The Pell Grant for college students should double
The Pell Grant is the greatest single source of federal aid for American college students, helping 6.9 million students nationwide and nearly 80,000 in Connecticut last year. But even that doesn’t begin to meet the great need out there.
Of the approximately $303 million in Pell Grant aid awarded Connecticut students, $31 million was awarded to students at UConn (27 percent of all students), where I serve as interim president of the university and CEO of UConn Health. Even when Pell Grants are coupled with state and institutional financial aid, many recipients attending college have unfulfilled financial need gaps.
Unfortunately, over time the Pell Grant has lost its purchasing power. In the 1980s, the maximum Pell Grant covered over half the cost of attending a four-year public university such as UConn. The $6,345 maximum Pell Grant now covers just 28 percent of the cost of college.
With less tuition and other costs covered by grants, many students might decide higher education is out of reach or be forced to take on extra work to cover costs. But most frequently, they take on extra loans. From 1995 to 2016, the average amount that Pell Grant recipients borrowed increased by 16 percent.
This means that for many low-income students — disproportionately first-generation students and students of color — the choice is between not attending college at all, which means they miss out on the vast array of opportunities a four-year degree offers, or graduating college encumbered by significant debt.
Doubling the Pell Grant creates new possibilities for lowincome students. They can afford to go to the university of their choosing and focus more on academics, training and the college experience rather than being weighed down by the burden of financial difficulties.
What’s more, if they wish, these students can plan to follow their education beyond the bachelor’s degree, rather than feel pressure to begin work immediately upon graduating.
COVID-19 has drawn attention to the need for greater numbers of health care providers, public health experts and scientists working in medicine and related fields. Preparation for these roles takes extensive, specialized education.
While Pell Grants are not limited to a certain course of study, reducing loans by providing more grant aid does ensure that students looking at the cost of medical school or other graduate and professional degrees are not encumbered by high debt. We already know that Pell Grant recipients are more than twice as likely as other students to have student loans, and their average debt is $4,500 more than their higher income peers.
Without this help, we risk barring these fields to low-income students, further exacerbating inequalities in our society and denying these disciplines the deepest possible talent pool. This is a risk we cannot afford if we are to be prepared for the next pandemic and to meet the other challenges in health care, science and technology we know the future presents.
The best interventions are those with a record of success. The Pell Grant funding and distribution process has been in place for nearly 50 years. It has opened higher education to millions of students, as well as increased students’ likelihood of completing their degree.
By doubling the maximum Pell Grant to almost $13,000, Congress can restore the program’s original intent, empowering students to choose education and career paths based on talent and desire rather than cost or debt. Doing so would not only leave us better prepared for future crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, it would help us ensure a fairer, more just and more vibrant society for all.