<p>hlsess… you’re right an absolute mess, that twice now pact holders had thought this was taken care of…no one was informed of the losses to the fund until the last minute…ie 2010…although losses occurred from 2008 on. then they thought the legislature fixed it, breathed sighes of relief, then a lawsuit by some saying want the contract honored in full, then a settlement where those with the guarantee language even agreed to take a loss but get something paid, and now an appeal…so for 2 years pact holders havent known whether a contract they paid alot of money for would be honored…and they still dont as know one knows when the supreme court will rule on the appeal. If the settlement is upheld, then from now on pact will pay the 2010 rate and parents make up the difference, anyone who bought years ago doesnt have the ability to find other funds its too late, their kids are in college… they had a guaranteed contract so they didnt think they needed a back up. The newer contracts didnt have the guarantee but it was “implied” i dont want to see them lose out…</p>
<p>It is very sad and frustrating. But, to expect the univ to just “eat” the difference isn’t reasonable. The univ isn’t responsible for the situation.</p>
<p>The loss of money could could add up to several thousand over 4 years… If the student has good stats, then the scholarship money can make up (or help make up) the difference. If the student doesn’t have good stats, then it’s asking a lot from the univ to essentially give them a scholarship to make up the difference. </p>
<p>For someone who is a frosh now, how much did their parents pay for the PACT at the time of purchase? </p>
<p>BTW…I know that some people never really read the fine print. Years ago, I can remember waiting with my child at the DMV and a parent told me that their child was going to have a “free ride” to Bama because of PACT. When I told the parent that PACT only covered tuition (not room, board, fees, books), the parent didn’t believe me.</p>
<p>it wsnt the pact holder that came up with that idea…the legislature did…they put it in the bill…pact holders had nothing to do with that proposition. However most schools agreed to it, except the big 4. when they would not agree. it meant potentially all pact holders were out of their tuition money. The only people who expected them to help was the legislature. the pact holders expected pact to pay as their contract stated. they werent being asked NOT to increase tuition, but to do it at a rate that was manageable. I always felt that was a flawed idea but it passed and was signed by the governor etc. </p>
<p>cost of the contract was dependent upon when it was purchased…i know of many that paid 20-30K , many paid less. </p>
<p>the contracts never included dorm or food or books…but they did include fees, although pact has not generally paid those. and while it may be true if they have good stats a scholarship would help…the contract was not for tuition depending on whether you get a scholarship or not</p>
<p>We’re visiting UA this Friday with my DD, and we live in TN. She’s applied to several schools, and we never really gave UA much thought, until we found out that because of her ACT score that her tuition is completely covered, as well as an automatic scholarship from the engineering school. We scheduled a visit after we found this out; the admissions office was very helpful and set us up a personal visit. Ga Tech is her first choice, but their scholarships are very limited and competitive. We won’t know if UT Knoxville will give her any scholarships until next March. She’s also applied to MS State and Purdue, but she’ll go wherever she gets the best scholarship, and if that’s UA, then I say Roll Tide!</p>
<p>mckinna, we are also from TN. Son leaned towards Ga Tech because of engineering but no money. Attending UA with full tuition and engineering scholarship and he couldn’t be happier. Good luck.</p>
<p>For someone who is a frosh now, how much did their parents pay for the PACT at the time of purchase? </p>
<p>My D is a frosh now and it was around $5,500 paid for after birth by my parents. the ones that paid $20,000 or more- not sure when that was…</p>
<p>*My D is a frosh now and it was around $5,500 paid for after birth by my parents. the ones that paid $20,000 or more- not sure when that was… *</p>
<p>That 5500 sounds right. My friend’s D will be a frosh this fall, and that’s about what they paid.</p>
<p>Don’t know what Parent56 is referring to with the $20k. That wouldn’t be a current frosh whose PACT was purchased as a baby. </p>
<p>another friend bought her child’s PACT when her child was about 3 years old…she paid about 7500. That child is now nearly 18. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that while it hasn’t turned out what they thought, if a family paid 5500 18 years ago and they will now get about $32k back in tuition…that’s not bad.</p>
