The days of subsidized Stafford loans are over

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

I was debating on putting this in Pre-pharmacy, but this is probably more relevant to those currently in Pharmacy School.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-04-...udents-pay-up/


The days of the subsidized Stafford loans are over, so what's everyone going to do? Do you think we'll see more students going to state schools or will this even matter because of pharmacists' good salary upon graduation?

Originally Posted by delmier776

I was debating on putting this in Pre-pharmacy, but this is probably more relevant to those currently in Pharmacy School.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-04-...udents-pay-up/


The days of the subsidized Stafford loans are over, so what's everyone going to do? Do you think we'll see more students going to state schools or will this even matter because of pharmacists' good salary upon graduation?

Wont really matter for pharmacists, as an additional few thousand to $10,000 isnt going to matter in the end. Will probably hurt grad students in less highly paid programs a lot more

what bothers me the most is that they're adding those funds to the pell grants, aka, sorry to say, but those low income kids who go to college and never end up finishing their degree. how do i know this? i go to a poor state school where most people get free ride financial aid and if you look at our stats we have a 40% graduation rate =O

just pisses me off because i never got financial aid and i busted my ass to graduate in 3 years, took 24-26 units/quarter, worked part time, and my roommates partied, took it easy, stayed an extra 5th year just for the hell of it, even studied abroad, because the school paid for it! wtf.

[/rant]

So does this mean my $8500 in subsidized loans I took out this year is now accumulating interest at 6.8%?

Originally Posted by pharmasaur

what bothers me the most is that they're adding those funds to the pell grants, aka, sorry to say, but those low income kids who go to college and never end up finishing their degree. how do i know this? i go to a poor state school where most people get free ride financial aid and if you look at our stats we have a 40% graduation rate =O

just pisses me off because i never got financial aid and i busted my ass to graduate in 3 years, took 24-26 units/quarter, worked part time, and my roommates partied, took it easy, stayed an extra 5th year just for the hell of it, even studied abroad, because the school paid for it! wtf.

[/rant]

Bulbasaur!

Is there any way we can group together and petition this policy?

Originally Posted by Notecard

So does this mean my $8500 in subsidized loans I took out this year is now accumulating interest at 6.8%?

Nope, All previous agreements will be honored. The contract is for them too.
Just means that from July you won't be able to get subsidized loans.

This is insane! Where is this country going to? College tuition is so ridiculously expensive even at state schools... it sucks they're depriving us of opportunities to receive those loans. I think I'll be living under a bridge after graduation.

It won't matter, most students won't notice the extra couple grand that accumulated in the face of their total balance.

Those that will notice probably have really low balances to begin with.

Sortof a non-issue IMO.

Originally Posted by confettiflyer

It won't matter, most students won't notice the extra couple grand that accumulated in the face of their total balance.

Those that will notice probably have really low balances to begin with.

Sortof a non-issue IMO.

I don't understand why the extra couple thousand dollars don't bother you, aren't you the guy always looking out for number 1? (I mean that in a good way)

lowering that deficit penny-by-penny on the backs of the under 40, got to love it

Originally Posted by owlegrad

I don't understand why the extra couple thousand dollars don't bother you, aren't you the guy always looking out for number 1? (I mean that in a good way)

I think Confettiflyer is being sarcastic...we really need to sign a petition to avoid this.

Originally Posted by notafraid87

I think Confettiflyer is being sarcastic...we really need to sign a petition to avoid this.

I am absolutely certain he is not. He has mentioned this in the past as well. To him it is just not a bid deal in the grand scheme of things.

So about this petition...

I suppose someone could make a petition at https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions
Go into a little depth on the issue by talking about pell grants, graduation rates, etc. I'm sure it'd spread like wildfire on reddit and facebook.

Originally Posted by ImmunoPharmD

Is there any way we can group together and petition this policy?

Originally Posted by Eichhoernchen

This is insane! Where is this country going to? College tuition is so ridiculously expensive even at state schools... it sucks they're depriving us of opportunities to receive those loans. I think I'll be living under a bridge after graduation.

Exactly the reason tuition has gone up 750% for the past 30 years compare to inflation 160% is because of subsidized loan. As long as you can get gov loan, colleges don't give a **** to jack up tuition even more... hey u can take loan right?

You know, everybody talks about how awesome it is to be grad/"independent" status for fafsa; I was in a 0-6 program and had lots of financial need, and when I became a grad student I lost all my govt grant/school grants and had to max out Stafford loans. With this happening now its an even bigger cherry on top.

