No it isn't - it's giving them an ultimatum. They need to decide if finishing their education or birthing their potential resource-sucker is more important at that time. Anyone who applies for any grant is given a set of guidelines to follow in order to receive that grant, and the idea I proposed is no different.



I didn't call you stupid. You just went and made the assumption that I did.



http://www.raisethenation.org/
Right on the main page, it comes out and says they "celebrate independence through education by awarding grants and scholarships to single parent women and their children." So, if you aren't a mommy, you don't mean squat to this place. I've never heard of anyone celebrating independence by leeching off government funds.

There is also a grant called the Women's Independence Scholarship program that single mothers can apply for, but I choose not to list it because it's also aimed at women who are victims of abuse. There's also aid available only to parents according to state and school. I know for a fact that Oregon and Arkansas offer 'single parent scholarships', for example. WIC also offers grants for 'educational purposes' to parents. If parents whip out the 'I'm a mommy lookit me' card to the right people, they can get personal education grants. Parents can apply for grants aimed at a wider group of people, but they may also be more inclined to receive that aid because of their reproductive status.

As said, I'm not saying parents should not be able to get financial aid...but I do think that most everyone should be eligible for the same grants, rather than the government picking and choosing who they think should get special treatment.

Raise the Nation is not a gov't funded scholarship program. Its private so they can do as they wish. So is WISP.

Can you find any federal funded scholarship programs in which the applicant has to have a dependent?

I feel your opening statement is disengenuous: "I know people with kids tend to get a few grants just for proving their reproductive systems work, which are also grants that anyone without offspring can't lay a finger on."

People don't get grants just because they have kids; it's because they have no money to go to school. Having a dependent is a stipulation, an eligibility requirement.



You have a bit of a chip about people who get 'knocked up' as if it takes some kind of low intellect to do this. And you are saying that 'parents don't deserve grants' when you further state that they get grants 'just because their reproductive systems work' and that they are irresponsible.

I'm going to ask that you provide sources that parents are the most inclined to drop out.

I understand that you are saying universal eligibility is the way to go, but you have presented it in such a way that it appears you take issue with an underdog demographic being offered ways to better their lives. It's rather petty, IMHO.

We're not debating the issue of private or governmental, but may I mention several GOVERNMENTAL programs that are discrimanatory? Affirmative Action. The dozens of scholarships for minorities available at STATE funded colleges. The government is already discriminating. What's one more?

I simply think that people with financial troubles should be eligible for help regardless of whether they have kids. Since there does seem to be a certain refusal to childless people I would agree with the first part of this line, but not the second part:

[quote="Cambion]To be eligible for such financial aid, one must not have any children and must agree to not keep any pregnancies throughout the course of their college careers.[/quote]

The first part seems reasonable in that it helps people gain a higher education without focusing on offspring, but we're talking college here, where a large chunk of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies occur. The second part of this sounds like an attempt to make an abortion compulsory in order for that woman (notice this of course wouldn't affect male students) to continue her education. I don't believe in pressuring women to either abort or carry to term.

Instead, the agreement could be set up to ONLY provide the necessary funds to see the education through and make the requirements based on the student's effort rather than reproductive status. This would mean that none of the financial aid would be going to child rearing and if the student needs additional aid for any unplanned offspring during the course of the education, she must find it elsewhere. His/her educational benefits would be strictly for education and agreed to provided she/he didn't enter it with any children or expecting children.

I get annoyed that people are more likely to get the financial aid they need if they've reproduced too, but things happen and forcing a woman between having an unwanted abortion or losing her education (and therefore better chances of supporting herself and unplanned offspring) is too much.

She's not losing her education, just the money to fund it. What? All I hear about is how many programs are available to teen mothers... Surely, if the girl looses her Nulliparous Scholarship it will be easy enough to find one of those?

I just don't think there are federal programs available only to teen mothers specifically because they have dependents.

It is important to distinguish between private and gov't funded grants. If it's gov't you ought to get a say because you are paying for it. If it's private, well, it's not your money.

You can start a scholarship fund if you like for only hermophrodites with red hair if you want.

Affirmative Action was started to offset the already lower tier that certain demographics come from, to promote diversity and give the disadvantaged a kickstand, and to break the cycle of poverty for these groups. Since there are already plenty of scholarships for the majority who may have better schools to attend, more support from home, etc. I see nothing wrong with affirm action scholarships.

I have a problem with affirmative action because in many cases, a person of a minority race gets into college with lower grades that a "white" person, and so they get in and push out the smarter person just because they're black. We don't need Affirmative Action any more. Getting in to college should be based off of brains, not race.

I agree!!! Work hard and you get rewarded.. Not just be a certain race..

