Deposit Refunds in California

confettiflyer · May 25, 2012

After some research with SDN user patientlover, we came across the California Education Code §94919-94920 which stipulates that schools are forbidden from keeping enrollment deposits >$250 should a student withdraw prior to enrollment or up through the first class session.

We wanted to know if anyone out there has forfeited a deposit to a California school and did not receive their legally mandated refund less $250.

Also, if anyone has any legal statutes that contradict these, please post them up.

Thanks

(CA Ed. Code §94919-94922 readable here)

patientlover · May 25, 2012

Wow, you actually made the poll! Haha. I think I should refrain from voting at the moment though because my testimony is already used.

Anyways, just to refrain from skewing results, we should ask that people only vote when it has been at the very least 45+ days of withdrawing from a California school. I know that I didn't get the refundable portion of the deposit back until almost 2 months later. It definitely takes awhile.

"94920(e) The institution shall pay or credit refunds within 45 days of a student's
cancellation or withdrawal."

youRCC · May 25, 2012

confettiflyer said:
After some research with SDN user patientlover...

No honorable mention for the user that put the question out there? No?

confettiflyer · May 25, 2012

youRCC said:
No honorable mention for the user that put the question out there? No?

you don't have a puppy face for an avatar :luck:

youRCC · May 25, 2012

confettiflyer said:
you don't have a puppy face for an avatar

hahaha!

Ayuka001 · May 25, 2012

so you're saying that even if the schools says it's a "non-refundable enrollment confirmation fee" we're supposed to get a refund (other than them keeping $250)?

confettiflyer · May 25, 2012

Ayuka001 said:
so you're saying that even if the schools says it's a "non-refundable enrollment confirmation fee" we're supposed to get a refund (other than them keeping $250)?

They can call it a "never ever ever refundable chocolate stocking fee" and you'd be entitled to a refund - $250. Seems like the statute was enacted to prevent students/applicants paying for services not rendered and stop abusive deposit practices.

And based on that inspection paper it appears as if the state both monitors for compliance and enforces record keeping as a condition of being able to operate in the state.

confettiflyer · Jun 3, 2012

Bumping this thread as we're into waitlist season now...I have had people PM me and note that Touro is refusing to grant refunds on request via email.

I've advised students to cite the relevant statute and send their request both via email (with the statute) AND certified mail return receipt.

I've actually found another relevant statute, it is 94909 and states:

CA Educ. Code 94909 said:
(a) Prior to enrollment, an institution shall provide a
prospective student, either in writing or electronically, with a
school catalog containing, at a minimum, all of the following:
...
(B) Cancellation, withdrawal, and refund policies, including an
explanation that the student has the right to cancel the enrollment
agreement and obtain a refund of charges paid through attendance at
the first class session, or the seventh day after enrollment,
whichever is later. The text shall also include a description of the
procedures that a student is required to follow to cancel the
enrollment agreement or withdraw from the institution and obtain a
refund consistent with the requirements of Article 13 (commencing
with Section 94919).
...
(c) An institution shall provide the school catalog to any person
upon request. In addition, if the institution has student brochures,
the institution shall disclose the requested brochures to any
interested person upon request.

Not only are schools required to refund the deposits, they're supposed to tell you about it via their catalog..and anyone else who wants to go poking around.

For kicks I read Touro COP's catalog (I've been picking on CNCP too much, and for the record I like Touro's program), not to be confused with their handbook, and here's what I found:

Touro COP's catalog said:
All accepted applicants are required to submit two deposits in order to secure their place in class.
1. Acceptance Deposit: For applicants accepted to TUCOP, a non-refundable acceptance
deposit of $2,000, payable two weeks after notification of acceptance, is required.
2. Tuition Deposit: An additional payment of $1,000 is due by May 15th for those accepted for
admission before May 1st, and by June 15th, for those accepted after May 1st. This tuition
deposit is refundable if notice of cancellation is made prior to the first day of mandatory
orientation.
Upon matriculation, the entire $3,000 is applied toward the total tuition.

So clearly, IMO, what is said in their catalog is in violation of CA Educ. Code 94919(d). On a separate note, it appears the catalog also violates 94909(a)(3)(A) but that's another battle for another day 😀

NOTE: To be fair, the other catalogs I looked at also lacked the 94909(a)(3)(A) mandated statement AND listed their deposits as non-refundable

diepsteven · Jun 4, 2012

For Northstate, they did send us a few forms that we had to initial, an "enrollment agreement" form...it pretty much followed CA Edu. Code 94909. There was a lot of acknowledging that we wouldn't get our 1500 dollar deposit back...but thats still against 94909 B (where it mentions it must be consistent with Article 13, starting with 94919)...I'm not sure how to approach this...anyone have any advice? The deposit was a pretty big chunk of my paycheck, I wouldn't mind using it towards tuition for the school I chose...🙂

patientlover · Jun 4, 2012

diepsteven said:
For Northstate, they did send us a few forms that we had to initial, an "enrollment agreement" form...it pretty much followed CA Edu. Code 94909. There was a lot of acknowledging that we wouldn't get our 1500 dollar deposit back...but thats still against 94909 B (where it mentions it must be consistent with Article 13, starting with 94919)...I'm not sure how to approach this...anyone have any advice? The deposit was a pretty big chunk of my paycheck, I wouldn't mind using it towards tuition for the school I chose...🙂

Well all I can think of, is to send them an email, citing the statutes that Confettiflyer posted and the statutes that you found, and of course, asking for the refund in a professional and diplomatic manner.

