<p>We are paying a lot less than we thought we’d be paying for college so we’re thrilled.</p>
<p>TXArchitect, As far as the blue envelope children were concerned, the two dollars was the best offer on the table and they thought it was wonderful, until they saw the green envelope children get more. As for the blue envelope people at UA, I suspect, or at least hope, that they made a thorough evaluation of the offers on the table, and picked UA based on that thorough evaluation of the offers they received, with many here in CC land appearing to be pretty happy with their choice and the offer from UA, at least until they saw the green envelope people get more bounty. Human nature. Thankfulness. No word yet from those who have never received an envelope from UA because they didn’t meet the particular qualifications for their particular year.</p>
<p>I think randomparent makes a good point about human nature. You also see it displayed in the parable about the workers. [Matthew</a> 20:1-16 NIV - The Parable of the Workers in the - Bible Gateway](<a href=“Matthew 20:1-16 NIVMatthew - - Bible Gateway”>Matthew 20:1-16 NIV - The Parable of the Workers in the - Bible Gateway)</p>
<p>Having said that, I’m sure that I would also be bothered to be in that 2013 group especially if I were focusing on the years ahead of me. But I’m not in the group. Like the majority of people on this forum, my child isn’t NMF. We had hopes that she would be (she even received state recognition for her SAT score back in 7th grade when she did the Duke TIP) but the PSAT day was a disaster and it didn’t happen. So you could say I have no horse in this race though it isn’t inconceivable that I could have. But I can honestly say that I think it would bother me if I were you. But I would hope that I wouldn’t let it damper the beginning of what should be a great year for your student. </p>
<p>TXA, you didn’t make your decision based on what the school would do for new students the next year. You based it on what they did for your student this year. But like buying something that gets put on sale the next week, we don’t like feeling like we don’t have the best deal we could have. </p>
<p>IMO, it’s all a matter of perspective. I’m thankful for what my D has earned and am just focused on going forward. I hardly remember the other schools and their offers now. I know all of your kids had great options. Lots of kids here did (doesn’t take a NMF to have amazing options). But those options weren’t chosen. UA was chosen and its going to be a great ride. (And who knows…maybe the 2013 NMFs will be surprised by some additional incentives that aren’t on the table right now).</p>
<p>I suspect it was a test to see how far the benefits can be pared back to still attract the similar number of NMFs but not meeting the desired outcome.</p>
<p>Whoever chose UA found it to be be best deal available for the caliber of school. But the number seems to be not to the school’s liking. One has to remember the number accepting makes it to many publications while someone with 33 ACT or 2200 still can’t get mentioned.</p>
<p>I’m assuming your students where aware of the terms of the scholarship offer when they made their decision of where to attend. While I understand your disappointment with the change, I doubt anyone would be complaining if the package went down for 2014-2015 and asking that the new package be applied to their students. I realize this opinion won’t be popular with many of you, but the whining isn’t necessary. This change really doesn’t affect your students or the package they accepted. What students received in past years and what students receive in future years isn’t relevant since it won’t impact your student or the experience they have at the UA.</p>
<p>lattelady, similar story with my D. High stats kid that I knew for sure would receive NM. One test, one shot on one day. Didn’t happen. Here’s my rub, if we lived in another state she would be. Now, that is not fair at all. My kid would have received NM and the NM scholarship had we lived in another state. Too bad I can not show her PSAT score to UA and ask them to give her the NM scholarship as if she lived in X state she would have. I’d take whatever they gave her and be happy. But alas, we live in a state that her score did not equal NM. Therefore, no NM scholarship. </p>
<p>Reading this has me wondering, what about the NM kids that chose UA before they doled out nice scholarship packages? I’m pretty sure those kids and parents got rubbed the wrong way when the next year UA upped the anty to attract those students and they did not get anything.</p>
<p>Of course I’m still happy my child got a great scholarship package. Nevertheless, missing out on the prior, better offer was disappointing. And to once again just miss out, this time on an even better deal? Yeah, it stings. Guess I’m not as holy as some of thou.</p>
<p>FWIW, an admissions rep from another school told me the volatility in NMF terms is partly due to a bragging-rights war between Alabama and Auburn. Maybe Oklahoma is in the mix now too. That makes some sense to me, along with earlier suggestions that the last change was in response to a housing shortage.</p>
<p>Anyway, sincere congrats to the prospective class of ’14.</p>
<p>Apparently it is whining to highlight an aberration in policy that adversely impacts your child, but not whining to complain about the PSAT test day, the higher standards of the state you live in, etc. Nothing new here on CC, but hopefully this thread helps some folks who do want to advocate for their student by contacting the administration and knowing they are not alone in being less holier than thou. And maybe someone at UA will take note and try to apply a scholarship policy that lasts longer than a single year. A reduction in NMF packages would actually have been consistent policy.</p>
<p>I was not complaining. I have never complained on CC or anywhere else about our states higher test score needed for NM. Scores for NM change every single year as well. How about the kids whose scores last year were not NM but this year they are. Whom shall they contact to ask for special conditions because it is not fair?</p>
<p>If you do not accept your NM scholarship we will more than gladly take it and be thrilled!</p>
<p>Just saying, things change. That’s life. We have to accept it and go forth knowing that what is required this year for a certain school or job may be different tomorrow.</p>
<p>I can understand the frustration that 2013 parents must feel at the change in the NMF benefits. I think what is difficult to grasp is the feeling of entitlement that is being expressed by some. You accepted an offer. Without stipulation I presume. Now to think that the administration some how owes you an adjustment is puzzling. Can you imagine the flood of complaints they would receive from multitudes of scholarship recipients?</p>
<p>This new scholarship is better than the one I got, but I’m not going to be bitter about it… I knew what I was accepting when I applied and I didn’t know what future scholarships were going to be like. 2013 kids can be upset, but to actually imply the University owes you something is ridiculous.</p>
<p>The National Merit qualifying numbers change from year to year because to become a National Merit Semifinalist, your performance on the PSAT must be in the top half of one percent of the graduating class for your state. Whether or not you like the criteria for this award, the student’s performance on the PSAT is something wholly within the control of the test taker, except under truly unusual circumstances. (And having now twice lived through the wait to see whether my children filled in enough little circles correctly to achieve that standard, I don’t discount that the cut offs can seem arbitrary – but the bottom line is that the student is measured by his or her own performance on that day.) </p>
<p>The reason people are unhappy about the change in the Alabama NMF scholarship policy – and the reason why differences in state cutoffs from year to year and state to state is not an apt analogy – is because this change in policy was not within the control of the students who were affected by it.</p>
<p>So you are saying that a college can not improve their scholarship offerings to improve the academic caliber of their student body without going back and giving current students the same? How far back should they go? As there are always going to be those that will say “hey what about us. It’s not fair they get it and we do not”</p>
<p>How many of the Universities policies are within the control of the students they affect?</p>
<p>Telekinesis - I presume you are a 2012 or earlier NMF scholarship UA student. 2014 is only “better” if you can’t graduate in 8 semesters or have enough $$$ to give up free housing to live off campus. IF 8 semesters is enough, money is tight, and you’re ok with living on campus 4 years, then the 2012 and earlier package is “better” than the 2014 package. Those two packages are mostly “different”.
