October 25, 2007
-
Education and Financial Aid
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that he wants to “link the amount of financial aid college students get to the kind of jobs they pursue after graduation.”
He didn’t give examples but it may include giving more money to future doctors, teachers and social workers than say an art or business major.
He said, “I like the idea of linking the level of support that we’re able to provide to young people going to college to the contributions they’re going to make to our society.” Here is the link: Link
Do you think financial aid for college should be based on how much the future student would contribute to society?
Comments (100)
I don’t know about this…its kind of a weird idea…and not very fair to some people who don’t have money as is…though I have to admit, I already see some of that at BYU….=
i think that’s a bit retarded, really.
I’d rather they just increase the wages of teachers and social workers.
that seems really stupid… who knows what they want to do when they enter college. and does that mean if i drop out of pre-med, my financial aid goes up?
No, that’s kind of retarded.
I think the major problem I have with this is actually that…college costs the same for everyone. They don’t let me pay less for college, just because I am a music major….I would still end up paying more for school then those who can potentially make more than me…shouldn’t they be giving scholarships to those who won’t be making as much?
No, but really. If he really thinks this..then they need to figure out a way to make college for “not as supportive jobs” cheaper.
so being a teacher or doctor is more of a contribution to society than an artist or musician? whose to say which one is more of a contribution? and most people don’t know what they’re going to be when they start college anyway. bad idea.
Actually, no. I think it should be based on how much that student can pay for the education (need) or perhaps even on how much that student is likely to earn in the future or how badly needed that profession is (so maybe more aid for a future social worker, teacher or nurse than for a future banker/doctor). College is becoming almost prohibitively expensive however, and I think it should be made accessible to eveyone regardless of what training they go in for.
and i agree with bokgwai
That sounds like it would be hard to enforce. Because you can say I’m gonna be a doctor or I’m gonna be a teacher but that doesn’t mean anything until you go out and get that job. I think there would be too much red tape involved to make that work the way he wants it to.
sounds like a good idea.
Yikes! I don’t like that plan at all!
That is a dumb idea. Who decides how much a person contributes to society? One could make a case that truck drivers are the most important members of society but one could also make a case that garbage men are some of the most important members of society and that is just in addition too the traditionally held ideas of doctors and teachers. That being said I would not include social workers in the most valuable list since in my opinion they contribute nothing but mayhem, idiocy and hatred to society, the same goes for psychologists. Just so people know my mom and sister are both social workers.
Thats dumb, cause whatever financial aid they get (because they are loans) will have to be paid back.
unless a miracle happens, most people in college have to use loans – they would know this if they seperated loans from grants and scholarships not being paid back with intrests – but colleges and universities keep them together and claim 93% have “full” financial aid, which I think mostly is LOAN money and not school provided grant snand scholarships.
Daniel (doubledb)
I don’t like it. It really needs to be need based. Financial aid is for the people who cannot pay for their schooling and I do not believe that the career one is going into should dictate if someone gets more financial aid or not. That’s what scholarships are for. If someone wants to give more money to people going into a certain career than start a scholarship fund or a fellowship. Also, many people now will get a degree in something and as soon as they are finished realize that is not what they want to do and then they switch careers. I just think this is a bad idea.
I agree, besides knowing the way Government works. The government would review my degree program and cut my aid because I am only studying to be a minister. The ACLU would find out that I am using my now lower but still exsisting pell grant money to become a minister and sue the government for seperation of Church and state and then I would be getting $0. i think I will pass.
I think its ridiculous. It’ll pressure kids in high school and in middle school to pick majors way before they need to, and parents would force their kids to pick a major based on how much money they do or don’t have to pay, not based on the interests on the child.
Ryc: that’s the thing, Jerry is amazing. He IS our Superman!!
Nope. Financial aid should be based on a student’s current socioeconomic status. I’m not saying the current method of assigning financial aid is unflawed, but it’s, at least, the right concept.
no way. it would mean more people being unhappy with their choices in college, because their parents will have forced them to pick a major that will get them the most money. i don’t like romney. this will just add to the list of reasons
Really, really bad idea. In a couple of generations, there would be no more art, dance or music departments and soon we’d be in a modern Dark Age. Renaissance means rebirth and the era that bears that title was so named, and was great, because of the rebirth of the arts. I haven’t decided who I’m going to vote for yet, but if this is the type of hair-brained ideas Mitt Romney is contributing, he won’t have my vote.
