Eliminate scholarships for those that can afford to pay. There's $1,000,000 in savings right there. Grant scholarships based SOLELY on financial need, not athletic ability or ballet skills.

My buddy married a Canuk who got her undergrad and master's for $2,000 (incl. lab fees). What are we doing wrong in this country? My wife and I are almost $100,000 in the hole for our degrees. In another 10 years, it will have paid for itself, but in the meantime we're living small.

bitter much?

Probably won't be any cuts in football scholarships in light of the new grid palace. If any are sacrificed, it would IMO certainly be in other sports.

the university will simply raise their fees to the amount the state says they can like they do each year to make up the loss or charge a new stadium fee of some kind.

As always, the usual dullards post uneducated and bitter remarks that show how ignorant they are. Grad Student, you got their number. I would like to add "stupid much?"

~~~How's about K.S.U. eliminates the $70,000 bonus(?) paid to Loot Lefton in 2008 and the $80,000 it wants to pay to a vp to attend Case Western Reserve University...

...or the $250,000 minimum in extra paid days off(administrative leave) given to those Civil Servants at K.S.U. not represented by a bargaining unit and, just maybe...

...a few quid back from the outstanding football coach(?)...considering the fact that the University had to subsidize the Athletic Department to the tune of threee to four million dollars in 2008!

Who knows just how much such similar costs amount to at the U. of A.?

Scholarships are based on merit, not on financial need.

Yes, and that's the problem. Give aid to those who need it, financially. Anything else is discrimination.

Thanks word. People on this site like to redefine reality by calling an apple an orange. If a scholarship were to be based on need, it wouldn't be a scholarship. It would be a grant. And we need more scholarships and less grants in my book. Performance needs to be reinforced and mediocrity nedds to be discouraged. With that in mind APS needs to rethink how it selects students for the new magnet school at Adventure Place. Dump the lottery and select APS students based on their level of academic excellence.

patriot76, take from the rich and give to the poor...yeap, that fixes everything!

How about they deal with the real problem of secondary education costing way to much...start there, then worry about financial add.

Patriot. Would you mind elaborating on your concept of the word, discrimination? It's all discrimination and it's legal, moral and ethical. You throw the word, discrimination around as though it is an evil act when in fact it is a neutral act. In this society, we have certain acts of discrimination that have been deemd illegal(bad). The type of discrimination to which you refer is not illegal and quite franky very productive, fair and beneficial to the common good. Discriminating in favor of someone who excells is just as acceptable and admirable as discrimination in favor of someone who is poor. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

And people who EARN scholarships also need scholarships.

Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition.

scholarship: 3 a specific gift of money or other aid, as by a foundation, to help a student pay for instruction.

...or, as from The Boy Scouts, The Masons, The Local Chamber of Commerce, The Local Lion's Club, Local Unions, etc. They all come with certain conditions attached...or not.

Yes, Jake...but that's the Rust Belt. That's how it is. Go look at the Detroit News forums. The anger and bitterness and vitriol are worse, if you can imagine that.

I don't believe anyone was arguing that scholarships don't come with conditions.

"People on this site like to redefine reality by calling an apple an orange. If a scholarship were to be based on need, it wouldn't be a scholarship. It would be a grant. And we need more scholarships and less grants in my book."

And grants don't, Jake?

@patriot - Scholarships are awarded to people that excel at something. They are meant to attract people of a higher caliber of acheivement. You would not understand that concept.

rupert, please be coherent. what is your question or point by asking "And grants don't, Jake?? You are making no sense. And grants don't what?

@word - you are right. Patriot only understands the entitlement syndrome which is, "I want it. Therefore, you must give it to me." As far as rupert goes, I don't think he understands English 101.

alys22, why do you have so much hate?

Sigh...have strings attached?

Please point out where I said or implied that a grant doesn't have conditions or strings attached and spare us your hostile sarcasm.

Rupert is clearly putting words in the mouths of other as a way of avoiding putting forth a coherent thought. He suffers from an incurable thought disorder which, in less pc times, would be called stupidity.

One more time... or maybe three or four more times for you, "word", since you seem to be a tad on the slow side, eh?

"People on this site like to redefine reality by calling an apple an orange. If a scholarship were to be based on need, it wouldn't be a scholarship. It would be a grant. And we need more scholarships and less grants in my book."~~~by Jake in a previous post.

Once again, folks, not my words, eh? So, what's the foundation for your "apples/oranges" complaint, Jake? Scholarships are based on need along with many other strings attached, just as are grants!

If you'd like to discuss the various "strings attached, or other code words (that's "specifics" for you, word) to either that's fine with me, although I'm more well versed, I believe, with some of the other expenditures made by our public universities.

I just thought I'd give the perspective of an actual UA student.

