<p>The school agrees that:
Quite a numer of the people in quite a number of their departments have made quite a number errors.
Scholarship offer was for 8 semesters oos tuition, just as I said.
Student is entitled to pay only in-state tuition
Student has met/surpassed all requirements for scholarship
They also agree that when we called in questioning surprise refund, yes, a bursar’s office staffer did explain that we were entitled to that tuition refund.
They agree student wasn’t getting what he was offered.
We didn’t try to “slip anything by” them, this mix-up was all due to their errors.</p>
<pre><code> I spoke to more than one person in more than one department to get this resolved.
</code></pre>
<p>Their point of view however, is that despite the actual wording of his scholarship offer letter, it was the intent of the scholarship committee to offer student exact full tuition- whatever tuition was. I responded that anybody could guess anything as the intent of the committee- EXCEPT- why should we think their intent was anything different than what they actually wrote? At first they said since committee’s intent was exact tuition only, then refund and subsequent explanation of refund were in error and we should return the refund promptly. I disagreed and said I did not care to speculate on intent of committee. I felt due to actual wording of offer, and confirmation by bursar staffer that refund was proper, and we had no intentions of giving it back. Further, I added that since they determined a refund was in order this semester, then student is entitled to same refund for same reason for previous semesters. I then said that after confirmation of refund, student had spent the refund and we thought it terribly unfair for them to request it back after that. They then indicated they’d get additional advice perhaps from their scholarship committee, and maybe law division of their Univ. (suggested to scare me?) I also suggested they ask their ethics professor what might be the right thing to do. I said “explain to professor that you’re giving student less that you offered him, less than what he entered Univ expecting; and ask what should Univ do.”. I hinted that perhaps I too, should seek advice from an attorney. (perhaps to scare them?)</p>
<p>They came back in couple days with an offer:
Student could keep the refund, but on the condition that I would not seek refund(s) for previous semesters or future semesters. They would amend wording on scholarship offer to reflect actual tuition cost.
I told them I’d accept that if I could get it in writing. I don’t feel confident about a verbal agreement, given the numerous previous mistakes by the Univ.
The person agreed, and now I have finally received written confirmation of deal, so matter is now settled.</p>
<p>I might have had a legal case to pursue previous refunds but I chose a more friendly way to quickly consider the matter closed. I thought that was best for student and me to make a satisfactory conclusion. </p>
<p>P.S. I see no evidence that anyone in the bursar’s office is embezzling Univ funds.</p>
<p>I am assuming of course Stel that you are aware of my original post a month or so ago, the problem I described then, and the lengthy discussion that accompanied it. You are aware of that, right? This posting today is how the matter was resolved, and is intended to show the resolution and answer a few questions other posters had. I’m curious about your interpretation of circumstances, and curious too, about my grammer. Was my post so poorly written?
If you feel the comment about embezzling in the bursar’s office might offend someone in the bursars office, then you may not know my comment here is a response to a previous poster here who suggested it might possibly be occurring. It was not anything I mentioned to the bursar’s office. I have no reason to believe anyone there is embezzling.</p>
<p>Thanks for the update. In my opinion, you were generous to let them off the hook for the other semesters. They had no legal standing to refuse to stick to the actual wording of their letter. Recipients of letters are not required to guess intent. But a letter is a commitment that must be honored. And that is the only document that would be valid in a court of law.</p>
<p>Thank you Marite, and I suspect the same legally as you have posted. I felt comfortable with it though. I looked at it as a negotiated settlement that I could live with, so could student, and so could Univ. I didn’t want to create long-term hard feeling against student, after all, he still attends there.
