[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

And what does that correspond to for the incoming class? I'm guessing 15th and 5th percentiles.
[/quote]

Based on this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/), dating back a few years to when the thresholds had been $60,000 and $100,000, the numbers were the 18th and 30th percentiles (as of the article, the no tuition or room/board threshold had increased from $60,000 to $65,000, but the historical data would have been with $60K and $100K.  I would venture that $65/$125 would place the percentiles at 20th and <40th.

That strikes me as about right.  A majority of my classmates I remember at Stanford came from upper middle class families, but a fair number did not.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

And what does that correspond to for the incoming class? I'm guessing 15th and 5th percentiles.
[/quote]

Based on this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/), dating back a few years to when the thresholds had been $60,000 and $100,000, the numbers were the 18th and 30th percentiles (as of the article, the no tuition or room/board threshold had increased from $60,000 to $65,000, but the historical data would have been with $60K and $100K.  I would venture that $65/$125 would place the percentiles at 20th and <40th.

That strikes me as about right.  A majority of my classmates I remember at Stanford came from upper middle class families, but a fair number did not.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

And what does that correspond to for the incoming class? I'm guessing 15th and 5th percentiles.
[/quote]

Based on this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/), dating back a few years to when the thresholds had been $60,000 and $100,000, the numbers were the 18th and 30th percentiles (as of the article, the no tuition or room/board threshold had increased from $60,000 to $65,000, but the historical data would have been with $60K and $100K.  I would venture that $65/$125 would place the percentiles at 20th and <40th.

That strikes me as about right.  A majority of my classmates I remember at Stanford came from upper middle class families, but a fair number did not.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

And what does that correspond to for the incoming class? I'm guessing 15th and 5th percentiles.
[/quote]

Based on this article (https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/), dating back a few years to when the thresholds had been $60,000 and $100,000, the numbers were the 18th and 30th percentiles (as of the article, the no tuition or room/board threshold had increased from $60,000 to $65,000, but the historical data would have been with $60K and $100K.  I would venture that $65/$125 would place the percentiles at 20th and <40th.

That strikes me as about right.  A majority of my classmates I remember at Stanford came from upper middle class families, but a fair number did not.

BC

[Mick]

Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?

[Mick]

Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?

[Mick]

Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?

[Mick]

Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?

[CTcard]

From the press release: "Other gifts provided support for student financial aid. In June 2017, 82 percent of undergraduate students graduated with zero student loan debt. Of the remaining students who did take out loans, the median amount of debt was $13,000 – less than half the national average. "

It misleads me into believing that 82% of all student educations are paid for by financial aid gifts, or that students have small student loans, when in point of fact, middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations.

[quote author=g1313 link=topic=18685.msg223316#msg223316 date=1517989610]
What is it misleading you into believing?

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18685.msg223304#msg223304 date=1517968991]
[quote author=JustAnotherFan link=topic=18685.msg223234#msg223234 date=1517935883]
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.

The other reason it's misleading is that while the students may not graduate with debt, their parents certainly do.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

I agree there is at least a slight misleading nature to an implication that donations that end up as financial aid create the 82% who graduate without debt. Obviously, financial aid is a significant part of that, but as others have noted, wealthy families not needing loans is also a part.

On who gets the loans, I don't think the release is overly misleading; at least taken at face value.
It is true that they are probably talking about students with official student loans of one type or another, which Stanford has to verify that they are students and thus has the relevant information. If parents are getting loans on their own through other means, Stanford has no way of tracking that.

But they do seem to be giving the median of those with loans, not the median of all students (which presumably would be zero). And they are comparing to national figures which track the same information. So, it would seem to be an appropriate comparison.

From what I remember, that would seem to be a far larger percentage of students without loans than when I was there - and a far lower median loan size (adjusted for inflation). Though it may be that I tended to hang out with plebeians.

[CTcard]

From the press release: "Other gifts provided support for student financial aid. In June 2017, 82 percent of undergraduate students graduated with zero student loan debt. Of the remaining students who did take out loans, the median amount of debt was $13,000 – less than half the national average. "

It misleads me into believing that 82% of all student educations are paid for by financial aid gifts, or that students have small student loans, when in point of fact, middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations.

