<p>Calmom, had you actually clicked on the link directly following the quote you posted on the Ombudsman’s site, you would have found a great deal more info, including this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they do help resolve issues with federal student loans and, since that seems to be a common problem, it makes sense that they would identify themselves as being the correct office to contact. But, there is nothing there that says they work EXCLUSIVELY on federal loan issues. They CAN, and do, help to resolve other federal aid issues as well.</p>
<p>If they have Stafford or Perkins loans, they will NEED those PINS for signing of master promissory notes to ACCEPT the loans, and to do the exit counseling for their loans when they leave school. Both of OUR kids got the info about this to their SCHOOL email accounts. They then needed to complete these items. They need the PIN to do so. In fact, they need their PIN for ANY online access to their loan accounts…until they pay them off.</p>
<p>Our kids don’t have OUR PIN numbers. We keep them all in a safe place.</p>
<p>Re: completing the FAFSA…the “FAFSA POLICE” are not going to come and get you for completing the form. BUT I will say…doing this WITH our older son made it ever so much easier for him to complete it when he was doing his grad school applications for aid.</p>
<p>While, I do enjoy reading this thread, if one goes back to the beginning, it does seem like it has veered way off track from the original post:</p>
<p>FROM STEVE123 “We got a zero efc because my income is so low, but I have assets. I am eligible to file 1040a in fafsa. I understand nyu can’t mess with the 0 efc, but they can make whatever determination they want for aid. The government will qualify me for the complete pell grant. since it comes from the government, will nyu just deny it anyway even though it has no effect on you. They seem to be just awful for financial aid. a supervisor there even told me they feel it is their job to minimize aid for everyone…”</p>
<p>Rereading it now, Steve, I wonder what did you really want by starting this thread? Sympathy? A place to vent? It seems like the discussion has become a “war of words” between experienced fin aid applicants/veteran posters and you. </p>
<p>HELLO, bottom line- NYU, known for lousy fin aid which you acknowledge yourself, has made a determination in your son’s case and that’s it. Love it or leave it. You seem to have the determination to “fight city hall” that’s like a dog with a bone–you won’t let go. </p>
<p>I guess what fascinates most people here (or at least me) is that fact that although you keep “hitting your head on the wall,” you won’t let go and seem to think that big, bad NYU will somehow come around to your thinking. Good luck with that (seriously). If you can convince them that you are right, and they change their determination, then you’ve struck a blow against a bureaucracy that we would all like to smash! </p>
<p>Please keep us updated on your “David vs Goliath” fight!</p>
<p>I think this is the core issue which is still being debated. Steve’s original question was whether NYU had the authority/ability to go beyond the usual aid processing system and deny his son federal aid. In the absence of evidence that they apply this practice fairly and across the board, my view is that they do not. Earlier posters who are both knowledgeable and experienced said they same. When Steve answered questions that were posed regarding the source of his income/assets, some people felt that NYU could and should assume that task. While everyone may feel that’s the way things SHOULD work, I don’t think that’s actually the way they system DOES work. In the interest of keeping this forum about gaining true and correct knowledge and insight into the FA process, I think that it’s a question best left for an actual FAO such as kelsmom or for the ombudsman.</p>
<p>Calmom quote: No, because they will correct the FAFSA to show a 1040 filing. Even if Steve files a 1040A, they will make the change</p>
<p>Sk8 note: *Hmmm…that would create an inconsistent FAFSA and they would not be able to award/process any aid under that scenario. Why would they change it to a 1040 filing when he is NOT required to file a 1040 under current tax law? *</p>
<p>He is NOT REQUIRED to file a 1040 for IRS purposes. So, he can choose that. But, IRS dictates and finaid considerations differ from that point forward. FA makes this change because, for their purposes- and under their allowable procedures- they detected he does not truly match the criteria they have established. They are NOT changing tax laws. </p>
<p>Calcom can tell us if this fits her legal understanding:</p>
<p>Section 479A of the Higher Ed Act of 1965, as amended: (bolds are mine)
a) “(a) IN GENERAL—Nothing in this part shall be interpreted as limiting the authority of the financial aid administrator, on the basis of adequate documentation, to make adjustments on a case-by-case basis to the cost of attendance or the values of the data items required to calculate the expected student or parent contribution (or both) to allow for treatment of an individual eligible applicant with special circumstances."</p>
<p>From Finaid.org: An FAA may use professional judgment, only on a case-by-case basis, to either increase or decrease one or more of the data elements used to calculate the EFC. The reason must be documented in the student’s file and it must relate to that student’s special circumstances that differentiate an individual student (not to conditions that exist for a whole class of students).<br>
…An FAA may not make a direct change to the EFC figure, assessment rates, or allowances; he or she may adjust only an actual data item in keeping with the student’s special circumstances. [FinAid</a> | Professional Judgment | Counselor’s Handbook](<a href=“Your Guide for College Financial Aid - Finaid”>Your Guide for College Financial Aid - Finaid)</p>
