TOPS: Student maker or state budget breaker?

TOPS scholarships raise concerns as college tuition rises

Incoming LSU freshman Isaiah Alexander said he briefly considered going to college out of state, but ultimately decided to enroll in a Louisiana university to pursue a degree in business management — largely because of the TOPS scholarship.

“I would’ve gone to school either way, but TOPS was a big help to me,” Alexander, of Lake Charles, said during freshman orientation at the Baton Rouge campus.

Keeping promising students like the 18-year-old Alexander in Louisiana was one of the key goals for the program now called the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students. TOPS pays tuition and some fees for high school students who meet certain academic benchmarks and attend in-state schools.

Fourteen years after its inception, TOPS retains its status as what backers call “one of the most precious gifts” — and one of the most popular laws — that state legislators ever gave Louisiana residents. But increasing tuition at state schools, which drives up TOPS costs, has some legislators and experts grousing in private even as they shy away from addressing the issue publicly.

State Rep. Patricia Smith, D-Baton Rouge, a member of the state House Education Committee, called TOPS an entitlement program that should be capped or scaled back for the sake of preserving the state’s overall higher education system, which has been hit with repeated budget cuts.

TOPS is advertised as a way to improve access to higher education and to add incentive to achievement. But some argue that its standards are too low and that the strain it puts on the state budget indirectly leads to program cuts at colleges.

TOPS is also criticized for a perceived lack of accountability — namely the lack of recourse to collect refunds from students who lose their TOPS awards. Students can lose their awards for poor grades, for failing to take the required number of credits per semester and for not maintaining continuous full-time enrollment.

Melanie Amrhein, executive director of the Louisiana Office of Student Financial Assistance, said 36 percent of the roughly 215,000 students awarded TOPS awards since its inception have lost it temporarily or permanently.

Supporters, including Louisiana House Education Committee Chairman Steve Carter, R-Baton Rouge, say TOPS should be left as is. Carter said the 60 percent graduation rate and the rise in TOPS recipients from about 18,000 students in 1998 to about 45,000 this year validates TOPS as a reward for high achievers and improves access to college.

Question of money

Barry Erwin, president of the Council for A Better Louisiana, a nonpartisan group that studies public policy issues, praises TOPS for helping high school students better prepare for college. But he also questions whether TOPS is sustainable in its current form.

The state House of Representatives Fiscal Division estimates TOPS will cost taxpayers $168 million in the current fiscal year. In five years, the program is expected to cost $233 million as colleges continue to raise tuition.

Erwin was a member of the 18-member Governance Commission created by the Legislature in 2011 to study higher education. Among the panel’s recommendations was capping the TOPS program at a set dollar figure. Another suggestion was separating the amount of money awarded from actual tuition charged and tying it to a more “appropriate” cost barometer, such as inflation or the Consumer Price Index.

Erwin said continued state budget cuts have caused Louisiana’s higher education system to spiral downward. The rising TOPS price tag plays a part in that, he said, as those costs indirectly lead to colleges having to cut academic programs.

“We’re cutting higher ed and having to raise tuition. In this year’s budget, part of the payment for TOPS came out of the higher ed appropriation. It seems we need to come to grips with this,” he said.

To balance state budgets, Jindal and the Legislature have cut more than $420 million from higher education since 2008, including $66 million in the fiscal year that started July 1. As state funding has declined, schools have increased tuition to make up the difference. Tuition hikes, in turn, cause the state to pay out more money in TOPS awards.

“It’s all coming from the same big pot of money,” Erwin said. “There are very few things in state government that are fully funded. If we’re funding TOPS fully, we’re cutting from something else.”

Other ideas floated by legislators as ways to get a handle on TOPS include requiring students to remain in the state for a certain amount of time after graduation, making students who lose TOPS pay back the money or increasing the standards required to get the award.

TOPS requires students to graduate from high school with at least a 2.5 grade-point average on a 4.0 scale in a core set of academic courses. Students also must score a 20 out of a possible 36 on the ACT standardized test or the equivalent on the SAT.

Is TOPS flawed?

Some national higher education watchers call TOPS a flawed program.

David Longanecker, president of Colorado’s Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, said the basic premise behind TOPS is to reward achievement and encourage students to stay in Louisiana. The problem, he said, is that most of the students who benefit from such programs would go to college regardless of whether they receive the scholarship.

