Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 30 2019, @11:39AM   Printer-friendly

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

College Financial-Aid Loophole: Wealthy Parents Transfer Guardianship of Their Teens to Get Aid

Amid an intense national furor over the fairness of college admissions, the Education Department is looking into a tactic that has been used in some suburbs here, in which wealthy parents transfer legal guardianship of their college-bound children to relatives or friends so the teens can claim financial aid, say people familiar with the matter.

The strategy caught the department's attention amid a spate of guardianship transfers here. It means that only the children's earnings were considered in their financial-aid applications, not the family income or savings. That has led to awards of scholarships and access to federal financial aid designed for the poor, these people said.

Several universities in Illinois say they are looking into the practice, which is legal. "Our financial-aid resources are limited and the practice of wealthy parents transferring the guardianship of their children to qualify for need-based financial aid—or so-called opportunity hoarding—takes away resources from middle- and low-income students," said Andrew Borst, director of undergraduate enrollment at the University of Illinois. "This is legal, but we question the ethics."

Also At:
https://www.propublica.org/article/university-of-illinois-financial-aid-fafsa-parents-guardianship-children-students
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/7/29/20746376/u-of-i-parents-giving-up-custody-kids-get-need-based-college-financial-aid-university-illinois


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30 2019, @11:21PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30 2019, @11:21PM (#873320)

    Who voted this up?

    There are no Canadian Death Panels. The physician will estimate whether or not the procedure is likely to improve the patient's condition. If they're 90, they may well have a worse post-surgery prognosis than if they are untreated. Do you know what post-general anaesthetic haze can be like for a 90 year old? Sometimes they never come out, and trading a cyst removal for permanent zombie fugue is a bad trade.

    Source: live with a doctor, and I work for a provider.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 01 2019, @12:27PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 01 2019, @12:27PM (#873972) Journal

    The physician will estimate whether or not the procedure is likely to improve the patient's condition.

    How do you know that? You're assuming things. The physician doesn't get to decide this all on their own with no repercussions. Else self-interest would take over and, for example, bribery would be widespread.

    I loosely follow Machiavelli on this matter. There's only one party in this whole mess guaranteed to have the interests of the patient at stake. That's the patient. Everyone else has an angle. That includes the above physician and the death panels that would be set up to attempt to insure the physician makes the decision above as you say.

    If they're 90, they may well have a worse post-surgery prognosis than if they are untreated.

    Not what we were speaking of earlier. If they're 30, they may well have a worst post-surgery prognosis as well. In the real world, we can't remove ethical dilemmas by only considering cases where the dilemma doesn't exist. In the original post, there was a better post-surgery prognosis, it just was considerably less upside than the prognosis for the 30 year old. Then the poster bragged that their health care system would make the right choice and go for the 30 year old.

    Do you know what post-general anaesthetic haze can be like for a 90 year old?

    Do you know what a red herring is? I doubt anyone here thinks that medical procedures are without risk or that even if we consider equivalent medical risk, the 90 year old statistically will live as long afterward as the 30 year old.