I understand what you are saying, and I used to feel that way, too, until I examined why minority classes need the extra help.

For example, in the large city I live in, the minorities live in impoverished communities. The schools are poorly funded, parents are not available to provide supports for their students, resources are severely lacking, and opportunities are not available. I taught in an inner city school and these kids didn't even have books! In this environment, student's intellect is unable to flourish. Giving minority kids from this background a boost upwards helps to break this cycle, & balances out what this country fails to for for minorities.

Well it certainly doesn't require a high intellect to get pregnant...since every female mammal on the planet is capable of doing it. Perhaps financial aid should be offered for all human biological functions - why just the one?



Try reading my posts, m'kay? I never said parents don't deserve grants...what I actually said was they should not be entitled to extra-special aid just because they've spawned. Does that mean I think they should never ever get grants? No - what it means is that I think everyone should have an equal opportunity to apply for the same grants. I think the only time special financial accomodations should be made is if the recipient is disabled (and no, pregnancy is not a disability, contrary to popular belief) or if the recipient brings in a low income. Parents can easily fall into either or both of those categories, so why do they need aid just because they had sex and kept the aftermath?

And as far as I'm concerned, any teen that keeps a pregnancy is irresponsible because she can't possibly provide for the waif...hell, there's even some adults who have great income who can't be proper parents.



And for a change, I'm going to ask you to provide sources refuting my claims.

Well, I guess if I didnt read your posts I wouldn't have said, 1. "I understand that you are saying universal eligibility is the way to go, but you have presented it in such a way that it appears you take issue with an underdog demographic being offered ways to better their lives" and...

2. I see you saying that people "shouldn't get grants just because their reproductive systems work". Also known as, they don't deserve grants because that would be "rewarding them for being irresponsible". Your words, not mine.

Above, you say that everyone should have equal opportunity for the same grants. Not what you said earlier: [quote="you'] I think people on the other side of the fence - non-parents - should be eligible for special grants.[/quote]

So which is it?



I'm refuting your claims? I just want to hear about it. I figured you were on the up and up for this and something handy in mind. Don't read into my posts. If I was going to refute your claims I would have done so already.

All this is just distractive hogwash, anyways. You original point of contention has not been shown to be true. People get grants because they are poor, and having dependents may be an eligibility stipulation for receiving these private monies.





Oh, yeah, I can see how that is clearly not calling the people here "stupid"!

Okay, let me try to clear things up...



I still stand by this. These people should not be rewarded just for their lifestyle choices. I never said they should not be rewarded at all.



I also stand by that. I mean that, if one group of people should be able to receive special aid for making the choice (usually an irresponsible one in the case of teen mothers) of having kids, then people who make the choice of not having children should also get rewarded. Once again, you fail to read what I've written...no big surprise.



I beg to differ - my original point was a proposal for special financial aid for a particular group of people in order to eliminate discrimination between non-parents and parents. Single parents do have quite a few grants they are eligible for by state and by school (and I'm not going to sit and search through each state to find out what sorts of grants they offer). I just don't think that having kids should warrant special attention. Unlike low income and disabilities, kids are a choice, so why should some people be given extra money for a choice they made that didn't need to be made? Kids may lower their income, and that would make them eligible for tons of grants alone.

And people don't always get grants because they're poor - people who come from homes of decent income can receive grants and scholarships based on things like grades, community service, and involvement in extra-curricular activities.

Sorry Birch, but I'm going to refrain from reading and responding to your replies until you can be bothered to actually read mine.

I do know at my school that parents get more financial aid.... there are grants through the school specifically for parents.

I go to a women's school. Many of the students are parents, just because they're all women. My school is officially catholic, so in a way, the support for parents is an incentive not to abort, perhaps.

And if you have children, you will get more federal funding than a woman in the same financial position that doesn't have children. (as per the FAFSA)

I still agree though that parenting is so expensive as it is, any grants for them are still going to leave them at a disadvantage, for reasons I said above.

And lastly and the most strongly, we WANT young parents to go to college and be prepared for a well-paying job so their children aren't on welfare for their whole life.

Okay, but you're still fantastically inconsistant. *shrugs*

Yes, we want young parents to go to college... don't we want young SINGLE people to go to school too? I just find it incredibly hypocritical that there is no fund in place SPECIFICALLY for a childless student. In a nation that is supposed to be promoting teens not to have promiscuous, unprotected sex, I would think this scholarship would be a step in the right direction, unlike abstinence education.

i see what you're saying, I'm not convinced. Some people just need more of a leg up.

But I'm still gonna stick with- College shouldn't be so expensive that we need all this in the first place!

Well of course I agree with point #2.

yep