Oh my word! How scary is this??? How in the world would he know WHO would contribute to society or not??
i think that is a terrible idea. how can they calculate how much someone will contribute to society? just because they’re going for engineering or teaching doesn’t mean they’ll be motivated enough to put the degree to good use.
RYC: That makes two of us.
Sounds like a great policy consideration. Certainly, it can’t be the only or the primary factor in the distribution of grant money. With everything else held the same, wouldn’t it make sense to have more return for the money?
I know there is academics for educations sake– the whole purity of the ivory tower thing. But money comes from real world sources, and must thusly weigh real world concequences.
RYC: You forgot to leave tribute.
This makes sense insofaras if there is a shortage of a particular trade, the government can give out incentives to people who will attempt to fill in the gap. But unqualified promises for votes that will not materialize is poppycock.
Someone wanting to become a doctor is going to have to go to school longer…so in that sense…they will need more financial aid.
I don’t know how to answer this. I get free college.
This has to be one of the worst ideas I have ever heard come out of a politicans mouth. Long story short, if they want to help people go to college, they should force all states to adopt the lottery and then if people want to go to college and they keep a certain GPA irregardless of whether they are fresh out of high school or 50 years old, then they can go to school!
How can you possibly determine that?? I mean, some people just soar in college where they fell on their faces in high school, and vice versa. I’ve seen it happen over and over!
RYC: Thank you!! I am very happy.
saintvi
Really, really bad idea. In a couple of generations, there would be no more art, dance or music departments and soon we’d be in a modern Dark Age. Renaissance means rebirth and the era that bears that title was so named, and was great, because of the rebirth of the arts. I haven’t decided who I’m going to vote for yet, but if this is the type of hair-brained ideas Mitt Romney is contributing, he won’t have my vote.
Man, that’s a bad slippery slope argument if I’ve ever heard of one. Let’s take Romeny’s idea and apply it to policy-making in general. If you had 5 million dollars, do you think most people would rather see that money be spent on arts & music endowments or on cancer research through NIH grants? Music is great, but weighed against the potential of new biomedical therapies, it fades quickly into the background.
The same spirit applies here with scholarships. albeit, on a smaller scale and more indirectly. Still, it has to be a consideration when determining the distribution of scholarships.
Only if you want the government to dictate the distribution of careers in the U.S. Leave that up to civic societies, and other private groups that want to encourage people into persuing careers in any particular “future”.
Any manipulation by the government is be better served lowering the cost of tuition. Rather than spending more tax-payer monies to fund the rising cost of education.
I really don’t know why I’m always against the crowd on these topics. =(
Huginn, your logic isn’t that sound either. There is a big percentage of students that transfer out of engineering and science programs. Out of those that do finish, few of them pursue an advanced degree that is now needed to generate substantial ideas that positively impact society.
Well the idea sounds nice but I don’t how exactly they plan on figuring out who is the great contribution to society. Money will still be wasted because people might change. And when money’s involved you know the pressure is on.
At first I was getting ready for this to be like the newslink that wanted to tie tuition to future income… but to give extra help to fields that will actually provide benefits to society (like teaching and social work) sounds kinda cool to me. There’s enough different ways to get financial aid, that it seems taking your future field into consideration might not be a terrible thing to try.
As an aside, the Economist recently had a fascinating article about how we could improve US school systems, mainly by making teaching certification harder and therefore seem more prestigious, making the career itself more prestigious (while at the same time, through the more rigorous training, weeding out more bad teachers). It’s in the same Economist edition (oct 20-26?) as the abortion link I recently talked about. I’ve been meaning to blog about it, too, but haven’t gotten around to it yet. Thought you might find it interesting, though, if you get a chance to read it.
well based one the fact that it would help me out… i say its great. besides these are the jobs that need people.
the best thing u can do is help other people. so it would be great to get something back in return.
Tzaddick
Huginn, your logic isn’t that sound either. There is a big percentage of students that transfer out of engineering and science programs. Out of those that do finish, few of them pursue an advanced degree that is now needed to generate substantial ideas that positively impact society.
Rather than attacking what I’ve never claimed (and I don’t see how they’re implicit to my statemtns, either), you should realize how stupid your argument is.
