[82lsju]

Gifts to Stanford in 2016–17 provided $1.13 billion for financial aid, interdisciplinary research, faculty support and patient care. With donor support, the percentage of undergraduate students graduating debt-free rose to 82 percent.


https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/06/sta...g-results/

[82lsju]

Gifts to Stanford in 2016–17 provided $1.13 billion for financial aid, interdisciplinary research, faculty support and patient care. With donor support, the percentage of undergraduate students graduating debt-free rose to 82 percent.


https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/06/sta...g-results/

[82lsju]

Gifts to Stanford in 2016–17 provided $1.13 billion for financial aid, interdisciplinary research, faculty support and patient care. With donor support, the percentage of undergraduate students graduating debt-free rose to 82 percent.


https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/06/sta...g-results/

[82lsju]

Gifts to Stanford in 2016–17 provided $1.13 billion for financial aid, interdisciplinary research, faculty support and patient care. With donor support, the percentage of undergraduate students graduating debt-free rose to 82 percent.


https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/06/sta...g-results/

[JustAnotherFan]

Isn't that 82% number pretty misleading? Many of them are from affluent families who covered the full cost of attendance, as opposed to benefiting from a financial aid system that is one of the most generous in the nation to those of lesser means. I'm a brobdingnagian fan of how the undergrad helps make Stanford financially accessible to all accepted (domestic) candidates, but I do not like the 82% number being thrown out as an example of that because it is not.

Also, at least they are not giving the biggest financial aid rewards to those who need it the least (cough, cough, Business School).

Edit: How does 'I'm-a-h u g e-fan' turn into I am of exceedingly large proportions ...

[JustAnotherFan]

Isn't that 82% number pretty misleading? Many of them are from affluent families who covered the full cost of attendance, as opposed to benefiting from a financial aid system that is one of the most generous in the nation to those of lesser means. I'm a brobdingnagian fan of how the undergrad helps make Stanford financially accessible to all accepted (domestic) candidates, but I do not like the 82% number being thrown out as an example of that because it is not.

Also, at least they are not giving the biggest financial aid rewards to those who need it the least (cough, cough, Business School).

Edit: How does 'I'm-a-h u g e-fan' turn into I am of exceedingly large proportions ...

[JustAnotherFan]

Isn't that 82% number pretty misleading? Many of them are from affluent families who covered the full cost of attendance, as opposed to benefiting from a financial aid system that is one of the most generous in the nation to those of lesser means. I'm a brobdingnagian fan of how the undergrad helps make Stanford financially accessible to all accepted (domestic) candidates, but I do not like the 82% number being thrown out as an example of that because it is not.

Also, at least they are not giving the biggest financial aid rewards to those who need it the least (cough, cough, Business School).

Edit: How does 'I'm-a-h u g e-fan' turn into I am of exceedingly large proportions ...

[JustAnotherFan]

Isn't that 82% number pretty misleading? Many of them are from affluent families who covered the full cost of attendance, as opposed to benefiting from a financial aid system that is one of the most generous in the nation to those of lesser means. I'm a brobdingnagian fan of how the undergrad helps make Stanford financially accessible to all accepted (domestic) candidates, but I do not like the 82% number being thrown out as an example of that because it is not.

Also, at least they are not giving the biggest financial aid rewards to those who need it the least (cough, cough, Business School).

Edit: How does 'I'm-a-h u g e-fan' turn into I am of exceedingly large proportions ...

[BostonCard]

Hey JAF... welcome to the Bootleg.

The word h-ge is censored on this board.  It dates back to the 1999 Texas game, which some intrepid poster declared to be, well, you know, extremely big.  We proceeded to lose 69-17 in a game that wasn't that close.  And, it turned out the game was not very important, as we wound up going to the Rose Bowl regardless.

The ban was briefly lifted a couple of years ago, and promptly re-instituted when a poster deemed another game to be "h*ge", and we promptly lost.

