The agreement also dealt with new issues that have cropped up recently in financial aid. The group recommended a consultant be hired to study how income gleaned from “day-trading” stocks should be included in need analysis.

The two abstaining Ivies both said that their decision not to sign was because the new agreement would lower financial aid awards for their students.

Princeton announced a new plan this year that goes far beyond last week’s agreement. Starting next year, all Princeton students will receive grants instead of loans, boosting financial aid awards by thousands of dollars per student.

In a similar vein, Harvard—although it was involved in the group’s discussions throughout—did not sign on to the final agreement because it differed from Harvard’s philosophy, according to University officials.

“We judged the proposed formula—which would reduce aid for many Harvard students—to be an inappropriate constraint on us. We, of course, support the objective of maximizing the role of need in financial aid,” University spokesperson Joe Wrinn said.

Harvard says it calculates aid more generously than the new agreement would necessarily offer.

For instance, under the new agreement, the universities agreed only to factor in home equity it exceeded 2.4 times the family’s income. Harvard does not factor in home equity at all when making financial aid decisions.