<p>There’s a very nice article in today’s NYT about quadruplets who’ve been accepted early at Yale. They’ll need finaid; and perhaps the take-away message is this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what does that mean to you, Marite?</p>
<p>to me, it means that if a family is concerned that its idea of need may not match that of the university, it should not do ED, especially if the university’s website and other information are vague about issues such as loans. For example, an immigrant family, depending on their college-bound child to translate, may not realize the difference between no student loan and no family loan (as in the Penn website). I think it behooves universities to be much clearer than Penn is in this regard (and possibly others). But until they do, exercise caution.</p>
<p>This said, those who argue that ED commitments are not enforceable have a point.</p>
<p>Not that it matters what I think, but that makes sense to me.</p>
<p>I’m not a gambler, so a statement like that in the NYT would be a red flag to me, had I not known that I would be paying full fares.</p>
<p>“ED was always about locking down a certain bunch of students for institutional reasons not so much about giving 17 year olds peace of mind for 3-4 months.”</p>
<p>I think both are equally applicable; it depends on your point of view. For the schools, it’s clearly locking down top students and money; for the students it is getting in early (and with a possible boost) to their favorite school.</p>
<p>Yes Marite, that language caught my eye this morning too.</p>
<p>Dstark and others, I really applaud your efforts to gain to a full understanding about options for FA families, ED or no. It is complex, and the issue of enrollment management adds another underlying dimension.</p>
<p>While I understand the FA picture has changed dramatically in recent years, I want to share what we experienced the first time around with S1 in the 2005-06 cycle, when endowments were still flush, because our S1 had a number of acceptances from colleges at that time who participated in the Group 568 Consensus Methodology (several no longer do). </p>
<p>First referenced from Mini’s posts years ago, we learned of the President’s Group 568 stated aim:</p>
<p>“The Consensus Approach consists of a set of common standards for determining the family’s ability to pay for college. It seeks to eliminate much of the variance in need analysis results that has been experienced in recent years. The participating institutions believe that the Consensus Approach, when applied in a consistent manner, serves to diminish or eliminate the divergent results that threaten the long-standing tradition of awarding aid on the basis of need.”</p>
<p>But our experience with FA awards from schools that at the time purported to participate in the Consensus Methodology was remarkably varied, not only in how the packaging of need is met but also in how the EFC is calculated.</p>
<p>We thought we had done our research and due diligence. We relied on finaid.org, and we read as many of the FA threads that we could. We talked with FA departments to get an understanding of the various methodologies. They keep their methodologies fairly well guarded, but through the use of online calculators and various calculators posted on college websites, we felt we had an understanding of the workable scenarios that might unfold. Yet even with that, we were surprised by the large variances when FA awards came in. </p>
<p>We always felt the FA aid process to be a necessary part of our S’s decision making, and we felt that for waiting for all the options to play out in the Spring was a wise call. We were able to use the language of the Consensus Methodology to have more detailed discussions about various awards after acceptances. We didn’t look at it as leverage or a negotiating tactic to discuss competing offers, we used the language as a necessary jumping off point to gain a more complete understanding of the award offers. </p>
<p>Knowledge is power for students.</p>
<p>Here is a current list of 568 Presidents’ Group Member Institutions according to their website:</p>
<p>Amherst College
Boston College
Brown University
Claremont McKenna College
College of the Holy Cross
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Davidson College
Duke University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Haverford College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Middlebury College
Northwestern University
Pomona College
Rice University
Swarthmore College
University of Chicago
University of Notre Dame
University of Pennsylvania
University of Rochester
Vanderbilt University
Wake Forest University
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
Williams College</p>
<p>Sure agree, but I doubt the concept of ED was developed for the benefit of the 17 year olds…that was the point I was attempting to make but failed to make.</p>
<p>Also regarding Marite’s NYT quote…it isn’t difficult for the media to go through the same dissection we just did and come to the same conclusions we did. I’m still musing on how I would feel if I had 4 kids going off to college at the very same time and what they would cost. Yikes. It’s a great little PR story to have quads attend, so I have to assume Yale is being very friendly with the finaid.</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m still a tentative poster and I hope posting the link to the Group 568 Consensus Methodology is okay: [Consensus</a> Methodology](<a href=“http://568group.org/methodology/index.html]Consensus”>http://568group.org/methodology/index.html) </p>
<p>I introduce Consensus Methodology to the discussion, because I think a family choosing ED might assume a similar FA award from peer schools, and that was not our experience. Though I do think there are a lot of colleges who aim to decrease the variances.</p>
<p>RE: the Yale quote is not exactly new wisdom. The colleges have a vested interest in <em>them</em> determining what <em>you</em> need. That was one of the things I tried hammering home to parents at a junior parent meeting two years ago. From the consumer end of the deal, one has to be aware that good faith and due diligence will only get one so far if the numbers are created behind the magic screen. We have always taken the POV that whatever we got in FA would be a very pleasant surprise, and that ED would likely cost us $$.</p>
<p>That said, I really don’t think colleges have a problem with a family backing out of ED, esp. in this economy, if the numbers just aren’t going to work. As long as one is upfront and honest, withdrawing works out for the school and the family.
