WOW Rich Parents Financial Aid SCAM Exposed, Social Media Ban, & Brazil's Horrifying Problem
video description
Date: 2019-11-01
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
DuskPunkZebra
My biggest issue with the way need-based scholarships are calculated is that it's not based on income, nor does it take into account the cost of living or literally any other expenses. Any and all assets the student or family has, liquid or not, required for basic function or living or not, whatsoever, are counted. If those assets - including housing, trusts that are inaccessible, vehicles, college funds for other children, stocks, bonds, other investments, retirement funds, and any and all income including those things necessary for paying for basic necessities - could cover the tuition, or even a significant portion, the student does not qualify for any financial aid beyond loans. There is very little else that is calculated this way when talking about need. This calculation boils down to oh, but if you sold your house, drained your retirement funds and all of your savings and investment accounts, and became homeless and stopped eating, you could afford college for this student. No. Student loans are insane, and government subsidies are making it even worse. I live in a town that essentially exists because of government money, and I have seen from a young age that government money to so many organizations, public and private, means free, infinite money and they will absolutely overcharge and overquote and price gouge at every opportunity, and it does not go to the people it needs to go to. My tuition raised several times so the school could build new athletics facilities that no one asked for so they could run for a bid in the SEC that the town and university would never have been able to accommodate because of the location of the school.
reply
My biggest issue with the way need-based scholarships are calculated is that it's not based on income, nor does it take into account the cost of living or literally any other expenses. Any and all assets the student or family has, liquid or not, required for basic function or living or not, whatsoever, are counted. If those assets - including housing, trusts that are inaccessible, vehicles, college funds for other children, stocks, bonds, other investments, retirement funds, and any and all income including those things necessary for paying for basic necessities - could cover the tuition, or even a significant portion, the student does not qualify for any financial aid beyond loans. There is very little else that is calculated this way when talking about need. This calculation boils down to oh, but if you sold your house, drained your retirement funds and all of your savings and investment accounts, and became homeless and stopped eating, you could afford college for this student. No. Student loans are insane, and government subsidies are making it even worse. I live in a town that essentially exists because of government money, and I have seen from a young age that government money to so many organizations, public and private, means free, infinite money and they will absolutely overcharge and overquote and price gouge at every opportunity, and it does not go to the people it needs to go to. My tuition raised several times so the school could build new athletics facilities that no one asked for so they could run for a bid in the SEC that the town and university would never have been able to accommodate because of the location of the school.
reply
Kris Van Pelt
Should there be a bill to prevent stores from having 'impulse buys' sections near cash registers? They better implement television usage blocks, too, if they want to limit people's internet use. I think personal accountability is more important to this issue than letting Government Nanny tell someone how long they can be on the internet and where they can spend their time. There are times when heavy television and internet use can actually be beneficial, like for hospital stays or work purposes. For the government to tell the person with cancer at the hospital that they can only be on Facebook for 30 minutes a day is ridiculous. There are even emergency cases where contact through the internet needs to be made, but if someone's daily usage was already met, then too bad, so sad, I guess. This isn't the Age of AOL anymore where you pay-per-hour to get online and have limited places where you can go. We don't need to go back to that kind of system. Let's teach and emphasize the importance of personal accountability within all things, especially since the implementation of psychological engagement tricks have been apart of civilization for centuries. This isn't a new thing. It just seems shiny and new because the internet is going through its adolescence phase and is so prominent in society.
reply
Should there be a bill to prevent stores from having 'impulse buys' sections near cash registers? They better implement television usage blocks, too, if they want to limit people's internet use. I think personal accountability is more important to this issue than letting Government Nanny tell someone how long they can be on the internet and where they can spend their time. There are times when heavy television and internet use can actually be beneficial, like for hospital stays or work purposes. For the government to tell the person with cancer at the hospital that they can only be on Facebook for 30 minutes a day is ridiculous. There are even emergency cases where contact through the internet needs to be made, but if someone's daily usage was already met, then too bad, so sad, I guess. This isn't the Age of AOL anymore where you pay-per-hour to get online and have limited places where you can go. We don't need to go back to that kind of system. Let's teach and emphasize the importance of personal accountability within all things, especially since the implementation of psychological engagement tricks have been apart of civilization for centuries. This isn't a new thing. It just seems shiny and new because the internet is going through its adolescence phase and is so prominent in society.
reply
Emmaline Hawthorne
When I was an adult living on my own I was considered a dependent and unable to get reasonable financial aid. My parents make good money, but I promise you it is all gone by the end of the year, whether it is because of poor financial planning or just the high cost of living expenses I don't know, but it was always clear to me that my parents would not be helping me with college tuition, at all. Even though I moved out at the age of 20 I was still considered a dependent and the government still expected my parents to pay 30, 000 per year solely on my tuition. That is basically my dad's whole wage after taxes. I have considered filing for my independence multiple times just for college tuition purposes. Soo basically it is really hard for me to blame parents for doing this imo. I blame the colleges for making the tuition so high that this is something parents are willing to go through to make sure their kids have a chance for education. Also. TUITION DOES NOT GO TO PROFESSORS I had a professor in college working 3 jobs still not bringing in as much money as her bartending husband. She had a Ph. D. Where does all the money go?
