Rather, three major modalities are implemented. These are work-study, loans, and grant. The benefit is that it expands the number of beneficiaries as it addresses different areas of educational funding needs. On a yearly basis, an amount of $5.35 billion is said to be spent in this regard. The new scheme comes to replace what was known as Robin Hood, and emerges with the benefit of allowing for better equitability, less divisiveness and better funding, all of which can be said to be the strength of the new scheme. Figure 1 below shows how different students and institutions have made use of the funding scheme.
Unlike Texas where the funding scheme is directly focused on the student spending to the tune of $5.35 billion, the scheme in New York looks more into the generation and issuance of grants to educational institutions. What this means is that even though this money is non-repayable, it must be contested for by interested educational institutions through grant writing (NYSED, 2014). Here, the strength that can be seen of the state funding scheme used in New York is that it allows for competitiveness among institutions, where more deserving institutions that can justify their course through the grant writing receive more. Comparing this to what prevails in Texas, however, a major loophole can be found when it comes to equitable distribution of the national cake. This is because through no fault of their own, there will be students who will be denied necessary state funding since their institutions cannot convince state authorities as to why their institutions should receive grants. It must be noted that students have both direct and indirect benefits from state funds, including the savings made by parents on the payment of fees.
Alabama, on the other hand, has a very unique state funding scheme that is meant purposely for college students (Alabama Commission on Higher Education, 2013). Unlike the first two strategies discussed, this