It is sad. JHU changed its FA policy.

Parent Cafe
21

<p><a href="http://www.568group.org/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.568group.org/&lt;/a> is an interesting URL to visit. I hadn't visited there recently.</p>

<p>Several observations:</p>

<p>I know that Stanford used to be a member of the 568 group (and I confirmed my memory by googling Stanford and 568), which indicated that yes, Stanford used to be a member.</p>

<p>Several interesting questions arise in my mind:</p>

<p>1) Why did Stanford join and then leave?</p>

<p>2) How is it that Stanford could ever have been eligible in the first place, since the 568 group rules (and enabling legislation) explicitly state that the group's membership is restricted to institutions that award all aid only on the basis of "demonstrated financial need." But, it is well known that Stanford has awarded athletic scholarships for quite some time. How could they have been eligible for the 568 group? </p>

<p>Another interesting observation--when I read the enabling legislation at <a href="http://www.568group.org/docs/568statute.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.568group.org/docs/568statute.pdf&lt;/a>, I discovered that it has a "sunset" clause in 2008. </p>

<p>That is, section 568 was a sort of experimental law temporarily granting need-based aid colleges an exemption from antitrust law which permits them to cooperate in certain ways, but that exemption is temporary and expires in 2008.</p>

<p>Wonder what will happen in 2008? Then again, from what mini says, the group's discipline seems to be falling apart in any case. </p>

<p>Finally, mini mentioned H(arvard) in conjunction with 568. I'm pretty sure that Harvard has never chosen to be part of the 568 group--it seems to remain above the fray. Princeton also declined to join the group.</p>

22

<p>Sorry. Didn't know that H was not a 568 school (as they were part of the anti-trust suit, as I remember.) As noted, for certain populations, H no longer uses the EFC, and Princeton (because of the "no loan" policy) has bent it all out of shape.</p>

23

<p>Mini, Thanks for reminding me about the 568 Group. When I looked up the site, I only vaguely remembered your take on it, but couldn't quite remember our past conversations. After looking at the information again, I agree with you --- it seems clear that some of the goals of the group are not purely benevolent, but rather tied to that old bugaboo "enrollment management." Again, thanks for the reminder.</p>

24

<p>This is a slight hijack, but:</p>

<p>Looking at your daughter's stats, I'm surprised you consider JHU such a reach. The only thing that's perhaps a concern is that she has only one AP so far, but if that's all that was available to her as a junior, they can't fault her for that. Of course, much depends on the rest of her profile--ec's, and of course application essays, but for what it's worth, my daughter had the IDENTICAL SAT I numbers, and was val, and got in to JHU with an early-write notification and a research grant (all she did for that is submit a three sentence proposal on a postcard). Now granted, that was in 2000, but I still think those are great stats. I'm not sure if your daughter is so drawn to that school because of it's offerings in the sciences/pre-med area, but if so, she might want to consider Washington U. in St. Louis.</p>

25

<p>And, a note to the original poster: When looking at schools and financial aid issues, be sure to always ask "do you guarantee to meet 100% of demonstrated need?" This is an important question, regardless of how need is determined, because many schools - even those that claim to be need-blind - do not make this guarantee. So, finding the best financial aid package for your daughter requires more than just looking at how need is determined --- make sure that after your need is determined, it will be met.</p>

26

<p>Here are some more interesting links debating the merits and purposes of the 568 Presidents Group:</p>

<p>From Forbes: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0901/060.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2003/0901/060.html&lt;/a>
(when link opens, click again to get past the pop up)</p>

<p>From the Chronicle of Higher Education: <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jepsen/chronicleAug1001.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jepsen/chronicleAug1001.pdf&lt;/a>
(Note, this is a pdf file, requires adobe acrobat to open)</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
The difference between the old and the new JHU calculators is the 5% home equity. If you don’t have significant equity, there might not be a big deal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you bought a house in parts of Fairfield County 12 years ago or so, you may have watched it increase in value by a million bucks. And if you have home equity of a million bucks -- JHU isn't giving you anything regardless of your income (if they expect you to contribute 5% of home equity annually, or $50K in this case). If you're not making the big bucks in terms of being able to pay back a home equity loan -- -- ouch!</p>

