<p>Glad you edited your post, CGM. While you may disagree with the OP’s position, the OP has been polite. Hope you will do likewise.</p>
<p>“We feel that since he should have been charged in state rate, but was actually charged oos, he should be entitled to the difference between the corrected charge and what he was promised. We feel the Bursars office overcharge of tuition is unfair because we feel they should charge actual tuition cost and then give to son the difference as scholarship committee said they’d give him” </p>
<p>??? it was an internal Bursers office accounting error. You have not paid a dime for tuition, so you are not entitled to a dime back!!</p>
<p>see OP, you want it both ways, you want the OOS scholarship to cover OOS tution, but you want to be seen as instate for the actual tuition, but you want the scholarship to pay the difference between the two…</p>
<p>it just galls me to no end that someone would even expect the school to send them cash BACK, calling it a “refund” when you have paid no tuition ever</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. The OP doesn’t understand how this works, or simply refuses to understand. This strikes me as ludicrous, laughable, bizarre, and really pathetic-- all at once.</p>
<p>I don’t think I agree with this position
but I am not going to rip the OP a new one for his/her opinion.</p>
<p>If the scholarship-granting committee of the school had known that the student owed in-state tuition, and with that knowledge offered the student a scholarship equal to OOS tuition - i.e. his actual tuition cost plus $2500 per semester, I’d have no problem with that - colleges give out tuition-plus financial aid all the time. But it appears from the OP’s various posts that the scholarship-granting arm of the U was unaware of what the “instate tuition for certain OOS students” arm of the U was doing. Now the OP is seeking to hold the U to the scholarship offer despite the knowledge that it was “obviously” based on a mistake of fact. My guess is that if this were to be reviewed in court the entire transaction would be voided due to the “mistake of fact” on the part of the University and the solution would be to adjust either the scholarship or the tuition, retroactive to day one, to make the situation correspond to what both parties thought was the case when student enrolled at the U. </p>
<p>My advice would have been to keep the $2500 and be quiet about it. Too late now, though.</p>
<p>Sounds to me like there may have been a disconnect between Admissions where the student was evaluated as a oos reciprocal candidate and Financial Aid/Scholarships where the student should have been evaluated as a candidate entitled to in-state awards under the reciprocal agreement. But…given this school has this program in place, the disconnect really should not have occurred. </p>
<p>To me, it is also possible and more likely, this is the case of the school simply sending the wrong letter. When I worked in Admissions, we had a variety of acceptance letters some of which incorporated contingencies or summer school requirements…and occasionally, wrong letters are sent.</p>
<p>Nothing wrong with the OP pursuing this though. He rec’d a questionable refund and needs to get to the bottom of it</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ouch. Well, aside from the moral issue involved here (ie, the right thing to do), the University would have eventually realized their mistake and asked for the return of the money, I’m sure.</p>
<p>My guess is, all of the scholarship letters written to out-of-state students state that the scholarship will cover out-of-state tuition. Again, the point being made is that the school <em>is</em> covering his out-of-state tuition, courtesy of taxpayer funds. That’s what it costs to educate him at that school. If they gave him a check for the difference, the taxpayers would-- in fact-- be paying his tuition twice, first to educate him, and secondly, to satisfy his or his parents’ belief that he is a godsend to that campus, and should be paid simply for his mere presence at the school. </p>
<p>At least, that’s the way I’m reading it.</p>
<p>Here’s another example. When an out of-state student is awarded a 4 year merit scholarship (let’s call it full-freight) to a school where the scholarship awardee will be considered in-state, for tuition purposes only, the award letter will most likely state that the scholarship is worth around ~$160,000 or so. That’s the total cost for an out-of-state student.</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean the student actually receives that amount; it means that this is what a full 4 years (tuition, room and board, books, whatever) would cost him IF he were paying that without benefit of a full scholarship. So this really is what the scholarship is worth in dollar amounts.</p>
<p>Just because he’s considered in-state for tuition purposes, however, doesn’t mean that it suddenly costs less to educate him. The cost is, in fact, the same; it’s just that the University saves money, but the burden of the full cost to educate him is still there. That burden is now paid courtesy of the state’s taxpayers. </p>
<p>Why is that so difficult to comprehend?</p>
<p>
Really now. Is that a nice thing to say? Also, if the state in which he attends school is paying for his education, then there are probably an equal number from the other state being educated in his state. THat part, IMO, is a wash. I can understand if you are mad at your state’s legislature for fouling up the education bill allowing for a big loophole, but don’t take it out on the OP. Lighten up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>jym: If you read back over the OP’s posts-- yes, I believe he thinks that his kid deserves that refund, in part, because he thinks he adds a lot to the campus.</p>
<p>Actually, my own state legislature has nothing to do with this. I don’t live in Ohio. The real point is, though, it is the taxpayers of the state (where the school is located) who pick up that kid’s bill. Do you really think they wouldn’t mind paying him twice? </p>
<p>The other point is, if the kid chose to attend this school without the scholarship, the tuition reciprocity between the states would kick in. Consequently, if he attended with NO scholarship, he would be paying only in-state tuition. Would he expect a check in the mail every semester then, too?</p>