reply
When I was an adult living on my own I was considered a dependent and unable to get reasonable financial aid. My parents make good money, but I promise you it is all gone by the end of the year, whether it is because of poor financial planning or just the high cost of living expenses I don't know, but it was always clear to me that my parents would not be helping me with college tuition, at all. Even though I moved out at the age of 20 I was still considered a dependent and the government still expected my parents to pay 30, 000 per year solely on my tuition. That is basically my dad's whole wage after taxes. I have considered filing for my independence multiple times just for college tuition purposes. Soo basically it is really hard for me to blame parents for doing this imo. I blame the colleges for making the tuition so high that this is something parents are willing to go through to make sure their kids have a chance for education. Also. TUITION DOES NOT GO TO PROFESSORS I had a professor in college working 3 jobs still not bringing in as much money as her bartending husband. She had a Ph. D. Where does all the money go?
reply
iinventedrunescape
I feel like just because a family is better off financially, this does not mean they should be unable to receive financial aid that lower income families receive. The fact that these people have to jump through legal loopholes to receive financial help for their children is the problem. It is unfair and unjust that these families are unable to get the grants they are just as entitled to as everyone else simply because they do not need it. If i was to work a 40 hour week, i would most likely be eligible for these grants, but because i work 70-80 hours a week and am away from my family for 48 weeks a year all of a sudden i am required to spend an extra 30, 000 of money i dont have to send my child to school? This is the problem, this is why we need to go through these loopholes, because we still have bills to pay, we break our backs, we lose years of our life at work, we work just as hard, if not harder, we pay more in taxes, we receive little to no government aid. And in the end, we get called despicable when we try to get the aid that everyone else gets, that we still need.
reply
I feel like just because a family is better off financially, this does not mean they should be unable to receive financial aid that lower income families receive. The fact that these people have to jump through legal loopholes to receive financial help for their children is the problem. It is unfair and unjust that these families are unable to get the grants they are just as entitled to as everyone else simply because they do not need it. If i was to work a 40 hour week, i would most likely be eligible for these grants, but because i work 70-80 hours a week and am away from my family for 48 weeks a year all of a sudden i am required to spend an extra 30, 000 of money i dont have to send my child to school? This is the problem, this is why we need to go through these loopholes, because we still have bills to pay, we break our backs, we lose years of our life at work, we work just as hard, if not harder, we pay more in taxes, we receive little to no government aid. And in the end, we get called despicable when we try to get the aid that everyone else gets, that we still need.
reply
Stephanie Schoonmaker
I think the real problem with this college issue is how high the tuition is. My family did not want to help me very much with college, and so even though my Expected Family Contribution was fairly high, I didnt get anywhere near as much as FAFSA estimated. Because of that number, I couldnt get FAFSA money, Cal Grant, any need-based scholarships, and even some that were not explicitly need-based because essentially every scholarship application requires your EFC and they still prioritize those with lower income. It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to pay for a 4-year college without loans unless your parents have no assets and completely impoverished, or if your parents make throw away levels of money. I wouldnt be upset if I could get a well-paying job without a college degree or intense manual labor skills, but unfortunately thats just not the case. If its going to be all but mandatory in America to have a college degree, America needs to do much more to make college affordable for EVERYONE, not just the kids of the extremely poor and extremely wealthy.
reply
I think the real problem with this college issue is how high the tuition is. My family did not want to help me very much with college, and so even though my Expected Family Contribution was fairly high, I didnt get anywhere near as much as FAFSA estimated. Because of that number, I couldnt get FAFSA money, Cal Grant, any need-based scholarships, and even some that were not explicitly need-based because essentially every scholarship application requires your EFC and they still prioritize those with lower income. It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to pay for a 4-year college without loans unless your parents have no assets and completely impoverished, or if your parents make throw away levels of money. I wouldnt be upset if I could get a well-paying job without a college degree or intense manual labor skills, but unfortunately thats just not the case. If its going to be all but mandatory in America to have a college degree, America needs to do much more to make college affordable for EVERYONE, not just the kids of the extremely poor and extremely wealthy.
reply
GloriousMane
Willingly putting an 18 yo into debt should be punishable by the death of whichever CEO is responsible. Charging people for education is class warfare, end of story, no ifs ands or buts about it. Forgive student debt, outlaw corporate colleges, reform and refine the types of people you allow to be involved in the financial process (goodbye nazis/lobbyists/bankers, and most importantly of all, punish all corporations who waged open attacks against our young adults for so long. In theory, that regulation sounds acceptable if it's broader than it is in the language. The second I heard it was a repub wrote it, I wondered what the ulterior motive was. Who is this hurting or killing exactly, repubs never write legislation that doesn't hurt or kill. Lo and behold, it was actually about attacking freedom of speech, expression, and suppressing activism. These things don't deserve to live in this country.
