digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Stanford is free to students whose families make less than$$

sfgate.com — In a radical change to its financial aid program, Stanford University will announce today that it will no longer charge tuition to students whose families earn less than $100,000 a year. In addition, the university will waive room and board fees for students whose families earn less than $60,000 a year.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mudkiller, on 02/21/2008, -11/+82Bravo! Now if they could do something about that Tree mascot...
    http://www.stanford.edu/home/slideshow/pics/15_tre ...
    • oxdeltaxo, on 02/21/2008, -5/+10***** thats an ugly mascot.
      • nospinhere, on 02/21/2008, -2/+10....and those students will have to be in the top 1% of all applicants or they will get rejected.
      • CC440, on 02/21/2008, -4/+2So true, this makes the school sound great on paper, but good luck actually getting in once your parents tax returns are sent to them. Also I can't wait to see how this system gets corrupted, as I'm sure it will be several years before they start not accepting poor students, but it will eventualy happen.
        • xxpor, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4Wrong bucko... if you took the time to look at stanford.edu, you would have seen the announcement of this program. At the bottom it states:
          "Stanford remains one of the few private universities with a "need-blind" admission policy for U.S. citizens and permanent residents, which guarantees that students will be accepted to the university regardless of their ability to pay—and be offered the financial support they need to attend Stanford."
        • nreynolds, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1how do they say "few private universities with a 'need blind' admission policy"? I just applied to college this past year, and 10 out of 10 schools that I applied to were 'need-blind'.
    • raynar, on 02/21/2008, -11/+5So..its a welfare school for the "rich but only driving an Escalade" crowd?
    • jimjoke, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Good lord
    • oenoneablaze, on 02/21/2008, -1/+13i'm tired of repeating it, but we don't have a mascot. that's just something the Stanford Band created for fun.
      • Akaji, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Yeah, well the Stanford Band should be dragged out into the street and shot...
      • Outdoor83, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4If the rest of the country sees the tree as the mascot, then it's the mascot. Maybe not some "official" one, but when I see a goofy-ass tree with huge eyes, I think Stanford.
    • smurfsahoy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6Not an official mascot. They have try-outs every year, and somebody does something stupid enough to be voted the tree, then he/she constructs their own tree outfit themselves, usually with wire and cloth, and they go around with the scatter band. The university has nothing to do with it. The band also has a tank, and tends to dress up in clown/transformers/zamboni costumes.

      And the tree is frickin' awesome anyway. It's not quite at the level of the santa cruz banana slug, but it is a crapload better than most.
    • theotheragentm, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3I remember when UCB stole their mascot costume and they had to use some temporary tree costume that looked like a pot leaf. Best mascot costume ever.
    • kss42, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2You wouldn't say that if you saw what people do to wear that tree.
      http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/20/whiteP ...
      • ikrit2006, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1How did he get into Stanford? Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury which (last time I checked) wasn't a good idea to get into your blood stream.
  • Stupidumb, on 02/21/2008, -9/+849*****, my family makes 3 dollar signs.
    • beaunewcomb, on 02/21/2008, -48/+6hahah great comment dude.. i like it
      • SteveMax, on 02/21/2008, -1/+19They should come up with a way for people to show their appreciation for a given comment or story without needing to comment. Something like you "digg" what you like, and you "bury" what you don't.

