Low-Income Students Won't Pay at Stanford

Yahoo! News ^ | 3/16/06 | Associated Press

[libertarianPA]

STANFORD, Calif. - Stanford University, worried about losing talented students to sticker shock, is eliminating tuition for undergraduates from the some of the lowest-income families.

Under a new program announced Wednesday, students from families with annual incomes of less than $45,000 won't pay tuition. Those with incomes up to $60,000 will pay about $3,800, the school estimates.

"Students from low-income backgrounds are underrepresented at our nation's most selective institutions," said Richard Shaw, Stanford's dean of undergraduate admission and financial aid.

"Many families ... may be discouraged by the stated tuition, so we want to be more forceful with this new program in encouraging talented low-income students to consider Stanford," he said.

Stanford's undergraduate tuition for the next school year will be nearly $33,000. Add in other expenses, such as books and housing, and the cost averages about $47,000.

Stanford already provides strong financial aid. This year, students from families earning less than $45,000 paid an average $2,650, according to the university. The new program, starting for an estimated 1,100 current and new students this fall, is expected to cost the university $3 million in the first year.

Harvard and Princeton are among other elite universities with similar programs.

College costs have been rising fast nationwide. According to the latest survey from the College Board, a nonprofit association based in Washington, D.C., tuition and fees at four-year private institutions rose nearly 6 percent to $21,235 for the 2005-06 academic year from $20,045 in 2004-05, while costs at four-year public institutions went up more than 7 percent to $5,491 from $5,126.

[truemiester]

If I quite my job and sent both my kids there I would show a net increase of about $5,000 a year! Add unemployment and social services and I will be rolling in the dough!

[libertarianPA]

How can anyone complain about giving a smart kid a break?

I'm all for giving a smart kid a break. I'd give him a lower interest rate on student loans, and have the college help him find employment during his time at Stanford. Then you guys whine that the US doesnt keep up with Asian countries which subsidise college eduation to the point that its almost free.

This has little to do with poor smart kids, but a lot to do with the value that this country now puts on education. Most poor kids think their only way to wealth is to be good at basketball or football instead of studying hard. Asian children have no fewer alternatives. The "whining" is about the values being taught to American children. And as for loans and trying harder.. if the kid can go to college for free on the strength of his brains.. I think thats a lot harder than filling out a loan application.

What?!?!? I have to respect folk who get scholarships.

But what's the criteria? Are they simply smart? Have they taken any tests to prove their genius?

Remember, low-income is usually liberal-speak for "black." How do we know that these kids aren't getting in just for the color of their skin and an above average intelligence?

[LWalk18]

The income from those endowments are probably actually sufficient to run the whole school.

Yes. Quite frankly, spending the money this way is better than spending it on bloated facility or adminstration salaries.

[svcw]

My mom said to me when I was a kid, that if the government gave the poor everything what was their motivation to work out of poverty. She also told me that compulsory preschool was coming soon, because the government needed kids to follow the "current" government propaganda as soon as possible.
My mom died in 1959 when I was eleven. She was a wise wise woman, started me on the road to conservative behavior.
(Ok, a little personal memory as she died in March of 1959, was just thinking about how correct she was ... sorry)

[LWalk18]

Remember, low-income is usually liberal-speak for "black." How do we know that these kids aren't getting in just for the color of their skin and an above average intelligence?

I didn't know that all black students come from homes where their parents make under $40,000 and all white and Asian students come from homes where their parents make over $40,000. I guess my sister and I don't really exist.

[stompk]

"I have to respect folk who get scholarships."

Yeah. me too. fortunately poor kids have ALWAYS been able to get scholarships if they've earned them.
this, however, does not sound like a scholarship to me. it sounds like a handout.

[conservatrice]

Who CARES what color their skin is. I was white and my parents worked hard to make less than $40k per year living in CT with a family of five. I was too "rich" and white for a lot of scholarships and federal grants but too poor to afford an education. It wasn't MY fault my parents didn't make a lot of money. Do you really think it doesn't take hard work to excel in school and GRADUATE from a place like Stanford?

How do we know that these kids aren't getting in just for the color of their skin and an above average intelligence?

I'd say it's none of our business what a private school like Stanford does with its money. Geez, you're supposed to be a libertarian?

