middle-class students applying for entry into colleges and universities
The number of middle-class students applying for entry into colleges and universities has drastically decreased in recent years. In these new trends, low-class, and high-class students numbers are increasing, while the middle-class students are decreasing (Accredited Schools 2). The Expected Family Contribution (EFC) is used to determine the amount a student gets in grants for higher education learning. In politics, numerous politicians have directed their campaign energy towards helping middle-class families secure college and university education at lower costs. Both parents and young voters rally behind the politicians who promise to grant them access to quality and affordable education. Student debts make many youths fear to join college, with middle-class students being left in dilemmas, on whether to apply for the grants or to let their parents pay the fees for them. Surprisingly, most middle-class families can afford to pay for their children’s college fees, but paying the fee could render them poor. Middle class-students, according to the government, are too wealthy to be considered for grants; and contrarily, these families are not wealthy enough to manage fees for all the kids within a family. In most cases, parents view the payment of fees for their children as a moral obligation, despite subjecting themselves to enormous pressure, arising from the need for saving for future use. Paying fees for their children would prove ethical, but the parents subject themselves to numerous challenges. Connectedly, this paper determines whether college life is expensive for middle class-families by comparing them to the low and upper-class students.
Financial comparisons between the three classes of students prove that middle-class families are the unprivileged group. The upper-class students come from families thttps://sharksavewriters.com/proper-resolution-of-conflicts-that-is-free-of-violence/hat can afford anything in life, which implies that paying fees for their children cannot be difficult for them. On the contrary, the middle-class families are from economically stable families, yet not fit enough to pay fees, and maintain balance with other activities in life. The upper-class families can afford all the necessities of life, which implies that they can manage to buy school fees for their children, pay all the bills, and manage to have savings for future use. The middle-class families can efficiently afford basic needs in life, including payment of bills. However, parents in the middle-class category are the majority of the American workforce: teachers, lawyers, and other workers. Due to their role, and the nature of their jobs, these parents are subject to retirement at sixty-six years, as reported by Kreighbaum (3). In most cases, the middle-class parents are torn between making savings for use in retirement, investing in a project, or paying fees for their college children. With these considerations, parents find it difficult to pay school fees for their children, so college education is expensive for middle-class students.
Comparisons between the lower and middle-class students place the middle-class students at higher risk of experiencing expenses in college education. The lower-class students are given numerous priorities in the application for government grants. These students are also presented with opportunities to apply for both governmental and non-governmental scholarships. The implication here is that the low-class students grab all the available scholarship opportunities, and the government still gives them grants. Contrarily, the middle-class parent is left with his salary as the only bargain for their children’s fees. Comparing these two classes, it is evident that the low-class are not privileged in life, but get more privileges in the education sector. The result is that the parents in the low-class families are relieved of duties of paying fees, while the middle-class families are subjected to loans or poverty induced by the lack of investment in support of fees payment.
Increased loans among middle-class families imply that college education is expensive for them. Murphy and Nick (1) indicate that most parents have, in recent years, started applying for loans, as compared to students. Undergraduate parent borrowing has in past years, tripled, with parents wanting to invest in their children’s education. Most students see borrowing as subjecting them to pressure in life and thus avoid subjecting to loans. Additionally, these students are not eligible for the federal government grants because their family earnings place them above the minimum wage for application of these grants. The increased borrowing from parents shows how expensive college education has become for students. With the increased borrowing from parents, it is evident that these parents use the borrowed money to pay fees from their parents. The government assumption that parents in the middle-class category are capable of affording fees is thus wrong, because in most cases, a parent is torn between other priorities, and paying fees for one child.
The government prioritizes the low-class earners over the middle-class earners, as stated in Selingo, (1). Most parents in the middle-class category have no one to cry to because the government assumes that they are well suited and enabled to pay college fees for their children. On the contrary, the parents have other needs, and should equally be considered in giving of grants to students. Most parents fear to let their children take huge loans because they know the devastating effects of having huge loans. When students take loans and pay for their college education, they are always pressured to find ways of repaying the loans. Their parents are more experienced in life and can handle huge loans. When the parents weigh between letting their inexperienced children take loans and taking the loans themselves, they decide on taking the loans themselves.