        Someone, someday, will add a system like this to a social bookmarking site.
        • wordglue, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5I really like your comment dude, i totally agree.
        • samgab, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1I really like how you used irony there stickywords.
    • ziptnf, on 02/21/2008, -30/+11Smartass.
      • jemka, on 02/21/2008, -7/+3You need and secretly want us. Otherwise, who would make you laugh?
      • Uaedaien, on 02/21/2008, -2/+33Id rather be a smartass than a dumbass
        • ziptnf, on 02/21/2008, -9/+1Ba dum tssh.
        • headphonz, on 02/21/2008, -3/+2I manage to be both at the same time...or so my wife tells me.
        • snoopduggydugg, on 02/21/2008, -1/+8Yeah, your wife tells me about it too.
      • expatcatalyst, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Actually, in CA, making $$$ doesn't put you that far ahead of the game. Making $$ barely does.......:-(
    • ep53, on 02/21/2008, -18/+6The funny thing is, that here in the UK ( Hertfordshire, London area ) the average PRIVATE school is around £25,000 a Year which is about $50,000 times that by 2 (for multiple siblings). Also Private schools are very common here its not like the Elite few go, a good majority go. Schools near me range up to $70,000 a year per person. By looking at the fees at Stanford, they are relatively cheap in comparison....University seems cheaper than secondary school/
      • woohalladoobop, on 02/21/2008, -3/+8Nope, *****, there is absolutely no way you can try and tell me the 'average' private secondary school costs 25 grand a year, that is simply not true.
      • wellyuk, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3Err that's *****. A good majority go? A good majority of whom? I know a handful of people who have been to private school.
    • dengzhi, on 02/21/2008, -2/+7and sells them for $10 a piece? not bad
    • gerbco, on 02/21/2008, -2/+51Yeah what would really ***** suck is if your family made 105,000... Imagine that "ah you make 5k too much.. please give us 40,000 and your left arm... Love, Stanford"
      • godofpumpkins, on 02/21/2008, -4/+2I'd imagine you'd pay based on the difference :P
      • chinpo, on 02/21/2008, -0/+10That's almost exactly my situation. My family makes just above $100k, but I have 4 siblings so its not like we're even close to rich or anything :(
        • gerbco, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5Your must live in NY too! welcome to my world
          • chinpo, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Yup, you're right. Highest taxes in the country.
        • moshin, on 02/21/2008, -3/+5Yeah, you're not close to rich. However you are ALOT better off than many other people for whom going to a decent university is further away than a pipe dream. I appreciate the struggles your family endures, and also assure you its nothing compared to many MANY lower class familys with 5 kids and a single mother making 31k/yr

          • se1zure, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1they put themselves in that situation, so I have no sympathy.
          • DharmaTurtle, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Wow. Two facts, single mother and lots of children, and you lay down instant judgment.
            Is this how all people are? Painting someone with a paintbrush after knowing so little facts?
        • DharmaTurtle, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1My single mom has 3 kids and pulls 16k/yr. She's a teacher's aide, and loves it. She already put sent my older sister through college, now she's working on me.

          You'll get by.
          • DharmaTurtle, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1And for those of you who think we deserve it for having too many kids.... my father worked for Lucent Technologies as an engineer. He had a good job, but then was laid off in the dotcom bust and lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because of stock options. He's really depressed now and left her to raise us all on her lonesome. I could blame him for our financial situation, but he is my father...
            And anyway, the average is 2.5 kids. We're nothing out of the ordinary, except in the income department. My mother has already managed to buy a small little house without mortgage, and has zero credit card debt.

            So please don't tell me we deserve our financial stress.
      • theotheragentm, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1That's when you need to fake a divorce and have one parent!
      • tim710, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1you should only have to pay the amount that brings you down to 100k so if you make 105K you pay 5K
        • Akaji, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1And if you earn 300k you pay 200k. I like this idea; keeps the rich and wealthy kids from going to the good schools.
      • Outdoor83, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Easily fixable due to America's taxation laws. Just donate $5,000 to charity. Problem solved. You can do even better: if you have an old car that you'd like to upgrade but don't think it'll sell for much, donate it to charity. You get blue-book, which may or may not account for the fact that it smells like old vomit and wouldn't ever sell in the real world.

        You can sell stocks that you bought for $50 but have appreciated to $5,000. You get the $5,000 of write-off. Reading the "top 100 ways to lower your tax debt" type notices from tax companies makes for some really interesting stuff.
    • chamanbuga, on 02/21/2008, -7/+4that's f'ed. I pay $10,000 CAD (tuition and books) for University of Toronto engineering and I'm complaining because of the ridiculous tuition. You guys have it real bad... But then again, I pay $550 / month for lodging and $150 / month for food.
      • dued007, on 02/21/2008, -12/+6thats your problem
        University of Toronto Engineering

        haha
        • Cerpin_Taxt, on 02/21/2008, -2/+6UofT's faculty of Engineering is world renouned, and is an accomplished school without a doubt. The tuition is low because of heavy government funding. I believe international students pay and arm and a leg.
          • perfectsilence, on 02/21/2008, -2/+10"UofT's faculty of Engineering is world renouned"

