Advertisement

Archive for Monday, March 18, 2013

A few KU students already feeling effects after military tuition assistance suspended

March 18, 2013

Advertisement

KU news
Have a story idea?
Contact Journal-World KU reporter Sara Shepherd:

The early effects of this month’s automatic federal spending cuts have hit financial assistance for military service members taking college courses, and at least a few Kansas University students are already feeling it in their pocketbooks.

The U.S. Army, Marine Corps and Air Force have suspended their tuition assistance programs for active-duty, reserve or National Guard service members because of the automatic cuts, known as the sequester, that went into place March 1. The Navy was the lone service branch not to suspend the assistance as of Friday.

Among the recipients of that tuition help, which can be as much as $4,500 per year, are 64 current KU students.

The good news is that students enrolled in spring classes won’t lose the funding they’ve already been awarded, according to Brian McDow, interim senior associate university registrar for KU.

“Spring students are in good shape,” McDow said.

But the military branches aren’t awarding any new funding, McDow said, and it will soon be time for students to begin enrolling in summer or fall courses. “The soonest a person might need to worry about this is the end of March,” McDow said.

The cuts don't affect students in the supply chain management and logistics master’s degree program that the KU School of Business offers to officers stationed at Fort Leavenworth.

That program allows officers, mostly Army majors but a few from other branches, to earn a master’s degree in just 10 and a half months, with the aim of helping them work in logistics positions in the military and also to prepare them for jobs in the civilian world when their service is over.

Because the program is so condensed, it doesn’t follow KU’s normal semester-based calendar. New courses start throughout the year, and some for this year’s class don’t begin until April, said Greg Freix, a business school lecturer who directs the program.

Freix said he suggested that students apply as early as possible, in late February, for tuition assistance for their final courses, just in case the budget cuts shook things up.

Sure enough, the announcement came early this month that the assistance was suspended. Some of his students didn’t get their applications in before then. That means they’ll have to pay out of pocket for them, though they may be receiving help from other military programs.

Freix did not have exact numbers available, but he estimated that about half of the 32 members in his current class were using tuition assistance. The program costs roughly $14,000 in all, plus textbooks, he said. Some students receive scholarships from the Army, and others may be able to use GI Bill benefits to pay tuition.

It remains to be seen whether the next class of students in the program will be able to apply for tuition assistance, he said. He said he was confident the program would still attract a full class, as students in the past have shown a willingness to pay their own way if necessary.

Two U.S. senators were pushing this week for an amendment that would restore the tuition assistance programs.

Baker University this week announced plans to provide financial support for any active-duty military students whose funding is affected by the sequester.

McDow said word has not yet come down from the military branches what exactly will happen to students hoping to use tuition assistance to take summer or fall classes.

“We don’t know what that impact will be yet,” he said.

Comments

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 9 months ago

Cut the funding for those who have fought for this country, but continue to fund welfare at 100%+.

grammaddy 1 year, 9 months ago

....and continue to subsidize Big Oil and Big Pharma while they continue to rake in billions in profits..

Peacemaker452 1 year, 9 months ago

Exactly what “subsidies” are we paying to these entities?

Maybe what you are talking about is what many people (including myself) consider to be unfair tax exemptions and write-offs that are available to some corporations. If that is what you are talking about, why don’t you be clear and quit calling them “subsidies”?

Using the term “subsidy” to describe these tax policy issues is clearly an attempt to make the issue an emotional one, instead of logical. It is very similar to anti-abortion statements that talk about “killing babies” and anti-gun statements that talk about “assault weapons” and “cop killer bullets”.

You can’t expect to have well reasoned, factual debates about an issue if you keep emotionalizing them.

But you already knew that, didn’t you?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 9 months ago

A rose is a rose is a rose. A subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy-- no matter how you want to semantically slice it.

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

Then the welfare mom driving the Caddy is one of those roses of which you speak, no matter how you want to semantically slice it.

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

Peacemaker was arguing for well reasoned positions rather than overgeneralization that do nothing to contribute to having an intelligent discussion. Your response seemed to be calling for just the opposite, so I (sarcastically) followed your reasoning.