28

<p>"From the Chronicle of Higher Education: <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jepsen/chronicleAug1001.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jepsen/chronicleAug1001.pdf&lt;/a>
(Note, this is a pdf file, requires adobe acrobat to open)"</p>

<p>They are losing students to price competition now. That, I would imagine, was the main reasoning behind Princeton's "no loan" policy, aimed heavily at relatively high-income families finding better "value" elsewhere. These folks ain't stupid. But on the whole, competition is terrific, as the differences between the top 50 colleges get smaller all the time. </p>

<p>"On the other hand, if you bought a house in parts of Fairfield County 12 years ago or so, you may have watched it increase in value by a million bucks. And if you have home equity of a million bucks -- JHU isn't giving you anything regardless of your income (if they expect you to contribute 5% of home equity annually, or $50K in this case). If you're not making the big bucks in terms of being able to pay back a home equity loan -- -- ouch!"</p>

<p>I do understand the "ouch", but put it another way: one buys a house in Fairfield County 12 years ago - "on credit"; you get to live in it; the price appreciation is 400% or whatever it is; the tax savings have been huge (probably outweighing the cost of most of the college tuition, if one had bothered to put it away, and let it accrue); and the equity is there for whatever one wants to use it for. It is a problem - I do understand - but a really nice one, as they go.</p>

29

<p>"Actually, more than that. The 568 Group contains a smaller group of colleges that, while claiming to be need-blind, had actually been competing each other in attempting to lure "meritorious" candidates they wanted by increasing financial aid offers, and then colluded, in violation of federal anti-trust statutes, so as to not engage in 'open' bidding wars against each other. They still collude (under a seemingly common methodology) - but still compete with each other under the guise of "finding more need" come April for candidates whom they really want. Some of the colleges have now abandoned the EFC formula for certain classes of candidates (such as H. providing the same financial aid offer to all acceptees with family incomes under $40k, regardless of EFC); others have gotten around "merit aid" by abandoning being need-blind in accepting Questbridge applicants, and the games go on.</p>

<p>If you think of it as a cartel, where nominally competing interests are put aside in favor a collective good in restraint of trade, you wouldn't be far off."</p>

<p>As usual, the information posted by Mini is not exactly correct nor completely incorrect. Mixing timeline and facts must be typical fodder in Olympia. I had secretly hoped that speaking with less authority but more foundation could have been one of Mini's 2006 resolutions, but I am disappointed ... again. </p>

<p>As far as concerned, your very approximate knowledge of the 568 group was blatanly illustrated by your erroneous comment about Harvard - entirely inexcusable in this case. Your positions on need-blind aid have been sufficently debunked not to warrant much additional comment.</p>

30

<p>Carolyn, my son got the strongest financial aid offers from schools that did NOT guarantee to meet full need. What might have been a more pertinent question to ask is how the school calculates EFC. My EFC using IM is approx. $25K more annually than my EFC using Federal methology -- so it didn't take me much to figure out that a college that uses only the FAFSA and "gaps" us with an award that is only 75% of need will probably give us more aid than a college that asks for the Profile but promises 100% of need. </p>

<p>So bottom line is -- how is need defined, NOT whether the college promises to meet it.</p>

<p>The whole idea of meeting 100% need is a fiction in any case -- it is a promise that is made only by colleges that have plenty of loopholes to fall back on, including the power to define need by whatever standards it defines. Just as JHU is doing in their practices of counting home equity. </p>

<p>Here's a chart that I found on a web site for one college that does NOT guarantee to meet the needs of all students (Boston U.):
Probability of Receiving University Scholarships and Need Based Grants
<a href="http://www.bu.edu/finaid/apply/prospective/possibility2.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.bu.edu/finaid/apply/prospective/possibility2.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Based on the information on that chart, I can extrapolate that my daughter has about an 80% chance of getting need based aid at BU, and that she is likely to get a grant of around $18K, with an overall aid package of about $22K. I might be far wrong - but it would have been a mistake for my daugher to avoid applying to BU because it doesn't guarantee aid. Obviously, the odds favor her getting aid. </p>

