
Starbucks admits it's not contributing to scholarship fund - dbbolton
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Starbucks-admits-its-not-contributing-to-hyped-scholarships-263837031.html
======
pdabbadabba
As I've said elsewhere below, This article is clickbait. If you read to the
end you'll see that Starbucks is, indeed, paying for the students' last two
years of college:

> The program would work much the same way for the junior and senior years,
> except that Starbucks would reimburse workers for their out of pocket costs,
> once they completed 21 credits.

The only point the article is making is that Starbucks is not paying into the
scholarship fund that goes towards students' first two years of expenses. I do
not see why this, standing alone, is a big deal. To be clear, Starbucks IS
PAYING out of pocket for its students' tuition. Just not 100% of it. ASU is
kicking in some money as well. I don't see that this is wildly inconsistent
with Starbucks' PR message about the program.

This article is much more informative:
[http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/starbucks-ceo-
howard-s...](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/starbucks-ceo-howard-
schultz-college-access-plan-108050.html)

> The partnership between Starbucks and ASU will provide full tuition
> reimbursement for any of the company’s 135,000 U.S. employees enrolled as
> juniors and seniors, each time they complete 21 credit hours. While the up-
> front costs could be problematic for some students, Starbucks says the
> 21-credit system is an incentive for completion.

> ASU-funded scholarships will also help cover the cost. Juniors and seniors
> can get about $2,240 per 12-credit course load — undergraduate online
> programs cost between $480 and $543 per credit hour — and freshmen and
> sophomores can get $1,267 total.

~~~
dbbolton
The issue is that it was initially presented as an "up front" scholarship, but
it is in fact a reimbursement. The difference is significant. Even the quote
from your preferred article mentions that "up-front costs could be problematic
for some students".

If you get a $10,000 __scholarship __, enroll, then decide somewhere along the
line that your workload is too much and you have to withdraw, you aren 't out
$10,000.

With this program, if you don't hit the 21 credit mark, you are screwed.

No one is arguing that Starbucks isn't paying for school. The argument is that
they were misleading about how they are paying for it.

~~~
Dylan16807
Discouraging withdrawal could be argued to be the point, and the amount of
courses you would withdraw from at once should be much less than 21 credits.
Assuming you still get 21 hours of money if you complete 21 out of 29 credit
hours, I don't see it as a major problem.

And this is for the Junior and Senior classes. You should already know what
workload you can handle by then.

~~~
dbbolton
They explicitly said it was to "motivate" students to finish, but I see that
as kind of a cop out answer since it's also extremely convenient for them.

As for withdrawal, yes, you should know what you can handle by junior year,
but that was just one for-instance. People withdraw for all sorts of reasons
(e.g. medical). I can't imagine being too sick to focus on your schoolwork and
then having your "scholarship" yanked away from you because of it.

Is it better than nothing? Yes. Is it as nice as they made it out to be? No.
That's the point here.

------
Artemis2
What a shame. They just partnered with the Arizona State University to lower
costs for their workers because they are underpaid.

Nice "contribution".

~~~
EpicEng
Are they "underpaid"? What do you suggest a barista at Starbucks make?
Regardless of the details, their workers get a discount on a college
education. Seems like a nice perk for doing a job that the majority of people
can do.

------
coldcode
Always easy to be generous if it's not your money. Usually I see this type of
philanthropy on "American Greed".

------
mantraxC
So we're gonna pile on Starbucks for negotiating lower tuition fees for their
employees. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Consider that if they had no program at all, they wouldn't be getting the bad
press right now. This article is asking us to punish Starbucks for doing
something, because it doesn't conform to some childish stereotype for the
proverbial rich giving some of their infinite money to the poor.

~~~
pdabbadabba
I agree that what Starbucks is doing is admirable whether or not they're
putting up their own money.

But what irritates me, for one (and, I'd wager, other HNers), is that if this
article is true, then the Starbucks PR blitz accompanying this decision has
been, at best, badly misleading. I seem to recall, for example, Howard
Schultz's making an appearance on the Daily Show the other day and telling the
American public that paying tuition for all their workers was going to cost
them millions upon millions of dollars. If that was a lie, it seems to me
that's worthy of condemnation.

EDIT: This article is clickbait, and it fooled me. If you read to the end
you'll see that Starbucks is, indeed, paying for the students' last two years
of college:

> The program would work much the same way for the junior and senior years,
> except that Starbucks would reimburse workers for their out of pocket costs,
> once they completed 21 credits.

~~~
russelluresti
Finally, someone actually read the whole article.

------
jeangenie
What a joke.