With that said, it's going to be tough getting a deposit back because seems like most people "got turned down," so to speak. I wish I had better advice for you, but I got lucky in my case. If by any chance you followed the other thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=915119&page=2

patientlover said:
I just emailed Gail for the purposes of solely withdrawing my seat, and then they just gave it to me two months later.

At first, I didn't believe my mom when she said cncp mailed a portion of my deposit back. Surprisingly, they did it out of their own will. No strings attached. That's why I'm questioning why they are in violation of "mandatory cancellation, withdrawal, and refund policies."

confettiflyer said:
Two theories:

A) their violations were limited to a handful of cases, your case was in compliance
B) they were already being alerted to violations and were cognizant of processing and recording timely refunds by this point

patientlover said:
heh heh heh heh....I think I found a small correlation. I looked at the check that they sent me in my records. The date of that the check (4/13/2012) was written matched the same date the Notice to Comply was issued (see pdf file).

In my case, they were B) already being alerted to violations and were cognizant of processing and recording timely refunds at that point in time.

confettiflyer · Jun 4, 2012

The following information does not apply to senior colleges/universities:

The following applies to Touro, and other institutions with WASC Regional Accreditation (not CNCP as of 6/4/12).

Per the WASC Policy Manual (link)

910.02 Refunds, when due, must be made without requiring a request from the student.

910.03 Refunds, when due, must be made within 30 days (1) of the last day of
attendance if written notification of withdrawal has been provided to the institution by the
student, or (2) from the date the institution terminates the student or determines
withdrawal by the student.
910.04 All refunds shall be made within sixty (60) days of the student's last day of
attendance.
910.05 Retention of tuition and fees collected in advance for a student who does not
commence class shall not exceed $100.
910.06 The institution must comply with the refund policies adopted by the
Commission.

920. Commission Refund Policy
As referenced in item 910.06 above, the refund policy adopted by the Commission is as
stated below.
920.01 Refunds for Classes Canceled by the Institution: If tuition and fees are
collected in advance of the start date of a program and the institution cancels the class,
100% of the tuition and fees collected must be refunded. The refund shall be made within
30 days of the planned start date.
920.02 Refunds for Students Who Withdraw On or Before the First Day of Class:
If tuition and fees are collected in advance of the start date of classes and the student does
not begin classes or withdraws on the first day of classes, no more than $100 of the
tuition and fees may be retained by the institution. Appropriate refunds for a student who
does not begin classes shall be made within 30 days of the class start date.
920.03 Refunds for Students Enrolled Prior to Visiting the Institution: Students
who have not visited the institution prior to enrollment will have the opportunity to
withdraw without penalty within three days following either attendance at a regularly
scheduled orientation or following a tour of the facilities and inspection of the equipment

The story gets better...Schools with WASC accreditation (every pharmacy school in CA and other western states except CNCP as of 6/4/12) appear to be bound by an even stricter requirement stating that any deposit must be refunded less $100

patientlover · Jun 4, 2012

confettiflyer said:
The story gets better...Schools with WASC accreditation (every pharmacy school in CA and other western states except CNCP as of 6/4/12) appear to be bound by an even stricter requirement stating that any deposit must be refunded less $100

Now here's the million dollar question(s)

1) How have the schools been getting away with not refunding student deposits (less $100) all these years?
2) What is a student to do if the school refuses their requests? It's not something worth going to court over. Contact WASC? lmao

With that said, I feel that public schools are more likely to follow the education code. I hear that UCSF's deposit is $100, but under the condition that you give up your seat elsewhere. Not sure what UCSD's deposit is, but I hear it's also on the low end. Furthermore, I don't know what Ohio law is (or what accreditation organization they're under) but Ohio State's deposit is only $250.

Could there be a special education code dividing public schools and private schools? Or do private schools just get away with it more?

confettiflyer · Jun 4, 2012

patientlover said:
Now here's the million dollar question(s)

1) How have the schools been getting away with not refunding student deposits (less $100) all these years?
2) What is a student to do if the school refuses their requests? It's not something worth going to court over. Contact WASC? lmao

$1900 is worth going to court over, IMO. Small claims at least.

Part of me still thinks there's some loophole somewhere, I'd like to think these schools hired competent legal help.