In my haste, I may have a couple of misspelled words- I hope that can be considered acceptable in this forum.</p>
<p>i still feel your reading of the offer was wrong, and that the while worded poorly, most people would see it as exactly as the school intended and would not Infer that a student would be paid that much to attend a school.</p>
<p>I wish we could have seen the wording. You threatened to sue them and they decided to le to you to keep the money, though they felt you didn’t deserve it after looking at it, just to make it go away.</p>
<p>That happens all the time, trying to sue you to get back the “refund” would have cost more very likely than the actual refund amount, and it just wasn’t worth the time, energy or hastle.</p>
<p>You made it very clear you wanted more money and it was smart of them to basically buy you off.</p>
<p>As for ethics, well…gee…</p>
<p>And after doing some research the school did indeed discover the refund was in error and that the person who said it was not an error initially was wrong. So after doing MORE research, they school determined you were in error to have gotten the check and should have paid it back.</p>
<p>And as for the “offer”, no judge would back up your claim.</p>
<p>I would have let you keep the money just to go away as well</p>
<p>I don’t believe it that they agreed that the letter said they would get paid to go to that college…sorry…I just can’t imagine after talking to their lawyers they would say yeppers, that is what is says dagnabit.</p>
<p>The only person who agreed that the refund was not in error was the original staff person who made a mistake.</p>
<p>I think if you had pursued the “previous” semesters, you would have lost…you should count your blessings imo</p>
<p>As for generous, the school was very generous to you…it is suprising what people feel entitled to.</p>
<p>It’s a reasonable compromise. As a lawyer who has dealt with the kind of ambiguity which arises when the language of a document is inconsistent with the underlying facts it is supposed to be addressing, I wouldn’t be confident with either Marite’s or citygirlsmom’s position. If push came to shove, it could go either way. Now the matter is resolved, and everyone moves on. Sometimes that’s the best resolution for all concerned, regardless of the details of the settlement.</p>
<p>Without a post showing the “actual wording”, VERBATIM, of the original offer (idenfitying nouns redacted), this thread is likely to go just the way of the original. Their intention was never for there to be a refund. Someone in the Bursar’s office mistakenly provided one. </p>
<p>Many of us on the original thread felt it highly unlikely that they ever intended to offer more than full tuition. Turns out we were correct.</p>
<p>Many of us believe we would have interpreted their “actual wording” as full tuition, ie the full tuition that <em>this</em> student would have to pay, and no more; ie, not oos tuition if he qualified for and would be paying in-state tuition. For some reason you interpreted it as them offering to PAY YOU the difference between the tuition he would owe and some higher tuition that others might owe.</p>
<p>Makes no sense to me now as it made no sense to me then.</p>
<p>If you don’t want to post that actual wording, I am one who finds that extraordinarily frustrating and it makes me wonder if you are not continuing to post in a self-justificatory manner.</p>
<p>Sorry for the harshness, but that is how I see it.</p>
<p>I have already posted the actual wording of relevant portion of scholarship offer and put it in quotes because I was quoting them. I do not wish to repeat it. As for threatening to sue them, where in the world did you get that, cgm? If I say I bought a new swimsuit, don’t assume I love scuba diving. Please base opinions on my wording. Different from what the Univ has explained about their position, my meaning here is what I write here. To clarify: After they told me they might consult a Univ. lawyer, I responded that perhaps I should get an attorney’s advice, too. As it turns out, they came back with an acceptable offer before I even contacted one. But, is it so outrageous simply to ask an attorney’s advice? Their advice is their stock in trade, as the quote goes.<br>
As for ethics- well, both school and I agree what student was offered, is less than what student has actually gotten. The only disagreement is IF the schools’ intent was different than what they wrote, and if so, what was the actual intent. I don’t have the ability to go back in the past and then read the minds of the schol. committee. I am limited to the offer letter in hand. Some readers/posters here may KNOW the schools’ actual intent, but I only know what they have now explained was their intent. Legally speaking, I don’t know if claiming their intent was different than what they wrote would carry any weight before a judge. I know that when a contract is ambiguous, a judge often sides against the author. What grounds did I have to stand on legally? Well, I wouldn’t pretend to know with any certainty, remember, I didn’t present my position/evidence to an atty, to get an attorneys’ opinion. Unlike some, I can’t see in the future to know if I would have won or lost a court case. Although -intent different than their actual wording- is their explanation now, personally, I’m not sure I buy it. But it doesn’t matter if I believe it or not. Did they actually speak with a lawyer? I don’t know. Don’t care. They have made a reasonable offer without any legal action, without threat of nuclear warfare. I just threw in that last phrase to demonstrate an absurd example- I don’t have nuclear capability, nor did I threaten it. Please don’t read into it more than what is stated.</p>
<p>I have another story about confusing college offerings: S was offered at grad-school package that had four monetary items, for no longer than 2 years of study to obtain masters. He finishes in 13 months straight and officially out in 16 months and comes home. He tells me that he has banked a little more than a third of what they originally offered. My original cost estimate was off by 200%- He literally banked the fellowship that was intended for living expenses. So if the OOS tuition and fees are accounted, along with R & B, entertainment and treating visiting friends, where did the money in the bank come from?</p>
<p>Even the two sets of accountants cant figure it out.</p>
<p>In S undergrad school, he was also given too much money. The school saw the error when I brought it up with them, but it took the school nearly 3 months to tell us to keep it, their error, go away they don’t want to hassle the bookkeeper, extra award was given in writing, no reasons given. I am sure that they talked to their legal and discovered that if its in writing with their signature, they are bound by their word.</p>
