<p>Just for the sake of clarity...my post #5 was in response to the op about 568 schools, where I have two children and about home equity of which I have lots...post #12 interjected as always, that BARNARD was, as always, vastly superior (in this case with it's generosity...odd since it has such a small endowment) to the 568 schools that 99.9% of people recognize as better schools by any observable standard...the name Barnard should not come up in any discussion regarding 568 schools...it is out of place and then opens the discussion as to why anyone would spend 40K for an education that you can get at any of 100's of state schools for half the price...like SUNY Purchase or Stony brook where you would still have access to NY pizza. Although in that case I would recommend SUNY Buffalo where is pizza is way better.</p>
<p>No, it's an attempt to assess the schools in question in terms of their financial aid by comparison. FWIW I said that Williams offered the best financial aid and discussed Chicago as well in depth. Barnard received only glancing attention in my posts as a "control". That's how inquiry works.</p>
<p>"My parents have a house in the northeast that would be considered "very expensive" in many parts of the country, but is just mid-range for here. For any school using the "CSS Profile" and the Institutional Methodology it will disqualify me from getting any need-based financial aid.</p>
<p>There are about 30 schools in the"568 President's Group" that have committed to uniformity in assessing the family EFC. From our reading it appears that they limit the amount of home equity that they will count as the parents' asset. My mom sent emails to several of the schools on the list asking about their policy and received widely varying replies.</p>
<p>Does anyone have experience with receiving a financial aid award from one of these schools and do you have a sense whether they "capped" your home's value in determining your parents' assets?"</p>
<p>This is the context of the op...it asks for observation based on experience...no need for a "control"...it is not theoretical, it is contained within the universe of 568 schools...</p>
<p>Windy, you are living up to your name. I see no intention to push Barnard or any other school - just a civil discussion about financial aid and home equity... CalMom, thanks again for your very informative and precise information about financial aid! :) Most of us are extremely grateful for all your help with this difficult topic. :)</p>
<p>Mythmom, the huge donation to Chicago will influence financial aid offers starting THIS YEAR for students matriculating in the Fall of 2008. Congratulations for the offer your S received LY.</p>
<p>Well, Chicago had me drooling, but he's the LAC type so he chose Williams. I think he also wanted to be close to home (no plane) and not far from his beloved sister in NYC. But thanks, menloparkmom for your kind words.</p>
<p>Windy, the point we are making is that the "568" thing is something of a myth. Financial aid among the 568 group is extremely variable, and many non-568 schools have a history of offering equivalent or better aid. Your statement that the 568 school have committed to uniformity in assessing the family EFC is quite mistaken -- they did nothing of the sort. They have committed to some level of uniformity in handling a handful of considerations, including home equity -- but they have not come to any agreement whatsoever over a large number of other issues that routinely come up. All you have to do is read their own documents to know this:
[quote]
Finally, it is important to note that the 568 Group views its efforts as the beginning of a long-term process. Some policy issues will require further exploration and analysis
[/quote]
Consensus</a> Methodology
[quote]
The Consensus Approach deals exclusively with the family's ability to pay for college. It does not address issues associated with the "packaging" of awards (i.e., the mix of grant, loan, and work components), nor does it concern itself with so-called "merit" awards, whether academic or athletic.
[/quote]
Consensus</a> Methodology</p>
<p>In any case, the consensus methodology is a set of recommended guidelines only; not a a firm agreement to abide by strict rules. </p>
<p>The reason it is relevant to discuss other colleges is that anyone who restricted their college applications to 568 schools on the assumption that they will get better aid there is hurting themselves -- because the 568 schools can be all over the map and many other colleges will offer equivalent or better aid. Simply the fact that the agreement does not address aid packaging issues is a major disparity -- assuming the same COA, a student is better off with a $25K grant and a $2K loan that a $22K grant and $6K loan, even though the package at the school with the bigger loan has a higher dollar value. </p>
<p>Many non-568 schools also cap home equity or follow procedures that are equivalent or better than the 568 schools -- so again, it really is a label that provides some insight into a school's financial aid policies but does not do much more than that. </p>
<p>I just want to dispel the myth. The only way to know how a particular college handles specific types of income, assets, or expenses is to ask their financial aid people. They may or may not give you specific information.</p>
<p>FWIW, I have had two kids at 568 schools, and agree with Calmom's post 48 completely. My son at Brown will end up with loans of about $25000/4 years, and my daughter at Swarthmore has loans of about $16,000 /4 years. Both are quite generous with grant money in our experience. Brown does not require work-study the freshman year, giving that amount as loan. Very helpful to kids making that first-year adjustment. </p>
<p>Also, I recall that the 568 website used to have a "professional judgement" link specifically for financial aid advisors which I can no longer find . . .it gave quite a bit of latitude to the individual schools in making the individual awards. Must now be under the link for "Members Only." </p>
<p>568</a> Presidents' Group: 568group.org for more info.</p>
<p>calmom...your insights are excellent... but...the original post requested experience with all 568 schools... then the op gave a specific list of schools...</p>
<p>"Thanks everyone!