But yes, I'd lodge a complaint with the state and WASC if a school doesn't play ball...just be sure to keep a paper trail in case some arm twisting is done and you get refunded.

With that said, I feel that public schools are more likely to follow the education code. I hear that UCSF's deposit is $100, but under the condition that you give up your seat elsewhere. Not sure what UCSD's deposit is, but I hear it's also on the low end. Furthermore, I don't know what Ohio law is (or what accreditation organization they're under) but Ohio State's deposit is only $250.

Could there be a special education code dividing public schools and private schools? Or do private schools just get away with it more?

i think this is what 297 was alluding to earlier...public vs. private schools in the battle for deposits.

The public schools you listed (UCSD and UCSF) don't have masses of people defecting the moment they get into a better school whereas touro, CNCP, and all the other mid-tier/new-ish schools would have that issue.

Once I get comfortable, I'm going to bombard the MD/DO forums with this info and see if I can get traction there. Once I finish packing I'll dig into the policy manuals of the other regional accreditation bodies (I don't have time to dig into the education code of 49 other states, so this is a bit more efficient).

If anyone else wants to help, go for it! Just post up what you're looking at so I don't duplicate.

diepsteven · Jun 4, 2012

patientlover said:
With that said, I feel that public schools are more likely to follow the education code. I hear that UCSF's deposit is $100, but under the condition that you give up your seat elsewhere. Not sure what UCSD's deposit is, but I hear it's also on the low end. Furthermore, I don't know what Ohio law is (or what accreditation organization they're under) but Ohio State's deposit is only $250.

Could there be a special education code dividing public schools and private schools? Or do private schools just get away with it more?

UCSD hasn't asked for a deposit yet. I don't believe that there is one. At the interview, the dean actually mentioned other private schools "stealing" from students with these early acceptances/ridiculous deposits...everyone had a nervous chuckle...all of us had already accepted schools with $1000+ deposits lol

confettiflyer · Jun 4, 2012

I think UCSF, UCSD, USC, et al. (schools with low deposits), should include a paragraph mentioning that "non-refundable" deposits to WASC/CA schools are refundable in their acceptance letters.

Hahahah, if only

rxgirl3 · Jun 5, 2012

Yeah, I really do wonder how schools have gotten away with this for so long.... I just feel like there is a loophole somewhere, especially with private schools. I have finals this upcoming week, but once they are over I am going to do some more research!

confettiflyer · Jun 5, 2012

rxgirl3 said:
Yeah, I really do wonder how schools have gotten away with this for so long.... I just feel like there is a loophole somewhere, especially with private schools. I have finals this upcoming week, but once they are over I am going to do some more research!

The WASC refund policies are more cut and dry...AND there appears to be no question as to whether they have to abide by them or not. As far as I know...WASC doesn't differentiate between public and private.

297point1 · Jun 6, 2012

Confetti: You are a regular Ralph Nader / David Horowitz (look it up)

Your WASC findings spurred me to look through our regional accreditation regulations. Fortunately, our policies are in compliance.

I am amazed that there is no (apparent) exception for professional programs- private or public. This is counter-intuitive, and very bad news for graduate/doctoral level programs that a student can withdraw the day before classes start and receive a full refund less $100. Despite what you may believe, these seats aren't that easy to fill on short notice, and an unfilled seat leads to a $60,000-$150,000 tuition loss over 3-4 years.

297point1 · Jun 6, 2012

I suspect that if this all but $100 refund is enforced, you are going to see escalating supplemental application fees for WASC programs. Not as a revenue generator per se (in the grand scheme of things forfeited deposits are small change vs. 3-4 years of tuition), but as a way to weed out which applicants are serious about attending the school versus those who are just applying as a 'safety school'. Supplemental application fees do not appear to be covered under WASC or the California regulations and seem exempt from the refund requirements.

How many 'safety schools' is the average applicant going to apply to when the supplemental application fee jumps from $50 to $500? If it was >1 before (and for most applicants it was), it will soon be =1.

Beware of unintended consequences...

rxlea · Jun 6, 2012

297point1 said:
I suspect that if this all but $100 refund is enforced, you are going to see escalating supplemental application fees for WASC programs. Not as a revenue generator per se (in the grand scheme of things forfeited deposits are small change vs. 3-4 years of tuition), but as a way to weed out which applicants are serious about attending the school versus those who are just applying as a 'safety school'. Supplemental application fees do not appear to be covered under WASC or the California regulations and seem exempt from the refund requirements.

How many 'safety schools' is the average applicant going to apply to when the supplemental application fee jumps from $50 to $500? If it was >1 before (and for most applicants it was), it will soon be =1.

Beware of unintended consequences...

This could potentially be a bad thing for newer schools...

