2010 One-year Top Performing Direct Plans Q1

Savingforcollege.com ranks the performance of direct-sold 529 plans. Direct-sold plans are those that consumers can enroll in without using a broker. We have prepared one-year, three-year and five-year performance tables. To prepare this ranking, we compared a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan, selecting portfolios based on their mix of stocks, bonds and money market funds, allowing for an apples-to-apples comparison in seven different asset-allocation categories. The lower the "percentile," the better the ranking. This ranking could be a useful tool for you when selecting which direct 529 plan might be right for you. 529 performance rankings as of March 31, 2010. Direct-sold 529 plans. Updated May 11, 2010 One-year performance ranking (click here for three-year performance table and five-year performance table): Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 2.43 2 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 26.66 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 27.26 4 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 30.67 5 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan - Client Direct Series 30.78 6 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 32.14 7 West Virginia SMART529 WV Direct 33.32 8 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 34.60 9 South Dakota CollegeAccess 529 (Direct-sold) 38.20 10 Alabama College Counts 529 Fund 38.50 11 District of Columbia DC 529 College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 40.12 12 Virginia Virginia Education Savings Trust (VEST) 46.40 13 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 48.12 14 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 48.15 15 West Virginia SMART529 Select 48.76 16 Louisiana START Saving Program 48.93 17 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 49.93 18 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 51.63 19 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 53.26 20 Oklahoma Oklahoma College Savings Plan 54.12 21 Vermont Vermont Higher Education Investment Plan 54.81 22 New Mexico The Education Plan's College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 54.88 23 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 56.78 24 North Carolina National College Savings Program 56.80 25 Nebraska College Savings Plan of Nebraska (Direct-sold) 57.03 26 Minnesota Minnesota College Savings Plan 58.35 27 Illinois Bright Start College Savings Program - Direct-sold-Plan 58.67 28 Kentucky Kentucky Education Savings Plan Trust 59.49 29 Nebraska TD Ameritrade 529 College Savings Plan 60.33 30 Mississippi Mississippi Affordable College Savings (MACS) Program 60.44 31 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program - Direct Plan 60.49 32 New Jersey NJBEST 529 College Savings Plan 60.94 33 Arizona Fidelity Arizona College Savings Plan 60.99 34 New Hampshire UNIQUE College Investing Plan 61.01 35 Delaware Delaware College Investment Plan 61.16 36 Nevada The Upromise College Fund 61.29 37 California The ScholarShare College Savings Plan 61.31 38 Massachusetts U.Fund College Investing Plan 61.71 39 Indiana CollegeChoice 529 Investment Plan (Direct-sold) 63.13 40 Missouri MOST - Missouri's 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 63.72 41 Colorado Direct Portfolio College Savings Plan 63.74 42 Arkansas GIFT College Investing Plan 64.74 43 Idaho Idaho College Savings Program (IDeal) 64.83 44 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 65.26 45 Georgia Path2College 529 Plan 65.30 46 Texas Texas College Savings Plan 67.28 47 Connecticut Connecticut Higher Education Trust (CHET) 67.47 48 Hawaii Hawaii's College Savings Program 67.63 49 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 69.74 50 Kansas Learning Quest 529 Education Savings Program (Direct-sold) 69.79 51 North Dakota College SAVE 70.25 52 Iowa College Savings Iowa 70.44 - Florida Florida College Investment Plan NA - Oregon Oregon College Savings Plan NA NA = Not applicable = Program does not have at least three portfolios with sufficiently long performance under our ranking model. The Savingforcollege.com plan composite rankings are derived using the plans' relevant portfolio performance in seven unique asset allocation categories. The asset allocation categories used are: 100 percent equity, 80 percent equity, 60 percent equity, 40 percent equity, 20 percent equity, 100 percent fixed and 100 percent short term. The plan composite ranking is determined by the average of its percentile ranking in the seven categories. The performance data underlying these rankings represent past performance and is not a guarantee of future performance. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data used. A plan portfolio's investment return and principal value will fluctuate so that an investor's shares or units when redeemed may be worth more or less than their original cost. Investors should carefully consider plan investment goals, risks, charges and expenses, by obtaining and reading the plan's official program description before investing. Investors should also consider whether their beneficiary's home state offers any tax or other benefits that are available for investments only in such state's 529 plan. Brokers, please note: For internal use only and not for use with or to be shown to the investing public. Disclaimer: JFH Innovative, Inc. shall not be liable for any errors or omissions in this report. Users should rely on official program disclosures. For