Financial Aid Clarification

[climbup22]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hey all,

Low SES applicant here. Money is definitely important for everyone, but has been especially on my mind. I just got a full tuition scholarship and I'm absolutely STOKED about it. However, people keep referring to these as "full rides" or potentially allowing them to graduate med school "debt-free."

But is that really true, though? Considering tuition is 55k out of the ~80k estimated total cost - health insurance, rent, utility, food, etc - that remaining 30k is still a wild contribution that I'd almost certainly have to take loans out for every year, with an estimated nearly 90k in debt by the end of med school.

Definitely not complaining, considering that's a fraction of what the average in-debtness is - but my question is, am I missing something? Are full tuition scholarships REALLY full-rides?

 

[chaim123]

So there is "full tuition" and "full cost of attendance" scholarships. You are correct, that full cost of attendance is a real full ride, while full tuition leaves you will around $30k in loans each year. Either way, congrats!

 

[Piglet2020]

Wait, full rides come this early? I thought med schools wait until March to send out scholarship awards.

 

[chaim123]

Wait, full rides come this early? I thought med schools wait until March to send out scholarship awards.

There's no rules. Schools can send them out whenever they want.

 

[NickNaylor]

Wait, full rides come this early? I thought med schools wait until March to send out scholarship awards.

Some do, but not all.

 

[aldol16]

Full cost of attendance scholarships are rare and hard to come by. Think about it this way. What if you don't go to med school? Are you going to need to money for rent, food, gas, etc. for the next four years? Of course. You're going to need to do those things in med school too. The only difference is that if you weren't in school, you'd be earning money to pay those bills. When you're in med school, you're just taking money out to pay those bills. If you have full tuition, that's all you need - you need money to support yourself but that's it. It would be extremely generous and probably even unfair to other low SES applicants if a school were to offer full COA because then not only are they making it free for you to learn medicine, they are also feeding you for the next four years. That money could and should go to another well-deserving applicant so that they can also go to med school for no tuition.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

Full cost of attendance scholarships are rare and hard to come by. Think about it this way. What if you don't go to med school? Are you going to need to money for rent, food, gas, etc. for the next four years? Of course. You're going to need to do those things in med school too. The only difference is that if you weren't in school, you'd be earning money to pay those bills. When you're in med school, you're just taking money out to pay those bills. If you have full tuition, that's all you need - you need money to support yourself but that's it. It would be extremely generous and probably even unfair to other low SES applicants if a school were to offer full COA because then not only are they making it free for you to learn medicine, they are also feeding you for the next four years. That money could and should go to another well-deserving applicant so that they can also go to med school for no tuition.

I don't understand your argument. How is it unfair or over-generous for a school to offer support money for students who do not have enough to support themselves through school? If there are promising students who will attend school to begin with or do better because of the added support, then the school or its donors can decide to feed them for the four years, especially if that's what it takes to make medical education accessible. You make it sound like there's a choice of supporting either two students with free tuition or one student with a full COA scholarship. In that case, maybe every two students should each get half tuition, effectively doubling the spreading of the wealth? There is a calculation that every school must make in how many students it can most effectively help and in what ways, but it definitely makes sense to offer full support to some students who have nothing so as to allow them to enter a field they would not otherwise enter easily.

 

[chaim123]

I think the main question here is that usually these scholarships are MERIT based, and not need based. So what if that extra money could go to someone who needs it, as opposed to someone who "earned" it?

 

[aldol16]

I don't understand your argument. How is it unfair or over-generous for a school to offer support money for students who do not have enough to support themselves through school? If there are promising students who will attend school to begin with or do better because of the added support, then the school or its donors can decide to feed them for the four years, especially if that's what it takes to make medical education accessible. You make it sound like there's a choice of supporting either two students with free tuition or one student with a full COA scholarship. In that case, maybe every two students should each get half tuition, effectively doubling the spreading of the wealth? There is a calculation that every school must make in how many students it can most effectively help and in what ways, but it definitely makes sense to offer full support to some students who have nothing so as to allow them to enter a field they would not otherwise enter easily.

I think the vast majority of medical students don't have enough money in the bank to support themselves through medical school. Unless you're a 20-something with over 100k in the bank (not impossible but not true for the vast majority of medical students). There are many students who are low SES, myself included. We would very much have it better if we had a full COA scholarship. But the reality of it is this. Financial aid departments have limited resources. That's why they're financial aid departments and not scholarship departments.