We're already seeing a significant decrease in applicants and we're a top ten. If people stop applying to safety schools, do you think newer schools can fill all their seats? Just curious about your thoughts on this.

patientlover · Jun 6, 2012

297point1 said:
Confetti: You are a regular Ralph Nader / David Horowitz (look it up)

Your WASC findings spurred me to look through our regional accreditation regulations. Fortunately, our policies are in compliance.

I am amazed that there is no (apparent) exception for professional programs- private or public. This is counter-intuitive, and very bad news for graduate/doctoral level programs that a student can withdraw the day before classes start and receive a full refund less $100. Despite what you may believe, these seats aren't that easy to fill on short notice, and an unfilled seat leads to a $60,000-$150,000 tuition loss over 3-4 years.

Considering that most California schools have been "stretching the law", so to speak, perhaps schools could "phrase" it so that the deposit is refundable, given that the student gives a proper withdrawal notice to the school within xx number of days. A month or so should be enough time to fill a small number of spots hopefully.

By the way, thanks for giving in your point of view as a school admin. It gives a fresh perspective on matters like this.

patientlover · Jun 6, 2012

297point1 said:
I suspect that if this all but $100 refund is enforced, you are going to see escalating supplemental application fees for WASC programs. Not as a revenue generator per se (in the grand scheme of things forfeited deposits are small change vs. 3-4 years of tuition), but as a way to weed out which applicants are serious about attending the school versus those who are just applying as a 'safety school'. Supplemental application fees do not appear to be covered under WASC or the California regulations and seem exempt from the refund requirements.

How many 'safety schools' is the average applicant going to apply to when the supplemental application fee jumps from $50 to $500? If it was >1 before (and for most applicants it was), it will soon be =1.

Beware of unintended consequences...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the education code (California, at least haha) states that the application fee cannot exceed $250.

(a) An institution that participates in the federal student
financial aid programs complies with this article by complying with
applicable regulations of the federal student financial aid programs
under Title IV of the federal Higher Education Act of 1965.
(b) The institution shall advise each student that a notice of
cancellation shall be in writing, and that a withdrawal may be
effectuated by the student's written notice or by the student's
conduct, including, but not necessarily limited to, a student's lack
of attendance.
(c) The institution shall also provide a pro rata refund of
nonfederal student financial aid program moneys paid for
institutional charges to students who have completed 60 percent or
less of the period of attendance.
(d) Institutions shall refund 100 percent of the amount paid for
institutional charges, less a reasonable deposit or application fee
not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250), if notice of
cancellation is made through attendance at the first class session,
or the seventh day after enrollment, whichever is later.

And also, seconding what Rxlea asked, would this be a problem only for newer newer schools?

owlegrad · Jun 6, 2012

patientlover said:
And also, seconding what Rxlea asked, would this be a problem only for newer newer schools?

I could be off base here, but isn't it possible that MORE people would apply to newer schools, thinking that they are more likely to be accepted there rather than risk a rejection from a more established school? Maybe I am over-thinking it.

297point1 · Jun 6, 2012

rxlea said:
We're already seeing a significant decrease in applicants and we're a top ten.

rxlea said:
If people stop applying to safety schools, do you think newer schools can fill all their seats? Just curious about your thoughts on this.

Escalating supplemental application fees would limit applications to all schools, not just the new schools or schools with, how shall we say this, "quality control problems". Let's stay in Southern California, shall we? (The weather is nice). A 3.85, 90th percentile biology grad from UCLA wants to go to pharmacy school, and has four sorta-local schools to choose from: USC, UCSD, Loma Linda, and Western. (AUHS is on hold for a while.) Previously, this applicant would have thrown an application to all four of these schools, plus UCSF and Pacific as well. Six applications.

If the supplemental application fees climb to $500/pop as a weed-out mechanism (PatientLover's point aside that the max a CA school can keep appears to be $250/student- you'd still have to shell it out to apply)...how many supplemental apps is this student going to submit now? Probably two: one top choice plus one safety (need to make sure he/she gets in somewhere). Where the highly competitive schools USC, UCSD, and UCSF would have each gotten an application from this individual, now the applicant is just going to pick one of them and hope for the best.

As applicants become more choosy in their applications, all the schools are going to see a drop in applications. Let's suppose our applicant applies to USC and Western* and gets an interview at both. USC passes on the applicant, and Western accepts them- the applicant is going to Western. If the applicant had applied to all six schools, he/she might have gotten in to UCSD or UCSF.

This is going to cut both ways, but the sum game is this: students (especially the highly qualified ones) will become more choosy in their applications, and as such it will become more likely that students who apply to a school are going to go to that school if accepted. In the right market, a safety school may end up benefiting from this.

*I mean no disrespect to Western. I am not in the California market, and know nothing about this program.

297point1 · Jun 6, 2012

patientlover said:
Considering that most California schools have been "stretching the law", so to speak, perhaps schools could "phrase" it so that the deposit is refundable, given that the student gives a proper withdrawal notice to the school within xx number of days. A month or so should be enough time to fill a small number of spots hopefully.

