Aid to higher ed may be uneven

The monetary federal aid distributed to colleges and universities at times seems incredibly disproportionate -- biased in favor of traditionally private and wealthier schools, like the University of Pennsylvania.

As Congress now faces a heated debate over the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, some believe that it has become an optimal time to restructure this method.

Much of the discussion surrounds what is known as campus-based aid, which includes three of five types of federal aid and consists of funding from the government, which colleges and universities can distribute to students as they see fit.

Larry Zaglaniczny, the director for congressional relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said that the inequitable distribution of these funds may be due to the fact that "some people knew how to work the system better than others."

Originally, the federal fund allocation system was not decided based on the same parameters as it is now.

In the 1970s, formulas did not determine which schools received what share of the available aid -- panels did. Schools had to present their case for financial aid to these panels, which were comprised of experts. Certain schools are alleged to have had an advantage because their peers were sometimes on the panels.

Up to this point, every school was assigned a certain guaranteed amount of financial aid, but the wide range of aid received at different schools became too large of a problem to ignore.

The solution was a formula-based aid system.

Zaglaniczny explained that the formula was comprised of two parts -- "one is a base guarantee of funds and the second part was based on fair share."

The fair share method awarded allocations based on an institution's need compared to the needs of all institutions.

However, "The base guarantee locked in schools who under the peer review system, did quite well," he said.

Tony Pals, the director of public information at the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, agreed that this is the problem.

"Unfortunately, funding for the campus-based programs has remained flat... over the past 20 years," he said in an e-mail.

"The bottom line is that the disparity today is based on two decades of inadequate federal funding for these essential programs," Pals added.

William Schilling, Penn's director of student financial aid,, echoed the sentiments of both Pals and Zaglaniczny regarding the problem behind other schools not getting equitable funding.

However, he noted that considering the stakes, some schools will be reluctant to support a redistribution of funding.

"If all we're talking about is changing the formula, then schools getting [more money] are probably not going to be interested in altering the funds," he said.

Zaglaniczny said, though, that his organization "has a recommendation to Congress for changing the allocation formula which gets rid of the base guarantee, and funds would be allocated based on the fair share formula which follows students for the greatest need for funds."

In reference to a proposal for change, Pals said that "a renewed federal commitment to fully funding campus-based aid, while protecting the integrity and effectiveness of existing colleges and university aid programs, is the solution that will best serve low-income students."

The issue remains, though, that it does appear that schools which traditionally have larger endowments are getting more money because of the guaranteed amount for these schools.

This is why the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators is attempting to redistribute the current available funds equally to all schools and financially disadvantaged students.

"It's a question of justice and equity," said Zaglaniczny, adding, "This really is an opportunity in the reauthorization to determine what is equitable in the 21st century."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.