So what happens is you can offer say, either four COA scholarships or five full tuition scholarships. There are trade-offs, to be sure. But the school would like to offer five students the chance to attend versus only four. If you give out the four COA scholarships, that means the fifth student gets nothing and can't attend without accruing a mountain of debt individually. But if you give out the five full tuition scholarships, all five can attend and each can take out a relatively small loan.

If you're getting a full tuition scholarship, low SES cannot be your crutch to saying you can't attend. You're getting financial assistance - way more than most other people are getting. You are fully capable of taking out cost of living loans as an adult who is investing in your own education and career.

 

[aldol16]

I think the main question here is that usually these scholarships are MERIT based, and not need based. So what if that extra money could go to someone who needs it, as opposed to someone who "earned" it?

Oh, I fully believe that "merit" scholarships should be fully done away with and that money funneled into need-based scholarships. That, or label them as what they are - "bribes."

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

I think the vast majority of medical students don't have enough money in the bank to support themselves through medical school. Unless you're a 20-something with over 100k in the bank (not impossible but not true for the vast majority of medical students). There are many students who are low SES, myself included. We would very much have it better if we had a full COA scholarship. But the reality of it is this. Financial aid departments have limited resources. That's why they're financial aid departments and not scholarship departments.

So what happens is you can offer say, either four COA scholarships or five full tuition scholarships. There are trade-offs, to be sure. But the school would like to offer five students the chance to attend versus only four. If you give out the four COA scholarships, that means the fifth student gets nothing and can't attend without accruing a mountain of debt individually. But if you give out the five full tuition scholarships, all five can attend and each can take out a relatively small loan.

If you're getting a full tuition scholarship, low SES cannot be your crutch to saying you can't attend. You're getting financial assistance - way more than most other people are getting. You are fully capable of taking out cost of living loans as an adult who is investing in your own education and career.

Being that each person has unique circumstances, you cannot simply make a "greater good" calculation without judging each case on it's own. I do not know how the schools actually decide how to allocate support. Rather, I am arguing that you don't know what people are capable of doing to attend school without an individualized assessment, and I am sure that in some cases it would not be considered over-generous or unfair to others if someone received a full COA scholarship.

I think the main question here is that usually these scholarships are MERIT based, and not need based. So what if that extra money could go to someone who needs it, as opposed to someone who "earned" it?

Oh, I fully believe that "merit" scholarships should be fully done away with and that money funneled into need-based scholarships. That, or label them as what they are - "bribes."

I agree with both of you mostly on this, that merit scholarships are basically a way to win strong students over to a school. I am aware that Cornell does not offer merit scholarships, only need-based, and perhaps there are other schools like this as well. That being said, if a school is using private money to incentivize people, they can do what they wish. I know some hospitals with beautiful glass and marble foyers and whatnot, could that money not have gone to save a few lives? Sure! But they decided to spend money on other things they felt were important to them, and who is gonna tell them not to.

 

[aldol16]

Being that each person has unique circumstances, you cannot simply make a "greater good" calculation without judging each case on it's own. I do not know how the schools actually decide how to allocate support. Rather, I am arguing that you don't know what people are capable of doing to attend school without an individualized assessment, and I am sure that in some cases it would not be considered over-generous or unfair to others if someone received a full COA scholarship.

Okay, then why don't you give a concrete example instead of dancing around the issue? Give me a concrete example of someone who would not be able to attend with only a full tuition scholarship and not a full COA.

 

[chaim123]

Okay, then why don't you give a concrete example instead of dancing around the issue? Give me a concrete example of someone who would not be able to attend with only a full tuition scholarship and not a full COA.

It's an individual issue. Maybe some people have back debt or poor credit and aren't able to take out as many loans as the rest of us. Or maybe some older students need to support families or other defendants in addition to going to medical school. For them, that extra $30,000 a year may be essential.

 

[aldol16]

It's an individual issue. Maybe some people have back debt or poor credit and aren't able to take out as many loans as the rest of us. Or maybe some older students need to support families or other defendants in addition to going to medical school. For them, that extra $30,000 a year may be essential.

You realize that federal loans for med school generally don't require a credit check, right? That's one of the first things our financial aid departments try to say because it's a concern for many people.

As an older student, I think that argument doesn't make sense at all. Multi-parent households have multi-sources of income. The only situation where that would make sense to me is if you're a single parent with dependents. That is rare and for that single case, I would say yeah, make the exception. But for virtually every other case, there's no reason why you couldn't take the loan out to cover COA.

 

[chaim123]

You realize that federal loans for med school generally don't require a credit check, right? That's one of the first things our financial aid departments try to say because it's a concern for many people.