That being said the real problem is rising tuition moreso than inflation, for profit education, and not enough parents telling their kids that 100k in loans for a pointless degree is idiotic.

Originally Posted by ImmunoPharmD

Bulbasaur!

LOOOLL! gotta catch em all!

Originally Posted by psychoandy

You know, everybody talks about how awesome it is to be grad/"independent" status for fafsa; I was in a 0-6 program and had lots of financial need, and when I became a grad student I lost all my govt grant/school grants and had to max out Stafford loans. With this happening now its an even bigger cherry on top.

That being said the real problem is rising tuition moreso than inflation, for profit education, and not enough parents telling their kids that 100k in loans for a pointless degree is idiotic.

the for profit education is getting a little bit too much IMO, not sure why they exists in the 1st place. I feel bad for the kids who graduate college with loans, most undergrad degree are too broad to hold any specialize jobs, tack on the huge loan and it's a killer.

finland's education system is doing really well, and it's completely opposite of the US system... not saying it's better, but it's certainly is cheaper and produce at the very least similar if not better result.

Originally Posted by owlegrad

I don't understand why the extra couple thousand dollars don't bother you, aren't you the guy always looking out for number 1? (I mean that in a good way)

I didn't say it didn't bother me (it irks me...but it doesn't affect me since I'm out of school as of this May), I just mentioned that in the grand scheme of things, a few thousand dollars in total accrual of interest isn't significant when you're dealing with balances >$100k.

It just gets lost in your daily/monthly/annual budgeting. No one is going to belt tighten because of this. It's like gas prices, I think there was a recent study that showed people definitely complained and said they'd spend less, but in reviewing the economic data, people actually didn't cut back.

And petitions are useless. Save your energy. Better yet, send an email to a congressman, who has a vote. Petitions = preaching to the choir.

Originally Posted by clockwork247

finland's education system is doing really well, and it's completely opposite of the US system... not saying it's better, but it's certainly is cheaper and produce at the very least similar if not better result.

finland has a homogenous population and you can't extrapolate their economic and financial systems/cultures into the US. square peg/round socket.

What politician wouldn't sign a bill that gives more money to poor disadvantaged kids trying to get a leg up by going to college? Unless there's a lot of pressure, not seeing a down side for the legislators passing this...

Also, this made me feel simultaneously too old & too young:

Originally Posted by pharmasaur

LOOOLL! gotta catch em all!

Originally Posted by confettiflyer

finland has a homogenous population and you can't extrapolate their economic and financial systems/cultures into the US. square peg/round socket.

Whenever someone attempts to compare a single European country with the US, I am compelled to point out that the state of Montana is approximately the same size as the country of Germany.

Originally Posted by xtsukiyox

Whenever someone attempts to compare a single European country with the US, I am compelled to point out that the state of Montana is approximately the same size as the country of Germany.

Correct me if I am wrong...but isn't their a significant difference in population size between Germany and Montana?

Originally Posted by xtsukiyox

What politician wouldn't sign a bill that gives more money to poor disadvantaged kids trying to get a leg up by going to college? Unless there's a lot of pressure, not seeing a down side for the legislators passing this...

Also, this made me feel simultaneously too old & too young:

Listen I have nothing against paying for the education of disadvantaged kids. But there needs to be some regulation. As usual the middle class gets hurt when it comes to these kinds of things...the ultra rich can pay hefty tuitions no problem, and the poor get free rides...but the middle class is stuck with the no aid and the high cost of school as well as the higher tax brackets. I mean I know millionaires technically pay more taxes but when you have 10 million dollars and let's say 5 million goes to taxes...it's VERY different than making 100k/yr and having 50k go to taxes. Having to live off of 50k and 5 million is very different (duh). it's just that the middle class keeps getting pushed lower and lower down. Obviously this is not a new idea so please no sarcastic comments.

