[yvonne]

Raised from the previous ceiling of $100,000

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/febru...21213.html

[yvonne]

Raised from the previous ceiling of $100,000

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/febru...21213.html

[Langdude]

Wow. That is fantastic. I hope that this will put to rest the awful rumor that only rich kids can afford Stanford. I know that I came from a lower-middle class background and I was able to somehow make it through.

Though, to be fair, wealthier kids are afforded some benefits that help them get admitted, though I am sure that is taken into account by the admissions committee. I am currently chair of my department's graduate admissions committee, and admissions folks have to balance about 50 variables in constructing an entering cohort.

-m.

[Langdude]

Wow. That is fantastic. I hope that this will put to rest the awful rumor that only rich kids can afford Stanford. I know that I came from a lower-middle class background and I was able to somehow make it through.

Though, to be fair, wealthier kids are afforded some benefits that help them get admitted, though I am sure that is taken into account by the admissions committee. I am currently chair of my department's graduate admissions committee, and admissions folks have to balance about 50 variables in constructing an entering cohort.

-m.

[Farm93]

$125,000 is a healthy bit above the USA median household income.

Bay Area median household income is much closer to that number, but still below $125K based on recent articles in the media.  Nice to know that Stanford is simply a much better deal than UCB for families with income below $125K.  Often with aid, Stanford is better for a significant group above that number too.  Sadly that narrative that Stanford is too expensive for lower income families still discourages many from applying.  Sigh...

The 5.046% admit rate was not highlighted, but that should leave Stanford as most selective again.  Harvard should come in at 5.3% based on their self reported total number of applications a few weeks ago.

Really amazed to see that Vanderbilt now is below that 10% admit rate too.  I guess the world of applications has changed a lot since the increases in applications at these selective schools over the last 5-10 years is far greater than the demographic growth in the USA.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/edu.../70399716/

[Farm93]

$125,000 is a healthy bit above the USA median household income.

Bay Area median household income is much closer to that number, but still below $125K based on recent articles in the media.  Nice to know that Stanford is simply a much better deal than UCB for families with income below $125K.  Often with aid, Stanford is better for a significant group above that number too.  Sadly that narrative that Stanford is too expensive for lower income families still discourages many from applying.  Sigh...

The 5.046% admit rate was not highlighted, but that should leave Stanford as most selective again.  Harvard should come in at 5.3% based on their self reported total number of applications a few weeks ago.

Really amazed to see that Vanderbilt now is below that 10% admit rate too.  I guess the world of applications has changed a lot since the increases in applications at these selective schools over the last 5-10 years is far greater than the demographic growth in the USA.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/edu.../70399716/

[CowboyIndian]

My understanding (and I can't source it) has been that undergrads who came from families with incomes under 60K paid nothing at all...no room & board, no books, no nada.

To me, that is a much better use of the endowment than tearing up campus and squeezing another building in...just because the land is there.

[CowboyIndian]

My understanding (and I can't source it) has been that undergrads who came from families with incomes under 60K paid nothing at all...no room & board, no books, no nada.

To me, that is a much better use of the endowment than tearing up campus and squeezing another building in...just because the land is there.

[82lsju]

My understanding (and I can't source it) has been that undergrads who came from families with incomes under 60K paid nothing at all...no room & board, no books, no nada.

To me, that is a much better use of the endowment than tearing up campus and squeezing another building in...just because the land is there.

from the original link

Stanford will expect no parental contribution toward tuition from parents with annual incomes below $125,000 – previously $100,000 – and typical assets. And there will be zero parental contribution toward tuition, room or board for parents with annual incomes below $65,000 – previously $60,000 – and typical assets.

[82lsju]

My understanding (and I can't source it) has been that undergrads who came from families with incomes under 60K paid nothing at all...no room & board, no books, no nada.

To me, that is a much better use of the endowment than tearing up campus and squeezing another building in...just because the land is there.

from the original link

Stanford will expect no parental contribution toward tuition from parents with annual incomes below $125,000 – previously $100,000 – and typical assets. And there will be zero parental contribution toward tuition, room or board for parents with annual incomes below $65,000 – previously $60,000 – and typical assets.

[CornFed]

So if someone's child is excited to go to Stanford and they're making $150k, do you s'pose there are games folks play to hide income?  I would be shocked, actually, if there weren't.  And what are "typical assets"?  I would think this catagory works against parents from California and other states with greatly appreciated housing prices.

[CornFed]

So if someone's child is excited to go to Stanford and they're making $150k, do you s'pose there are games folks play to hide income?  I would be shocked, actually, if there weren't.  And what are "typical assets"?  I would think this catagory works against parents from California and other states with greatly appreciated housing prices.

[Farm93]

Stanford will expect no parental contribution toward tuition from parents with annual incomes below $125,000 – previously $100,000 – and typical assets. And there will be zero parental contribution toward tuition, room or board for parents with annual incomes below $65,000 – previously $60,000 – and typical assets.

