<p>Is it possible that this was done incorrectly and they should have adjusted your AGI instead of the amount of FIT paid? Absolutely…</p>
<p>Calmom, I did not tell you that your D’s school didn’t make an adjustment to your data fields and they certainly must have verified the figures if you submitted schedules. But to put forth an argument that schools routinely exercise professional judgement with no contact with the family is disingenuous and misleading. I do find it interesting that this was done by a school that guarantees to meet 100% of need…thereby saving themselves a bit of cash! But to argue that any school would use PJ to deliberately take away aid that a student is legally entitled to is beyond illogical. That was the point of my argument and I’m sticking to it. You are comparing apples to oranges and it’s simply not true.</p>
<p>We all count on each other’s wisdom, resourcefulness in pursuing info, analyses of that info and willingness to share via this forum. Are we at a point where sides can agree to disagree? We will all meet up again, many times, on future threads.</p>
<p>If one wants to pursue this contradictary picture, it might be well served on a new thread, where new posters can offer their understanding and experiences. This thread is probably now ignored by many, as it opens with 200-plus exchanges wih Steve.</p>
<p>Admire all of you- great minds trying to wrap their arms around this vexing question.</p>
<p>It is very odd Calmom. Schools are not supposed to just change your data unless there is some good reason for it. They usually document things well because If they are ever audited and could not show the reason for the adjustment they are responsible for repaying any over-awards. When we had a profession judgement we had to provide a stack of paperwork to support the medical expenses and I am betting it is all still in my daughter’s files.</p>
<p>Her FAFSA was adjusted another year because of what they considered to be an error by us when we filed FAFSA. I did not agree with the change, but it did not affect our EFC so I did not argue with them.</p>
<p>Schools are not supposed to make adjustments unless they consider something was wrong or there is a special circumstance that fits in with the feds rules. Certainly not to “make someone pell eligible”, unless some special situation exists that justifies making such an adjustment. Did you ask them why they made this adjustment? Lacking any good and supported reason, it sounds like either someone made a huge error, or there is something very fishy going on in their FA office.</p>
<p>Actually I had a college (Stevens) do something similar as happened to Calmom.</p>
<p>We started the year not eligible for Pell, and halfway through the second semester my son’s income was adjusted to be eligible for Pell. I was told that they were allowed to take his co-op money away from his AGI since it was school related.</p>
<p>At first, they just took the school grant away, which really threw us for a loop, but several weeks later they let us know that the grant was being replaced by Pell.</p>
<p>^That’s what I thought too, upon reading the details of how her D became Pell eligible! IIRC, the D attended Barnard and, strangely enough, they apparently do scour every aid application and make changes they feel are appropriate. This is what is on their FA site:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is perfectly fine, unless they are incorrectly making FAFSA adjustments which result in awards of federal student aid…that’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish and reminiscent of some NYC Jewish schools that ran afoul of the rules around 15 or 20 years ago when they were caught awarding Pell grants illegally. Idk what happened to them but I’m sure it wasn’t good. Anyway, that’s not something one would expect to see at a school like Barnard so hopefully calmom’s memory is not as good as she thinks it is!</p>
<p>Susgeek, the co-op income was probably treated as work-study income is, that is excluded from the EFC calculation.</p>
But it really is not the same. Your school changed the FAFSA to correctly reflect that fact that the new law allows co-op money to be excluded from the AGI. That is something they should be doing. </p>
<p>A school is liable for repaying aid incorrectly awarded so they are usually very cautious about data. Incorrectly changing data to award students federal aid they are not in fact eligible for could be a big problem for the school if they are caught.</p>
<p>I understand that. The discussion about my situation was because sk8rmom posted that colleges could not use PJ unless requested to do so by the financial applicant, and I posted that 3 times (at least) in my experience, colleges have in fact made changes to the FAFSA without my request.</p>
<p>It seems you now are claiming that PJ can only be used to reduce the EFC, never to increase it – but 2 out of the 3 times that PJ was used, without my asking, it was done to substantially increase values that were entered into particular field on what I thought was an arbitrary basis. My son was not eligible for Pell the years that was done (2001, 2002), but it did result in an increased EFC. </p>
<p>Leaving aside the issue of the automatic 0, if a person’s EFC, are you contending that the financial aid office is not allowed to use PJ to change data in fields if it reflects higher income than the applicant has reported? That PJ can only be used to lower EFC, never to raise it? </p>
<p>If so, can you please point me to the LAW or provision in the financial aid manual? </p>