[quote author=g1313 link=topic=18685.msg223316#msg223316 date=1517989610]
What is it misleading you into believing?

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18685.msg223304#msg223304 date=1517968991]
[quote author=JustAnotherFan link=topic=18685.msg223234#msg223234 date=1517935883]
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.

The other reason it's misleading is that while the students may not graduate with debt, their parents certainly do.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

I agree there is at least a slight misleading nature to an implication that donations that end up as financial aid create the 82% who graduate without debt. Obviously, financial aid is a significant part of that, but as others have noted, wealthy families not needing loans is also a part.

On who gets the loans, I don't think the release is overly misleading; at least taken at face value.
It is true that they are probably talking about students with official student loans of one type or another, which Stanford has to verify that they are students and thus has the relevant information. If parents are getting loans on their own through other means, Stanford has no way of tracking that.

But they do seem to be giving the median of those with loans, not the median of all students (which presumably would be zero). And they are comparing to national figures which track the same information. So, it would seem to be an appropriate comparison.

From what I remember, that would seem to be a far larger percentage of students without loans than when I was there - and a far lower median loan size (adjusted for inflation). Though it may be that I tended to hang out with plebeians.

[CTcard]

From the press release: "Other gifts provided support for student financial aid. In June 2017, 82 percent of undergraduate students graduated with zero student loan debt. Of the remaining students who did take out loans, the median amount of debt was $13,000 – less than half the national average. "

It misleads me into believing that 82% of all student educations are paid for by financial aid gifts, or that students have small student loans, when in point of fact, middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations.

[quote author=g1313 link=topic=18685.msg223316#msg223316 date=1517989610]
What is it misleading you into believing?

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18685.msg223304#msg223304 date=1517968991]
[quote author=JustAnotherFan link=topic=18685.msg223234#msg223234 date=1517935883]
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.

The other reason it's misleading is that while the students may not graduate with debt, their parents certainly do.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

I agree there is at least a slight misleading nature to an implication that donations that end up as financial aid create the 82% who graduate without debt. Obviously, financial aid is a significant part of that, but as others have noted, wealthy families not needing loans is also a part.

On who gets the loans, I don't think the release is overly misleading; at least taken at face value.
It is true that they are probably talking about students with official student loans of one type or another, which Stanford has to verify that they are students and thus has the relevant information. If parents are getting loans on their own through other means, Stanford has no way of tracking that.

But they do seem to be giving the median of those with loans, not the median of all students (which presumably would be zero). And they are comparing to national figures which track the same information. So, it would seem to be an appropriate comparison.

From what I remember, that would seem to be a far larger percentage of students without loans than when I was there - and a far lower median loan size (adjusted for inflation). Though it may be that I tended to hang out with plebeians.

[CTcard]

From the press release: "Other gifts provided support for student financial aid. In June 2017, 82 percent of undergraduate students graduated with zero student loan debt. Of the remaining students who did take out loans, the median amount of debt was $13,000 – less than half the national average. "

It misleads me into believing that 82% of all student educations are paid for by financial aid gifts, or that students have small student loans, when in point of fact, middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations.

[quote author=g1313 link=topic=18685.msg223316#msg223316 date=1517989610]
What is it misleading you into believing?

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18685.msg223304#msg223304 date=1517968991]
[quote author=JustAnotherFan link=topic=18685.msg223234#msg223234 date=1517935883]
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.

The other reason it's misleading is that while the students may not graduate with debt, their parents certainly do.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

I agree there is at least a slight misleading nature to an implication that donations that end up as financial aid create the 82% who graduate without debt. Obviously, financial aid is a significant part of that, but as others have noted, wealthy families not needing loans is also a part.

On who gets the loans, I don't think the release is overly misleading; at least taken at face value.
It is true that they are probably talking about students with official student loans of one type or another, which Stanford has to verify that they are students and thus has the relevant information. If parents are getting loans on their own through other means, Stanford has no way of tracking that.