As an older student, I think that argument doesn't make sense at all. Multi-parent households have multi-sources of income. The only situation where that would make sense to me is if you're a single parent with dependents. That is rare and for that single case, I would say yeah, make the exception. But for virtually every other case, there's no reason why you couldn't take the loan out to cover COA.

Yes, no credit check is required, but that usually only allows you to borrow up to the estimated COA, and others may need to borrow more than that since the school's estimates aren't always correct.

If you don't accept these scenarios that is fine, as I can see that you do not see any value in merit or full COA scholarships, while others of us do.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

Okay, then why don't you give a concrete example instead of dancing around the issue? Give me a concrete example of someone who would not be able to attend with only a full tuition scholarship and not a full COA.

Alright, let's say for example someone who has four children under the age of seven, and their cost of living includes a large enough apartment, and health insurance, childcare, food, and clothing for all the kiddos. Maybe they come from a very poor background, and there is no monetary support from their family. The job they held for the past few years was perhaps just enough to cover their bills.
Or maybe someone who is responsible for supporting their elderly parents who have no other support.
These are real people whom I know personally.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

You realize that federal loans for med school generally don't require a credit check, right? That's one of the first things our financial aid departments try to say because it's a concern for many people.

As an older student, I think that argument doesn't make sense at all. Multi-parent households have multi-sources of income. The only situation where that would make sense to me is if you're a single parent with dependents. That is rare and for that single case, I would say yeah, make the exception. But for virtually every other case, there's no reason why you couldn't take the loan out to cover COA.

You are very quick to generalize! Multi-parent households with one parent a recently graduated professional and the other a wannabe med student may not have much in the way of multi-source income!
And spouses can have low-paying jobs for a myriad of reasons..... It's why I say that an individual situation can justify full COA support if a school decides to go that way. It's not unfair to others just because you can't imagine the scenario.

 

[LizzyM]

Alright, let's say for example someone who has four children under the age of seven, and their cost of living includes a large enough apartment, and health insurance, childcare, food, and clothing for all the kiddos. Maybe they come from a very poor background, and there is no monetary support from their family. The job they held for the past few years was perhaps just enough to cover their bills.
Or maybe someone who is responsible for supporting their elderly parents who have no other support.
These are real people whom I know personally.

Why shouldn't someone borrow some money and pay it back later from their anticipated wages -- to have some skin in the game-- rather than be given a handout provided by someone else's hard work? I think that full-tuition is better than COA so that the student does have to put some of their own money (or future earning) into the pot to pay for medical school.

Why shouldn't a parent take responsibility for their children.... and children who need to care for aged parents should do so out of their current or future earnings, and not some donor's gift for medical education.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

Why shouldn't someone borrow some money and pay it back later from their anticipated wages -- to have some skin in the game-- rather than be given a handout provided by someone else's hard work? I think that full-tuition is better than COA so that the student does have to put some of their own money (or future earning) into the pot to pay for medical school.

Why shouldn't a parent take responsibility for their children.... and children who need to care for aged parents should do so out of their current or future earnings, and not some donor's gift for medical education.

There are many who would be dissuaded from taking this route, or getting any advanced degree for that matter, if it would leave them with a huge debt and the possibility of ending up in worse shape than they were in to begin with. I agree with you that people should ideally borrow against future earnings and not take handouts, but there are limits to how much people can stretch themselves when they have familial responsibilities, and the prospect of incurring so much debt can definitely be an automatic turn off whether for the student themselves or for their SO. If we want to encourage these capable people to do great things in medicine, why can't schools offer them full support? There are donors willing to give their hard-earned money specifically to this end, why would it be unfair to offer that as was suggested earlier?

 

[Piglet2020]

Pretty sure that most 20-something year olds are starting off on the same footing financially for med school. Vast majority of us can't afford 100k a year. I agree w/ Aldol and LizzyM above. It's also tough for middle income families who can't get any financial aid *sigh* we're always stuck in the "not poor enough to get aid, but not rich enough to pay for all these costs" category.. :'I

 

[LizzyM]

There are many who would be dissuaded from taking this route, or getting any advanced degree for that matter, if it would leave them with a huge debt and the possibility of ending up in worse shape than they were in to begin with. I agree with you that people should ideally borrow against future earnings and not take handouts, but there are limits to how much people can stretch themselves when they have familial responsibilities, and the prospect of incurring so much debt can definitely be an automatic turn off whether for the student themselves or for their SO. If we want to encourage these capable people to do great things in medicine, why can't schools offer them full support? There are donors willing to give their hard-earned money specifically to this end, why would it be unfair to offer that as was suggested earlier?

