The Rising Cost of Higher Education
The rising cost of higher education is a topic that is discussed even in political forums. As a result, the issue has elicited a variety of responses from world leaders. Prominent figures, like presidential candidates like Barack Obama, have advocated an expansion in federal funds for higher education students. The money loaned to students of higher education is derived from various government funds, such as taxation. Every student has the right to an education, so certain programs are important. The negative consequences of funding for tertiary institutions such as universities have gone unnoticed, with little regard for the benefit or damage they are bound to cause. Critics have questioned the high cost of education. They are in contention of the increased student enrolment in institutions as well as the increased award. Students in countries such as the United Kingdom receive tuition funding from the government. More than 1.6 million students are pursuing degrees or diplomas inclusion of 19, 000 students. Besides, close to one million students are taking non-credit bearing courses which involve industries and commerce (Marginson, 2016). It is wise for the countries to adopt loans and funds for higher education as the institutions have a significant impact on the economy. When the organizations are funded, and the students' loans approved, agencies will have a considerable recruitment. Consequently, this will provide employment opportunities, and hence boost the economy due to increased productivity.
The Aim of Loans and Grants for Higher Education
The main aim of loans and grants for higher education is to eradicate poverty in the US. The war against poverty suppresses the level of crime since the older teens will enroll in various programs and short courses. Moreover, the level of corruption and drug abuse is bound to reduce since students will be occupied with their studies (Stevens, & Gebre-Medhin, 2016). An increase in college completion rate will see the government increase the number of better-paying jobs, which translates to a significant growth in the American economy.
The Repayment of Loans
The bright ideas on the loans offered to students are channeled down to the fact that they will pay back. The payments are made in installments once they begin working but a specific time and rate. The repayment, however, depends on the level of income. The cost of education for a four-year course is however bound to increase gradually (Schulze-Cleven, Reitz, Maesse & Angermuller, 2017). In a bid to meet the cost of education for the students in tertiary institutions, the taxpayers will have to increase their tax contributions, a move which has been opposed by some critics.
Funding for Higher Education
Substantial funding for higher education has continued to be given to the state as well as the federal government. However, there are changes which have been made in the recent years which have led to donations being more each time in the last two decades. Traditionally, the states have provided significant help in post-secondary education. The economic growth has influenced development in a package referred to as Pell Grant.
The Channels for Higher Education Funding
The subsidy channels for higher education are equivalent to their size and have developed with the corresponding strategy objectives. This involves the elements such as aggregating the access for students and backing up the inquiry. The state and federal governments have channeled their resources towards the system in various ways (Michelsen, Sweetman, Stensaker, & Bleiklie, 2016). The federal government provides monetary aid to discrete students and precise investigations since the state accommodates executive pay for the general operations in the public institutes.
Considerations for the Future of Higher Education Funding
Once the fiscal environment becomes constrained, it will be necessary for the policymakers to consider better means of attaining the shared goals, which includes accessing the students and supporting the research process (Marginson, 2016). This involves elements such as coordination, reform of policies and other forms of funding mechanisms.
Conclusion
The ideology of offering loans and grants to students for students in higher education will help to eradicate poverty in America, as well as increasing productivity and bolstering economic growth. The matter has been politicized for quite some time but is worth implementing since it will help the students enroll in various programs as well as nurture their careers. The credibility of the process will ensure the process is successful and the process is productive. This will call for the taxpayers to increase their contributions in form of taxes, to finance the process. The government should, however, locate other sources of funding for the process other than imposing more taxes on its citizens. Generally, the adoption of loans and grants is suitable and will help the country attain economic growth and eradicate poverty.
References
Collier, D. A., & Herman, R. (2016). 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, 9.
Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413-434.
Michelsen, S., Sweetman, R., Stensaker, B., & Bleiklie, I. (2016). Shaping perceptions of a policy instrument: The political-administrative formation of learning outcomes in higher education in Norway and England. Higher Education Policy, 29(3), 399-417.
Schulze-Cleven, T., Reitz, T., Maesse, J., & Angermuller, J. (2017). The new political economy of higher education: between distributional conflicts and discursive stratification. Higher Education, 73(6), 795-812.
Stevens, M. L., & Gebre-Medhin, B. (2016). Association, service, market: Higher education in American political development. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 121-142.
