<p>As far as what I would do-</p>
<p>I would definitely review my financial aid documents to make sure that there were not any errors or omissions on the FAFSA/Profile/School based financial aid documnets.</p>
<p>Barring any errors, I would definitely contact the financial aid office to request a financial review and possibly an appeal pending the outcome of the financial review. I would explain that there hasn’t been any fluxations in my income from freshman to sophomore year and ask why there was such a radical change in the financial aid offer. Perhaps s/he he could and probably explain what happened and possible tell you the next steps to take.</p>
<p>You should never take no from anyone who is not in a postion to say yes. At the same time, just because a person is not in a position to say yes, they still need to be dealt with in a courteous and professional manner.</p>
<p>I believe the bait and switch scenario posed by Cpt in the OP was speculative. </p>
<p>I do agree with Sybbie…whenever there is a dramatic change in aid, one should move up the food chain and find out why.</p>
<p>I honestly think the bait and switch scenario does not often happen…at least not for NO reason.</p>
<p>This is not a speculative scenario, I will be refering the person in the situation to some of you with the PMs. The student received an all grant financial aid package for freshman year. Need about the same, and the grants were replaced with loans and workstudy for the upcoming year. So the need is about the same and is being met but with self help instead of grants.</p>
<p>Yes, the student certainly can walk away. But this is a very high need, close to zero EFC student who is getting full need met albeit now with loans and work study. Seriously, what are the chances at this late date that he will get a transfer spot that will meet his need? Even if he waited another year, filing his papers to, say a full need met school, there is no chance he would get accepted and there is that loss of the year. Returning students do not get their aid in most cases until after the new crop,. </p>
<p>Those who are in the position to say “yes” are saying “no” because they don’t want give out the grants Maybe there are’t any left–gave them all out to the upcoming freshmen. Whatever the reason, this is a significant bait and switch, and the discussions with the fin aid office have pretty much been exhausted. My question is what the next viable step should be. </p>
<p>One can sue for just about anything, but the question that always arises in contemplating such action is the chances that it will result in any improvement, the timing and the cost to do so. It takes a lot to do this. Having sued on some issues on principle, I can tell you that it can take years to resolve some of these things and you have to be tenacious. Also pretty savvy about how you handle the things that come up in a suit. When you sue an institutuion that has in house counsel to take care of these things, you are at a distinct disadvantage. We are talking about a tired parent who is low income, close to a zero EFC, who has alot of issues on the plate and taking on a college fin aid office is probably a daunting proposition for someone not wired to go into a fight like that. I know what it takes, and don’t have it anymore myself, though I once did for injusticies.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse - I would ask the following:</p>
<p>(1) What is this school’s usual practice regarding the inclusion of loans in FA packages? Are they usually included? Almost never included? Or does it vary from one student to the next?</p>
<p>(2) What, if anything was said to this student to lead him or her to believe the grants would be available for all four years?</p>
<p>(3) What else, if anything, led this student to believe the grants would continue for four years?</p>
<p>(4) Did the student have other offers that would have resulted in less debt (over four years) than he or she will now incur in the coming three years?</p>
<p>Depending on the answers to these questions, the student may have a valid claim against the school. If that’s the case, probably the best thing the family could do would be to find a sympathetic lawyer who might be willing simply to write a letter to the school stating the student’s position, and explaining why the school should meet the student’s expectation. You’re right - filing suit would be dreadful . . . but it’s possible that a carefully worded letter to someone high enough up in the school hierarchy might make a difference.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse - I would also the ask the following:</p>
<p>Did the student file renewal FA forms on time? If not, the school may have exhausted all their grant aid.</p>
<p>QLM</p>
<p>What kind and what amounts of grant aid were replaced? Was the student given subsidized direct loans and Perkins in his/her name? or was the parent expected to take Plus loans. I see these as two different issues.</p>
<p>Honestly, I think adding a work study component is not necessarily a bad thing! At least work study earnings are not included as income the following year when need is computed.</p>
<p>And is this student in good academic standing? If any of the grant awards also had a merit component, it would be problematic IF the student was not in good academic standing.</p>
<p>Also, we’re all required financial aid forms submitted as early as possible…and within the deadlines for returning students? A late financial aid application submission could also be problematic.</p>
<p>I agree…was there anything IN WRITING that guaranteed that this student would continue with this grant support for longer than the initial one year award.</p>
<p>I am referring this thread to the person, who pmed me and advising her/him to contact some of you. I don’t know the particulars other than what I have posted. </p>