Why not require a person who wants a medical degree which is pretty much a guarantee of a good paying job upon completion of training, to pay something toward that end? If you are not willing to pay something toward your education, I wonder if there isn't the possibility that you'll just walk away when the going gets tough.

 

[ciestar]

There are many who would be dissuaded from taking this route, or getting any advanced degree for that matter, if it would leave them with a huge debt and the possibility of ending up in worse shape than they were in to begin with. I agree with you that people should ideally borrow against future earnings and not take handouts, but there are limits to how much people can stretch themselves when they have familial responsibilities, and the prospect of incurring so much debt can definitely be an automatic turn off whether for the student themselves or for their SO. If we want to encourage these capable people to do great things in medicine, why can't schools offer them full support? There are donors willing to give their hard-earned money specifically to this end, why would it be unfair to offer that as was suggested earlier?

I get 100% what you’re saying, but why is a school in any way obligated to finance a student’s family? If the prospect of debt is too much, time to find another career, it’s just how it works. Or, you can look as it as an investment toward the future.

I have a SO who sees the loans as an investment in my (our) future. He in no way would expect my school to give us money simple to live on because we’re a couple.

If you have familial responsiblities, it is that person’s responsibility to take care of it, not a medical school’s.

 

[aldol16]

Yes, no credit check is required, but that usually only allows you to borrow up to the estimated COA, and others may need to borrow more than that since the school's estimates aren't always correct.

Are you in med school yet? If so, I'd like to know which med school actually underestimates COA. Every one I know of, mine included, overestimates it by a good amount in order to provide that safety margin.

Alright, let's say for example someone who has four children under the age of seven, and their cost of living includes a large enough apartment, and health insurance, childcare, food, and clothing for all the kiddos. Maybe they come from a very poor background, and there is no monetary support from their family. The job they held for the past few years was perhaps just enough to cover their bills.
Or maybe someone who is responsible for supporting their elderly parents who have no other support.
These are real people whom I know personally.

So they have four children and they are a single parent responsible for all of these children? Or somebody who is their parent's sole caretaker and source of financial support? Yes, I think that COA would help them a lot. But no, I don't think that COA should come from scholarship but rather from loans. Why don't we recast this? Why do you think a school's scholarship funds, to be used for the express purpose of providing medical education, should be given to somebody as money for taking care of their children or their parents? The purpose of a scholarship is to fund one's education, not to fund anything that one wants.

You are very quick to generalize! Multi-parent households with one parent a recently graduated professional and the other a wannabe med student may not have much in the way of multi-source income!
And spouses can have low-paying jobs for a myriad of reasons..... It's why I say that an individual situation can justify full COA support if a school decides to go that way. It's not unfair to others just because you can't imagine the scenario.

Multi-parent households with one parent working and one parent in medical school with med school loans for COA has enough money to take care of their family. Yes, I do know several couples like this in my own medical school class as well as elsewhere.

Do you understand the etymology of "scholarship"?

 

[aldol16]

I get 100% what you’re saying, but why is a school in any way obligated to finance a student’s family? If the prospect of debt is too much, time to find another career, it’s just how it works. Or, you can look as it as an investment toward the future.

Exactly! If med schools are handing out money to people just because they can't afford to live their lifestyles without taking out loans, then I should have had several kids before entering med school.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

Why not require a person who wants a medical degree which is pretty much a guarantee of a good paying job upon completion of training, to pay something toward that end? If you are not willing to pay something toward your education, I wonder if there isn't the possibility that you'll just walk away when the going gets tough.

In my example, we were talking about someone who will only be able to begin to repay a debt worth over 100K when their kids will be in their teens, and even then it is said to take years. Even with a full COA, there will be plenty of debt to incur. I don't want to make this too specific to an example, but I don't think anyone gets a totally free ride to a medical education, and people are willing to pay a lot for their future. It's just that things aren't always as simple as you make them sound, and the great cost involved can make people think twice if they are in some situations. It doesn't show a lack of responsibility, to the contrary, they hesitate because of their responsibilities.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

I get 100% what you’re saying, but why is a school in any way obligated to finance a student’s family? If the prospect of debt is too much, time to find another career, it’s just how it works. Or, you can look as it as an investment toward the future.

I have a SO who sees the loans as an investment in my (our) future. He in no way would expect my school to give us money simple to live on because we’re a couple.

