<p>
IMO, yes.</p>
<p>
Like comparing earning more per hour in your lifetime while putting 2 hours into a scholarship vs working a realistic hourly wage? That doesn’t sound like apples to apples to me. Please stay consistent.</p>
<p>
You must not be reading my posts. Not in order anyway. I never mentioned a full-time 40 hours/wk job until you used it. If I recall, I mentioned working a part-time job. Twice.</p>
<p>
Now you’re question contradicts the whole $260,000 scenario. If the student is using 40 hours in only one week, then no matter what, they will not be making the extrapolated numbers you’re hypothesizing. You probably should’ve just left out the whole hypothesis bit if you were wanting to have the rest of your comment taken in any serious regard. But alas, this is a forum and we’re all rightfully allowed to post as we please, even if a bit obtuse.</p>
<p>And for the record, no I wouldn’t agree because there is still the facet of probability. Even in the local ones mentioned earlier, there is still SOME competition which leaves the statistical analyses in ambiguity. Everyone will have one side or the other as to their chances on winning the funds, but I KNOW I will be making a monetary amount when working for an hourly wage. No ifs, maybes, or possiblys. You can put in 40 hours that week searching, writing for, and applying to scholarships in the $100-5,000 (I’m sure the $5,000 ones take at least a little more effort than the $100 ones, and even more competition for them still) range and you might come up with a hit. Or, you might not. There can (usually, depending on the scholarship, of course) be only one winner for the funds. The rest have to eat the time/reward ratio.</p>