuts from the state were much larger than that.
As for costs going up, I believe that Road Scholar is referring to the competition for professors. This is a big issue at large research universities. They have to compete with other top schools nationally for the best scholars, or settle for being a second rate university. If you examine the salaries of these professors, I am sure you will find them outlandlish. Not to mention that they don’t teach much. It would be easy to decide (as SC seems prepared to do) that they should just teach more and let research take a back seat. Unfortunately, this is short sighted. The research that is done at GT and UGA helps to fuel our economy. If we take this approach, all of the best researchers will surely and quickly move to other states.
“HOPE is a cash cow” I am not sure what that means. HOPE was designed to collect and distribute money. It doesn’t do anything else.
catlady
February 19th, 2011
9:19 am
Were both my comments lost because I didn’t use the term “Godless liberals?”
1. Collect the full amount of HOPE money. Take the charter away from the Ga Lottery Corp if they are unwilling to deliver, and give it to another corporation. Cut “bonuses” to 10%, distributed to all employees, when the lottery intake improves for 2 years in a row.
2. Tie the 3.0 to an 1100 (of 1600) on the SAT.
3. Fund 126 hours. No remedials, Dropped courses (after the first week) count toward the hours.
4. Include a respected, unbiased research component to check for efficiency/value. Also, audit every year.
5. Students get ONE chance to “regain” HOPE.
6. HOPE pays for tuition at 1993 levels. No increases due to increased tuition.
7. Reinstate SIG (half of which is paid by the federal govenment) for students at private colleges. No HOPE.
db2783
February 19th, 2011
9:20 am
Bill, and anybody else that believes that the poor, less-fortunate, lower income part of our society should continue to be made whole by those who have worked hard, made smart life decisions, persevered in the face of adversity, took reasonable risks needs to look at whats happening in America right now. Those of us in that upper income category are sick and tired of supporting the lower income in our society. This is a free country. If you want something, work hard for it. There are already plenty of needs based programs out there for the lower income. We have to get away in this country from the “bash success and prosperity mindset.” Take a look at the United States budget problems right now. The only problem with the deficit and the reason that this 235 year old experiment in freedom is on the fast track to destruction is all of the entitlements we have and the prevailing mindset that I, because of my current situation, which my wife and i worked very hard and sacrificed along the way to make happen, should provide for others and bring them up to our level. And Bill, for those that did work hard and just for some reason have not enjoyed the same level of success that someone else may have, i am sorry. This is America. There are no guarantees. You play the hand you’re dealt. Some are more adept at it than others. That is what is so great about this country. I say all of that to once again say HOPE should not be needs based. There are plenty of other ways to fix it. It should be 100% achievement based.
zeke
February 19th, 2011
9:20 am
What needs to be done is to return to the initial, voter approved use of lottery funds! COLLEGE TUITION! NOT SCHOOL BUSES! NOT K-12! NOT 4 YEAR KINDERGARTEN! COLLEGE TUITION AND BOOKS!!! TOO BAD THE IDIOTS IN THE LEGISLATURE CORRUPTED THE PROGRAM WITH ALL THIS OTHER B.S. THAT WAS NOT VOTER APPROVED!!!! THEN WITH THE OVIOUS GRADE INFLATION, RAISE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATELY!
Responding to db2783
February 19th, 2011
9:31 am
Wow. I couln’t have said it better myself! I do think that there is a place for a safety net of sorts (as mentioned in someone’s previous post) for those who come up short through no fault of their own. For the others who came up short because of things within their control, well, I guess they better hope for reincarnation so they get a second chance!
Bill
February 19th, 2011
9:50 am
db2783
Capitalism at its extreme consists of winners and losers. Of course it seems like a great country if you are one of the winners. People don’t make bad decisions on purpose. If we are to be a land of opportunity, how can we ask those with no resources to compete with those who have plenty of resources. You are not just asking people to accept the consequences of their actions, you are asking their children and their children’s children to do the same.
