« Cranky old man threatens snow plow driver with shotgun | Main | "Dilbert" lampoons firm that fired employee for "Dilbert" strip »
No tuition fee for Stanford students from under-$100K families
The applications will flood in: Stanford University is no longer charging tuition to students whose families earn less than $100,000 a year. Also, room and board fees will be waived for students whose families earn less than $60,000. The university is making the change in the wake of reports that its endowment had grown almost 22% last year, to $17.1 billion. (San Francisco Chronicle)
February 20, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
Ya think?
Here's the thing: sure, the applications will be flooding in, but how many will be accepted? My guess is that any kid who applies whose parents make above the caps will be accepted no matter how dumb they are, rather than average to above-average kids whose parents make less than the cap. I'm thinking that this is simply a measure of "good press" rather than "good will."
Call me a cynic, but that's what I think.
Posted by: Soo | Feb 20, 2008 6:28:23 AM
I doubt it Soo. Stanford is a great school with a great reputation. It's up there with the Ivy League schools and they are already one of the most selective universities. They don't really need the money, I'm sure they'd rather keep the standards high. The money they get in return from alumni (like the Google guys) is a lot more than tuition.
Posted by: G-Man | Feb 20, 2008 6:37:11 AM
I'm guessing unless you graduated valadictorian from your high school...you wont be getting in..because the amount of applications they're going to receive will be ridiculous.
You know...a number of other countries (including France) dont charge their citizens to attend college....they dont see the point in putting young people or families into debt for education...our country is just completely bassackwards....
Posted by: Cherie | Feb 20, 2008 7:02:34 AM
There is a huge talent pool out there. They will find exceptional students from all income brackets who will want to go to a school of their caliber. As G-Man noted, money will likely not be an issue - between grants and wealthy alumni, as well as tuition paid by students who don't meet the income criteria, they will be fine.
I have a friend whose sister was just accepted to John Hopkins but may be unable to attend due to cost. It's a shame she didn't apply to Stanford.
Posted by: elchampino | Feb 20, 2008 7:10:39 AM
She can still apply to Standford Elchamp...and just decline to go to Hopkins. It makes no sense to me...similar to our Healthcare Situation...why young people have to go into debt that takes years and years to get out of for a college education. Sure there are a bunch of grants available but their "small print" makes it difficult to qualify most times.
Posted by: Cherie | Feb 20, 2008 7:15:42 AM
Admission committees don't generally know the financial status of applicants. Financial Aid is a separate, later application process.
Posted by: SwarthyTroll | Feb 20, 2008 7:18:43 AM
Come on Cherie, just like everything else, there are tiers in education, and most schools don't cost anywhere near an Ivy. Most regular schools are more than affordable, and the dirty secret is that the classes are very very similar.
The only difference between an Ivy and a regular school is the networking opportunities presented at an Ivy-the opportunity to hobnob with the best and brightest in the world.
So the sob stories about not getting into Johns Hopkins or Stanford don't particularly move me.
If the kid is actually intelligent anyways, they can navigate funding and financial aid, and figure out ways to go wherever they want. It's not that hard.
Posted by: The_Overdog | Feb 20, 2008 7:33:31 AM
"You know...a number of other countries (including France) dont charge their citizens to attend college....they dont see the point in putting young people or families into debt for education...our country is just completely bassackwards...."
Sorry Cherie, but we have the best universities in the world. People from other countries drool over the opportunity to go to college in America. If you are really smart you'll get enough scholarships to go to a good college. If you aren't that smart and don't have a lot of money most states have schools that are pretty affordable. I worked while I was in college, took out loans, and after I graduated got a job and paid them back. Big deal.
Posted by: G-Man | Feb 20, 2008 7:39:55 AM
You can make it in America without going to Harvard, Yale or Stanford. Many public universities have great reputations like U.C. Berkeley, Virginia Tech, etc. And these schools are so much more affordable than the $50K a year for the ivy leagues.
I think is is fantastic that Stanford is doing this. They will now get a lot of quality applicants who didn't even apply b/c they were afraid about the cost. I hope other ivy league schools follow suit.
I've told a lot of young people there is nothing wrong with going to community college for 2 years to get the basic education credits out of the way, and then transfer to a university for the last 2 years. Saves you a TON of money, but guess what? The degree you come out with is the SAME.
Posted by: person | Feb 20, 2008 7:53:39 AM
University of Pennsylvania did this last year, except I think that the number was lower. I think it's great that they'd do this.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Feb 20, 2008 7:53:42 AM
OMG!!! Why didn't this happen when I was a kid? /sigh
Posted by: Naga Please! | Feb 20, 2008 7:55:18 AM
"The only difference between an Ivy and a regular school is the networking opportunities presented at an Ivy-the opportunity to hobnob with the best and brightest in the world."
