Posted on 03/16/2006 8:18:49 AM PST by libertarianPA
Definitely true. 6200 students @ $33,000 per year is $204,600,000, which would be half the income Stanford might derive on its $10 billion endowment if invested in municipal bonds. But, why give a free ride to foreigners and people capable of paying?
Not really. Just by getting into Stanford, kids show that they're very smart and very driven. All this program does is make sure that a Stanford education is available to the poor, as well as the better-off.
White Christians need quotas at University. Stanford is only 49% white, and many of them are Jewish or Muslim. Your typical American white Christian (70% of our population in the US) is probably just 30% of the campus population at Stanford. When you look at it in terms of the future workforce and for just white Christian men, its even worse given the large pool of women who don't work. The "danger" of racial and sexual quotas is that they are not being used, and many in the majority of our American population are being kept out of college.
Yes, that old-fashioned mean, nasty, discriminatory stuff.
Almost everyone who gets in are at the top in all of those categories.
Not true. Most URMs*** who are admitted to elite schools are not "at the top in all of those categories." URMs constitute a significant proportion of the admittees to elite schools. (True, many do not stay all four years; but, they are admitted.)
Elite schools grant URMs large scholarships, but such grants are not based on merit -- at least, not merit that is based on the criteria you listed, as compared to non-URM admittees.
***URM = "underrepresented minority" in college admissions lingo
Good quote. One more reason Sowell is my intellectual hero.
Have you filled out a FISA form lately -- the form that's used by most schools to determine "need"? If you had, you would know that middle class Americans fall far above the line used to determine "need." They must "pay full freight," which usually means taking out large student loans
Poor Americans get lots of grants.
"Poor" Americans don't get admitted to elite schools-- unless they're URMs. If they're URMs, they get huge grants.
I know a student who was admitted to MIT. He's an American citizen of Asian extraction. Asians are a "minority," but they're not an underrepresented minority, you see. Ergo, he was offered no scholarship and couldn't afford to attend.
The middle class gets a mixed bag in between.
There's the rub. That's the group I was talking about, and it is a very large group. Many of these students won't even apply to elite schools because no merit scholarships are offered to offset the huge tuitions.
Who loses? The elite schools. The vast numbers of meritorious "middle class" students go somewhere they can get an affordable education. Chances are, that "somewhere" offers a better education than the elite school anyway.
If you want a merit scholarship, there are plenty of private ones out there.
Yes, my children all went to college on private scholarships, including a National Merit scholarship. Elite schools offer little, usually nothing, to National Merit scholars.
When I went to Stanford in the early sixties tuition was around $400 a quarter, as I recall.
What is this belief out there that minority students go to college for free? I went to a top school and none of these huge grants came my way, for good reason- my parents made too much money. My sister and my cousins also are paying for college via parents/loans. All of us are black. I got a few scholarships based on my SAT score and that was it. In addition, a main criticism of Affirmative Action is that it primarily benefits middle to upper class blacks and Hispanics- and I have found this to be true. Few of those that I went to school with would have qualified under Stanford's free or low tuition plan.
I attended a top tier private school, my family's financial background at the time was lower middle class. About 75% of my tuition was covered by outright need based scholarship grant from the school.
Since I help with College Admissions interviews and college fairs for Carnegie Mellon, yes, I'm familiar with the form, and discuss it every year with students. Middle Class Americans do not qualify for federal grants for obvious reasons. However, the grants we are talking about here are payments by the college out of its endowment that act as forgiveness of tuition owed - essentially, the college says that the tution, instead of being, for example, $20,000, is going to be $9,000 for you.
For example, in my own case, in 1992 my parents made $95,000 (decidedly higher up in the middle class). The University decided that their total payment should be $7500, that I should take out some loans up to the normal limit, that I would get a National Merit Scholarship of $2000, and that CMU would cover the rest (on a cost of $22,000 for tuition, room, and board). In addition, I was given work-study money to pay for my books and incidentals, which of course required me to actually go and find a campus job and work in it (I was a deparment secretarial assistant for two years, then I became a lab assistant). When my brother started school, my financial aid grant was increased by $2000 per year (even though he was going for free through a tuition exchange program - parents still paid room and board).
"Poor" Americans don't get admitted to elite schools
A number of my friends were poor whites from central Pennsylvania, with families earning under $30,000 total. They certainly did get to CMU. I knew of others at Cornell, Penn, etc.
That's the group I was talking about, and it is a very large group. Many of these students won't even apply to elite schools because no merit scholarships are offered to offset the huge tuitions.
You have a total lack of understanding of the financial aid process for need-based financial aid. Apparently, you are looking to have students go to college for free. That isn't going to happen for middle class people without private scholarships. But you will get something. Quite a bit in fact if you are a typical middle class person.
The vast numbers of meritorious "middle class" students go somewhere they can get an affordable education.
Of course they do. The so-called elite schools of the country - perhaps the top 25-30, only offer perhaps 50,000 or so spots per year to a cohort of 4 million.
Chances are, that "somewhere" offers a better education than the elite school anyway.
