A school invests much more in you than they receive in the form of compensation. If they know you can't get loans or can't pay part of your education there is no reason for them to admit you.
I would really like to believe this. I'm not sure I do.
Schools are ultimately businesses and are about making money. I'm not against them making money--but a lot of the continuous hikes in everything from tuition to books, etc is outlandish. (The fact that these pubs and distb forces just keep sticking it to students
b/c "they can," it is just wrong.)
Don't get me wrong. I see the benefits of capitalism and embrace many of them over the alternatives. It's just that these forces seems to have no limit on their
constant hikes. Other businesses can't and don't keep hiking their products and services that way that seems just dandy in the world of higher education--or in HC on say dianostics or various procedures. I mean at some point, even or perhaps especially in a free society, we have face the short and long-term ramifications of GREED.
You begin to see a lot of this when you work in one of these places of higher education or systems that have a strong academic base or hyper-controlling mass-business model. The politics (that goes along with some of the greed from the higer end) is very problematic.
I say slow it down (the hikes) and space them out more.
People in reality are having big problems in these major areas (education, health care, real estate). As things are now financial pushes and burdens only stand to become more problematic. Real estate, health care (primiums and frontloading for coverage has increased substantially--as has the employee's contributions through the employer's plan, and
THEN there's education and the endlessly rising costs.
There is a reason many students, even those matriculate at state universities, are taking whatever they can at CC's as they take other requirements at their four-years.
Listen, disputing an incorrect credit report is
way more involved, stressful, and time-consuming that most people know--and some have an inkling that this is problem so, so they put their heads in the sand about it.
In some ways it can be much like clearning things up when someone steals your identify and causes problems. It is an
expensive, time-consuming and very stressful process. It's not like you just make a few calls or write a few letters and "There you go!" you're done. No way.
What you have the right to do in terms of fallibility within the report is remarkably different and is nothing compared with what it actually entails.
The MS application can should be viewed in a separate light.
Now, after acceptance,that's when the school needs to see if this is a finacially doable thing for you.
I'm wondering how this actually went down with the OP.
I don't think it should be part of the application process. It is something that should be addressed after the school decides your application and overall presentation makes them a "yes."
There are many reasons for problems w/ credit reports. This is just one more "sign of the times," if you will.
Employer's justify credit checks by saying it shows them how responsible you are with your money. (And see I am more apt to be OK with this kind of thing when you are looking into hiring people than will be dealing with a lot of money.)
Overall, however, on the surface, it seems like a good idea, but it can be unfair and discriminatory.
Example, why the hell is it their business if say a person's spouse screwed them over and stuck them with their bad credit and refusal to do their part in the relationship? Regardless of how responsible you may be, if a spouse decides to screw you in this regard and let their credit and responsibility for it go to hell, tough luck. It mars your credit and rating too. This is but one nasty and unfair example. I've seen this happen with people. It's unbelievable.
Its again a sign of the times that
shows that various entities and agencies are getting too much power for justisfication w/ digging into people's personal lives.
Remember that the OP stated: "(I don't have any defaults or a bankruptcy or anything like that.) "
So, if that is basically it,
why is he or her (didn't take note, sorry) more
of a risk than anyone else. Of course that excludes all those people that have daddies, mommies, or grand parents with big pockets
or
someone getting a major "disadvantaged applicant" bump? The bulk of the other students and everyone else get to pay for them as they kill themselves to get in and then pay off their bills. They get screwed twice, b/c shoot, they don't have someone giving them a ride with big pockets, and they don't have the access to the "big pockets" of daddy government.
(Don't misunderstand. I'm not starting something over whether the disadvantaged should be helped or not. Not at all. Nothing wrong with helping to give others a leg up. But it's multiply sucky when schools and even employers play these games with the bulk of other people that are just trying to work their azzes off and don't have any basket of plenty from which they can continually draw. This kind of thing IMO is just something that ultimately hurts or will hurt all those folks in the middle.)
I don't know if this is a troll post or not; but what the OP is stating is quite plausible, b/c potential employers NOW do it a lot, if not all the time, as you go through the hiring process for professions or even semi-professional position--and also b/c schools ARE businesses (sort
of like how hospitals ARE businesses).
Again, I am not against free market practices but come on. This is all getting out of control. There needs to be some balance going on with this.
And how about limiting how much anyone--the government, businesses, hospitals, educ. systems, whatever
get into people's personal lives--unless they have an extraordinarily compelling reason--like exploring probable terrorists or whack jobs like the the professor in Alabama that went all postal.