In any case, it is just one of those quirks of this message board.  You will quickly expand your vocabulary and learn many synonyms for "extremely large".

You will notice several language enhancement features in this board, most notably around the names of many of our rivals.  Some people think its cute, some people hate it, most people recognize that it is what makes this board unique.

As for your complaint about the statistic cited, it is a good point.  That being said, it is a good rejoinder when people complain about the sticker price of tuition.

BC

[BostonCard]

Hey JAF... welcome to the Bootleg.

The word h-ge is censored on this board.  It dates back to the 1999 Texas game, which some intrepid poster declared to be, well, you know, extremely big.  We proceeded to lose 69-17 in a game that wasn't that close.  And, it turned out the game was not very important, as we wound up going to the Rose Bowl regardless.

The ban was briefly lifted a couple of years ago, and promptly re-instituted when a poster deemed another game to be "h*ge", and we promptly lost.

In any case, it is just one of those quirks of this message board.  You will quickly expand your vocabulary and learn many synonyms for "extremely large".

You will notice several language enhancement features in this board, most notably around the names of many of our rivals.  Some people think its cute, some people hate it, most people recognize that it is what makes this board unique.

As for your complaint about the statistic cited, it is a good point.  That being said, it is a good rejoinder when people complain about the sticker price of tuition.

BC

[BostonCard]

Hey JAF... welcome to the Bootleg.

The word h-ge is censored on this board.  It dates back to the 1999 Texas game, which some intrepid poster declared to be, well, you know, extremely big.  We proceeded to lose 69-17 in a game that wasn't that close.  And, it turned out the game was not very important, as we wound up going to the Rose Bowl regardless.

The ban was briefly lifted a couple of years ago, and promptly re-instituted when a poster deemed another game to be "h*ge", and we promptly lost.

In any case, it is just one of those quirks of this message board.  You will quickly expand your vocabulary and learn many synonyms for "extremely large".

You will notice several language enhancement features in this board, most notably around the names of many of our rivals.  Some people think its cute, some people hate it, most people recognize that it is what makes this board unique.

As for your complaint about the statistic cited, it is a good point.  That being said, it is a good rejoinder when people complain about the sticker price of tuition.

BC

[BostonCard]

Hey JAF... welcome to the Bootleg.

The word h-ge is censored on this board.  It dates back to the 1999 Texas game, which some intrepid poster declared to be, well, you know, extremely big.  We proceeded to lose 69-17 in a game that wasn't that close.  And, it turned out the game was not very important, as we wound up going to the Rose Bowl regardless.

The ban was briefly lifted a couple of years ago, and promptly re-instituted when a poster deemed another game to be "h*ge", and we promptly lost.

In any case, it is just one of those quirks of this message board.  You will quickly expand your vocabulary and learn many synonyms for "extremely large".

You will notice several language enhancement features in this board, most notably around the names of many of our rivals.  Some people think its cute, some people hate it, most people recognize that it is what makes this board unique.

As for your complaint about the statistic cited, it is a good point.  That being said, it is a good rejoinder when people complain about the sticker price of tuition.

BC

[82lsju]

Isn't that 82% number pretty misleading? Many of them are from affluent families who covered the full cost of attendance, as opposed to benefiting from a financial aid system that is one of the most generous in the nation to those of lesser means. I'm a of exceedingly large proportions fan of how the undergrad helps make Stanford financially accessible to all accepted (domestic) candidates, but I do not like the 82% number being thrown out as an example of that because it is not.

Also, at least they are not giving the biggest financial aid rewards to those who need it the least (cough, cough, Business School).

