Letter of Intent

[BALAAM]

Can anyone explain to me exactly what these are and supposed to mean. I have read in the paper for years about high school kids signing LOI for colleges and now Longview baptist temple college academy whatever has people sign a letter of intent.

What does it mean? How binding is it? (how can a young high school student know where he will go to school in 2 years)
Why is Longview doing things like the 'world'? lol  I think they only had like 10 graduates from the college this year.
I understand it is a recruiting tool basically for colleges for their athletic programs but why a christian school?
Does it have anything to do with scholarships?
Does anyone know?
Does anyone care?
Does anyone have some money I can borrow?

 

[TidesofTruth]

Think of it as an execution of closure on the call to action in a sales pitch.

 

[prophet]

Yup.

earnestly contend

 

[sword]

Most Christian Colleges (mainly through tour groups and youth conferences) have young people fill out cards if they are interested in their school. This is of course a marketing tool and it is used to flood the young person with material and later personal contacts. I have no problem with this, I see it as good marketing.

On the other hand I have not heard of christian colleges using a LOI. I can think of no valid reason for anything binding. Preachers talk of following God's will, it's hard to be receptive to God's leading if you are already under contract. 

 

[sword]

How many college students do they have at Longview's college?

 

[Tennessean]

Has LBT given an explanation of how they are using this or implementing this?

 

[Tennessean]

Pure speculation.

What this could be is some promotion they use in a chapel or Youth Conference. Come forward make a commitment to attend a Fundamental College. Sign this pledge to cement your decision in stone kind of thing.

Interesting

 

[Walt]

Most Christian Colleges (mainly through tour groups and youth conferences) have young people fill out cards if they are interested in their school. This is of course a marketing tool and it is used to flood the young person with material and later personal contacts. I have no problem with this, I see it as good marketing.

On the other hand I have not heard of christian colleges using a LOI. I can think of no valid reason for anything binding. Preachers talk of following God's will, it's hard to be receptive to God's leading if you are already under contract.

This; or rather, these paragraphs.  I understand that if my son or daughter signs up as "interested", they are flooded with propaganda... but I have not yet heard of Christian schools doing LOI.

 

[BALAAM]

All good answers. I have seen this in secular colleges but always in regard to exceptional athletes. I am just trying to get an idea how binding these things are and why in the world Texas whatever would resort to 'the ways of the worldly colleges'.  I saw a pic of their graduating class and there were only about ten so the school can't be too large.

 

[Vince Massi]

A Letter of Intent is not legally binding if signed by a minor. It means that the high school student intends to attend a certain college.

 

[sword]

A Letter of Intent is not legally binding if signed by a minor. It means that the high school student intends to attend a certain college.

Regarding "these being binding" can you say "Jericho plan" contract.

FBCH took a bath on most of those who signed up but did not meet their commitment.

Does anyone know if they tried to collect from the 100's of students who dropped out/ transfered.

 

[Vince Massi]

Sword, I wasn?t there, but there were posts from people who said that they wee taken into a separate room and made to sign the Jericho plan without their parents being informed.

There were also posts from former students who stated that Jack Schaap told them in chapel that they didn't have to repay the Jericho loans if they didn't want to.

HAC sent notices trying to collect, but they never took legal action.

 

[Walt]

A Letter of Intent is not legally binding if signed by a minor. It means that the high school student intends to attend a certain college.

Regarding "these being binding" can you say "Jericho plan" contract.

FBCH took a bath on most of those who signed up but did not meet their commitment.

...and here is the error. FBCH should not have been involved in this.  This was a college matter. The church can underwrite the college to some extent, but the goal should be to make HAC self-supporting.  Scholarships should have been offered from the college; the church had no business going overboard on that plan.

 

[sword]

A Letter of Intent is not legally binding if signed by a minor. It means that the high school student intends to attend a certain college.

Regarding "these being binding" can you say "Jericho plan" contract.
FBCH took a bath on most of those who signed up but did not meet their commitment.

...and here is the error. FBCH should not have been involved in this.  This was a college matter. The church can underwrite the college to some extent, but the goal should be to make HAC self-supporting.  Scholarships should have been offered from the college; the church had no business going overboard on that plan.

It's my understanding that the college was and continues to be 100% a ministry of FBCH. I agree this was a complete financial blunder, but as a ministry of the church it ultimately a church blunder.

If the school had used a bank to finance the loans, then repaid them for the students that finished, it would have been a very different story. I cannot imagine the legal mess that would have resulted. Who funded those loans and does anyone know what % of Jericho students finished?

 

[Walt]

A Letter of Intent is not legally binding if signed by a minor. It means that the high school student intends to attend a certain college.

Regarding "these being binding" can you say "Jericho plan" contract.
FBCH took a bath on most of those who signed up but did not meet their commitment.

...and here is the error. FBCH should not have been involved in this.  This was a college matter. The church can underwrite the college to some extent, but the goal should be to make HAC self-supporting.  Scholarships should have been offered from the college; the church had no business going overboard on that plan.

It's my understanding that the college was and continues to be 100% a ministry of FBCH. I agree this was a complete financial blunder, but as a ministry of the church it ultimately a church blunder.

If the school had used a bank to finance the loans, then repaid them for the students that finished, it would have been a very different story. I cannot imagine the legal mess that would have resulted. Who funded those loans and does anyone know what % of Jericho students finished?

I'm sure you're right that the college is considered a ministry of FBCH; perhaps, because of that relationship, they cannot be separated.  I cannot imagine a knowledgeable person thinking that such a plan would be a good idea.  I suspect this is another fallout of the "pastor=God" error prevalent there: (that is to say: "because Pastor wants to do X, and we are staff, we are required to give X our full support, even if it is a bad idea).

 

[sword]

A Letter of Intent is not legally binding if signed by a minor. It means that the high school student intends to attend a certain college.

Regarding "these being binding" can you say "Jericho plan" contract.
FBCH took a bath on most of those who signed up but did not meet their commitment.

...and here is the error. FBCH should not have been involved in this.  This was a college matter. The church can underwrite the college to some extent, but the goal should be to make HAC self-supporting.  Scholarships should have been offered from the college; the church had no business going overboard on that plan.

It's my understanding that the college was and continues to be 100% a ministry of FBCH. I agree this was a complete financial blunder, but as a ministry of the church it ultimately a church blunder.
If the school had used a bank to finance the loans, then repaid them for the students that finished, it would have been a very different story. I cannot imagine the legal mess that would have resulted. Who funded those loans and does anyone know what % of Jericho students finished?

I'm sure you're right that the college is considered a ministry of FBCH; perhaps, because of that relationship, they cannot be separated.  I cannot imagine a knowledgeable person thinking that such a plan would be a good idea.  I suspect this is another fallout of the "pastor=God" error prevalent there: (that is to say: "because Pastor wants to do X, and we are staff, we are required to give X our full support, even if it is a bad idea).

To some extent I I think the "staff" was right to attempt to implement the pastor's (CEO) vision & plans. If the pastors plan is ethical, moral and legal then as employees they should do their jobs.
On the other hand the members and namely the deacons have the responsibility to question any reckless or unwise decisions made by the pastor. Just as a board of directors must exercise oversight regarding a companies behavior so should the deacons or trustees if a church has them.