Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Bright Futures should be based on need

Published: Sunday, May 17, 2009

Updated: Sunday, May 17, 2009 23:05

The debate has been waged since the Bright Futures Scholarship Program started in 1997: Is the distribution of Bright Futures Scholarships fair?

In the face of a sour economy and reduced state revenue, state legislatures have come to a critical juncture regarding the future of Bright Futures. As it stands, the budget for the scholarship cannot be sustained for the number of students taking advantage of the opportunity.

In 1997 only 42,000 received Bright Futures versus more than 159,000 in 2008, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Because of this, Florida lawmakers have capped the scholarship amount at the current tuition level. This means it will not adjust to the rise in tuition, which is expected to increase by 8 percent at community colleges up to 15 percent at state universities.

Serious questions about other potential changes to the scholarship have been raised. The focus of these changes, however, cannot be to simply raise the academic standards — the award must be overhauled to consider a student's financial needs.

University of North Florida economics professors Mary Borg and Harriet A. Stranahan described Bright Futures as "reverse Robin Hood" in a 2000 study. Most of the funding for Bright Futures comes from the sale of lottery tickets. The researchers found that low-income minority populations spent more of their income on the lottery but were the least likely to receive Bright Futures.

Former chancellor of Florida's university system, Charlie Reed told the Times that Bright Futures is "one of the dumbest public policies I know — to give rich people financial aid to go to the state schools and to ignore the neediest students."

The requirements for Bright Futures are not based on financial need but academic achievement. Students must score a 970 on the SAT to earn the Medallion Scholars Award, which pays 75 percent of tuition at universities and 100 percent at community colleges, and a score of 1270 will earn the 100 percent Academic Scholars Award.

This raises serious concerns because academic success is often affected by family income. UCLA's national survey of entering undergraduates at four-year colleges and universities states found that today's undergraduate families have a median income 60 percent higher than the national average.

If Bright Futures money goes to college students regardless of need, then most of the money is going to students from this higher income bracket. Those in this higher bracket are already able to afford college, though they may have to curb extra spending to do so. Those with serious financial needs who cannot score high enough for Bright Futures may have a much more challenging struggle. Most must focus on simple things like keeping the lights on, paying rent, and having just enough money left over to buy that fancy new clicker for class. College may simply end up being unaffordable for them.

Some first generation college students have no financial support outside of the financial aid office, yet they carry the weight of their families' hopes and dreams with them. Their parents often feel that if they can just get their children through college, those children will not have to struggle and take on such immense debt as themselves.

If students can raise their family name up the social ladder, they will become one less burden on already underfunded social programs such as Medicaid, cash assistance, Food Stamps and WIC for the working poor. There would also be less of a chance that future members of their family will end up incarcerated or victims of other poverty-driven social ills.

The necessary changes to Bright Futures must include a change in availability of the scholarship based on financial needs. Raising the academic standards higher would only further discourage diversity in the classroom.

Cuts are coming to Bright Futures, but they shouldn't take the money away from those who actually need it. There needs to be an ease on this class protectionism otherwise this will be another example of the exclusiveness of the "American Dream."

Justin Rivera is a senior majoring in history.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

8 comments

Your name
Wed Jun 17 2009 19:30
If Bright Futures is being called racist.... Then what would you call scholarships that are for minorities only? So bright futures isn't ok but those are fine?
Your name
Wed Jun 17 2009 19:24
Maybe if poor people didn't spend their money on lottery tickets then they wouldn't be so poor.

So because I'm not poor and didn't spend my stimulus check on lottery tickets means that I don't deserve bright futures? Although academically I out performed students they should get the scholarship because they are poor. That's what loans and work study are for. Oh....and JOBS.

College isn't required to be affordable. It's meant for people to pay to have better education and some rare outstanding students to get scholarships. If you can't afford college, too bad.

john smith
Sun Jun 14 2009 23:02
A change to the Bright Futures policy based on needs is like a tough pill. Yes those who are given the chances to succeed because of their opportunities will have to make way for those who can give that chance to their offspring. The survival of the fittest mentality is appropriate, there are more of those without than with, they have suffered the brunt of this relationship too long. If those in these greatest numbers have their interest addressed at the expense of the minority is that not the same survival of the fitness you refer too.

It is not so much as loss of rights as a loss of a privilege.

Student
Thu Jun 11 2009 08:47
The Bright Futures Scholarship is just what it says it is, a scholarship. It is not a grant. Scholarships should be merit-based. If we're talking about "need-based" then go for the grants. Public universities in FL are 3-4K a year in tuition. The Pell Grant max is at 5350 dollars. Who said poor students can't go to school? And honestly speaking, students should be working on their homework and safe activities as opposed to immersing themselves into the next new iPod, new fashion, and getting wasted. If they do the work to get the GPA, study the SAT/ACT and spend time to get involved in your community, they're set. They have 4 years to get things done, and that is a lot of days. Your article is just orienting to discouraging those who do well and work hard, and help the lazy ones. Life is survival of the fittest. You earn what you work for. Why reward the lazy ones? Is this socialism now?

I usually just read these articles and don't post comments, but this one is just ridiculous.

Your name
Mon May 18 2009 14:52
Bright Futures should continue to be available to students who maintain high GPA and test scores in their academics in high school regardless of need. Bright Futures offers and opportunity for many students regardless of ethic or economic background to continue their education. Many students who are in families of the "upper income bracket" have parents who are providing for multiple children in college already. If those students do well in their coursework and are deserving of a scholarship it is not ethical to deny it based on the salary their parents earn. If bright futures makes any changes it should be to the standards set to give these scholarships, for instance increasing the SAT scores needed or hours of community service to be done. Saying that scholarships should only be given to those in need is not only unfair, but also biased. Earn the grade, earn the money.
Billy
Mon May 18 2009 13:57
The system should be overhauled to ensure that once other scholarships pay for classes that Bright Futures is capped at a certain point to make sure abuse (such as buying 60" LCD TVs) doesn't occur with state funds.

Although... Bright Futures should remain Merit based. Therefore, anyone willing to try hard enough can receive the scholarship. Hence, "scholar."

Kenny G
Mon May 18 2009 08:39
BF began costing the state around 40 million it now cost the state over 400 million; an unsustainable cost.

Of all state federal aide, if broken down into two categories; need based aide and merit based aide would look like this:

25% of total aide- need based
75% of total aide- merit based

The program, [BF] when conceived was set to have standards increase gradually until a reasonable degree of difficulty in attainment was achieved; this never happened.

with this,
should we and how do we increase funding for the program?
should we and how do we decrease the number of recipients?
should we and how do we decrease the size of the award?

Your name
Mon May 18 2009 08:39
Bright Futures was established to reward high-achievers and basically to keep them attending in-state universities. I personally would not have qualified for a dime of financial assistance if it were based on so-called "need". My parents haven't provided any money for college, nor did they intend to, so I would have been pretty much screwed.






log out