Edit: How does 'I'm-a-h u g e-fan' turn into I am of exceedingly large proportions ...

some data from the previous year (I tried pasting the entire table but is in not readable so here are some highlights)

- UNDERGRADUATE FINANCIAL AID 2015-16

Total students enrolled (4 qtrs)                                               6,870
Percent of students receiving some form of financial assistance     85%
Percent of students receiving any form of aid toward cost             67%
Percent of students receiving need-based scholarship from Stanford  47%
Percent of students receiving Pell Grants                                     16%

- CATEGORIES OF FINANCIAL AID, 2015-16

Scholarship Aid     $177,466,029  93.3%
Long-Term Loans        $6,902,375    3.6%
Term-Time Jobs         $5,862,465      3.1%



http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-facts

[82lsju]

Isn't that 82% number pretty misleading? Many of them are from affluent families who covered the full cost of attendance, as opposed to benefiting from a financial aid system that is one of the most generous in the nation to those of lesser means. I'm a of exceedingly large proportions fan of how the undergrad helps make Stanford financially accessible to all accepted (domestic) candidates, but I do not like the 82% number being thrown out as an example of that because it is not.

Also, at least they are not giving the biggest financial aid rewards to those who need it the least (cough, cough, Business School).

Edit: How does 'I'm-a-h u g e-fan' turn into I am of exceedingly large proportions ...

some data from the previous year (I tried pasting the entire table but is in not readable so here are some highlights)

- UNDERGRADUATE FINANCIAL AID 2015-16

Total students enrolled (4 qtrs)                                               6,870
Percent of students receiving some form of financial assistance     85%
Percent of students receiving any form of aid toward cost             67%
Percent of students receiving need-based scholarship from Stanford  47%
Percent of students receiving Pell Grants                                     16%

- CATEGORIES OF FINANCIAL AID, 2015-16

Scholarship Aid     $177,466,029  93.3%
Long-Term Loans        $6,902,375    3.6%
Term-Time Jobs         $5,862,465      3.1%



http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-facts

[82lsju]

Isn't that 82% number pretty misleading? Many of them are from affluent families who covered the full cost of attendance, as opposed to benefiting from a financial aid system that is one of the most generous in the nation to those of lesser means. I'm a of exceedingly large proportions fan of how the undergrad helps make Stanford financially accessible to all accepted (domestic) candidates, but I do not like the 82% number being thrown out as an example of that because it is not.

Also, at least they are not giving the biggest financial aid rewards to those who need it the least (cough, cough, Business School).

Edit: How does 'I'm-a-h u g e-fan' turn into I am of exceedingly large proportions ...

some data from the previous year (I tried pasting the entire table but is in not readable so here are some highlights)

- UNDERGRADUATE FINANCIAL AID 2015-16

Total students enrolled (4 qtrs)                                               6,870
Percent of students receiving some form of financial assistance     85%
Percent of students receiving any form of aid toward cost             67%
Percent of students receiving need-based scholarship from Stanford  47%
Percent of students receiving Pell Grants                                     16%

- CATEGORIES OF FINANCIAL AID, 2015-16

Scholarship Aid     $177,466,029  93.3%
Long-Term Loans        $6,902,375    3.6%
Term-Time Jobs         $5,862,465      3.1%



http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-facts

[82lsju]

Isn't that 82% number pretty misleading? Many of them are from affluent families who covered the full cost of attendance, as opposed to benefiting from a financial aid system that is one of the most generous in the nation to those of lesser means. I'm a of exceedingly large proportions fan of how the undergrad helps make Stanford financially accessible to all accepted (domestic) candidates, but I do not like the 82% number being thrown out as an example of that because it is not.

Also, at least they are not giving the biggest financial aid rewards to those who need it the least (cough, cough, Business School).

