Heard there was a rumor in dispute and you needed proof

[corpsband]

3 minutes ago, garfield said:

 

 

Now, you guys knock it off.  Liahona is not a rookie newbie.  His/her post count correctly expects respect.

I want to know why Liahona considers it spin.  The only way we learn is to keep the communication open, not shut it down.  I want to hear thoughts different than mine.

 

I might suggest the same standard be applied to single word response consisting of "spin".

But in any case,  I invited a more forthcoming reply from Liahona in an earlier message.   Not trying to shut down anyone -- I'd really like to hear why he felt "spin" was an appropriate response to both my and Slingerland's posts.  

Edited February 4, 2017 by corpsband

[garfield]

So, as the _Kid and I were hanging crown molding in the kitchen today, I was rolling around this whole subject in my head.  What would the policy look like.  What are the variables?

It's a contract that says, I presume, "...if you accept a contract somewhere else, your financial support is revoked and you owe it back."

So, I'm thinking, what if the MM, for sh!ts and giggles, goes to November audition camp at another corps and gets a contract.  If she accepts it and agrees to march, she owes back the support she got for '16.

But, what if she went to her contract corps tryouts and got cut.  Honestly got cut.  Then she goes to another corps and gets a contract.  Does she still owe her original corps?

Or, what if she blows a knee and has to sit out for a year?  Then, because of her falling behind, can only make a lower-placing corps.  Does she still owe her original corps?

 

I think I know these answers if one steps back and looks at the policy from a Executive staff or BOD level.  But I think they'd be fun to speculate about if we can keep from excoriating one corps for an activity practice.

It's all speculation.  It's just band.

 

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, garfield said:

... It's just band.

Likely the most factual and accurate statement within this entire thread!!!

[corpsband]

23 minutes ago, garfield said:

So, as the _Kid and I were hanging crown molding in the kitchen today, I was rolling around this whole subject in my head.  What would the policy look like.  What are the variables?

It's a contract that says, I presume, "...if you accept a contract somewhere else, your financial support is revoked and you owe it back."

So, I'm thinking, what if the MM, for sh!ts and giggles, goes to November audition camp at another corps and gets a contract.  If she accepts it and agrees to march, she owes back the support she got for '16.

But, what if she went to her contract corps tryouts and got cut.  Honestly got cut.  Then she goes to another corps and gets a contract.  Does she still owe her original corps?

Or, what if she blows a knee and has to sit out for a year?  Then, because of her falling behind, can only make a lower-placing corps.  Does she still owe her original corps?

 

I think I know these answers if one steps back and looks at the policy from a Executive staff or BOD level.  But I think they'd be fun to speculate about if we can keep from excoriating one corps for an activity practice.

It's all speculation.  It's just band.

 

I'll be honest -- I have no idea.

In the deleted thread I posted that I'd never heard of Crown offering scholarships -- that wasn't an attempt to spin.  It was my honest experience based on having a kid who marched 5 years in the organization.  

Now -- maybe this was going on back then --no idea.  But I do know many vets who took a year off because they couldn't afford winter and summer for a year.  So clearly this financial aid wasn't made available to them.  

The most interesting thing to me is that on reddit (where Liahona posted a similar thread after the DCP thread was deleted,  the nearly universal response by MM's was "duh -- that's the way it works everywhere".    It was a very different response than comments posted here.

IMO I think the original policy -- no pay, no play -- is the most responsible policy for members and the corps.  If an alumni wants to sponsor a member,  I don't think the "payback" would apply.    Nor do I think it would apply to a member who was cut or injured.   But I think Crown shot themselves in the foot when they characterized the reduced fee as a scholarship.  It doesn't fit the definition.

Edited February 4, 2017 by corpsband

[garfield]

13 minutes ago, corpsband said:

I'll be honest -- I have no idea.

In the deleted thread I posted that I'd never heard of Crown offering scholarships -- that wasn't an attempt to spin.  It was my honest experience based on having a kid who marched 5 years in the organization.  

