Hello!


I am sure you are following the drama associated with the Department of Education and FAFSA. Here is a summary to keep you updated. Feel free to share.

We know that FAFSA information will not be sent to colleges until mid to late March. 
  * If parents have not completed the FAFSA, it is not 'late', regardless of the date on college websites. Most glitches have been addressed at this time. (exception is for parents without a SS#)
  * Parents of new college freshman 2024-25 should aim to complete the FAFSA by 3/15.
  * Current college students should plan to complete the FAFSA by the date on the college website or April 30th in order to receive correct tuition bills.
  * When logging into studentaid.gov the dashboard should say processing - it will stay this way until FAFSA info is sent to colleges.
  * Changes to the FAFSA can not be made until the application has been completely processed. Changes can be red flags - be sure that any changes are justified and have documentation.
 
This delay will cause colleges to have very limited time to create financial aid packages and send them to students in a timely manner before May 1st.
  * Many colleges have already extended the May 1st deadline. 
  * HERE is a list of extended dates by Danny Tejada (thank you Danny)
  * The California State system has also extended deadlines, read - HERE

Possible ways to get a financial aid package now -
  * Many CSS Profile schools are calculating 'tentative' packages upon request.
  * Some colleges are requesting their own financial form to be completed and can estimate FAFSA results.
  * If a student/family will NOT receive need-based aid and has received their acceptance letter - the out of pocket cost to the family can be determined.
  * Some colleges will complete an 'early read' - similar to the tentative package upon request.
 
The additional delay has a positive effect in that the updated formula will allocate more funds to most families with need. If the student hasn't already, once the FAFSA has been processed they will receive an email with their Student Aid Index (SAI); this can be used to determine need and actual out of pocket costs prior to receiving the financial aid package. Appeal letters for merit can be sent now for certain, specific situations.

Be sure that the student is actively checking college portals - this is where the most updated information will become available. 

If any family would like a college cost comparison, 4-year cash flow spreadsheet or a conversation about college finances - please reach out; https://calendly.com/collegedollar/

Liane Crane
TheCollegeDollar.com
Member; HECA, NCAG
Forbes Financial Aid Article
Schedule a College Connect!

Duke is no longer giving essays and standardized testing scores numerical ratings in the undergraduate admissions process.
The change went into place this year, Dean of Undergraduate Admissions Christoph Guttentag wrote in an email to The Chronicle. He explained that essays are no longer receiving a score because of a rise in the use of generative artificial intelligence and college admissions consultants.
When asked about how the admissions office determines if an essay is AI-generated or written by consultants and if applicants are hurt if the office determines so, Guttentag answered that "there aren't simple answers to these questions." 
Despite the changes, Guttentag wrote that essays and standardized testing scores are still considered in the admissions process. 
“Essays are very much part of our understanding of the applicant, we’re just no longer assuming that the essay is an accurate reflection of the student’s actual writing ability,” he wrote. “Standardized tests (SAT or ACT) are considered when they’re submitted as part of the application.”
According to Guttentag, essays will now be used to “help understand the applicant as an individual rather, not just as a set of attributes and accomplishments.” He also wrote that the admissions office now values essays that give “insight into who the unique person is whose application we’re reading” and that “content and insight matter more than style.”
“Because of that they are not given a numerical rating, but considered as we think holistically about a candidate as a potential member of the Duke community,” he wrote. 
Previously, the Duke admissions office would assign numerical ratings of one to five on six different categories: curriculum strength, academics, recommendations, essays, extracurriculars and test scores. Applicants would then receive a total score out of 30 by adding up each category’s numerical rating.
According to Guttentag, the only categories given numerical ratings now are the four categories that remain: “the strength of a student’s curriculum, their grades in academic courses, their extracurricular activities and the letters of recommendation.”

HERE IS A THOUGHT-PROVOKING ARTICLE. PLEASE READ:

Article by Aneesh Raman and Maria Flynn

Mr. Raman is a work force expert at LinkedIn. Ms. Flynn is the president of Jobs for the Future.
There have been just a handful of moments over the centuries when we have experienced a huge shift in the skills our economy values most. We are entering one such moment now. Technical and data skills that have been highly sought after for decades appear to be among the most exposed to advances in artificial intelligence. But other skills, particularly the people skills that we have long undervalued as “soft,” will very likely remain the most durable. That is a hopeful sign that A.I. could usher in a world of work that is anchored more, not less, around human ability.
A moment like this compels us to think differently about how we are training our workers, especially the heavy premium we have placed on skills like coding and data analysis that continue to reshape the fields of higher education and worker training. The early signals of what A.I. can do should compel us to think differently about ourselves as a species. Our abilities to effectively communicate, develop empathy and think critically have allowed humans to collaborate, innovate and adapt for millenniums. Those skills are ones we all possess and can improve, yet they have never been properly valued in our economy or prioritized in our education and training. That needs to change.
In today’s knowledge economy, many students are focused on gaining technical skills because those skills are seen as the most competitive when it comes to getting a good job. And for good reason. For decades, we have viewed those jobs as “future-proof” given the growth of technology companies and the fact that engineering majors land the highest-paying jobs.
The number of students seeking four-year degrees in computer science and information technology shot up 41 percent between the spring of 2018 and the spring of 2023, while the number of humanities majors plummeted. Workers who didn’t go to college and those who needed additional skills and wanted to take advantage of a lucrative job boom flocked to dozens of coding boot camps and online technical programs.


Now comes the realization of the power of generative A.I., with its vast capabilities in skills like writing, programming and translation (Microsoft, which owns LinkedIn, is a major investor in the technology). LinkedIn researchers recently looked at which skills any given job requires and then identified over 500 likely to be affected by generative A.I. technologies. They then estimated that 96 percent of a software engineer’s current skills — mainly proficiency in programming languages — can eventually be replicated by A.I. Skills associated with jobs like legal associates and finance officers will also be highly exposed.
In fact, given the broad impact A.I. is set to have, it is quite likely to affect all of our work to some degree or another.
We believe there will be engineers in the future, but they will most likely spend less time coding and more time on tasks like collaboration and communication. We also believe that there will be new categories of jobs that emerge as a result of A.I.’s capabilities — just like we’ve seen in past moments of technological advancement — and that those jobs will probably be anchored increasingly around people skills.
Circling around this research is the big question emerging across so many conversations about A.I. and work, namely: What are our core capabilities as humans?
If we answer that question from a place of fear about what’s left for people in the age of A.I., we can end up conceding a diminished view of human capability. Instead, it’s critical for us all to start from a place that imagines what’s possible for humans in the age of A.I. When you do that, you find yourself focusing quickly on people skills that allow us to collaborate and innovate in ways technology can amplify but never replace. And you find yourself — whatever the role or career stage you’re in — with agency to better manage this moment of historic change.