“You’re really paying an awful lot to people who were already going to do something. And how many who are admitted to Harvard, Rice or Duke are really going to stay?” said Longanecker, who studied TOPS through his membership on the Louisiana Postsecondary Education Review Commission in 2009. PERC studied ways to streamline higher education in the state.

“Louisiana is a very poor state with not a lot of high achieving,” Longanecker said. “So you have a program going to higher-achieving students, and the most at-risk students don’t benefit. The research says you should focus on those who are at-risk, the people who, if you change the price of college, it will affect whether they go to college, not the ones who would go to college regardless of the cost.”

Longanecker compared TOPS’ seemingly unlimited funding to the state’s need-based GO Grants, which are capped at $1,000 per student.

“The GO Grants are very modest. It should be higher. There’s nothing wrong with merit-based awards …,” Longanecker said. “The real problem in America is not that students don’t go to college, but that they don’t complete college.”

Helping needy students get into college and then rewarding them for taking and completing rigorous coursework isn’t as politically popular but would be better policy for the state in the long run, he said.

“The superstars are going to college anyway. It’s the people on the margins who will fill the economic needs of the future. We need incentives for people to stay in college and get a degree. That’s where TOPS falls apart,” Longanecker said.

Georgia and Oregon models

Louisiana chose a model similar to Georgia’s financial aid system, which had a successful run until the state could no longer afford it, Longanecker said. The model used in Oregon — although not perfect — would have been a better choice, he said.

Until recently, any Georgia high school student with a B average could attend a four-year university for free as part of the HOPE Scholarship Program.

Tracy Ireland, vice president of Georgia’s Student Finance Commission, said the merit-based program is 100 percent funded by the state lottery.

“It was wildly successful at the start, but after a while, demand exceeded what the lottery could provide,” Ireland said.

The Georgia program’s success ultimately led to change, he said, as more people qualified for it while revenue in the state lottery remained relatively flat.

Last year, the Georgia Assembly adjusted the program so that HOPE award amounts are adjusted every year based on the funds available in the state’s lottery system — essentially capping the individual scholarship amounts on a yearly basis.

“No one was surprised Georgia had to redo the HOPE Scholarship,” Longanecker said. “They had to decouple it. It was tied to tuition, and now every year the projected amount it pays out is supposed to get smaller.”

Longanecker said Oregon’s model accomplishes more.

Di Saunders, director of communications for the Oregon University System, describes the need-based Oregon Opportunity Grant as using the “Shared Responsibility Model.”

The model uses a three-pronged approach, in which students contribute what they can based on a federal financial aid formula. The federal government adds a portion, and the state fills in the remainder, Saunders said.

“The Shared Responsibility Model works because students don’t get a free lunch. You want students to have some skin in the game,” she said.

But Saunders acknowledged that Oregon also had to re-work the system. She blamed it on the recession.

In the reconfigured system, Saunders said Oregon has set aside a pool of money for financial aid with every eligible student receiving the same amount. But the money is awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, so some students find themselves out of luck, she said.

“The shared concept is still out there, and we hope to get back to it, but the recession punched us in the face a little bit,” Saunders said.

Politically protected

Whether Louisiana legislators will take another look at TOPS is unclear.

The key to understanding the popularity of TOPS, according to the bill’s sponsor, former state Rep. Charles McDonald, is to look at what he called “the mess” of the state’s financial aid system before TOPS was adopted.

New Orleans oil man Pat Taylor came up with an early incarnation of TOPS in 1998 when he helped several New Orleans area students go to college. The students had maintained a B average and had taken college prep courses.

After that came the Tuition Assistance Plan adopted by the Legislature in 1989.

That plan promised free tuition at state colleges for high school students who earned a 2.5 grade-point average and scored an 18 on the ACT. Another requirement tied the scholarship to family income and the number of children in a household.

James Caillier, executive director of the Pat Taylor Foundation, called the plan “the best-spent money in Louisiana.”

Later came McDonald’s bill, the 1997 Louisiana Tuition Opportunity Program for Students — also called TOPS but later renamed after Taylor. The bill consolidated several tuition assistance plans, removed the family income limitations and allowed private colleges to participate.

“All those plans were confusing. No one knew which criteria they met or which one to apply for,” McDonald said. “I wrote the most comprehensive education bill this state had in 30 years, and it was merit-based. It had nothing to do with how much money your family had.”