            nobody outside of UofT think that.
          • Zygo, on 02/21/2008, -2/+4I've never heard about your school. Maybe it's well known in select circles but it's not a Stanford.
          • Scienceisfun, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4As much as I'm loathe to defend Toronto, the U of T is a fantastic school. I agree that it's no Stanford, but most rankings put it in the top 25 schools in the world. And I seriously doubt that undergrads at Stanford are getting $30,000/year better education than the undergrads in Toronto.
          • agaudet, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2LoL, just because you Americans are too ignorant to know what schools exist outside of your Police State does not mean that UoT is not a good school.
        • dibby1, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1I went to UofT for engineering and now have a great job so I would shut your hole fool.
          • dued007, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3So what? I didn't go to UofT engineering and I have a great job. I know many UofT engineering graduates who ended up going into the insurance selling business. Most engineering schools in Canada are accredited and follow the same regulations, everyone learns pretty much the same thing everywhere, I like picking on UofT because they all think they are something special.
      • expatcatalyst, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but your CA is the cold CA....lol jk...
      • Scaryclouds, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1HAHAHAHAH 10,000, try 60,000... ***** DeVry.
    • drnoorthoek, on 02/21/2008, -10/+1Its too bad your family probably makes 20K a year... ...Your comment made you sound real cool though
      • Stupidumb, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5Thanks!
      • FullmetalGinta, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2He is real cool!!!!!!!!!!!! and Funny!!!!!!!!!
      • expatcatalyst, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1The truth gets you Dugg down..., but I tried to Digg you back up.
    • lukemandese, on 02/21/2008, -6/+6I see what you did there.
      • Suprfire, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5In Soviet Russia, he sees what you did where.
    • moshin, on 02/21/2008, -9/+0"*****, my family makes 3 dollar signs." ?!

      *****, I only make $40k and my mother only makes 30k *and* my wife passed away and I take care of a four year old girl EVERY DAY. I guess the grass is always greener though. You probably want to trade places with me. I think its a marvelous idea, way to lead the pack stanford. I wish more institutions would work to address the abhorrent situation in america regarding education and healthcare for the lower classes. There are definately two americas. This is a huge leap forward, and excellent and noble attempt to bridge the gap.
      • nikipedia, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Bummer.
      • Stupidumb, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry I offended you?
        • moshin, on 02/21/2008, -3/+0Not at all. :-) I just find it funny complaining about making three dollar signs, as I would gladly "relieve" you of one of yours then we can both have two $$ :-)
          Cheers!
          • edein, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4/sarcasm ?
          • Akaji, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1The joke




            Moshin's head
          • moshin, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0no, ive been on the internet long enough to know its not really the place for sarcasm. Honestly, I wasnt offended... nor did I really lose my calm, although I see how the ! has been misleading.

      • DoubleTap84, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4CALM DOWN
      • gstep, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1"two americas"? thats a lie. that paints a black and white picture of rich and poor. like trailer parks and manhattan penthouses. There is such a thing as the middle class who gets by, but barely. Middle class kids get screwed when it comes to college because their parents make enough money to exempt them from financial aid eligibility, but they don't actually have enough to put their kids through school. That's why so many kids finish with $thousands debt.
        • moshin, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0I am aware of middle class struggles, and honestly... anyone who has to worry about money for things that I would consider basic necessities (shelter, food, good (higher) education, good healthcare) to me of course, fall into one category. And then there are those who never have to worry about any of that really. Maybe due to parents hard work, maybe due to parents, parents hard work.

          At any rate, when I mentioned two americas there is definately a line and below that line many people feel that higher education is simply intangible.