If you have familial responsiblities, it is that person’s responsibility to take care of it, not a medical school’s.

I never said it was the school's responsibility. Please look back at the conversation. I was responding to someone who claimed it was unfair to others or over-generous if a school were to offer a full COA scholarship to one student instead of supporting more students with the money.

 

[aldol16]

I never said it was the school's responsibility. Please look back at the conversation. I was responding to someone who claimed it was unfair to others or over-generous if a school were to offer a full COA scholarship to one student instead of supporting more students with the money.

You're missing the point entirely. The reason why it's over-generous is because it's no one's responsibility to support your children or parents but your own. So giving you a scholarship for that purpose would be unfair to someone else who would have benefited from tuition relief from that money.

In an ideal world, you would have COA for everybody. But the reality is, the nest egg is finite.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

Exactly! If med schools are handing out money to people just because they can't afford to live their lifestyles without taking out loans, then I should have had several kids before entering med school.

Just to step back a second, full COA scholarship wouldn't pay for a whole family's expenses, or for someone's parents' living expenses. It would cover a medical student's cost of living, as estimated by the school's guidelines. I was explaining how a student could have no resources, and also be fearful of incurring debt in pursuit of a higher education, which would lead to them giving up and just trying to find work now instead of going to med school.
There would still be a lot of debt to incur, and dependents to support, not to mention having to pay it back at an older age than others. If some people have a higher cost of living due to whatever circumstances, and there are donors willing to step in and give them a more even playing field, why would you tell them to better help other people? You can't appreciate that some others have different challenges than you? Saying that you should have made your situation more challenging by having several kids just to get extra support is mocking those with the challenges.

 

[LizzyM]

Just to step back a second, full COA scholarship wouldn't pay for a whole family's expenses, or for someone's parents' living expenses. It would cover a medical student's cost of living, as estimated by the school's guidelines. I was explaining how a student could have no resources, and also be fearful of incurring debt in pursuit of a higher education, which would lead to them giving up and just trying to find work now instead of going to med school.
There would still be a lot of debt to incur, and dependents to support, not to mention having to pay it back at an older age than others. If some people have a higher cost of living due to whatever circumstances, and there are donors willing to step in and give them a more even playing field, why would you tell them to better help other people? You can't appreciate that some others have different challenges than you? Saying that you should have made your situation more challenging by having several kids just to get extra support is mocking those with the challenges.

No one owes anyone a medical education. There are thousands of wanna-be doctors and enough room for only half of them. If someone wants to be a physician but has made other life choices and now gets to the point where they feel that caring for their family is a higher priority -- so what? There are plenty of other applicants to fill those seats.

 

[aldol16]

Just to step back a second, full COA scholarship wouldn't pay for a whole family's expenses, or for someone's parents' living expenses. It would cover a medical student's cost of living, as estimated by the school's guidelines. I was explaining how a student could have no resources, and also be fearful of incurring debt in pursuit of a higher education, which would lead to them giving up and just trying to find work now instead of going to med school.

Okay, I see your point there and here's my response. Every medical student is afraid of incurring debt. Unless you're like the one percent who can pay it out of pocket, you're going to be taking out debt. And if you have no financial aid because your parents make too much, you're probably even more worried about taking out the loans. It's not a problem unique to the poorest students. Nobody ever said medical school isn't an investment. It is. If you don't want to make it, there are many other people in a similar financial situation who would make that investment in a heartbeat.

There would still be a lot of debt to incur, and dependents to support, not to mention having to pay it back at an older age than others. If some people have a higher cost of living due to whatever circumstances, and there are donors willing to step in and give them a more even playing field, why would you tell them to better help other people? You can't appreciate that some others have different challenges than you? Saying that you should have made your situation more challenging by having several kids just to get extra support is mocking those with the challenges.

I'm pointing out the absurdity of your arguments. There are no donors I know of that give money for the purpose of covering COA. Donors generally give money earmarked in two ways - 1) to cover scholarships for students and 2) for whatever the school wants to do with it. Scholarships are not for meeting lifestyle requirements. Scholarships are for covering the cost of your education. If there's extra money after everybody's tuition has been covered, then sure, use it for COA. But that isn't the case and won't ever be the case.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

I'm pointing out the absurdity of your arguments. There are no donors I know of that give money for the purpose of covering COA. Donors generally give money earmarked in two ways - 1) to cover scholarships for students and 2) for whatever the school wants to do with it. Scholarships are not for meeting lifestyle requirements. Scholarships are for covering the cost of your education. If there's extra money after everybody's tuition has been covered, then sure, use it for COA. But that isn't the case and won't ever be the case.

