> It's not a foundation to help, it's a foundation to fund elitism.
Dude… what?
Dude… what?
Ideally you'd do both, I'd hope, just because we haven't solved world hungry doesn't mean scientific research is a waste of time and money. Don't get me wrong, it's ridiculous that we haven't solved world hunger, but we can also both support people with a social safety net and also support education.
Still waiting on that social safety net though.
There are whole countries where higher education is provided to all interested residents, e.g., Finland, Norway, right?
I’d agree we should do both -- I don’t actually see a distinction between solving hunger and supporting education, they’re two sides of the same coin.
Why? You just engaged in elitism, by putting LGBTQ above everyone else.
And then I stated the paradox you are attempting to I assume explain to me?
There's no need to pretend there's an argument.
> their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements.
I fit your description. My daughter applied for well over 100 independent scholarships. She received zero. Her peers had about the same success rate.
Anyone whose parents earn above poverty wages will find it exceedingly difficult to qualify for scholarships, because the vast majority are need based and hugely oversubscribed.
Sure, the top top tier of valedictorians and overachievers may get those elusive full ride or performance-based scholarships, but that is a tiny minority and far from the "generic scholarship requirements."
If you disagree, I suggest you fill out the FAFSA application to understand the depth of financial analysis done on parents and students. Though designed for federal financial aid, many schools and scholarship programs also use it to screen for financial need.