STUDENT-CENTERED SOLUTIONS FOR COLLEGE PLANNING

On July 18, Jacques Steinberg published an expose in the New York Times entitled, “Before College, Costly Advice Just on Getting In.” The article focused on the growing field of high-priced college planning consultants.

Unrelated, a job posting was circulated a week later by one of the featured firms for a senior level manager. The position description read more like a sales/marketing position involving human chattel than an educationally based enterprise.

It strikes me that the phenomenon of the overpriced-priced college consultant or, should I say, placement agent is further evidence of a process gone awry in some quarters. Families that buy in are clearly subscribing to the notion that destination matters-and at all costs. When that happens, young lives become the currency for a handful of opportunistic individuals who seek to parlay degrees from elite institutions, or brief encounters with college admission at those places, into mega-bucks consulting operations. The inference, of course, is that one’s prior association with a particular institution will make the difference in leveraging the desired outcomes. Lost in the scramble for name-brand destinations, however, is a perspective that is centered on helping young people discover their own direction while making good decisions about their educational futures.

Fortunately, this scenario only touches a small percentage of the college-going population. If you feel left out because you are unable to afford such opportunities (ranging up to $40,000)-or you simply were not aware of them-don’t despair. Your students are not at a disadvantage. These people don’t get kids into selective colleges. Kids compete on their own merit. In fact, college admission officers consistently rate the “authenticity” of the applicant as a valued quality in the selection process.

I mention this because I believe there is a role for private counseling in the college planning process. It is a role, however, that eschews the clamor for fancy destinations and focuses on what is best for the developing young person. And it should be accessible at a fraction of the cost cited by the folks who specialize in packaging kids for college.

Each of us follows a distinctive learning path during our formative academic years and in life. It would seem, then, that a reasonable objective of college counseling would be to help advance young people along their respective paths. This is best accomplished by helping the student develop greater self-awareness within the context of the college admission process. The fundamental questions of “Who am I?” “Why do I want to go college?” “What do I want to achieve?” “Under what conditions do I function best academically?” need to be asked over and over again until the student begins to internalize responses that become his priorities and, ultimately, the filters through which he can process all of the information he receives about colleges.

This is the essence of effective college counseling-helping students become self-aware and more confident as decision-makers. Young people need to be supported in pursuing learning paths that make sense for them and in finding colleges that value them for what they have to offer. They benefit from the personal validation that comes with honest reflection and will often surprise us with the solutions they discover on their own.

I often cite the parable of the hungry man to illustrate this point. If you encounter a hungry man, you can satisfy his hunger for the moment by giving him a fish. Or, you can help make sure he will never have to be hungry by teaching him how to fish.

It is easy to lose track of young people and their learning paths amidst the noise and posturing associated with “getting into the best colleges.” In doing so, we tend to overlook the importance of the student’s own discovery of what is best for himself in favor of our own assumptions about what the “best” must be. We stop teaching and start handing out solutions. In the process, the opportunity to make choices consistent with aptitude and learning style gives way to the obsession for placement in academic environments defined less by good fit and more by brand recognition.

As an author and speaker, I value the opportunity to teach young people “how to fish” so they can be self-reliant in the college-going process. And I know there are scores of private counselors around the country who do the same. You will know them by their broad knowledge of the admission process, their humility (a tacit understanding that they are not bigger than the process), and a personal integrity that is manifest in a genuine interest in helping young people follow their respective learning paths.

This blog was first published on www.witf.org under Education, Life After 12th Grade on July 13, 2009.

As college costs continue to increase and the norm for private colleges approaches $50,000, there is increasing speculation in education circles about consumer tolerance for such increases. How long can these increases be justified? How much is too much? When will the upward spiral come to an end?

At the risk of sounding jaded, I remember similar concerns as the cost approached $10,000 per year and then $20,000. And now that seems like a long time ago.

Frankly, the question of pricing is centered on the actual cost of producing the goods and services—and the question of price tolerance is market driven. As long as demand remains high and academic infrastructures must be maintained, costs are likely to maintain their current trajectory.