Here are the schools I would like to apply to:</p>
<p>Claremont-McKenna College
Emory University
Georgetown University
Haverford College
Northwestern University
University of Chicago</p>
<p>I appreciate any insight you have on how these schools treated your home equity in the financial aid award. "</p>
<p>The op was very specific... but maybe other data regarding comp schools might be important...so...</p>
<p>I took a moment to go to Princeton Review and entered each of the 28 568 schools...the site then offers other schools based on their data generally 10 or so options to additionally consider....so 280 other schools (many overlaps of course)...never once did the name Barnard come up as a comp school to any 568 school...so my point is that what Barnard does is not relevant here...you only have a 50-50 that the op is a female and could even apply...but it is a free country</p>
<p>As a minority I find Barnard's lip-service commitment to diversity appalling as I have posted before...blacks make up only 3.4% of the accepted applicants in 2006 (numbers available on the Barnard website), and this at a NYC school, in a city where blacks are 25% of the population, while other minorities are vastly over represented. The numbers simply make no sense and can not be explained. This NYC problem in education is well documented, for example in the Bronx public school system 99.8% of the students are minorities and none of them are allowed to cross the Harlem River to attend the better schools in Manhattan. Read any of the books by J. Kozol ,a Columbia Prof, and one of the foremost authorities on education, about the problems with the NYC schools. And I don't really dwell on the issue, however there are a very specific group of Barnard supporters that seem to descend, kind of like helicopter parents if you will, on discussions that have nothing to do with Barnard and inject Barnard into the mix. Like this thread. It is almost always on threads that are discussing the elite schools, in some attempt to question why Barnard is "dissed" in all the ratings. Go on the Columbia CC site if you are interested and the battles between Barnard supporters claiming that Barnard is equal to Columbia, since they share some services, and those actually attending Columbia, are viscious and make my comments quite tame.</p>
<p>Calmom ... your qoute regarding something you think I said..."Your statement that the 568 school have committed to uniformity in assessing the family EFC is quite mistaken "-- where in the world did I make that statement???</p>
<p>Yes windy, and i responded that my daughter received a financial aid award from Chicago... which was really crappy when compared to the award from a peer institution, Barnard. </p>
<p>Mythmom reported a different experience with Chicago, but she also said that the offer from Chicago was not as strong as the one from Williams, and in another post she said that her son's package at Williams was equivalent to her daughter's at Barnard. So, anecdotally, we now have Williams=Barnard, Chicago something less. (But Chicago might change because of a huge influx of donor funds).</p>
<p>So that's two responses specific to one of the schools listed by the OP. Barnard comes into the mix because it provides a basis for comparison. Two problems I had with Chicago were that its COA was the highest of any of the colleges my d. was considering, and its financial aid package required more loans than most other schools. </p>
<p>No one is telling the OP where to apply -- we are providing information about the strength of the financial aid -- including comparative data. </p>
<p>I have seen people on these boards posting about what wonderful aid they have from their schools, and then they post specifics and their "wonderful" packages look like the ones I told my kids to forget because of the heavy loan burden. So if you decide that you will only look at 568 schools and discount information about any other schools..... well, that's a pretty dumb decision and a misunderstanding both of what the 568 group is about and of the sources of data you should be looking at.</p>
<p>Windy, re your question in post #53, here is a direct quote from your post #43 (and the one I cut & paste my quote from in responding to):
[quote]
There are about 30 schools in the"568 President's Group" that have committed to uniformity in assessing the family EFC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Barnard has come up in some discussions of various other schools because some people whose kids applied to some of the subject schools on those threads also applied to Barnard, and the people thought they had some relevant observations as a result. That's all there is to that.</p>
<p>For the record, here are some results illustrating how applicants have reacted to their own chosen "observable standards", from US News 2007. You can each decide for yourselves which schools should "come up in the same discussion", or which are "elite", but it is evident that several of these schools have substantial overlap in the academic stats of their matriculants. Numerous applicants will be applying to, and comparing financial aid packages at, various of these schools, including Barnard. I would imagine a high proportion of Barnard applicants also apply to some 568 schools.</p>
<p>school, Sat 25%-75%, Acceptance %,top 10%class</p>
<p>Barnard 1290-1450, 27% , 83%</p>
<p>568 schools:
Boston College 1250-1420, 31%, 75%
Emory 1300-1470, 37%, 90%(< 51% reporting)
Notre Dame 1290-1470, 32%, 86%(prev. yr. data)
Vanderbilt 1280-1460, 35 %, 77%
Wake Forest 1260-1410, 39%, 61%
Davidson 1280-1440, 27%, 77%
Haverford College 1290-1470, 26% ,91% (<51% reporting)
Middlebury College 1280-1475 (optionally submitted),24%,84%</p>
<p>Now let's do two others:
SUNY Stony Brook 1080-1280, 51%, 34%
SUNY Buffalo 1050-1240, 57%, 24%</p>
<p>Personally I have some issues with that Revealed Preference study so many others on CC are in love with. But here are some of its concluding rankings of applicant preferences based on the study:</p>
<p>Barnard 33</p>
<p>568 schools:
Boston College 57
Davidson College 37
Emory University 64
Grinnell College 45
Haverford College 60
Middlebury College 26
University of Chicago 28
Vanderbilt University 36
Wake Forest 52</p>
<p>"blacks make up only 3.4% of the accepted applicants in 2006"</p>
<p>... which is the single lowest % of the 5-year period for which they listed data. And do we know why this dip occured?</p>
<p>I don't know how this compares to other LACs (eg Davidson, Middlebury, Wellesley, etc). But here's some of the data, if interested:</p>
<p>Ethnicity Fall '02 Fall '03 Fall '04 Fall '05 Fall '06
Asian 16.4% 18.2% 16.6% 18.0% 18.2%
Black 5.2% 4.7% 4.7% 5.6% 3.4%
Hispanic 5.9% 6.5% 8.7% 8.6% 9.2%</p>
<p>Another point of clarification -- those statistics reflect enrollment percentage, not the percentage of admitted students. So the figures may reflect aspects about yield rather than admission decisions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess the 568 group might want to reopen the thesaurus for another definition of .. consensus.