What is so special about the cost of education that is labeled "tuition" more than the cost of education that is labeled "all other expenses incurred"? Giving 250K to a student is still fair to others, while giving them 350K is unfair?! If there are some students who can be helped in order to allow them to study without the excessive pressures that others might not be under, then it would not be unfair to help them. It is not a free ride, even with a COA scholarship, and there are pressures and considerations that are unique to each individual scenario. I am not saying that everyone with a greater-than-average need must be helped with a COA scholarship, that is a totally different discussion. I am simply saying that it would not be unfair to others if a school decided to do so, especially since it is their money to spend as they wish.

No one owes anyone a medical education. There are thousands of wanna-be doctors and enough room for only half of them. If someone wants to be a physician but has made other life choices and now gets to the point where they feel that caring for their family is a higher priority -- so what? There are plenty of other applicants to fill those seats.

Sure, if a school wants to go that route that's fine, as least as far as this discussion is concerned. I did not say that this is owed to people, or that anyone is entitled to anything. I will repeat: I argued, and maintain, that it would not be unfair to other students if a school/donor decided to use their money to make the study of medicine more accessible to a broader range of people, who may not otherwise be able to study as well as they could under their circumstances. If family is a higher priority, by all means please look after the family and don't go to school. I'm talking about those who do think they should make the sacrifice and go to school, but will be under a lot more pressure throughout the years than the average student may be under. We all know that schools have decided to help qualified people attain an education if it's difficult for them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's why tuition scholarships exist in the first place, otherwise everyone could just take on the whole tuition and all as debt. The discussion here was not if scholarships should be offered at all, it was if full COA scholarships were unfair to other students versus tuition scholarships.

 

[aldol16]

What is so special about the cost of education that is labeled "tuition" more than the cost of education that is labeled "all other expenses incurred"? Giving 250K to a student is still fair to others, while giving them 350K is unfair?! If there are some students who can be helped in order to allow them to study without the excessive pressures that others might not be under, then it would not be unfair to help them. It is not a free ride, even with a COA scholarship, and there are pressures and considerations that are unique to each individual scenario. I am not saying that everyone with a greater-than-average need must be helped with a COA scholarship, that is a totally different discussion. I am simply saying that it would not be unfair to others if a school decided to do so, especially since it is their money to spend as they wish.

Well, based on your argument, any redistribution of money is fair as long as the people who are doing the distributing came by that money in a proper fashion. That's simply not true. If I have $20 to administer and give it to a billionaire over a homeless person, would that be fair? I own the money so it's mine to do with what I wish. We can both agree that this distribution is at least proper since no rules were violated in the giving of the money. But I wouldn't say it's ipso facto fair. Why not? Because fairness has to do with the end use of that money. It is not going to have much added benefit for the billionaire whereas for the homeless person, it means the difference between starving or not for the next five days. Now, the scholarship issue is even more complex because that money isn't "owned" by the school. The administration is simply steward for the money and they thus have the fiduciary duty to maximize its utility. Sure, there are real challenges faced by single parents with dependents who are in school. But that scholarship money would derive greater educational utility if it were used to offset tuition for another low income student who would otherwise be deprived of that aid money.

A financial aid office is never going to say "Oh, let's give this money as a cost-of-attendance award to this low SES student" when there are other low SES students who need tuition relief first and foremost. The issue of fairness is tied to the ordering of priorities. I do not deny that the single parent faces significant challenges. But you have to see past individual issues and see the school's perspective. What is the best use of their limited resources to attain the greatest utility? Your world is simply unrealistic; it does not exist.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

Well, based on your argument, any redistribution of money is fair as long as the people who are doing the distributing came by that money in a proper fashion. That's simply not true. If I have $20 to administer and give it to a billionaire over a homeless person, would that be fair? I own the money so it's mine to do with what I wish. We can both agree that this distribution is at least proper since no rules were violated in the giving of the money. But I wouldn't say it's ipso facto fair. Why not? Because fairness has to do with the end use of that money. It is not going to have much added benefit for the billionaire whereas for the homeless person, it means the difference between starving or not for the next five days. Now, the scholarship issue is even more complex because that money isn't "owned" by the school. The administration is simply steward for the money and they thus have the fiduciary duty to maximize its utility. Sure, there are real challenges faced by single parents with dependents who are in school. But that scholarship money would derive greater educational utility if it were used to offset tuition for another low income student who would otherwise be deprived of that aid money.