I don't think so...the law seems quite clear, allowing withdrawals even up to seven days after enrollment. The WASC rule, being tighter, would theoretically override the CA rule- it's a full deposit refund minus a maximum of $100.

patientlover said:
By the way, thanks for giving in your point of view as a school admin. It gives a fresh perspective on matters like this.

You must be new...you aren't going to accuse me of being an impostor?🙂

297point1 · Jun 6, 2012

owlegrad said:
I could be off base here, but isn't it possible that MORE people would apply to newer schools, thinking that they are more likely to be accepted there rather than risk a rejection from a more established school? Maybe I am over-thinking it.

It very well could.

patientlover · Jun 6, 2012

297point1 said:
If the supplemental application fees climb to $500/pop as a weed-out mechanism (PatientLover's point aside that the max a CA school can keep appears to be $250/student- you'd still have to shell it out to apply)...how many supplemental apps is this student going to submit now? Probably two: one top choice plus one safety (need to make sure he/she gets in somewhere). Where the highly competitive schools USC, UCSD, and UCSF would have each gotten an application from this individual, now the applicant is just going to pick one of them and hope for the best.

You have a fair point......but I'm not sure it would work entirely like that. What would most likely happen is that people apply to schools they are serious about/very much considering going, and then probably like 1 other "safety" school.

I personally believe that if an individual is that well-qualified, then chances are, they are probably at least somewhat more intelligent than the average person, and thus, approach the application process a little more eloquently, despite the $500 supplemental fee. For one, they would know that the application process is not the time to save money. Hence, they would apply to all the brand name schools regardless. After all, the opportunity cost of not going to their desired school is far too great to not spend $500 on it. (I know quite a number of people who would not settle for less than a "brand name" school.) Another way to approach the application process to apply to the top choices first, and then apply to the "safety" schools later depending on the results. *After all, the "safety schools" tend to have later deadlines.

[*No disrespect to schools that have later deadlines.]

As for the issue of not having money, if they feel they don't have enough, they'd probably save up beforehand and/or skimp out on the safety schools.

Furthermore, I feel that the possibility of raising supplemental fee that high is unlikely, particularly for the "more prestigious" schools. The prestigious schools would take advantage of other schools' high application fee, and lower theirs, in an attempt to garner the cream of the crop. After all, one of the "prestigious" schools' goal is to remain the prestige and reputation. Thus, this would shaft the "newer" schools, who are desperate for serious applicants.

patientlover · Jun 6, 2012

297point1 said:
I don't think so...the law seems quite clear, allowing withdrawals even up to seven days after enrollment. The WASC rule, being tighter, would theoretically override the CA rule- it's a full deposit refund minus a maximum of $100.

Lol....which California pharm school (minus UCSF/UCSD) has followed this law anyway? The schools are breaking the WASC rule by not refunding deposits at all. They might as well "bend" the WASC rule by making students believe that deposits are refundable....on a condition that they withdraw before xx number of days before classes start.

297point1 said:
You must be new...you aren't going to accuse me of being an impostor?🙂

Haha I'm not sure there's a real incentive for posing as a school admin. *Unless* you somehow claim to have power and control over others' destiny for a particular school, then I believe you. I may be naive, but I still have sooommee faith in humanity. 🙂

confettiflyer · Jun 6, 2012

297point1 said:
Confetti: You are a regular Ralph Nader / David Horowitz (look it up)

I know of them both...thank you sir.

Your WASC findings spurred me to look through our regional accreditation regulations. Fortunately, our policies are in compliance.

Soooo...can I send you a consultation bill? I promise I'm cheaper than a real attorney :laugh:

[/quote]

I am amazed that there is no (apparent) exception for professional programs- private or public.

Should there be? I mean, yes, money sources are different...but I feel like treating one type of school differently just because they're organized different is a slippery slope. School A should be viewed upon the same as school B, and then there's issues of providing an advantage/handicapping another school as a DOE-recognized accrediting body.

This is counter-intuitive, and very bad news for graduate/doctoral level programs that a student can withdraw the day before classes start and receive a full refund less $100. Despite what you may believe, these seats aren't that easy to fill on short notice, and an unfilled seat leads to a $60,000-$150,000 tuition loss over 3-4 years.

Darn, you found my ulterior motive...causing economic damage to new schools to change the calculus of profitability to address the oversupply.

Okay maybe wishful thinking, but it's scary to think that every PM I'm answering could be a potential $150,000 bomb to an institution.

God, I'm drunk with power.

confettiflyer · Jun 6, 2012

297point1 said:
I suspect that if this all but $100 refund is enforced, you are going to see escalating supplemental application fees for WASC programs. Not as a revenue generator per se (in the grand scheme of things forfeited deposits are small change vs. 3-4 years of tuition), but as a way to weed out which applicants are serious about attending the school versus those who are just applying as a 'safety school'. Supplemental application fees do not appear to be covered under WASC or the California regulations and seem exempt from the refund requirements.