But they do seem to be giving the median of those with loans, not the median of all students (which presumably would be zero). And they are comparing to national figures which track the same information. So, it would seem to be an appropriate comparison.

From what I remember, that would seem to be a far larger percentage of students without loans than when I was there - and a far lower median loan size (adjusted for inflation). Though it may be that I tended to hang out with plebeians.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?
[/quote]

Because the majority of Stanford students come from outside the Bay Area, and we are talking about the family household income.  62% of students come from outside California, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to compare a student coming from Texas to The COL of Palo Alto.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?
[/quote]

Because the majority of Stanford students come from outside the Bay Area, and we are talking about the family household income.  62% of students come from outside California, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to compare a student coming from Texas to The COL of Palo Alto.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?
[/quote]

Because the majority of Stanford students come from outside the Bay Area, and we are talking about the family household income.  62% of students come from outside California, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to compare a student coming from Texas to The COL of Palo Alto.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?
[/quote]

Because the majority of Stanford students come from outside the Bay Area, and we are talking about the family household income.  62% of students come from outside California, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to compare a student coming from Texas to The COL of Palo Alto.

BC

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18685.msg223388#msg223388 date=1518043203]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?
[/quote]

Because the majority of Stanford students come from outside the Bay Area, and we are talking about the family household income.  62% of students come from outside California, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to compare a student coming from Texas to The COL of Palo Alto.

BC
[/quote]

Fair enough, 38% come from California.  I imagine a fairly high percentage come from other relatively expensive areas in the country.  NY, CT, NJ, TX, PA, even rat-faced old MI has their share of pricy areas.

This article lends some insights:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18685.msg223388#msg223388 date=1518043203]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?
[/quote]

Because the majority of Stanford students come from outside the Bay Area, and we are talking about the family household income.  62% of students come from outside California, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to compare a student coming from Texas to The COL of Palo Alto.

BC
[/quote]

Fair enough, 38% come from California.  I imagine a fairly high percentage come from other relatively expensive areas in the country.  NY, CT, NJ, TX, PA, even rat-faced old MI has their share of pricy areas.

This article lends some insights:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18685.msg223388#msg223388 date=1518043203]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?
[/quote]

Because the majority of Stanford students come from outside the Bay Area, and we are talking about the family household income.  62% of students come from outside California, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to compare a student coming from Texas to The COL of Palo Alto.

BC
[/quote]

Fair enough, 38% come from California.  I imagine a fairly high percentage come from other relatively expensive areas in the country.  NY, CT, NJ, TX, PA, even rat-faced old MI has their share of pricy areas.

This article lends some insights:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=18685.msg223388#msg223388 date=1518043203]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=18685.msg223349#msg223349 date=1518026243]
Stanford does not charge tuition to families making under $125,000 and does not charge tuition or room and board to families making under $65,000.  That corresponds to the 82nd and 58th percentile of household income, respectively.

It's probably fair to rephrase your statement as "upper middle class parents borrow an inordinate amount of money to pay for these educations."

BC

You're using national figures.  What if you normalize for COL for Stanford/Ivy attendees?
[/quote]

Because the majority of Stanford students come from outside the Bay Area, and we are talking about the family household income.  62% of students come from outside California, and it wouldn’t be appropriate to compare a student coming from Texas to The COL of Palo Alto.

BC
[/quote]

Fair enough, 38% come from California.  I imagine a fairly high percentage come from other relatively expensive areas in the country.  NY, CT, NJ, TX, PA, even rat-faced old MI has their share of pricy areas.

This article lends some insights:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/

[CTcard]

Fair enough, 38% come from California.  I imagine a fairly high percentage come from other relatively expensive areas in the country.  NY, CT, NJ, TX, PA, even rat-faced old MI has their share of pricy areas.

This article lends some insights:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/

That article is along the lines of many in recent years that led me to write, in my original post above, that many are complaining that Stanford and similar schools "have admissions policies that don't allow many needy students in - thus effectively negating the generous aid policies."