A financial aid office is never going to say "Oh, let's give this money as a cost-of-attendance award to this low SES student" when there are other low SES students who need tuition relief first and foremost. The issue of fairness is tied to the ordering of priorities. I do not deny that the single parent faces significant challenges. But you have to see past individual issues and see the school's perspective. What is the best use of their limited resources to attain the greatest utility? Your world is simply unrealistic; it does not exist.

First of all, I do not know how you arrived at a precise utilitarian outcome for my hypothetical scenario. I understand how stewardship works. I added on the last bit about it being their money, since I don't think any mortal will be able to absolutely calculate a perfect division of funds to maximize their utility. You have no way of discerning exactly how much help each dollar provides to each person, sorry. Ultimately the schools do their best with their limited wisdom, and decide as best they can how to allocate their resources, and that is OK since they are the ones responsible for the money and they have done their best. That was not the crux of my argument though, at all.
Second, why are you so fixated on the magic title of "tuition"? You claim that to give three students full COA as opposed to giving four students a tuition scholarship (those are the proportions the numbers would indicate, 350K vs 250K approximately) would categorically be unfair no matter what the scenarios are. In that case, perhaps instead of giving one student a tuition scholarship, two students should get a half tuition scholarship each? And so on and so forth. I don't think utilitarian maximization strictly refers to the number of people being helped, rather it refers to doing the most good with the resources, and that is something that can be decided case by case.
Finally, and to go back to the initial conversation, I am not trying to dictate how schools allocate their money. I am not saying that full COA scholarships should be given, or even that there are schools that offer them. I will repeat this one last time: I am claiming that the proposed instance of a full COA scholarship would not inherently be unfair to other students, assuming that the school was just as smart as you are and judged the situation as such. The OP was wondering about full COA scholarships, and part of your answer was that it would be extremely generous and probably unfair to others. I disagreed, and said that there can ostensibly be some situations in which a full COA scholarship could theoretically be justified by a utilitarian approach. You do not agree with that, and apparently think that no situation could ever justify a full COA scholarship, but only a tuition scholarship. It is on this last point that we should agree to disagree.

 

[aldol16]

First of all, I do not know how you arrived at a precise utilitarian outcome for my hypothetical scenario. I understand how stewardship works. I added on the last bit about it being their money, since I don't think any mortal will be able to absolutely calculate a perfect division of funds to maximize their utility. You have no way of discerning exactly how much help each dollar provides to each person, sorry. Ultimately the schools do their best with their limited wisdom, and decide as best they can how to allocate their resources, and that is OK since they are the ones responsible for the money and they have done their best. That was not the crux of my argument though, at all.

Oh, it can't be calculated so we shouldn't even try! That's ridiculous. I have no way of discerning the exact utility of the marginal dollar to any particular student - but neither does the school. The school has no way of knowing either so they must try their best to maximize utility. I'm telling you that this is done by offsetting tuition money. It's not an argument. It's a statement of fact.

Second, why are you so fixated on the magic title of "tuition"? You claim that to give three students full COA as opposed to giving four students a tuition scholarship (those are the proportions the numbers would indicate, 350K vs 250K approximately) would categorically be unfair no matter what the scenarios are. In that case, perhaps instead of giving one student a tuition scholarship, two students should get a half tuition scholarship each? And so on and so forth. I don't think utilitarian maximization strictly refers to the number of people being helped, rather it refers to doing the most good with the resources, and that is something that can be decided case by case.

Finally, and to go back to the initial conversation, I am not trying to dictate how schools allocate their money. I am not saying that full COA scholarships should be given, or even that there are schools that offer them. I will repeat this one last time: I am claiming that the proposed instance of a full COA scholarship would not inherently be unfair to other students, assuming that the school was just as smart as you are and judged the situation as such. The OP was wondering about full COA scholarships, and part of your answer was that it would be extremely generous and probably unfair to others. I disagreed, and said that there can ostensibly be some situations in which a full COA scholarship could theoretically be justified by a utilitarian approach. You do not agree with that, and apparently think that no situation could ever justify a full COA scholarship, but only a tuition scholarship. It is on this last point that we should agree to disagree.

It is categorically unfair precisely for the fact that the money is being used for costs not directly associated with education itself (i.e. tuition, books, lab materials, etc.). A distribution can be unfair even when the end result is noble. If I wiped out your savings account and used it all to feed homeless people, that would be a noble end because they derive greater marginal benefit for the dollar than you. But I wouldn't call that fair. You might, but I don't.

