This just seems a little odd; want input on options, if any.

[bassr305]

I'm writing this on behalf of my partner . We both reside near Seattle, WA now - the school she attended was in Oregon (if specific school is needed, please let me know).

My partner was enrolled at a public college working towards her Masters degree. During her studies (of the 6 semesters of study, she found out about this during her 4th), they made a new policy that until the student defends their thesis, they must remain active with the university, which is done by enrolling and taking 3 credits of courses - which is roughly $3000 every term.

Previous to this "policy", you had up to 7 years to defend without having to keep "active". As far as we can find, there was nothing signed agreeing or disagreeing to this new policy.

My question is centered on the legality of this (of course, why else would I be here?). Can the school legally do this? Moreso, can they enforce this on my partner, since she was enrolled to this school previous to this policy being enacted?

Basically, we're looking at already a $3000 bill due now, that I feel at least is shady and just a means of getting extra money from students, if not something that can be fought against...

Again, if any other details are necessary, just ask me and I'll see if I can get answers for you.

 

[ecmst12]

Sounds to me like they are trying to encourage students to complete their theses in a timely fashion instead of languishing for 7 years...

 

[CourtClerk]

Sounds to me like they are trying to encourage students to complete their theses in a timely fashion instead of languishing for 7 years...

My school gives you 5 years MAX.

 

[bassr305]

Sounds to me like they are trying to encourage students to complete their theses in a timely fashion instead of languishing for 7 years...

While this perhaps is true, does it hold any relevance? Are they allowed to take such measures to attempt to force you to finish?

 

[Humusluvr]

I'm writing this on behalf of my partner . We both reside near Seattle, WA now - the school she attended was in Oregon (if specific school is needed, please let me know).

My partner was enrolled at a public college working towards her Masters degree. During her studies (of the 6 semesters of study, she found out about this during her 4th), they made a new policy that until the student defends their thesis, they must remain active with the university, which is done by enrolling and taking 3 credits of courses - which is roughly $3000 every term.

Previous to this "policy", you had up to 7 years to defend without having to keep "active". As far as we can find, there was nothing signed agreeing or disagreeing to this new policy.

My question is centered on the legality of this (of course, why else would I be here?). Can the school legally do this? Moreso, can they enforce this on my partner, since she was enrolled to this school previous to this policy being enacted?

Basically, we're looking at already a $3000 bill due now, that I feel at least is shady and just a means of getting extra money from students, if not something that can be fought against...

Again, if any other details are necessary, just ask me and I'll see if I can get answers for you.

Public school funding is changing. Now, schools are only being funded if they have a certain completion rate for their programs. This has put many schools in a "bind," because before this funding change, they could allow a student to hmm and haw FOREVER, just taking money from them with no thought as to whether they received a degree.

Now, with the school loan messes, and students getting jobs post-degree that can't even afford the minimum payment on school loans, schools are pushed to MAKE students finish. Not to mention there has also been scores of students (and "others") who are using their financial aide as a meal ticket, living off these loans and not really caring about school, then defaulting and leaving the taxpayer with the bill. Schools HAVE to change their lax admissions programs and their ability to get students to graduate.

Most, if not all schools, are going to a 6 year or less completion rate. Your partner is lucky she has seven. Though this is good for the overall mess the country is in, it may affect someone like your partner detrimentally. Do WHATEVER it takes to finish. Get it done. Use the $3000 bill to write the thesis - see it as "she's paying herself to get it done." I see this as a motivator, not a detractor.

 

[bassr305]

Humus,
I'm not saying I disagree with your post, and it's actually good to know what brought about this type of change. I can easily see how that is the case and putting the school in a pinch, so to speak.
However, at the same point, we don't simply have $3000 laying around to cover this - and according to the school, it's already past due and collecting interest (something else we didn't know until this week - the semester started in august - she was on leave of absence for the past 6 months).
It seems that the options are limited though, as I assume from the lack of options presented legally here that basically means she has none. So are her options literally find a method to pay this overdue amount and get the thesis done, or not, and that's it?
I realize that may be the case, but the 2nd option isn't an option after spending some $40k at this school so far already for the masters, and the first option is currently un-affordable (not to mention, probably wrecking credit etc.)

 

[RRevak]

I personally find it unfair to impose a limitation on the time it takes to complete a program. I knew of several students during my time as an undergrad that would only attend school ever other semester due to working enough to pay for classes. They would work like crazy one semester, save like crazy, then use the funds to pay. This seemed smart to me as everyone knows how deep a hole one can bury themselves into with student loans. It took my parents DECADES to pay off theirs and my friends mother is 56 and STILL paying off hers. I'm personally probably going to be 90 by the time mine are paid off. Some people want to be able to finish school without such constraints but that means it generally takes them much longer to finish. Imposing a time crunch hinders these types of students and potentially forces them into the unwanted debts of student loans which to me doesnt seem right.

 

[Humusluvr]

Humus,
I'm not saying I disagree with your post, and it's actually good to know what brought about this type of change. I can easily see how that is the case and putting the school in a pinch, so to speak.
However, at the same point, we don't simply have $3000 laying around to cover this - and according to the school, it's already past due and collecting interest (something else we didn't know until this week - the semester started in august - she was on leave of absence for the past 6 months).
It seems that the options are limited though, as I assume from the lack of options presented legally here that basically means she has none. So are her options literally find a method to pay this overdue amount and get the thesis done, or not, and that's it?
I realize that may be the case, but the 2nd option isn't an option after spending some $40k at this school so far already for the masters, and the first option is currently un-affordable (not to mention, probably wrecking credit etc.)