As far as I can tell that article is not arguing that $100,000 annual income (or $125,000 - it jumps around between the two) should be considered less than middle class because Stanford students live in expensive areas. Rather the article implies that this level is so far above middle class that it is horrific that only 30% of Stanford students fall below it.



---------------------------
Not exactly on point here, but I have to say the style and structure of that article irritates me somewhat.

What bothers me is summed up in one sentence.

Like other elite schools on the The Times' list, it is more economically diverse than it was a decade ago, but it is hardly as diverse as it could or should be.

Everything in that sentence might be true, and I probably tend to agree with the premise, but that sentence includes a whole lot of context and assumptions that are simply never examined.

- how much more economically diverse have the elite private universities become, and is that cause for at least passing approval?
- how much more diverse could it be? how would it get there?
- how diverse should it be? who decides?


I'm not looking for a discussion of the answers to those questions here, that would likely veer into the banned political arena. I am chastising the author for raising them in such an off-hand way, ignoring them as being worthy of discussion.

Of course later on he reveals why. The author isn't really chastising Stanford or other private universities for their admissions or financial aid policies. That's just a hook for getting people (like us?) to read.

When he gets to the part of suggesting action/remedy, he suggests one thing that the schools already do and then gets to what appears to be his real point,

Better yet, it seems that federal and state governments could also do a better job in their efforts to improve all kids’ learning experiences

Which is almost certainly true, at this generic level amounts to promoting Moms and apple pie, and has nothing to do with Stanford or Ivies.

[CTcard]

Fair enough, 38% come from California.  I imagine a fairly high percentage come from other relatively expensive areas in the country.  NY, CT, NJ, TX, PA, even rat-faced old MI has their share of pricy areas.

This article lends some insights:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/

That article is along the lines of many in recent years that led me to write, in my original post above, that many are complaining that Stanford and similar schools "have admissions policies that don't allow many needy students in - thus effectively negating the generous aid policies."

As far as I can tell that article is not arguing that $100,000 annual income (or $125,000 - it jumps around between the two) should be considered less than middle class because Stanford students live in expensive areas. Rather the article implies that this level is so far above middle class that it is horrific that only 30% of Stanford students fall below it.



---------------------------
Not exactly on point here, but I have to say the style and structure of that article irritates me somewhat.

What bothers me is summed up in one sentence.

Like other elite schools on the The Times' list, it is more economically diverse than it was a decade ago, but it is hardly as diverse as it could or should be.

Everything in that sentence might be true, and I probably tend to agree with the premise, but that sentence includes a whole lot of context and assumptions that are simply never examined.

- how much more economically diverse have the elite private universities become, and is that cause for at least passing approval?
- how much more diverse could it be? how would it get there?
- how diverse should it be? who decides?


I'm not looking for a discussion of the answers to those questions here, that would likely veer into the banned political arena. I am chastising the author for raising them in such an off-hand way, ignoring them as being worthy of discussion.

Of course later on he reveals why. The author isn't really chastising Stanford or other private universities for their admissions or financial aid policies. That's just a hook for getting people (like us?) to read.

When he gets to the part of suggesting action/remedy, he suggests one thing that the schools already do and then gets to what appears to be his real point,

Better yet, it seems that federal and state governments could also do a better job in their efforts to improve all kids’ learning experiences

Which is almost certainly true, at this generic level amounts to promoting Moms and apple pie, and has nothing to do with Stanford or Ivies.

[CTcard]

Fair enough, 38% come from California.  I imagine a fairly high percentage come from other relatively expensive areas in the country.  NY, CT, NJ, TX, PA, even rat-faced old MI has their share of pricy areas.

This article lends some insights:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/

That article is along the lines of many in recent years that led me to write, in my original post above, that many are complaining that Stanford and similar schools "have admissions policies that don't allow many needy students in - thus effectively negating the generous aid policies."

As far as I can tell that article is not arguing that $100,000 annual income (or $125,000 - it jumps around between the two) should be considered less than middle class because Stanford students live in expensive areas. Rather the article implies that this level is so far above middle class that it is horrific that only 30% of Stanford students fall below it.



