Beginning this semester, the state revised rules making it harder for college students to receive food assistance, removing 30,000 from the roles.
It can be incredibly frustrating when others who have never been in someone else’s position steadfastly refuse to be empathetic and attempt to see the world through another’s eyes. Many examples can be found with online comments of the Associated Press’ article on Michigan’s new food stamp cuts for college students.
Among cries of “lazy inheritance brats,” “children who want everything handed to them” and “perpetual freeloaders” are a few people who seem to really understand what it is like to do well in college and pursue a career while eating regularly.
It seems to be a common misconception among older generations that current college students either always have their way paid by their family, are independently rich or do not deserve to go to college unless they can afford the tuition and living expenses by working first. This seems like a bit of a contradiction, considering a full-time student takes at least 12 credit hours per semester, while those wishing to graduate in four years with a bachelor’s normally take around 16.
Ironically, the same people who rail against welfare benefits for college students seem to side with poor families living continually on welfare, which is often the only option for those who might never get a step up due to lack of education.
Instead of becoming irate about helping people who plan on getting salaries that exceed minimum wage, supporting them should be encouraged. By allowing independent students who file their own taxes and pay their way through school by way of loans, grants, scholarships and savings to receive food benefits, the community profits in numerable ways.
By allowing college students to receive a bridge card, local supermarkets profit and the economy is stimulated. When grocery stores are taking in money, they can afford to give out coupons or discounts. Also, if most college students who receive the bridge card go on to receive a degree and find a stable, well-paying job, this would make it unnecessary as well as impossible for them to continue to accept food benefits.
For those who never attend college and juggle their minimum-wage jobs while raising a family and possibly paying for daycare, there are few options for the cycle to end. They must continuously rely on welfare, as would people who cannot afford college because they are not receiving welfare benefits.
This is not to say students who are claimed on taxes by their guardians should be counted among this population, but independent students who are responsible for paying their way should be given this opportunity.
Many argue students should work toward scholarships and part-time jobs, but this is not always possible or conducive to doing well in college. Obviously, scholarships are not copious, or they would not be so prestigious. Values of scholarships also vary, making it difficult to win an award that pays for all or most of tuition.
For students who cannot seem to pay for their own food, it seems ludicrous that they are expected to get a job without a car. On-campus jobs are limited and normally reserved for students with work-study.
Just because some students do not qualify for financial aid due to their family’s income does not mean they are receiving outside help; in fact, some students cannot even find a co-signer and have very limited funds. $10,000 per year tuition is considered low-end today, and even that can seem insurmountable when coupled with living expenses.
Instead of banning college students from using a bridge card, government officials should be more thorough in surveying those who receive benefits to avoid fraud or abuse. This “easy way out” is truly unreasonable and can be managed in a much more efficient way.
While it is true students who receive funding from their families should not be considered for food benefits, independent students should be counted as all other adults when being evaluated for the bridge card. College students must focus on their studies to succeed and receive their degree, and banning them from food assistance only generates more poor families that must rely continually on welfare benefits.