Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing

This page reproduces entries from a student maintained issue tracker concerning Herzing University's MSN-DE prelicensure nursing program. Each entry carries the tracker's own status label, almost always CONFIRMED or POSSIBLE. Entries marked POSSIBLE are reported concerns pending verification, not findings. Student names have been replaced with consistent pseudonyms (Student A, Student B, and so on); the author is referred to as the reporting student. Faculty and staff are identified by name and role as they appear in the underlying records. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and sources.

Herzing Issues: Enrollment, Registration, and Billing collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern enrollment, registration, and billing. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

Overview

This article gathers fourteen tracker entries dated between April 30, 2026 and June 6, 2026 that touch enrollment operations, registration, and billing. The severity mix is two High entries (HU-114, HU-140), eleven Medium entries, and one Low entry (HU-029). By status, seven entries are CONFIRMED, one is RESOLVED, and six are POSSIBLE, meaning they are recorded as reported concerns pending institutional verification rather than as established findings.

The entries fall into several recurring threads. A bookstore fulfillment thread (HU-013, HU-029) documents repeated problems getting compliant clinical scrubs, including an extended size that was not listed in the ordering system. A financial and tuition thread (HU-050, HU-165e) covers a mid-program tuition and fee increase reported without documentation of enrolled-student protection, and a self-paying student's uncertainty over tuition after a scheduling-driven course repeat. A communication and administrative thread (HU-098, HU-114) documents a graduation and pinning ceremony email failure and a set of contradictory chain-of-communication directives given to a student by three different institutional leaders on the same day. A prospective-student thread (HU-140) documents contradictory answers about whether the Oklahoma program exists or is accepting applicants. A reported advising-and-billing thread (HU-164, HU-164a, HU-164b, HU-164d) documents one former student's account of an automatic re-enrollment during an open grade appeal, repeated advisor non-recall, and a drop delayed past the refund window that she says resulted in a double tuition charge. A separate cluster (HU-127, HU-127a, HU-127b) documents two technical failures at a student honor-society induction ceremony.

Recurring owners across the entries include the Bookstore, Financial Aid, Academic Affairs, the Commencement Team, Academic Advising, the Registrar, and Student Accounts, along with named leadership figures AVP Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and Dr. Jessica Tressler. Several entries cross reference issues tracked under withdrawals and retention, academic appeals, clinical placement, grading and records, licensure eligibility, technology platforms, and clinical intensives, reflecting how enrollment and billing problems intersect with those other operational areas.

Issues

HU-013: Required clinical scrubs sent in wrong size on multiple occasions; student left without compliant clinical attire

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Fulfillment Error	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	Bookstore / Clinical Coordinator

Finding. Required clinical scrubs sent in wrong size on multiple occasions; student left without compliant clinical attire.

Evidence. Bookstore email thread and scrub exchange emails (Sept 2025 to Jan 2026). Jeanette Ward (Bookstore Admin) confirmed size issue. Student: scrubs are "humongous." Second set (blue, Jan 2026) also came too large. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

Reported statement. The student reported that the scrubs sent were far too large, requiring a return that would leave the student without scrubs for the intensive, so the student's only option was to buy a replacement pair that could not be used again after the intensive.

Standards. Handbook p.17: "Approved Herzing scrubs" required for all clinical/lab/simulation. Students not in compliance dismissed for the day. Institutional fulfillment error created compliance risk not attributable to student.

Impact. Student faced potential clinical exclusion and out-of-pocket costs. Two separate size errors across two distributors suggests systemic fulfillment issues.

Notes. Student needed 6XL top and 4XL pants. Pattern across both scrub sets suggests distributor issue, not isolated error. Also see HU-029.

HU-029: Extended scrub size (6XL) not available in bookstore system when student attempted to order

Severity	Low	Status	RESOLVED
Issue type	Process Gap	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	Bookstore

Finding. Extended scrub size (6XL) not available in bookstore system when student attempted to order.