<p>you could buy pact at any point, not all people bought it when their child was an infant. the point isnt that it may be a good return for some…</p>
<p>but what if you applied to UA and they said here is a wonderful scholarship of 20K per year…you declined other schools so no option of going elsewhere and were all set to go with your education paid for…but right before you get there they say…oh wait…we messed up and we arent going to give you that full amount, only a percentage of it…instead of 20 hours we’ll only give you 12 hours, so that great scholarship lets say gets reduced to 5K per year…are you going to say…well 5K is a pretty good return…i counted on and planned for 20K but heck i cant complain…didnt cost me anything to get 5K. Of course not, you will be upset…you counted on that money to pay what you contracted for…full tuition…and now not only could pact holders, not get that, or only get a percentage, they may lose it all.</p>
<p>that scenario is no different than a contract that said you will get full tuition for your child and at the last minute they say oops we invested the money poorly…not there anymore…its either gone or will be reduced…but dont complain because you got something??? go pay for a mercedes and then get handed a chevy but dont complain at least you got a car??? </p>
<p>hless if you are reading the pact board you will have seen multiple people that paid 20+K that have teenagers only a few years from college</p>
<p>no one begrudges a good student merit aid…and obviously people here recognize UA, Auburn etc as a good school to attend…but money definitely has played a role in a decision to attend… (just read all the posts on here) Many arent attending their own state school as the merit aid isnt as good. so the upset is while UA et al are making it easier for oos kids to attend moneywise…they arent helping instate with a pact problem, and money is an issue for those parents too.</p>
<p>*but what if you applied to UA and they said here is a wonderful scholarship of 20K per year…**you declined other schools so no option of going elsewhere *and were all set to go with your education paid for…but right before you get there they say…oh wait…we messed up and we arent going to give you that full amount, only a percentage of it…instead of 20 hours we’ll only give you 12 hours, so that great scholarship lets say gets reduced to 5K per year</p>
<p>That’s not a fair analogy. The schools have no control over what happened with PACT. They weren’t running it, they didn’t set up the contracts, etc.</p>
<p>PACT people still have the option to attend other schools with the money. There are Alabama schools willing to take PACT as paid in full for tuition. </p>
<p>In your example, the person has declined other offers, has committed to attending Bama, and then the rules are changed, and other options are no longer on the table. That’s not what happened with PACT. And Bama, UAB, et al, had no control over any of it. </p>
<p>Bama would not change an awarded scholarship (to the detriment) because it was a firm contract (which involved the declination of other offers)…and it knows that it would lose any lawsuit if it tried. </p>
<p>no one begrudges a good student merit aid…and obviously people here recognize UA, Auburn etc as a good school to attend…but money definitely has played a role in a decision to attend… (just read all the posts on here)</p>
<p>Again, you’re wrongly using this unusual group (that posts here on CC) as some kind of example. Those who post here are more the exception…largely involving high stats students. </p>
<p>The majority of OOS students are NOT receiving large merit scholarships. Out of 3000 OOS students, only a small number are getting large merit. Do you really think that Bama is handing out 3000 big scholarships to OOS frosh every year??? Not even close.</p>
<p>Bama probably awards about 300 OOS scholarships of Presidentials/NMF and UA Scholars. the majority of OOS students are not getting much money. </p>
<p>and money is an issue for those [PACT] parents too</p>
<p>Money is an issue for PACT **and **non-PACT instate students. So, to be fair, a merit scholarship policy can help either group…not just PACT folk.</p>
<p>no i dont think ua is handing out 3000 scholarships to freshman… however from their website there are 3000 participants in honors colleges…at current numbers that means about 1500 are oos…but we’ll reduced that to 1000 as the oos numbers have been increasing to the current level. all honors students must have 28 act or above so all are getting some merit. </p>
<p>its interesting to see that same attitude towards pact students…well they can go somewhere else…that wasnt why their parents bought pact plans…they bought those so their kids could go to the school they got accepted to.</p>