Mike Foster, who as governor signed TOPS into law, said he’s against making any changes to it and called the program something Louisiana should be proud of.

“I don’t favor capping it or any means testing either. If you get a C average, you get your college paid for. There’s no excuse for any young person with any kind of get-up-and-go to not get a college education. I’m quite inflexible to messing with it.”

Foster called TOPS a gift to students like Brooke James, an LSU senior from his hometown of Franklin. James said she wouldn’t have been able to afford college without it.

James was on the Baton Rouge campus in early August helping out with freshman orientation. James said her sister Brittany didn’t get TOPS and was saddled with about $20,000 of debt when she graduated from Nicholls State University in Thibodaux.

Trying to rein in costs

State Rep. Joe Harrison, R-Napoleonville, has been one of the most outspoken TOPS critics in the Legislature. He has introduced five bills in five consecutive years seeking to trim costs. None made it very far.

Harrison said the state loses “millions every year” because students who lose their TOPS award or drop out of school don’t have to pay the money back.

“TOPS is not sustainable. We can’t continue with it as is because it’s not sustainable and there’s no accountability. People deserve to know where their money is going. Every other state has substantially reduced their programs except us. It’s the worst example of poor management in government,” Harrison said.

Harrison said many of his colleagues in the Legislature don’t want to take another look at TOPS because Gov. Bobby Jindal supports its current configuration.

“The administration won’t let my bills get out of committee,” Harrison said. “My colleagues go with what the administration tells them, unfortunately.”

Jindal declined to answer questions about TOPS, but his press office released a statement in his name that touted TOPS recipients’ superior graduation rates compared to nonrecipients.

“We are opposed to capping TOPS,” Jindal’s statement read in part. “We are open to strengthening the program’s academic standards that would help TOPS continue to fulfill its mission and better serve students.”

State Commissioner of Education Jim Purcell said he thinks there is only a remote chance the Legislature makes adjustments to TOPS. Instead, the state’s higher education governing body, the Board of Regents, could pursue a strategy to adjust the state’s need-based GO Grant program to give students tuition assistance on a sliding scale rather than at the fixed $1,000 amount.

Although a more nuanced GO Grant program would mean some students would be awarded less money, Purcell said studies show that when 60 percent of a student’s financial need is taken care of, he or she is more likely to stay in school through graduation.

“You want to use financial aid in a way that maximizes individual needs. I think that’s where all of higher ed is going,” Purcell said.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (24)


1) Comment by vicwill - 21/08/2012

Couldn't they just increase the standards to receive the award? I thought the original idea was to keep the top Louisiana graduates in-state for school.

2) Comment by bourbon-soda - 20/08/2012

A government white elephant from a rich busybody not content to give away his own money.

3) Comment by Dawson - 20/08/2012

+1 Bourbon Soda. Government philosophy 101--if its going broke, subsidize it. If it is self sufficient, tax it.

4) Comment by bourbon-soda - 20/08/2012

TOPS exemplifies the ratchet effect of government giveaways: once it is in place, you can never take it away. Once it expands, it can never contract. Same thing with Medicare, SS, and all the rest of it. And any suggestion that many more people are in college than belong there, is heretical in the Lake Woebegone society.

5) Comment by goodgovernance - 20/08/2012

A little historical context might be useful to the discussion. In the 1980s, the small size of LSU's endowment fund limited the number of full merit-based four-year scholarships (including tuition, books, fees, and living expenses--roughly equivalent to the TOPS Honors Award level) for incoming freshmen to only 5 scholarships per year, most of which went to out-of-state students the school was trying to attract. An additional 100 freshmen received four-year merit-based scholarships covering only about half of tuition costs and that's it (they were recognized as Alumni Association Top 100 Scholars). The number of recipients may have increased slightly during the 1990s before TOPS, as the Alumni Association became better funded. Nevertheless, the reality is that, even in its original, narrowly- targeted 1997 incarnation, the TOPS Program represented an enormous expansion of merit-based scholarships for students interested in attending LSU (and other state universities). Because students who attend college are more likely to come from middle and upper class backgrounds, TOPS Program recipients are likewise mostly from middle and upper income families. Efforts by the legislature to loosen the TOPS eligibility standards over the years have increased the participation of lower-income students, but the manner in which it was accomplished was very wasteful. Rather than using a more cost-effective form of needs-based assistance targeted to lower-income students, the legislature chose a very blunt and expensive policy instrument (the TOPS program) to try to cover everyone.

