News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
My former colleagues at another university in Middle East have also been moved to online teaching indefinitely, with the students…
If much of the interest of high-quality papers lies between the lines—in the metaphorical fire that a paper lights in…
I would also recommend that potential grad students make inquiries into how far the compensation package actually goes towards cost…
It’s a mix. I’m still in the UAE with my family, and we feel safe. But some students and faculty…
In the above comment, Michel wrote: “As an aside, every once in a while I check out how the chatbots…
I could imagine LLMs having saved me a *ton* of time in graduate school–e.g., by having supplied reasonable answers to…
The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…
Philosopher Dustin Locke (Claremont-McKenna) writes:
I just found out that the APA has adopted a "no refund" policy for people who pre-registered for the Eastern APA but could not make it due to the weather. This seems wrong to me. Maybe there could be a discussion on your blog?
I'll take Dustin at his word, it seems wrong to him. For what it's worth, it seems wrong to me, too.
Isn't at least a portion of that registration fee for goods and services you can only receive if you attend? Can't there be a way of refunding at least that portion in cases where someone cannot attend for reasons beyond their control? [I didn't check ahead of time when I tried to register and didn't check this time, but it's possible that the APA stated ahead of time that these things cannot be refunded for any reason. If that's written somewhere, perhaps it can be put somewhere prominent and underlined or italicized. If it's not written somewhere, it should be if this is their policy.]
The APA policy is on the website here: http://apaonline.org/divisions/meetingrefundpolicies.aspx
There is a direct link under "Meetings & Divisions" named "Meeting Refund Policies."
So the Central Division has the ethically and legally responsible party of refunding fees when an "emergency" makes attendance impossible, and the Eastern and Pacific do not. That's instructive. Someone ambitious should certify a class action for breach of contract against the Easter for mass recovery of fees for all those who were thwarted from attending by the weather catastrophe.
Not sure what you expect us to take from the link to the APA's policy, Christopher.
And really! Philosopher's citing policy at each other!
All I see is that the CPA has a reasonable refund policy and the EPA does not. The question is about what ought to be, not what is the case.
There is a link to the "refund policy" (aka, the no-refund policy) on the registration payment page. But it's one link among several and I suspect that most users don't check it, just as most users don't read through TOS agreements. Surely they should just add a line above the "continue to checkout" button that says "Note: The Pacific and Eastern Divisions have adopted a 'no refund' policy for registrations."
Uninformed/naive graduate student here.
I follow the discussions here quite regularly, and I find there is often significant dissatisfaction with the APA's policies and conduct on a variety of issues, but it seems that the philosophical community as a whole is powerless to change these things. Isn't the APA an organization that's supposed to service our community, and thus have policies that act in our best interests? Why can't these things be changed? Do the current policies serve the interests of some small group who have the power as it were, to the exclusion of everyone else? Or is it just the case that the APA's bureaucracy is such that gaining the required momentum to effect changes is difficult? In either case, as a community it seems we should be doing something to start changing these things.
(Please post me anonymously, thanks!)
@ Anon 11:45. I just provided the link in response to Clayton's comments. I haven't decided what I think of the policies. Hence, I didn't make a comment about them.
Well, I don't know if it's right or wrong punkt. I can see both sides. The APA might justify their no refund position, partly, by the fact that their program is organized based on certain predictions about attendance based on pre-registrations, perhaps for the same kinds of reasons that airlines don't refund your pre-purchased tickets if you can't make it. Though I admit, I can't see this justifying an absolute no refund policy. Just a thought in favor of the APA.
Your Typical Egomaniac-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Job-seeker
The APA's refund policy seems morally permissible to me. The APA runs a professional conference for which it incurs a great deal of costs (renting the session rooms, the book display room, the reception rooms, etc., paying for staff to register people, printing the programs, etc.). It can afford to do this (partly) because it receives registration fees.
Now, if the conference were much cheaper to the APA in virtue of fewer people attending, then I would see an argument that they ought to return the registration fees. But the costs to the APA were not reduced by the reduced attendance.
And, if the APA were very wealthy, I could see an argument that they ought to return the registration fees. But I assume that is not the case.
So, the situation is this: the storm prevented some people from obtaining a good from the APA (attendance at sessions, etc.) which the people had already paid for; the APA, meanwhile, had already paid for that good, was indeed making it available, and was not able to reduce its costs in accordance with the reduced attendance. I don't see why the APA should have to refund the payment–I don't see why it's the APA and not the individuals who should have to bear the cost of the storm. It sucks that anyone has to, but I don't see why it's the APA's burden to do so.
If the storm had somehow prevented the APA from *making available* the goods in question, for example, if the storm had prevented the APA from distributing programs to attendees, then I can see that a (full or partial) refund would be owed.
The policy itself seems justified to me. An organization planning something as large as the Eastern conference needs to do a certain amount of planning ahead and would be hampered by lots of last-minute cancellations. However, the usual main threat is probably from those who register and then decide at the last minute not to attend due to lack of interviews or other personal reasons.