broker-sold plan rankings, click here. Savingforcollege.com ranks the performance of direct-sold 529 plans. Direct-sold plans are those that consumers can enroll in without using a broker. We have prepared one-year, three-year and five-year performance tables. To prepare this ranking, we compared a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan, selecting portfolios based on their mix of stocks, bonds and money market funds, allowing for an apples-to-apples comparison in seven different asset-allocation categories. The lower the "percentile," the better the ranking. This ranking could be a useful tool for you when selecting which direct 529 plan might be right for you. 529 performance rankings as of March 31, 2010. Direct-sold 529 plans. Updated May 11, 2010 One-year performance ranking (click here for three-year performance table and five-year performance table): Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 2.43 2 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 26.66 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 27.26 4 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 30.67 5 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan - Client Direct Series 30.78 6 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 32.14 7 West Virginia SMART529 WV Direct 33.32 8 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 34.60 9 South Dakota CollegeAccess 529 (Direct-sold) 38.20 10 Alabama College Counts 529 Fund 38.50 11 District of Columbia DC 529 College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 40.12 12 Virginia Virginia Education Savings Trust (VEST) 46.40 13 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 48.12 14 Utah Utah Educational Savings Plan (UESP) Trust 48.15 15 West Virginia SMART529 Select 48.76 16 Louisiana START Saving Program 48.93 17 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 49.93 18 Michigan Michigan Education Savings Program 51.63 19 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 53.26 20 Oklahoma Oklahoma College Savings Plan 54.12 21 Vermont Vermont Higher Education Investment Plan 54.81 22 New Mexico The Education Plan's College Savings Program (Direct-sold) 54.88 23 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 56.78 24 North Carolina National College Savings Program 56.80 25 Nebraska College Savings Plan of Nebraska (Direct-sold) 57.03 26 Minnesota Minnesota College Savings Plan 58.35 27 Illinois Bright Start College Savings Program - Direct-sold-Plan 58.67 28 Kentucky Kentucky Education Savings Plan Trust 59.49 29 Nebraska TD Ameritrade 529 College Savings Plan 60.33 30 Mississippi Mississippi Affordable College Savings (MACS) Program 60.44 31 New York New York's 529 College Savings Program - Direct Plan 60.49 32 New Jersey NJBEST 529 College Savings Plan 60.94 33 Arizona Fidelity Arizona College Savings Plan 60.99 34 New Hampshire UNIQUE College Investing Plan 61.01 35 Delaware Delaware College Investment Plan 61.16 36 Nevada The Upromise College Fund 61.29 37 California The ScholarShare College Savings Plan 61.31 38 Massachusetts U.Fund College Investing Plan 61.71 39 Indiana CollegeChoice 529 Investment Plan (Direct-sold) 63.13 40 Missouri MOST - Missouri's 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 63.72 41 Colorado Direct Portfolio College Savings Plan 63.74 42 Arkansas GIFT College Investing Plan 64.74 43 Idaho Idaho College Savings Program (IDeal) 64.83 44 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 65.26 45 Georgia Path2College 529 Plan 65.30 46 Texas Texas College Savings Plan 67.28 47 Connecticut Connecticut Higher Education Trust (CHET) 67.47 48 Hawaii Hawaii's College Savings Program 67.63 49 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 529 Investment Plan 69.74 50 Kansas Learning Quest 529 Education Savings Program (Direct-sold) 69.79 51 North Dakota College SAVE 70.25 52 Iowa College Savings Iowa 70.44 - Florida Florida College Investment Plan NA - Oregon Oregon College Savings Plan NA NA = Not applicable = Program does not have at least three portfolios with sufficiently long performance under our ranking model. The Savingforcollege.com plan composite rankings are derived using the plans' relevant portfolio performance in seven unique asset allocation categories. The asset allocation categories used are: 100 percent equity, 80 percent equity, 60 percent equity, 40 percent equity, 20 percent equity, 100 percent fixed and 100 percent short term. The plan composite ranking is determined by the average of its percentile ranking in the seven categories. The performance data underlying these rankings represent past performance and is not a guarantee of future performance. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data used. A plan portfolio's investment return and principal value will fluctuate so that an investor's shares or units when redeemed may be worth more or less than their original cost. Investors should carefully consider plan investment goals, risks, charges and expenses, by obtaining and reading the plan's official program description before investing. Investors should also consider whether their beneficiary's home state offers any tax or other benefits that are available for investments only in such state's 529 plan. Brokers, please note: For internal use only and not for use with or to be shown to the investing public. Disclaimer: JFH Innovative, Inc. shall not be liable for any errors or omissions in this report. Users should rely on official program disclosures. For broker-sold plan rankings, click here.

