CSNbbs

Full Version: OT - Bad Press... in the Thresher [LOCKED ARCHIVAL COPY. DO NOT TOUCH. -GTS]
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(12-01-2012 02:04 PM)Ranger Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 01:57 PM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-30-2012 04:35 PM)Ranger Wrote: [ -> ]We just heard one side, but if there is any merit to her argument, this is pathetic and some thing is out of whack and, as with the athletic department, must be fixed immediately. And not refunding the tuition (if there is merit to the complaint) borders on criminally greedy.

The registrar has a calendar with dates corresponding to tuition reimbursement percentages.

http://registrar.rice.edu/calendars/spring13/

For example, March 15th 2013 is the last day for a 10% reimbursement. Past this date, none is given.

She is alleging that she was kicked out of the school despite no wrong doing on her part. If that is correct, she should have been given her tuition back.

This is real simple. People seem to miss this all the time. The appropriate test is: What would you think if it had happened to you or one of your loved ones.

If I kick you out of school for no wrongdoing on your part, common decency demands that I not keep your money, regardless of what bureaucratic deadlines I have set.

I'm not sure what to think of most of this story, and I suspect it's being tried in the court of public opinion in a very one-sided fashion, if for no other reason that to properly address the complaint I suspect Rice would have to reveal information they can't, or possibly take steps that would be unfair to an individual. In short, they're probably between a rock and a hard place here.

But regardless, I feel Ranger's logic is spot on here. Absent any wrongdoing on the part of the student, I can't imagine why Rice would feel justified in not reimbursing tuition if she was required to leave the school against her will (even if for some reason that was the best decision for everyone concerned).
(12-01-2012 03:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 02:04 PM)Ranger Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 01:57 PM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-30-2012 04:35 PM)Ranger Wrote: [ -> ]We just heard one side, but if there is any merit to her argument, this is pathetic and some thing is out of whack and, as with the athletic department, must be fixed immediately. And not refunding the tuition (if there is merit to the complaint) borders on criminally greedy.

The registrar has a calendar with dates corresponding to tuition reimbursement percentages.

http://registrar.rice.edu/calendars/spring13/

For example, March 15th 2013 is the last day for a 10% reimbursement. Past this date, none is given.

She is alleging that she was kicked out of the school despite no wrong doing on her part. If that is correct, she should have been given her tuition back.

This is real simple. People seem to miss this all the time. The appropriate test is: What would you think if it had happened to you or one of your loved ones.

If I kick you out of school for no wrongdoing on your part, common decency demands that I not keep your money, regardless of what bureaucratic deadlines I have set.

I'm not sure what to think of most of this story, and I suspect it's being tried in the court of public opinion in a very one-sided fashion, if for no other reason that to properly address the complaint I suspect Rice would have to reveal information they can't, or possibly take steps that would be unfair to an individual. In short, they're probably between a rock and a hard place here.

But regardless, I feel Ranger's logic is spot on here. Absent any wrongdoing on the part of the student, I can't imagine why Rice would feel justified in not reimbursing tuition if she was required to leave the school against her will (even if for some reason that was the best decision for everyone concerned).

100% correct. If and only if, however.
(12-01-2012 02:33 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 02:29 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]Rice counseling offices, where they are not acting in the students' best interest.

Of course not -- they act foremost in the university's interest, just as an HR department looks out for the company first, not the employee.

When you think about it, it would be irrational to expect otherwise. But of course, people generally are not encouraged to think about that.

I mean psychiatric counseling. If they are offering psych or medical advise, I can't conceive that they would put the university first.
(12-01-2012 02:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I would encourage all to reserve judgement until the full story comes out. One side does not make an objective analysis.

I just hope that it's being investigated independently ... at least independent of the named parties.
(12-01-2012 03:19 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 02:33 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 02:29 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]Rice counseling offices, where they are not acting in the students' best interest.

Of course not -- they act foremost in the university's interest, just as an HR department looks out for the company first, not the employee.

When you think about it, it would be irrational to expect otherwise. But of course, people generally are not encouraged to think about that.

I mean psychiatric counseling. If they are offering psych or medical advise, I can't conceive that they would put the university first.

Who writes their paychecks? Who conducts their performance reviews? Who hires and fires them? That's whose interest they will inevitably put first. I am not criticizing them for doing so; just stating the reality of how organizations (and human beings) work.
(12-01-2012 03:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 02:04 PM)Ranger Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 01:57 PM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-30-2012 04:35 PM)Ranger Wrote: [ -> ]We just heard one side, but if there is any merit to her argument, this is pathetic and some thing is out of whack and, as with the athletic department, must be fixed immediately. And not refunding the tuition (if there is merit to the complaint) borders on criminally greedy.