[/quote]
Yeah, check this out:
"Twenty-five of 28 [568 Group] schools implemented the consensus approach; 3 did not. While 13 schools implemented all the elements of the consensus approach, the remaining schools varied in how they implemented the methodology. As shown in table 4 below, seven schools chose not to use the consensus approach method for accounting for family loan debt, home equity, and family and student assets."
<a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06963.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06963.pdf</a>, page 14</p>
<p>Those that think "568 Group" is like a certified brand-name for a consistent FA policy are mistaken.</p>
<p>Calmom...you have proven my point about thread "redirecting"...what you attribute to me was a qoute from the op from posting #1...I did not say it... it was the basis of the op's query...and had we focused on the point of the thread you would have noticed that.</p>
<p>Monydad...the honors programs at the major SUNY school's (UB, Binghamton) have better stats than your school...it is their commitment to diversity and to offer an education to a wide and varied student body that brings down their averages...and I applaud them for it...and thats the issue with Barnard...they are not committed to diversity and their stats are still far below the elite LAC's and major research universities you try to link them to.</p>
<p>Windy, generally when you quote from another post its a good idea to attribute the source and set it off in some way from the rest, rather than blending it into your own text. Also, there is no rule that threads need to stick to the opening question or topic -- discussion tends to go off in whatever directions it flows in. Since you are a "Junior Member" of the board I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for not knowing that -- suffice it to say that no one appointed you topic cop -- but a good rule of netiquette in any internet forum is to get to know the general standards before going around berating others for violating your expectations.</p>
<p>This board does have moderators who set the rules. "Staying on topic" isn't one of them. </p>
<p>Barnard is not SUNY and one reason for the drop in enrollment of African American students in 2006 might be because that was the toughest year in its history for admissions; I'd note that hispanic enrollment did increase slightly that years. But it is very possible that the tighter admission standards for that year adversely effected yield prediction -- the students who did get in were slightly more likely to be cross-admitted to other elite colleges as well,and thus have more options to consider. </p>
<p>When my d. was visiting colleges she dropped many from her list because she was looking specifically for diversity, and Barnard was one of the only colleges that did not look all-white and preppy to her. I've learned that stats are not nearly as reliable as actually being on campus -- my son attended a very small LAC that had published stats that said that that they had a certain percentage of minority students -- but he couldn't find them even though it was the kind of place where almost all students lived on campus and every face seemed familiar after 3 weeks. I think there is a certain fudge factor in published stats. </p>
<p>Barnard does have a strong HEOP program and I don't know whether its admission stats include the HEOP numbers (which I believe are about 60% African-American), simply because HEOP admission standards are somewhat different. (To qualify for HEOP, the SAT CR score needs to be below 620, which kind of puts a high-performing student in a quandary when it comes to retesting -- but I guess the program is aimed at meeting the needs of students who are not going to be competitive at the very top schools). </p>
<p>In any case, to talk about minority admissions is really going much farther afield, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with financial aid -- except for the fact that Barnard's lower endowment puts it at a competitive disadvantage in terms of using aid dollars to build diversity, especially when competing with Columbia and NYU, where it loses 14% of its cross-admits.</p>
<p>No, it's your opinion. Might be correct, might not. But just an opinion.
I actually spoke to someone at Barnard today about your criticism and they said they do not "recruit" minorities for their stats, preferring to support the kids who are from the neighborhood, just as Columbia does. They felt that making an issue of minority enrollment is just a USNWR numbers game.</p>
<p>I won't bother making the appropriate usage corrections to your post.</p>