Evidence. Student email to Jeanette Ward (Bookstore Admin): "I went to order scrubs from the bookstore, but my size is not listed now. I need a 6X scrub top." Ward worked with distributor to order. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.

Reported statement. The student reported to Bookstore Admin Jeanette Ward that the student's size was no longer listed when trying to order scrubs, and that the student needed a 6X scrub top and a 6X scrub jacket.

Standards. Handbook p.17-18 requires approved Herzing scrubs for clinical. Not stocking required uniform items in all sizes discriminates against students who need extended sizes to meet the uniform requirement.

Impact. Student unable to self-order required uniform item; required intervention from Bookstore Admin. Delayed uniform acquisition at start of clinical.

Notes. Bookstore Admin Jeanette Ward worked with distributor to fulfill the order. Marked Resolved but part of a larger pattern; see HU-013.

HU-050: Herzing University announced tuition and fee increase mid-program; no documentation of whether enrolled students were protected or informed before it affected enrollment

Severity	Medium	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Tuition Increase / Enrolled Student Impact	Date added	2026-05-04
Owner	Financial Aid / Academic Affairs / Administration

Finding. Herzing University announced a tuition and fee increase for the next academic year while students were mid-program; no documentation of whether enrolled students were protected from the increase or informed of the rate change before it affected their enrollment.

Evidence. Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (June 3, 2025): Student B shared: "Oh looky at that, they're raising tuition and fees next year. And when I say next year, I mean next school year. Which starts in September." Student P confirmed seeing the same email. Source Group: Multiple GroupMe Archives: Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.

Reported statement. Student B reported seeing an announcement that tuition and fees would increase starting the next school year, which she noted would begin in September.

Standards. 34 CFR §668.43: institutions must disclose current tuition and fees before students enroll. 34 CFR §668.41 (General disclosure requirements). Mid-program increases that exceed amounts represented in original financial aid packages may require updated loan disbursements.

Impact. Students who enrolled with a fixed tuition understanding may face higher total costs than disclosed at enrollment if the increase applies to continuing students.

Notes. The financial aid offer document already in evidence shows tuition of $12,465 for Fall 2025 and $11,675 for Spring 2026. Any mid-program increase above these amounts for continuing students would require documentation and disclosure.

HU-098: Spring 2026 graduation and pinning ceremony emails not delivered to Florida and Tennessee graduates despite promised March 2 delivery date; students forced to use shared links and self-advocate through administrative assistant Darmesha Washington

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Administrative Communication Failure	Date added	2026-05-05
Owner	Commencement Team / Darmesha Washington / David Steele

Finding. In February-March 2026, Herzing sent Spring 2026 commencement and pinning ceremony emails to graduates. Multiple graduates, including Student B and others in Florida and Tennessee, did not receive these emails. Handle 10 (Feb 17, 2026) noted emails went out but "some are saying they didn't get one." Student B confirmed she received neither the commencement nor pinning email. An anonymous student in their final semester (Synthesis II, Integration of Concepts, due to graduate April 2026) documented as of March 9, 2026 that they still had not received the email despite: (1) being told emails would go out February 17; (2) being told by administrative assistant Darmesha Washington that Florida/Tennessee grads would receive emails March 2; and (3) the March 2 deadline passing without delivery. The RSVP link shared in the Facebook group was characterized as "not personalized" by the reporting student, meaning students who received a forwarded link could RSVP, but students had no confirmation their self-initiated RSVP was properly recorded in the institutional system.

Evidence. Handle 10 (Feb 17, 2026): "Emails went out today around 4 pm. But some are saying they didn't get one." Student B (Feb 17, 2026): "I am some too. I never got the email but others did. Apparently there is also a separate one for the Pinning Ceremony. I did not get that either." Anonymous member (Mar 9, 2026): "Update: I was told I would get the email on March 2, never received it. Has anyone else dealt with this? Or did you all get the email now? It is incredibly frustrating!!" Student B (Mar 9, 2026): "She is the contact. She is the one that emailed me, letting me know Florida grads would receive their emails on March 2nd." Anonymous member (Mar 9, 2026): "She said that about TN graduates too. This is so frustrating. Idk why stuff with Herzing always has to have an issue. Even something as basic as graduation invitation." The reporting student (Feb 17, 2026): "Its not a personalized link," confirming students could RSVP via shared link without institutional personalization. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

Reported statement. An anonymous member reported being told the email would arrive March 2 but never receiving it, calling the situation incredibly frustrating, and remarking that something as basic as a graduation invitation should not be a recurring problem for Herzing.