<p>So, when NYU realized Steve has extraordinary assets, they treated him as a 1040 filer, for finaid calculation purposes. I assume, since he did not submit an amended Fafsa, NYU will [try to] run this (based on the legit formulas) on behalf of his son, come up with a higher EFC and act accordingly. They cannot change the EFC formula, but they can change the input. I don’t know if NYU knows what Steve’s actual asset value is. If they don’t, they either have a formula to base an estimate on (via his interest/ROI) or there’s your blockade.</p>
<p>Steve commented that we don’t know finance. So be it.</p>
<p>Also from Finaid:
As a general rule, unless the family is fairly destitute, a decrease in the EFC will yield an increase in eligibility for student loans and work-study, not grants. Just because you demonstrate financial need doesn’t mean that the school and government will throw grants and scholarships your way. </p>
<p>Steve can do as he wishes. So can NYU. I’d guess an ombudsman would get one whiff of his assets and suggest he be treated accordingly.</p>
<p>Again…you’re using professional judgement criteria and guidance to fit a situation where no need for professional judgement exists. Afaik, FAOs use VERIFICATION, not professional judgement, to verify eligibility for federal student aid that already exists. Professional judgement and verification are NOT the same thing at all! Professional judgement is used on a case-by-case basis when the student/family requests consideration for a special circumstance, ie. when there is a job loss, high medical expenses, etc. PJ is intended to give FAO’s a wide latitude in determining whether an increase in financial aid is appropriate…but it is not carte blanche to rewrite fed aid rules! There is not request by steve for professional judgement and no basis for one either.</p>
<p>Has ANYONE here ever had or heard of an EFC being changed through professional judgement that was NOT the result of a request for consideration of special circumstances? I have never heard or read of that happening anywhere and would be very interested in knowing where that has been used and why.</p>
<p>Have your kids borrowed Stafford loans? If so, did you do their entrance counseling and sign their MPN’s? Do you plan to pay their loans back for them?</p>
<p>Please read the statement that accompanies the electronic PIN signature each time you add your child’s PIN to anything.</p>
<p>I started this thread looking for the answer to the question I posed. I think the information given by sk8rmom professionally outlines how the situation is most likely to be handled. I noted a lot of other people with different agendas, but not with much understanding of the subject at hand. I tried to address some of the ideas brought up in the context of financial analysis. Certain ideas, if implemented, would cause a swelling in the ranks of people on public assistance over time, and I think the government is not looking to go there. Anyway, in short, I am good. Thanks.</p>
<p>This is NOT true. Professional judgment can be used whenever the college believes it to be appropriate, with or without a request from the family, in ways that can result in either reduction or increase in EFC and corresponding eligibility. I already have given two examples. When my son’s first college used professional judgment to assign an arbitrary value to my “business”, they did so WITHOUT notifying me. I didn’t even know or understand what they had done until a year later, when reapplying for aid, when the online FAFSA showed me the values from the previous year. </p>
<p>When my daughter’s college used professional judgment to make her eligible for Pell as an entering student, they did so without any request for me for a reason that never would have occurred to me, entering data in a field that superficially seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the label. The only reason I know what they did is that I couldn’t understand what they were doing at the time or how my d. could possibly be qualified for Pell & an ACG – so I called the director of financial aid and went over the process very carefully. </p>
<p>The difference between verification and the exercise of professional judgment is that verification is mandatory (college HAS to obtain documentation from family and affirm accuracy), and professional judgment is discretionary (college can use or not, as they see fit). </p>
<p>Here’s the law that I previously quoted again:
</p>
<p>Could you please explain which part of the above is unclear to you? If “nothing” in the law limits authority… then why do you think the ability to exercise p.j. is limited to cases where the parent requests it? </p>
<p>Do you think that the issue of whether the parent is eligible to file a 1040a is not a “data item required to calculate the expected parent contribution”? If not, why not?</p>
<p>Do you think that the fact that a parent earning $43,000 annually from investment assets worth at least $1 million is not a “special circumstance” that differentiates that student from a class of students"… and if not, why not? </p>
<p>I really don’t think you understand what I have been saying at all, but I know from a post that Steve made early on that the NY financial aid people TOLD him that they are exercising “professional judgment”. They have the authority to do so, and there are a number of different options they have in terms of making adjustments. For example, they could leave the 1040A box filled one way, and then just change the figure in the AGI field.</p>
