<p>bethievt: Yes, that’s the way I read it, too. And if that’s the case, when out-of-state students receive a scholarship that covers tuition, and they are considered in-state for tuition purposes, the taxpayers of that state are the ones actually picking up the tab (the difference in cost) for that out-of-state scholarship student. Regardless, if we’re understanding this correctly-- your comment, “since you’re paying nothing, a refund is not in order,” makes perfect sense.</p>
<p>I’d like to believe that we’re totally misunderstanding what the OP actually meant. If not, well-- again-- I’m just flabbergasted.</p>
<p>Like I said, Easy Up. OP has already made an appeal, and now for some reason is looking for other opinions if they made a correct decision. Apparently the OP may have seen that their action was not necessarily the best course, otherwise why even ask it on CC or even requestion their appeal. </p>
<p>So lets take our case where the school gave S extra money. Should son take the money or refund the money? The Ethics of the OP case would suggest that the school owes some money. The Ethics of the OP would suggest that the award contract should either be honored or appropriately revised. If you make a contract, you’d expect it be kept. Suppose the contract is unilaterally changed?</p>
<p>Performance of contracts that unduly burdens one party are not enforced. In this case that would be the case. “You can’t get something for nothing” applies to contract law as well. The OP is not entitled to the money. </p>
<p>It seems simple enough, for administrative purposes the student is put down as a in-state student, to take the burden off some of the taxpayers perhaps? Regardless of the intent of the school for putting it down this way, the end result is the tuition fees and expenses are covered. So it makes no sense for the school to pay up for a technicality which does not harm either party.</p>
<p>why ease up, they are looking for something they never earned or deserve and looks like they are trying to in essense steal…if i saw that coming across my desk in the financial aid office, i would laugh and then make darn sure that student is doing everything required by that scholarship, nothing less</p>
<p>Actually, when an out-of-state student is awarded a scholarship at another state’s public institution, the sole reason (of which I’m aware) for making that student “in-state for tuition purposes,” is because doing so will save the institution (or the private endowment) money. That way, they can accept even more out-of-state students and ultimately offer more scholarships.</p>
<p>The fact is, though, someone else has to pick up that real cost, and for a public institution, that will always be the taxpayers of that particular state.</p>
<p>I thought that the son is OOS and his scholarship stated that he would pay the in state tuition rate, but that for some reason the college has been charging more.</p>
<p>cmbmom: Maybe you’re right. Normally, when an institution gives a student a tuition scholarship, real money isn’t exchanged. I’ve never heard of a tuition scholarship for an out-of-state student, where the student was considered in-state for tuition purposes, and then the student is expected to actually write a tuition check each semester. ?? Maybe that exists, but I never heard of it.</p>
<p>Most schools do not give scholarship money in excess of the student’s actual cost. AND yes, there are schools who award out of state students the instate rate if they receive “named” scholarships. Check out U of South Carolina, for example. However, students do NOT receive any money “back” in excess of what THEIR cost of attendance is. The OP’s student sounds like they are trying to get a rebate of the difference between the OOS rate and the in-state rate. I doubt seriously if the school will do that…especially if the student is not paying anything to attend.</p>
<p>They are pretty common. For example, Clemson awards instate tuition rate scholarships to OOS students they want, it may be based on SAT scores - not sure. So the parents still write a check every semester just for a lower amount.</p>
It does sound like the OP is seeking to have the U credit the full difference between in-state and OOS tuition back to the student even though the scholarship was based on the (apparently mutual) assumption that the student was OOS, because for some reason the student was actually “entitled to in-state rates” for unspecified reasons. If I understand this correctly, the student might have a shot at a partial credit if the tuition paid, net of the scholarship, was more than in-state tuition, limited to that difference. Beyond that, they’re SOL, in my opinion.</p>
<p>I know my daughter’s full tuition plus some cash scholarship is for instate students - the equivelant scholarship for OOS students would be that the tuition is reduced to instate levels plus the same cash. If that is the OPs problem how have they got to the 5th semester before realizing it?</p>
<p>The OOS tuition at my daughter’s school is much much higher than instate - 3.6 times. Wow - asking the school to give her the difference between oos and instate she would make quite profit. Still unsure exactly what the OPs situation is.</p>
<p>Still not understanding how this comes up after 5 semesters - i keep a pretty close eye on what goes on with bursars charges.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope that janieblue’s interpretation of OP’s post is mistaken. If it’s accurate, then I am speechless at OP’s sense of entitlement and it ought to be listed in the dictionary under chutzpah.</p>
<p>“Son was offered, in writing,
out-of state 4yrs(8 sem), accepted the offer,”</p>
<p>By my reckoning, your son has knowingly committed fraud, and could be liable for several years in prison.</p>
<p>There is a current case where a bank made an error and put $5 million into a man’s bank account. The man tried to tell the bank it was an error, but they wouldn’t listen (his account). Finally, he spent some of the money. He is now up on grand larceny charges, since he knew the money wasn’t his.</p>
<p>Well the OP has not bothered to clarify at this point, so I won’t speculate on the meaning of the post. </p>
<p>However, I will add that I read somewhere (some school website) that it is a federal violation for students to be given certain types of scholarships (maybe related to public schools, not sure), in excess of the actual cost of attendence. </p>
<p>If true, that puts an end to any thought about refunds IMO.</p>
<p>so, if he accepted the scholarship as an OOS student, then turns around and says, well hold on der partner, I am instate for all this time, would they have even gotten the scholarship to begin with…</p>
<p>if you accepted the scholarship as in OOS student, then you live with the OOS terms…what turned it around and now the OP says they are instate?</p>
<p>OK…I just reread this…says that son was offered an OOS scholarship but has always been entitled to instate. HOW was he entitled to instate tuition? Are you state residents or was this a condition of his scholarship? If you are an instate resident, was this scholarship for OOS students only? </p>
<p>I confess to being confused at this point. </p>
<p>If the student is entitled to pay instate tuition but got a scholarship for OOS rates, the SCHOOL should be saving the money. In my opinion, the school should only be paying the amount of tuition that the STUDENT would be paying…not a higher amount.</p>
<p>This is VERY confusing. I’m sure the financial aid office will be glad to clarify this for you. Agreed with others…it took you over two years to notice this??</p>