Standards. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain functional administrative infrastructure for basic student communications. Graduation is a milestone event; failure to deliver commencement information to graduates who have completed 20 months and approximately $60,000 to $95,000 of investment demonstrates administrative disorganization at the most consequential moment of the student journey. The pattern, promised February 17, promised again March 2, still not delivered by March 9, documents repeated failed commitments by the administrative team. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): official graduation records and commencement participation should be managed through authenticated institutional channels, not student-forwarded links.

Impact. Graduates who did not receive official commencement communications may not have been properly registered for the ceremony, may not have received pinning ceremony details, and may have relied on a shared RSVP link that was not authenticated to their student record. For students who traveled significant distances for graduation (documented costs: $400 to $600 for hotel near Nashville campus), failing to receive official confirmation of ceremony details created planning uncertainty. The "Idk why stuff with Herzing always has to have an issue" characterization reflects the cumulative erosion of student trust from a pattern of administrative failures.

Notes. This issue is operationally minor in isolation but significant as part of the documented pattern of institutional communication failures: HU-023 (inter-departmental communication failures), HU-045 (faculty non-responsiveness), HU-082 (zero communication during grade transfer crisis), HU-085 (Alabama BON non-disclosure). The graduation email failure extends that pattern to the program's final moment: the ceremony itself. David Steele (dsteele@herzing.edu) is referenced as a senior escalation contact across multiple issues including HU-082 (grade crisis) and HU-098 (graduation emails), suggesting he is a recurring point of escalation for administrative failures.

HU-114: Conflicting chain-of-communication directives: AVP Danielle Laban (May 6, 2026) told the reporting student to cc her and Dr. Franklin on communications; Dr. Prashad (same day, same hour) directed him to start with faculty only; Dr. Tressler also directed him to faculty first; three leadership figures issuing contradictory escalation instructions simultaneously

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Conflicting Institutional Communication Directives	Date added	2026-05-07
Owner	AVP Danielle Laban / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Dr. Jessica Tressler

Finding. On May 6, 2026, the reporting student received contradictory chain-of-communication instructions from three institutional leaders within the same day. Dr. Prashad (7:29 AM, May 6): "I am also asking that if you have concerns, please follow the chain of communication and start with your faculty." Dr. Tressler (May 5): "I would like to gently remind you of the program's chain of communication. Questions or concerns should first be directed to your course faculty." Dr. Laban (2:48 PM, May 6, the same day as Dr. Prashad's directive and approximately 7 hours later): "You are always welcome to cc me or Dr. Franklin on communications if you feel it would be helpful for us to be aware or to provide additional support." The reporting student documented that AVP Danielle Laban had previously told him during a one-on-one conversation to "keep the leadership in the loop when issues arise," instructions he was following when he escalated the duplicate work concern directly to Dr. Prashad, Dr. Black, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Gregg. Faculty then cited chain-of-communication violation for the same conduct the AVP had authorized. The conflicting directives place the reporting student in an impossible position: following one administrator's instructions necessarily violates another's. Dr. Laban's May 6 email also directed future formal grievances to Dr. Nicole Franklin, while also stating she remains available for ProctorU, accommodations, and student services concerns, and confirmed a meeting with the reporting student and Dr. Franklin the following week.

