<p>Taking advantage of the system is as old as time. There will always be people that do this with nary a thought. Unfortunately this why many “rules” and “regulations” get enacted in the workplace and in society in general. I could forsee the D accepting the aid, going to foreign study and starting somewhere else in the fall…if it bothers enough people then the scholarship will ‘stipulate’ the next time to prevent this situation.</p>
<p>“A last thought, that is related to the second idea is that of altruistic behavior that benefits the community as a whole, not necessarily the individual’s best interest. In a sense I think Mini’s and Oldfort’s (and maybe I left someone else out) may lean in this direction… Naturally, the world would be a better place if people were altruistic, but it is a difficult thing.”</p>
<p>I don’t think of it altruism, but ethics. And ethics are normative, not personal, though they may difficult. And I think that behaving ethically is ALWAYS better, and always benefits the individual…when you wake up and look yourself in the mirror in the morning. (That I also have found it to be beneficial more often than not has nothing to do with it.)</p>
<p>I think it would be wrong to take the scholarship and conceal the fact that you have no intention of returning in the fall. I think that information should be revealed. If the school does not have a problem with it then I don’t see it as an issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right, by my personal standards. But I also said that my husband disagrees, so please consider my question a search for the tie-breaking argument, not a request for affirmation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is already the case at some colleges. My Dd’s previous department stipulated that in order to get funding for the summer (for field work or research), the student must be intending to return in the fall.</p>
<p>I don’t see how the current U could not be aware of transfer apps, as these would require professors’ recommendations and an official transcript.</p>
<p>The D was not accepted at her transfer schools yet, as far as I understand, and she may also change her mind to transfer, especially if this study abroad opportunity provided by her current school turns out to be great. It was not offered to her on a condition that she stays at that school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t have to have a 100% retention rate to have the average student staying for four years. I’m talking about assumptions about students based on the majority of students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, it is a question of merit, not a question of need, in the OP’s case.</p>
<p>Second of all, the ethical thing to do is not always the fair thing to do. How come some guy gets to be born rich, and some other person is born poor? The poor person could get money by finessing the system many times, making implied promises, and sort of fudging the facts. The rich person doesn’t have to do that. So why is it unethical for the person born poor to take advantage? Because lies of omission are lies; taking money under false pretenses (explicit or not) is dishonest.</p>
<p>Just because rich people don’t face the same ethical dilemmas doesn’t mean that poorer people shouldn’t be held accountable.</p>
<p>And the whole, “if you get a four-year scholarship but leave early is it unethical” is a red herring. That’s simply not the same question. Circumstances change and students change their minds later. It would be more akin to saying, suppose you had a four-year scholarship and you knew you weren’t staying at the school, but just wanted to take those first to years for free to save money, but intended to leave later to get a degree at another school with more brand recognition. I don’t think that would be ethical, either.</p>
<p>If the OP’s daughter had planned to stay but during the program, after accepting and putting in considerable effort from her side, learned of a program at another school and decided to apply late for spring admission, that would be different. At that point, another person probably couldn’t take her place. And she would have taken it with honest, open intentions consistent with the goals of the program.</p>
<p>And no, it’s not fair. Rich people get to do a lot of things poor people don’t get to do. Ethics is not about making the world fair.</p>
<p>didn’t read through all the opinions, but want to state a fact here (yea, I’m a science/math kinda person)…</p>
<p>most study abroad scholarships are based on the GPA’s achieved while at the particular university and, therefore, not designed for future regard…</p>
<p>If the concern is that there is a “future” expectation based on the scholarship, I think that concern is misguided…</p>
<p>That being said, everyone has to do what is right for them. If the OP’s daughter is a freshman or soph at Penn State, she is probably not alone in putting transfer apps in; seems to be a trend right after sorority rush for those girls who feel like this is NOW not the right place for them…she could easily change her mind by April or so; doesn’t hurt to put the apps in though…</p>
<p>But I do agree with others on here that she will not know about whether or not she will be able to transfer till very late (even possibly the summer)…</p>
<p>
As someone whose opinion you would probably place in the former category, I nevertheless contend that I don’t particularly care about the letter of the law, especially when it contradicts my ethics. </p>
<p>In the OP’s case, I believe that she is NOT violating the “spirit” of the law because there is NOT an ethical expectation that she will stay at the school–there is only an ethical expectation that she will stay on the study abroad program and not, for instance, decide to run off and do her own thing in that country. If the scholarship comes with conditions that stipulate a presentation upon return, then that is obviously an ethical commitment even if it’s not in any legal contract. As far as I know, the OP’s D was simply awarded a scholarship to study abroad during the summer; whether that scholarship is funded by her present university, an unrelated university, or a private donor is all the same given that the scholarship came with no other restrictions or expectations.</p>
<p>
In fact, many state universities (especially non-flagships) do NOT see the “majority” of their freshman class stay for the next year, much less the next 3 years. I still contend that any assumption “about students based on the majority of students” is not uniformly valid as an ethical expectation. The very fact that some schools try very hard, as an explicit goal, to improve their retention rate shows that they don’t take student retention for granted, and thus that it cannot be an assumption.</p>
<p>
Exactly. Putting in transfer applications is not a commitment of any sort and the OP’s D is (ethically) free to change her mind at any point up to deposit.</p>
<p>
