Racer's Lounge - Stanford offering FREE Tuition

STANFORD, Calif. - Stanford University, worried about losing talented students to sticker shock, is eliminating tuition for undergraduates from the some of the lowest-income families.


Under a new program announced Wednesday, students from families with annual incomes of less than $45,000 won't pay tuition. Those with incomes up to $60,000 will pay about $3,800, the school estimates.

"Students from low-income backgrounds are underrepresented at our nation's most selective institutions," said Richard Shaw, Stanford's dean of undergraduate admission and financial aid.

"Many families ... may be discouraged by the stated tuition, so we want to be more forceful with this new program in encouraging talented low-income students to consider Stanford," he said.

Stanford's undergraduate tuition for the next school year will be nearly $33,000. Add in other expenses, such as books and housing, and the cost averages about $47,000.

Stanford already provides strong financial aid. This year, students from families earning less than $45,000 paid an average $2,650, according to the university. The new program, starting for an estimated 1,100 current and new students this fall, is expected to cost the university $3 million in the first year.

Harvard and Princeton are among other elite universities with similar programs.

College costs have been rising fast nationwide. According to the latest survey from the College Board, a nonprofit association based in Washington, D.C., tuition and fees at four-year private institutions rose nearly 6 percent to $21,235 for the 2005-06 academic year from $20,045 in 2004-05, while costs at four-year public institutions went up more than 7 percent to $5,491 from $5,126.

I personally think that is rediculous. I do not understand why the children of successful parents should be punished because of their parents success and wealth; while those students of lower income families are reward with a nearly free education. As the child of parents who have done well for themselves I feel like I am getting the shaft because even though they are financially independent, they are only helping me out a little bit with school the rest is on me.

So out of two people with the same GPA and SAT scores and similar extra curricular activities why should one get preferential treatment?

JAmes

^^
It's tough enough on kids from low income families to do well in academics, let alone do well enough to consider attending an institution like Stanford. It is not "rediculous" for an elite college to help underprivileged youths.

The difference between the two students with similar academic backgrounds is that one can not afford to attend a great college but still has what it takes to be accepted. Should he be punished for being less fortunate?

It's ridiculous that people actually think programs like these are bad. America needs all the great minds it can find - regardles of economic class.

I personally think that is rediculous. I do not understand why the children of successful parents should be punished because of their parents success and wealth; while those students of lower income families are reward with a nearly free education. As the child of parents who have done well for themselves I feel like I am getting the shaft because even though they are financially independent, they are only helping me out a little bit with school the rest is on me.

So out of two people with the same GPA and SAT scores and similar extra curricular activities why should one get preferential treatment?

JAmes

amen to that...

I personally think that is rediculous. I do not understand why the children of successful parents should be punished because of their parents success and wealth; while those students of lower income families are reward with a nearly free education. As the child of parents who have done well for themselves I feel like I am getting the shaft because even though they are financially independent, they are only helping me out a little bit with school the rest is on me.

So out of two people with the same GPA and SAT scores and similar extra curricular activities why should one get preferential treatment?

JAmes


yeah i agree

Another example of how doing nothing will get you something.

Another example of how doing nothing will get you something.
Yes, because all of the hard work they did to be able to get into Stanford is the best example of doing nothing ive ever seen.

What a frickin tool.

Nothing is being said about preferential treatment being given to lower income students(i.e. lesser GPA's and SAT's score students being allowed in). They're still going to let the same number of students in. So if you have two students with the exact same qualifications where one can afford the tuition and the other wouldn't even be able to consider it normally due to financial reasons, with this program they would BOTH be able to attend. What this will do is probably raise their average GPA/SAT scores somewhat higher, and know "not as great" students who can afford the school are being exchanged for "great" students who couldn't normally afford that. I'm for it.

What I don't understand is why they don't find a nice medium between the outrageous tuition for the wealthy, and the huge cut they give to the lower income? If they can obviously get money from the gov. or private donors to "sponsor" the underpriviledged, why don't they make a medium and actually take the most qualified student The one that reguardless of their last name, city of origin, or the families income, actually hit the books instead of dicking around for four years in high school.

Yes, because all of the hard work they did to be able to get into Stanford is the best example of doing nothing ive ever seen.

What a frickin tool.


Obviously you feel only the student is the one to benefit. How about the parents that did nothing and will pay nothing.