I am not suggesting that you “make them whole”. We as a society have never done that. Some seem to think that we are moving in that direction. If that is the case, why has the poverty rate in our country been on the rise for the last 20-30 years? You make it sound like people choose to be poor because it is a cushy gig. My wife and I have also worked hard all our lives, and we have enjoyed prosperity we never dreamed of. We are also aware that, even though we worked hard, much of this is the result of good fortune, not personal virtue.
atlmom
February 19th, 2011
9:50 am
Re: oh, it doesn’t matter, the rich would go to college anyway.
Right, but they wouldn’t do it IN GEORGIA. Part of the reason for the HOPE scholarship was to keep the best and brightest kids – whether they are rich or poor – in GEORGIA for their education. Because the best and the brightest are likely getting scholarships elsewhere. And we want to keep them here, because once they leave for an education they are unlikely to come back.
That’s the reason for HOPE. So, make it so the ‘rich’ kids (who probably aren’t rich, but people for some reason want to punish them) have a lot of other options, and well, good luck with that.
My solution is simple…rank everyone high to low. Figure out how many scholarships you have. Then give that many scholarships away for that academic year. VERY simple. Then you won’t ‘run out of money.’ Of course, when I tell this to the legislators in the dome, they tell me it can’t be done. They would prefer to punish those ‘with money’ who would ‘attend colleges anyway’ – again, they might attend anyway, but not in GA.
There is a reason that it’s all but impossible to get into UGA these days. If you change the program to be about how much money a student’s parents earn, then this will change drastically. In addition – can’t I just work for a year and earn min wage then go to college on a HOPE? What’s the difference?
Bill
February 19th, 2011
9:51 am
Zeke,
Pre-K funding was as much a part of the original vision as college tuition was.
atlmom
February 19th, 2011
9:52 am
@bill, 9:08: It is almost definitely because of all these govt programs to ‘fix’ things that the wealth has been going to the wealthy…however, EVERYONE is STILL better off than they were 40 or 50 years ago – so why is the wealthy getting and staying wealthy so bad?
Soccer Mom
February 19th, 2011
10:01 am
I am shocked there are so many people who think that HOPE should be given on an income basis, based on the parents income. Newsflash – parents are not required to pay for a kid’s college and there are parents who won’t pay whether they can afford it or not. The parent’s income should not dictate whether an adult (18+) child receives HOPE. I paid for my own college as did my husband and paying back the student loans was horrible for years afterward. The people who think it should not be merit-based, but income-based are happy for the lower income students to get a free ride, but think the students that worked just as hard and happen to have successful parents should have to deal with significant loans? I think the reimbursement model is fair. Prove yourself and get the money. It needs to stay completely achievement based in some way, shape or form.
GCSU parent
February 19th, 2011
10:23 am
Because I am a “single parent,” my two college-aged kids qualify for Pell Grants and numerous other scholarships as well as the Hope. My friends with two incomes struggle to help their kids with college (no BMWs in sight). I feel bad that my kids are rewarded financially because their parents’ marriage failed. The Hope should stay a merit program, not a needs-based program. If there’s not enough money, then raise the high school GPA required and add a minimum SAT/ACT score. Keep the college GPA requirement the same.
Bill
February 19th, 2011
10:31 am
AtlMom,
Huh? Can you explain to me how “these government programs” cause the wealth to go to the wealthy? If you mean funding for low income mothers to feed their children, please enlighten me. If you mean 30 years of banking deregulation, I agree with you, but the working and middle class (and the poor) had nothing to do with that, and were for the most part unaware of it.
Bill
February 19th, 2011
10:33 am
AtlMom
“EVERYONE is STILL better off than they were 40 or 50 years ago” Again, Huh? The average wage, adjusted for inflation has been stagnant at best for 40 years, the middle class has shrunk, poverty has increased. Again, enlighten me.
jconservative
February 19th, 2011
10:37 am
The money for HOPE does not come from taxpayers. It comes from gamblers. That fact must govern all discussions of “saving” HOPE.
The original idea was that the Proceeds of Gambling (the “evils of gambling” to quote one objection of the day) would be used to give kids, otherwise without the money for college, the opportunity to graduate from a 4 year college. All they had to do was maintain respectable grades in high school, and in college after being admitted.
