The word "manipulate" is dysphemism for "audit" in my opinion. As I commented below, I don't care how the money is spent as long as it is THEIR money. The federal funding is tax payer's money, and it should be spent according to the will of the people in this country. If the tax money was spent to favor your family members because you are an alumni, I am sure other people would have problems with it.

Alumni aren't taxpayers or people?

I don't think it is fair to accept Alumni as a sole recipient of lots of tax money for unfair admission.

Alumni are not recipients of tax money. They are funding the university with their own tuition expenses.

On average I guess alumni contribute more through donation than they receive through the financial aids. I don't know the numbers on this topic, so please pardon my ignorance.

Alumni of the university contribute in more than one way. But most importantly, they are considered an important network factor in getting the student adjusted and proud of where the student goes. Universities market their name as a good place to study. And children of alumni are the prime markets for them to get prospective students from.

If you want colleges to behave in a certain manner, the word manipulate is correct.

Federal funding goes to institutions that uphold the federal Govt, not those that oppose it. The federal govt works in the interest of what its representatives seek. Those representatives are enforced by a variety of constituents including corporations, NGOs, non profits, and individuals.

You believe that taxpayers should say where the money goes. In such cases, it only goes back into the taxpayers pockets.

I am not sure where the line lies. If you fund a program that is not run by the government, say 100 billion dollars, should the government not "manipulate" how the program runs? I believe there should be some sort of accountability. To my knowledge the government spends over 7 billion dollars on Pell grants, and if the government has little to no say in whom it should be awarded to, it makes no sense to me. If the University decides to accept less qualified students through legacy admission and give the money to them, it should be challenged I believe.

add: come to think of it, I guess private university can just not accept financial aids from the government and keep their own admission policy if they have enough money to subsidize students who need financial aids. Whether you like it or not, federal money comes with (or should come with) strings attached (or manipulation in your words)

Manipulation and accountability are two different words. Manipulation is when you take an existing program, provide the students who go there with an aid package, and then condition the program to change because you are providing its students with a benefit. That’s not accountability.

Pell grants are not given to universities. They are given to students, who choose the university. The student has a say where the student goes and where the pell grant goes. Pell grants are responsibilities of the student.

The only workaround is to blacklist the university to ever be chosen by the student, because the govt will not allow the student to get aid. That’s akin to a terrorist list.

Pell grants are given to the students, but in order to become a student you first have to be accepted to a University. If no universities accepted you because of unfair admission policy, effectively the universities transferred the money from you to someone who got in unfairly (maybe you can argue that there is going to be at least one university that will accept you, but that is a different story). I am just simply advocating fair admission policy that is in agreement with the spirit of the citizens who are effectively providing such funds. Tuition money, a huge part of it, comes from the government (I reject the semantic argument that university gets student money, not the government money if the money was not directly given to them, such as "Pell grants are not given to universities"), and we have a say in how it should be given. We can definitely contest the legacy admission or even affirmative action if the university accepts government money one way or the other. Pell grants ( tell me if I am wrong ) already has other restrictions on how it could be spent and whom it should be given to. We can definitely add one more restriction (i.e., give it to students who got in fairly).

To me, you are advocating (tell me if I am mistaken) that university can have any admission policy (including unfair policy) they want (free from requests of the government) even if federal money is provided to them (indirectly of course) as a result of such admission policy. I disagree with this. If you're advocating to grant total freedom to university with regards to admission policy and get rid of federal support for all schools, then I am in agreement with you.

Universities have forever been able to selectively choose students. Private universities choose students based on the criteria their board members and trustees create or accept. And that is a right of a university (if it is responsible for their successful graduation and if it is responsible for their success after their career is in motion) that they only accept candidates who have a chance of graduating and succeeding in career.

The student applies to a university. The university accepts the student and sends a tuition bill. The bill is financed by the student via assistance from the federal government. At no point does the University have a direct connection to the federal government in this scenario. The federal govt can only force the student (not the university) to choose where the student attends.

> I reject the semantic argument that university gets student money, not the government money if the money was not directly given to them

This is the reality of the trade agreement. No way to force a rule down anyone's throat without another agreement for a trade in place. You are only rejecting how legal frameworks are. You are not rejecting an argument.

Pell grant restrictions and eligibilities are placed on the student. Not the university.

This might be due to my lack of comprehension, but your argument seems less focused and sometimes veers into broader concerns about government interference and semantic or technical arguments, making it somewhat less compelling in the specific context of legacy admissions and funding oversight for me. I don't think I can gain some new insights from further discussion, but if I ask this one last time (you do not have to answer), what is your stance on legacy admission ( I don't think you expressed your opinions on this ) with regards to government funding the students who attend schools with such admission policy? I can only assume your position, and for that let me quote my previous comments: "To me, you are advocating (tell me if I am mistaken) that university can have any admission policy (including unfair policy) they want (free from government oversight) even if federal money is provided to them (indirectly of course) as a result of such admission policy. I disagree with this. If you're advocating to grant total freedom to university with regards to admission policy and get rid of federal support for all schools, then I am in agreement with you."

BTW Pell grants have restrictions on school as well (many vocational institutions do not adhere to such restrictions, so they are not qualified to accept Pell grant money). The below are examples of such requirements:

Accreditation - Schools must be accredited by a recognized accrediting agency.

Compliance with Federal Guidelines - Schools must comply with federal regulations concerning how they manage and disburse student aid, including ensuring that funds are used properly and that students maintain satisfactory academic progress.

Non-discrimination - Schools must adhere to federal anti-discrimination laws <= this might be further strengthened to incorporate legacy admission as well.

Reporting Requirements - Schools must regularly report data to the Department of Education about their students, including Pell Grant recipients, and meet financial responsibility standards.

Misuse of Funds - Schools found to be misusing federal funds or engaging in fraudulent practices can lose eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs.

If a school does not adhere to such requirements, students cannot even find the school on FAFSA application to select. I remember one instance where school was delisted from FAFSA application (University of Phoenix I believe because they did not comply with federal regulations).

You make a good case about using federal laws that compel schools to act a certain way. I did not verify any of this but I assume you are right.