<p>Younghoss, congratulations on finally obtaining a resolution to the issue with your S’s school. Given that the original “scholarship offer” was in reality based on the school’s neighboring state reciprocity agreement, is your son still obligated to maintain a certain GPA/academic standing in order to remain eligible for the scholarship? I assume that the point is neither here nor there, as he’s a stellar student who has always exceeded this requirement, but I was merely curious.:)</p>
<p>thanx to thisoldman for sharing a similar experience. A school providing more than just the exact tuition does in fact exist. It may be in the form of housing, or meal ticket, or book stipend, or perhaps by mistake, but it does happen. To poetsheart, yes he still has the gpa obligation. The school sees the reciprocity tuition as a separate issue from the scholarship offered. As best I can explain it, the reciprocity agreement determines what is the tuition student is obligated to pay bursar, usually based on agreements with neighboring states/course of study. A scholarship is what portion the Univ(endowment fund) offers to pay to bursar on student’s behalf, in order to attract student to attend school. Now, the scholarship offer reflects the exact amount of actual tuition due.</p>
<p>In our first episode of having too much merit $ (it was only for one term, and only $5000) I am writing yearly donations to the school, in S name and from his bank account. Now he is on the donating honor roll of recent grads and gets a possible tax deduction as a charitable donation. </p>
<p>Shameless, donating money that was once theirs. :)</p>
<p>My moral dilemma with this has to do with the kids who do not have enough money to be at the school, because the school had mistakenly give OP’s son too much, and that money is not available to assist others in need. Society as a whole pays when folks take advantage of such situations.</p>
<p>I am still of the opinion that the tone of some of the responses here are in reaction to the tone (attitude?), moreso than to the content, of the original post and current follow-up. Some may read the OP as having some sense of entitlement, and react with distain. Some may see the OP as having been given mixed messages in a confusing offer, and was trying to get the best possible outcome. Who can blame him? The only thing that struck me as a tad confusing or inconsistent was this
because if memory serves me correctly, I thought the extra cash was a surprise, and that the OP’s son didn’t expect to get more than full tuition covered. That said, I suspect this line was merely as a strategy to respond to the “give us the $$ back” request from the college. Can’t blame the college for asking, and I can’t blame the OP for his response. </p>
<p>I heard something on a radio talk show yesterday (who’s that guy who helps people get out of debt and then lets them yell “I’m debt free!!” on his show?) Anyway, I caught the tail end of a discussion that apparently had to do with a bank messing up either a mortgage or an early payoff or something, and the caller owed $7k. The bank offered to let the caller pay it back, interest free, at $100/mo for 70 mos. The host of the show said the caller could probably negotiate a one-time payoff of maybe a few thousand dollars. He also said that if it was any other business besides a bank, they would have notified the customer of their error but would have eaten it, and not asked for a penny back. Colleges are a business. Regardles of whether the scholarship committee “intended” to give tuition or tuition plus extra bennies, thats what they did and they should let the kid keep the $$ , clarify/adjust the scholarship and move on. Thats what they did, and so should we.</p>
<p>The OP was kind and brave to come back with a follow-up. He took a severe tongue-lashing and still is. If he had been demure and deferential, he might have won the hearts of some of the posters here, but he probably wouldn’t have negotiated the outcome he did. I think the resolution was fair and reasonable. I don’t think the attacks on the OP are.</p>
<p>loreli may have a vaild point(the school finding they have less money for other students) in other circumstances but not in this one. I’m sorry you’re not clear on what happened here. Why? The school didn’t mistakenly give student too much. The school has actually given student less than they offered, less than they budgeted for overall. The school has agreed with me on that, as I posted in my op of this “resolution” thread. Please understand that is not in dispute.
The schools’ point of view was that in retrospect, they mistakenly offered student too much- not that they have paid too much, they agree they have paid less than they offered. The school offered student 8 semesters oos tuition. One assumes they then budgeted to pay that amount. Since school has now brought it to light that student needed only pay in-state tuition, school will have a savings of the price difference for 7 semesters(assuming student attends all 8), after subtracting the one refund they have given student. So, Bursars office refunds to scholarship committee the portion of tuition mistakenly overpaid to them for past semesters, then scholarship committee pays correct amount to bursar for future tuition. In this case bursar’s office winds up with proper tuition 8 semesters, and scholarship fund is actually getting to keep more than they expected and budgeted for, 7 out of 8 semesters, thereby freeing up extra money for other students. Only 1 semester does scholarship committee actually pay what they budgeted.
Suppose a department store ran an offer- “sign up for a new store credit card, get 20% off your initial purchase, no interest, pay off in 1 yr.” So, you signed up for their card, made a substantial purchase, intending to pay off in 1 yr, and have used products purchased. Each month, you’ve paid a portion of the bill. A few months in, you notice on your statement that they have unexpectedly given you a credit of 15% for one billing period. Individual contacts store, they tell individual that all along they mistakenly gave customer a savings of 5%, instead of the 20% promised, so they are now crediting customers’ account with the difference, but only for that one month portion. They explain the paperwork they provided to sign you up said 20% off, but their intent was to only offer you 5% off. You look over your records and find yes they are correct about the paperwork and its details. True, store- and individual could have caught error sooner, but bookkeeping skills aren’t the issue here. The offer and the payments are the issue. Now that the store has brought their error to light, what should they do, if anything, to correct it?
Some posters here might say “do nothing, at least you got 5%”. For the purpose of the example lets’ assume the offer was no interest, payments made on time, fictional %s used, etc.<br>
How many of us would accept that from a store- 6 months into the year-long agreement they explain we could keep the 1 month credit given, but they would actually give only 5% not the 20% for all the rest, because despite the paperwork that they provided that we signed saying 20% they actually intended to offer only 5%? How many of us would really say- “Well, uh, OK!”</p>