I don't necessarily have an objection if somebody made a donation and said, "This gift is to be used for full COA scholarships for needy students." In that case, the money is earmarked precisely for this purpose and the school should go along with the donor's wishes. But since most donations are solicited by schools to further their educational missions (and most of us have been party to many of these solicitation emails as alumni), it would not be proper for the school to use those funds for COA scholarships when there are needy students who need tuition scholarships, no matter how valiant the intentions.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

Oh, it can't be calculated so we shouldn't even try! That's ridiculous. I have no way of discerning the exact utility of the marginal dollar to any particular student - but neither does the school. The school has no way of knowing either so they must try their best to maximize utility. I'm telling you that this is done by offsetting tuition money. It's not an argument. It's a statement of fact.





It is categorically unfair precisely for the fact that the money is being used for costs not directly associated with education itself (i.e. tuition, books, lab materials, etc.). A distribution can be unfair even when the end result is noble. If I wiped out your savings account and used it all to feed homeless people, that would be a noble end because they derive greater marginal benefit for the dollar than you. But I wouldn't call that fair. You might, but I don't.

I don't necessarily have an objection if somebody made a donation and said, "This gift is to be used for full COA scholarships for needy students." In that case, the money is earmarked precisely for this purpose and the school should go along with the donor's wishes. But since most donations are solicited by schools to further their educational missions (and most of us have been party to many of these solicitation emails as alumni), it would not be proper for the school to use those funds for COA scholarships when there are needy students who need tuition scholarships, no matter how valiant the intentions.

Do you have any idea what my argument was?

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

It is categorically unfair precisely for the fact that the money is being used for costs not directly associated with education itself (i.e. tuition, books, lab materials, etc.).

Books and lab materials are not part of tuition. They are part of COA.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

But since most donations are solicited by schools to further their educational missions (and most of us have been party to many of these solicitation emails as alumni), it would not be proper for the school to use those funds for COA scholarships when there are needy students who need tuition scholarships, no matter how valiant the intentions.

And you never explained what is so special about the cost labeled tuition, more than the others costs of medical training. Just saying.

 

[aldol16]

Do you have any idea what my argument was?

Nah, I'm too dumb for that.

Books and lab materials are not part of tuition. They are part of COA.

I would be perfectly fine with covering these costs as part of a "full tuition" package. Take out the "living expenses," the "miscellaneous," the "health insurance," etc. and you've got yourself a deal.

 

[aldol16]

And you never explained what is so special about the cost labeled tuition, more than the others costs of medical training. Just saying.

If you would have incurred these costs anyway without going to medical school, then it should not be covered. This includes living expenses (rent, utilities, board), health insurance, and miscellaneous incidental expenses.

I believe that a "full tuition" package should also cover those costs directly tied to medical education (read: incurred because of medical school, not in spite of it) such as books, medical equipment required for courses, and Step exam costs.

 

[AVSS HDS CSM]

If you would have incurred these costs anyway without going to medical school, then it should not be covered. This includes living expenses (rent, utilities, board), health insurance, and miscellaneous incidental expenses.

I believe that a "full tuition" package should also cover those costs directly tied to medical education (read: incurred because of medical school, not in spite of it) such as books, medical equipment required for courses, and Step exam costs.

Ok, I see what you're saying. I am sorry, I do not think you are dumb. My apologies for being rude. I was feeling like my points were not being communicated, but I should have said as much instead of resorting to exasperation.
I now see your side of it with respect to where you're drawing the line of what should be offered. What you are saying happens to be more than what is covered by a tuition scholarship, but you know this. That's fine.
However, I still think it would be OK for a school to offer funding up until the cost of attendance. The reason I think so, is that the money would be going toward increasing the quality of the student's learning and performance by allowing them to fully devote themselves to their studies without certain stressful distractions. I don't see why this is not a part of the educational mission of the school for which the money was earmarked, and I do not think it would be a misallocation of funds. As far as fairness to others, my arguments from above remain. This is something that any student could potentially be eligible for, depending on their situation. I know that all students would benefit from some level of reduced stress due to funding, but that was my whole point, that a certain subset would perhaps benefit more from this, as could be decided by the school. Again, I am not saying that this happens! It probably doesn't! I am only saying why I do not think it would be unfair if this were to be done by a school for only some students, as per my original response.
It is ridiculous that I am wasting my time (and yours) arguing theoretically about something that probably never happens.... Maybe deep down I wish that life was really like this!