          The point I was trying to make with my comment was that it might suck that you're just above the "line" where you would no longer qualify for subsidized "stuff" but you should be happy, and proud that you have three dollar signs, as many MANY people are far worse off.

          bury me if you will...
        • Shogg, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0Please attend an economics class. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The gap is widening and eventually revolution (and possibly communism) kicks in. The poor will fight to overcome the rich because they have nothing to lose and they will win the fight. Then they will either institute a more communistic government (which if you look we have many communistic aspects already) or use the same type of government to oppress the prior aristocracy.

          pz.
    • UltraDavid, on 02/21/2008, -5/+1toooooo obviousssss
    • ggacid, on 02/21/2008, -4/+2Exactly how much is 3 dollar signs?
      • doxavg, on 02/21/2008, -0/+15It's exactly one more than 2 dollar signs and one less than 4 dollar signs. It's also exactly one dollar sign too many apparently.
      • Suprfire, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2It's over 9000!
    • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2Sweet! That's the cheapest price I've seen for a sign. I was planning on carrying around some pro-Obama signs here in Texas before the primary. How fast can you ship them out here?
      /
  • CokeBear, on 02/21/2008, -17/+301This is fantastic, and a model for every institution of higher learning in the world. They should all be like this.
    • MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -4/+37I've been waiting for this to happen. See, the top-tier schools now have endowments large enough that they don't actually need to charge tuition anymore. This is essentially creating a "new tier" of college, a class of institution that is entirely free for those who can get into it. I think it's a good thing, and I would expect to see Harvard, Princeton, and Yale follow suit.

      My wife works in university fundraising, and it's been apparent for some time that "second-tier" schools need to really start building up their endowments to compete in the coming collegiate renaissance. It's an exciting time for higher education!
      • KyleGoetz, on 02/21/2008, -2/+21Harvard already does it for those whose families make under $60K. This began in 2004.
        • MacEnvy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I mean completely free - as in, no one will pay tuition. I think it'll happen in the next 5-10 years and it will spread like wildfire across the Ivies.
    • oldhick, on 02/21/2008, -4/+64Did you read the article? They have endowment that grew 22% to 17 billion dollars last year. Since they are a non-profit organization and facing scrutiny over their tax exempt status, they had to return some money to the community.
      Most schools don't have the awful problem of a $17 billion endowment.
      • MaskedSlacker, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4Actually, the top tier private schools all have massive endowments. Caltech could easily afford to no longer charge tuition. Harvard Princeton, and Yale are likely short of that, but not by a whole lot.
      • jerryparid, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6Top Endowment per Capita; Stanford is pretty loaded, but not at the top of the list; Harvard is capped at 10% income, Yale "improved" their finaid. Princeton has always been the most generous university; Harvard's move/Stanford's move is merely a catch up.


        1 , $2,331,935 , Princeton
        2 , $2,212,096 , Yale
        3 , $2,070,846 , Harvard
        4 , $1,139,742 , Pomona
        5 , $1,038,883 , Grinnell
        6 , $1,008,724 , Amherst
        7 , $973,414 , MIT
        8 , $971,181 , Swarthmore
        9 , $923,404 , Williams
        10 , $907,589 , Rice
        11 , $891,684 , Cal Tech
        12 , $867,677 , Stanford
        13 , $714,653 , Wellesley
        14 , $642,885 , Dartmouth
        15 , $583,046 , U Chicago
        16 , $544,297 , Notre Dame
        17 , $542,086 , U Richmond
        18 , $518,529 , Emory
        19 , $506,017 , Duke
        20 , $500,171 , Smith
    • MrMeikel, on 02/21/2008, -3/+9How much is tutition and board at Stanford though? Stanford is a pretty good Uni as well, right?

      I pay £3070 a year tutition + ~£3300 a year boarding (includes dinner each night). This is at Oxford University, UK - here nearly every Uni charges the same (can only charge max £3070 per year tuition atm), whilst I believe American Unis can (and do) charge rather more.
      Oh yes, and student loans (inflation linked, no interest) cover tutition + income assessed up to £4500 a year
      • akatherder, on 02/21/2008, -8/+4Yes, Stanford is very prestigious. I would guess yearly tuition would be around $20,000. I went to a very small private Uni and my tuition was around $18,000/year.
      • KyleGoetz, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5Stanford is one of the top 10 universities in the country (probably top 5), and also its law school (a graduate program) consistently ranks in the top 3 in the nation. Tuition is $33K/yr. That makes it one of the most expensive in the nation.
        To compare, The University of Texas (a public university and one of the top in the nation) runs around $9K per semester for out-of-state students, and only $4K for Texas residents.
        • mescad, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Texas has an endowment of $15.6 Billion, so it might be better to compare to similarly ranked schools without huge endowments like Stanford and Harvard. That may be difficult however, because there aren't many, if any.
          • dagamer34, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Texas (my school) also has 50,000 people. Stanford does not. So Texas really doesn't have that much. And tuition here costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago when my brother went to school. I cried.
      • arrantknave, on 02/21/2008, -0/+12Stanford Student Budget 2007-2008
        Tuition $34,800
        Room and Board $10,808
        Books and Supplies $1,335
        Personal $1,995
        Orientation Fee (1st year only) $425
        Transportation Varies