<p>Now if all the colleges would publish probability charts like that, I would be very happy. Unfortunately they don't. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, the ONLY private colleges that purport to guarantee to meet 100% need are ALSO among the most selective colleges, they all require the CSS/Profile, and many will consider parental assets that are excluded from consideration in the FAFSA formula. If I include my daughter's likelihood of acceptance into her 100% need schools, then the odds are against her - she has to get in first, and these schools are reaches for just about everyone. Those of us who are divorced/separated or self-employed can also forget the 100% need promise -- there is no way for us to figure out how EFC will be calculated. </p>

<p>So I agree with you that the 100% need question is one that is worth asking, but based on my own experience it is one of the least important. The real question is "how much money are you giving my kid" -- and the bottom line is you don't find that out until April. At that point it is important to find out what the college's policy is for future years --e.g.., if you meet 80% need this year, will you continue to meet 80% need for every year? or What does the student need to do to maintain eligibility for this level of aid?</p>

31

<p>I think the anti-trust suit and settlement, and the ability of schools to find more "need" in April, pretty much speak for themselves. You're right about Harvard, though, and I think it's terrific that they abandoned the EFC for acceptees with incomes under $40k. (Same thing has happened for Questbridge acceptances at other "ah-hem need-blind" colleges.)</p>

<p>"A Sample QuestBridge Scholarship Package</p>

<p>All Scholarships Include:
* Full cost of tuition ($25,000 - $30,000 depending on the college)
* Full cost of room and board ($6,000 - $8,000 depending on the college)
* No parental contribution
* No loans
Depending on the college or university, scholarships may:
* Cover the cost of medical insurance
* Cover the cost of books
* Include a work-study package to help cover travel and personal expenses.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.questbridge.org/programs/college_match.htm#scholarship_info%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.questbridge.org/programs/college_match.htm#scholarship_info&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

32

<p><a href="http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=11648&repository=0001_article#%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=11648&repository=0001_article#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>A New York Times article last week incorrectly identified Stanford as a participating member of the “568 Group” — named after the section of an antitrust law that allows universities to work to establish common financial aid standards, but not to share specific awards offered to individual students — which recently changed its policy on how home equity will be treated in financial aid calculations. However, while Stanford is not a participating 568 member, its preexisting policy toward accounting for house values is relatively similar to the new standards adopted by the 568 Group.
“We have agreed to attend 568 meetings, participate in 568-related or -sponsored seminars, and have certainly paid attention to this financial aid model,” said Earl Dowling, associate dean and director of financial aid. “However, in our communications with the 568 Group, we made it clear that we should not be listed as we were in the Times article as a 568-participating institution.”</p>

<p>Dowling explained that Stanford has been “using not all, but some of the practices” set forth by the 568 Group. Since the University is not a participating institution, it is not required to implement any policies decided upon by 568 members.</p>

<p>Dowling expressed no indication that Stanford plans to change its relationship with the 568 Group any time soon.</p>

<p>“If we believe that this model meets our needs, both in terms of financial aid delivery and fiscally, then we’ll give it more thought,” he said. “I think we’re in a great position. We follow the proceedings very closely, and yet, we’re not locked into groups’ guidelines.”</p>

33

<p>Actually we found that schools that say they meet %100 need did BETTER (in our case, two kids in two years 15 schools) than schools that did not say they meet %100 need. </p>

<p>It does vary how said need is met, but for example with my son's seven schools last year three came in within $1,000 of each other with 81-83% free money in the "need met" ; three more schools were within 3-4K of the other three, with slightly more work study or loan (about 70% free money in the self help or need met section) all of them need-based schools. </p>

<p>The one "lone ranger" that did not say it would meet need came in significantly higher with my son having to shoulder about (over 4 years) 44K in debt and us another 80K in PLUS. Compare this to17K in student loan and 24K in Plus Loan at the best three offers.</p>

<p>Our first child had a smiliar experience with the need based schools coming in almost to the dime of each other, and two non-need coming in with significantly less aid and one state school where we would be out-of-state...which is different.</p>