That said, the Obama administration has begun a number of measures to increase access to financial assistance. In my previous posting, I discussed the potential impact of streamlining the process of applying for financial aid (FAFSA). Now, I will take a look at some of the funding enhancements that will potentially benefit students applying to college this fall.

Increased Grant Money The Federal Pell Grant program provides need-based grants to low-income students pursuing undergraduate and certain post-baccalaureate degrees. The maximum grant amount has been raised by $500 to $5,350 for the coming school year. Passage of the President’s 2010 budget will ensure continued growth in this amount.

Low Interest Loan Opportunities The Federal Perkins Loan Program provides need-based, low-interest (5% fixed) loans (up to $5,500 per year) to help low income students finance college costs. President Obama has committed an additional $5 billion to the loan program while ensuring the interest rate remains at five percent.

Eligibility for the Pell Grant and the Perkins Loan is determined by the need analysis utilized by the FAFSA.

Analysis: On the surface, it would appear that these funding measures help ease the pressure on families to meet college costs—and that might turn out to be the case. However, colleges have the discretion to administer these funds to eligible students as they wish.

For example, in awarding financial aid to its applicants, a given college can elect to either use Pell Grant funding to reduce the amount of loan or work-study (campus job) opportunity it extends to admitted students or to displace its own grant funding or to cover a demonstrated “need” that would otherwise be left unmet. Similarly, a Perkins Loan can be written into a financial aid award in place of institutional grant monies. When this happens, the college is, in effect, using the Federal funds to lessen its own burden in supporting a student rather than easing the financial burden on the student.

Depending on the disposition of the college or university in question, then, the increase in Federal funds may actually do little to reduce the burden on the student’s family to cover college costs. Even if a college applies the funds charitably (as it should), the easement experienced by the student’s family will be slight.

It is also worth noting that the Perkins Loan may be extended to students with greater need in addition to the Subsidized Stafford Student Loan. Undergraduate students may be awarded as much as $5,500 per year in Perkins Loan as determined by the institution at which they are enrolled. The amount of the Stafford Loan may not exceed $3,500 in the first year, although an additional $2,000 of optional, interest unsubsidized Stafford Loan may also be borrowed on top of that. It is possible, then, that a low-income student may be expected (by some colleges) to borrow as much as $11,000 in the first year or $49,000 over four years. This is unreasonable and, in my opinion, not the intended outcome of funding from the Recovery Act. While personal debt is to be anticipated, a more reasonable amount over four years would be in the neighborhood of $25,000.

As financial aid officers assemble financial aid awards, they cobble together funds from different sources in a manner that enables them to meet the needs of admitted students while stretching their own budgets as far as possible. The introduction of Federal funds (Pell Grant, Perkins Loan), then, won’t necessarily reduce the out-of-pocket expense for families as they fund college costs if, in fact, those funds are not used by colleges to close the gap between the family’s expected contribution and the cost of attendance.

Ultimately, the commitment of institutional funds in the packaging of financial aid awards is an expression of institutional values. Colleges that place a high value on your attendance are more likely to award you grant/scholarship assistance up to your full, demonstrated need in addition to Federal grants, loans and work study, thus limiting your four-year exposure to debt to a reasonable amount. A careful read of your financial aid award letters will reveal whether you—and not the colleges—are being supported with this additional funding from the Federal government.

For more information go to www.finaid.org.

This blog was first published on www.witf.org under Education, Life After 12th Grade on July 6, 2009.

Over the past several months, the Obama administration has initiated a series of bold measures to improve college access and completion rates in the U.S. Two of the initiatives may have immediate implications for students seeking to enter college in 2010.

On June 24, 2009, U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, outlined substantive changes to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) designed to simplify the application process. This announcement follows earlier moves to reduce cost barriers by increasing grants (free money) and low interest loan opportunities for America’s neediest students.