How many 'safety schools' is the average applicant going to apply to when the supplemental application fee jumps from $50 to $500? If it was >1 before (and for most applicants it was), it will soon be =1.

Beware of unintended consequences...

Other options to maintain $$ and enrollment numbers are to over-accept applicants. Instead of a 2% summer melt rate you end up at 10% with knowledge of the laws/accrediting standards widespread, this becomes your new normal and you expect to lose 10% going forward, so you compensate.

The problem then is you lose your institutional experience and could possibly end up with a class size you can't handle.

OR a school can just raise tuition accordingly, but if you read the WASC section before refunds, (Sec. IX, 900.01) it appears the schools are loosely bound to charging only the median annual salary as tuition for 4 years unless they can justify the extra costs (easily done w/ pharmacy labs, etc...)

rxlea · Jun 7, 2012

297point1 said:

My point is that applications are declining regardless of the "rank" of a school. It's a valid point, I think. If students are going to be more choosy, it's going to affect us all, as you pointed out. I was just wondering, from your perspective, if this will affect all schools equally (or not)

Escalating supplemental application fees would limit applications to all schools, not just the new schools or schools with, how shall we say this, "quality control problems". Let's stay in Southern California, shall we? (The weather is nice). A 3.85, 90th percentile biology grad from UCLA wants to go to pharmacy school, and has four sorta-local schools to choose from: USC, UCSD, Loma Linda, and Western. (AUHS is on hold for a while.) Previously, this applicant would have thrown an application to all four of these schools, plus UCSF and Pacific as well. Six applications.

If the supplemental application fees climb to $500/pop as a weed-out mechanism (PatientLover's point aside that the max a CA school can keep appears to be $250/student- you'd still have to shell it out to apply)...how many supplemental apps is this student going to submit now? Probably two: one top choice plus one safety (need to make sure he/she gets in somewhere). Where the highly competitive schools USC, UCSD, and UCSF would have each gotten an application from this individual, now the applicant is just going to pick one of them and hope for the best.

As applicants become more choosy in their applications, all the schools are going to see a drop in applications. Let's suppose our applicant applies to USC and Western* and gets an interview at both. USC passes on the applicant, and Western accepts them- the applicant is going to Western. If the applicant had applied to all six schools, he/she might have gotten in to UCSD or UCSF.

This is going to cut both ways, but the sum game is this: students (especially the highly qualified ones) will become more choosy in their applications, and as such it will become more likely that students who apply to a school are going to go to that school if accepted. In the right market, a safety school may end up benefiting from this.

*I mean no disrespect to Western. I am not in the California market, and know nothing about this program.

Thanks for your post. Your point is well taken. People just say all this stuff about the "bubble bursting" blahblahblah. I just wonder if this (potential) change would add to that. Our school was originally going to have a satellite campus, but the way things are going, I am fairly certain that won't be happening. Smart move, I think. Unfortunately, without anonymity, I am not as free to make specific criticisms of my school. Maybe I should create a new user name

I WILL say that after going through 2 years, rank is BS.

patientlover · Jun 7, 2012

confettiflyer said:
Okay maybe wishful thinking, but it's scary to think that every PM I'm answering could be a potential $150,000 bomb to an institution.

You have intrigued my curiosity....how many PM's have you been receiving/answering? 🙂

Also, not to burst any bubbles or anything, but I thought the deposits were chump change to a school anyway. The whole purpose is to psychologically make it hard on the student to ditch their school. The student would have to ditch the school the day before classes start to cost the school $150,000.

297point1 · Jun 7, 2012

patientlover said:
You have a fair point......but I'm not sure it would work entirely like that. What would most likely happen is that people apply to schools they are serious about/very much considering going, and then probably like 1 other "safety" school.

This could very well be the case. All anyone can do right now is speculate...but I would consider your musings to probably be more on-target than mine- I can no longer accurately adopt the mindset of a 20-24 year old.

patientlover said:
Furthermore, I feel that the possibility of raising supplemental fee that high is unlikely, particularly for the "more prestigious" schools. The prestigious schools would take advantage of other schools' high application fee, and lower theirs, in an attempt to garner the cream of the crop. After all, one of the "prestigious" schools' goal is to remain the prestige and reputation. Thus, this would shaft the "newer" schools, who are desperate for serious applicants.

Yeah, but a student who deposits at both USC and UCSD and doesn't notify choice #2 of their decision to attend choice #1 until way late in the game is going to piss off choice #2. And choice #2 has no recourse here...they've got to scramble to fill that seat, and, being in CA, they have to refund all but $250.

The balance of power in this arrangement has shifted tremendously in the past five years- with new programs and expanding enrollment at legacy schools, applicants hold the upper hand now; don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Higher supplemental application fees and non-refundable deposits as weed out mechanisms are one of the few bullets the schools have left. Unfortunately for the CA schools, even these won't work, as the regs state all application fees and deposits less $250.