---------------------------
Not exactly on point here, but I have to say the style and structure of that article irritates me somewhat.

What bothers me is summed up in one sentence.

Like other elite schools on the The Times' list, it is more economically diverse than it was a decade ago, but it is hardly as diverse as it could or should be.

Everything in that sentence might be true, and I probably tend to agree with the premise, but that sentence includes a whole lot of context and assumptions that are simply never examined.

- how much more economically diverse have the elite private universities become, and is that cause for at least passing approval?
- how much more diverse could it be? how would it get there?
- how diverse should it be? who decides?


I'm not looking for a discussion of the answers to those questions here, that would likely veer into the banned political arena. I am chastising the author for raising them in such an off-hand way, ignoring them as being worthy of discussion.

Of course later on he reveals why. The author isn't really chastising Stanford or other private universities for their admissions or financial aid policies. That's just a hook for getting people (like us?) to read.

When he gets to the part of suggesting action/remedy, he suggests one thing that the schools already do and then gets to what appears to be his real point,

Better yet, it seems that federal and state governments could also do a better job in their efforts to improve all kids’ learning experiences

Which is almost certainly true, at this generic level amounts to promoting Moms and apple pie, and has nothing to do with Stanford or Ivies.

[CTcard]

Fair enough, 38% come from California.  I imagine a fairly high percentage come from other relatively expensive areas in the country.  NY, CT, NJ, TX, PA, even rat-faced old MI has their share of pricy areas.

This article lends some insights:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar...ws/390090/

That article is along the lines of many in recent years that led me to write, in my original post above, that many are complaining that Stanford and similar schools "have admissions policies that don't allow many needy students in - thus effectively negating the generous aid policies."

As far as I can tell that article is not arguing that $100,000 annual income (or $125,000 - it jumps around between the two) should be considered less than middle class because Stanford students live in expensive areas. Rather the article implies that this level is so far above middle class that it is horrific that only 30% of Stanford students fall below it.



---------------------------
Not exactly on point here, but I have to say the style and structure of that article irritates me somewhat.

What bothers me is summed up in one sentence.

Like other elite schools on the The Times' list, it is more economically diverse than it was a decade ago, but it is hardly as diverse as it could or should be.

Everything in that sentence might be true, and I probably tend to agree with the premise, but that sentence includes a whole lot of context and assumptions that are simply never examined.

- how much more economically diverse have the elite private universities become, and is that cause for at least passing approval?
- how much more diverse could it be? how would it get there?
- how diverse should it be? who decides?


I'm not looking for a discussion of the answers to those questions here, that would likely veer into the banned political arena. I am chastising the author for raising them in such an off-hand way, ignoring them as being worthy of discussion.

Of course later on he reveals why. The author isn't really chastising Stanford or other private universities for their admissions or financial aid policies. That's just a hook for getting people (like us?) to read.

When he gets to the part of suggesting action/remedy, he suggests one thing that the schools already do and then gets to what appears to be his real point,

Better yet, it seems that federal and state governments could also do a better job in their efforts to improve all kids’ learning experiences

Which is almost certainly true, at this generic level amounts to promoting Moms and apple pie, and has nothing to do with Stanford or Ivies.

[BostonCard]

The other issue is that the complaint really amounts to Stanford not doing enough to overcome the barriers that lack of wealth impose.  Now, that is something that I agree with, but it is different from Stanford pursuing admissions policies "that don't allow needy students in".  That suggests that Stanford is pursuing policies to actively work against middle class and poor families. I would argue that while many of the admissions policies they do pursue indirectly disadvantage needy families (for example, AP classes are less available in poorer schools, and poorer students may not be able to afford to take the AP test), the purpose of those policies is not to exclude needy families.  The article makes it sound otherwise.

BC

[BostonCard]

The other issue is that the complaint really amounts to Stanford not doing enough to overcome the barriers that lack of wealth impose.  Now, that is something that I agree with, but it is different from Stanford pursuing admissions policies "that don't allow needy students in".  That suggests that Stanford is pursuing policies to actively work against middle class and poor families. I would argue that while many of the admissions policies they do pursue indirectly disadvantage needy families (for example, AP classes are less available in poorer schools, and poorer students may not be able to afford to take the AP test), the purpose of those policies is not to exclude needy families.  The article makes it sound otherwise.