I don't know how anyone can argue this unless they've attended the exact same program at several different schools.
I'm not sure if it's so much that the classes are better but rather, as you yourself said, you're attending classes with "the best and brightest". I don't know about "best and brightest", but being among students who are academically inclined is going to make you a smarter, stronger student as well.
I'm not saying going to a top tier school automatically makes you smarter, or that going to a local school automatically makes you less so. Some of the smartest people I know went to community college and state schools, and I have meet some true idiots from elite institutions. I look at it like a race - the faster everyone else is running, the faster you will run. Some people are smart enough and driven enough that they will push themselves at their top speed no matter where they are. Others are just not interested - you can put them in the best schools in the country and they will still end up a failure. But I think for the most part, for most students, it can have a huge impact on their performance.
As for: "If the kid is actually intelligent anyways, they can navigate funding and financial aid, and figure out ways to go wherever they want. It's not that hard."
I'd have to say that yes, it is hard. Getting buried in debt is hard. So is juggling one or two work study jobs along with a full load of classes. Even then, financial aid and scholarships may not help with basic things like housing, or books, or food. If the money is not there, it's not there.
Posted by: elchampino | Feb 20, 2008 8:03:37 AM
I attended an Ivy for my bachelor's (Columbia) and a "regular" school for my PhD (Rice). I realize that the comparison of undergrad and graduate experiences are tough to factor, but of the two of them, Rice was by far the better school. Many of my classes as an undergrad at CU were taught by TAs. At Rice, I never taught, and don't know a TA that did, an undergraduate class. My undergrad Chem class at CU had 309 students. The same class at Rice had 97. On the undergraduate level at the time, the Rice tuition was 1/3 of CU's tuition. I've never managed to network a job through either school, so I don't know what to say about that.
Posted by: Drake Timbershaft | Feb 20, 2008 8:12:29 AM
Drake - I would count Rice as an elite institution, maybe I'm mistaken. It may not technically be an Ivy League school, but there are many universities whose reputations are very close, equal to, or in some cases surpass some of the Ivy League schools.
Posted by: elchampino | Feb 20, 2008 8:17:45 AM
in general, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. they can give away free tuition to poor families but that doesnt mean they will open up spots for them to enter. most likely it will mean it will be even harder to poor people to get in.
and why only 100k? why punish the average couple that works hard and makes over $50k each? a couple making $125k/yr will come out behind some slacker. why reward someone that never made the effort to be more than a waitress or line worker?
i went to school full time, worked full time, and paid my own way. this country seems to be full of lazy people. these are the same kind of people that want "free" healthcare, etc but also feel they deserve $60k for being a garbage man and the right to not pay taxes.
Posted by: buddy | Feb 20, 2008 8:23:42 AM
Anyone who makes less than 100K or 125K is a slacker?
Posted by: elchampino | Feb 20, 2008 8:26:38 AM
Elchampino - I don't see what's hard about doing work study, but hey that's life. For the most part during the day whenever I wasn't in class I was working. As for getting 'buried in debt', the loans are deferred and low interest. If they can get a decent job after school and wait a few years before they start buying new cars, houses, or having kids they should be fine. I believe you can even deduct the interest on your taxes these days which I wasn't able to do when I was paying them off. And again if someone really can't handle the financial burden there are plenty of state (and city) schools which are more than affordable.
Posted by: G-Man | Feb 20, 2008 8:32:56 AM
"The only difference between an Ivy and a regular school is the networking opportunities presented at an Ivy-the opportunity to hobnob with the best and brightest in the world."
"I don't know how anyone can argue this unless they've attended the exact same program at several different schools."
---
I attended a middle of the road state school and we had a few professors who taught at Penn, Columbia, Oxford, etc. They were really fantastic and came as part of an aggressive (read lucrative, opp. for tenure) expansion program by my school. The texts they taught were the same they taught Ivy style. In other words, in these instances, there was no difference between my school and Harvard but location, and that kind of education was there for the taking.
I have worked enough at Penn (for example) and state schools to see where the real difference is and it is money. Penn is a massive fundraising machine--the local City Paper joked that they were building a "God Cage"--and they have access to the best money can buy--lab equipment, facilities, collections, computers, etc. They really spend money to keep their alumni involved and in that regards it is a huge networking experience as well as an education. Their name on the diploma may also give you a competitive advantage. They also pay the best salaries to their Faculty and staff so they get to pick from a huge pool of applicants. They also attract the best students who may bring something of their own to classroom debate/discussion.