The standard of judgement of policy making is net benifits. Weighed against not implementing the policy or weighed against alternatives, does the policy, on a whole, lead to a better tomorrow? You’re playing with dimes and nickles when the discussion is framed on the scale of scores of dolars.
On face, you are correct; but your analysis on the merits of the policy are way off. For whatever reason, many individuals do transfer out of engineering and science programs. Though, the fact of the matter is that we need only a small percentage staying for the benifits of the policy to carry through. Sure, spending money on 100 extra engineers may only yield 20 good engineers in the long run (arbitrary figures, but seem ball-park realistic-right?); but this is much better than yield no engineers without the policy. 20 economy benifiting engineers is better than 0 economy benifiting engineers.
I am not politically inclined, however, I do use my brain in reasoning. Would you want to put your money in a bank which provides…let’s say at 3% yearly interest…or at another bank which will give you 5.5% per annual, compounded daily? However, Mr. Romney’s suggestion, which is dealing with PEOPLE, would only be effective in an ideal world. Just think of the ramifications of it…only the erudit professionals would/could benefit, while those “deemed” less important would abandon their lesser goals, eventually. This “idea” erects barriers and walls of a serious prejudicial kind…and don’t we have enough govermental oriented blockades?
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. Patrick Henry
Ms. Grapies
Just think of the ramifications of it…only the erudit professionals would/could benefit, while those “deemed” less important would abandon their lesser goals, eventually. This “idea” erects barriers and walls of a serious prejudicial kind…and don’t we have enough govermental oriented blockades?
With a facist implementation of Romney’s idea, I would buy this argument. Practically, however, practical future contributions of majors will be only one of many factors in the decision of college grant distribution. And in the long run, such a plan would only lead to a bias in scholarship commitment. Say, for instance, if the ratio os 50/50 now between science and art history, a skew of 60/40 with the plan wouldn’t be the end of the world!?
In congress, funding decisions are made everyday. Putting money in NASA or not? Raise the anual contribution to the National Instutite of Health (federal funding for biomedical research) or not? And usually, we do see a bias in funding towards project and policies with positive real world benifits. The impacts of a bias in grant distribution would only mirror what’s going on with any other federal funding decision.
Hmmmmm. I don’t think this personally makes sense. Graduates who become doctors or other high class professions make more money in the end, thus enabling them to get out of debt way faster than an art student or whatever else. Sounds like a “Rich get richer, poor get poorer” idea if you dig deep into it.
-David
And this is why I cannot stand Romney. As someone persuing the dramatic arts, I am appalled.
NO!
Emphasize class differences, anyone?
nah.. who do you know that doesn’t flip flop majors and there have always been exceptions to the concept that occupations like medical fields are more contributing to society than someone in an artistic profession… after all, with out artistically minded people hospitals would be far less inviting to patients- every hospital i’ve ever been to has a significant amount of art about the premises that serve as areas for peace and reflection and destressers- all of which help in the recovery of patients… and that’s just one example off the top of my head…
Well, then, I’d be screwed. I wouldn’t get nearly enough financial aid to finish my degree in ministry. So, even though my degree is important because it’s what I’m being called to do, Mitt would consider it not important and therefore I wouldn’t get enough to finish. Gee. Thanks. How about providing enough funds, then offering deals on the government helping you pay them down afterward. Like there is a program for teachers working in low income schools. My dh has always worked in low income schools and can’t imagine any other way…so because he has chosen that, it would be nice to have some of his loans forgiven. And so on and so forth.
Although, some of the jobs listed that would be supported are poorer income earners (teachers especially). Maybe it isn’t a bad idea, but I’m thinking instead of just having all that aid under the broad spectrum of “financial aid” instead the government should just offer scholarships to those thinking about those professions. However, a college student can also change his major at the drop of a hat, so who knows.
-David
Huggin: As I prefaced my statement…I am not politically inclined. But thanks for the input…I can still learn.
no, no, no. just because you major in one thing does NOT mean youll make a positive contribution to society… and just because you major in something else also does NOT mean that you wont have a great impact on society… you cant predict the future… try again buddy
No, you’re kinda betting on the future, instead of current situation.
However, if it does get passed I’ll just SAY I’ll be an amazing brain surgeon who discovers the cure for Alzheimer’s. So give me lots of money!