<p>The school isn’t going to pay him MORE than he would get if he simply attended without a scholarship.</p>
<p>Again, to think otherwise is absolutely mind-blowing. My real thought is that they never expected this, and now that the school goofed-up and sent him a check, and the economy has taken a turn for the worst-- it seems like a great way to make a buck-- illegal and immoral, but what the heck, he’s gonna go for it anyway. </p>
<p>I hope he hires a lawyer and spends way more on the lawyer than he would have ever seen in a refund, or in the scholarship. How nice is that? :)</p>
<p>you go girl!!! I too got that feeling from the OP, as if his kid is entitled to be paid to go to this school…the idea of the "scholarships’ is to mix up the student body a bit…so that its not all kids from one state, and there probably is a max # of kids…</p>
<p>I ask the OP again, how are you Instate tuition qualified…you live in state, so you are NOT an OOS student anyway, but you want to be paid as such?</p>
<p>okey dokey, good luck with your case…</p>
<p>say i go to a massuese, with a coupon and it says I get one free massage (valued at 100) because I am visiting the state (I am not really, but shhhhh)…anyway, I get my massage and hear that some others are getting their massage at a rate of 50 (becuase they have been there before)- some get discounts becuase they weigh 40 pounds, others pay full rate of 50$…so because my price was 100 (though I paid nothing) am i entitled to the difference in fees (50dollars)?</p>
<p>according to the OP, yes- in essence having the massuese pay me for rubbing my feet</p>
<p>janieblue: “I hope he hires a lawyer and spends way more on the lawyer than he would have ever seen in a refund, or in the scholarship. How nice is that?”</p>
<p>citygirlsmom: “you go girl!!!”</p>
<p>dntw8up: These posts are unseemly and you two are way too invested in this thread.</p>
<p>JB-
I think you misunderstand. I am not saying that your state is the same as that of the OP, but I do think that the experience you reported within your own state, with the bozo legislators writing bad legislation with large, expensive holes, would influence your response to the OP.</p>
<p>Seems like people are repeating the same thing over and over. If the OPs s’s scholarship said “full tuition” than that is all he is entitled to, regardless of whether it was an in or out of state offer. Seems like a simple error to me. If the scholarship was meant to provide $$ equal to the amount of an OOS tuition, then, as someone above said, the $$ should go into the s’s general account, and posted as a credit, regardless of what it is applied to. If the scholarship award is for tuition and only tuition, then the discrepancy, being an error, should be written of as a bookkeeping error. As the OP said, they
didn’t even notice the boo boo til they got a $2500 ck, but geez people, be honest. If you thought that your kid’s school miscalculated a scholarship and that $2500/semester more was supposed to have been applied to the kids account (to the tune of over 10k), wouldn’t you look into it, and pull out the original scholarship offer to review it? </p>
<p>And for all you know, maybe the OP’s son was strongly desired by the school, and they really <em>were</em> trying to lure him in with $. For eg, Duke takes a really close look at every kid who has been on their high school’s math team, and may throw $$$ at a student who they think will be a real boost to the school’s math team. (note: this is JUST and example- I know the OPs kid is not at a private school, and didnt mention a word about math team).</p>
<p>As for hiring a lawyer, I took that as tongue in cheek- meant only as an example of the extreme options. As I said earlier, I have no dog in this fight- I am just appalled at the attitude and comments of some posters. Reminds me of some previous posters who have left cc either voluntarily or involuntarily. Hmmmmmm…</p>
<p>
You’ve got that right, dntw8tup!!!</p>
<p>
Say whaaaaa??? It doesnt sound to me like the OPs U is trying to lure a kid from Timbucktoo just to meet a distribution statistic. This is getting ridiculous.</p>
<p>In the massage analogy- if you were offered a deal you didnt get, then you have a right to ask them to apply the credit to another service at a future date. This has nothing to do with what was offered to other customers, but what was offered to you. Say someone gave you a $250 gift certificate and it was to be applied to a discounted rate for a massage. If they charged the full price of the massage against the gift certificate, then you are entitled to the credit back to be used elsewhere. I’d suggest using it for an attitude adjustment.</p>
<p>jym: No, I understood exactly what you meant. I just happen to know how this works, and who pays for that cost. To suggest that the taxpayers pay for this kid’s tuition, AND money on top of that (more than it would cost if he went there without a scholarship) is, once again, ludicrous.</p>
<p>I’m not sure who “you two” is, but in case I’m one of the two, I doubt I’m any more “invested” in this thread than anyone else who keeps posting here. (Hey-- at least my money wasn’t invested in this.) </p>
<p>You’re right, though-- I can hardly wait for the next installment to see what the University says about the money. I wish the OP would hurry on back with an update. :)</p>
<p>About the lawyer hire-- the OP is the one who first brought that up. No tongue-in-cheek here. I do hope he hires a lawyer, and it ends up costing him a bundle. I think that would be such a hoot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, no. I would assume it was a mistake, get in touch with the accounting office to alert them, and ask what to do. To think that they now offer me that amount for every semester my kid has attended, and will attend-- would never, in a million years, have entered my mind.</p>
<p>Theres a difference between discussing an issue and ripping someone a new one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t even know what “ripping someone a new one” means, but it doesn’t sound good.</p>
<p>I do believe, though, that when we stop being appalled at clearly illegal and immoral actions (or just the idea of carrying out such actions), we may as well just go live in a cave somewhere.</p>