<p>You seem to think that there is a limit on their authority when the law specifically says there is none. You seem to think that they have to treat all applicants the same, when the law specifically says that “professional judgment” is to be used to treat applicants differently when circumstances exist which set the applicant apart from the others. </p>
<p>I DID read that page, I didn’t bother to quote from it because it clearly and unequivocally says that the Ombudsman has NO power or authority or ability to influence or change a decision. So I didn’t think at the time that it was necessary to quote from a page that was full of statements explaining why the Ombuds office is powerless:</p>
I am glad to hear that. I think you are deciding to believe what you want to believe and not what you don’t like.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that even if sk8rmom is correctly interpreting the law, the decision of the NYU financial aid office remains final and cannot be appealed. As a practical matter, it means that even if NYU is interpreting the law incorrectly, there’s nothing you can do about it.</p>
<p>There’s also a nifty clause somewhere that the FAAs can be arbitrary, including being less supportive to a parent who is impolite or aggressive.</p>
<p>This has been fascinating. Steve’s real loss is that he spent so much time on CC. He could have been writing this up and hawking it. Plenty of parents would pay $29.99 to learn how a loss of a few thousand, by filing the 1040A, could result in a 0 or near-0 EFC. </p>
<p>Good luck to all. The main posters here have been very informative.</p>
<p>Calmom, in your case I think it’s very clear that you had made some errors on your FAFSA filings and that’s what the FAO’s were correcting…it was not a matter of excercising professional judgement, in the technical sense of the term, because they are REQUIRED to correct any inconsistencies that exist betwen FAFSA filings and other information, such as tax documents, prior to awarding aid. Until NYU actually verifies steve’s FAFSA there is no reason to believe any adjustments are necessary since, unlike you, he appears to have a relatively simple tax structure. Since you are not a FAO, and my information has been confirmed by two actual aid officers, I’m going to leave you to your rant. I’m sorry that YOU had a bad experience with NYU’s aid decisions and perhaps they actually are as arbitrary and mean-spirited as they seemed to steve. But, for the benefit of other readers, that is NOT the way the FA system is supposed to work. The reason that Congress gave FAOs wide latitude is to address unusual issues that may restrict a student’s ability to receive aid and attend college…not to create more barriers to education than already exist and certainly not to have them usurp the authority that Congress has to establish federal aid programs, nor ED’s authority for creating the guidelines for aid processing which all schools awarding federal aid must follow. The clause that you love to hang your hat on is very narrow in scope and applies ONLY to cases of professional judgement…in other words, it does NOT apply to processing and verification at all. Those fall squarely under the ED regs and are certainly subject to appeal, and sanctions can be imposed on both the school and the FA official. Even in cases of PJ, the aid officer is required to fully document and explain all changes to data fields and there must be a factual basis for that change. So, in the absence of an actual inconsistency or outright omission in the tax or FAFSA filing, there would be no factual basis for a change in steve’s case.</p>
<p>I have no dog in this fight as I’m neither eligible for Auto 0 nor a millionaire. My only interest is in seeing that this forum continues to provide factual and realistic insight into the FA process. I think I’ve explained this as clearly as possible and steve has his answer.</p>
<p>I still have some problems with Steve’s story. I am puzzled by his claim that his taxes would be reduced by $2000 if he filed a 1040 rather than a 1040a, because of a capital loss deduction. It seems to me that a single, head of household with one dependent and $20K worth of income would owe -0- taxes — and if he owed -0- with a 1040a that he was eligible to file, then I don’t know why he would think that at 1040 saved him money. </p>
<p>So I think there’s still even more going on that meets the eye, though I honestly don’t have a clue what it might be. But maybe people would pay an additional $29.99 for tax advice – “how to save more money in taxes than you actually owe” seems like an intriguing topic.</p>
<p>Sure have. We know of a couple of people (in real life) and there have been a number of posts HERE about changes made by financial aid officers TO the FAFSA because of incorrect input from the filer. Some colleges receive tax returns and cross check the numbers. If there is an inaccuracy the college finaid officer is REQUIRED to make this change to the FAFSA and they can do it. Sometimes this is a surprise to the FAFSA filer…they get a note saying their EFC has changed. Folks here have been advised to print out the SAR they get when they file so that IF this happens, they can go line by line to see what was changed. This is NOT due to a request from the family for a special circumstances verification.</p>
<p>Thumper, those were not due to the process known as “professional judgement”. Those came about through verification. They are not the same thing.</p>
<p>I think the “data elements relating to need analysis” would cover the 1040/1040A situation. The above paragraph says that the FA CAN make such changes… but advises that they “tread lightly”. I’d note again that there’s nothing that can be done if they overstep their bounds – but I’m thinking that a “reasonable person” might very well conclude that there was an “oversight” in regulations that would allow an investor with over $1 million in assets and $43K of income from those assets to fall within the automatic 0 EFC category, simply by structuring his investments to produce mostly tax-free income and filing a short form tax return.</p>
