21st Century Scholars Act

[Moooooo]

Would you support a NATIONAL law similar to this state law signed by Governor Evan Bayh in '92.

"21st Century Scholars Act in 1992, legislation which says that every child growing up in Indiana who is eligible for the free lunch program in a public school, graduates from high school with passing grades, and signs a pledge not to experiment with illegal drugs, is entitled to a full college scholarship to a public university of his or her choice."

[Emsworth]

No. The federal government has no business being involved in education.

[Frodo]

Yes, absolutely.  This bill expands opportunity for those who might not otherwise even consider going to college. 

[John Dibble]

No. I support the individual states setting up programs such as Georgia's HOPE scholarship that provides in-state college tuition, a fee stipend, and a book stipend for students who have a B average and maintain it funded by a state lottery or some other non-tax based program.

[WalterMitty]

yes (r)

[Richard]

NOOOO.

[Giant Saguaro]

With some expanded criteria, I think it's an excellent idea and would support it. I agree that it expands the realm of possibilities, and without an education there isn't much for these kids, but i do think a student would need to show some proficiency and degree of success / interest in a college prep type of "track" for at leeast something.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes. Promoting education, doing jobs programs and having national health care all seem more preferable to me than paying the hundreds of billions of dollars for a massive bureaucratic welfare state.

[Akno21]

Certainly. As long as they are academically qualified and can be trusted not to waste college drinking, these students will benefit immensely. No one should be unable to pursue an education because it's too expensive. This isn't welfare, the kids still have to succeed in high school to be eligible.

[Jake]

Something similar, but with stricter standards of achievement (C average at the very least).

[Beet]

Depends on what the price tag is, but I'm leaning support.

[dazzleman]

I generally like the idea, but I think it's better to keep it at the state level.

I also wouldn't want to see admission standards lowered as a result.  I would amend it to say the student can attend the public university of his/her choice to which his/her grades and board scores result in acceptance.

I think the GI Bill is one of the best pieces of enlightened liberal legislation ever passed.  That law virtually created the postwar middle and upper middle class, from children of poverty who had the brains, but not the money, to get a college education.  It was a huge benefit to country as a whole.

If we can do something similar for those trapped in poverty today, who have the will but not quite the means to get out of it, then we should do so.  It would more than pay for itself if it is administered right.

I think this should be coupled with a school choice program to help promising students escape failing, usually inner city, schools.  There is no point in offering all sorts of help for college if a kid can't make it that far because of abysmal schools in the lower grades.

[Nym90]

I would strongly support it.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I generally like the idea, but I think it's better to keep it at the state level.

I also wouldn't want to see admission standards lowered as a result.  I would amend it to say the student can attend the public university of his/her choice to which his/her grades and board scores result in acceptance.

I think the GI Bill is one of the best pieces of enlightened liberal legislation ever passed.  That law virtually created the postwar middle and upper middle class, from children of poverty who had the brains, but not the money, to get a college education.  It was a huge benefit to country as a whole.

If we can do something similar for those trapped in poverty today, who have the will but not quite the means to get out of it, then we should do so.  It would more than pay for itself if it is administered right.

I think this should be coupled with a school choice program to help promising students escape failing, usually inner city, schools.  There is no point in offering all sorts of help for college if a kid can't make it that far because of abysmal schools in the lower grades.

That idea with school choice sounds like a good plan to me.

[DanielX]

National? No. State? Perhaps, although the requirements should be stricter (more then 'passing' grades but say a 3.0 GPA).

[Moooooo]

National? No. State? Perhaps, although the requirements should be stricter (more then 'passing' grades but say a 3.0 GPA).

I was actually thinking the same thing, maybe even through in random drug testing to make sure kids arent smoking up all the grant and assitance money.

[Moooooo]

What about expanding it to graduate studies?  Or does that go too far?

Personally, Im not feelin' racking up over $30-40,000 in loans for an MBA.

[dazzleman]

What about expanding it to graduate studies?  Or does that go too far?

Personally, Im not feelin' racking up over $30-40,000 in loans for an MBA.

I think that goes too far.

A graduate degree is much more market-oriented in the short run, and the person who already has an undergraduate degree is in a much stronger position to finance their own post-graduate education.  I definitely don't think the burden of graduate education ought to be on the taxpayers.  Besides, once a person has finished college, whether they were eligible for school lunches in their high school days is irrelevant.

Graduate degrees should lead directly to higher income.  People seeking those degrees should expect to use that higher income stream to finance their education, if necessary, the same way a company would invest in equipment that will make it more profitable.  It should not be put on the  taxpayers at that point.

[Speed of Sound]

Tighten it up a bit and you have yourself one Hell of a bill.