Evidence. Email: Dr. Prashad to the reporting student (May 6, 2026, 7:29 AM): "I am also asking that if you have concerns, please follow the chain of communication and start with your faculty." Email: Dr. Tressler to the reporting student (May 5, 2026, 2:38 PM): "I would like to gently remind you of the program's chain of communication. Questions or concerns should first be directed to your course faculty." Email: Dr. Laban to the reporting student (May 6, 2026, 2:48 PM): "You are always welcome to cc me or Dr. Franklin on communications if you feel it would be helpful for us to be aware or to provide additional support." The reporting student (inline reply to Dr. Tressler, May 6, 2026): "I have been directed by AVP Danielle Laban to keep the leadership in the loop when issues arise and I intend to follow those instructions." The reporting student (to Dr. Prashad, May 6, 2026, 8:22 AM): "A for communication, I will cc Dr. Laban on my communication since I am being asked not to direct it to program leadership." Personnel identified: Dr. Jessica Tressler (jtressler@herzing.edu), lead faculty MSN-DE; Dr. Raywattie Prashad (rprashad@herzing.edu), Program Chair; Dr. Danielle Laban, AVP; Dr. Nicole Franklin, formal grievance handler; Dr. Heather Gregg (hgregg@herzing.edu); Stephanie Black (steblack@herzing.edu); Tanetshia Brown (tanetbrown@herzing.edu). Source Group: Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Prashad / Dr. Black / Dr. Brown / Dr. Gregg, May 4-6, 2026; Dr. Tressler reply May 5, 2026; Dr. Prashad reply May 6, 2026; Dr. Laban reply May 6, 2026.

Reported statement.

Dr. Prashad, May 6, 7:29 AM: I am also asking that if you have concerns, please follow the chain of communication and start with your faculty. Dr. Laban, May 6, 2:48 PM, same day: You are always welcome to cc me or Dr. Franklin on communications if you feel it would be helpful for us to be aware or to provide additional support.

Standards. HLC Criteria for Accreditation 2.C: institutions must maintain clear, consistent, and accessible processes for students to raise concerns. Contradictory directives from multiple administrators on the same day do not constitute a clear or accessible process. 34 CFR §668.97 (student complaints): institutions must maintain functional complaint processes; a process whose correct steps are contradicted by administrators within the same email thread is not functional. Due process principles (Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 1975): students facing adverse institutional action have a right to fair notice of procedures; conflicting procedures deprive the student of meaningful notice. The pattern of citing chain-of-communication violations for conduct explicitly authorized by the AVP is particularly problematic: it creates a mechanism by which any student advocacy can be characterized as procedurally improper regardless of what the student does.

Impact. The reporting student is simultaneously instructed to: (1) start with faculty only (Dr. Prashad, Dr. Tressler); and (2) cc leadership freely (Dr. Laban). Any email he sends can be cited as violating one set of instructions. This dynamic mirrors the pattern documented in HU-066 (retaliation post-EthicsPoint) and HU-105 (chilling effect on student speech): advocacy is structurally discouraged by making compliance with institutional procedures impossible. The May 6 directive from Dr. Laban to connect the reporting student with Dr. Nicole Franklin for formal grievances also confirms there is an ongoing formal grievance process, cross-referenced with HU-066 and HU-067.

Notes. This issue also reveals that Dr. Jessica Tressler (jtressler@herzing.edu) is lead faculty for the MSN-DE program but does not appear as faculty on the reporting student's degree audit, a transparency concern the reporting student himself raised ("do you mind telling me who you are, I don't see you as the faculty for my courses in my degree audit"). Dr. Tressler confirmed she is program lead faculty, not course faculty. Cross-reference: HU-023 (inter-departmental communication failures), HU-031 (contradictory faculty guidance), HU-045 (faculty/administration non-responsiveness), HU-066 (retaliation), HU-105 (chilling effect).

