I met with the people at Temple who actually have to do the work to complete
the CDS financial aid questions. They raised some interesting points that
may be worth discussing.
1. The instructions on page 15 of the July 15 CDS asks that non-need based
aid (for Temple University that usually means merit scholarships) be
counted as need based aid if the need based aid is less than the student's
total need. This may actually be favorable for us since it will show us
meeting more of student's financial need. However, we will then appear
to be providing less non-need money than we actually do. Does it matter?
Are we going to be accused of falsifying data because we follow CDS
2. On H3, how should we count "financial aid applicants" (H3b)? Besides the
federal/state financial aid forms we have our own. If a person submits
one but not the other is the person an applicant? The CDS definition is
not clear. The definition used will change (in our case significantly)
the aid rate.
3. On H4 the CDS is asking for the percent of 1997 graduates who have borrowed
through a loan program. Almost half of Temple's students enter as
transfers. Should transfers be included? How do we know if a transfer has
a loan from a previous institution - from the NSLC?
4. My question on H5 is related to H4. H5 is asking for the cumulative
indebtedness of our graduates. The problem once again is with transfer
students. We can easily calculate the Temple debt, but how about the debt
brought *TO* Temple. We have not worked out the numbers but the average
may be deceptively low if most students transfer from community colleges,
or deceptively high if most transfer from private schools. Again we
could be accused of distortion if we follow what appear to be the CDS
guidelines (include everybody).
We are also beginning to work on the admissions portion of the CDS. I am sure
we will have problems with that area too. Just to get you thinking -----
Temple has 2000 Japanese national on a campus in Tokyo who are taking our
normal courses and receiving a Temple degree. However, admissions applications
are screened by our Japanese partner so that we receive (and process) only the
admissable applicants. Should they be counted? How? We want to report
"accurately", but we may be considered deceptive no matter how we count them.
Our acceptance and yield rates are distorted by these 200-300 new students
I hope this has given the group something to think about and discuss. I look
forward to your comments.
| TIM WALSH
| DIRECTOR, STUDENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS WALSH @ VM.TEMPLE.EDU |
| TEMPLE UNIVERSITY 215/204-5050 |