Stress the word opportunity.
There must be a means test for the HOPE award. (My cousin with an income of $500K refused to allow his kids to apply for HOPE). There is not a redistribution of taxpayer funds here – it is all a voluntary “contribution”.
There must be a limit on the amount of the award. Say $3000 per semester for tuition only (I just picked a figure out of the air).
If the student receiving HOPE awards drops out, or flunks out of college, the award reverts to a loan and must be repaid to the State.
The repayment terms can be generous.
Do we continue Pre-K in the program? This is a big question. Is this program really working?
What about the tech schools?
But we must all realize that HOPE is not a scholarship but an award to help defray the costs of college for those willing to work.
atlmom
February 19th, 2011
10:38 am
I mean generations of families dependent on govt assistance (and I know for some, govt assistance is helpful and gets people back on their feet, but for many, it’s a way to get money, and honestly, if your parents didn’t work, but just received a check weekly, you’d think that was the way life should be).
I mean, the idea that we have a zillion govt programs to help people – when it only makes them dependent on govt. If we made HOPE need based, it would be yet another program that was.
There are too many govt programs, which takes people’s money and inefficiently distributes it (because a govt programs isn’t really designed to help people, in the long run, it is designed to have yet another govt program). It is *not* helping people – when we have so many of them. I am not against helping people – i am against programs that never look at what they are doing never evaluate anything, and most definitely I am against more and more programs, when we don’t even know how many there are out there.
And again it’s not helping anyone if people are on the programs forever. it’s creating people dependent on someone/something else (in this case govt) and that’s an awful thing.
There are too many of these programs, and their goal is to keep people on them, rather than ensure a little help so people can get off them – which is what an actual charity would do.
These programs have messed up the marketplace, making some people want to stay on govt assistance rather than get off. that’s not something that is a success in my opinion.
Bill
February 19th, 2011
10:41 am
Soccer Mom,
It was designed to be both. It originally had a merit based component (GPA), and a need based component (income cap). Many complain about the “entitlement mentality” in our society. an extreme example of this might be someone who can afford college for their child, but feels entitled to have the government subsidize it anyway.
This whole discussion turns on personal benefit. Our society is great because we made past decisions on things that were good for society. After the second world war, at a time when public education was still viewed as a societal rather than a personal benefit, we enacted the GI Bill. This paid for college for a generation of veterans, even if they were C students, and admittedly, even if their parents were wealthy. The result was a period of prosperity that we had never seen before.
The question should not be about whether this program will benefit me. If income caps or a sliding scale are in place, I will be worse off. It should be about what is good for society. I firmly believe that having an opportunity to go to college, regardless of income, is good for our society.
Dan
February 19th, 2011
10:44 am
Raise the acadmic requirements, one of the biggest drains on the program is wasting money on kids who have no business being in college. Would like to see how many kids use 1, 2 or 3 years of tuition and don’t finish
Bill
February 19th, 2011
10:47 am
Atlmom,
Like some other posters, you make it sound like poor people choose that route because it is a cushy gig.
I do agree with you that many government programs do not fulfill their purpose. Some have outlived their usefulness, and should be eliminated. Many serve an important purpose, but may be ineffective or inefficient. We should improve these through careful measurement and analysis, focused on their mission. Let’s don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yes, there are people who live on assistance for years, sometimes even generations, but the numbers are small. This was largely addressed through welfare reform in the 1990s.
Interesting stuff
February 19th, 2011
10:51 am
Interesting how the discussion turned into one over whether or not/how far society should go to help those that have not prospered. Personally, I feel that there is a place for reasonable, time-limited assistance to the less fortunate, but the challenge is avoiding the assistance becoming a free ride for life, and more importantly, a way of life for generations or entire segments of society. You don’t have to look far to see that in full force.
Good food for thought, though….