<p>I interpret a law that says “nothing in this law shall limit the authority of the financial aid officer” to mean just that. If there is something in the law… all I am asking, and have been asking all along, is that someone point me to the reference.</p>
<p>I have been citing to law and citing to the manual published by the Dept. of Education. Everyone else in this thread simply makes bald assertions – they can do this, they can’t do that – but I don’t think anyone else has linked to or cited to a single thing to back up their assertions. That’s all I’m asking.</p>
<p>OK, it only happened to me 3 out of the 6 years that I participated in the financial aid system, involving two different unaffiliated college, because it is a strange and unusual coincidence. It never happens to anyone else on the planet, just me and my rotten luck. </p>
<p>I didn’t say routinely – you said “never” – I provided 3 examples to disprove “never”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it didn’t save them money. They lowered my EFC by $2800 but only brought in $1300 in Pell money as my daughter wasn’t eligible for a full grant. So their exercise of PJ to make my d. Pell eligible resulted in an increase of the college grant by $1500. </p>
<p>
When the school use PJ by definition it means that they have a different view as to what the student is “entitled to”. They use PJ to change the figures because they feel that because of circumstances unique to the student, based on documentation that they have, the numbers on the FAFSA do not accurately reflect the financial situation. </p>
<p>Or to put it another way, NYU might have decided that people who have $1million in bonds lying aroudn are not “entitled” to Pell grants, no matter how creative they get with tax filings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what you said in post #293:
</p>
<p>Entering that my tax was $12,000 when it it was 0 is not something that they do when they “verify” figures or correct “errors”. It is professional judgment. </p>
<p>Again, colleges are allowed to use PJ to make ADJUSTMENTS to the figures in various fields. They can not add a new field to to the form, so they have to make additions or subtractions to fields that are designed for something else. The reason they put $12,000 inj the “tax paid” field is that they wanted to subtract $12K from my overall numbers, and that is probably the only field on the whole form that is a direct subtraction from AGI. </p>
<p>Here is why they didn’t want to just subtract that number out from AGI:</p>
<p>I would note that the paragraph from finaid.org quoted above has been posted at least since February 2005, when it first shows up in archive.org – a full year before my d’s college made that exact adjustment they were discussing.</p>
<p>Calmom, I’m getting a bit tired of you misquoting me…this is what I actually said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your son’s FAFSA was adjusted because you failed to enter a value for your business at a time when FAFSA required that, correct? That was probably not professional judgement…that sounds like a required correction and they used an assumption as suggested in the ED guidelines at that time. It’s the same thing that schools do when there’s interest/dividend income and no assets reported, they simply use an imputed value.</p>
<p>In your daughter’s case, the adjustment made seems very sketchy and here’s why:</p>
<p>The data they changed related to income taxes that were never paid because, as you posted, you had no tax liability that year. Imo, she was essentially made pell-eligible fraudulently, although not through any wrongdoing on your part. If there was actually a legitimate reason for Barnard to adjust your income, based on Schedule A deductions, they could have and should have adjusted your AGI.</p>
<p>I just didn’t have to bring it to their attention. </p>
<p>They figured it out all by themselves without bothering to ask me what I thought about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I have told you again and again, it was documented. It just didn’t require extra documentation from me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have posted in detail several times what the circumstance was, how they found it, how I came to ask them about it, and that they explained it to me. Have you even read any of my posts? At least Steve has done me the courtesy of reading what I post before taking issue or disagree. You seem to simply ignore it and debate things. </p>
<p>The special circumstance is that I had an unusual big expense that the made the college think that I had a lot less available income than the FAFSA formula would indicate. They could see what that expense was, because it was a tax write off for me, but it was the kind of tax writeoff that reduces my tax liability if not my AGI. (that’s why my taxes for that year were 0 – the IRS also cut me a break).</p>
Sk8rmom, it is very apparent to me that you really do not understand what professional judgment is. </p>
<p>You say that you requested it based on medical expenses from a college – after you submitted all the paperwork, did they grant your request? Did they change the FAFSA? Where did they put the change on the form? </p>
<p>
NO, the rules for professional judgment specifically authorize the schools to CHANGE the data when they have (a) special circumstances and (b) documentation. That is all they need. “Documentation” can be minimal – it could be one entry on one line of a tax formm. “Special circumstances” is anything that distinguishes that student from other similarly situated students. It does not have to be something that is rare, just something that makes the student different and doesn’t apply to a whole class of students.</p>