Retirement threatens the financial stability of middle-class families and similarly makes college education expensive for students. Friedman (1) explains that most parents in the middle-class category are old and on the verge of retirement. By subjecting the parents to hard decisions of having loans, without a regular job for repayment, the government leaves them with only one option, letting their children take the vast loans. When the students take these loans, they can easily mishandle the money and fail to pay for their full fees. The implication is that the middle-class students drop out of school and start working on the repayment of their loans. While the middle-class students struggle to pay mortgages, the low-class student is left to pursue their dreams. Middle-class families are thus left behind in terms of progress and development, with both parents and children working on payment of debts. The high-class students are similarly covered by their wealthy parents, who can afford to pay the fees. Thus comparing these three classes, it is evident that middle-class students find college education expensive to maintain.
Different researchers in college fees have offered advice to middle-class students urging them to join cheap colleges, which implies that college education is expensive for them. In their argument, Murphy and Nick, (2) advice middle-class students to choose their colleges with their minds and not hearts. Murphy and Nick, (2) use this advice because they understand the financial constraints experienced by parents in middle-class families. In most cases, middle-class students do not attend their colleges of choice because their parents cannot afford these colleges. On the contrary, the low-class students are covered through government grants, and can easily access college education in any college in the US. The implication for middle-class students is that they fail to pursue their dream careers by attending colleges that they did not intend. The middle-class and low-class students, however, can efficiently pursue their dream courses without any financial limitations. By arguing that students should choose the colleges they attend with their minds, Murphy and Nick (2) implied that most colleges are highly expensive for middle-class students.
Inaccuracy in the determination of the minimum wages to be considered for government grants renders middle-class students to challenges acquiring education. As stated in Selingo (2), the Pell Grants offered to low-class students consider people earning less than US$ 50,000. In most cases, middle-class families make slightly above this figure. Most middle-class parents have three or four children, and in one instance, two children could be attending college. The implication is that the parents have to double their efforts in seeking funds for their children’s education. The middle-class parents have to feed their families on one hand; and on the other hand, they have to ensure that their two children attend college. The implication is that these parents have to take loans or let their children take the loans. On the contrary, parents in the low, and high-class families have more than one avenue of helping them educate their children. For instance, they are awarded grants to support them in education. The parents of these low-class students also have jobs that they use to maintain their families and make savings. The upper-class families can pay fees without making any sacrifices, so they are not affected by the fees. This middle-class family is left behind in terms of developments and savings while spending on college fees for their children. The low-class families can afford savings and developments, with their salaries. Comparing these three families, it is evident that middle-class families are more likely to lag as compared to the other two families. By making comparisons based on the capacity to save and make developments, the middle-class family finds college education expenses for their children.
Middle-class students are discriminated against in the allocation of the grants by the government. While other students are granted an opportunity to get grants, these students are blocked, and the government’s argument is based on the families’ financial constraints. The government in making the assumptions that the parents will pay fees for their children discriminates against the students. The fate of the middle-class students is left in the hands of their children, rather than the government’s push for equal access to education. Instead of helping students, the government rests their fate in their parents’ mercies. Friedman, (1), in his argument, states that the middle-class students are left with only one option, taking loans. In contrast, the students in the other classes can access education without subjection to government loans. Friedman (1) views this as a form of discrimination against the middle-class society in the US.
In conclusion, accessing higher education is highly expensive for middle-class students, who have to either depend on their parents or apply for loans from the government. However, viewing this argument from the opposing side of my case, the cost of attending higher education can be afforded by middle-class students. Low-class students have no alternative means of acquiring funds for their education. Offering them loans rather than grants could be detrimental to their families, which depends on their prosperity. Additionally, middle-class parents can always plan their salaries to cater to their children’s college education, as opposed to low-class families that do not have alternative means of cash.