6) Comment by Dawson - 19/08/2012

Entitlements are only "good" if they go to recipients. Tax payers should never receive a service in return for their production they should instead expect all of their money to be redistributed to the "poor", right Suzanne? Since when have you ever cared about "unsustainable" entitlement programs or budget deficits? You are always on here ranting and raving about the "rich" and tax, tax, tax. TOPS has nothing to do with a family's income yet you throw out Jindal supports it because it is to benefit his "rich" supporters. You have deep problems.

7) Comment by goodgovernance - 19/08/2012

@SuzanneMS: I agree that restructuring TOPS as a loan program is less than ideal, due in part to the administrative costs. It would be much better simply to significantly scale back the program to its original intent through much tougher eligibility standards. However, based on past experience, the legislature seems unlikely to find the political courage to cut such a popular source of middle-class welfare. Nearly every action the legislature has taken on TOPS since it was created in 1997 has been to expand rather than narrow its scope. My loan program suggestion was merely intended as a brainstorm to get people thinking about how student incentives and program objectives can be better aligned if the legislature insists on maintaining TOPS as a broad political patronage tool.

8) Comment by SuzanneMS - 19/08/2012

Thank you, goodgovernance. These are by and large the same people who want to deny state employees the retirement benefit they earned and contributed to, because the program is "unsustainable." The issue I have with your suggestion of turning it into a loan is the cost of administration. I think it's better to simply not give the money in the first place than try to get it back -- and we would be trying to get it back. As with most college graduates, TOPS recipients are leaving the state in droves. How would you track them down and get the money back? You wouldn't require them to stay here when there are no jobs in their field, would you? What if they go to graduate school in another state? Would they have to pay it back then? Well, Newsreader, there is the paragraph quoting Di Saunders on the Oregon Model, "The model uses a three-pronged approach, in which students contribute what they can based on a federal financial aid formula. The federal government adds a portion, and the state fills in the remainder, Saunders said." This is also the model suggested by Longanecker. Now, you show me where anyone even hints that it would be "yanked away from middle class workers." Yep -- all our tax dollars are the same. Which means it most certainly is my business -- as well as yours and every other taxpayers' -- how they are spent.

9) Comment by zealer99 - 19/08/2012

I am reading a lot of class and income envy in one of the poster's comments. I agree that the academic standards should be increased for TOPS and any other State funding mechanism for higher education. I also think that remedial classes should be taught at high schools where the information should have been conveyed in the first place.

10) Comment by goodgovernance - 19/08/2012

Also, on an unrelated topic, I'm wondering why the reader comments on yesterday's news article about the governor's pay package for new Revenue Secretary Tim Barfield are no longer visible. The counter at the top of the article says that there are 33 reader comments, but those comments are nowhere to be seen and haven't been seen since yesterday afternoon. Perhaps some of the comments hit a little too close to the truth that someone would like to keep covered up? See the article at http://theadvocate.com/home/3662306-125/jindal-finds-way-to-pay.

11) Comment by goodgovernance - 19/08/2012

SuzanneMS is right about the original purpose of the TOPS program as a means of retaining the best and brightest of Louisiana's college-bound students. However, over time, the legislature watered down the minimum eligibility standards to allow merely average students to receive full scholarships under the program. This was done purely as a political handout to middle and upper class voters without serious analysis of its fiscal sustainability or policy justification. Those same voters now consider the program to be an untouchable entitlement. That's what happens when a targeted educational incentive program is misguidedly repurposed by politicians to serve as a broad educational access program. One possible way of reclaiming its original intent without tightening eligibility might be to add clawback provisions to the program. One such approach might involve restructuring TOPS scholarships as loans that would be repayable only if the student moves out of state or fails to graduate from a state college within a designated time period (e.g. 6 or 7 years). TOPS recipients who graduate from a state college and remain in the state for at least 5 or 6 years after graduation would have their TOPS loans deferred and eventually forgiven. Under that approach, the incentives for the students would align more closely with the original intent of the program.