No, you are DEAD wrong. I did not make any ERROR whatsoever in my filing. I was specifically told by my d’s financial aid office that they used “professional judgment”. If you want I can PM you to give you more details. But the point is, there was NO inconsistency - I followed instructions to the letter, and the college financial aid departments changed VALUES entered in specific fields on the form based on their own judgment of what was fair. The values were NOT consistent with what the FASFA instructions require. There didn’t even EXIST any sort of field or place on the FAFSA for me to enter the type of expense that my d’s financial aid used to reduce EFC – they had to enter the number in a field that had a totally different label. </p>
<p>
I’ll just have to assume that you are misunderstanding the “confirmation” you have from the “two actual aid officers”, given that MY “actual aid officer” told me something different at the time (confirmed in writing so I still have a record of it) - and that I’ve now rather exhaustively and repeatedly quoted the LAW to you. I am an “actual” trained lawyer, so I’m pretty confident that I can read a statute.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the contrary, it is very broad in scope. It says that financial aid officers can do anything they want based on special circumstances, so long as what they do is based on adequate documentation supporting whatever change they have made. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is one of several reasons. Another reason is so that FAO’s can help ensure that clever rich people can’t get away with structuring their assets and incomes in such a way as to game the system. What if someone had $10 million and put it ALL in tax-free municipal bonds? That person would have NO reportable income, despite a 6-figure tax exempt income. Do you think the FAO would have to certify THAT person for a Pell grant? Keep in mind that a person in that position can have their kids also take out the maximum in subsidized Stafford and Perkins loans and then just pay them off for the kid after graduation before they start accruing interest – that’s interest-free capital to them. </p>
<p>
Yes, and we know that the factual basis for the change in Steve’s case is that he has $23K in untaxed income and $1+ million in investments. </p>
<p>I’d note that the FAO is required to have the documentation, but they are NOT required to explain the changes unless their school happens to be selected for an audit. My assumption is that when they make the changes, the SAR is flagged in some way so that the Dept of Ed. can see that there are professional judgment type changes, and will NOT try to reconcile information on the SAR with figures on a tax return … since without that flag no p.j. figures would ever match up. (By definition, “professional judgment” allows the FAO to enter data in the field that is DIFFERENT from what would be entered if the form was filled out accurately; if the FAO is instead changing information to make it accurate, that would be a correction not a p.j. adjustment.</p>
<p>Calmom,
I will reply up to post #291. After that not sure if I have time. Sorry if any of this is redundant to what others have said. If NYU has complete discretion to do anything, they are allowed to discriminate according to your interpretation. Yet you say they can’t. The laws you quote obviously do not cover all circumstances, and therefore more research is necessary on your part. as for a class of people who make 43k in investment income with basically no earned income, NYU will have to work pretty hard to separate me out from other classes of people. They have had an enormous number of people apply, and in this economy many of the parents are unemployed financial types over the past few years. I am sure I am not alone. And yes, I am good, thank you. whatever NYU decides to do, I can deal with it. So while I’m good irrespective of what happens, it seems your not. Looks to me like you have some sort of emotional issues clouding your judgment. You are clearly biased and the majority of what you say is incorrect. Why do you bother with this?</p>
<p>Oh, and to clarify, I either did not say or mean that NYU used pj without request to delete my 1040a. U had not filed fafsa at the time I told them of it. They did nothing to indicate they would use pj if I filed with a 1040a. Again much of your musings are based upon false data…</p>
No I am just frustrated with people whose are so stuck in their opinions that they won’t look at the facts. I quoted the law. The Department of Education has its handbook for financial aid administrators posted online. </p>
<p>But if you are prepared to deal with the likely outcome – that NYU isn’t going to change their mind about financial aid – then that’s o.k. Maybe it will work out for you. But if it doesn’t, just don’t come back in April complaining about their determination or asking what your recourse is.</p>
<p>Again, they can be arbitrary. They can make decisions just because they feel you are gaming the system. There is no review. The prohibition against discrimination doesn’t apply to you, and it doesn’t mean that any individual determination is subject to be review. The only way that discrimination can be shown is via evidence of a pattern and practice, and that would show up upon a Dept of Education audit or a civil rights complaint. It would have to be shown that NYU was systematically discriminating against certain classes of students. You are a case of 1.</p>