BC

[BostonCard]

The other issue is that the complaint really amounts to Stanford not doing enough to overcome the barriers that lack of wealth impose.  Now, that is something that I agree with, but it is different from Stanford pursuing admissions policies "that don't allow needy students in".  That suggests that Stanford is pursuing policies to actively work against middle class and poor families. I would argue that while many of the admissions policies they do pursue indirectly disadvantage needy families (for example, AP classes are less available in poorer schools, and poorer students may not be able to afford to take the AP test), the purpose of those policies is not to exclude needy families.  The article makes it sound otherwise.

BC

[BostonCard]

The other issue is that the complaint really amounts to Stanford not doing enough to overcome the barriers that lack of wealth impose.  Now, that is something that I agree with, but it is different from Stanford pursuing admissions policies "that don't allow needy students in".  That suggests that Stanford is pursuing policies to actively work against middle class and poor families. I would argue that while many of the admissions policies they do pursue indirectly disadvantage needy families (for example, AP classes are less available in poorer schools, and poorer students may not be able to afford to take the AP test), the purpose of those policies is not to exclude needy families.  The article makes it sound otherwise.

BC

[82lsju]

Total undergraduate charges will increase to $67,117 next year, including $50,703 for tuition, $15,763 for room and board, and $651 for a mandatory health fee.

...

For current students on financial aid whose family financial circumstances have not changed dramatically, Stanford will cover the increase in tuition, room and board in 2018-19. The university expects to spend approximately $162 million in Stanford-funded need-based undergraduate financial aid in 2018-19, an increase of 5.4 percent.

...

Currently, undergraduate students who are awarded need-based aid receive an average scholarship of $44,894 from Stanford. Nearly half of Stanford undergraduates receive need-based aid from the university, and 67 percent receive some form of financial aid toward the cost of attendance from a variety of internal and external sources.

...

Over the last 10 years, the average “net price” of a Stanford undergraduate education, adjusted for inflation, has increased by 0.6 percent annually. The net price is the price that students pay, on average, after grants and scholarships are considered. Individual financial aid packages will vary depending on demonstrated financial need.

https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/14/tru...9-tuition/

[82lsju]

Total undergraduate charges will increase to $67,117 next year, including $50,703 for tuition, $15,763 for room and board, and $651 for a mandatory health fee.

...

For current students on financial aid whose family financial circumstances have not changed dramatically, Stanford will cover the increase in tuition, room and board in 2018-19. The university expects to spend approximately $162 million in Stanford-funded need-based undergraduate financial aid in 2018-19, an increase of 5.4 percent.

...

Currently, undergraduate students who are awarded need-based aid receive an average scholarship of $44,894 from Stanford. Nearly half of Stanford undergraduates receive need-based aid from the university, and 67 percent receive some form of financial aid toward the cost of attendance from a variety of internal and external sources.

...

Over the last 10 years, the average “net price” of a Stanford undergraduate education, adjusted for inflation, has increased by 0.6 percent annually. The net price is the price that students pay, on average, after grants and scholarships are considered. Individual financial aid packages will vary depending on demonstrated financial need.

https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/14/tru...9-tuition/

[Snorlax94]

At the risk of making a ”first-world problems white whine,” like the privileged wealthy kids who complain because their parents are “making” them travel to Paris over the summer, I have to say I find the current system of inflated tuitions to be a frustrating barrier for upper-middle class parents.

Even if a family had almost no income, to my understanding, parents are expected to contribute 10% of their net worth each year, or, if you have two kids 4+ years apart, you’re expected to contribute 57% of your lifetime savings to your children’s colleges (1-.9^8).

For some people, this may not be a problem. Some families’ wealth could be tied up in 401ks or pensions, which could be worth millions, but may not show up in parental contribution formulas. But for families where all of their wealth is considered cash-like, it’s a little disheartening to think possibly more than half of their lifetime savings (including
home equity) could go to tuition.