Ivy League does not guarantee a good education (read training for whatever job you are setting yourself up for post graduation) anymore than a ho-hum State School guarantees lack of an Ivy-caliber education, but there is a definite advantage in resources and networking for the big money Ivy schools.
Posted by: sometimesilie | Feb 20, 2008 8:35:43 AM
Go to hell, buddy. I'm not a slacker. I have a bachelor's degree from Auburn University and it's hard to find a job that doesn't require a Master's degree in my field. I haven't gotten my Master's yet and it's not because I'm lazy; it's because this thing called "life" has given me some crappy stuff to get over. It's stuff that isn't my fault either. So don't call somebody who makes under 100k a year a slacker!
Posted by: twerp | Feb 20, 2008 8:36:40 AM
Some points
A. Ivy League schools may not necessarily have better professors or curriculum...but their accreditation sure looks better on the office wall and can get you hired into better positions.
B. If you really think you cannot get a similar education through a school in England or France...keep drinking the kool-aid.
C. Sure some of the colleges aren't as expensive, but if you're a divorced parent raising 3 children...any amount is too much. And if your kid pays on their own they're still strapped with school loans, interest etc.
D. Point C of course, only relates to general schooling...if you are seeking a Doctorate...and you want to go into something specialized like Medicine...it won't matter where you go, the tuition will be high, the cost of materials will be high and you'll be in debt up to your eyeballs by the time you graduate.
E. Buddy..why would you assume that people that want Universal Healthcare are lazy??? I have fantastic benefits but I want Universal Healthcare. Even thou my benefits are outstanding, that wont stop my insurance company for denying me coverage for a life saving procedure if I have a life threatening disease. People die needlessly in this country everyday...people like me that make 60K a year and have fantastic benefits, people like my neighbors that made over 100K, had great benefits but because the husbands illness wasnt covered 100% they had to file bankrupsy and they lost their home AND he is still ill!...because of the monopoly the insurance industry has on medicine. Please educate yourself on both sides of the issue prior to making statements...OH and have another sip of your kool-aid...people like you amaze me...mostly because I used to think the same things...and then I got educated.
Posted by: Cherie | Feb 20, 2008 8:41:41 AM
if you read my post correctly you would see that i said $50k each for a couple. that would be a $100k/yr. and yes, if you are 30+ and not making at least $50k/yr then you havent put in the effort to have a demanding career. i have worked harder than most of the people that post here and should not be punished for it.
twerp-blaming "life" for getting in the way is just an excuse for not working harder and smarter. and stop your personal attacks against me.
Posted by: buddy | Feb 20, 2008 8:45:10 AM
Jim, why do you allow personal attacks against me like when cherie said:
"have another sip of your kool-aid...people like you amaze me...mostly because I used to think the same things...and then I got educated."
Posted by: buddy | Feb 20, 2008 8:48:49 AM
said the pot to the kettle
Posted by: elchampino | Feb 20, 2008 8:49:57 AM
This will make a difference because for really poor students, wealthy private schools have need-based financial aid. Really wealthy ones can afford tuition. Those in the middle have been squeezed out because their families would need to pay an amount that would demand a real change in their lives (withdrawing from retirement funds, additional mortgage, etc.) I haven't been involved in financial aid, but have been involved in admissions so I can see how it plays out.
I also went to a private and a public school for undergraduate and graduate education. One of the major differences was access early from freshman year on to Nobel laureates, Pulitzer prize winners, etc. Those things are useful and inspiring to ambitious students. Another difference is that in private schools that can offer financial aid, students are free to devote their time to studies. I know it's possible to get through school while working. I did it and I know others who did. But watching students who can spend that time on their studies alone has shown me how much intellectual development that allows.
Posted by: Displaced | Feb 20, 2008 8:53:16 AM
"if you read my post correctly you would see that i said $50k each for a couple. that would be a $100k/yr."
I'm impressed you can add. Some people come from single parent homes. Some people would have considered "you" to mean a couple, or would have taken it as referring to the full household income.
"and yes, if you are 30+ and not making at least $50k/yr then you havent put in the effort to have a demanding career."
There are people that hold 2 or 3 jobs and do back breaking manual labor and still aren't making that much.
"i have worked harder than most of the people that post here and should not be punished for it."
How do you know you've worked harder than any of us? You know exactly nothing about anyone else here. Your view is that you're being punished. I guess if one were a paranoid coward obsessed with your own material gain, sure, that would be one's view.
Posted by: elchampino | Feb 20, 2008 8:57:14 AM