12) Comment by NewsReader - 19/08/2012

SuzanneMS, yes I did read the article. Maybe now you can point me to the paragraph that apparently isn't visible on my screen nor visible in the published paper version of The Advocate I receive that mentions anywhere what kind of means test is suggested and what incomes would still be eligible. I am guessing you received a secret version of this article. I completely agree it is broken currently, but that by itself is far from a good enough reason to yet again yank something away from middle class workers. Instead the concept should stay as it is, but obviously if more and more students are qualifying then we are no longer setting the qualifications high enough to be eligible. Or maybe high school teachers are guilty of grading higher than the students should be so they remain eligible for TOPS. As for your comment about cost, maybe you should actually add up the cost as published by LSU add in the cost of books that are real not just the bogus $750 figure used by LSU etc, add in a realistic expense for living and food, and also then consider that the majority of students these days have to take at least a few courses in the Summer or other sessions because budget cuts have cut out numerous required classes. To turn TOPS into just another low-income funding vehicle would be a travesty. And finally, yes you are a taxpayer, but so are the rest of us. Your tax dollar is no different than mine.

13) Comment by zealer99 - 19/08/2012

As I said before the current business model of increasing tuition and placing a greater reliance on students borrowing is not sustainable. The default on student loans will exceed a trillion dollars in a few short years and during that time it is becoming obvious to the students that they are earning degrees but with their diploma they are handed a pile of student loans that they cannot pay. is this humane to "stick" them with this much debt and expect them to pay for the social security benefits of seniors when they know that their student loans must be paid or their social security benefits will be tapped. College and university enrollment will be declining shortly, slowly at first and then it will drop like a rock. When funding for the Federal loan program is reduced, enrollment will crash and burn and will the enrollment for most for-profit technical training programs. This is not a matter of what ought to be or what ought to happen, reality is a witch.

14) Comment by SuzanneMS - 19/08/2012

Zealer, no one is talking about turning TOPS into a grant. Not sure where you got that. As for colleges and universities raising tuition to make up for cuts in state funding -- what else would you have them do? Cut programs? Reduce enrollment? Increase class size? How would any of that benefit Louisiana? "Aid and assistance of politicians?" Do you seriously believe that colleges and universities are asking for state funding to be cut? Lombardi was fired for protesting the cuts! The politicians are driving the bus. Did you read the article, NewsReader? We the people who pay taxes are footing the bill and the money is not there. Instituting a means test would ensure that those parents you're worried about would be eligible -- but not those who truly are wealthy. If nothing is done, TOPS will be done away with entirely and tuition will have risen to such a level that only the truly wealthy will be able to attend. Is that what you want? Oh, and even with current tuition increases, no public college or university in Louisiana even approaches $20K a year. Attila, animosity? It's called realism. Read the article. TOPS is unsustainable as it is currently constituted. That is a fact. Jealousy? Class envy? It's very dangerous to make assumptions about people you don't know. I have no intention of revealing personal information about myself, but you are not only wrong, you are laughably ridiculously wrong. As a tax payer myself, it most certainly is my business how my taxes are spent -- and those are my tax dollars that are being spent on those cars, trucks, and condos (no apostrophe; it's not a possessive). The parents only have that disposable income because they've received tax dollars under TOPS. And you clearly have no concept of what either Marxism or Socialism is.

15) Comment by NewsReader - 19/08/2012

Cousin Dave, why should a parents' economic wellbeing affect a child's ability to be rewarded for working hard and maintaining that dedication? There are plenty of options already available from the Federal govt to those whose income falls below the level at which they can afford to go to college. And I hate to break it to you but those "rich" people are probably for the most part middle income families who would never be able to afford to get their kids into college otherwise. They make too much to get the lower wage support and not enough to simply fork over $20K a year. What they should be looking at with TOPS is (a) how to recoup funds from those who just get 1 year of eligibility to party in a college and then drop out and (b) the amounts which are awarded to non-mainstream colleges. I have no issues with those attending technical and vocational schools getting the award, but to be brutally frank, those establishments are charging proportionately out of whack fees.

16) Comment by Attila - 19/08/2012

Cousin Dave: " rich kids who don't need a TOPS scharship to attend college, but are getting them anyway at taxpayer expense?" Please refer to my response to SuzanneMS. Those "rich kids" parents pay taxes too....or have you conveniently forgotten that fact....or is it really just selective amnesia as that small fact does not suit your agenda.