HU-127: Lead: the Sigma Theta Tau Alpha Beta Iota 2026 induction ceremony was disrupted by two technical failures (all attendees unmuted at the start, and the MC losing internet connection during the name-calling); see HU-127a, HU-127b

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Lead / index for a split cluster (event technical failures)	Date added	2026-05-12 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Student W (MC) / Alpha Beta Iota Chapter Leadership / Event Coordinator

Finding. Lead entry for two technical failures that disrupted the Sigma Theta Tau International Alpha Beta Iota Chapter 2026 induction ceremony, held via Zoom. Tracked separately: HU-127a (all attendees were unmuted at the start, making the ceremony inaudible) and HU-127b (the Master of Ceremonies, Student W, lost her internet connection during the name-calling portion for several minutes). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

Evidence. Source Group: Sigma Theta Tau International Alpha Beta Iota Chapter 2026 Induction Ceremony, Zoom, observed by the reporting student.

Notes. The severity field for the original HU-127 was Medium, and the lead and sub-issues use Medium accordingly (aligning a heading tag that read High to the documented Medium severity). This event is distinct from Herzing's academic operations but connected through the Herzing nursing student community. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to HU-127 resolve here. Parts: HU-127a, HU-127b. Cross-References: HU-098 (graduation email failures), HU-120 (Canvas platform failures during the active academic week).

HU-127a: All attendees were unmuted at the start of the ceremony, making the proceedings inaudible (a standard Zoom host configuration error)

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Event Technical Failure: Audio	Date added	2026-05-12 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Student W (MC) / Event Coordinator

Finding. At the start of the ceremony, all attendees were unmuted simultaneously, creating an audio environment so chaotic that the ceremony could not be heard. A properly managed ceremony begins with attendees muted and the host controlling unmuting for individual inductees.

Evidence. Observed by the reporting student during the ceremony: all attendees unmuted at the start, audio inaudible. Source Group: STTI Alpha Beta Iota 2026 Induction Ceremony, Zoom.

Reported statement.

All attendees unmuted at start, could not hear anything.

Standards. Zoom host best practices (attendees muted at start, host-managed unmuting); professional event-management standards for honor-society ceremonies. Lead: HU-127.

Impact. The all-attendee unmuting error created an immediate negative impression and made the opening of the ceremony inaudible.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-127 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-127b: The Master of Ceremonies (Student W) lost her internet connection during the name-calling portion of the ceremony for several minutes

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Event Technical Failure: Host Connectivity	Date added	2026-05-12 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Student W (MC) / Alpha Beta Iota Chapter Leadership

Finding. During the name-calling portion of the ceremony, the most significant moment for inductees, the Master of Ceremonies, Student W, lost her internet connection and was absent from the Zoom session for several minutes (the observation records the absence as approximately five to seven minutes), with no apparent backup plan for host failure.

Evidence. Observed by the reporting student: Student W lost internet connection in the middle of calling names and was out for several minutes. Source Group: STTI Alpha Beta Iota 2026 Induction Ceremony, Zoom.

Reported statement.

MC Student W lost internet connection in the middle of calling names and was out for around 7 minutes.

Standards. Professional event-management standards (the name-calling portion is the ceremony's defining moment and should be protected, including a backup plan for host internet failure); STTI chapter governance standards for event reliability. Lead: HU-127.

Impact. Inductees being called during the outage had their induction moment disrupted or delayed; for students in a rigorous program, the ceremony is a rare formal recognition that the failure diminished.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-127 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The source records the host absence as approximately five to seven minutes.

HU-140: Prospective student told three contradictory things about the Oklahoma program: pending acceptance, the program is full, and there is NO Oklahoma program; student confused and considering going elsewhere; connects to documented Oklahoma enrollment freeze (HU-085)

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Contradictory Information to Prospective Student About Oklahoma Program Existence and Availability	Date added	2026-06-02
Owner	Admissions / Enrollment / State Authorization / Oklahoma Program Leadership