At least we can control the amount of money given to the poor kids. How about things like
1 - you work your ass off and graduate in 3 years since we're funding you 100% and you dont have to worry about flipping burgers to make some money (this is what i did - i had to pay for school so I finished in 3 years, its doable), as in, no staying 5 or 6 years because the govt is paying for it, double majors not allowed, if you want an extra degree YOU pay for it
2 - we're not paying for you unless your GPA is x.xx
3 - paying very conservative estimates of cost of living, we all know those cost of living estimates school gives out are inflated and u can live pretty luxuriously off of them. one of my roommates who got a free ride to college cuz she was poor was able to afford her OWN room all 5 years while the rest of us had to share to save money.

you would think most of these rules would be obvious but theyre not in place and it frustrates me. now the year i start pharmacy school, bye bye to stafford loans, theyre gonna go fund more poor kids who will most likely not graduate anyways and go to college for the parties, yo

one more thing....why do they get free rides anyways?? why dont they just take loans out like the rest of us do? why do i have to take loans out for school, but the poor kids dont? like just because my family is middle class that means that theyre gonna pay for my loans or something? yeah right i dont think so! i feel like this country discourages hard work and encourages you to live on the street so you can get handouts and breeze through life.

^I fundamentally disagree with this post, so much so I couldn't bring myself to quote it. Everything about it rubbed me the wrong way. Who the hell is anyone to say that "the poor" don't work hard in college? I couldn't disagree more. There are plenty of lazy people in every socio-economic level, it is hardly the defining trait of "the poor". But I must be stupid to think that a poor person will work hard to improve their lot in life - I am sure they will just cost through life without ever knowing a true day's labor. Only the poor go to college for the parties, and that is the only reason they do so.

I am getting upset just trying to form a coherent response that won't get me trouble. I should stop now.

And where is this magical student that gets a PharmD degree paid for due to being poor? They don't exist. What a stupid, stupid comment.

Nevermind...retracting my previous statement upon reading more.

Originally Posted by Rx MPLS

I read the same comment, but I don't think they were saying they felt the poor were lazy. What I read pointed more to the idea that grants from the government should be a covenantal agreement: the government will fund your way through college if you don't have money, but there are strings attached and you have to work really hard, giving incentive to those in a program like this to learn as much as possible and work as hard as possible.

+1, that was what I thought what he was saying, although the tone might be a bit unsavory But I agree on principle that free handouts should come with accountability and strings attached.

Yeah, how could I misinterpret gems like this:

theyre gonna go fund more poor kids who will most likely not graduate anyways and go to college for the parties, yo

Yeah, obviously the poster was arguing for reasonable constraints and not just having a pity party that the middle class has it sooooo hard and trying to throw the poor under the bus.

Originally Posted by owlegrad

Yeah, how could I misinterpret gems like this:



Yeah, obviously the poster was arguing for reasonable constraints and not just having a pity party that the middle class has it sooooo hard and trying to throw the poor under the bus.

Like I said above...retracted upon reading more.

The rest of the post was spot on (personal opinion only); this particular sentence made me rethink it all, though.

1 and 2 are complete crap. What GPA would be the correct GPA to make someone have in order to "earn" need-based assistance? And paying for 3 years rather than 4? Oh yeah, that is completely reasonable. We shouldn't let them take summer breaks either - why shouldn't they go year round and be required to make all A's and work on the side and also pay back the money like the rest of us?

BTW does need-based government aid for education even exist at the graduate level? I don't think it does. I also do not know how prevalent it is at the undergraduate level, but I am willing to bet it is not that common.

3 I actually agree with. I live a stupidly unfrugal lifestyle and I STILL cannot spend up to the max my school allocates for cost of attendance.

Originally Posted by owlegrad

1 and 2 are complete crap. What GPA would be the correct GPA to make someone have in order to "earn" need-based assistance? And paying for 3 years rather than 4? Oh yeah, that is completely reasonable. We shouldn't let them take summer breaks either - why shouldn't they go year round and be required to make all A's and work on the side and also pay back the money like the rest of us?

Going to the extremes trying to make a point isn't the way either.

I think it's reasonable to expect a student getting need based assistance to make at least an average grade, that information should be easily available from each college. While I wouldn't go so far as saying only 3 years, but I think meeting an average credit load is a reasonable argument. Shouldn't force 18+ credits on them, but shouldn't let 12 slide either.

It's a subject that does have merit for debate. Just don't get personal in debates. If you both can take a step back and focus on the issue rather than rhetoric, what would be nice.

I think need based aid IS subject to credit hour requirements and minimum GPA.

Originally Posted by All4MyDaughter

I think need based aid IS subject to credit hour requirements and minimum GPA.

Yes. Full time status and in good academic standing.