The Ohio University system could really learn from California's public school system. Both me and my friends from KSU, BGSU, and OU have to deal with complete imbeciles on our college campuses. Kids who don't deserve to be in a college institution are accepted because Finger hut want education for everyone. And he's right. Everyone should have a shot at that. But in Cali, kids who haven't shown in high school that they can succeed in college, are sent to community colleges. If they can then earn a two year degree there, then they can get direct admission to some of the public four year universities in California.

Compare the prestige of Ohio Public uni's to that of Cali's. UCSB, UC Berkely, and UC Davis are echelons above BGSU,OU,UA, and even OSU. And the programs in a lot of Ohio colleges aren't half bad. But when you accept students destined to fail--they will almost always do just that. Fail. And that, is what lowers the perceptive prestige of a college. And prestige is what attracts stronger students...wait..I'm seeing a cycle here...

Very well, "undrcvrbro"...a point of reference on which to base a dialogue.

As an employee of K.S.U. I've witnessed the "you should to a branch campus until you prove you can make the grade at the main campus" philosophy, especially for the dependents of employees who want to attend the University through it's tuition waiver benefit.

The only other observattion I can make about the Cali-u state system vs Ohio's is that, because of the individual state support, tuition at Cali-u was only half that of any Ohio-u.

Do you think there is room for improvement, based on the ranking of both the U. of A. and K.S.U. in such publications as U.S. News & World Reports, as far as their efforts at freshman retention are concerned?

Quite right, "undrcvrbro".

As a K.S.U. employee I've seen the "you should attend a year at a branch campus and bring your grade average up" philosophy, especially reiterated to the dependents of employees using their tuition waivor benefit.

Further, the last definite figures I've seen in print were in the 2006 issue of TIME Magazine; the cost of tuition at California's public universities was barely half that of Ohio's.

What do you think of the local u's rankings in such national publications as U.S. News & World Reports...especiall as regards the institutions efforts at ensuring freshman retention?

Again, I know that rupert is a slow learner. Scholarships are based on merit and grants are based on need. Both have strings attached. Why ruppert gets stuck over the concept of conditions (aka: strings attached) is anyone's guess. I suggest he has a G.E.D. and is employed as a KSU lawn mower, eh?

Or is that a lawn moron, eh, rupert?

Aw...aren't we just the cute little wordsmith, eh, big jake? Scholarships are based upon the conditions imposed by the "granting" party and just may have nothing to do with whether or not the recipient is the best scholar available, eh?

If one's folks aren't a member of some union local, one's not going to get a scholarship through that union no matter how good one's grades are; ditto scholarships through various religious organizations; ditto scholarships through organizations such as the Boy Scouts, etc.

I'm sorry, but being the "unedumicated" indivdual I am, I'm not aware of all the conditions contigent upon receiving a "grant" through any organization. In fact, the only "grant" I'm aware of is a Pell Grant and I sure as heck don't know what qualifies one to receive same!

So, now, big jake, since I'm such a slow learner, why don't you "edumicate" me as to exactly what code word you're trying to work into the mix here, unveiled by your "apples & oranges" quip. Are "grant recipients" somehow less desireable on a college campus than "scholarship recipients"? Or are you trying to say that "grant recipients" are on the government dole as opposed to "scholarship recipients", who are not?

Hm...I wonder exactly what the mix is in the various athletic departments at the U. of A. or K.S.U., "grants" vs "scholarships", don't ya know.

Well, silly me...jake?

The additonal "paid vacation" given to the non-bargaining unit Classified Civil Servants of K.S.U. most probably exeeded $250,000! I wonder just how many scholarships or grants, either one, that largesse could have paid for? Let's see now...at, say, $9,000/yr tuition, that money could have paid for almost 28 years worth of tuition; that's what, 7 college graduates based on a 4 year program? Now consider the same scenario at the U. of A.

I mean, it's not like said State employees actually needed the increase in paid time off so lavishly donated by the Univeristy, is it? If you'd like to discuss the level of said employees current paid-time-off-benefits I'd be more than happy to do so, with no small amount of knowledge. Just make sure you let this bumpkin know when you're talkin about apples and when you're talkin about oranges...'k'?

Rupert - you are an idiot. The paid time off was an extra benefit that cost nothing and therefore does NOT represent money that could have been used for tuition.
As for the dumb example of a union 'scholarship' - so what. An organization has a legal right to distribute its money as it sees fit as long at it is legal; in other words, to its members. It is called legal discrimination for a reason. Just because you were too dim to qualify for anything does not mean it is illegal.

Oh no...Now they can't buy any more money-losing bars for their weight in gold.

I had both grants and scholarships while in school...scholarships come with a GPA, etc requiement, grants do not. For some reason the state of Ohio decided to throw grants at me even though I attended a private school and my family was financially stable. You can lose a scholarship, but it's harder to lose a grant. Your entire financial system would have to change.

@rupert holmes

USNWR 2009: Freshmen Retention Rate
UC Berkeley 97%
UC Irvine 94%
UCSD 94%
UCSB 91%
UC DAVIS 91%

All of which rank higher than Ohio State's 88%. Which is, by the way, the only Ohio school listed that I saw.

http://www.ir.ufl.edu/nat_rankings/students/retent_old.pdf