I know that you want me to say "Is she grandfathered in under the "old rules," but I don't think so. You can ask the school if it works this way, but I doubt it. Regulations said schools had to change, and so they all strategized and changed.

If you don't mind me asking, why can't she just get it done? Baby? Illness?

Have you looked into transferring schools? Could buy you some time.

In the doctoral classes I take, I have to take one hour, until I finish my dissertation. I have ten years. Any classes after ten years, I have to retake. So, I have a personal deadline to get it done, no matter what. I realize life gets in the way. I'm a single mom to a two year old, and I have a full time job. I have just had to make it work.

 

[bassr305]

I personally find it unfair to impose a limitation on the time it takes to complete a program. I knew of several students during my time as an undergrad that would only attend school ever other semester due to working enough to pay for classes. They would work like crazy one semester, save like crazy, then use the funds to pay. This seemed smart to me as everyone knows how deep a hole one can bury themselves into with student loans. It took my parents DECADES to pay off theirs and my friends mother is 56 and STILL paying off hers. I'm personally probably going to be 90 by the time mine are paid off. Some people want to be able to finish school without such constraints but that means it generally takes them much longer to finish. Imposing a time crunch hinders these types of students and potentially forces them into the unwanted debts of student loans which to me doesnt seem right.

Having an imposed limit on defense of a thesis, as well as your program in general just makes sense to me. IF not from the financial standpoint previously pointed out, consider how much the actual information and what you need to know can change over several years. As an example, take an IT degree. Computers change CONSTANTLY. Heck, even if you finish in 4 years, what you learned is likely to be out of date to some extent. Taking even more time seems counterproductive.
What I'm arguing against at the base level is changing policy midstream on a student, and expecting them to bear significantly more financial burden, just so they can defend their thesis (not even take classes, just defend their research!).

 

[Humusluvr]

I personally find it unfair to impose a limitation on the time it takes to complete a program. I knew of several students during my time as an undergrad that would only attend school ever other semester due to working enough to pay for classes. They would work like crazy one semester, save like crazy, then use the funds to pay. This seemed smart to me as everyone knows how deep a hole one can bury themselves into with student loans. It took my parents DECADES to pay off theirs and my friends mother is 56 and STILL paying off hers. I'm personally probably going to be 90 by the time mine are paid off. Some people want to be able to finish school without such constraints but that means it generally takes them much longer to finish. Imposing a time crunch hinders these types of students and potentially forces them into the unwanted debts of student loans which to me doesnt seem right.

Well, the more time you take, the more chances you might not finish. The schools can give you six years, but that puts the average undergrad at 24 years old. Time to reproduce, illness, moving - it all still hurts the school if the student doesn't finish. So, the schools had to look out for themselves. If you don't like it, go to a foreign country to do your education (which, coincidentally, is a great option. You can finish law school in England in 3 years, versus 6 here, and still pass the American bar exam. And have fun traveling).

 

[bassr305]

I know that you want me to say "Is she grandfathered in under the "old rules," but I don't think so. You can ask the school if it works this way, but I doubt it. Regulations said schools had to change, and so they all strategized and changed.

If you don't mind me asking, why can't she just get it done? Baby? Illness?

Have you looked into transferring schools? Could buy you some time.

In the doctoral classes I take, I have to take one hour, until I finish my dissertation. I have ten years. Any classes after ten years, I have to retake. So, I have a personal deadline to get it done, no matter what. I realize life gets in the way. I'm a single mom to a two year old, and I have a full time job. I have just had to make it work.

Without divulging too much personal information, just know that she is pretty much done writing and compiling her research/observations. Basically, she's going to be ready to defend here very soon. She hasn't been really slacking on this much, except for when we were home hunting and while she was job hunting. She's only been out of school one year come December.
I'll have her call the school again and ask about the grandfathering into the old method, but I, like you, am sure they are going to say no and we're going to be stuck with it.
We've briefly looked into transferring, but her degree is pretty specific and the school she went to was the best in the country for it, so transferring to another school isn't ideal, though on the table.

 

[RRevak]

Well, the more time you take, the more chances you might not finish. The schools can give you six years, but that puts the average undergrad at 24 years old. Time to reproduce, illness, moving - it all still hurts the school if the student doesn't finish. So, the schools had to look out for themselves. If you don't like it, go to a foreign country to do your education (which, coincidentally, is a great option. You can finish law school in England in 3 years, versus 6 here, and still pass the American bar exam. And have fun traveling).

Good friend of mine who graduated with me, chose to attend medical college at St. Georges in Grenada. She says she gets both an education AND the fun of being in the caribbean (when she has the time LOL)

 

[Humusluvr]

Good friend of mine who graduated with me, chose to attend medical college at St. Georges in Grenada. She says she gets both an education AND the fun of being in the caribbean (when she has the time LOL)

I looked into Vet school in the Carribean. It still is very tempting!!! I bet my two year old would love the beach. Ohio pretty much sucks! HA ha