Finding. A prospective or applying student (posting in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group under the anonymized handle Handle 3) reported receiving three mutually contradictory answers about the Oklahoma program. The student wrote that they had been told: (1) they are pending acceptance; (2) the Oklahoma program is full; and (3) there is NO Oklahoma program. The student expressed confusion and stated they were wondering whether to move on and try somewhere else. These three statements cannot all be true simultaneously: a student cannot be pending acceptance to a program that does not exist, and full and does not exist are themselves contradictory. This documents a failure to provide accurate, consistent information to a prospective student about whether the Oklahoma program exists and whether it is accepting students. This directly connects to HU-085, which documented Oklahoma (OK) as one of six states frozen for new enrollment. If Oklahoma enrollment is frozen or the program is unavailable, telling a student they are pending acceptance would be inaccurate; conversely, if the student is pending acceptance, telling them there is no Oklahoma program would be inaccurate. The contradictory messaging has direct consequences for the student's enrollment decisions and timeline.

Evidence. Facebook post by anonymized member Handle 3, Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, May 27, 2026, 12:35 PM (1 reaction, 8 comments). Post: Is there anyone here from Oklahoma? I've been told: I'm pending acceptance; the Oklahoma program is full; there is NO Oklahoma program. I'm so confused. Just wondering if I should move on and try somewhere else. Source URL: [post link redacted]. Source Group: Facebook post, Herzing Direct Entry MSN group, anonymized member Handle 3, May 27, 2026, 12:35 PM, [post link redacted]; provided by the reporting student.

Reported statement. Handle 3 reported having received three conflicting statements about the Oklahoma program: that they were pending acceptance, that the program was full, and that there was no Oklahoma program at all, leaving them confused and considering applying elsewhere.

Standards. 34 CFR 668.71-668.75 (misrepresentation): institutions participating in Title IV programs must not provide false, erroneous, or misleading statements to prospective students regarding the nature of their educational programs, including program availability. Providing three contradictory statements about whether a program exists and whether it is accepting students implicates accurate-representation obligations. State authorization regulations (34 CFR 668.43(a)(6) and 34 CFR 600.9): institutions must accurately represent in which states a program is authorized and available. HLC Criteria 2.A (integrity) and 2.B (fair and accurate representation to students and the public): institutions must communicate accurately with students and prospective students. The contradictory messaging is inconsistent with these integrity and accurate-representation standards. This connects to the documented Oklahoma enrollment freeze (HU-085): the institution must reconcile what it tells Oklahoma applicants with the actual authorization and enrollment status of the Oklahoma program.

Impact. A prospective student cannot make an informed enrollment decision when given three contradictory answers about whether the program they applied to exists. The student is left, in their words, so confused and is considering abandoning their application to try somewhere else. If the student is holding an application, paying fees, or delaying other educational options based on a pending acceptance status to a program that may be full or nonexistent, they face real financial and time costs. More broadly, contradictory messaging about program availability in a state with a documented enrollment freeze (HU-085, Oklahoma) raises consumer-protection and accurate-representation concerns that could affect multiple Oklahoma applicants.

Notes. Posted under the anonymized Facebook handle Handle 3; no student name is available, so this is documented as an anonymized prospective-student report rather than attributed to a named individual. The post received 8 comments, suggesting other group members engaged with the question (comment content not captured). This issue is directly linked to HU-085, which documented six states frozen for new enrollment (CO, IA, KS, MO, OK, SD) plus Georgia paused and Alabama BON enforcement. Cross-reference: HU-085 (states frozen for enrollment including Oklahoma), HU-090 (recurring petition non-response), HU-087 (cohort attrition and representation), HU-109 (affiliation agreements). POSSIBLE follow-up: obtain the specific written communications the student received (the pending acceptance, program full, and no program statements) to confirm the sources and dates of each contradictory statement.