Wow…..not sure that I like that…. sure has that Mormon sound to it though…
Um.. is that a sarcastic question??
No..
We don’t need money to be the motivating factor in encouraging kids to pursue a career in engineering. It needs to be an internal attitude and drive that is fostered at home and by the entire nation.
Much like the Space Race in the 1960s that cause legislators to emphasized STEM studies by funding programs from childhood education through the postgraduate level. People from this era were motivated by fascination and passion.
orangefiend
i think that is a terrible idea. how can they calculate how much someone will contribute to society? just because they’re going for engineering or teaching doesn’t mean they’ll be motivated enough to put the degree to good use.
I would agree with you. I’ve seen plenty of horrible doctors and engineers in training throughout my years in college. However, the frequency of laziness and underachievement in the sciences and engineering is no different than any other field. The students in the more practical majors are no more desreving, no more poor, and no more wretched than the students in any other major.
With everything being the same, the tie-breaker then would be the practicality of their major. On the whole, scientist and engineers contribute more towards economic growth than say artists and muscisans. Then this is the tipping point, and I would say, fair basis in slight biases in college grant distribution.
Amazing how many people see only the emotional side of the problem rather than the logical.
Well…. not really, but it makes for a nice headline.
The real problem is that this smells like a different approach at Reaganomics. The proof will be when he starts slipping Lawyers and Business Majors into that list.
Course, this is all going off Hearsay, since I can’t open the damned link.
As a theatre major, that really bothers me. It’s a good thing I already got my diploma.
I don’t think a person’s major determines how much they will contribute to society. There is always a way to use your unique talents to help somebody.
Also, what about the person who switched his or her major 3 or 4 times over the course of their educational career?
Yes college is about training for a job, but even more it is about gaining an education and becoming a well round and informed person so you can be a beneficial member of a community.
no way! give financial aid based on need and/or achievment.
Mitt Romney is becoming a total fascist nazi.
Don’t any of these candidates remember their history lessons? Read up on pre-WWII, Hitler’s rise to power. What’s next? Enforced sterilization to not mess up the gene pool? Concentration camps for those who are deemed “unnecessary” to the nation?
Perhaps we should only allow those candidates to run for office that will do good for the country without going to war.
erykp
Amazing how many people see only the emotional side of the problem rather than the logical.
Ha, I would agree; and it’s natural. Based on our personal histories, we each particularily identify to a side or idea. Any art or history majory would immediately feel slighted by Romney’s suggestion. This immediate reaction would color their first thoughts of the subject, and the directions they proceed to think.
But more than that, my frustration with this issue is how damn myopically people think. There is so much focus on individual cases and unique scenarios. I don’t know why people don’t take the long-view on this, looking at the policy stochastically. Yes! There is always that special someone in some absolutely worthless major who amazingly and profoundly change the world. But hey, realize that the odds of that special someone emerging in that obscure or non-practical field is no greater than the great scientist or entrepenuer cropping up in their respective fields. So such “special individual” argument is a wash.
The difference-maker then would be the large-scale and time-average effects of particular majors and the professions they funnel into.
I know a lot of people who have jobs that do not pertain to their majors at all. For example, my mother double majored in theater and business and ended up teaching high school science. And my boyfriend majored in medieval history. He was an english teacher for a while, then a critical care tech at a hospital, and now is in med school. I think that our system for distributing financial aid- based on socioeconomic status and merit- is a good one. I don’t think you should punish people for not choosing a government sanctioned major, and I am intensly uncomfortable with the idea of the govornment deciding what majors contribute to society. For example, I am sure creative majors like art and literature would be frowned on under Romney’s system because they do not yeild high earning jobs with the consistency of say, a major in premed. However, art and literature definitely contribute to society!
His idea is shaky at best. We can’t predict how someone’s life will unfold based on their major. I know a lot of people who didn’t end up in the field their undergraduate degrees would suggest – and their contributions to society have been vast in proportion to their influence. A lot of the money the government gives in financial aid is expected back and with interest – so why not float that cash to students?
Without financial aid neither my parents, my sister, nor I would ever have attended college. I think Romney’s policy would be a disaster.
NO!