<p>I have quoted and linked and quoted and linked to the LAW and to the MANUAL issued by the Dept. of Education to financial administrators. I don’t know what more I can do. But the whole point of “professional judgment” is that the college financial aid officers are expressly authorized, by law, to change the data in any field on the form. There are no fields on the form to subtract out things like medical expenses - so by definition when they are exercising professional judgment they have to change the data in a field on the form to be something different than what it would be if totally accurate.</p>
<p>And of course it can impact eligibility for federal benefits. Why else would the federal government even care? If the EFC goes down, then eligibility may be increased. If circumstances mean that the EFC goes up, then eligibility may be reduce.</p>
<p>That’s just how it works. I’m sorry if you don’t believe it, but that’s how it has been set up. I’m sorry if you don’t believe me, but I hope other people reading this thread will be intelligent enough to actually read the material that I’ve linked to. I didn’t write the law, I’ve only quoted it.</p>
<p>No, that’s not correct. (Do you know what they say about people who assume? Maybe instead of telling me what you think happened you could ask questions first. That’s what people usually do if they actually want to learn things.)</p>
<p>I entered a value for the business. I followed instructions. I calculated what I thought to be the current fair market value of the business equipment I owned, then I looked at my receivables and I added those numbers together. That came out to some figure that was less than $5000, I don’t remember what. But I usually don’t have more than about $3000 receivables at any given time (money I have billed to clients but not yet been paid). </p>
<p>The college went in and changed that figure from $5000 to $35000, or thereabouts. </p>
<p>The next year I did the same thing, and they did the same thing again. Year #1 I didn’t realize what they had done, year #2 I called them up to debate the point. That’s when they explained their position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They didn’t change the formula. They left that the same.</p>
<p>They didn’t change the tables. They left those the same.</p>
<p>They didn’t change the cost of attendance. They left that the same.</p>
<p>They changed the value of two “specific data elements used in the calculation”. I told you about one. I didn’t notice the other until I was pulling up the docs. It happened that back in 2006 I was still supposed to provide a value for my business – the law didn’t change to exempt small businesses until the following year, 2007 – and I entered a value of roughly $1000 on the FAFSA in the appropriate field. My d’s college changed that to -0-. I did not ask for that, I did not even know it was done until today. That would have resulted in a net decrease of roughly $56 on my overall EFC. But technically, that is a 4th instance of PJ being exercised by a college all by itself, without a request from the parent.</p>
<br>
I explained why they didn’t do that in post #330, quoting from an article a finaid.org published in 2005. If they change the AGI, it triggers changes other formulas that rely on the AGI for calculation, like state tax tables. In any case, if they had changed AGI, it very well may still have made her Pell eligible, since the income was reduced in any case --so I don’t get how you consider it “fraudulent” to subtract the number out in one field rather than another.</p>
<p>In any case the law expressly allows them to change any “data element”. Any field with a number in it is a “data element”.</p>
<p>I have a question about the Fafsa changes. At some schools, particularly those with Profile, they may may decide to change the FAFSA. One change is very easy for them to do= add back in the non taxable portion of my h’s pay due to time in combat zone. Now if a Profile school did that, or something else like add back in as taxable housing allowance, that would get us out of the subsidized Stafford loan option, definitely. WHat I want to know is if FAFSA is changed in one school, is it changed throughout the schools so know you don’t get subsidized loans at any school? (I know d can only attend one school but she has no favorite and money may play a larger or smaller role depending on other factors).</p>
<p>When DD was applying to schools, one school changed her FAFSA and I believe that it showed that way to all schools. We had included combat pay and separation pay in the appropriate areas. We had also included BAH, which was required to be reported at that time. However, we had forgotten to include OHA (DH was also receiving that) and one school added it in. Our EFC rose because he had 6 months of OHA at $3000/month. After I explained to the school what OHA was for, they took it out and that new change showed up. They caught it when we were verified and it showed on the W2.</p>
<p>We didn’t end up getting new award letters from the others schools because this happened right at the end of April and she was turning them down at that point.</p>
<p>Steve,
He graduates 1.5 years early, lives at home and works (even in a restaurant if needed) without paying rent and the debt is gone within 4 years of graduating high school…</p>
<p>I’m not sure but if I recall correctly, I think NYU requires all freshmen to live in dorms their first year. Something to do with getting rid of the commuter school tag they used to have.