Maybe I’ll see the expected contributions won’t be as bad as I fear, or maybe by the time my kids go to college, we’ll be well-prepared for the expenses, but right now, the statistic that 82% of students graduating without any debt feels misleading, because it could mask parents taking out a second mortgage on their home (which my frosh roommate’s family had to do), or having to largely wipe out their retirement savings.

[Snorlax94]

At the risk of making a ”first-world problems white whine,” like the privileged wealthy kids who complain because their parents are “making” them travel to Paris over the summer, I have to say I find the current system of inflated tuitions to be a frustrating barrier for upper-middle class parents.

Even if a family had almost no income, to my understanding, parents are expected to contribute 10% of their net worth each year, or, if you have two kids 4+ years apart, you’re expected to contribute 57% of your lifetime savings to your children’s colleges (1-.9^8).

For some people, this may not be a problem. Some families’ wealth could be tied up in 401ks or pensions, which could be worth millions, but may not show up in parental contribution formulas. But for families where all of their wealth is considered cash-like, it’s a little disheartening to think possibly more than half of their lifetime savings (including
home equity) could go to tuition.

Maybe I’ll see the expected contributions won’t be as bad as I fear, or maybe by the time my kids go to college, we’ll be well-prepared for the expenses, but right now, the statistic that 82% of students graduating without any debt feels misleading, because it could mask parents taking out a second mortgage on their home (which my frosh roommate’s family had to do), or having to largely wipe out their retirement savings.

[BostonCard]

More broadly, there is an sour spot (the opposite of a sweet spot) where family income is high enough to not qualify for the tuition waivers or significant amounts of financial aid but not high enough that the parental contributions don't cause a lot of financial pain.

A kid with a family income of $150,000 - ~$500,000 (that is, the upper middle class kids you refer to) are going to feel it.  You hope that parents are putting money away in anticipation of the expenditures, but it can get ugly, especially if you have multiple kids in college at the same time.

BC

[BostonCard]

More broadly, there is an sour spot (the opposite of a sweet spot) where family income is high enough to not qualify for the tuition waivers or significant amounts of financial aid but not high enough that the parental contributions don't cause a lot of financial pain.

A kid with a family income of $150,000 - ~$500,000 (that is, the upper middle class kids you refer to) are going to feel it.  You hope that parents are putting money away in anticipation of the expenditures, but it can get ugly, especially if you have multiple kids in college at the same time.

BC

[Mick]

Or two kids who go to college eight consecutive years.

[Mick]

Or two kids who go to college eight consecutive years.

[Nan3cy]

A friend of my son's was accepted at Brown but decided to go to a UC instead. Her father had mega bucks but her parents had been divorced for many years and her relationship with her dad was not terribly strong. She had no chance at financial aid because of his money, but she didn't trust that he would help. She didn't want to worry every semester whether he would pony up, so she went to a school where she didn't need his money. I don't know if a system could be devised that would account for that sort of situation.

[Nan3cy]

A friend of my son's was accepted at Brown but decided to go to a UC instead. Her father had mega bucks but her parents had been divorced for many years and her relationship with her dad was not terribly strong. She had no chance at financial aid because of his money, but she didn't trust that he would help. She didn't want to worry every semester whether he would pony up, so she went to a school where she didn't need his money. I don't know if a system could be devised that would account for that sort of situation.

[gocard14]

Or in situations where the family has assets but is unwilling or unable to use them.

I put myself through med school with a little savings, some merit money, and a lot of debt because my family reasonably decided they had done more then enough in paying most of my way through undergrad, for which I’ll be forever grateful. Using a parents income to determine aid eligibility for a mature adult attending professional school seems silly to me.

[gocard14]

Or in situations where the family has assets but is unwilling or unable to use them.

I put myself through med school with a little savings, some merit money, and a lot of debt because my family reasonably decided they had done more then enough in paying most of my way through undergrad, for which I’ll be forever grateful. Using a parents income to determine aid eligibility for a mature adult attending professional school seems silly to me.