Anyone going to college, will have to work to get there. That is not the point. The point of this was parents who worked their ass off to provide for their families and became successfull are getting the shaft once again. The lazy assed deadbeat parents are the ones getting something for nothing.

Sorry I wasn't clearer the first time. Didn't know someone like yourself would get your panties in such a bind.

I don't believe that kids are born intelligent, so the lower income family parents did do a very good job in providing for their family to the point that their children are intelligent enough to be accepted into a school like Stanford.

I wish Penn State gave me free tuition! lol

Anyone going to college, will have to work to get there. That is not the point. The point of this was parents who worked their ass off to provide for their families and became successfull are getting the shaft once again. The lazy assed deadbeat parents are the ones getting something for nothing.
First im curious how much money your parents made when it was time for you to go to college?

And as far as the parents who work their asses off to get where they are, kudos to them. But they should pay for their kids college, because they can. Im the product of a single parent who her entire life has made less that 35K a year. Try raising a child and caring for a family on that kind of money, its hard and money is tight. So why should i have to suffer becuase i worked my ass off through high school but was unfotunate enough to be born into my situation.

In this scenario someone does loose you are correct. Who should it be?

First im curious how much money your parents made when it was time for you to go to college?

And as far as the parents who work their asses off to get where they are, kudos to them. But they should pay for their kids college, because they can. Im the product of a single parent who her entire life has made less that 35K a year. Try raising a child and caring for a family on that kind of money, its hard and money is tight. So why should i have to suffer becuase i worked my ass off through high school but was unfotunate enough to be born into my situation.

In this scenario someone does loose you are correct. Who should it be?

I did not come from a rich family. Nor did I come from a poor family. I was lucky enough to have both my parents. They both have worked hard to get where they are today and everything they have was from the fruits of their labor.

If someone qualifies for college academically, nothing should keep them from going. With that being said, it shouldn't just be given to them either just as the story states. I never once said someone with money should be able to go free as well.

The reason you cannot continue to give handouts for nothing is it will create a state of dependancy. What would motivate someone to work hard for money if they know everything will be provided to them by social programs.

Not all, but most who go for free would not value their gift as much as someone who is in workstudy in undergrad and then a graduate assistant in grad school to be able to just attend. And by the way will be paying off school loans until they are in their 30's.

I don't disagree that someone from a situation with not much money shouldn't be given a bigger break. But it should not be FREE!!!!!!!

i also think it's ridiculous. i have an idea, if you're so poor but want to get into stanford, work hard and get a scholarship. but to have someone paying no tuition next to someone paying thousdands of dollars each semester, that makes no sense to me.

That is essentially what it is, a scholarship. Different scholarships have different requirements, this one just has financial requirements that must be met. If they don't keep up their grades they won't be at Stanford very long. They still have to buy books/housing.

There are thousands of kids on free rides sitting next to kids who pay full tuition. The one's getting free rides aren't always poor either.

Obviously you feel only the student is the one to benefit. How about the parents that did nothing and will pay nothing.

Anyone going to college, will have to work to get there. That is not the point. The point of this was parents who worked their ass off to provide for their families and became successfull are getting the shaft once again. The lazy assed deadbeat parents are the ones getting something for nothing.

That is quite an ignorant statment. How is this the kids fault? So you're saying a kid trying to better themselves by trying to get into a school should be shunned because their parents fucked up? That's ridiculous.

The reason you cannot continue to give handouts for nothing is it will create a state of dependancy. What would motivate someone to work hard for money if they know everything will be provided to them by social programs.

I completely agree with the above statement whole heartedly. Hell look at welfare and food stamps, i know of households where there are three adults all on 300-450 dollars a month for food stamps. i also have a cousin who manipulates the system so she can have all of the government assistance they give her(food stamps, section 8, etc.). She even went as far as to tell her employer she didnt want a raise they offered her becuase it would disqualify here for the above mentioned freebies.

Now as that was a little off-topic ill bring it back around by saying that wont happen here. Have you checked out the admission requirments for stanford, its unreal. So for a student to have worked through high school for four years and have the academics and overall package to be excepted into standford is an accoplishment in itself. Then once they get into stanford its not like they will be able to slack and have a "free ride" they will, Im sure, have to meet ongoing requirements to stay at the university. I really dont see how working hard for four years in high school, then getting a completely free ride to continue to work hard for another 4 years to get a degree at the college level is going to contribute to this individual being dependent upon anyone else.