Glad I'm not in CA or WASC and don't have to deal with these requirements...and feel sorry for my brethren who do!

297point1 · Jun 7, 2012

patientlover said:
Haha I'm not sure there's a real incentive for posing as a school admin. *Unless* you somehow claim to have power and control over others' destiny for a particular school, then I believe you. I may be naive, but I still have sooommee faith in humanity. 🙂

And all I get out of this arrangement is the threat of being identified, shunned by my colleagues at other pharmacy programs, and discipline (or worse😱) from my employer.

At least y'all are willing to debate some of the third-rail issues here with me...maybe I get something out of this after all.

297point1 · Jun 7, 2012

confettiflyer said:
Should there be? I mean, yes, money sources are different...but I feel like treating one type of school differently just because they're organized different is a slippery slope. School A should be viewed upon the same as school B, and then there's issues of providing an advantage/handicapping another school as a DOE-recognized accrediting body.

It's not the schools that are different- it's the caliber of students and the qualifications needed for entry. I've always viewed qualified pharmacy students as a limited resource (like oil) and not very fungible. Are you arguing that pharmacy students are just like regular undergrads?

confettiflyer said:
Other options to maintain $$ and enrollment numbers are to over-accept applicants. Instead of a 2% summer melt rate you end up at 10% with knowledge of the laws/accrediting standards widespread, this becomes your new normal and you expect to lose 10% going forward, so you compensate.

The problem then is you lose your institutional experience and could possibly end up with a class size you can't handle.

I've seen this happen...nobody is happy- the students resent the larger class size than they were promised, and faculty aren't happy with the increased teaching load, and experiential isn't happy with all of the additional sites/rotation placements necessary.

From my standpoint, this cannot happen- I would lose all credibility with the faculty if the class size jumped higher than the program was expecting / could accommodate.

297point1 · Jun 7, 2012

rxlea said:
I WILL say that after going through 2 years, rank is BS.

IMO, this is the most intelligent thing you have ever posted here. It took you two years, but you've come around...there is hope for you yet.🙂

A valid, meaningful ranking system would be a wonderful tool for applicants to utilize. What is currently in place is neither valid or meaningful.

rxlea · Jun 7, 2012

297point1 said:
IMO, this is the most intelligent thing you have ever posted here. It took you two years, but you've come around...there is hope for you yet.🙂

A valid, meaningful ranking system would be a wonderful tool for applicants to utilize. What is currently in place is neither valid or meaningful.

Thanks? 😕

Not sure if I should be offended. I am slightly offended, actually.

Anyway, I agree that the ranking system is stupid but when schools feed you statements about how great they are, it's hard, ya know? I've only realized it after 2 years because I feel like a decent chunk of my education has not been useful. At all. We do have some great things in our program and some not so great things. I imagine it's like that for every school.

I do feel I'm an intelligent person, though. It just takes experience to know certain things.

I think I'll go back to lurking.

owlegrad · Jun 7, 2012

rxlea said:
Thanks? 😕

Not sure if I should be offended. I am slightly offended, actually.

Anyway, I agree that the ranking system is stupid but when schools feed you statements about how great they are, it's hard, ya know? I've only realized it after 2 years because I feel like a decent chunk of my education has not been useful. At all. We do have some great things in our program and some not so great things. I imagine it's like that for every school.

I do feel I'm an intelligent person, though. It just takes experience to know certain things.

I think I'll go back to lurking.

As far as complements go, that was pretty backhanded. 😕

And uncalled for. 👎

297point1 · Jun 7, 2012

rxlea said:
Thanks? 😕

Not sure if I should be offended. I am slightly offended, actually.

owlegrad said:
As far as complements go, that was pretty backhanded. 😕

And uncalled for. 👎

Agreed- I crossed a line there. I preach civility and mutual respect to students, yet in this instance I failed to do so myself.

My apologies to Lea. 🙂

confettiflyer · Jun 8, 2012

Hi gang,

I realized an error on my end with my WASC info. Turns out I was quoting the wrong WASC. Yeah, I know right...what the hell. Turns out there's a difference between ASCWASC and WASC Senior. The former accredits K-12 and non-degree granting post-secondary institutions while the latter accredits senior colleges and universities.

A quick glance couldn't find the same policy carried over, the only note I found was this: "A policy regarding fee refunds that is uniformly administered and consistent with customary standards."

Therefore, this discussion comes back to California law and no longer involves WASC/regional information. I've edited previous posts to reflect this. Sorry folks!

confettiflyer · Jun 9, 2012

So the $64,000 question now becomes...do schools with regional accreditation by WASC have an exemption from CA Education Code refund requirements?

My reading of it leads me to say no...I've read before and after the pertinent codes and usually they'll define the institutions subject to, and exempt from, the particular regulation.

