what is the eligibility to study MCA in princeton university?

Question

can i join MCA in princeton?
can i join MCA in princeton?
can i join MCA in princeton?

Answer 1

Princeton University has lots of financial aid to give to students on its own without having to rely on federal programs. If you get in, they will meet your family's financial needs. Families with earnings in the six figures have been known to get aid.

The tough part about studying at Princeton is getting in.

Answer 2

On March 14, 2002, President Bush announced an ambitious plan to renovate the United States foreign aid regime by linking monetary assistance to political liberalization. The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) would augment traditional foreign aid by $5 billion over three years by making grants to states that meet stringent criteria in areas such as open democracy, free markets, respect for human rights, and per-capita spending on health care and education. Under the authorizing legislation, Secretary of State Colin Powell would lead the board of directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the independent body tasked with evaluating applicant nations and submitting recommendations to the President.
The program has garnered considerable bipartisan support in Congress, and its proponents argue that it represents one of the United States’ most potent tools for halting the decline of “failed states” in the developing world, areas widely believed to be recruiting grounds for anti-American terrorist groups. It simultaneously appeals to liberals who lament America’s relatively low level of assistance as a percentage of GDP and to conservatives who resent doling out taxpayer dollars with no guarantee of positive returns in political capital. Moreover, an activist aid policy creates a system of peaceful preemption consistent with the goals of the neoconservative National Security Strategy while avoiding the aggressive military tenets of that document that are anathema to many scholars of international law. However, despite the tremendous potential of the MCA program, policymakers must consider serious questions about the design of the selection process, its role vis-à-vis traditional foreign aid, and its prospects for survival in a first-term administration currently focused on high-payoff, short-term objectives.
The matrix for selecting countries to receive MCA assistance was developed by Steven Radelet, formerly of the U.S. Treasury department. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year, Radelet described the sixteen eligibility criteria as “hurdles.” In order to qualify, states must score above the median in half of the indicators in each of three policy areas: “ruling justly, investing in people, and encouraging economic freedom.” The exceptions to this rule are the presence of corruption in government and the income threshold: widespread corruption is cause for immediate disqualification, and countries who take part in the first round of applications must have per capita incomes of under $1,435 and be eligible for World Bank loans. Applications in successive fiscal years raise the income threshold slightly.
The nature of these criteria leads to the first major concern with the MCA: in the inaugural year of the program, all but thirteen countries are eliminated from consideration. By emphasizing median scores over the aggregate degree of political liberalism in a candidate state, the MCA summarily removes countries for relatively minor transgressions of the selection principles. More pointedly, a number of strategically significant states – Jordan, India, and three former Soviet republics – would fail by just one indicator. A policy that aims to hedge against the risk of terrorist corruption should focus on the areas facing the most immediate threat, namely those in the Middle East and Central Asia. Although the President maintains his prerogative to overrule the MCC, the board must be allowed to evaluate the overall potential for success in each state when drafting its initial recommendations. The ineligibilities outlined above point to the second primary concern, namely that the MCA must work in conjunction with traditional foreign aid, not in place of it. The world’s most destitute nations rely on American assistance to maintain fiscal solvency while investing in major health and education initiatives. Although the Administration has stated repeatedly that the MCA will not siphon off funds from the foreign assistance budget, certain decisions could suggest otherwise. For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the organization responsible for administering foreign aid, would provide most of the manpower for the MCA but lacks a voice on the board of directors of the MCC. Coordination between the MCA and USAID is essential to the success of the project. More importantly, USAID must be able to defend, if necessary, the value of its traditional foreign aid programs. The board should take advantage of the expertise of Dr. Andrew Natsios, the current USAID administrator, by appointing him to a senior leadership position in the MCC. Electoral politics and fiscal priorities constitute the final hurdle to successful implementation of the MCA. The Bush administration has demonstrated a disturbing lack of follow-through on some of its most complex policies: in the original budget request for fiscal year 2004, for example, the White House neglected to include any funds for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, ostensibly the original commitment in the War on Terrorism. Despite the administration’s efforts to mask the cost of the Iraqi reconstruction project, the nightmarish scale of that project is now painfully evident. As the President works to augment his list of tangible successes before the 2004 election, it is uncertain how much value he will stake on a long-term, low-visibility initiative like the MCA. One hopes that the precedents outlined above will not hold in this case.
Unfortunately, the debate may remain academic for the immediate future; the Senate measure authorizing the MCC was bundled with the State Department Authorization Bill, which Majority Leader Bill Frist ‘74 removed from the floor after Democratic Senators flooded it with contentious amendments. Nevertheless, the importance of the project continues to grow, particularly as the image of the United States suffers abroad. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are certainly proceeding with their own brand of outreach to citizens of the world’s most volatile states. America must not fall behind.