The USA median household income is now around $52,000.  So $65k includes a large number of middle income families. Many in USA define middle class as the group between 75% and 200% of the median household income.  And that would imply that the entire USA middle class would fall into that $125K tuition free zone.  That's nice. 

No need to comment on Bay Area middle class realities. A household earning $40,000 in the SF Bay Area is unlikely to consider themselves middle class, and certainly will not have a traditional middle class standard of living.

[Farm93]

Stanford will expect no parental contribution toward tuition from parents with annual incomes below $125,000 – previously $100,000 – and typical assets. And there will be zero parental contribution toward tuition, room or board for parents with annual incomes below $65,000 – previously $60,000 – and typical assets.

The USA median household income is now around $52,000.  So $65k includes a large number of middle income families. Many in USA define middle class as the group between 75% and 200% of the median household income.  And that would imply that the entire USA middle class would fall into that $125K tuition free zone.  That's nice. 

No need to comment on Bay Area middle class realities. A household earning $40,000 in the SF Bay Area is unlikely to consider themselves middle class, and certainly will not have a traditional middle class standard of living.

[Farm93]

So if someone's child is excited to go to Stanford and they're making $150k, do you s'pose there are games folks play to hide income?  I would be shocked, actually, if there weren't.  And what are "typical assets"?  I would think this catagory works against parents from California and other states with greatly appreciated housing prices.

They would be preparing to hide income and assets anyway since they likely would want to get financial aid if their child attended other schools.  If I had a family friend at $145K with a child lucky enough to get into Stanford I would tell them to put every possible dollar into 401(k)s, IRAs, and anything else that could get their official income well below that $125,000 level.

Lots of games one can play.  And I am sure lots of people with real annual income well above $150,000 can play games to bring their official income down to $125,000 for three or four years.

[Farm93]

So if someone's child is excited to go to Stanford and they're making $150k, do you s'pose there are games folks play to hide income?  I would be shocked, actually, if there weren't.  And what are "typical assets"?  I would think this catagory works against parents from California and other states with greatly appreciated housing prices.

They would be preparing to hide income and assets anyway since they likely would want to get financial aid if their child attended other schools.  If I had a family friend at $145K with a child lucky enough to get into Stanford I would tell them to put every possible dollar into 401(k)s, IRAs, and anything else that could get their official income well below that $125,000 level.

Lots of games one can play.  And I am sure lots of people with real annual income well above $150,000 can play games to bring their official income down to $125,000 for three or four years.

[82lsju]

also from the original link

Currently, 77 percent of Stanford undergraduates leave the university at graduation with no student debt.

Families with incomes at higher levels, typically up to $225,000, may also qualify for financial assistance, especially if more than one family member is enrolled in college

[82lsju]

also from the original link

Currently, 77 percent of Stanford undergraduates leave the university at graduation with no student debt.

Families with incomes at higher levels, typically up to $225,000, may also qualify for financial assistance, especially if more than one family member is enrolled in college

[fullmetal]

I knew dormmates whose parents hid assets and ended up with financial aid packages more generous than mine.  It was all I could do to wonder.

[fullmetal]

I knew dormmates whose parents hid assets and ended up with financial aid packages more generous than mine.  It was all I could do to wonder.

[stupac2]

The "more than one family member enrolled in college" thing is key. My financial aid tripled after my brother went to college. I'm currently debt-free (well, until we finally get a house in this stupid housing market, then my debt will be lulzy), and there's no way that would be the case had I not had the younger brother.

[stupac2]

The "more than one family member enrolled in college" thing is key. My financial aid tripled after my brother went to college. I'm currently debt-free (well, until we finally get a house in this stupid housing market, then my debt will be lulzy), and there's no way that would be the case had I not had the younger brother.

[Papa John]

For comparisons, the University of California system (not just C.al) has had a similar plan for several years:

http://admission.universityofcalifornia....-and-gold/

The name of the program is unfortunate, but apparently each of the eight sibling undergraduate campuses have adopted some shade of C.al's school colors; this is clearly a form of microaggression, but I digress.

In a nutshell, if you are a California resident and your family makes less than $80k per annum, you don't pay tuition and fees at whatever UC undergraduate school you attend.

[Papa John]

For comparisons, the University of California system (not just C.al) has had a similar plan for several years:

http://admission.universityofcalifornia....-and-gold/

The name of the program is unfortunate, but apparently each of the eight sibling undergraduate campuses have adopted some shade of C.al's school colors; this is clearly a form of microaggression, but I digress.

In a nutshell, if you are a California resident and your family makes less than $80k per annum, you don't pay tuition and fees at whatever UC undergraduate school you attend.

[yvonne]

So, for people from families with household incomes of less than $65,000, it's cheaper to attend Stanford than c.al because those Stanford students don't have to pay for room and board. For those between $65,000 and $80,000, it's probably pretty comparable, and for those $80,001-$125,000, it's probably cheaper at Stanford. Only for those making more than $125,000 will there be a significant difference.