Further, the refund issue appears in two spots...schools that are eligible for federal financial aid, and schools that are not. Because regional accreditation = federal aid eligible, I feel that you can substitute B for A.

Any of you legal whizzes done with finals yet so you can help me read ed. code? haha

rxgirl3 · Jun 14, 2012

Hey guys,

Has anyone requested the full refund (including the "non-refundable" portion) yet? I have been reading over CA education code 94919 and it seems pretty black and white. However, I can't help but wonder how schools have gotten away with it for so long!?! It makes me nervous about citing that law in my refund request letter... so I wanna know if anyone else has done it yet, and what their result was. I'm too scared to be the guinea pig hahah....

thanks!

Ayuka001 · Jun 20, 2012

I'm also wondering if I should ask about the refund in my email to withdraw lol. Or just say I want to withdraw and hope I get a check 45 days later......

diepsteven · Jun 25, 2012

I sent over my withdrawal with a reference to the california edu codes pertaining to my refund on June 8th and I just received a refund for $1250 😀 I'm not sure if it mattered, but I sent it through via certified mail. This was for Northstate 🙂

confettiflyer · Jun 26, 2012

havent had time to read much, but im trying to see if theres some sort of blanket exemption for WASC accredited schools. no luck so far, anyone pull the trigger asking for a full refund from any other school?

ekimed · Jun 26, 2012

I emailed USC along with the citation of the code. They just straight up told me they wont refund my deposit.

confettiflyer · Jul 4, 2012

Clarity

So I found the exemption clause what I had alluded to earlier, and it's not in your favor:

http://www.bppe.ca.gov/lawsregs/ppe_act.shtml#948741

CALIFORNIA PRIVATE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 2009 (California Education Code said:
94874.1. Non-WASC Regional Accreditation

(a) An institution that is accredited by a regional accrediting agency that is recognized by the United States Department of Education, and is not an agency described in subdivision (i) of Section 94874, is exempt from this chapter, except Article 14 (commencing with Section 94923).
(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2016, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2016, deletes or extends that date.

So this, at the very least, focuses the refund issue back to CNCP and only CNCP. Every other school becomes fair game by 1/1/2016 but it'd be foolish to think the exemption won't get extended.

So my apologies to anyone/everyone who has sent letters/requested refunds to WASC accredited schools, but I hope you all enjoyed the foray into digging into state regulations/laws. I wish I had more time to read/interpret/post this earlier but alas I'm not a lawyer and I've been busy moving.

All erroneous information in the above thread has been marked as such but will be saved.

297point1 · Jul 6, 2012

confettiflyer said:
So this, at the very least, focuses the refund issue back to CNCP and only CNCP. Every other school becomes fair game by 1/1/2016 but it'd be foolish to think the exemption won't get extended.

So my apologies to anyone/everyone who has sent letters/requested refunds to WASC accredited schools, but I hope you all enjoyed the foray into digging into state regulations/laws. I wish I had more time to read/interpret/post this earlier but alas I'm not a lawyer and I've been busy moving.

I do thank you for finding this exemption- I can now avoid looking like an idiot next week at AACP when deposit policies comes up for discussion.

This was a fun exercise.

msnpharmposble · Jul 6, 2012

297point1 said:
I do thank you for finding this exemption- I can now avoid looking like an idiot next week at AACP when deposit policies comes up for discussion.

This was a fun exercise.

So you do benefit from this after all. 😉

confettiflyer · Jul 7, 2012

297point1 said:
I do thank you for finding this exemption- I can now avoid looking like an idiot next week at AACP when deposit policies comes up for discussion.

This was a fun exercise.

Haha...but you're outside of California, there may very well exist state statutes that hold schools to a different refund policies that DO apply to fully regionally accredited schools.

Interesting that our legislators put an expiration date on this exemption...probably to review WASC standards every few years to make sure they don't go "off track."

So I guess you could say I *will* be right in 4 years assuming no legislative changes in the interim? Okay maybe that's a big stretch.

Deposit Refunds in California

Did you receive an enrollment deposit refund?

Yes, I received a refund.

No, I did not receive a refund.

I was aware of the statutes

I was not aware of the statutes

The school alerted me to my rights and/or automatically processed a refund without my asking.

Model Citizen™

Full Member

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Full Member

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Model Citizen™

Full Member

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Breaking kayfabe

Breaking kayfabe

Almost a unicorn

Full Member

Full Member

Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine

Breaking kayfabe

Breaking kayfabe

Breaking kayfabe

Full Member

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Model Citizen™

Almost a unicorn

Full Member

Breaking kayfabe

Breaking kayfabe

Breaking kayfabe

Breaking kayfabe

Almost a unicorn

Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine

Breaking kayfabe

Model Citizen™

Model Citizen™

Full Member

Full Member

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Breaking kayfabe

Full Member

Model Citizen™

Similar threads