        Total $49,363

        According to:
        http://www.stanford.edu/dept/finaid/prospective/1_ ...
      • NJank, on 02/21/2008, -2/+22teehee... only someone from Oxford would ask "Stanford is a pretty good Uni as well, right?"
        • cawpin, on 02/21/2008, -5/+2While I don't find Stanford special in any way I do have to agree with that.
      • sjbdallas, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Sounds like oxford is a pretty good deal though. $9K a year after converting pounds to dollars right?
        • drlha, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3More like $12,000 if you include the room and board. That's the price for all UK universities, as their fees are set by the Government. Unlike the UK there are no "private" Universities in the UK that can charge what they like.

          UK students have it so good compared to their US counterparts, but that doesn't stop them moaning like hell over the "high cost" of their education.

          That said, I'm glad that I got my degree back in the days when they gave me money to go to University and there were no fees! :)
        • banana234, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1In the United State, public Universities can charge just as much as a private University costs. University of Vermont is $22,246/year for in- state students, and $38,590/year for out of state (says their website).
      • webXL, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1The intention is good, the policy is bad. If I make $98K and my wife makes $35K, and my kid miraculously gets into Stanford, my wife will quit her job with my full support. It's a no brainer. The income limit should be phased out to prevent abuse.
      • webXL, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1That said, college kids go bizerk over any education hand-out like this without any kind of economic understanding or social conscious. Incentives matter. If you don't have a vested interest in your education, you're less likely to take advantage of it. I know this because I was a scholarship athlete at Stanford, and I can tell you first hand that many of my teammates just did the bare minimum to keep their scholarships. To a certain extent, I did too. If I had been paying for it somehow, through a loan or what many Stanford students do, through their trust fund or inheritance, I would have put in a lot more effort to maximize my ROI.

        This is why you see so many parents who couldn't care less about the kids' education in public school, whereas private schools have more involvement. Still a lot of retards in private schools with retarded parents, but at least there's more pressure to get something out of it.

        Rather than give these handouts, they should provide really cheap loans, lower tuition for everyone else, and use the rest for research. $35K/year is ridiculous. You're just paying for a name and an opportunity to talk to a genius from time to time.

        Either way, I feel sorry for the admissions department with the inevitable deluge of applications.
    • isseki, on 02/21/2008, -4/+5"and a model for every institution of higher learning in the world"

      Many countries have reduced tuition fees for those people that cannot afford them. It's more of a rule than exception in Europe.
      Just the difference is that the costs are paid for by people around the whole country rather than just those joining that particular university (government aid).

      Funny how many people in the US seem so flat-out against anything that resembles socialism ("I'm not paying for the other guy"), but somehow this news is received very well...
      • sjbdallas, on 02/21/2008, -1/+5We don't like our money TAKEN from us to pay for the other guy. These isn't our tax money, this is a university's fundraising, gifts from former students, business, etc.
      • positron, on 02/21/2008, -1/+7Private institute with money to spare chooses to use it to fund the education of poor but promising students. Government institution with money taken by threat of force from people who could put it to better use in their own lives uses it to instead fund the education of any Joe Shmoe who asks for it, whether they need it or not. Yeah, I see how those are both exactly the same thing.
        • isseki, on 02/21/2008, -3/+2The rich people pay to make use of the services of an institute, and in the meanwhile they fund the poorer ones. I mostly see a difference in scale, but not really in concept.