It seems to me that in special circumstances, like "acts of God" (i.e. storms that make travel impossible), the APA ought to visit the issue of whether to make a one-time exception to that policy, even if the policy is justified. This is a common tactic with syllabi, right? We say 'no makeup exams', but then do it anyway when certain circumstances obtain (student is in the hospital, etc.).
It's good thing that I've been forced to become aware of the Eastern APA no-refund policy for pre-registration. The Eastern APA offers a reduced pre-registration fee, in order to encourage pre-registration for a number of reasons. Now that I've given up the whole amount (having been snowed in), I'll just stick to on-site registration.
Anon @ 140p looks pretty good to me on this one; the APA's already spent the money (or committed to spend the money) that the registrations pay for. If they had a bunch of money sitting around, then they could afford to give it back to us, but of course we'd complain if they wanted to raise dues in order to give them a cushion. We could not register for the conference given their clearly-stated no-refund policy–and/or wait for on-site registration, which we might in the future–but calling foul once they enforce that policy doesn't seem appropriate. The principal point, though, is just the "ought implies can" one, and they certainly don't have the capacity to refund everyone who didn't make it. The basic economics is that they'd have to raise dues and/or conference registration to provide "insurance", and this would't be popular either.
This "Fritz" thinks the APA should have a different refund policy.
Though some make good arguments as to why the APA can't return the fees, the fact that the Central does return seems to indicate that it's not too difficult to do so. Sure, the Central division is smaller. But that much smaller?
Could we be just a little clearer here? The no-refund policy (as has been clearly stated) is not an APA policy but an Eastern Division policy. Whatever justifies this policy is not regarded as determinative by either the Central or the Pacific divisions and hence if justifiable, can only be justified by reasons that apply only to the Eastern Division. As a member of the Central Division, I applaud its policy.
Non-Warfield Fritz writes "of course we'd complain if they wanted to raise dues in order to give them a cushion". At the very least, as I said before, I believe that the Pacific and Eastern APAs have an obligation to add the sentence "the Pacific and Eastern APA have adopted a no-refund policy" to the registration payment page on the website. (The link is not enough to satisfy this obligation.) But I suspect that this would result in significantly less pre-registrations, which would in turn cost the Eastern and Pacific APAs in terms of having to plan for greater numbers than would often turn out (or else risk being under-prepared). Hence, either way, it seems to me that the Eastern and Pacific APAs have an obligation that they cannot fulfill without raising dues/registration fees by some small margin.
I think Margaret Atherton is mistaken. First, the Pacific and Eastern divisions seem to have the same policy; the Central gives discretion to its Secretary-Treasurer to give refunds in 'emergency circumstances'. Second, it's perfectly possible that all three divisions are justified in granting no refunds, and that the Central division should not be giving refunds either.
I don't have a strong view about this, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the members of the APA are going to pay the expenses of the APA one way or another. Note that 2/3 of the registration fees (for regular members) at the Easterns go to the national office, so it isn't just Eastern members who would have to pay extra to cover refunds (it's not clear from what I could find whether the Central and Pacific registration fees work the same way).
On the one hand, it seems okay to me to distribute the expense of an emergency weather situation, so this speaks in favor of refunds. After all, it wasn't your fault if your flight was canceled. On the other hand, it might be a bit much to ask members who have no reason to attend the meetings, or choose not to attend because of the expense or uncertainty, to pay for a share of the expenses of those of us who do attend.
Maureen Eckert's point is fairly convincing to me. The Division is trying to get people to register in advance. Offering refunds for emergencies would help; a very strict no-refund policy is going to hurt that effort.
Jamie Dreier quite appropriately corrects me–I apologize for misstating the facts. I would however still like to put in a plea not to use "APA" when "Eastern Division" would be more accurate.
Another thought: Since it's turned out that, being snowed in, I've made what amounts to a $60 donation to the Eastern APA division, wouldn't it be nice to have that count as a donation on 2010 income tax? When I used to itemize, things like professional registration fees could be listed as deductions–but that's one thing. (Anyone itemizing might be able to declare it as is.) When it comes to non-itemized tax prep, charitable donations with receipts are acceptable. Offering those who pre-register but end up unable to attend (at least under some circumstances) a receipt for their fee as a charitable donation would seem worth considering. No refund involved, but a benefit so as to encourage pre-registration.
I'd like to second the spirit of Margaret Atherton's request, and push the point further along the lines "uniformed/naive graduate student" has already raised.
Getting clear that the accountable party is the Eastern Division, as opposed to the APA as a whole, is a start. But its only a start. *Who* precisely is accountable for the conduct of the Eastern Division? (Who precisely is accountable for the conduct of the APA as larger profession organization?) *Who* has the power to effect, or deny, change? If its a board, what is its current membership? If it's an professional administrator, what is his or her name?
The APA appears to have very real problems. I know next to nothing about its administrative structure. My point is merely these problems are unlikely to be effectively addressed unless, or until, they can be addressed to the accountable parties by name.
Leave a Reply to Paul Prescott Cancel reply