Originally Posted by pharmasaur

Listen I have nothing against paying for the education of disadvantaged kids. But there needs to be some regulation. As usual the middle class gets hurt when it comes to these kinds of things...the ultra rich can pay hefty tuitions no problem, and the poor get free rides...but the middle class is stuck with the no aid and the high cost of school as well as the higher tax brackets. I mean I know millionaires technically pay more taxes but when you have 10 million dollars and let's say 5 million goes to taxes...it's VERY different than making 100k/yr and having 50k go to taxes. Having to live off of 50k and 5 million is very different (duh). it's just that the middle class keeps getting pushed lower and lower down. Obviously this is not a new idea so please no sarcastic comments.

At least we can control the amount of money given to the poor kids. How about things like
1 - you work your ass off and graduate in 3 years since we're funding you 100% and you dont have to worry about flipping burgers to make some money (this is what i did - i had to pay for school so I finished in 3 years, its doable), as in, no staying 5 or 6 years because the govt is paying for it, double majors not allowed, if you want an extra degree YOU pay for it
2 - we're not paying for you unless your GPA is x.xx
3 - paying very conservative estimates of cost of living, we all know those cost of living estimates school gives out are inflated and u can live pretty luxuriously off of them. one of my roommates who got a free ride to college cuz she was poor was able to afford her OWN room all 5 years while the rest of us had to share to save money.

you would think most of these rules would be obvious but theyre not in place and it frustrates me. now the year i start pharmacy school, bye bye to stafford loans, theyre gonna go fund more poor kids who will most likely not graduate anyways and go to college for the parties, yo

one more thing....why do they get free rides anyways?? why dont they just take loans out like the rest of us do? why do i have to take loans out for school, but the poor kids dont? like just because my family is middle class that means that theyre gonna pay for my loans or something? yeah right i dont think so! i feel like this country discourages hard work and encourages you to live on the street so you can get handouts and breeze through life.

Cry me a river. What a shame that a girl from the ghetto could have some privacy in her own room. How many ghetto kids do you know that have their own room? Strike that. What do you know about being poor and struggling?

Just another "special" little snowflake crying about what everyone else has.

Originally Posted by xiphoid2010

Going to the extremes trying to make a point isn't the way either.

I think it's reasonable to expect a student getting need based assistance to make at least an average grade, that information should be easily available from each college. While I wouldn't go so far as saying only 3 years, but I think meeting an average credit load is a reasonable argument. Shouldn't force 18+ credits on them, but shouldn't let 12 slide either.

It's a subject that does have merit for debate. Just don't get personal in debates. If you both can take a step back and focus on the issue rather than rhetoric, what would be nice.

Of course this issue is debatable but the assumption that poor people go to college for the parties with a "Yo" at the end? Sorry. Can't take that seriously.

It seems we were due for another "let's hate on the poor" thread.

Originally Posted by All4MyDaughter

It seems we were due for another "let's hate on the poor" thread.

hold up. Don't start without me. Im getting new rims on my ride (an escalade paid for by the taxpayers of america). Make sure you have your medicaid baby ready cuz we gonna **** this **** up YO

Being poor is miserable and disgusting. There are two types of poor people in this country. Those that hate being poor and want to get out of this rut, and those that hate being poor but are too lazy to get out of this rut. The ones who are getting out of this rut are going to college to make something of themselves. They can't afford it, so the government subsidized them with grants. Sometimes though, grants do not cover living expenses, so the poor student has to work. The poor college kid works so hard that he became a workaholic and soon starts to not paid that much attention to his school work. His grades drop, to the point where he is not competitive enough to get academic scholarships. He knows he is capable of doing well in school, but he cannot work less hours or he will starve. So he relies on federal loans to subsidized his cost of attendance.

Now the other poor people who are too lazy to work, but are jealous of those who rise above poverty are the people I hate. They take advantage of the welfare system by not going to work and rely on the taxpayers to take care of them. In other countries, they would have starved to death.

Being poor is miserable and disgusting. Nobody likes to be poor. The student who works hard despite being poor often do not get "free rides". He doesn't have health insurance if he gets sick he's screwed, he doesn't have parents who own a house, so if he fails in life, he's screwed. He doesn't want to be poor so he decides to take risks by going to school and take out loans.

I understand that you have to pay for college and resents poor people getting free rides in school. I really do. In fact, if I was in your situation, I would have felt the same. I hate being poor, but that doesn't mean that I get free rides to school.

Originally Posted by rxlea

Yes. Full time status and in good academic standing.

A full time status is usually defined as 10-12 credit hours. Good academic standing can be anything above a F. I would think a B average, a 14-16 credit hour minimum would be more reasonable for need based assistance.