No question, the 2013 NMF package is “less”</p>
<p>I think that they miscalculated last year how the numbers would drop, so they’re trying to fix.</p>
<p>I’m glad to see that the high school class of 2014 is being offered a NMF package which is more in reality with how long students are taking to graduate. Many of my very intelligent friends who are on merit scholarships are taking more than 8 semesters to graduate with a bachelor’s degree or are staying for an extra year to complete a master’s degree.</p>
<p>There are generally fewer complaints when a subsidy ends before one is eligible rather than when it starts after one is eligible. For example, many of my friends got the NMF package for being National Hispanic Recognition Program scholars, which was discontinued either after the high school class of 2009 or 2010. People complained, but got over it. I was grandfathered in to my Presidential scholarship covering 17 credits per semester rather than 16 credits until UA decided that full tuition scholarships can cover up to 20 credits. There also used to be a federal grant of $5,000 per year for Pell Grant recipients in STEM majors which ended a couple years ago. Times change. </p>
<p>UA’s scholarships are a carrot used to get high stats students to attend UA who would otherwise attend school elsewhere. Without them or the excellent athletics program, UA would not be as well known. As much as we all like UA, the fact is that it needs to offer significant discounts to get certain students, particularly those with high stats, to attend. It is free to adjust scholarships aka discounts to manage its enrollment desires. While it would be great for UA to modify the scholarship packages of current students, it doesn’t have as much of a reason to do so unless another school made a better offer which caused the high school class of 2013 to attend the other school before they could be counted for UA’s statistics or UA was feeling especially generous.</p>
<p>Before paying OOS tuition for a year of graduate studies at UA, consider alternate options. First off, have your student apply for scholarships and other grad school funding. For many majors, grad school funding packages can be better than undergraduate scholarships. Applying for Alabama residency is also an option. Also, prestige seems to be more of a factor for many graduate and professional degrees than it does for undergraduate degrees. If a university in your state (or a nearby state with an affordable price) has a more prestigious graduate/professional degree program in a student’s desired field, they may be better off going there, especially if it is only for a year. They can still consider their primary alma mater to be UA.</p>
<p>I wonder what consequences have fallen to those who miscalculated something so predictable. And created so much bad will.</p>
<p>The best analogy I can make for those who still can’t empathize is this: NMFs are offered a salary to attend and improve a statistic the university values. Last year Alabama apparently undervalued that statistic and offered the “employees” much less. When a year later salaries have skyrocketed for the same job, presumably to correct the short-sighted policy error, employees with lower salaries will renegotiate and yes, complain about the inequity. Will Alabama bring any parity to the salaries? Unlikely given that they hold all the cards, barring student transfer. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, however, that the underpaid employees find the situation unfair and complain about the boss around the watercooler. Or that future “employees” might think twice about trusting an administration that seems to lack the strategic planning and growth management to avoid such predictable recent problems in coordinating admissions, housing, public relations, etc.</p>
<p>I think the difference is the specific circumstances involved here. Saying that scholarships change and universities have no obligation to make them equitable from year to year is certainly true. However, this situation involves students with the same specific qualification getting significantly more benefit in all but a single year. Whether or not you agree that NMF’s deserve the level of scholarship that UA offers, the fact remains that UA has chosen to reward NMF status. To have one class of NMF students get significantly less when the years before AND after them get more is hard to stomach. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that right or wrong, it feels like my kid got gypped - he is essentially being penalized for being born in the wrong year. Am I grateful for the scholarship that he is receiving? Of course. Will it put a damper on move-in this week? I don’t think so. But it does sting. And I would venture to guess that many of the people berating the “whiners” would be equally stung if it involved their kid. Truthfully, I don’t think expressing disappointment in a policy that adversely affects my kid is the same thing as “whining” anyway. But as always, YMMV.</p>
<p>Is it possible for those of you who feel your students have been given “less than” to have your kids take a gap year and then enter next year under the terms of the “new” NMF package?</p>