The registrar has a calendar with dates corresponding to tuition reimbursement percentages.

http://registrar.rice.edu/calendars/spring13/

For example, March 15th 2013 is the last day for a 10% reimbursement. Past this date, none is given.

She is alleging that she was kicked out of the school despite no wrong doing on her part. If that is correct, she should have been given her tuition back.

This is real simple. People seem to miss this all the time. The appropriate test is: What would you think if it had happened to you or one of your loved ones.

If I kick you out of school for no wrongdoing on your part, common decency demands that I not keep your money, regardless of what bureaucratic deadlines I have set.

I'm not sure what to think of most of this story, and I suspect it's being tried in the court of public opinion in a very one-sided fashion, if for no other reason that to properly address the complaint I suspect Rice would have to reveal information they can't, or possibly take steps that would be unfair to an individual. In short, they're probably between a rock and a hard place here.

But regardless, I feel Ranger's logic is spot on here. Absent any wrongdoing on the part of the student, I can't imagine why Rice would feel justified in not reimbursing tuition if she was required to leave the school against her will (even if for some reason that was the best decision for everyone concerned).

Agree with Ranger. I was merely pointing out that as Rice took the steps to initiate the removal, it is highly unlikely that it was done without reason or some form of cause (from their perspective). In this case, it is not surprising (or expected) that Rice would oblige the student with a reimbursement.

Regardless, both sides need to be revealed prior to making a decision. There is a facebook group of angry people already, armed with one side of the story.
(12-01-2012 03:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 03:19 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 02:33 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 02:29 PM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]Rice counseling offices, where they are not acting in the students' best interest.

Of course not -- they act foremost in the university's interest, just as an HR department looks out for the company first, not the employee.

When you think about it, it would be irrational to expect otherwise. But of course, people generally are not encouraged to think about that.

I mean psychiatric counseling. If they are offering psych or medical advise, I can't conceive that they would put the university first.

Who writes their paychecks? Who conducts their performance reviews? Who hires and fires them? That's whose interest they will inevitably put first. I am not criticizing them for doing so; just stating the reality of how organizations (and human beings) work.

I thought professional ethics and privacy laws would dictate otherwise, but you may as well shutter those services because they seem worthless to me.
There is definitely more to Olivia's story than what she chose to communicate ...
(12-01-2012 09:58 PM)owl-girl Wrote: [ -> ]There is definitely more to Olivia's story than what she chose to communicate ...

Do tell...
(12-02-2012 11:03 PM)tramile12 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 09:58 PM)owl-girl Wrote: [ -> ]There is definitely more to Olivia's story than what she chose to communicate ...

Do tell...

I would strongly advise against doing so. Any further information could, and probably would, subject this site and its owners to legal action. Consider this, at this point, as friendly advice.
(12-03-2012 11:10 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-02-2012 11:03 PM)tramile12 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 09:58 PM)owl-girl Wrote: [ -> ]There is definitely more to Olivia's story than what she chose to communicate ...
Do tell...
I would strongly advise against doing so. Any further information could, and probably would, subject this site and its owners to legal action. Consider this, at this point, as friendly advice.

Absolutely do not tell, under any circumstances. Period.
(12-03-2012 11:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-03-2012 11:10 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-02-2012 11:03 PM)tramile12 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 09:58 PM)owl-girl Wrote: [ -> ]There is definitely more to Olivia's story than what she chose to communicate ...
Do tell...
I would strongly advise against doing so. Any further information could, and probably would, subject this site and its owners to legal action. Consider this, at this point, as friendly advice.

Absolutely do not tell, under any circumstances. Period.

Lawyers, always bringing me down..... 05-stirthepot
(12-03-2012 11:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Absolutely do not tell, under any circumstances. Period.

Let's hope that one takes...
(12-03-2012 11:10 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-02-2012 11:03 PM)tramile12 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-01-2012 09:58 PM)owl-girl Wrote: [ -> ]There is definitely more to Olivia's story than what she chose to communicate ...

Do tell...

I would strongly advise against doing so. Any further information could, and probably would, subject this site and its owners to legal action. Consider this, at this point, as friendly advice.

It is unfortunate you chose to head down this road first.

Check your PMs immediately.

Your posting privileges are subject to moderator and administrator approval effective immediately and indefinitely.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's