I bet the students who think that way have parents who think that way, too.
There’s an awful lot of confirmation bias in marlowe1’s reading of the data discussed in that old thread. I don’t remember that data proving much of anything at all.
On the topic of this very interesting, but apparently heavily moderated thread, I definitely lean to the nothingburger side. Unless it turns out that (a) students in the SIC group were allocated a meaningful percentage of the new funding, and other students who applied for it were turned down, and/or (b) the Career office did not follow through on its stated intent to publicize the additional funds more broadly in a few days, this really seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. I missed the part where the Anonymous Disgruntled Advisor was told not to contact the students she had previously told no funding was available and ask if they were still interested. She was already invited to give their information to the person who would be allocating the funding.
The real problem is that kids who had to earn money over the summer probably had made their plans by the third week in May, so the additional funding was not likely to be useful to them. The non-problem is that students from families with the resources to get them on the SIC list are also unlikely to be up in the air about their summer plans on May 20, and precious few of them are likely to be using Metcalf grants anyway. I wonder who actually used the new funding?