If a rose is a rose, and a subsidy is a subsidy, then a welfare mom driving a Caddy is a welfare mom driving a Caddy. One plus one equals two. Two plus two equals four. A B C D E F G ... Got it?

Peacemaker452 1 year, 9 months ago

We wouldn’t want to be precise, now would we?

A subsidy is a direct payment, like the agriculture payments mentioned. Grammaddy was referring to preferential treatment in the tax code. Two very different things, to be sure.

It is funny that even though I indicated that I did not agree with the tax code issues, you still attacked my message.

Sometimes I think you will attack certain people on this web site no matter what they say.

Probably just my overactive imagination.

Thinking_Out_Loud 1 year, 9 months ago

CHIBW, are you suggesting that the sequester should be balanced on the backs of the indigent and the unemployed?

elliottaw 1 year, 9 months ago

This is the work of the 535 people in congress, they write the budgets Obama approves them. If they don't send a budget to him he can do nothing about it, it is simple civics. Both parties are to blame equally here.

question4u 1 year, 9 months ago

Well, Obama called sequestration "dumb" and "arbitrary."

Kansas Representative Mike Pompeo called sequestration "a home run."

But never mind, what they say. You can have it both ways: sequestration is all Obama's fault, but it's a good thing, except for the bad parts, which are Obama's fault, but they're exaggerated, except when they're not.

Clearly, in Kansas sequestration isn't the only thing that's "dumb" and "arbitrary."

Michael LoBurgio 1 year, 9 months ago

10 Things the GOP Doesn't Want You to Know About the Debt

  1. Republican Leaders Agree U.S. Default Would Be a "Financial Disaster"
  2. Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt
  3. George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt
  4. Republicans Voted Seven Times to Raise Debt Ceiling for President Bush
  5. Federal Taxes Are Now at a 60 Year Low
  6. Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Pay for Themselves or Spur "Job Creators"
  7. Ryan Budget Delivers Another Tax Cut Windfall for Wealthy
  8. Ryan Budget Will Require Raising Debt Ceiling - Repeatedly
  9. Tax Cuts Drive the Next Decade of Debt
  10. $3 Trillion Tab for Unfunded Wars Remains Unpaid

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/23/988055/-10-Things-the-GOP-Doesn-t-Want-You-to-Know-About-the-Debt

notajayhawk 1 year, 9 months ago

And what The DNC doesn't want you to know:

Obama added more to the debt in his first 3 years and 2 months than Bush did in two full terms (and BTW, Bush was more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars shy of "doubling" the debt). In his first year alone he increased the debt more than Reagan in two full terms.

Federal tax revenue receipts went UP, not down, following the Bush tax cuts, and the tax burden shifted more towards the rich than the middle and lower income brackets. Federal taxes are currently lower than in the past, yes - for EVERYONE - two thirds of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle and lower income brackets, and pretty much everyone's taxes went down about the same as a percentage of what they were paying.

Yes, the debt ceiling increased 7 times under Bush (which doesn't put him at the top of the list, BTW), IN EIGHT YEARS, Obama has had it raised 6 times in only four. Also, it's not entirely accurate to say "Republicans Voted Seven Times to Raise Debt Ceiling for President Bush" since three of those increases came while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

There is no correlation, and never has been, between tax rate and total tax receipts, receipts correlate with tax BASE.

Just wanted to mention a few, please carry on with your rant.

elliottaw 1 year, 9 months ago

KU could show a lot of class and help the soldiers out, they won't of course, instead they will just cater to the officers who could pay out of pocket for the tuition while the soldiers who pretty much make minimum wage are forced to stop classes.

Thinking_Out_Loud 1 year, 9 months ago

What is your evidence that this is the case?

elliottaw 1 year, 9 months ago

Majors (and up) that are at GCSC (the majors college at leavenworth) are going to be O4s with at least 6 years of service, they get paid $5775 a month, most of the classes at KU are filled with lower ranking soldiers (e-5 and below) but lets take an SPC/CPL (e4) and say he is on his second term so we will also put him at 6 years service, he will be making $2403. Looking at those number how can you say that the Officers should get special benefits over the enlisted

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

Thinking_Out_Loud 1 year, 9 months ago

I said nothing of the sort.