Yeah obviously I'm very irritated and making nasty comments when I shouldn't. I'm bitter because of my experience and I have that right but I agree I shouldn't let that seep into my argument. Let's ignore that and focus on my points and the statistics I provided. I said only 40% of my school ends up graduating even though most students get free ride financial aid. This is public information and I'm not guess-timating. It's actually 38% but whatever, let's round. That means 60% of the students get government grants and don't even wind up with a degree. How is that efficient or justifiable? I'm just saying there needs to be more strings attached to grants. You finish on time, you earn good grades, and you actually complete your degree otherwise you need to pay the grants back unless something tragic has happened. How is ANY of that unreasonable? I'm NOT hating on the poor, I'm hating on this system, this system which instead of holding you accountable for things, lets you skimp by college. I had classmates who would take the bare minimum 12 units per semester and stuck around for 5-6 years, because they were given the allowance to do so. You think a few extra thousand dollars on my loans isn't a big deal? It is to me. My tuition rose this semester by $800 unexpectedly - if you receive grants then you got more grants to cover it. What did I have to do? I had to work more hours to be able to come up with $800 cash to pay for it. I work hard - I'm taking 24 units and I have a part-time job, I leave home at 7 am and come home at 11pm and start my homework. I bet my schedule is more difficult than a lot of you in pharmacy school now. So when I get to pharmacy school at least I'll be well-trained and efficient with time. That's besides the point though, I apologize for my bitterness but there is merit to my argument.

Originally Posted by owlegrad

And where is this magical student that gets a PharmD degree paid for due to being poor? They don't exist. What a stupid, stupid comment.

I'm not saying graduate students get grants. I'm saying subsidized loans for grad students are being cut, and those savings are going to go towards Pell grants instead which are for low-income students. Now that the students are eligible for more pell grant money, I wouldn't be surprised if colleges raise their tuition even more because students are coming in with MORE aid from the government. Like I said in my first post, the kids with the aid aren't affected by tuition hikes because their grants pay for it, and the ultra rich can afford it anyways. Just the middle class that gets hit by the van.

I forgot to mention, something really funny/sad - I transferred from a JC to my state university, and at the JC there were plenty of students who would come in, sign up for classes, get aid, then use that money to buy cars or expensive purses and stop showing up to class in the middle of the semester...not only stealing govt money but hogging seats when it's super hard to get into community college classes now. This is totally not an anectode of 1 or 2 students but actually a lot of people would do this. horrible.

Originally Posted by pharmasaur

Yeah obviously I'm very irritated and making nasty comments when I shouldn't. I'm bitter because of my experience and I have that right but I agree I shouldn't let that seep into my argument. Let's ignore that and focus on my points and the statistics I provided. I said only 40% of my school ends up graduating even though most students get free ride financial aid. This is public information and I'm not guess-timating. It's actually 38% but whatever, let's round. That means 60% of the students get government grants and don't even wind up with a degree. How is that efficient or justifiable? I'm just saying there needs to be more strings attached to grants. You finish on time, you earn good grades, and you actually complete your degree otherwise you need to pay the grants back unless something tragic has happened. How is ANY of that unreasonable? I'm NOT hating on the poor, I'm hating on this system, this system which instead of holding you accountable for things, lets you skimp by college. I had classmates who would take the bare minimum 12 units per semester and stuck around for 5-6 years, because they were given the allowance to do so. You think a few extra thousand dollars on my loans isn't a big deal? It is to me. My tuition rose this semester by $800 unexpectedly - if you receive grants then you got more grants to cover it. What did I have to do? I had to work more hours to be able to come up with $800 cash to pay for it. I work hard - I'm taking 24 units and I have a part-time job, I leave home at 7 am and come home at 11pm and start my homework. I bet my schedule is more difficult than a lot of you in pharmacy school now. So when I get to pharmacy school at least I'll be well-trained and efficient with time. That's besides the point though, I apologize for my bitterness but there is merit to my argument.

Are you really saying that 60% of kids in college are getting free government money to pay for tuition? Try again. I think you're suffering from some serious confirmation bias with all this. Yeah there are people who take advantage of the system, but not everyone is like that.

Originally Posted by Notecard

Are you really saying that 60% of kids in college are getting free government money to pay for tuition? Try again. I think you're suffering from some serious confirmation bias with all this. Yeah there are people who take advantage of the system, but not everyone is like that.