Most incoming freshmen don’t even know what they want to do with their lives… much less a major. Besides, that’s a really stupid way to judge scholarship money… if it was HIS money that HE was giving to college students, great – let him be an example. He has NO right to expend MY money that way.
Ron Paul 2008!
Oh, and btw, I have two useful majors and a useful minor, so my reaction has nothing to do with feeling “slighted”.
I think it’s a horrible idea. We are already struggeling to get teachers and social workers (at least where I live). Why would we make the benefits of pursuing a financially lucrative career even MORE financially lucrative by lowering the cost of college for those kids? If anything, it should be the opposite. I think it should be need based, whether that is based on the need of the student or based on the need of society (ie, increase the financial aid for students pursuing careers that are in demand and of benefit to society as a whole).
This kind of furthers the stereotype that certain professions are better or more important than others. What if someone’s in college and they change thier major? What if someone wants to be a doctor but then changes thier mind and decides to go into business? Does that mean thier financial aid goes up? How can you percieve how much someone will contribute to society?
It’s almost akin to a meritocracy, perhaps…?
Jury’s still out on this one.
no. then everyone will decide to be doctors and there will be no financial aid left
thanks for the comments. .
however I’m not nice lol
Have a nice day.
To answer the ?, no I think it needs to be based on current income like is is now.
No, I really don’t like that. We had a related dicussion in my Psychology class. You can’t judge the worth of someone’s education high than another because everyone has the right to choose what they want to be and keep on learning (just not everyone has the ability). Everyone ahs different talents. Without financial aid I would not be able to go to college, my family doesn’t make enough, but what I want to do is so obscure that there’s no way there’d b special consideration for it. That’s essentially giving the GOV’t power to decide your future, because nowadays most people need a degree to get a job to support them; if you have to be a doctor or a teacher to get money for college, it’s that or nothing, and in my book that’s wrong.
Romney is grasping at straws.
No.
To be honest, I am completely undecided about how I feel about this subject.
I do think individual financial need should be the first consideration and then perhaps subject pursued. Or offering incentives for those that commit while in college to participate in Teach America or something.
No, because that’s subjective. Who says artists contribute less than doctors? Go live in an artless, musicless society (good luck finding one- they don’t exist) and tell me it’s not a contribution.
Sketchy.
that is asinine! most students change majors multiple times, would their funding then change? absolutely asinine and i dont’ even get financial aide! also undergrad work really is all equal on what is possible after graduation the only place i could possible see this working is for grad funding. in which case most jobs obtained after the grad level cannot be determined in advance. this is one more reason why i will not be chosing to research the candidacy of this individual!
hello insanity
No, because that’s subjective. Who says artists contribute less than doctors? Go live in an artless, musicless society (good luck finding one- they don’t exist) and tell me it’s not a contribution.
With a standard with measureable factors, relative contributions can indeed be determined. A measuring stick like economic output or economic contribution can be determined.
I don’t think it’s too controversial a statement to say that growth of the engineering sector would lead to a greater boost in economic output than an artistic flourish.
FreakSaphhic
No, I really don’t like that. We had a related dicussion in my Psychology class. You can’t judge the worth of someone’s education high than another because everyone has the right to choose what they want to be and keep on learning
Granted, but that’s not of discussion here. Every job effects our society differently– making its own unique contributions. If we were to pick a particular contribution then– say econmc output– then there would be careers that contribute more richly or diversely than others.
What the major-specific finaical aid does is to nudge people towards careers that would be more benifical to the economy in the long-run. That is not to say, that people should jump boats superficailly; but that there are always people on the fence. And this extra incentive would make a real difference with these people. Additioanlly, major-specific grants would help financially handicapped students to focus and excel in their education.
No, because you never know what job you’ll get. All you’ll have is a degree. But really, Is it really fair for me to receive little financial aid, coming from a poor home, for going to college to be a computer programmer when my rich friend who’s going for anesthesiology gets a ton of aid? I don’t think so.
I also don’t know how you can weigh how much someone “contributes to society” on what job they have. Certainly a doctor contributes more than a fry cook, but fry cooks don’t go to college. And a college graduate with a degree could very well wind up as a fry cook. In the end, it’s a chain: The doctor needs someone to manufacture medical supplies. The medical supply company needs someone to program and run their computers to make the products. The computer company needs someone to manufacture hardware. The hardware company needs someone to manufacture the parts. So you could look at a machine worker in a factory and say he isn’t contributing to society as much as a doctor, but the doctor relies on the machinist to be a doctor.
that’s a hard topic…but it think helping people who are actually in school longer for their major [lawyers, docs] should maybe get more financial aid because they’ll wind up paying more…
Hell to the yes!