Now I had to dig a little deeper for these guys. They weren't topping any rankings, thats for sure.

Retention rates for:
The University of Akron:64%
Kent State University: 72%
BGSU: 77.2 %
Toledo: 72%

http://www.globalscholar.com/collegefinder/3254-university-of-akron-main-campus/admission-retention.aspx
http://www.enotes.com/kent-state-university-guide/
http://college.sparknotes.com/school/index.epl?inun_id=9432
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-freshmen-least-most-likely-return

I knew Akron would be the lowest. And it's precisely for the reason I've mentioned above. Can we please change the Pulic uni system in Ohio? This is ridiculous! How can the state legitimize sending kids who can't get even pass in college to school with students like my fellow honors students at Akron (30 ACT, 3.5 GPA. I'm not being snooty, but just realistic. If you are going to admit students of such a high caliber, then dont bother admitting students who aren't. SEND THEM TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES! That way you save the state, the college, and the students wasted time and money.

Get you stuff together Fingehut. You dont have a clue! Spending thousands of dollars of the governments money in the form of grants and loans just to send kids to school who will not even get a degree??

THAT, is why I'm going to Cali for grad school. AND STAYING.

Let's see now...

...a Classified Civil Servant working full time at a public university and having 1-5 years(KSU) of service earns 10 days paid vacation, 10 paid holidays and 15 paid sick days(if needed); the good folk with more time in service can earn upwards of 25 days paid vacation. While the universities would have to pay any such workers whether they show up for work or use their paid vacation time, why should the university pay them not to work an addtional 3 days(U. of A.) or 4 days(K.S.U.)? It doesn't matter to me except to show that the universities must not be in the budgetary crisis they claim to be in when they can pay employees not to come into work.

I have absolutely no problem with the "strings attaached" to various scholarship offerings by any organization except, maybe those offered by universities through their athletic programs but majority rules, eh? In fact, I'm a recent convert to the donation of whole blood through either the American Red Cross or LifeShare programs on Campus that offer scholarships for reaching certain donation goals. I'd like to see the universities promote more of same.

I get the same benefit package and am not a civil service worker. So what is your point? Many companies extend such benefits as a means of attracting and keeping good workers.
They offer scholarships as a means of attracting the best students.

Thanks Law Cat. You reiterate Word's and my original point. No one argued that grants and scholarships don't come with conditions (Rupert was arguing with himself over that make believe controversy. He does that out of lonlieness). Our original point is exactly as you point out, Law Cat. Scholarships have the condition of performance (GPA) attached. Grants have the condition of need attached. And, college campuses and society as a whole are better off when we see more scholarships and less grants being given out. Unfortunately, its the other way around and is one reason why UA and other Ohio universities have such low retention rates. We need institutions of higher learning in Ohio instead of welfare based diploma mills.

Darn, Jake, that was like pulling teeth...getting you answer the question I posed to your original statement..."And we need more scholarships and less grants in my book."

Now, was that so hard? Now, aside from the NCAA's penchant for being the farm teams for the NFL & NBA...

What a bunch of elitist tripe! Public universities are just that...of and for the public. What's a matta-u? Can't get into the local Honors College or what? No time to start a local chapter of Phi Sigma Pi or some other braniac frat? Or is it that they just won't have you? Why don't you try Walsh or John Caroll if you're feeling so froggy & all, eh?

Well, word, the point is that, given the current economic climate/crisis most private sector businesses are laying off employees, not increasing their benefits.

Now, being as how the Classified Civil Service employees(not represented by a bargaining unit) at the U. of A. & K.S.U. receiving the additional paid days off are secretaries, clerks, cashiers, administrative assistants, and the like...I think most folk might just assume that said universities are rather flush with money and not really worried about the current budget cuts instructed by the Board of Regents.

I mean, who'd give a secretary with 15 years of service and earning 15 or 20 paid vacation days per year yet another 3 or 4 paid vacation days in the year 2009???

Ruppert, you never asked the question you claim to ask. What the hell is wrong with you? You definitely have a thought disorder. And just because a university is public does not mean it has to accept everyone. Once again, you redefine people and institutions. Are you nuts or just plain dishonest?

Sorry, Jake, but you're the one who stated in a previous post..."And we need more scholarships and less grants in my book" and then you went on to rant & rave about the lesser beings in our society who receive grants(?).

Your concerns could be very well founded, given the GPA required by such as the Akron Public School System to participate in it's sports programs, I don't know. Otherwise, I absolutely agree that even a public univeristy needs to establish "minimum standards"...so what's your problem with grant recipients???

Are the GPA standards too low, or what?

Otherwise, let's burry the hatchet and confab as to how we can obtain more scholarships for any qualified folk who want to attend our local public universities. Like I said, I'm healthy and can donate whole blood 6 times a year...start the blood drives for scholarships now, eh?