Depends on the subject. You won't find better for engineering, science, journalism, business, etc. than the elite schools.
Yes, my children all went to college on private scholarships, including a National Merit scholarship. Elite schools offer little, usually nothing, to National Merit scholars.
Elite schools will offer NMS' if they really want the student. Its all about the pressure you apply to them, and the amount they really want you. However, the vast majority of their aid is need-based and meant to equalize the financial burden relative to one's ability to pay. Unless you are a really high earner (above $250,000 per year today, I'd say), you are going to get something. I hear this said every year at the College presentations for CMU makes around the country, and said in response to the same sort of questions from people such as yourself who don't understand the aid process and think that because they earn $125,000, they aren't going to get anything, despite not having that much left over after mortgage, food, cars, and clothes.
Good post.
I agree 100% but I go even further and say why give a free education to anyone, poor or not. I don't believe just because a person is poor they are entitled to something because they breathe. They can get a job and work their way through college. There are cheaper schools. I am disgusted by the sports programs too. They are nothing but a training/recruiting ground for pro-sports. Coaches at universities and colleges make waaaay too much money as well as the presidents etc. Tuition cost is just plain too high and rather than the school be contained by a budget they raise the price of tuition expecting the government to provide the loan programs for the students to go. They do receive federal money contrary to the comment up thread. If it weren't for student loans there would be few students then maybe the tuition would come down to fill their schools.
I don't think I specified State government. Private schools do receive government money. Student loans are federal money and private schools do receive it and count on it heavily when they put together the financial package. They also rely or used to rely on the student work program that is mix of federal money. If it weren't for that federal money they would not fill their colleges. Cut the federal loan program and schools might be forced to reduce tuition. How would kids go to college? Well, they would have to work their way through like it used to be. No frills, maybe commute from home, maybe pick a college close to home rather than a big 10 or expensive private college. That's life.
I worked my way through school with no loans and no money from the parents (did receive a small scholarship for work I did in jrROTC in high school). That said I don't see anything wrong with private schools reducing tuition for those who are poor but are advanced academically. Stanford isn't a slacker school, you could not pull down a job to pay for it and at the same time be able to excel.
Is a University free to give them its own money or charge them a lower price or not?
They can get a job and work their way through college.
Many do just that. However, that would be quie difficult at most private colleges today, unlike 40 years ago, when my parents did just that. Then you could earn the cost of your tuition in a summer job. I'm unaware of any summer jobs that pay $35,000. I am disgusted by the sports programs too. They are nothing but a training/recruiting ground for pro-sports. Coaches at universities and colleges make waaaay too much money as well as the presidents etc.
The football and basketball coaches are making money for the University as a whole. As to training/recruiting, this is true to an extent. In my mind, it justifies paying the student athletes a nominal amount, which would recognize what they really are.
Tuition cost is just plain too high and rather than the school be contained by a budget they raise the price of tuition expecting the government to provide the loan programs for the students to go.
Government loans don't come close to covering tuition, and have not risen in line with tuition. Most tuition increases have simply gone to soak those paying full freight.
They do receive federal money contrary to the comment up thread. If it weren't for student loans there would be few students then maybe the tuition would come down to fill their schools.
This is an oversimplification. Most of these schools are full, as a simple look at a large lecture hall or the waiting list for campus housing would show. The Federal money they receive is mostly in research grants, not student loan guarantees. Tuition alone would never cover the cost of these modern Universities, since they are not exclusively or even in some cases primarily vehicles for undergraduate learning. The biggest factor in cost though is the size of the administration of the school and deparments, not the salaries of the president or football coach.
Student Loans are not a real cost to the federal government. The Federal government guarantees them against default to provide low interest rates. The actual loans are made from State agencies accounts, as is obvious to anyone filling out the forms or paying them back.
They also rely or used to rely on the student work program that is mix of federal money.
This actually is a direct outflow, but it results in students working to earn their own keep, so I think it much better thant he grants and loans.
How would kids go to college? Well, they would have to work their way through like it used to be.
Many students work on their way through now, but I'd doubt they can get significantly more than $5,000-10,000 per year without ending up part time, and out of that they must pay the costs of working (clothes, car, lunch), as well as costs at school.
No frills, maybe commute from home, maybe pick a college close to home rather than a big 10 or expensive private college.
When my parents went to college in the 1960's, they worked their way through. Of course, tuition then was around $250 per year at UNC-Chapel Hill, and somewhere under $500 at Northwestern.
Its laughable to imagine that schooling is going to suddenly drop to 1/10th of its current cost, to bring it in line with the Consumer Price Index increase since the 1960's, while retaining its existing quality. Part of the distorting effects of inflation is that some things (those that are labor and raw material intensive) rise much higher in price than others. Even the cheapest Diocesean Catholic High Schools cost more than $3000 per year, and all they are doing is teaching full time to fairly large classes on a tiny campus. The notion that going to a school close to home is going to be cheaper is silly too - all colleges are quite expensive, whether they are elite private schools, or smaller second tier institutions, and the "close to home" school is not necessarily the smaller ones. Many people already commute from home and do similar make-do type of things.
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.