[Niteranger68]

Cue the bake sale!

[trashcanbred]

Remember, low-income is usually liberal-speak for "black." How do we know that these kids aren't getting in just for the color of their skin and an above average intelligence?

Who cares? Stanford is a private university. If they want to give poor students, who just happen to be black, a break what in the world are we to care? If it was a public university... that is a different story.

[ketelone]

Of course they would have proven their intelligence... to the reevant admitting faculty at Stanford no less!

Would stanford university take them otherwise?? pay them to go to school there? I thik theyll be reviewing the applications very very carefully.

Again, Stanford is a private university. Unless it has some certain obligations under the law that I dont know about, it can admit whoever the heck it likes, as long as it uses its own money to do it!

Poor, rich, black, yellow, brown, white, purple...

If Stanford is footing the bill, its their business!

AFAIK, thyre under no obligation to do any of this. If theyre giving some students a break, and doing it anyway, good on them!

[libertarianPA]

I'd say it's none of our business what a private school like Stanford does with its money.

The point is a culture that now considers $45,000 poverty level. The point is that the first thing these kids are being taught is that they don't have to work as hard as kids whose parents make $46,000. They don't have to learn life lessons like working to contribute to their education or paying back debts. The point is those who come from families making a dollar more than $45,000 will have to find jobs and take out loans in order to pay for the now-inflated tuitions to cover those who are considered "poor".

Geez, you're supposed to be a libertarian?

Yeah! What gave it away genius? My screen name? I'm surprised you didn't go to Stanford. You obviously have plenty of smarts.

[LWalk18]

You could even argue that Stanford is saving taxpayers money by giving poor students who would otherwise qualify and take out federal loans and grants private grant money from their endowment.

[ketelone]

If that is the case, then let me reiterate exactly how much money Stanford has to throw around: Stanford University has an annual operating budget of over 2.5 Billion Dollars. Their endowment is over 10 Billion dollars. (@ of even a low low 4% return on this, that amounts to 400 million$) - They probably make much more than that on it every year. Last year Stanford ran a fundraising drive to raise money to try and cover schemes such as these for promising low income students. It raised a billion dollars.

[conservatrice]

I do not believe that the tuition for others will be "inflated." And even if they are, nobody is forcing anyone to go to Stanford. Also, tuition is only a PART of what a student has to pay for in college. Don't forget room and board (in CA no less), books, and other fees. So if your point is that they should have to pay back loans and work, they will.

[libertarianPA]

"Students from low-income backgrounds are underrepresented at our nation's most selective institutions," said Richard Shaw, Stanford's dean of undergraduate admission and financial aid.

Of course they would have proven their intelligence... to the reevant admitting faculty at Stanford no less!

To me, it seems like this liberal institution is just a little worried that their student population is a bit too "vanilla."

[LWalk18]

The point is those who come from families making a dollar more than $45,000 will have to find jobs and take out loans in order to pay for the now-inflated tuitions to cover those who are considered "poor".

The full cost at Stanford is comparable to other top schools, whether they have this program or not.

[ketelone]

Maybe the point is, that theyre already smart enough to know that being in debt isnt a good thing in the first place, and that if there is a way you can get ahead in life without first being ground under by a 100,000$ loan, then youre already ahead of the ratrace. 45,000$ for a family of four isnt that much, you will surely admit. Try sending two kids to college on it, AND running your household.

[libertarianPA]

So if your point is that they should have to pay back loans and work, they will.

Why? They certainly don't have to under this program.

[libertarianPA]

Try sending two kids to college on it, AND running your household

The difference is, if my household was making under $45,000 a year, I would choose not to have more than one child.

[shhrubbery!]

Well arguably the ones getting screwed are the families of the students who are not poor enough to go for free, but not nearly wealthy enough to afford the school without help.

And arguably, Stanford is screwing itself by ignoring those very students you mention --many of whom don't even bother applying to Stanford. Why? Because Stanford and other elite schools no longer award "merit scholarhips."

I once emailed Columbia University on behalf of my son, then an outstanding high school student, to ask about the availability of merit scholarships.

I got a very snooty reply: "ALL of our accepted students have merit. Columbia doesn't award merit scholarships."