Talk:Pell Grant

message: Given that the Pell grant program has been a primary instrument of making certain parties extremely wealthy while delivering highly questionable educational product, abusing students with predatory loans that they must acquire after initial signup and contracts that enrich such institutions as the University of Phoenix further if students don't finish, a discussion of the way the Pell Grant is abused is needed. A 4% completion rate is really quite astounding. When that is looked at up against the huge revenue from Pell and other federal sources going to a small number of schools the public deserves to be informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.116.219 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Controversy

message: I am opening discussion for a rework of this article with better citations and format. I would like to hear opinions before I begin to edit. I will wait 7 days before suggestion further changes. Your thoughts?
IlliniGradResearch (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rework of Article

message: We need to decide whether to capitalize it as "Pell Grant" or "Pell grant" and stick to it throughout the article. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for "Pell Grant" since it refers to a Federal program name and these names are usually capitalized. Thus, a "Pell Grant" is short-hand for a "grant dispensed through the Federal Pell Grant program". Also, doing a quick Google search on the term finds this is the predominant usage (not to mention the usage used on the actual Federal site). Bashen 05:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When talking about the name of the Federal program, the "G" should be capitalized. When talking about one specific instance of a grant given to a student, the "g" is not capitalized. As in Bashen's example above, "Susan received a grant dispensed through the Federal Pell Grant program." If you follow this rule, there seems to be many capitalization errors in the article.24.78.109.120 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Not even close to NPOV. The whole section needs to be removed.
72.213.138.75 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent legislation section

message: Could we get a citation for this: "Due to high increases in the cost of post-secondary education as a result of government funding of post-secondary education"? Or maybe it should be deleted? There are many arguments for why the cost of higher education has gone up, this being just ONE of those opinions. Considering this article is NOT about the reasons for why the cost of a college education has gone up, maybe it would suffice to just say, "Due to high increases in the cost of post-secondary education" without the opinion. Either way, the paragraph needs citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.155.227 (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: I've removed the scams section twice, because it seems to consist only of a generic scam warning, with no actual data backing it up. Likewise, I've removed the link to pell-grants.org, as it doesn't clearly identify what organization, if any, is sponsoring it, and the Google ads are quite prominent at the top of the page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scam section 

message: I think it's important to point out that students who dual enroll in college and highschool (DUAL, not JOINT enrollment) do not receive Pell Grant, as they have not yet graduated from high school. I was cheated out of two years of Pell Grant because I thought it would be a good idea to go to college early. I cannot add this section, because I'm clearly biased and bitter about the entire subject. 70.33.118.55 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual Enrollment 

message: The GAO report cited does not use the term illegal. Describing the activities as illegal, regardless of what the USC says, is improper synthesis. See WP:SYNTHESIS. WP wants verification, not user conclusions. --S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAO report 

message: According to my financial advisor congress had approved some form aid, which is why I was able to get funding for my Summer semester. This means since April 6th they have passed something. Since word of mouth is not a reputable source, can someone find a article about what has happened since then? In fact, I'll go look for one now.FusionChamber (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update the recent legislation part. 

message: The first sentence says it provides money for students who need it.  But the eligibility section doesn't seem to say any-thing about how "who needs it" is defined.Kdammers (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pell Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930045657/http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/documents/files/FundingCareerPathways_Pell.pdf to http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/documents/files/FundingCareerPathways_Pell.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is a basic principle of economics that a government subsidy inflates costs over time - whether medical subsidies, rent subsidies, or education subsidies. The article as written give no indication of the massive inflation of higher education costs (tuition fees) caused by Pell Grants and other subsidies (such as government student loans), over many years and decades.2A02:C7F:96F6:5300:5CB:1188:C503:D65E (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pell Grant has massively inflated College Tuition fees over decades - but there is no mention of this in the article. 

message: The text says that Pell grants don't have to be paid back (which makes sense since they are called 'grants' rather than 'loans.'  Then it says "In August 2022, President Biden announced that up to $20,000 of debt would be canceled for Pell Grant recipients." On the face of it, it looks contradictory.  Is the crux in the word "recipients"? -- Does it mean that students who had Pell Grants and a Federal loan will have their loan (up to $20,000) canceled? Kdammers (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loan forgiveness