This is often done, although I suspect that a good portion of the students with this initial plan end up staying at the first school. I also don’t think of it as unethical because the school is hoping to woo the student with a four-year scholarship (itself usually contingent on maintaining a certain GPA), but the student is free to leave after each *semester<a href=“since%20the%20scholarship%20is%20presumably%20paid%20by%20semester”>/i</a>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A university is not a business just like any other business. Making money is not the end, as it is with a bank. Even the best universities lose money on every current student, whose costs are subsidized by returns on the endowment, research activities, and donations.</p>
<p>I think the assumption most posters are making is that when a university awards a scholarship for study abroad, there is an expectation that the student will return to enrich the experience of other students. If the student transfers after the foreign experience, the school community is cheated out of the investment in that experience. So, the scholarship is analogous to a firm’s investment in training an employee for a more productive work role.</p>
<p>I don’t think this analogy really applies. But I suppose, since it is after all the school’s money, the school should have the opportunity to set expectations. So go ahead and tell them about the transfer applications. If the program administrators are broad-minded, they’ll appreciate your candor but I don’t think they will rescind the offer (especially if you haven’t even decided to transfer yet).</p>
<p>Sorry, Firefox will not let me multi-quote. I have to tag everything manual so I’m just quoting the whole block.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the student is not changing her mind later. She already knew she might transfer when she accepted the scholarship.</p>
<p>And just because other people are abusing the system, doesn’t mean she should.</p>
<p>Delete based on momofthreeboys comment. Thanks momofthreeboys V</p>
<p>^^^You need to read the whole thread…I’m already on record as NOT agreeing that the D should take the scholarship if she’s going to transfer. The post you quoted is in response to another post about altruism.</p>
<p>
Any student who’s unhappy on a particular day “might” transfer. If unhappy days are common enough, that student might decide to put in transfer applications. If they continue and the student is continuously unhappy, or for other reasons such as academic rigor in a new major, the student might decide to actually transfer. Unless the student is dead-set on transferring if one of her applications is successful and the finances work out, she has made NO commitments whatsoever, even implicitly.</p>
<p>The statement, “other people are abusing the system,” is itself an ethical judgment that is not necessarily correct. I disagree with your assessment of the situation, so while I agree that other people’s actions should have no bearing on one’s personal ethics, I don’t agree that in the example I originally gave, ANYONE is “abusing the system.” There’s no abuse involved, because no one is being unethical. --Obviously you are free to disagree, but disclosing as much information as possible all the time is not automatically the “most ethical” thing to do, just as donating $100 to your church doesn’t make you more altruistic than someone else who only donates $10.</p>
<p>“Obviously you are free to disagree, but disclosing as much information as possible all the time is not automatically the “most ethical” thing to do, just as donating $100 to your church doesn’t make you more altruistic than someone else who only donates $10.”</p>
<p>I don’t really understand this analogy.</p>
<p>I am not talking about disclosing random information.</p>
<p>I’m talking about disclosing intent to leave, when it can reasonably be inferred that such a disclosure would have an effect on one’s chances at receiving a reward. If you think that admitting that you intend to leave sooner rather than later, and it is reasonable to believe that that would make it less likely to get the award, then yes, the ethical thing is to disclose your intentions.</p>
<p>I will say that I had not considered the possibility of just applying for transfers for the heck of it, just because you felt sad. In that case, I’d agree with the others that perhaps her intention to leave is weak at best, and that perhaps the transfers were just a way to cheer her up during the down times. If she isn’t really considering transferring, then sure. Take the scholarship.</p>
<p>It was my understanding, however, that she did intend to switch colleges. But yes, that was based on an assumption that transfer applications are not filled in lightly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t accept the notion that I am ethically required to disclose everything that might affect the other person’s decision. When interviewing for a job, do you tell the potential employer about everything that you screwed up in your last job? I don’t think so, nor are you ethically required to do so. You present yourself in the best possible light.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a deadline for transfer applications, and many students fill them out because they are exploring their options rather than because they have definitely made up their mind. That is especially true for first year students applying to transfer as sophomores – they may be unhappy after their first semester, and feeling they want to at least have the option of leaving the next year if things don’t improve by the end of spring semester.</p>
<p>But that student may also be putting effort in try to make things improve at their first school – and applying to participate in any program offered by the school is one way to do that.</p>
<p>MmeZeeZee: As the prior two posters have said so neatly before me, I don’t think the OP’s D would be disclosing intent to leave; rather, she would be disclosing the fact that she has put in transfer applications and may or may not have options to leave in the fall. I don’t think that’s anyone’s business but hers. I disagree that applying to transfer = intent to leave if possible. Lots of people apply to transfer, are accepted, and end up choosing to stay at their original school.</p>
<p>My opinion is also that the fact that she *might *transfer is not enough to make accepting the scholarship unethical, and I also think she has no ethical obligation to reveal this, unless she was asked the question in the application or interviews for the scholarship. But what should she do if she in fact decides for sure to transfer before going on the summer program? Note that this would occur late in the school year, probably too late for somebody else to go, and certainly too late to recoup the air fare. One option would be for her to make a personal pledge to donate the value of the scholarship back to Penn State when she is able to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you, that’s a creative idea. I like it. However, I’m the one who went to Penn State. My daughter is in Illinois. :)</p>