For some reason this came to mind, check it out to see if this is true.</p>
<p>Thanks, Cap. I will have to watch for that since I think the schools with Profile might end up changing the FAFSA while she may be choosing a FAFSA only school. SHe has no front runners right now and currently just miserable about going to college next year but she would be miserable anyway since we are moving away from her friends this summer when we PCS.</p>
<p>Forgive me, calmom, but I omitted the word “fair” from my statement on how your business became the subject of a FAFSA correction…your explanation of that was 150 posts ago (this thread has gone on waaaayy too long) and I didn’t feel like wading through all of the lenthy posts since then. I wasn’t assuming that you made a FAFSA error, I was actually basing that on information you had provided, and an error was clearly made when you did not enter a FAIR value for your business. This is what you actually said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One would not normally compute FMV, which was the number FAFSA required in 06, for an ongoing business based solely on the value of office equipment and accounts receivable. What your S’s college did was use an imputed value to correct an error or inconsistency and it does not seem that 1x NIBT was an unfair assessment, although it may be a very simplistic approach. Your D’s college did not correct the inconsistency, as required, and seems to have only made it worse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you are making an assumption here…I did not say anthing of the sort. I do feel that I have a fairly good grasp of both the spirit and the letter of the law, as it was written and intended it to be applied. I can find nothing to suggest that PJ was ever intended to give FAA’s a sword to cut aid to those who are otherwise legally entitled to receive it and can find a great deal of information suggesting the exact opposite is true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s interesting that you stopped reading/quoting just short of this part:</p>
<p>“In addition, you can’t adjust data elements or the cost of
attendance solely because you believe the tables and formula are
generally not adequate or appropriate. The data elements that are
adjusted must relate to the student’s special circumstances.”</p>
<p>Did you actually have a state tax liability that would have made an AGI adjustment inappropriate? If so, it seems that the taxes paid field would have been adjusted to reflect that but $12K in state taxes at your income level seems unlikely and certainly well above what the FAFSA formula would have calculated. What is this mysterious Schedule A item related to? For most items on Schedule A it would seem appropriate to follow the guidance and adjust AGI and thereby avoid “double dipping”, ie. benefitting from the formula allowances like state taxes that are already inflated due to post-AGI adjustments while also adding an additional adjustment for income taxes that are unrelated to the special circumstance. I believe this was the reasoning behind the example they gave related to medical expenses.</p>
<p>Anyway, this thread has gone too far afield of what the original debate was and I think it’s time to call it quits when you’re feeling personally attacked and inclined to make snide remarks to other members. I don’t think anyone called you a liar, and I certainly did not mean to personally attack anyone…to me, it was simply an interesting debate on the role of professional judgement as it related to STEVE and whether PJ could ever be used to DENY federal aid that a student was otherwise qualified for. As I said, I have no dog in this fight and, after reading hundreds of articles, emails, and posts related to special circumstances over the years, researching both the laws and the relevant regs, and discussing the matter with other FAA’s, and coming across only one person (calmom) at a single school that has had a clear case of PJ in the absence of an appeal or any other discussion with the recipient or family, I think it’s safe to assume, if you will allow me to do so, that your case was an unusual occurence and may not be the firmest ground upon which to render an opinion of what is likely to occur at other schools, especially when discussing the use of PJ in a way that is contrary to other federal laws and regualtions.</p>