Dan
February 19th, 2011
10:52 am
Bill you wish to be elightened. 40 or 50 years ago, how many atlanta homes had A/C, 20% maybe, how about cell phones, cars, a myriad of cloths to choose from, The typical family in poverty now, has a house car and a couple of cable tv’s, aside from hope there is myriad of need based pro2 grams for college, such that NO ONE, who chooses to work needs to avoid college, (perhaps a child that has to work to pay the familys rent) The middle class hasn’t shrunk at all it has grown, along with those in poverty but that is due primarily to changing the definition. I am 47 and grew up in a 4 bed 1.5 bath house with 10 people, and a brother in and out of the hospital his whole life and we considered ourselves middle class, with far less resources than many in “poverty” today. Social programs should be a safety net, not a marble staircase
Bill
February 19th, 2011
10:53 am
Dan,
I disagree. Those with the highest academic credentials generally (not always) have access to a college education, with or without HOPE. Do you want to raise the GAP from 3.0 to 3.2 or 3.4? Does that mean that the 3.0 student has failed? That there is no societal benefit to this student getting educated. Even those who qualify (at least 3.0) but do not finish are more productive and earn more that those who do not attend. If we really want an educated populace, we should lower the GPA to 2.0. Yes, a lot of people who are not great students will go, and we (the people who buy lottery tickets) will pay for it. But, even an average student with a college education will be a more productive and engaged citizen.
Many here have argued against means testing. However, the original mission of public colleges and universities was to provide access to higher education to those that are not wealthy.
Bill
February 19th, 2011
10:56 am
Wait, I have a better idea. Let’s get rid of HOPE, since it represents a redistribution of wealth (even if it is from the bottom up). While we are at it, lets cut our taxes and close down all of these state colleges and universities, and public schools – it is a socialist idea anyway. Lets all just compete in the free market to see how many of us can afford private education for our kids.
Dan
February 19th, 2011
10:59 am
BTW not looking for sympathy, just portrayng a little reality. There is nothing wrong with sharing a room or a bed and hand me down cloths, forgoing cable, PBJ sandwhiches, doing chores without allowance, and earning your way.
Dan
February 19th, 2011
11:02 am
Bill in our public schools 3.0 does not mean much, many if not most teachers give out 3.0’s like candy just because the feel like not doing so hurts the kids chances, well going to college when you are not ready may be worse. But that is a whole different argument of properly measuring acadmic accomplishment and potential.
Bill
February 19th, 2011
11:05 am
Dan,
I agree with you that we should have a safety net, not a marble staircase (however, see my argument about public vs. private benefit).
I grew up in circumstances the might have been similar to yours. You may equate a car, a cell phone, and Cable TV with being middle class, but I think it is about having choices, options and opportunity. Regarding “plenty” of other need based programs, I know of one major program, and that is Pell. The Pell grant as a proportion of cost has shrunk significantly in the last 20 years. A low income student with a full Pell Grant, and maximum loans would still be 20-40% short at most institutions. Of course they could work to make up the difference (I did it and I support it), but then there is that pesky 10% unemployment thing. In effort to chase prestige colleges, including (maybe especially) public universities have shifted away from need based aid toward merit based aid over the last 25 years. You might argue that that is as it should be, merit is rewarded. However, it also means that student whose families are in the top quintile (20%) financially, receive more financial aid than those in the bottom quintile.
Dan
February 19th, 2011
11:06 am
Bill you also drop wealthy a good deal, what is your definition? $75K $100K? $200K what about $200K with 4 kids vs $75 with one? There are numerous studies showing a family of 4 making $50K has less disposable income than a family of 4 making $20K when you add on all of the social programs. That is a recipe for failing programs
Bill
February 19th, 2011
11:12 am
Dan, I agree, there has been grade inflation, in part because of HOPE. I also agree that the measure of education is a topic for another discussion (and a difficult one). I also agree that many kids are not ready for college. In many cases it is lack of academic preparation, and we need to remedy that. In many other cases it is lack of maturity. I am not sure going before you are ready is worse. I was not ready when I got out of high school (mostly maturity). I went later and it worked out fine. I also know many who were not ready, went flunked out, but went back when they were more mature, and also did fine.
I wish I had an easy solution to the academic preparation issue. I don’t, although I think it is a vital role that our community college system (particularly weak in GA) serves. As for the maturity thing, how about mandatory 2 years of national service – could be military, could be something else. Let them fix our national and state parks, help clean up our cities, tutor kids who are struggling (hey, that links back to the other issue).
