The Great TOPS Debate

Woodstein: Good evening, Mr. Bernwood.

As you’re no doubt aware, the Louisiana Budget Project recently recommended that TOPS requirements be toughened, making the program more merit-based. The Project argued that money should be going towards more need-based scholarships, because the state is “wasting money” on higher education for wealthier students.

It’s not a new complaint; the ever-cheery LSU System President John Lombardi has famously complained that “he sees too many nice cars out in the parking lot” for this many students to have the scholarship. Lombardi has often argued that merit-based scholarships would be more efficient for the state.

What’s your opinion on this? Should the state toughen the requirements and use the money it saves for more need-based scholarships? Are there too many rich kids driving their Cadillacs to school for their free ride?

Bernwood: What I think is not necessarily important here. What legislators see as the purpose of the TOPS program is important. The program in its current form is defined as a merit-based program. The purpose is said to be to keep the best and brightest Louisiana students going to school in the state.

But the requirements of the program make it seem more of a state-funded entitlement program than merit program.

To receive benefits from TOPS, a high school student must graduate with a 2.5 GPA — equivalent to a C average — and a 20 on the ACT. These are hardly tough standards, so the program not only benefits those select few who do excel academically, but also the much more abundant average student.

Woodstein: I’ll certainly admit that a 2.5 GPA and a 20 on the ACT aren’t the most stringent requirements for academic achievement. But at some point you have to try to determine just how stringent those requirements are.

Does the state benefit from only giving the highest-achieving students a chance at college? I wouldn’t say so. The state doesn’t just benefit from having its 4.0s and 33 ACT scores in the state -- it benefits from keeping its 3.0s and 25s. And, yes, it even benefits from keeping its its 20s and 2.5s in as well.

Bernwood: So if TOPS is a merit program, why not just award those who are meritorious? The state may benefit a bit from having less than brilliant students stay in Louisiana, but at what cost?

I’m not sure how much you read the news, Mr. Woodstein, but perhaps you have noticed Louisiana is in quite the monetary mire. You should also consider that tuition has increased for years on the trot and is set to increase sharply over the next six years.

In such a time, the question becomes how much does the Louisiana taxpayer want to pay for a mediocre student’s education? What should be the standard of merit when even the University’s state appropriations are decreasing?

What does one do if faced with a budget crisis? If you are Bobby Jindal, you cut things. This means having priorities and finding things or people that can survive without money.

According to this report, nearly 40 percent of students with TOPS have families that make more than $100,000 a year. Surely the average taxpayer would like to see a student who is both average academically and well-off financially fend for themselves when other vital state services are at risk.

Last year, the TOPS program cost the state a little more than $130 million. I understand that is but a fraction of the overall budget deficit, but in desperate times one must prioritize.

Woodstein: But it’s also important to remember that just because a student gets TOPS doesn’t mean they get to pick their university. LSU, for example requires a 3.0 and an ACT of 22. So students who barely qualify to get TOPS qualify to attend only the less-prestigious -- and less expensive Universities. They (theoretically) end up at the places they belong, so the state pays for the value of the student.

Additionally, it’s important to remember that TOPS is tiered; a student with a 20 doesn’t get the same rewards as a student who gets a 30. So TOPS has built in mechanisms to reward students for higher achievement.

Finally, we need to remember that keeping students in state for higher education generally means keeping better-educated workers in the state.

So I don’t think it’s fair to say TOPS is shoveling out cash to people who don’t deserve it. TOPS pays for the state’s young people to get an education -- that seems like a government investment that isn’t just charitable, it’s economically smart in the long-term.

Bernwood: It seems we will have to agree to disagree and let state legislators hash out this debate once again this spring.