I would find that these changes can subsequently cause students and graduates a shit storm with FAFSA. If your degree worked as an undergraduate and then becomes graduate credits, it'll become a problem because certain grant money can only be used for undergraduate studies not graduate level courses. This can also come back and haunt students for back due tuition because of different tuition rates. This can turn into a shit storm.

Maybe I don't understand the processes involved. I'll admit that I don't understand this.

I am just wondering what the retroactive shit storm that lawyers for FAFSA and/or the universities may cause the students and those who graduated with their degrees trying to get money back for credits that were undergraduate becoming graduate credits. 

If for example Johnny got his B.Arch this year and next year, it's reclassified as an M.Arch, and so that 5 year B.Arch credits becomes graduate credits instead of undergraduate credits. 

All that Pell Grant and other such grants would have to be repaid to FAFSA and the college may potentially go after that student for the difference in price per credit in tuition. That is a lot of money. So a person who thought their student loan was X amount in now Y amount. What was $13,000 a year for 5 years becomes $35,000 a year. From $65,000 becomes up to like $175,000. 

This is what I hope would NOT happen. 

Pell grants can only be used for undergraduates credits. If those credits are retroactively converted to graduate credits, oh boy, a shit storm would be brewing big time.

What if the credits no longer count as undergraduate credits and becomes graduate credits? You can't use pell grants or whatever grants that are for UNDERGRADUATE CREDITS only. 

You can't use it for Graduate credits. Therefore those grant money amounts would have to be converted to federal student loans or otherwise be paid back. 

The legal issues get ugly.

In my opinion, it's best to not convert students who are already enrolled in undergrad without a previous BA/BS degree) or those who already have their degree. It leads to a lot of problematic issues. The smoothest legal way would be to discontinue such a B.Arch degree through a phase out process and start a new 3-year M.Arch if institution don't have one. The phase out would be to continue undergrad courses for students already enrolled until they finish their degree and only be an option to students admitted & enrolled prior to the date of discontinuance. Then adjust academic requirements for grad students to meet graduate school academic requirements. That is how such suppose to be done. As for D.Archs, that would be additional courses meeting graduate school standards for doctoral studies beyond that of an M.Arch.

Accreditation would have to remain for such a phase out. Once phase out had been completed by students and they all graduated, the B.Arch accreditation would not have to be renewed. There's no short-cutting it in my opinion nor should there be.

curtkram,

Ok. If you can support that with some documented law or rule that explicitly governs Pell Grants that are current... that would be better.  Just a kind request for a citation of source.

If I was in such position, I'd be pissed and rightly so.

I wasn't even aware of the Tulane thing changing their B.Arch to M.Arch. Thank You for a cited source. Maybe the institution did something about the matter so as to not get sued later but I'm curious how you can get a Masters or Doctorates degree without first being conferred a Bachelors level degree in an accredited college. I wonder how other academic institutions would feel about it if they were to enroll for a degree without an undergraduate degree in their transcript records.

I guess those students don't give a shit about it, anyway.

Josh,

Just politely answer or reply for FUCKING GAWD sake. Damn! This fucking attitude is getting damn fucking old.

Sheesh. I asked curtkram for a source. You answered it, albeit rudely. You could have just politely answered and that would have been probably enough. I'm doubt a person earning 5 years of college studies meets the standards of a degree. A degree is conventionally occured in two year or 90 term credits intervals (or semester equivalent). In short, every 90 term credits (a degree... provide you meet the degree's curriculum requirements with the credits). 180 credits, a bachelors. another 90 credits after that, a Masters degree.  Another 90 credits after that, a Doctoral. Of course in progressively higher course numbers.

A B.Arch is more closer to a Graduate Certificate (in between Bachelors and Masters degree.

That's just traditional for accredited PUBLIC COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES.

kjdt,

Rick, what happened with Tulane is that when they were in the process of transitioning away from a B.Arch program to various M.Arch tracks, their B.Arch program was found by NAAB to already fulfill all the requirements of a 5+1 post-pro M.Arch track.  The university was able to get permission to retroactively "upgrade" certain recent years' B.Arch grads to the M.Arch.  Those students received the M.Arch in addition to the B.Arch - not instead of an undergrad degree.  This happened after they graduated, and the M.Arch was considered to be a masters earned concurrently with the completion of the undergrad program - thus there was absolutely no impact on anything having to do with financial aid, and their transcripts do in fact include both an undergrad and graduate degree.

Thank you for this information. This makes more sense.