Dan
February 19th, 2011
11:14 am
People in the bottom quintile who make the grades Never get less aid than those in the top quintile, actually people in the bottom 2 quintiles don’t have to pay for most. And that is not even considering the bottom quintile (indeed the bottom 2 quintiles pay almost nothing in) the top quintile is contributing almost 90% of the influx. So there is no mathematical argument to say the top quintile is getting more. Your argument sounds like giving a “federal tax break” to someone who doesn’t pay taxes
Bill
February 19th, 2011
11:21 am
Dan,
You are right, the wealthy term is vague. You are also right about families of 4 making $20k and those making $50k. I think that needs to be fixed, but not necessarily by making those with an income of $20k worse off.
When I use the term wealthy, I actually man a couple of different things. If we are talking about means testing for HOPE, I would suggest something like the top 10%. I believe that probably translates today to about $150k, and would include me by the way. Example If HOPE is worth say $8,000 a year at full benefit, and you make $160k, maybe your benefit drops by 10%. So, it costs you $800. That does not seem unfair or burdensome to me.
I have also use the term wealthy to discuss redistribution of wealth. Admittedly, I have a different standard here. Lets talk the 1-2%. The top 2% have a greater share of the wealth in this country than at any time since the 1920s. Again, I think that is probably another discussion. But there it is.
Bill
February 19th, 2011
11:25 am
When you say people in the bottom two quintiles don’t pay for most. I believe you are referring to taxes there. “The top quintile contributes almost 90% of the influx.” Again, I think you are talking about taxes. If the top 20% have 90% of the wealth, how is it unfair for them pay 90% of the taxes.
Again, another discussion. However, as you well know HOPE is not funded with taxes. I think the real issue is whether or not public education is supposed to be an individual benefit or a societal benefit.
Bill
February 19th, 2011
11:27 am
Dan,
Thanks for the discussion, I do appreciate your point of view. If as a society, we could have more substantive, respectful discussions, we might be able to solve some problems.
Dr. Craig Spinks/ Augusta
February 19th, 2011
11:37 am
Some Essential Questions: (1) Does a family with a six-figure annual adjusted gross income have anything better to do with its money than to pay the college expenses of a family member who was an honor graduate of a high school?
(2/3) What percentage of HOPE Scholarship funds are expended upon recipients who lose the scholarship after the first year? who do not graduate from college?
(4) Are there GA high schools and school systems the overwhelming majority of whose HOPE graduates do not retain the scholarship after the first year? do not graduate from college?
(5) Has any competent, disinterested, out-of-state agency been retained to answer questions 2-4 above? Has its report been released to the media?
Dan
February 19th, 2011
11:39 am
I think national service is great, mandatory worries me though, I envision people serving their mandatory years walking dogs in a park, eventually. We hear pols taking of their service constantly when 90% of them are motivated by self interest. I would say service means military only, but that wouldn’t fly, it would morph into a drain for liberal social causes which in my opinion is not the responsibility of the federal government, I believe it is a local one.
Kat
February 19th, 2011
11:56 am
The currrent plans to cut HOPE amount to a bait-and-switch for current college students. They held up their end of the bargain, now they’re told by the state in effect, “Oops, we don’t have to hold up our end of the bargain. Yeah, we know we made a promise and you did everything required, but that doesn’t mean we have to honor it.” I understand that something needs to change, but current college students should be grandfathered in.
Michael H. Smith
February 19th, 2011
12:07 pm
Capitalism at its extreme consists of winners and losers. Of course it seems like a great country if you are one of the winners. People don’t make bad decisions on purpose. If we are to be a land of opportunity, how can we ask those with no resources to compete with those who have plenty of resources. You are not just asking people to accept the consequences of their actions, you are asking their children and their children’s children to do the same.
I am not suggesting that you “make them whole”. We as a society have never done that.