Caveat emptor.</p>
<p>3ks, thanks. And thanks for your story and info.</p>
<p>Marite, yes it would look like a red flag to me too.</p>
<p>Momofthreeboys:</p>
<p>I would assume the family would need four full rides. Stay-at-home mom, father with a modest middle class occupation and income…</p>
<p>Definitely, the quote is not new. It just bears repeating every year when students and their families consider where to apply. And it bears repeating that years ago, the son of friends of ours was offered $7k less per year by MIT than by Princeton.</p>
<p>Marite, I have seen that quote/comment numerous times but I find it interesting that people can sometimes just “run right over it.” But I guess I should know better than anyone that people hear what they want to hear. I only get hot and bothered when people hear something that isn’t there.</p>
<p>True, but each year, there is a new crop of applicants and their parents. Not all of them start researching colleges while the kids are still in middle school! 
And the websites don’t actually say: “Need as determined by US, NOT YOU.” Though I think they should.</p>
<p>dstark:</p>
<p>re your post #1595. Note that P’ton stopped publishing its CDS, it so we have no way of knowing how much double counting exists. For example, internationals who are also “minorities”. The last time Pton published its CDS it was 60% US-white. Mixing and matching internationals means that 38% non-white ain’t much different than pre-ED…hmmmm</p>
<p>Also, when H started giving need-based aid to those in the upper income brackets ($180k), it started a pricing war with Y & P, neither of which is gonna lose a student to H over a few dollars in grant money. Thus, I would be willing to bet some big cyber-dollars that the increased economic diversity at P’ton is a result of changing economic definitions, i.e., those at the $165k level are now “needy.” But again, Pton no longer publishes its CDS, so we really don’t know. (fwiw: prior to dropping ED, Pton has 52% of kids on need-based aid. A movement to 56% over four years with this economy? hmmmmm</p>
<p>No public CDS? What do they have to hide? hmmmmmm</p>
<p>Our D1’s school says this (is it somewhat typical?):</p>
<p>“To achieve equity and consistency in awarding institutional grants, the college uses the nationally standardized need analysis formula, Institutional Methodology (IM), developed by the College Board, to calculate your expected family contribution (EFC).”</p>
<p>It seems clear, but then I’m not a newbie. ;)</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I have to admit…you make good points. </p>
<p>No CDS…what’s up with that?</p>
<p>And the change in numbers isn’t impressive…and things may be the way you explained it.</p>
<p>Princeton is not a school of diversity.</p>
<p>This is a teeny–tiny improvement…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.questbridge.org/cmp/partner_schools/princeton/diversity.html[/url]”>http://www.questbridge.org/cmp/partner_schools/princeton/diversity.html</a></p>
<p>Here is Harvard…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ofr.harvard.edu/financial_aid.php[/url]”>http://www.ofr.harvard.edu/financial_aid.php</a></p>
<p>Does Penn have a common data set? I couldn’t find one.</p>
<p>
And, as I said before, I don’t think they should say they meet 100% of need unless they go to the FAFSA EFC. The word “need” is bound to be interpreted by their target audience (16 and 17 year old kids) as “what we need” as opposed to “what the college decides to give”. Coupling the word “need” with the “100%” representation is deliberately misleading. It’s as if you went into a buffet that advertised “all you can eat” and then were doled small portions and told that “can” mean, “allow”, as in “all we will allow you to eat”.</p>
<p>Vossron, there IS no “nationally standardized need analysis formula” called “Institutional Methodology (IM)”. So that college is starting right off the bat with a false statement. </p>
<p>The only “nationally standardized” need analysis is the FAFSA “federal” methodology.</p>
<p>(I bet a parent doing their research would find it very frustrating trying to look up that so-called “nationally standardized” formula on the internet!)</p>