Edit: How does 'I'm-a-h u g e-fan' turn into I am of exceedingly large proportions ...

some data from the previous year (I tried pasting the entire table but is in not readable so here are some highlights)

- UNDERGRADUATE FINANCIAL AID 2015-16

Total students enrolled (4 qtrs)                                               6,870
Percent of students receiving some form of financial assistance     85%
Percent of students receiving any form of aid toward cost             67%
Percent of students receiving need-based scholarship from Stanford  47%
Percent of students receiving Pell Grants                                     16%

- CATEGORIES OF FINANCIAL AID, 2015-16

Scholarship Aid     $177,466,029  93.3%
Long-Term Loans        $6,902,375    3.6%
Term-Time Jobs         $5,862,465      3.1%



http://facts.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-facts

[BigEasyCard]

A recent analysis projects Stanford's liability for the new tax on endowment income at $40 million:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hit-to...2018-01-16

That's potentially a significant negative impact against a scholarship budget of $177 million annually.

[BigEasyCard]

A recent analysis projects Stanford's liability for the new tax on endowment income at $40 million:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hit-to...2018-01-16

That's potentially a significant negative impact against a scholarship budget of $177 million annually.

[BigEasyCard]

A recent analysis projects Stanford's liability for the new tax on endowment income at $40 million:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hit-to...2018-01-16

That's potentially a significant negative impact against a scholarship budget of $177 million annually.

[BigEasyCard]

A recent analysis projects Stanford's liability for the new tax on endowment income at $40 million:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hit-to...2018-01-16

That's potentially a significant negative impact against a scholarship budget of $177 million annually.

[82lsju]

A recent analysis projects Stanford's liability for the new tax on endowment income at $40 million:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hit-to...2018-01-16

That's potentially a significant negative impact against a scholarship budget of $177 million annually.

from Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Persis Drell

"We remain committed to providing the resources that preserve a strong financial aid program for our students, and that allow our community to make its best possible contribution to our world."

https://quadblog.stanford.edu/2017/12/20...-stanford/

[82lsju]

A recent analysis projects Stanford's liability for the new tax on endowment income at $40 million:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hit-to...2018-01-16

That's potentially a significant negative impact against a scholarship budget of $177 million annually.

from Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Persis Drell

"We remain committed to providing the resources that preserve a strong financial aid program for our students, and that allow our community to make its best possible contribution to our world."

https://quadblog.stanford.edu/2017/12/20...-stanford/

[82lsju]

A recent analysis projects Stanford's liability for the new tax on endowment income at $40 million:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hit-to...2018-01-16

That's potentially a significant negative impact against a scholarship budget of $177 million annually.

from Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Persis Drell

"We remain committed to providing the resources that preserve a strong financial aid program for our students, and that allow our community to make its best possible contribution to our world."

https://quadblog.stanford.edu/2017/12/20...-stanford/

[82lsju]

A recent analysis projects Stanford's liability for the new tax on endowment income at $40 million:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hit-to...2018-01-16

That's potentially a significant negative impact against a scholarship budget of $177 million annually.

from Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Persis Drell

"We remain committed to providing the resources that preserve a strong financial aid program for our students, and that allow our community to make its best possible contribution to our world."

https://quadblog.stanford.edu/2017/12/20...-stanford/

[JeffInCorvallis]

Isn't the whole college cost and financial aid business a bit of a game with some attempt at social engineering thrown in? Let's face it, if 85% of undergraduates are receiving some aid to attend college, you could accomplish the same thing by simply reducing the cost of college, making it more affordable for everyone. There are several reasons this is not done:

1. The prestige of being able to offer 5 and 6-figure scholarships to students with desirable characteristics such as high test scores and good grades. Not so much for Stanford but for universities trying to get to the next tier of respectability/ranking/reputation.

2. Social engineering - colleges want wealthy families to subsidize the not wealthy by paying full freight and lessening the burden for other families. Not a bad idea overall, but is this really the job of colleges in our society?

3. Student loans are big business. Companies that make loans make lots of money and in most cases you cannot default on student loans.

4. The sense that you get what you pay for. If the cost to attend College B is 50% that of Stanford/Harvard/MIT, it must somehow be an inferior education in some people's minds, whether that is really true or not.