reply
Willingly putting an 18 yo into debt should be punishable by the death of whichever CEO is responsible. Charging people for education is class warfare, end of story, no ifs ands or buts about it. Forgive student debt, outlaw corporate colleges, reform and refine the types of people you allow to be involved in the financial process (goodbye nazis/lobbyists/bankers, and most importantly of all, punish all corporations who waged open attacks against our young adults for so long. In theory, that regulation sounds acceptable if it's broader than it is in the language. The second I heard it was a repub wrote it, I wondered what the ulterior motive was. Who is this hurting or killing exactly, repubs never write legislation that doesn't hurt or kill. Lo and behold, it was actually about attacking freedom of speech, expression, and suppressing activism. These things don't deserve to live in this country.
reply
Mocaw Norkim
I think the SMART act takes it way too far, but there are many features in social media which are only there to hook, addict, and manipulate and I think Snapchat streaks are a good example. If you think about the idea of streaks what is actually gained by a consumer? I dont see the value in that from a content standpoint. But the effect of the feature is that it creates dependence, and takes advantage of loss aversion (a well known psychological phenomenon) to keep people using their platform. Because if more and more work is being put in you dont want to lose the streak, and the only way to lose the streak is to not use the app. Sure, people should 100% be given the decision to use social media how they please, and the time limit part is too far. BUT in cases like these and others memtioned regulations could be better for everyone.
reply
I think the SMART act takes it way too far, but there are many features in social media which are only there to hook, addict, and manipulate and I think Snapchat streaks are a good example. If you think about the idea of streaks what is actually gained by a consumer? I dont see the value in that from a content standpoint. But the effect of the feature is that it creates dependence, and takes advantage of loss aversion (a well known psychological phenomenon) to keep people using their platform. Because if more and more work is being put in you dont want to lose the streak, and the only way to lose the streak is to not use the app. Sure, people should 100% be given the decision to use social media how they please, and the time limit part is too far. BUT in cases like these and others memtioned regulations could be better for everyone.
reply
Andy Macedo
Are y'all targeting Mexicans or poor white desperate people? Or both I know you must have money Obviously Naturally so if I had money my smartphone would ring and someone would reach out and speak English I see how it works My bad I'm sorry I'll go on social media then and take care of things and get Nathan accomplished naturally Makes perfect sense Ask Brian or zuckerberg or Jan Or marvel or veteran affairs or the stock exchange or the commerce or business or advertising Duh Difficult to look away for who? Not me I hate all technology Oh snap 30 min a day on social media oh no Don't do that That's the end of life Everything will die Pull down on the phone on social media gives new information in what country? I'm what language? Y'all are pathetic Pathetic people Desperate for social media and likes and money Sold your souls
reply
Are y'all targeting Mexicans or poor white desperate people? Or both I know you must have money Obviously Naturally so if I had money my smartphone would ring and someone would reach out and speak English I see how it works My bad I'm sorry I'll go on social media then and take care of things and get Nathan accomplished naturally Makes perfect sense Ask Brian or zuckerberg or Jan Or marvel or veteran affairs or the stock exchange or the commerce or business or advertising Duh Difficult to look away for who? Not me I hate all technology Oh snap 30 min a day on social media oh no Don't do that That's the end of life Everything will die Pull down on the phone on social media gives new information in what country? I'm what language? Y'all are pathetic Pathetic people Desperate for social media and likes and money Sold your souls
reply
R Xmas
On the first tuition story: it frustrates me that wealthy people jump through all these hoops to get away from paying as much by taking advantage of the need based scholarships. That being said: I think the disappearing middle class also needs to be taken into account. Personally, my family makes like twice as much as the basis for free or reduced lunch, but we still don't have enough money for food sometimes due to expenses. This makes it very difficult to survive sometimes, let alone save for college. Most college boards, however, do not really take this into account. They just look at income. I have briefly considered using this loophole to get an education that I really would not be able to get otherwise. I think the whole need-based system needs to expand to include expenses and such, so that it truly is more equitable.
reply
On the first tuition story: it frustrates me that wealthy people jump through all these hoops to get away from paying as much by taking advantage of the need based scholarships. That being said: I think the disappearing middle class also needs to be taken into account. Personally, my family makes like twice as much as the basis for free or reduced lunch, but we still don't have enough money for food sometimes due to expenses. This makes it very difficult to survive sometimes, let alone save for college. Most college boards, however, do not really take this into account. They just look at income. I have briefly considered using this loophole to get an education that I really would not be able to get otherwise. I think the whole need-based system needs to expand to include expenses and such, so that it truly is more equitable.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
14:23
19:58
13:47
14:24
17:20