          But your view (and emotional response to my post) is probably the best explanation you could have given me. Thanks.
        • fabthegerm, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1social darwinism ftw...
        • wellyuk, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1Yeah, you see that's where you're wrong. Obviously it doesn't work like that. In the UK (and Europe and perhaps Canada? I don't know.) where tuition fees are subsidised, they DON'T give money to any Joe Schmoe, they give money to people who genuinely can't afford to send their kids to university so their kids get a fair and equal chance in life. Meanwhile, in the USA, if you're born into poverty, it seems like there's very little chance of you getting out of poverty as no one is willing to dip their hand into their pockets and give the other guys a helping hand.

          And don't start bleating on about how the US gives more money than anyone else in the world.
      • Dennis88, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1The English system is excellent. As a Cambridge student whose parents earn under £17,500 (about $35k), not only are all my fees paid for by the Government but they also give me a £3000/year grant, and Cambridge gives me a £3000/year bursary, on top of my student loan.
        It's great to see similar systems are being set up across the pond. Quality of education should not be determined by quantity of money.
    • EarlOfLade, on 02/21/2008, -10/+9Huh?
      I was educated at a world top-50 university and only paid around $500/year. It is only in USA that good education costs a fortune.
      • WNW3, on 02/21/2008, -2/+6Why wouldn't you name the top-50 university in your post?
        • EarlOfLade, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3University of Oslo, Norway.
        • sharpwre, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2its only in Norway where a country of 4 milion has a MASSIVE oil reserve
      • EPICFAILURE, on 02/21/2008, -1/+13You can always tell a DeVry man, but you can't tell him much!
      • Xela21, on 02/21/2008, -4/+2$500/year? what do you mean?
        • wellyuk, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6He said he only paid around $500 a year. Was it that hard to figure out?
      • moshin, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3in america, good ___EVERYTHING___ costs a fortune.

        I love america, just wish i wasnt on the poorer side of things
    • lukas88, on 02/21/2008, -1/+7This kind of thing + opencourseware will do much more to bring equality than affirmative action could ever dream of doing.

      Yes, I am a white guy with a 4.0 gpa who still has little chance of getting a summer internship. Go look at all the group photos of NSF and DoD sponsored summer research internship programs. Spotting my particular gender/race is like where's waldo.
      • dagamer34, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2Unless your 4.0 is at Harvard, it's not a free pass to get into any program you want, no matter what race you are.
        • lukas88, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2good point, but I was commenting on my chances and how my particular demographics may affect them. No one said anything about free passes.
      • Dennis88, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1For those of us not from the states, what's a GPA?
        • otakugeek, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3A person's grade.
          4 is an A
          3 is a B
          2 is a C
          1 is a D
          0 is an F
        • CokeBear, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Grade Point Average
          'A' is worth 4 grade points, so if you get straight A's, you have a 4.0 GPA
    • FutureGuy, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3Hats off to Stanford and those behind this decision.
    • secleinteer, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Washington University has taken a similar step by turning all loans to students whose families make under $60000/year into grants: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2008/02 ... . I think a lot of people are starting to take notice of the financial burden placed on the middle class by skyrocketing tuition rates. Hopefully other universities will soon take a similar step.
    • insurgente, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1"a model for every institution of higher learning in the world"

      All education (including university education) is publicly funded (read: free for the student, max a few kronor/month for the family) in Scandinavia.
      • insurgente, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Not to mention publicly funded student aid (read: the state pays you to get a higher education) and low-interest student loans.
        • nomadofthehills, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2Yea? But the downside is that you have to learn in Scandinavia.
      • lifeisapickle, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2the downside is that the education sucks and you'll end up paying WAY more than it would cost in taxes over the years. that money will probably have been taxed once or twice
        • JakeWins, on 02/22/2008, -1/+0You're right that we prolly end up paying more than all of it back in taxes - but I'm fine with that. By no means is the swedish system even close to perfect, but I consider it the lesser of two evils so to speak. To me, the gain from everyone getting the same opportunity is greater than the economic loss of it.