HU-164: Lead: a former student (reporter Student I) describes a sequence of academic-advising and enrollment-process failures, an automatic re-enrollment during an open grade appeal, repeated advisor non-recall of her documented situation, repeated misdirection to re-file an appeal already open, a double tuition charge with no refund for a class she passed, and an erroneous SAP placement; reported as her account and unverified; see HU-164a through HU-164e

Severity	Medium	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Lead / index for a split cluster (reported advising and enrollment-process failures; unverified third-party account)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Academic Advising / Registrar / Student Accounts (specific staff not identified by the reporter)

Finding. Lead entry for a reported account by a former student, Student I, who states that she ultimately withdrew from Herzing and that her final semester cost her an additional 3,000 dollars because her academic advisor repeatedly could not recall what they had discussed. The account is the reporter's own and is unverified; it is recorded here evidence-first for review against institutional records. Tracked separately: HU-164a (an automatic, reportedly unnecessary re-enrollment in a class while a grade appeal was open, creating double-charge exposure), HU-164b (repeated advisor failure to recall or act on the reporter's documented situation, including an instruction not to engage in the class followed by a failure to back her out), HU-164c (repeated misdirection to file a grade appeal that was already open, including for the later SAP issue), HU-164d (a drop delayed past the refund window, reportedly because drops route through academic advising, resulting in a double tuition charge with no refund for a class she passed), and HU-164e (a GPA reportedly not updated after the appeal was approved, placing her on Satisfactory Academic Progress status, with the fix again deferred to the advisor). See each sub-issue for the reporter's statements and the standards raised for review.

Evidence. Source Group: Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted]; provided by the reporting student.

Notes. All statements are attributed to the reporter (Student I) and are unverified; institutional records (the advising email chain she references, the appeal timeline, the billing and refund records, and the SAP determination) would be needed to confirm. The reporter states the re-enrolled class was not a prerequisite or corequisite. The reporter states the appeal was ultimately approved and that she passed the class. Added 2026-06-06 at the top of the date-added section (newest first). Parts: HU-164a, HU-164b, HU-164c, HU-164d, HU-164e. Cross-References: HU-073 (reported high-GPA withdrawals and financial loss), HU-090 (documented institutional non-response pattern), HU-132 (reported advising-related failures).

HU-164a: Reported automatic re-enrollment in a class while a grade appeal was open, which the reporter states was unnecessary (not a prerequisite or corequisite) and created exposure to being charged twice for the same class

Severity	Medium	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Automatic Re-enrollment During an Open Appeal (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Academic Advising / Registrar

Finding. The reporter states that, with a grade appeal open for a class, she was automatically re-enrolled in that same class for Term B. She states she raised a concern about being charged twice for the class if the appeal took longer than expected, and that her advisor agreed to look into backing her out while telling her not to engage in the class. She states the class was not a prerequisite or corequisite, so the immediate re-enrollment was unnecessary.

Evidence. Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing automatic re-enrollment for Term B during an open appeal and her stated concern about a double charge.

Reported statement. Reporter Student I stated that she had an open grade appeal for a class and was automatically re-enrolled in the same class for Term B, and that she raised concern about being charged twice for the class if the appeal took longer than expected.

Standards. Raises a concern under the institution's enrollment, registration, and tuition policies and under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14): automatically re-enrolling a student in a course that is the subject of an open appeal, where the course is not a prerequisite or corequisite, can expose the student to duplicate tuition charges. Recorded for review, not as a finding. Lead: HU-164.

Impact. If accurate, the automatic re-enrollment set up the double-charge exposure that the reporter says later materialized.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-164 (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

HU-164b: Reported repeated failure by the advisor to recall or act on the reporter's documented situation, including telling her not to engage in the class while promising to back her out and then not doing so, despite an email chain documenting their discussions

Severity	Medium	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Advisor Non-Recall / Failure to Act on Documented Requests (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Academic Advising

Finding. The reporter states that her advisor repeatedly did not recall what they had discussed, telling her on multiple occasions that he had no idea what she was talking about, even though there was an email chain documenting everything. She states the advisor told her not to engage in the class while he worked on backing her out, then by Week 2 had no word on the appeal or the backing-out, told her he was still working on it, and later again had no recollection of the matter. She attributes the additional 3,000 dollar cost of her final semester to the advisor being unable to read his own notes about their discussions.

Evidence. Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing multiple instances across Weeks 2 to 4 in which the advisor did not recall the situation despite an email chain, and her statement that he told her not to engage in the class and then did not back her out.