These kids(the poor ones) have worked very very hard and all they want is someone to give them a break, Stanford can do it, and so they are.

I think this is a fantastic idea.
A planet with more educated people rather than less is one I'm in favor of.
I think the arguments of "earning" and "deserves" is one of pride, and pride has no place in my equation.
But that's just me.
DJ

I dont think the individuals that are doing nothing will be accepted into the program. Stanford, I'm sure, is hard enough to get into anyways given academics and such that those who busted their ass through HS and have the transcript to prove it, will be the ones accepted. I beleive if there is an individual out there that wants to learn hard enough then they should be able to.

That is quite an ignorant statment. How is this the kids fault? So you're saying a kid trying to better themselves by trying to get into a school should be shunned because their parents fucked up? That's ridiculous.


Did I ever say it was the kids fault for not living in a well to do family? If you will read my post without your head in your butt, I think they should have to pay something not nothing.

Do you even know what ignorant means?

To save you the trouble of looking it up, here it is:
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Since you completely missed my point in the posts and misstated what I said, you fit into #3.

Did I ever say it was the kids fault for not living in a well to do family? If you will read my post without your head in your butt, I think they should have to pay something not nothing.

Do you even know what ignorant means?

To save you the trouble of looking it up, here it is:
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

Since you completely missed my point in the posts and misstated what I said, you fit into #3.

No, you didn't specifically say it was the kids fault, but your argument saying this whole subject is nonsense because of "deadbeat" parents IS where your ignorance comes from (which would say you were in #3). What does the parent have anything to do with the said child paying for their education? Just because someone might have sleazeball parents, doesn't mean that child should be kept from furthering their education at a very well established institution.

From the way you have presented your argument, it seems that it's the parents fault because they didn't do good enough in their lives to provide the funds for their children to attend such an accredited school - so you're saying too bad kid, get your own money. This is NOT the childs fault, so why shouldn't the kid get cut a break?

No, you didn't specifically say it was the kids fault, but your argument saying this whole subject is nonsense because of "deadbeat" parents IS where your ignorance comes from (which would say you were in #3). What does the parent have anything to do with the said child paying for their education? Just because someone might have sleazeball parents, doesn't mean that child should be kept from furthering their education at a very well established institution.

From the way you have presented your argument, it seems that it's the parents fault because they didn't do good enough in their lives to provide the funds for their children to attend such an accredited school - so you're saying too bad kid, get your own money. This is NOT the childs fault, so why shouldn't the kid get cut a break?

When did I ever say they shoudn't get something off. I said it shouldn't be 100% FREE. Will you ever get that through your thick skull?

With your reasoning, why quit at free education at Stanford? They can't help it they have no money from their folks. Lets give them a car b/c they have to get around campus don't they? Throw in free gas too. How about some nice clothes b/c we can't have them going around in rags can we? How about some spending money. Can't have them couped up in that dorm room all the time and we have to let them go out and experience college life don't we. While we are at lets give them a laptop too. And on and on and on.....where does it end?

With your kind of logic, that is what it leads to.

Um, no. It's called giving someone who is strong-willed and intelligent and opportunity to do something with their lives and possibly something for the better whole of society.

You are seemingly taking this quite personally. Are you bittered by this for some reason?

When did I ever say they shoudn't get something off. I said it shouldn't be 100% FREE. Will you ever get that through your thick skull?

With your reasoning, why quit at free education at Stanford? They can't help it they have no money from their folks. Lets give them a car b/c they have to get around campus don't they? Throw in free gas too. How about some nice clothes b/c we can't have them going around in rags can we? How about some spending money. Can't have them couped up in that dorm room all the time and we have to let them go out and experience college life don't we. While we are at lets give them a laptop too. And on and on and on.....where does it end?

With your kind of logic, that is what it leads to.
What you just described is the treatment for special athletic scholarships to a tee.......

I personally think that is rediculous. I do not understand why the children of successful parents should be punished because of their parents success and wealth; while those students of lower income families are reward with a nearly free education. As the child of parents who have done well for themselves I feel like I am getting the shaft because even though they are financially independent, they are only helping me out a little bit with school the rest is on me.

I'm in this situation as well. When I was checking on loans, grants, scholarships, all that crap...I wasn't elegible for anything other than the usual loans based on my parents income.

It sucks but I'm not bitter, they need the money more than me anyway. If I fail out of school I'll be playing George Costanza and living the good life at my parents house...if they fail out they're in a dead end forever.