[JeffInCorvallis]

Isn't the whole college cost and financial aid business a bit of a game with some attempt at social engineering thrown in? Let's face it, if 85% of undergraduates are receiving some aid to attend college, you could accomplish the same thing by simply reducing the cost of college, making it more affordable for everyone. There are several reasons this is not done:

1. The prestige of being able to offer 5 and 6-figure scholarships to students with desirable characteristics such as high test scores and good grades. Not so much for Stanford but for universities trying to get to the next tier of respectability/ranking/reputation.

2. Social engineering - colleges want wealthy families to subsidize the not wealthy by paying full freight and lessening the burden for other families. Not a bad idea overall, but is this really the job of colleges in our society?

3. Student loans are big business. Companies that make loans make lots of money and in most cases you cannot default on student loans.

4. The sense that you get what you pay for. If the cost to attend College B is 50% that of Stanford/Harvard/MIT, it must somehow be an inferior education in some people's minds, whether that is really true or not.

[JeffInCorvallis]

Isn't the whole college cost and financial aid business a bit of a game with some attempt at social engineering thrown in? Let's face it, if 85% of undergraduates are receiving some aid to attend college, you could accomplish the same thing by simply reducing the cost of college, making it more affordable for everyone. There are several reasons this is not done:

1. The prestige of being able to offer 5 and 6-figure scholarships to students with desirable characteristics such as high test scores and good grades. Not so much for Stanford but for universities trying to get to the next tier of respectability/ranking/reputation.

2. Social engineering - colleges want wealthy families to subsidize the not wealthy by paying full freight and lessening the burden for other families. Not a bad idea overall, but is this really the job of colleges in our society?

3. Student loans are big business. Companies that make loans make lots of money and in most cases you cannot default on student loans.

4. The sense that you get what you pay for. If the cost to attend College B is 50% that of Stanford/Harvard/MIT, it must somehow be an inferior education in some people's minds, whether that is really true or not.

[JeffInCorvallis]

Isn't the whole college cost and financial aid business a bit of a game with some attempt at social engineering thrown in? Let's face it, if 85% of undergraduates are receiving some aid to attend college, you could accomplish the same thing by simply reducing the cost of college, making it more affordable for everyone. There are several reasons this is not done:

1. The prestige of being able to offer 5 and 6-figure scholarships to students with desirable characteristics such as high test scores and good grades. Not so much for Stanford but for universities trying to get to the next tier of respectability/ranking/reputation.

2. Social engineering - colleges want wealthy families to subsidize the not wealthy by paying full freight and lessening the burden for other families. Not a bad idea overall, but is this really the job of colleges in our society?

3. Student loans are big business. Companies that make loans make lots of money and in most cases you cannot default on student loans.

4. The sense that you get what you pay for. If the cost to attend College B is 50% that of Stanford/Harvard/MIT, it must somehow be an inferior education in some people's minds, whether that is really true or not.

[Nan3cy]

You can't underestimate the "you get what you pay for" factor. I remember reading years ago that Harvard's endowment was so brobdingnagian that there was actually some consideration of making it tuition-free, but the idea was rejected on the grounds that if it were free, it would not be valued.

[Nan3cy]

You can't underestimate the "you get what you pay for" factor. I remember reading years ago that Harvard's endowment was so brobdingnagian that there was actually some consideration of making it tuition-free, but the idea was rejected on the grounds that if it were free, it would not be valued.

[Nan3cy]

You can't underestimate the "you get what you pay for" factor. I remember reading years ago that Harvard's endowment was so brobdingnagian that there was actually some consideration of making it tuition-free, but the idea was rejected on the grounds that if it were free, it would not be valued.

[Nan3cy]

You can't underestimate the "you get what you pay for" factor. I remember reading years ago that Harvard's endowment was so brobdingnagian that there was actually some consideration of making it tuition-free, but the idea was rejected on the grounds that if it were free, it would not be valued.

