[socalstanfan1]

Someone found a downside to the widely-publicized, recent modifications Stanford made to its tuition waiver program

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/arc...ws/390090/

Maybe I came across this article at exactly the wrong time but the story just incensed me with its incorrect title (it's a waiver program, not a giveaway) and the highly dubious, specious, spurious logic pretzels that were used to come to the conclusion that waiving tuition (and possibly more) for economically-disadvantaged but highly qualified students is a bad, bad, bad thing to do.

From my perspective, the only real downside I can see to waiving tuition is ... WHYOHWHY wasn't this program around when I was at Stanford??? I left school with $30K in loans *and still didn't finish!* I know I shouldn't live life carrying around regrets but this is one I just cannot let go.

I was about to post this when it occurred to me that perhaps there *is* a downside to this program. I finally scored a nice outside scholarship for my last year at school, only to be surprised come tax time that I owed taxes on it because the IRS considered the scholarship money as income.

Have just read that article and just want to add a couple of points. The jist of the argument, as I read it, is: can we consider a family making $124,000 "economically disadvantaged"? Not that every family receiving a waiver makes that amount, of course, is at the top end of income-based waiver program, but I think this is the main issue. And I don't think the author considers programs to assist the disadvantaged a bad thing, (in fact, stating that the real problem is not the private schools, but the lack of adequate resources given to pubic schools at the K-12 level, resources which would help give more kids the opportunity to qualify for academically elite institutions) He even terms the goals of such waiver programs "noble" and notes the "generosity" of the institutions involved. I think the headline writer, to some degree, does a disservice to what I take to be the main point of the article: the need for better K-12 education generally.

And, as someone who is a product of the public K-12 system, the UC system, and who has taught at both a very elite private HS and a public university in Southern California, I understand that argument. Resources are so much better at private institutions, and families who can enroll their kids in such schools often can afford private tutors and extra SAT training courses for their children, and thus provide them a brobdingnagian advantage in meeting the increasingly stringent college standards. (Tough standards that I also support, given some of the poor basic skills I have seen in Freshman courses.) And, really, what responsible parent would NOT do that for their children if possible? Take the class animosity out of the argument: every school should be the quality of the private institutions, and really every parent should want that education for their children, regardless of socio-economic position.

Stanford, the Ivies, and even public systems like the UC, are doing what they can to make schools more affordable, as they should. And in no way should any of these schools be expected to lower their academic standards to address income equality issues in society; nothing good comes from that. But basically the problems being addressed in these problems are probably more than universities can, or should be expected to handle.

[socalstanfan1]

Someone found a downside to the widely-publicized, recent modifications Stanford made to its tuition waiver program

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/arc...ws/390090/

Maybe I came across this article at exactly the wrong time but the story just incensed me with its incorrect title (it's a waiver program, not a giveaway) and the highly dubious, specious, spurious logic pretzels that were used to come to the conclusion that waiving tuition (and possibly more) for economically-disadvantaged but highly qualified students is a bad, bad, bad thing to do.

From my perspective, the only real downside I can see to waiving tuition is ... WHYOHWHY wasn't this program around when I was at Stanford??? I left school with $30K in loans *and still didn't finish!* I know I shouldn't live life carrying around regrets but this is one I just cannot let go.

I was about to post this when it occurred to me that perhaps there *is* a downside to this program. I finally scored a nice outside scholarship for my last year at school, only to be surprised come tax time that I owed taxes on it because the IRS considered the scholarship money as income.

Have just read that article and just want to add a couple of points. The jist of the argument, as I read it, is: can we consider a family making $124,000 "economically disadvantaged"? Not that every family receiving a waiver makes that amount, of course, is at the top end of income-based waiver program, but I think this is the main issue. And I don't think the author considers programs to assist the disadvantaged a bad thing, (in fact, stating that the real problem is not the private schools, but the lack of adequate resources given to pubic schools at the K-12 level, resources which would help give more kids the opportunity to qualify for academically elite institutions) He even terms the goals of such waiver programs "noble" and notes the "generosity" of the institutions involved. I think the headline writer, to some degree, does a disservice to what I take to be the main point of the article: the need for better K-12 education generally.

And, as someone who is a product of the public K-12 system, the UC system, and who has taught at both a very elite private HS and a public university in Southern California, I understand that argument. Resources are so much better at private institutions, and families who can enroll their kids in such schools often can afford private tutors and extra SAT training courses for their children, and thus provide them a brobdingnagian advantage in meeting the increasingly stringent college standards. (Tough standards that I also support, given some of the poor basic skills I have seen in Freshman courses.) And, really, what responsible parent would NOT do that for their children if possible? Take the class animosity out of the argument: every school should be the quality of the private institutions, and really every parent should want that education for their children, regardless of socio-economic position.

Stanford, the Ivies, and even public systems like the UC, are doing what they can to make schools more affordable, as they should. And in no way should any of these schools be expected to lower their academic standards to address income equality issues in society; nothing good comes from that. But basically the problems being addressed in these problems are probably more than universities can, or should be expected to handle.