The Loans and Grants for Higher Education

The ever-increasing expense of higher education

The ever-increasing expense of higher education has entered the political sphere. As a result, several world leaders’ perspectives on the subject have emerged. World leaders, as well as presidential candidates such as Barack Obama, have advocated an expansion in federal support for students enrolled in higher education institutions (Schulze-Cleven, Reitz, Maesse and Angermuller 796). Money loaned to students comes from the federal government’s different receipts, the majority of which are taxes paid by residents. Every student has the right to an education, so the implementation of such programs is always necessary. However, the adverse predicaments regarding the money funded to university studying are ignored. They are less considered, thus no attention is given on what good or harm they are bound to cause.

Critics question the act of high funding education

Critics have questioned the act of high funding education. They wonder whether it increases student enrollment in institutions as well as the degrees attained. On the contrary, countries such as the United Kingdom, receive an acknowledgment from the government. Over 1.6 million students are pursuing degrees or diplomas inclusive of 19,000 students (Michelsen, Sweetman, Stensaker and Bleikliel 399). Besides, another number of close to a million are taking noncredit-bearing courses involving the various industries and commerce. It is wise for countries to adopt loans and funds for higher education as the institution create a significant impact towards the economy (Marginson 423). If organizations are funded while on the other end student loans are approved, agencies will receive a considerable enrolment. Consequently, this provides employment opportunities, hence boosting the country’s economy due to an increased rate of productivity.

The main aim: eradicating poverty in the United States of America

The main aim behind loans and grants for higher education narrows down to eradicating poverty in the United States of America (Stevens and Gebre-Medhin 125). The war against poverty suppresses the level of crime, as in such case a number of the middle age youth will enroll in various programs and short courses. Besides the rising level of corruption, drug prevalence is bound to reduce, as students will be more occupied with their studies. Moreover, an increase in the college completion rate will see the government increase the number of better-paying jobs, hence leading to significant growth in the American economy.

The cost of gaining education

The bright ideas about the loans offered to students narrow done to the fact they are bound to pay. The payments are made in installments once they begin working but at a specific and affordable rate. However, the repayment depends on the level of income. The cost of gaining education for the four-year course is bound to increase gradually (Collier and Herman 9). In a bid to meet the cost involved in providing the knowledge, taxpayers will have to face an increase in their various taxes, a move that has been blocked by some critics.

Funding for higher education from the State and Federal Government

Substantial funding for higher education has continued to be provided by the State and Federal Government. However, there have been changes in recent years that have led to donations being more equivalent than at any time in at least the preceding two decades. Traditionally, states have provided a more significant amount of help to the postsecondary students and institutions as well. Since the Great Recession, the difference has narrowed dramatically in recent years as a result of the state spending, which reduced, and federal investments grew abruptly. Growths mainly drove the development in a package referred to as the Pell Grant. It is a need-centered financial aid program and the most significant constituent of national higher education expenditure.

The subsidy channels for higher education

The subsidy channels for higher education have now become equivalent in the form of size and have developed some corresponding strategy objectives. These entail elements such as aggregating the access for students and backing up enquiry. State and federal governments have been channeling resources in the system in various ways. The federal government provides monetary help to discrete students and precise investigation as the state reserves accommodate executive pay for the general operation of public institutes.

Exploring alternative funding mechanisms

Once the fiscal environment becomes constrained, it will be vital for the policymakers to consider other better means of attaining shared goals, which include accessing students and supporting the research process. These can involve elements such as more coordination, reforms of policies and other forms of funding mechanisms.

Conclusion

The idea of fighting and eradicating poverty in America by offering loans as well as grants for higher education is a bright move. Despite being an issue that has been lately politicized, its credibility is notable as more students are being enrolled in programs that will help nurture their various careers. Whatever it was, these actions are commendable despite the increase of rates on taxpayers. The government should, however, try and trace additional sources of income rather than raising the taxes for the citizens. All in all, it is a move that should be embraced by other countries as well.

Works Cited

Collier, Daniel A., and Richard Herman. “Modifying the federal loan guarantee provision in the Higher Education Act of 1965: an overview of federal loan policies that have transitioned higher education from the social good.” Special Issue 2016 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, 2016, p. 9.

Marginson, Simon. ”The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems.” Higher Education, vol. 72, no. 4, 2016, pp. 413-434.

Michelsen, Svein, Rachel Sweetman, Bjørn Stensaker, and Ivar Bleikliel. ”Shaping perceptions of a policy instrument: the political-administrative formation of learning outcomes in higher education in Norway and England.” Higher Education Policy, vol. 29, no. 3, 2016, pp. 399-417.

Schulze-Cleven, Tobias, Tilman Reitz, Jens Maesse, and Johannes Angermuller. ”The new political economy of higher education: between distributional conflicts and discursive stratification.” Higher Education, vol.73, no. 6, 2017, pp. 795-812.

Stevens, Mitchell L., and Ben Gebre-Medhin. ”Association, service, market: Higher education in American political development.” Annual Review of Sociology, no. 42, 2016, pp. 121-142.