[CTcard]

2. Social engineering - colleges want wealthy families to subsidize the not wealthy by paying full freight and lessening the burden for other families. Not a bad idea overall, but is this really the job of colleges in our society?

This is by far the #1 reason for the high sticker price of tuition coupled to most student getting some, but highly varying, financial aid.

It's also the item universities get publicly beat up the most over. That's partly because many simply don't understand it, partly because many commentators don't think universities do enough of it,* and I am sure there are plenty of other reasons as well.
I have almost never seen commentary that they shouldn't do so at all.


In practical terms, all colleges do this kind of subsidizing but the degree does vary.
Traditionally, this happens directly at private schools as all of us who attended Stanford presumably know.
At public university the subsidizing was traditionally done via tax dollars which were coupled to low set tuition and very little financial aid. As states pull back from funding universities they have begun to move in the direction of private schools: higher nominal tuition and more financial aid to poorer students.


* For wealthy universities like Stanford, Harvard, et al., the current complaint that I have seen most often among those who generally understand the situation is that while sure Stanford provides generous aid for those who get admitted and need it, they have admissions policies that don't allow many needy students in - thus effectively negating the generous aid policies.


[The above is meant to be merely descriptive of the current situation. The intent is to not express any opinion of what university policies should be, in order to follow the board rules on veering into political discussions.]

[CTcard]

2. Social engineering - colleges want wealthy families to subsidize the not wealthy by paying full freight and lessening the burden for other families. Not a bad idea overall, but is this really the job of colleges in our society?

This is by far the #1 reason for the high sticker price of tuition coupled to most student getting some, but highly varying, financial aid.

It's also the item universities get publicly beat up the most over. That's partly because many simply don't understand it, partly because many commentators don't think universities do enough of it,* and I am sure there are plenty of other reasons as well.
I have almost never seen commentary that they shouldn't do so at all.


In practical terms, all colleges do this kind of subsidizing but the degree does vary.
Traditionally, this happens directly at private schools as all of us who attended Stanford presumably know.
At public university the subsidizing was traditionally done via tax dollars which were coupled to low set tuition and very little financial aid. As states pull back from funding universities they have begun to move in the direction of private schools: higher nominal tuition and more financial aid to poorer students.


* For wealthy universities like Stanford, Harvard, et al., the current complaint that I have seen most often among those who generally understand the situation is that while sure Stanford provides generous aid for those who get admitted and need it, they have admissions policies that don't allow many needy students in - thus effectively negating the generous aid policies.


[The above is meant to be merely descriptive of the current situation. The intent is to not express any opinion of what university policies should be, in order to follow the board rules on veering into political discussions.]

[CTcard]

2. Social engineering - colleges want wealthy families to subsidize the not wealthy by paying full freight and lessening the burden for other families. Not a bad idea overall, but is this really the job of colleges in our society?

This is by far the #1 reason for the high sticker price of tuition coupled to most student getting some, but highly varying, financial aid.

It's also the item universities get publicly beat up the most over. That's partly because many simply don't understand it, partly because many commentators don't think universities do enough of it,* and I am sure there are plenty of other reasons as well.
I have almost never seen commentary that they shouldn't do so at all.


In practical terms, all colleges do this kind of subsidizing but the degree does vary.
Traditionally, this happens directly at private schools as all of us who attended Stanford presumably know.
At public university the subsidizing was traditionally done via tax dollars which were coupled to low set tuition and very little financial aid. As states pull back from funding universities they have begun to move in the direction of private schools: higher nominal tuition and more financial aid to poorer students.


* For wealthy universities like Stanford, Harvard, et al., the current complaint that I have seen most often among those who generally understand the situation is that while sure Stanford provides generous aid for those who get admitted and need it, they have admissions policies that don't allow many needy students in - thus effectively negating the generous aid policies.


[The above is meant to be merely descriptive of the current situation. The intent is to not express any opinion of what university policies should be, in order to follow the board rules on veering into political discussions.]