Now -- maybe this was going on back then --no idea.  But I do know many vets who took a year off because they couldn't afford winter and summer for a year.  So clearly this financial aid wasn't made available to them.  

The most interesting thing to me is that on reddit (where Liahona posted a similar thread after the DCP thread was deleted,  the nearly universal response by MM's was "duh -- that's the way it works everywhere".    It was a very different response then comments posted here.

IMO I think the original policy -- no pay, no play -- is the most responsible policy for members and the corps.  If an alumni wants to sponsor a member,  I don't think the "payback" would apply.    Nor do I think it would apply to a member who was cut or injured.   But I think Crown shot themselves in the foot when they characterized the reduced fee as a scholarship.  It doesn't fit the definition.

Your comments about the responses to Reddit tell the entire story, and don't add much credibility to Liahona's disdain for the policy.

 

[DrumManTx]

If the scholarship really wasn't a scholarship why was it called a scholarship in the first place?  That's where I'm getting quite a bit of confusion myself.  

I really don't think anyone has an issue with marching members paying off what they owe at a previous corps, I certainly don't.  

[DrumManTx]

I'll put it in personal terms for myself.  

If I transferred schools from where I am right now because my percussion teacher went somewhere else (this actually did happen with another instrumental teacher leaving where I go to school and some people following him) I wouldn't really expect to have to pay back any of my tuition that was covered by some scholarships I got for where I currently attend.  

If I signed a contract to attend my current school but face a revoking of those scholarships if I transfered schools not thinking I would transfer, but then the unforseen moving of the teacher I really liked occurred and I wanted to transfer schools I'd pay it back but it honestly would kind of leave a bad taste in my mouth for something I wouldn't have really anticipated happening since I chose said school because of said teacher.  

That's my personal interpretation of this.  

Edited February 5, 2017 by DrumManTx
Clarity

[corpsband]

5 minutes ago, DrumManTx said:

I'll put it in personal terms for myself.  

I guess if I transferred schools from where I am right now because my percussion teacher went somewhere else (this actually did happen with another instrumental teacher leaving where I go to school and some people following him) I wouldn't really expect to have to pay back any of my tuition that was covered by some scholarships I got for where I currently attend.  

If for whatever reason I signed a contract to attend where I currently am and nowhere else or I'd have to pay it all back for said scholarship but then that unforseen moving of the teacher I really liked occurred and I wanted to transfer schools I'd pay it back but it honestly would kind of leave a bad taste in my mouth for something I wouldn't have really anticipated happening since I chose said school because of said teacher.  

That's my personal interpretation of this.  

I agree with you.  Which is why I think the term scholarship is completely misleading as applied to this situation.  A scholarship does not reduce tuition -- it pays the tuition on behalf of the student.

There were no funds paid to Crown on behalf of a member.  Instead there was a forgiveness of some part of the debt and terms were attached to the forgiveness.  Crown took a loss on behalf of the needy student with the understanding that the needy student would continue to perform at Crown. 

Why does Crown use the term scholarship?  I think they believe it sounds better to outsiders than terms like dues, staff, and marching members.  I get it.  But in this case it is extremely misleading.

[DrumManTx]

I just find it a little hard to think they'd be that careless in what terminology they use given how well run/respected they are as an non profit organization.  

Edited February 5, 2017 by DrumManTx

[corpsband]

7 minutes ago, DrumManTx said:

I just find it a little hard to think they'd be that careless in what terminology they use given how well run/respected they are as an non profit organization.  

They were the first corps to start calling their staff "faculty".  Long history of using "educational" terms and applying them to drum corps.

What sealed the deal for me on this was the redditors who all kind of said "duh -- it's that way everywhere"  and  "yeah i had to pay to before leaving my old to corps to march Crown".  so this sort of thing has a well-defined existence (even if I  knew nothing about it).