17) Comment by Attila - 19/08/2012

SuzanneMS: Do you sleep well at night. You seem to have animosity toward anyone and anything that you feel is getting something to which they are not entitled by virtue of their financial status. Sounds like jealousy, class envy, and doubt of your own self worth to me. The TOPS was not conceived or approved to be "means tested". If a student meets the qualifications they get the aid...period. The fact that their parents may be able to afford the tuition is not the point. I will agree that the requirements as far as GPA and ACT scores could be tweaked, but those same people for which you have such disdain pay taxes too. The fact that they may spend their money on expensive cars, trucks and condo's is actually none of your business. From the sound of your Marxist/Socialist rants I hope you are not a school teacher.

18) Comment by zealer99 - 19/08/2012

TOPS is a scholarship, the "Pell Grant" is needs based. Maybe the number of TOPS and the cost should be limited and more competitive, maybe some encouragement included for students who stay in Louisiana, but there is no point in turning it into a duplicate of the Federal Pell Grant.

19) Comment by dashwood - 19/08/2012

My recollection is that the original goal of the TOPS program was to keep the "best and brightest" in Louisiana instead of shipping them off to other states. The idea was that there were many high-quality students who were going to school outside of Louisiana, and in the end many of these students did not return to Louisiana to contribute to the building of the state. If some of those high-quality students are "rich kids" who don't need TOPS to attend college, so be it. It may well be the case that these students attend LSU instead of Emory, Rice, UNC-Chapel Hill, or the University of Georgia because of the financial incentives associated with TOPS. In the end we keep at least some of the "best and brightest" in Louisiana instead of sending them elsewhere, and this is good news for a state that has a hard time keeping up with the rest of the country.

20) Comment by Cousin Dave - 19/08/2012

Why don 't you interview one of the rich kids who don't need a TOPS scharship to attend college, but are getting them anyway at taxpayer expense? LSU is loaded with them these days.

21) Comment by zealer99 - 19/08/2012

There are several factors in this growth cycle that should be obvious and if a reasonable person adds those factors together, the answer is equally obvious. There are many fields of study that while interesting and enlightening, do not afford employment opportunities with sufficient income earning potential to repay massive student loans. Many of those fields of study are popular for students and that popularity results in high enrollment. How about increasing the admission requirements for these fields of study to limit enrollment and insure that those who do graduate are the best? There are other fields, such as nursing, where there is a shortage of graduates to fill the jobs that are available and there seems to be a shortage of student capacity in the programs. Does it really take a genius realize that we need to expand those programs, these programs affect the health and safety of the State’s citizens and we have a vested interest in them. The State, as a whole, does not have a vested interest in programs educating students in fields that do not have a need for the number of students that are graduating. The State of Louisiana cannot afford to continue the policy of “feel good education”.

22) Comment by zealer99 - 19/08/2012

The question that should be asked is what are they going to do when the federal student loan bubble pops. The colleges and universities continue to increase tuition and fees, to make up from State funding cuts, which relies on students to borrow whatever is available to them from the Federal Student Loan Program and in many cases, from private loans. Students are graduating with staggering debt loads that they will never be able to repay. The colleges and universities, with the aid and assistance of politicians, seem wiling to ride this model off the fiscal cliff and see massive enrollment decline begin as word begins leaking of the debt trap. Many of these students will graduate and default on their loans, unable to pay the loans due to the job market and experience financial problems throughout their adult life. I am disappointed that there are not more objections to this situation but we seems to have a shortage of responsible people.

23) Comment by phil - 19/08/2012

I will keep it short. When everything is "free" that basically means that EVERYONE pays. Our state is basically broke and the federal government is now about $16 trillion in debt.. I wonder why.

24) Comment by SuzanneMS - 19/08/2012

Jindal and the legislature have no qualms about reneging on their responsibilities to state employees' retirements when they determine that the program is "unsustainable." Why suddenly so reluctant now? Is it because TOPS benefits his wealthy contributors by allowing their kids to attend college for free, so they can spend the money on expensive cars and trucks and condos? Or is it all part of the plan to reserve higher education for the wealthy? Obviously, as tuition continues to increase, higher education in Louisiana will become farther and farther out of the reach of those who rely on GO Grants and other need-based forms of financial aid. A 2.5 GPA and 20 on the ACT are not, by any measure, "excellent." Given that no one is willing to discuss a means test, the least they can do is Increase the standards for TOPS to at least 3.5 and 25, so that it becomes a real "merit scholarship" and funnel the money that is saved into GO Grants, so that the neediest also have an opportunity.