[CTcard]

2. Social engineering - colleges want wealthy families to subsidize the not wealthy by paying full freight and lessening the burden for other families. Not a bad idea overall, but is this really the job of colleges in our society?

This is by far the #1 reason for the high sticker price of tuition coupled to most student getting some, but highly varying, financial aid.

It's also the item universities get publicly beat up the most over. That's partly because many simply don't understand it, partly because many commentators don't think universities do enough of it,* and I am sure there are plenty of other reasons as well.
I have almost never seen commentary that they shouldn't do so at all.


In practical terms, all colleges do this kind of subsidizing but the degree does vary.
Traditionally, this happens directly at private schools as all of us who attended Stanford presumably know.
At public university the subsidizing was traditionally done via tax dollars which were coupled to low set tuition and very little financial aid. As states pull back from funding universities they have begun to move in the direction of private schools: higher nominal tuition and more financial aid to poorer students.


* For wealthy universities like Stanford, Harvard, et al., the current complaint that I have seen most often among those who generally understand the situation is that while sure Stanford provides generous aid for those who get admitted and need it, they have admissions policies that don't allow many needy students in - thus effectively negating the generous aid policies.


[The above is meant to be merely descriptive of the current situation. The intent is to not express any opinion of what university policies should be, in order to follow the board rules on veering into political discussions.]

[82lsju]

In practical terms, all colleges do this kind of subsidizing but the degree does vary.
Traditionally, this happens directly at private schools as all of us who attended Stanford presumably know.
At public university the subsidizing was traditionally done via tax dollars which were coupled to low set tuition and very little financial aid. As states pull back from funding universities they have begun to move in the direction of private schools: higher nominal tuition and more financial aid to poorer students.

and many public law and business schools seem to have moved to the high list/high discount model as well.

I went to UCLA's business school in 1985-87, cost then was I about $1,500/quarter (inflation adjusted to about $3,350 today), last I looked the cost had increased to over $15,000/quarter

[82lsju]

In practical terms, all colleges do this kind of subsidizing but the degree does vary.
Traditionally, this happens directly at private schools as all of us who attended Stanford presumably know.
At public university the subsidizing was traditionally done via tax dollars which were coupled to low set tuition and very little financial aid. As states pull back from funding universities they have begun to move in the direction of private schools: higher nominal tuition and more financial aid to poorer students.

and many public law and business schools seem to have moved to the high list/high discount model as well.

I went to UCLA's business school in 1985-87, cost then was I about $1,500/quarter (inflation adjusted to about $3,350 today), last I looked the cost had increased to over $15,000/quarter

[82lsju]

In practical terms, all colleges do this kind of subsidizing but the degree does vary.
Traditionally, this happens directly at private schools as all of us who attended Stanford presumably know.
At public university the subsidizing was traditionally done via tax dollars which were coupled to low set tuition and very little financial aid. As states pull back from funding universities they have begun to move in the direction of private schools: higher nominal tuition and more financial aid to poorer students.

and many public law and business schools seem to have moved to the high list/high discount model as well.

I went to UCLA's business school in 1985-87, cost then was I about $1,500/quarter (inflation adjusted to about $3,350 today), last I looked the cost had increased to over $15,000/quarter

[82lsju]

In practical terms, all colleges do this kind of subsidizing but the degree does vary.
Traditionally, this happens directly at private schools as all of us who attended Stanford presumably know.
At public university the subsidizing was traditionally done via tax dollars which were coupled to low set tuition and very little financial aid. As states pull back from funding universities they have begun to move in the direction of private schools: higher nominal tuition and more financial aid to poorer students.

and many public law and business schools seem to have moved to the high list/high discount model as well.

I went to UCLA's business school in 1985-87, cost then was I about $1,500/quarter (inflation adjusted to about $3,350 today), last I looked the cost had increased to over $15,000/quarter