          Oh, and btw? What do you base the "scandinavian education sucks" on? Having studied in both the US and in Sweden, that's not my experience.
      • geekee, on 02/21/2008, -2/+2I'd rather pay for the education than be enslaved to the govt. for 50% of my income when I graduate.
        • insurgente, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1It's actually 33%, and indeed the state is a great enslaver. However, if you don't recognize the enslavement of the church and of capitalism you are a hypocrite.
    • lifeisapickle, on 02/21/2008, -4/+1no way! this is stupid. these kids can't be dumbasses though. they'll have to have like 4.0 gpas and whatnot. not like they're gonna let some poor kids from the hood into their prestigious stanford
      • sharpwre, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Why not? Should Stanford say "ok we'll give you hundreds of thousands of dollars but its ok if you get a 2.0"? its educational capitlism, i'm sure there is a long line of people who would be willing to work much harder and get a 3.5 for that much money...so why give it to the dumbass?
    • bingobongony, on 02/21/2008, -3/+2So, a good model is to have Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor in your eyes? Maybe a better model would be to lower tuition for EVERYBODY rather than making the rich families subsidize the poor ones. This is not communist Russia after all.
  • Akaricloud, on 02/21/2008, -43/+4Wait, how did this get front paged with 2 comments and 30 diggs?
    • oxdeltaxo, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6I saw it on the front page when it had 3, as soon as it hits the front page the diggs jump way up anyways.
    • tdishman, on 02/21/2008, -9/+3Because it's one of the best stories I've read in a long while.
    • YojimboJango, on 02/21/2008, -3/+9It's because this article is awesome. Quit bitching.
    • Akaricloud, on 02/21/2008, -7/+4 feel free to bury me. I read the article and everything, I just wanted to know how this managed to get front paged when there apparently is meant to be this new balanced system out there.
      I was just curious, don't crucify me for asking.
      • akatherder, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6Let's say a story get 30 diggs in a matter of 5 minutes from being submitted. All the diggs come from 30 different people who aren't on each other's friends list and who don't digg every single story they come across. One never knows the workings of the mysterious digg algorithm.
        • DavidtheDuke, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3the idea that stopping people who are friends from getting a digg to the FP faster is stupid.. just use an external communication system. Honest man's lock I guess.
    • cphelps, on 02/21/2008, -4/+8SHUT UP.
    • diggymow, on 02/21/2008, -5/+3It's a good story, who cares.
    • Akaricloud, on 02/21/2008, -13/+4Jesus christ, where was I bitching about this article? I wanted to ask a ***** question about how an article can be front paged with so little comments/diggs. What would of been simpler? Me asking the question in this article where it was relevant, or sending off an email to digg tech support and waiting a few days for an answer?
      • mcduckov, on 02/21/2008, -1/+6Well, there are a few basic rules of Digg that you should get used to.

        1) The digg staff will promote whatever the hell they feel like promoting
        2) You'll never make the front page unless you devote your entire life to that goal (or pay for it).
        3) There is absolutely nothing democratic about what gets promoted

        If the digg team really IS trying to make promotion less prone to IRC organized groups and paid diggers then they are failing miserably. There are SO many ways to actually achieve that. They could make all submissions anonymous. Or they could make a limit to the number of FP articles any one submitter can have. But then the "top *****" would have an emo-fest where they all threaten to go vertical on their wrists and Kevin would cave in.
      • ncapone, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Arguing on the internet. Classy.
    • smergs, on 02/21/2008, -3/+4Why do so many give a ***** about what is getting to the front page and what isn't? If you don't like the story don't digg it. If you do like the story, digg it. Just don't question it and cry because you can't get something on the front page. I promise having a story hit front page on Digg does not make your johnson get bigger.
    • Grindelwald, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1This is digg. General rules dont exist here.
  • macwac, on 02/21/2008, -12/+269Not hard when you charge all your other students 50,000 USD a year!
    • jemka, on 02/21/2008, -24/+2You said hard.
    • sparky3, on 02/21/2008, -2/+21And with an endowment of 17 billion.
    • trisweb, on 02/21/2008, -10/+5What Stanford didn't say is that the people given a free ride will not be paying for their grades like their current students.
      • orca94, on 02/21/2008, -1/+7You're an idiot.
      • Whippets, on 02/21/2008, -2/+7Your one of those community college people aren't you?
        • solid12345, on 02/21/2008, -5/+2You're one of those law school types aren't you?
      • oyejazz, on 02/21/2008, -2/+2Berkeley -- because not everyone can go to Stanford. Seriously, stop putting down Stanford students just because you didn't go there.
    • democrap, on 02/22/2008, -6/+1too bad you gotta be black to get in
  • chadu, on 02/21/2008, -7/+36This is truly admirable. Let's hope this spurs some other private institutions to the same. Fantastic!
    • Grimdotdotdot, on 02/21/2008, -6/+14Explain something to me (I'm from the UK) - why do Diggers seem so happy about this, but are so against Universal Health Care?
      From what I can see, it the same principle. Richer people subsidise poorer ones.
      • Kev585, on 02/21/2008, -2/+5The average digger, I believe, has been able to afford some kind of satisfactory health care. However, with 30,000 to 40,000 (and this isn't not including incidentals) dollar tuition becoming the norm very few are able to pay for the without going into debt.
        • Grimdotdotdot, on 02/21/2008, -2/+9So, bottom line - Digger's are selfish =]
        • eFiniTi, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4Because in one of these scenarios the money is forcefully extracted while in the other one money is voluntarily given. Big difference.

