Tuiition Assitance Cost Sharing?

1SG Steven Stankovich — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 15:56:31 -0500

Effective immediately, the Coast Guard will fund 75 percent of tuition costs up to $187.50 per credit hour, with a $2,250 cap, through Sept. 30, 2014. Coast Guardsmen will be responsible for any costs beyond those limits.

Thoughts?

Response by SFC James Baber made Dec 13 at 2013 7:58 AM

SFC James Baber — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:58:45 -0500

I say no, yes it is a privilege and not a right, but if you promised it in a contract it needs to be honored, they expect us to honor everything we signed on for, but the powers that be (Congress) keep taking those contractual privileges/rights away more and more. When I signed my original contract in the early 80s I was guaranteed lifetime medical for me if I served 20 years, but that all changed in the 90s for all of us, but I was still required to honor my contract at the time.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2013 12:39 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:39:39 -0500

I can't say that I agree with tuition sharing. Obviously I'd rather not have to pay anything but these days that isn't really realistic or with our budget, feasible. This is very similar to policies that were in effect when I joined the Army in '98. The Army paid 75% and I paid everything else. i don't remember what the cap was at that time. I was told by the people at the Ed-center back then that the GI bill could be used to offset the cost for my portion of the TA though. I'm not sure, from what you state, if that is the case here.

Response by SFC Rocky Gannon made Dec 15 at 2013 8:31 AM

SFC Rocky Gannon — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:31:04 -0500

CSM Maynard If you look at the contract it talks about annex A and B and C if you have one. That is where the GI Bill, ACF, SLRP, Cash bonuses are placed. The contract says all other things promised are in those annexes, which was different paces back in the day, however now it is just two, the GI Bill and a one dynamic annex which contains anything else (usually 10 pages or so) that you will be getting from your enlistment. TA was never in a contract, it has always been a benefit of being in not a guarantee.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Dec 15 at 2013 8:46 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:46:01 -0500

What's old is new again....prior to 9/11, TA was 75%, I used it in the early '90s and then again after 9/11 when it was at 100%.....might hurt the individual SM a little, but those that are serious about startting or finishing a degree will utilize it.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2013 8:52 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:52:27 -0500

I don't like the idea of cost sharing because I think it dissuades junior enlisted soldiers from pursuing a degree. It's very easy to get a soldier interested in education when you show them that it is a free benefit being provided to them but when you tell them that they must now pay for these classes that they will have to somehow fit into their off-duty time I think you're going to find much lower enrollment numbers. Even as a write this I realize that the intent is that the self motivators advance beyond their peers, but I just don't see that as an appropriate solution for soldiers. Take in mind a young PV2-PFC, possibly married with a child or two. He/She may already be financially burdened, if you take away that benefit of free education, they may abandon the thought all together as a pipe dream. The latest ALARACT already reduces Tuition Assistance from $4500 a year to $4000 paying just $250 per credit hour. $250 will suffice for most undergraduate degrees since most colleges will reduced their tuition to military to fit this. Anyone who has started pursuing a Graduate level degree has already found that you are going to do some cost sharing since $250 per credit hour won't cover any Grad degree I know of. But typically your senior leaders are pursuing these degrees and have the financial means to do so. I would argue to prevent the college benefits to the soldiers from being reduced any further.http://langea.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ALARACT-3172013-FY14-Tuition-Assistance-Policy.pdf

Response by SFC Stephen Hester made Dec 15 at 2013 5:05 PM

SFC Stephen Hester — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 17:05:03 -0500

TA is a nice perk but it's not a guaranteed benefit. Getting ANY employer to spring for 75% of the cost of a college degree is a big deal these days so for college-minded service members it's still a great program. When TA is combined with the post-9/11 GI Bill, today's troops have a level of funding that past generations never dreamed of. 

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2014 2:48 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:48:42 -0500

Perhaps the military services should do away with blanket TA altogether. How much money would be saved if the Army required the use of the GI Bill if you wanted to attend school while on active duty? What if they only gave TA to cover any costs not covered by the GI Bill, towards the completion of a degree? There is also a lot of double dipping happening with Soldiers getting 100% TA, and somehow getting cash money through a Pell Grant. To me this is a huge case of waste, fraud and abuse..If you are getting free tuition, you shouldn't be depleting Pell Grant funds.

Response by CMC Robert Young made Jan 7 at 2014 3:14 PM

CMC Robert Young — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:14:34 -0500

Anything is better than nothing. I used T/A, CG Foundation grants, and Vander Putten Scholarships as an E7 working on my first masters. Spreading my degree out over two years to stay under the annual $4500 cap allowed me to reduce my personal expenses for an MA to about $1200 total. Not a bad deal! My second master's cost ME $15,000 out of pocket with NO help from Uncle Sam's Confused Group.....a huge difference! All contributions to the "Master Chief's Student Loan Reduction Fund" are appreciated ;-)  As a beneficiary of Coast Guard T/A, I have only one observation. Was this something used as a recruiting tool for some who have entered our ranks? And if so, does reducing it now smack of another promise broken by the government to its service members? Something is better than nothing, but what did the government promise?