College aid without conscience

Washington Times ^ | 12/6/03 | Steve Chapman

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

When Joshua Davey arrived at Northwest College outside Seattle in the fall of 1999, he had a state "Promise Scholarship" and a plan to become a church pastor. Then he made a surprising discovery: He could keep one or the other, but not both.

[ChemistCat]

I just decided to stay home rather than go pay $7 for the privilege of viewing an original copy of the Declaration of Independence.

It's a choice I made because a fee that high is contrary to the spirit of the original document. It is not a fee in line with the cost of transporting the document around and setting up a display in a public space--it's at the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial, which as far as I know is public property. The document in question and the property upon which it is being displayed BELONG in part to me.

No, I don't think the taxpayer should fully fund the costs involved in my getting to see that document in person. A small usage fee would have been appropriate. But $7? No, that's absurd.

That's just how I feel about it.

I shouldn't have to fund someone's theological studies. Publically-funded scholarships are inappropriate unless they're to help scholars earn degrees in fields that are of national importance. If this man wanted to study Arabic, Chinese, and some technical subject, great, give him a tax-funded scholarship. We are in desperate need of people who have command of the languages of our enemies. Tie some strings to the money--oblige the recipient to serve his country, and make sure he's fit to do so before you hand him the scholarship.

If he wants to be a minister, let his church fund him, or let him fund himself.

I'm for federally-guaranteed educational LOANS. Loan have a great quality: they are meant to be paid back. This is an outstanding program for all citizens with the intellectual talent needed to keep the economy going. The interest rate is reasonable, the government is repaid--everybody wins.

I'm for privately funded scholarships of all sorts--if someone wants to fund someone else to study African-American studies GREAT. But: why should taxpayers fund things unless they're in the public interest? And it shouldn't count as being in the public interest unless it is needed for legitimate functions of government AND CANNOT BE PROVIDED ANY OTHER WAY.

Gotta say that students talented enough to earn scholarships are also the ones most likely to pay back student loans in full.

There's my take on it, now flame away.

[Rodney King]

I wouldn't go to see the Declaration of Independence for 7 dollars. Nor would I go and see it for free. It's the ideas that matter, not the piece of paper. So I'm glad it costs 7 dollars so that the sentimentalists can cover the expenses without me having to chip in.

As for this court case? Well, if this passes, it won't be long till we are funding militant hamas types to go and get all worked up at one of their mosques/terrorist HQ's.

[ChemistCat]

My husband said when he got back that the cost was the cost of entering the museum where it was displayed, and that one could see other exhibits as well. Our children are not old enough yet, we think, to cope with the other exhibits at the Oklahoma City National Memorial (Bombing memorial) so they saw nothing else, but they could have. I was misinformed when I made the prior post.

Home Depot had an exhibit there and the kids were able to build a shadowbox for their own copy of the Declaration of Independence, and that was free, so all in all, it was a good experience for them.