Reported statement. Reporter Student I stated that the additional 3,000 dollars in cost for her final semester resulted from her advisor being unable to recall their prior discussions, and that when she called again he had no idea what she was talking about despite an email chain documenting everything they had discussed.

Standards. Raises concerns under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14) and HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including reliable and responsive student services). Repeated failure to recall or act on a documented student request, where the student relied on the advisor's instruction not to participate, is recorded for review. Lead: HU-164.

Impact. If accurate, the advisor's repeated non-recall left the reporter relying on instructions that were not carried out, exposing her to failing a class she had been told not to engage in and to the financial harm that followed.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-164 (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

HU-164d: Reported drop delayed past the refund window, which the reporter attributes to drops routing through academic advising and to her advisor's inaction, resulting in a double tuition charge with no refund for a class she passed

Severity	Medium	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Drop Delayed Past Refund Window / Double Tuition Charge (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Academic Advising / Registrar / Student Accounts

Finding. The reporter states that when she tried to drop the re-enrolled class herself by calling registration, it did not happen because drops go first through academic advising. She states that after repeated unsuccessful attempts to get her advisor to act, registration ultimately dropped the class for her once she explained her frustration, but by then the refund window had passed and the tuition was not refunded. Because the appeal was approved and she had passed the class, she states she paid twice for the same class.

Evidence. Reporter Student I, Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, comment thread on [post link redacted], describing that drops route first through academic advising, that her self-initiated drop did not process, and that the eventual drop came too late for a tuition refund, leaving her paying twice for a class she passed.

Reported statement. Reporter Student I stated that when she called registration to drop the class herself, it did not happen because drops route first through academic advising, and that by the time the class was finally dropped the refund window had passed, leaving her paying twice for a class she passed after her appeal was approved.

Standards. Raises concerns under the institution's tuition refund and drop or withdrawal policies and under administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14), as well as HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity in financial practices). Routing all drops through advising, such that a student cannot drop directly even when the advisor is unresponsive, can cause a refund-eligible drop to miss the refund window. Recorded for review. Lead: HU-164.

Impact. If accurate, the reporter incurred a duplicate tuition charge (a stated additional 3,000 dollars for the semester) for a class she passed, attributable to the drop delay rather than her own choices.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-164 (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

HU-165e: Reported financial impact: the reporter pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and now faces additional tuition to repeat a course and an intensive she did not fail through her own performance

Severity	Medium	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Tuition Harm from Scheduling-Driven Course Repeat (reported)	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	Herzing Student Accounts / Financial Aid

Finding. The reporter states she pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and is trying to determine what will happen with her tuition payments as a result of being required to repeat NSG 122 and the intensive. The financial burden is directly linked to the course failure and mandatory repeat that the reporter attributes to the scheduling and resource failure at the intensive, not to her academic performance.

Evidence. Anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443), Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group; provided by the reporting student, stating she pays out of pocket as a single mother and is seeking clarification on her tuition situation.

Reported statement. An anonymous reporter (Anonymous member 443) stated that she pays for school out of pocket as a single mother and was trying to determine what would happen with her tuition payments as a result of being required to repeat the course and intensive.

Standards. Raises concerns under the institution's tuition and refund policies and administrative-capability expectations (34 C.F.R. 668.14). Where a course repeat is imposed for a scheduling-driven non-completion rather than a performance failure, the accompanying financial burden on a self-paying student is a fairness and consumer-protection concern. Recorded for review. Lead: HU-165.

Impact. If accurate, the reporter faces a significant additional out-of-pocket tuition cost for a repeat that she describes as unwarranted.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-165 (lead). Reported account, unverified. Documented 2026-06-06.

See also

• Herzing Issues: Withdrawals, Retention, and Student Wellbeing
• Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process
• Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement
• Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records
• Herzing Issues: Technology, LMS, and Platforms
• Herzing Issues: Licensure Eligibility and State Board Compliance
• Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation
• Herzing University Issue Tracker