<p>also interesting that people feel the STATE should fix the problem…you all “fell” for the same thing pact holders did. although contracts carry the seal of the state of alabama, all correspondence comes from pact signed by the state treasurer, it is not a state obligation or debt. the pact fund is a trust fund, that the act allowed to use the state treasurers office, …pact holders all thought (i mean wouldnt you if it has the seal of the state etc) it was a state program, it was marketed as a state run program. NOPE. the act also says that the pact board is not personally liable… so you cant sue kay ivey…and suing the pact board means they use even more of the money to cover legal fees rather than pay tuition… although obviously some dont see it that way and have sued and then appealed the settlement. it is a very complicated matter as there are different contracts, wording of the act was changed multiple times etc. and for those who say well you could have pulled your money out… the first notice people had was when a letter was sent saying pact was basically out of money. </p>
<p>so again…the state doesnt have to fix it, …but the legislature did pass a bill to add money, the pact holders have a contract (some have actual guarantees) they dont have to do anything but they did…they agreed to partial payment rather than full tuition…so the only cog in the wheel is the university tuition increases. most schools agreed (ones that are struggling more than the big 4) and the other schools dont accept pact as payment in full, they are being paid the 2010 rate but agreed to cap tuition increases per year so the difference isnt as bad. Even oos students should appreciate a cap on tuition increases?</p>
<p>so if you read the threads and see a student say i only have a 29 i need more money…the response seems to be…find a school with a better offer, see if ua will match…put down you are engineering and that will get you 2500 more…i dont see the same compassion/interest in the pact student… the answer there is…well go to a lower tier school. </p>
<p>and for those reading… i am NOT saying the oos kids shouldnt get their merit…they worked hard and deserve it and in alot of cases their own state wont give them any (which imo is wrong) …what student or parent wouldnt take advantage of that. pact holders just wish the universities would be as willing to help instate kids that are in a position where they may not be able to attend the school they want to attend .</p>
<p>I think people view this as a problem that the Legislature should solve because the Legislature passed the legislation that enabled the creation of the PACT and set the PACT up under state supervision. The Legislature made the PACT look like more of a “sure thing” than it actually was. It gave the PACT the seal of approval of the state although it wasn’t willing to guarantee the performance of the PACT by backing it with the full faith and credit of the state. </p>
<p>What many PACT investors apparently failed to understand is that the absence of the extension of Alabama full faith and credit to the promise of full tuition payment meant that their claims would be satisfied only out of the assets of the PACT – and if there weren’t enough assets in the PACT when it was time for their child to go to college, their claim would not be paid. </p>
<p>Sadly, like many college investments, the PACT hasn’t performed as hoped for during this time and isn’t able to make good on its promise of full tuition payment. Many families with students currently in college or on the brink of college are in the same situation. Regardless of whether they chose to invest their college funds in the PACT, the 529 plans of other states (prepaid or “regular”), or simply in other non-tax sheltered investments, many investments haven’t performed as hoped. The only reason why the situation of PACT investors looks different is that the establishment of the PACT by the state gave it an appearance of being a better investment than it actually turned out to be. That is why people think that the Legislature should solve the problem with state funds. </p>
<p>While there might be some argument to be made for this point (since the legislature helped create the problem by giving the PACT an appearance of creditworthiness), it really isn’t any more reasonable to expect universities in Alabama to bail out the PACT than it is to expect them to make up for the non-performance of other college investments that Alabama citizens chose to make.</p>
<p>paying4college…well said… (although i will say the earlier contracts were different than those issued after 1995) … you have explained the problem with the “state” perception much better than i could.</p>
<p>* 3000 scholarships to freshman… however from their website there are 3000 participants in honors colleges…at current numbers that means about 1500 are oos…but we’ll reduced that to 1000 as the oos numbers have been increasing to the current level.</p>
<p>**all honors students must have 28 act or above so all are getting some merit. **
*</p>
<p>No…**not **all must have a 28 ACT or above.</p>