I asked what was your evidence that KU would not find a way to assist the enlisted personnel but would kowtow to the officers. How much whom is paid doesn't support your contention, either that the officers will recieve special consideration or that the enlisted personnel will be poorly treated.

elliottaw 1 year, 9 months ago

From the article: "The cuts don't affect students in the supply chain management and logistics master’s degree program that the KU School of Business offers to officers stationed at Fort Leavenworth."

There is a large list of schools around the US that have already said that soldiers currently enrolled at their schools will not be charged for classes for the spring semester if they have lost their TA.

And when you say "What is your evidence in this case" it leaves a pretty wide brush stroke of what you want evidence on

Susan Mangan 1 year, 9 months ago

Just FYI. It is not GCSC...It's CGSC. You got the acronym wrong. It stands for Command and General Staff College.

elliottaw 1 year, 9 months ago

I know just fat fingered it, the make up about half of the base, or at least they used to

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 9 months ago

KU just took a kick in the stomach again from this legislature not to mention the fact that the right wingnuts accuse KU of everything demonic when the doors are closed on their illegal closed door meetings.

Jeremiah Jefferson 1 year, 9 months ago

Only the best for Americas srvicemen and women. Go to war and serve your country only to come back and get a knife in your back. How about suspending the paychecks of the entire congress and figure this collosal goat F&^%k out.

elliottaw 1 year, 9 months ago

they can't it is against the constitution, The 27th Amendments states "No law, varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened"

Nothing bad can ever happen to their pay

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/27th+Amendment

elliottaw 1 year, 9 months ago

White house tours have pretty much ben closed since 9/11. You have to go thru your representatives 6-9 months in advance and they have to do a complete background history on your then send your info to the white house to be put on a list.

elliottaw 1 year, 9 months ago

While I agree with you on some of it, it has always been my belief that soldiers should be allowed to get a free education while they serve, the GI Bill doesn't cover everything. It is the least that we can do for these people and gives them further incentive to stay enlisted, as well as make themselves more attractive if they do get out. Lets face it a grunt who has no college is not going to have much luck getting a job when he gets out, however a grunt that has a BA has a lot better chance.

notajayhawk 1 year, 9 months ago

Personally I find it amusing that in a city full of people frequently complaining about waste (and outright fraud) in the defense budget, not to mention constantly harping on the importance of education funding, they seem willing to accept at face value the administration's claim that there's nothing else in the defense budget that could be cut before tuition assistance for those that fought for their country.

verity 1 year, 9 months ago

As my rather conservative brother used to tell me: "You have to spend money to make money."

That is the thing that everybody seems to be ignoring. Yes, some people are cheating the system, but many here are advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water. Money multiplies as it goes through the economy---at least that is what I was taught in Economics class. You cut the worker's compensation and they will put less money back into the economy. Lay them off and they go on unemployment. Take away medical insurance and they end up costing the system more. Too many of the cuts being made will cost us dearly in the end.

We have to pay to live in a civilized society. Taxes is just one of the things we must pay. Because cost is shared, we probably all get back more benefits than we paid for. Sequestration is bringing a hatchet to brain surgery.

Can we for once get off the closed-minded ideological stupidity and work for the common good? Yes, I said it---common good. Because, you know what, the common good is good for all of us.

verity 1 year, 9 months ago

By worker's compensation, I mean their wages. Just realized that could be misconstrued.

Peacemaker452 1 year, 9 months ago

We have evolved into a country that can’t even agree on what the terms “common” and “good” mean.

How are we going to work towards that?

And just maybe, some of those “close-minded ideological stupidity” things are people’s true beliefs that they have developed through thoughtful study and years of experience and observation. Why should they have to dismiss their beliefs so that you can have your idea of “common good”?

verity 1 year, 9 months ago

Close-minded ideology is by definition not arrived at by thoughtful study, etc., but by not being open to any other way of thinking.

You chose to take offense with a part of my post and ignored the rest. Do you have a better idea how we might solve our problems? Because, if you do, I would like to hear it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.