[yvonne]

So, for people from families with household incomes of less than $65,000, it's cheaper to attend Stanford than c.al because those Stanford students don't have to pay for room and board. For those between $65,000 and $80,000, it's probably pretty comparable, and for those $80,001-$125,000, it's probably cheaper at Stanford. Only for those making more than $125,000 will there be a significant difference.

[winflop]

Stanford has announced that anybody with family income under $125,000 goes to school tuition-free.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march...32715.html

This is why half of what I give to Stanford goes to the Stanford Fund.  Any kid who's that freakin accomplished should not have a financial barrier to attending.

[winflop]

Stanford has announced that anybody with family income under $125,000 goes to school tuition-free.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march...32715.html

This is why half of what I give to Stanford goes to the Stanford Fund.  Any kid who's that freakin accomplished should not have a financial barrier to attending.

[Farm93]

So, for people from families with household incomes of less than $65,000, it's cheaper to attend Stanford than c.al because those Stanford students don't have to pay for room and board. For those between $65,000 and $80,000, it's probably pretty comparable, and for those $80,001-$125,000, it's probably cheaper at Stanford. Only for those making more than $125,000 will there be a significant difference.

And don't forget those families need to be California citizens. Sorry out of state applicants.

[Farm93]

So, for people from families with household incomes of less than $65,000, it's cheaper to attend Stanford than c.al because those Stanford students don't have to pay for room and board. For those between $65,000 and $80,000, it's probably pretty comparable, and for those $80,001-$125,000, it's probably cheaper at Stanford. Only for those making more than $125,000 will there be a significant difference.

And don't forget those families need to be California citizens. Sorry out of state applicants.

[Treebound]

"Dont forget those families need to be California citizens."

And that is as it should be.  The UC system was built to educate the sons and daughters of CA and we pay taxes to fund it.  I have no issue.  When I applied, we too were a lower middle class CA family.  I applied to Stanford and UC Berkeley and the Stanford package was much more generous than what Cal could offer - not that a better package from UCB would have changed my decision. 

I hope you are right about better Financial Aid for families with 2 kids in college, as I'll be writing my first freshman tuition check to Stanford soon on my son's behalf.....prices have gone up!

[Treebound]

"Dont forget those families need to be California citizens."

And that is as it should be.  The UC system was built to educate the sons and daughters of CA and we pay taxes to fund it.  I have no issue.  When I applied, we too were a lower middle class CA family.  I applied to Stanford and UC Berkeley and the Stanford package was much more generous than what Cal could offer - not that a better package from UCB would have changed my decision. 

I hope you are right about better Financial Aid for families with 2 kids in college, as I'll be writing my first freshman tuition check to Stanford soon on my son's behalf.....prices have gone up!

[Farm93]

"Dont forget those families need to be California citizens."

And that is as it should be.  The UC system was built to educate the sons and daughters of CA and we pay taxes to fund it.  I have no issue.  When I applied, we too were a lower middle class CA family.  I applied to Stanford and UC Berkeley and the Stanford package was much more generous than what Low APR U could offer - not that a better package from UCB would have changed my decision. 

I hope you are right about better Financial Aid for families with 2 kids in college, as I'll be writing my first freshman tuition check to Stanford soon on my son's behalf.....prices have gone up!

Sure, yes on the benefits of in-state tuition, but for an out of California family considering UCX vs Stanford that similar cost window presented earlier is simply not applicable.

[Farm93]

"Dont forget those families need to be California citizens."

And that is as it should be.  The UC system was built to educate the sons and daughters of CA and we pay taxes to fund it.  I have no issue.  When I applied, we too were a lower middle class CA family.  I applied to Stanford and UC Berkeley and the Stanford package was much more generous than what Low APR U could offer - not that a better package from UCB would have changed my decision. 

I hope you are right about better Financial Aid for families with 2 kids in college, as I'll be writing my first freshman tuition check to Stanford soon on my son's behalf.....prices have gone up!

Sure, yes on the benefits of in-state tuition, but for an out of California family considering UCX vs Stanford that similar cost window presented earlier is simply not applicable.

[akCard]

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.

[akCard]

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.

[dabigv13]

Read that article last week. Bunch of garbage. The author came into it with his conclusions decided and didn't even really try to massage the data to fit his viewpoint.

[dabigv13]

Read that article last week. Bunch of garbage. The author came into it with his conclusions decided and didn't even really try to massage the data to fit his viewpoint.

[BostonCard]

Did anyone else notice this irony?

JAMES S. MURPHY is a freelance writer based in Boston and a tutoring manager for the Princeton Review.

BC

[BostonCard]

Did anyone else notice this irony?

JAMES S. MURPHY is a freelance writer based in Boston and a tutoring manager for the Princeton Review.

BC