<p>Not all of those in honors BEGAN in honors. Bama lets those who had sub-par test scores join after getting a 3.3 GPA in college. Also, since in prior years, Bama never had a GPA req’t for honors (just test score), it’s conceivable that some with the req’d ACT didn’t ahve the GPA to get the merit.</p>
<p>Also…the transfers to Bama who are admitted to honors wouldn’t be getting those scholarships either. </p>
<p>Those OOS who did have the ACT 28 and got a scholarship aren’t getting more than a PACT student with an ACT 28. A PACT student with an ACT 28 is getting 3500, which is almost half tuition! So, no need to begrudge the OOS ACT 28 who is only getting a small fraction of tuition in merit. </p>
<p>* it really isn’t any more reasonable to expect universities in Alabama to bail out the PACT than it is to expect them to make up for the non-performance of other college investments that Alabama citizens chose to make. *</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>Universities aren’t charities.</p>
<p>They have to be responsible stewarts of the school’s academic strength, budget, ranking, etc.</p>
<p>BTW…I hope you’re equally angry at UAB…they’re not accepting PACT in full either. It sounds like you’re only mad at Bama, while advertising UAB merit scholarships to OOS students in other threads.</p>
<p>i think i have clearly stated MULTIPLE times uasystems and auburn.</p>
<p>no one asked the universities to be charities… the LEGISLATURE asked them to help make the fund whole. it was their bill NOT the pact holders…when all other colleges were willing to help, it would have been nice if the other 4 helped too. so the PERCEPTION is that they are giving money to oos and not helping instate…i said many posts earlierr it is a matter of perception when i was addressing hless saying pact board was upset…trying to show why</p>
<p>As I said previously, other states explicitly state that they will fund their prepaid tuition programs should the investments not perform as well as expected. For example, the state of Washington is required by RCW 28B.95.050 to fund the state’s prepaid tuition program in the event that the program cannot completely fund its payout obligations. Alabama could have a similar law, but chooses not to. It appears that Texas Universities such as UT-Austin pay for any funding deficiencies by raising tuition for all students, which is what some people appear to want UA and AU to do. What people are failing to realize is that this makes a college education even less affordable for those low-income students whose families couldn’t afford to buy into the PACT program in the first place.</p>
<p>It is also important to know that UA’s merit scholarships are funded by private donations. Nothing is preventing these donors from specifying acceptable uses for their donations, so PACT participants may want to try asking them to fund the difference. If the donors wish to continue donating their money to fund in-state and OOS merit scholarships instead, that is their right.</p>
<p>*It appears that Texas Universities such as UT-Austin pay for any funding deficiencies by raising tuition for all students, which is what some people appear to want UA and AU to do. What people are failing to realize is that this makes a college education **even less affordable for those low-income students whose families couldn’t afford to buy into the PACT program **in the first place.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Exactly. And, that’s what upsets some non-PACT holders. The money will come from them in some way. Many didn’t have the money or grandparents who could buy PACT, so they have no interest in subsidizing any shortfalls for those who have them. </p>
<p>Imagine the low-income family whose child doesn’t qualify for any merit, having to pay higher tuition so that some of the money can go to a PACT holder! </p>
<p>*It is also important to know that UA’s merit scholarships are funded by private donations. Nothing is preventing these donors from specifying acceptable uses for their donations, so PACT participants may want to try asking them to fund the difference. *</p>
<p>Sea_tide…that is an excellent point. If the PACT holders can convince the scholarship donors to fund the shortfall, then that’s cool. Donors can designate as they deem fit.</p>
<p>and m2ck… i posted about oos scholarships as i believed that the pact issue was resolved and that pact would be paying as the settlement allowed… it was not until last week that pact holders were informed of the stay or that an appeal had even been filed. again read back i have been replying to hless and his post about pact members being upset, and trying to explain why. i have not been posting about uab merit aid since the stay was announced (maybe once but not going to bother going back to double check)</p>
<p>actually legislature was asking alabama NOT to raise tuition beyond 3.8%, they didnt ask them to raise it.</p>