This paper is a legal analysis of the constitutionality of the Office of Education criteria for defining a self-supporting student. The criteria suggest a student cannot have been claimed as an income tax dependent, nor received more than $600, nor have lived at his parents home more than 14 consecutive days in the year for which aid is received or the year prior to that in which aid is received. The "self-supporting" definition is measured against two constitutional requirements. Equal protection is the first. It is concluded that the rules impair no fundamental rights nor contain any suspect criteria. In addition, flaws incidental to the operation of the statute do not seem severe enough to overcome the presumption of constitutionality. The criteria seem to be a reasonable exercise of legislative authority. Second, the statute is analyzed to find whether due process of law is denied because an "irrebuttable presumption contrary to facts" is created. Despite the findings by the Supreme Court that a Food Stamp Act using a definition similar to one of the elements in the Office of Education rules was unconstitutional, it seems that the Office of Education criteria would pass judicial scrutiny. The paper concludes that if the system of allocating financial aid is to be reformed it must be done via the legislative process. One possible reform is an appeals board to provide funds for students who fall just outside the self-support criteria. (Author/MJM)