<p>Anyone who wants more particulars can pm me. I kept the offers.</p>

34

<p>But it all has to do with the calculation of EFC.</p>

<p>I'll bet that you have an EFC that is about the same or better using Institutional Methodology as with the FAFSA. One of the things I have noticed is that many of the schools that do not promise to meet full need also do not ask for the Profile. As a divorced parent, this makes all the difference in the world -- one set of schools is asking me to pay from my own earnings, the other set expects me to somehow be able to collect from the deadbeat dad and pay extra from his earnings as well. One of my daughter's 100%-need schools even insists on getting a copy of the noncustodial parent's tax returns -- I don't need a crystal ball to figure out that they will be going over all his deductions and business write-offs with a fine tooth comb. </p>

<p>I can't see with the numbers I have now how a financial aid award based on the CSS Profile information can possibly compete with a FAFSA-only award for my family. One form says I can pay $10K every year, the other form says I can pay $35K every year (maybe more, because there's no place on the online calculator's to add in dad's income). </p>

<p>I am sure I am not the only one in this position. In fact, I'm pretty sure that just about every single parent with a living ex-spouse will find themselves in the same position -- we will come out better every time if the calculation does not factor in the ex's income.</p>

35

<p>I didn't see where it was stated in your post that this was about divorced parents only. Sorry. I keep seeing that 100% need schools don't have good offers, and in OUR CASE, yes they do. Way better.</p>

<p>I do think it is fair to at least ask for the non-custodial and spousal information in divorced couples. Many non-custodials do contribute quite heavily. My parents were divorced, and they asked for both parents income, and that of my dad's new wife, when I went to college.</p>

<p>I guess I should add that the school last year that did not meet need asked for it's own information very similar to the CSS. Another that met 100% need used their own form as well.</p>

36

<p>It wasn't. There are MANY circumstances where there is a big discrepency between FAFSA EFC and CSS/Profile -- the spousal situation is just one example. </p>

<p>In any case, I stand by what I said about the 100% need schools being the most selective. One reason they promise aid to all their students is that they have admission standards that tend to weed out the neediest students. It's kind of a sad joke for most of us parents to look at the list of the 568 group -- there sure aren't any safeties or sure bet matches among them.</p>

37

<p>There has been mention of Brown not being a member of the 568 Group. US News, for instance, says Brown and Dartmouth are both non-members. <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/articles/brief/03need_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/articles/brief/03need_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>However, FWIW, the group listing includes Brown and Dartmouth on the 568 website:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.568group.org/membership/members.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.568group.org/membership/members.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

38

<p>I would also like to note that there was at least a $2000 difference in gift money as well as total financial aid between what my S1 was offered by Brown and by Swarthmore. (And $1500 between what he was offered by Brown and Pomona, for that matter.) All three ARE members of the 568 Group. </p>

<p>Of course he chose Brown, the least attractive in terms of financial aid. Such is life.</p>

39

<p>To the OP: You had said that Hopkins "does not allow outside scholarships to reduce student loans or work study except at the first (freshman) year". I was wondering where you found that out. On the financial aid website for both [url=<a href="http://www.jhu.edu/finaid/prosp_stud_scholar3.html%5Dincoming%5B/url"&gt;http://www.jhu.edu/finaid/prosp_stud_scholar3.html]incoming[/url&lt;/a&gt;] and [url=<a href="http://www.jhu.edu/finaid/return_stud_scholar3.html%5Dreturning%5B/url"&gt;http://www.jhu.edu/finaid/return_stud_scholar3.html]returning[/url&lt;/a&gt;] students, it says

[quote]
The loan or Federal Work Study portion of the package may be adjusted for students receiving outside/private scholarships. Need-based scholarships, Hopkins Grant and Hopkins-funded, merit-based scholarships will not be reduced for students receiving outside/private scholarships. Holding your need-based grant "harmless" from reduction is intended to provide you a financial incentive for obtaining outside/private scholarships.

[/quote]

Maybe I'm misreading something?</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
I would also like to note that there was at least a $2000 difference in gift money as well as total financial aid between what my S1 was offered by Brown and by Swarthmore. (And $1500 between what he was offered by Brown and Pomona, for that matter.) All three ARE members of the 568 Group. Of course he chose Brown, the least attractive in terms of financial aid. Such is life.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Does this mean that the three schools computed a different EFC? Or were the differences established in different self-help calculations?</p>