AND… We as a society never will or should we think in the usual socialist liberals terms that demand EQUAL RESULTS wherein GUB’MENT decides the outcomes or says there will be no losers, or all shall lose equally in the interests to serve empathy as though it were a human right to be protect by the Constitution, for it is not.
However, lets be clear on a few facts, shall we? The Lottery, unlike property tax used to fund the public school monopoly, not necessarily public education per se’, is first completely voluntary: No one, not even GUB’MENT forces anyone to take any part by buying a lottery ticket to pay into HOPE. Next, it should be obvious to many that the people who generally play the Lottery are from the middle to lower annual income brackets: Should they not therefore be the greater beneficiaries of these scholarships?
Welcome to the mind of Senator Miller, Kyle. He not only wanted to keep the best of the best minds in Georgia, he didn’t want to lose anymore of the least of us to worst that generational poverty had to offer.
The majority of HOPE scholarships should first go to the poorest of the poor who have the grades to merit one of these scholarships and then proceed upward. The majority of people who are going to Georgia Tech Kyle, probably don’t have money issues and the few that do likely have scholarships in-hand of some type already.
To another point: I rather believe that Senator Miller knew how popular and how large the HOPE scholarship program would grow but he likely didn’t think we would ever be in the economic mess we’re in today. Meantime, HOPE like everything else suffers. So, some limits will need to be set and some additions were made over time will need to go away.
On one other item: I do now wonder Kyle, how many good Christian folk’s children who opposed the Lottery back when Senator Miller and the rest of us were pushing to pass HOPE have used some of that old sinful gamblin’ money to pay for their child’s education?
Was Elijah fed by ravens? So let it be.
Of course, then there are people like Neal Boortz who think people who play the Lottery are just damn bunch fools… You may be right Mr. Boortz: However, I’m sure I like far too many others, and that probably includes you too Mr. Boortz, have been a bigger fool for a lot worse things in our lifetimes than paying for someone else’s child to obtain a better education than some of us have.
Go buy a Lottery ticket… Somebody will win no matter what and you will never really lose. As I see it, you’ve only made a worthy contribution in funding public education.
Monty
February 19th, 2011
12:08 pm
Of course the income cap should be put back on. The voters of Georgia voted for HOPE with an income cap.
Despite the fact that mainly poorer people buy lottery tickets, the wealthy folks who don’t pay into the lottery fund are fighting tooth and nail against restoring the income cap on HOPE because they want “their share” of something they don’t need and never paid into in the first place.
Sorry, the entitlement mentality of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor is disgusting. It’s almost time for another revolution.
Brain
February 19th, 2011
12:13 pm
Enter your comments here
Brain
February 19th, 2011
12:25 pm
Needs testing or income limits for HOPE are not the answer, to those who have suggested such. There are already 100s of programs available to children from poorer homes to get their tuition subsidized. HOPE remains one of the only avenues for middle income Georgians to affordably send their children to college.
Furthermore, HOPE is one of the biggest reasons UGA’s reputation has grown so much over the last 20 years. Those middle income kids that the “means testers” want to push out of the program might simply return to Vanderbilt, Davidson, Tulane and myriad other private institutions who WOULD offer some amount of tuition relief to the very families y’all are trying to phase out of HOPE.
HOPE is an outstanding program. It’s one of *maybe* 3 things GA has gotten right in the last 20 years. Let’s not crap on it.
I see nothing wrong with attaching a graduated scale to the HOPE scholarship that would , for example, pay 50% of the cost of a single year of tuition for those who earn between a 3.0 and 3.49 HS GPA and 75% for those who earn between a 3.5 and 3.74 and 100% for 3.75-4.0.
I oppose, however, tying HOPE to a standardized test score. While not inherently “racist” as Rev Sharpton & Co would like us to believe, there is no doubt kids from affluent , suburban families who can afford prep courses and tutors and who sleep soundly in a quiet cul-du-sac the evening before their test perform better than their urban peers who take no prep courses and are awakened the the sound of gunfire and/or sirens 3 times the night before their test.
Monty
February 19th, 2011
12:25 pm
BTW: don’t conservatives always whine about how the poor or unemployed are worthless deadbeats for getting entitlements from the government when they never pay much into the system?