I’m becoming a teacher and my financial aid is really ridiculous, while I know loser art majors getting a free ride so that they can one day end up on welfare because nobody “gets” them.
Teachers need help. Every aspiring teacher I’ve met is going broke and drowning in debt.
I think they should just lower the college tuition.
Heck no. This is just another weird idea that will cost us money in the long run, if for no other reason than it isn’t possible to know what careers a student my pursue. They can say anything they want, but nothing will or can stop them from changing their minds. And then there’s the drop outs.
Sounds good to me, but that’s because I’m going into pharmaceuticals and I have no money.
i think loan amounts should be based on the profession’s income. So many students take out too many loans and their professional income is not enough to make the payments
hmmm…that would mean me getting more money towards my education and future career as an english teacher. i wouldnt mind…
College should be like Public schools- FREE
I have just gone thru something with my daughters Federal Grant- that just turns my stomach, The Govt. really sucks when it comes to helping out with the cost of college. The first year of college my daughter filled out all her forms under her Dads House hold, when she graduated Highschool she moved in with me- so even tho she dorms at college she lives with me, so second year comes around- I fill out the forms with her- she is now a member of our household- she then qualified for even more grant money- then the college financial aid dept asked to check out our Tax returns, so what the heck – I hand them over – So Because my husband- My daughters Step Dad( who is not in any way related to her)His parents have a trust fund, its theirs to do what ever with- but if they Die, My husband gets the money- because of this they – denied my Daughter her Grant for now on, if she stays living under my roof. A trust that my husband has No control of that is Not an asset of his- Is considered a Net asset to the Higher education Student Assistance Authority in Trenton NJ.
Unbelieveable !
Yuck. That would imply that some degrees and careers do not contribute to the daily goings on in our nation. That is a bold and rather ballsy implication. No thanks.
This will not work. I would love more aid (psychology major) but I worry about how many people will mark “pre-med” on their major choice for the first two years followed by a quick jump to music major to finish off.
No because there is no way to determine that. College students today change thier majors constantly. I know because I’ve already done it twice. I went from Pre-Med, to Chemistry, to now Philosophy and possibly Law school. I know its a big change, but it just illustrates how undecided people are about thier futures.
hm tough – kinda reminds me of military incentives. more aid to doctors, engineers, etc in exchange for years of service…
No. I don’t think there is any way to predict societal impact, and little chance that we would be able to agree on what should count. Government-provided financial aid should be awarded in accordance with financial need and academic ability.
That’s absurd.
How on earth can you predict a future contribution to society! Stupid, stupid, stupid!
I don’t think the government should pay for people’s college education in the first place. If they want to help, they can cut 80% of their bloated budget (or more) and drop all of the crap they’re doing that isn’t their job.
However, if they are going to give money to people, it should consider need and their previous academic record (this is a both, not an either/or).
I feel it should be need-based – most majors cost the same, but do not pay the same after graduation – teachers pay way lower than many other professions – nursing, for example. Degrees that take longer – medical, law, etc – often pay better afterwards, but cost more, over more time. Advanced degrees in teaching do not equal that much more money in many places, but cost the same as advanced degrees in other areas. All of these I have mentioned benefit society, but they are not on equal par, pay-wise. Who do we reward the most – those who get paid more after graduation, or those who will get paid less? There are plenty of talented people seeking degrees that cannot afford it, either way.
That’s just stupid. It’s like saying that if you’re not a doctor, you’re no good to our society.
Maybe we shouldn’t give financial support to future politicians
who can really judge which majors contribute more to society?
No. I know many people that thought they were going to teach or be a doctor and aren’t. They are doing something totally different or nothing at all.
that’s the dumbest idea i’ve ever heard. it’s completely unfair. but it would encourage more doctors and emgineers, which our country desperately needs. Bu as someone who is going in to an art-type field i wouldn’t vote for him.But then again, he’s a republican, he’s not going to win anyway.
absolutely not
No, because anything can happen in the future.