Ok you got me there, not everyone gets aid obviously. But I looked it up

"Pell Percentage: 45%"
would provide the source but i dont want to reveal my school.

that's pretty high. you're right not everyone takes advantage of the system, but enough do to bother me. maybe if you witnessed it on a daily basis like i did it would annoy you more.

Originally Posted by pharmasaur

Ok you got me there, not everyone gets aid obviously. But I looked it up

"Pell Percentage: 45%"
would provide the source but i dont want to reveal my school.

that's pretty high. you're right not everyone takes advantage of the system, but enough do to bother me. maybe if you witnessed it on a daily basis like i did it would annoy you more.

45% get what? Pell Grants? I don't believe it. Federal Aid? Maybe, that would include loans, you know.

Originally Posted by pharmasaur

I forgot to mention, something really funny/sad - I transferred from a JC to my state university, and at the JC there were plenty of students who would come in, sign up for classes, get aid, then use that money to buy cars or expensive purses and stop showing up to class in the middle of the semester...not only stealing govt money but hogging seats when it's super hard to get into community college classes now. This is totally not an anectode of 1 or 2 students but actually a lot of people would do this. horrible.

If they drop out of classes, the government usually takes back the portion of the grants, so that means the college will demand those students pay back their refunds. In many cases, they have to return all the funds back to the school if they pull this stunt. Also, if they repeat the same thing next semester, then they are no longer eligible for aids.

Originally Posted by ImmunoPharmD

If they drop out of classes, the government usually takes back the portion of the grants, so that means the college will demand those students pay back their refunds. In many cases, they have to return all the funds back to the school if they pull this stunt. Also, if they repeat the same thing next semester, then they are no longer eligible for aids.

This. You drop out, you pay.

Originally Posted by xiphoid2010

A full time status is usually defined as 10-12 credit hours. Good academic standing can be anything above a F. I would think a B average, a 14-16 credit hour minimum would be more reasonable for need based assistance.

Good academic standing = 2.0 (C average). Not sure what school says good academic standing is anything below that. Many of the scholarships/grants I see have a 2.5-3.0.

twelve credits is reasonable, IMO. Many students still work and go to school.

Originally Posted by rxlea

Good academic standing = 2.0 (C average). Not sure what school says good academic standing is anything below that. Many of the scholarships/grants I see have a 2.5-3.0.

twelve credits is reasonable, IMO. Many students still work and go to school.

I don't know anyone who went to school on Pell Grants who didn't also have to work. Pell Grants don't cover the cost of tuition at most schools anyway, let alone living expenses. Many of my friends had a combination of Pell Grants, state grants, work study and loans.

I rarely took more than 12 credit hours in undergraduate because I worked so much.

Originally Posted by pharmasaur

Yeah obviously I'm very irritated and making nasty comments when I shouldn't. I'm bitter because of my experience and I have that right but I agree I shouldn't let that seep into my argument. Let's ignore that and focus on my points and the statistics I provided. I said only 40% of my school ends up graduating even though most students get free ride financial aid. This is public information and I'm not guess-timating. It's actually 38% but whatever, let's round. That means 60% of the students get government grants and don't even wind up with a degree. How is that efficient or justifiable? I'm just saying there needs to be more strings attached to grants. You finish on time, you earn good grades, and you actually complete your degree otherwise you need to pay the grants back unless something tragic has happened. How is ANY of that unreasonable? I'm NOT hating on the poor, I'm hating on this system, this system which instead of holding you accountable for things, lets you skimp by college. I had classmates who would take the bare minimum 12 units per semester and stuck around for 5-6 years, because they were given the allowance to do so. You think a few extra thousand dollars on my loans isn't a big deal? It is to me. My tuition rose this semester by $800 unexpectedly - if you receive grants then you got more grants to cover it. What did I have to do? I had to work more hours to be able to come up with $800 cash to pay for it. I work hard - I'm taking 24 units and I have a part-time job, I leave home at 7 am and come home at 11pm and start my homework. I bet my schedule is more difficult than a lot of you in pharmacy school now. So when I get to pharmacy school at least I'll be well-trained and efficient with time. That's besides the point though, I apologize for my bitterness but there is merit to my argument.

Unfortunately, your bitterness and offensive generalizations cloud your argument.

There is always someone out there that works just as hard or harder than you or has it ****tier than you. Instead of crying about the girl who got her own room, suck it up and make a difference. You're too damn worried about yourself and what you're getting or not getting.