Which is more correct:
four-year, $40,000 scholarship
four-year scholarship worth $10,000 a year
I’m especially looking to find out what people who look at this kind of phrase all the time think; is the first phrasing (which has the advantage of being more concise) sufficiently descriptive?
It also might help to clarify if the scholarship is worth $40k period, or if it is limited to a disbursement of $10k per year. E.g. if you get the scholarship, and you spend $10k on tuition for the first year, can you withdraw a little extra for a summer class (knowing that you’ll be short your last year, but your uncle will have given you that $20k he’s been promising you by then)?
I agree. Neither description cover all possibilities so I don’t understand the problem saying what the full deal is more clearly. You can finish college in 3 years if you carry over credits from high school and take summer courses. Can you get all the money in three years if you want to do it that way or do you have to stretch it out to four? Is it all guaranteed to a person that meets the requirements up front or does the person have to reapply every year. What happens if you don’t use all 40K the first four years but you need to take fewer classes and extend college for five or more years.
Something like: “10K a year scholarship renewable annually for up to 4 years of undergraduate study” is much more descriptive.
Thanks. It’s for a series of news summaries, and space is at a premium; I don’t think we have to cover every edge-case. Mostly, I’m wondering if anyone knows what the industry standard for reporting these kinds of scholarships is.
I would say that the former is more commonly used. Even in those cases, there is usually a stipulation that a certain GPA is required to be maintained to receive the subequent year awards, but as long as the requirements are met, the recipient can expect to receive the $40,000 over 4 years.