<p>I personally saw this happen once a long time ago. My friend’s daughter was accepted and went to Northeastern on a very doable financial aid package. She did fine freshman year, but when she got the aid package for the following year, it was cut by what I think was a sizeable amount and all but a amount of grant replaced by work study and loans. The problem was that the daughter was already working to pay some of the EFC and taking out the maximum Direct loans on top of the financial aid package for the same reason. She had turned down some other options to go the this college due to the aid package she got. There was no mention of any guarantee, but no “one year only” mention either. Need was not changed much at all, and all paper work was put in well on time. The fin aid officer refused to budge. In that case, a financial aid officer at a local school who was a friend, called the office and that is what got the package changed. Really, what was done was shaming the director to make good on an unwritten policy, as this truly was fair. </p>
<p>But that was many years ago, and I don’t know the specifics here other than what the poster has told me. Usually, the changes in financial aid occur as a shift to the student having to take on more of the cost, and that is to be expected, but IMO, for $14K grants to be converted to loans and work study is unethical when the need is about the same </p>
<p>Guarantees are not generally given for financial aid, especially in terms of the composition, but there are certain protocols that are observed or a school is guilty of bait and switch, IMO. For $4K of the award to be change to WS and loans might have been appropriate, but $14K is getting well into an ethical breach, again, IMO. </p>
<p>Thanks, everyone. I didn’t say much here, because I don’t have all of the facts, and frankly don’t know what the recourses would be in such situation. Everyone’s feedback is much appreciated.</p>
<p>Is it possible that the student was late filing for financial aid?</p>
<p>If this were happening to multiple students at this university mightn’t it help them to bond together to bring the issue up in a more visible way? (I’d advise this only after the regular appeals process is done probably)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder if this is a predictable risk at schools that don’t meet full need . . . or is it something that just happens once in a blue moon?</p>
<p>My son only has a few schools on his list that don’t have guaranteed merit awards and don’t meet full need . . . we figured maybe he’d get a good offer anyway. But now I’m wondering if we should rethink that. If it’s common practice at some schools for a freshman year award to disappear in subsequent years, that’s not a risk we can afford to take.</p>
<p>Sybbie, I don’t know. I did tell the person, who PMed me, to look on this board. I don’t like to give personal advice as it then becomes too directed, and I feel that ideas can be given on the general forum, but when it gets to PMs, I demur, because I just don’t know enough. </p>
<p>I have not heard of this happening very often. What I have heard is when schools that did come up with a doable package refuse to ante up when circumstances change for a family at schools that do not guarantee to meet full need. A second kid in college, too bad. Dad loses his job, too bad. Income drops by a lot too bad. But the colleges seem to stick by that original package and make a commitment to continue giving those initial amounts less some shifting to self help and making the student contribution greater. That’s just been my take on it. </p>
<p>To me, it’s a serious breach when a college cannot keep close to its original fin aid commitment unless it is made clear that the award is a one time thing. No one needing financial aid can take that kind of a chance if colleges arbitrarily will cut the aid in future years. You don’t usually get the awards as a returning student until late enough in the year so that transferring is a tough go, especially when you are going to discuss the package and see what can be done. Also, transfers are usually limited in financial aid. A student accepting a school’s finanical aid package may have turned down other opportunities based on the implicit promise that the aid is for all four years, with exceptions noted, such as need reduced. Yes, if there is a sibling college student in the picture who graduates, the aid will decrease. If you miss the deadlines, that’s your problem. If your parents or you get a financial windfall in a year, yes, a portion of that is going to replace the aid becasue the need is decreased. But without the understanding that outside of certain such situations, that the aid is going to remain comparable with some more shift to the student, and increases, the system will break down for those who have need.</p>
<p>Cpt…I think the keys will be finding out WHY this aid package was changed. This could mean moving UP the financial aid food chain until someone is found with the answer. </p>
<p>Good luck to this person. If this is a regular practice of this college, it would be good to know…I would hate to direct a student with need to apply to a school that regularly does this as a matter of practice.</p>
<p>I’m hoping this is an error that can be easily corrected…those things DO happen.</p>
<p>Please let us know what happens.</p>
<p>It appears that the fin aid office feels that the package is the same. The aid given is the same. That $14K is now self help rather than grant doesn’t seem to be a big deal to them–there has already been some discussion with the office. The poster says the family is very low income, close to zero EFC, so that thd kid now has to work for $4K of the award and borrow $10K (Direct and Perkins) is an issue.</p>