So by the conservative definition, the wealthy kids who get their HOPE entitlement even though their families paid little or nothing into the lottery by buying tickets must be considered scumbag deadbeat moochers.
eatmotacos
February 19th, 2011
12:27 pm
The lottery was a brilliant plan to recover, not only state, but federal tax dollars from recipients of various government social programs, and channel them back into the state’s education system.
The flaw is in the administration of the program – too many politically connected hands are in the cookie jar.
The people who purchase 99% of the lottery tickets sold, would buy them if they were rubber stamped on scraps of paper. The money being diverted away from the program, spent on artwork, printing, marketing and administering endless, unnecessary new games, is totally wasted.
Not only is the revenue wasted – countless hours of productivity are also being wasted by people trying to purchase fuel, or a newspaper, who end up standing in lines behind ticket buyers, who are overwhelmed by their number of choices.
John
February 19th, 2011
12:38 pm
Tying HOPE to income in any form is wrong. You penalize students swhose parents cared enough to get the right education and land the right job to be a success. You reward those students whose parents didn’t care enough to be successful in life and who were content to drop out of school, not complete their education, and who were not willing to work as hard. Students whose parents make less than $60,000 a year have Pell Grants and all kinds of money with which to go to college. Students swhose parents cared enough to be successful don’t have that extra government money. Don’t reward failure and mediocrity and penalize success by tying HOPE to family income.
poison pen
February 19th, 2011
12:47 pm
Being fairly new to Georgia I don’t know much about the Hope Program, however why not make the students that graduate re-pay the money they got for free when they get a job?
Wouldn’t this help replenish the fund?
Michael H. Smith
February 19th, 2011
1:07 pm
Being fairly new to Georgia I don’t know much about the Hope Program, however why not make the students that graduate re-pay the money they got for free when they get a job?
Wouldn’t this help replenish the fund?
They will most likely, poison pen. But if enough people were to favor requiring HOPE scholarship recipients remain employed in the State long enough to pay a sufficient portion of taxes in return, I would not be against it. After all HOPE is a scholarship that must be earned, it is not an entitlement or a grant. Therefore it is the right of State to set the merits, terms and conditions as to who will or will not receive its’ HOPE scholarship.
Michael H. Smith
February 19th, 2011
1:20 pm
One other comment to make on this income thing that always gets us into class warfare that our State Legislators or Governor might want to take under consideration regard HOPE and how to possibly better award these scholarships. Since it is or should be relatively easy to determine the amount of Lottery participation by individual income levels, then a fairer means might be to make these scholarships available in tranches so many per income/player bracket respectively.
retiredds
February 19th, 2011
1:35 pm
“If we could just go back”, and therein lies the problem of the conservatives, tea party types, libertarians, and those who want to go beck to the “good old days”. There is no going back. We live now, not then. You deal with what is in the present. And even if you did go back some, it is not the same because too much time has passed. I like to say you can’t go back to “the way it never was”, because of the mythologies that have taken over (the Ronald Regan myth for example).
And quite frankly America is great because it always has looked forward, not backward. So to those who wish for the past, keep wishing.
Gershom
February 19th, 2011
1:59 pm
What astounds me is who would want to send their kid to UGA in the first place. It’s not like UGA has a national reputatio nfor academic excellence like, say GT or Emory.
CDog
February 19th, 2011
2:05 pm
Require students to have an average SAT score of 1500 (out of 2400). That would eliminate the students who get HOPE as a result of grade inflation, taking easy courses, or having easy teachers. It would also increase Georgia’s SAT average. The “O” of HOPE stands for “outstanding.” If a student cannot achieve an average score on the SAT, they are not outstanding. Please don’t give me the “some students just don’t test well” baloney. Some students just don’t play football well, but they don’t get football scholarships either do they?
UGA parent
February 19th, 2011
2:09 pm
The state colleges and universities saw that HOPE was a never ending cash cow and they took full advantage of the loophole. Now that the loophole is closed we need to make sure the colleges and universities keep their increases to “reasonable” amounts. Inflation plus 2%….
more than that and you would need state governement intervention.