Constructing Authenticity - Literature Essay Samples

In A Journal of the Plague Year, Daniel Defoe uses several methods to create convincing history out of fiction. In developing a false journal entry, Defoe creates authenticity primarily through the narrator, H.F.. The style and language of H.F.s supposed journal play a large part in constructing authenticity. But beyond these aspects of the narration is the development of H.F.s own story. Although the personality of this narrator is not always strong or clear, Defoe succeeds in strengthening the authenticity of the journal through aspects of H.F.s character. Defoe explores H.F.s emotions and motivation to make him more real. He must convince the reader that there is a living person behind this story, with reasons for writing it down, and a place in its events. The existence and credibility of this human presence are central in Defoes quest to construct authenticity.Many stylistic aspects of the novel contribute to a sense of reality. The outpouring of disgusting, painful, and tragic information creates an effect that mimics the overwhelming emotional trauma of the plague. By providing answers in advance to any plausible questions with this excess of information, Defoe almost invites the reader to challenge H.F.s credibility. Defoe plants false evidence with mathematical charts and diagrams to support all of H.F.s claims. He even includes supposed government documents from the time, with dates to even further promote a sense of reality. For example, the existence of dates in H.F.s claim that These orders of my Lord Mayors were published, as I have said, the latter end of June, and took place from the 1st of July,(57) is more important than their authenticity. Defoe is creating an official tone to deter doubt or questioning.Subtle hints that constantly defend the truth of H.F.s tale can be found in Defoes use of language. Amid the outpouring of disturbing stories and terrifying fact, Defoe structures H.F.s sentences to remind the reader of H.F.s physical presence at the time of these events. Throughout the book, sentences are broken by these reminders. Almost any fact relayed is accompanied by the presence of one such statement, always involving the first person. Brief moments like One of the worst days we had in the whole time, as I thought, was (118) or I say, let any man consider (113) or here I must observe, (95) match all of the fact and detail with a person. And the presence of a human story behind all of this factual evidence greatly supplements the sense of reality. To present a distinctly human story, Defoe must present a distinctly human H.F..Defoe uses emotions to carefully craft H.F.s authenticity as an actual human being. H.F.s emotion is sparingly revealed, when he is realizing the manifestations of the plague, or reacting to specific events. In such instances, Defoe deals a double blow: He includes H.F.s physical presence in the story while also inciting pity in the reader. This is a key emotion in connecting with H.F., as a human character, who proves he can suffer as any human does. The reader pities H.F., and therefore identifies with him, when he explains I must acknowledge that this time was terrible, that I was sometimes at the end of all my resolutions, and that I had not the courage that I had at the beginning.(189) In a book of disturbing stories, it is very convincing to find the narrator caught up in a moment of emotion. After hearing the devastating tale of a poor mans dying family, H.F. explains that I saw the tears run very plentifully down his face; and so they did down mine too, I assure you. (122) Instead of simply telling us a story, or telling us of someone else telling a story, H.F. is now telling us of himself hearing a story. And H.F.s pain in both experiencing and retelling the plague makes his voice ultimately more human.Most of the information that Defoe gives about this human story exists to make the account seem more real. One of H.F.s most consistent characteristics, as the s upposed writer, is his careful distinction between truth and rumor. This is an especially subtle method of building the credibility of the journal as historic truth. H.F. gives most of his anecdotes a background, explaining that [t]his I also had from his own mouth,(106) or as I was told, (109) or even combining by what I saw with my eyes and heard from other people that were eye-witnesses. (116) If the narrator is so entirely preoccupied with distinguishing between what is observed, and therefore solid truth and what is less trustworthy, the impulse to question this supposed observed truth is distracted and diminished. It seems unlikely that the narrator would take such pains with citing his sources if these sources didnt even exist. H.F. sometimes even presents his journal as a sort of attempt to provide truth, explaining that [t]he plague was itself very terrible, and the distress of the people very great, as you may observe of what I have said. But the rumour was infinitely grea ter (225) Defoe is sly in including honesty as one of H.F.s preoccupations. The narrator does not simply tell the truth. He is also supposedly determined to destroy anything false. H.F.s own obsession with authenticity and credibility further masks the fiction of the tale.By setting up reasons for the journal to exist, or motives behind H.F.s diligent recordings, there is even more history to this document. Defoe presents H.F. as an impulsive observer, or researcher, driven to learn all he can. In several instances, the reader is allowed a glance into H.F.s task, and explanation of his purpose. In a moment of emotion, as he remembers the sounds of crying in the streets, H.F. exclaims If I could but tell this part in such moving accents as should alarm the very soul of the reader, I should rejoice that I recorded those things, however short and important. (120) He is haunted by all of these facts and tales, and has no choice but to try and make the world understand. Once again, the r eader empathizes with H.F., and a more complete and convincing character emerges.Defoe weaves together a world of facts, a present and involved narrator, and an existing writers quest to create an actual and convincing plague year. What is perhaps most convincing, though, is the misleading title page, which claims that this novel is A Journal of the Plague Year: Being Observations or Memorials, Of the most Remarkable Occurrences, As well Publick as Private, Which happened in London During the last Great Visitation In 1665. Not only does Defoes title mask the falsity of what follows in a flowery proclamation, but explains that the author is a Citizen who continued all the while in London. Before the reader is subject to Defoes fooling style, or H.F.s personality, the packaging seduces. By promising initially that what follows is truth, Defoe succeeds in shading everything with this sentiment. At some point, the reader surrenders to Defoes efforts, and the plague becomes as real and o verwhelming as H.F. claims he wishes it to seem.