These are positive signs for families looking for encouragement in the face of rising costs and diminishing means. In a two-part series, I will take a closer look at the real impact each is likely to have on educational access in the next several years.

Streamlining the Financial Aid Application Process
According to the U.S. Department of Education, students applying for financial aid using the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) should find the process easier this year. Starting in January 2010, students completing the online FAFSA can retrieve relevant tax information from the Internal Revenue Service giving them seamless access to information needed to their aid applications.

In a related move this spring, the Education Department began providing instant estimates of Pell Grant and student loan eligibility. Students had previously been forced to wait several weeks for notification. And starting this summer, enhanced “skip-logic” will be employed to make it easier to navigate the online FAFSA.

Analysis
Most financial aid models assume at least three sources of funding with regard to college costs: the family, the institution and the Federal Government. Students attending in-state institutions may also receive funding from their own states. Some students also receive scholarship assistance from various funding sources in the community.

The intent of the FAFSA is to determine the contribution from the family and, thereby, the family’s eligibility for funding (grants, loans, work study) from the Federal government. Unfortunately, that determination of eligibility or “need” does not apply uniformly across all funding sources.

While the Federal government and most state governments subscribe to the definition of need that emerges from the FAFSA, all bets are off when institutions themselves make EFC determinations relative to the distribution of their own funds. In fact, colleges and universities frequently rely on more stringent assessments—including sensitivity to factors such as home equity or the financial contribution of a non-custodial parent in the case of a divorce or separation—that invariably require greater contributions from families. Many private institutions use the College Scholarship Service (CSS) Profile to collect such data. As a result, you might receive mixed signals regarding their respective EFC’s.

On the surface, then, each of these moves to simplify the FAFSA makes sense. Whenever complex data collection relating to family finances can be simplified by eliminating steps or unnecessary information, everybody wins. The big news, however, relates to the access to IRS files. Personal IRS files have always been accessed after the fact in the financial aid process to verify data submitted on the FAFSA. In this case, making the connection between the Department of Education (FAFSA) and the IRS saves steps and eliminates redundancy of effort for families of college-bound students.

Providing links to information that has already been captured (prior year tax returns) early in the process will make it easier for families to complete the financial aid application. Current year tax returns will still be used for verification as family circumstances often change from year to year. The FAFSA may be further simplified if/when the Administration is successful in its efforts to eliminate unnecessary questions from the application.

Lest you see these developments as a panacea in the financial aid process, however, I would raise two cautions. One, the connectivity to data collected by the IRS can only work as well as the completeness of the IRS files for that individual and his/her custodial parents. For example: How will families with IRS files that are incomplete, in dispute or non-existent be able to complete the FAFSA in a timely fashion? And imagine the complexity of determining the appropriate IRS files for students who live in blended families or with unrelated guardians. Ironically, the FAFSA/IRS marriage may fail to make the process easier for those who are in greatest need of assistance.

Two, and perhaps more importantly, the discussion about ease of access with regard to the financial aid application process overlooks an important detail. The outcome of the FAFSA submission—a determination of the “expected family contribution (EFC)”—is not a reliable indication of how colleges themselves will assess the expected family contribution in determining “need.”

Frankly, none of this is new. Colleges have resorted to their own methodologies for determining the EFC for some time. Be cautious, therefore, about making assumptions with regard to the EFC that is reported by the FAFSA as you try to anticipate college costs and the assistance you might receive in meeting them. While you may indeed have eligibility for enhanced Federal assistance, the bulk of your financial aid is likely to come from the college itself.

Make sure you understand from each college how it will determine your EFC and, subsequently, your financial need. The Federal government is but one source of need-based financial aid. The reality is that, across the board, colleges and universities fund the vast majority of financial aid that is awarded each year. Moreover, they are not obligated to meet a student’s full need as demonstrated by the FAFSA or the Profile. While you are not likely to receive any guarantees of funding, it is certainly worth exploring these questions with each of the schools on your list as you visit them this summer.