<p>I think it is well worth asking…why the aid was changed from grants to loans/work study.</p>
<p>Is the remaining cost of attending this school someho covered? Is there a remaining cost?</p>
<p>Did this student NOT have any loans or work study last year?</p>
<p>Did this student have SEOG last year. If so…even a small delay in filing for financial aid can result in loss of this grant because it is limited funding.</p>
<p>And p.S. I totally agree about PMs. I usually tell the person to post their query on the message board. I don’t give answers via PM.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think this person should move it up the chain of command. I don’t agree that this is a contractual issue, but I do feel that it is an ethical issue. It seems “wrong” to me that a school would do this to any student, but especially to a low income student. If there is a reason, such as unforeseen financial problems at the school, that should be explained to the student if he/she asks. In the absence of any explanation other than, “Your overall package is the same,” I would be upset … because grants and loans are not the same, and any school that has a first-year grant/subsequent year loan policy should be upfront about it. </p>
<p>I say take it all the way to the top. And be prepared to walk away … as long as students accept this sort of thing, the school will continue to do it.</p>
<p>I have heard of this happening at two schools in our area, and as a result, they will not even be applied for. I think people should speak up, including naming the school, when this happens. This is so that others can protect themselves, and because maybe, if enough people find out, they will stop.</p>
<p>This is not an uncommon practice at some universities. A recent article by Lynn O’Shaughnessy highlights this practice. She has a Hall of Shame of the 10 top worst offenders. Google as we’re not allowed to directly link to blogs.</p>
<p>It’s certainly something to bear in mind when submitting those apps.</p>
<p>I am not familiar with her blog, but: “One last thing that I’d like to point out is the average need-based grant of $17,893 for all AU undergraduates at American University is almost identical with the average non-need-based aid – merit scholarships for rich students - $17,486. Does anybody else find it appalling that this school gives nearly the same amount of money to wealthy students as it does to those who truly need a helping hand?” I am not quite sure how she knows that those who receive merit scholarships are “rich” or “wealthy.” </p>
<p>But that is off-topic …</p>
<p>I looked at the numbers for Fordham, as I do know and have known probably over a hundred students who have gone and are going there. Fordham U meets 78% of need on average for freshman, and 74% over all. And it is on the the top 12 list of the worst offenders. I’m looking at common data for the info. To me, that is reasonable,as schools do increase the student’s expected contribution each year so that,yes, upper classmen are likely to get some reduction in aid as a result of that. Also need packages that stay the same will not cover the rising costs as the tuition and other prices increase. Not only that, most schools do not tend to give transfer students aid packages any where nearly as generous as first year students. Plus students lose merit aid that may have been part of what made up the % of need met. Some might be outside scholarships for just one year, and some might be in house awards where the student did not meet the mark. the drop from 78% to 74% does not seem so precipitous to me. I didnt check the other 11 schools on the list. Interestingly enough, NE was on the list too. A lot of those schools were Catholic schools. </p>
<p>Kelsmom, yes, I’ve seen numbers like that in the common data sets where it’s pretty clear that those getting merit awards specifically are not getting finanical aid at all as there is a category for those getting merit AND are eligible for aid as wel. It’s very clear that schools are “buying” those that can afford to come. Insidious, it is not.It makes perfect business sense. As I said on another thread, when you have $50K of money to give out, you can give it all to one needy student, knowing full well that it probably isn’t going to even meet that family’s true need. The $10K that has to be made up is going to hard to get, and that student is probably going to be short on money and you may be hearing from him and his family for years that they can’t make the payments. Or you can give 5-10 kids awards that are full pay to get them to come and they are likely to easily be able to make the payments due. It can smack of discrimination, if the pooere student is truly so superior but ususally it’s not all that clear either. Unfortuately, from the numbers I have seen the well to do kids tend to be better prepared and have a better chance for success. Also, many times, you are also trying to make the numbers so that you get the kids to show up. Unless you are at a school like HPY where the parents can’t wait to plunk down their money, it’s a tough thing for admissions in filling the class and staying within budget. </p>
<p>I don’t like it. Not one bit, but this is the reality, I see. </p>
<p>I would like to see a true “Hall of Shame”, but those differentials need to be carefully examined. At a school that takes a lot of transfers, the upperclass vs freshmen numbers would be drastically different. Honestly, I’ve not heard complaints of bait and switch about NYU and Fordham. I’ve heard every kind of rotton story under the sun about the schools, believe me, but not that, and both of those schools are on that list. If this is truly a widespread issue, I don’t see how I would have not heard at least a hint or undercurrent about this at those two schools.</p>