          Good for Stanford! Thumbs up!
      • SouthsideIrish, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3This is not unusual. Got a couple of friends that send one child to a private school and one to a state school, Northwestern vs. Illinois, and Northwestern is cheaper because of scholarships, the funds of which came from voluntary donations. These people did not have a gun pointed at their head and wanted to give their money to good students who couldn't go because of lack of money

        UHC is nothing but force. What if I like my insurance or can afford to self insure, doesn't matter because you will still pay for the government crap.

        Probably still don't see a difference.
        • Grimdotdotdot, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2I course I can see a difference, you cheeky bugger - but I don't see anything in TFA about 'voluntary'. Seems to me that the people that pay to go to Stanford are subbing the people that can't afford it, and they can't choose to 'opt-out' of that.
        • Conwaysb0718, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5No, you're right to a certain extent Grim. The alumni and wealthy students are going to be footing the bill for the poor ones. However, no one is being forced to go to Stanford. Thats the difference.
        • onefinalstep, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3No one is forced to go to Stanford idiot. If you don't want to pay for poor people you can go somewhere else.
        • wellyuk, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1No one (that I've ever spoken to) who pays for universal health care in the UK, in Europe and now in Canada, complains about being "forced" to pay for it. There's many services I pay for through taxes that I will never use.

          You know what? It's not that big a deal!

          The small sum of money that I pay monthly for universal health care means that I'm covered and as a side effect, people who are not in as fortunate a position as me are also covered for health care. If I paid solely for private health care, I would probably be paying MORE than for the national health service, which is perfectly adequate.
          • onefinalstep, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5Well guess what? People here in America complain about being forced to pay taxes all the ***** time. Sorry you Europeans don't care when your governments take your money and spend it on *****, but we, for some reason, do. And I feel sorry for you that you don't have a choice in how you help poor people. Americans, for a little while longer hopefully, will be able to choose where their tithes go. Clinton is all for universal health care and taxing people to pay for it. She also built a ***** multi billion dollar museum for a ***** concert that happened in the 60's in her state with other peoples money. Do you see why Americans tend not to trust the Feds in distributing their charity?
          • Beery, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Most people in the US don't consider healthcare to be '*****' (as onefinalstep describes it). In Europe they proudly call it a human right. Only in America - apparently the land of the selfish - is it regarded as *****.
          • Grimdotdotdot, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1"And I feel sorry for you that you don't have a choice in how you help poor people"
            'Poor' is pretty subjective - even if you're earning well above the national average there are plenty of diseases you can't afford to have.
            Also, I'd be interested in hearing what you do to help poor people already.
      • bunit03057, on 02/21/2008, -0/+8Except it's a private organization handling the cost rather than the government. I guess that would be the main difference in this case.
        • hobbitaussie, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Bingo. I am all for a private organization (company) providing UHC to their employees. But leave the government out of it.
          • Beery, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0How would a single company be able to cut costs enough? If one employee gets sick that cost is transferred over only the people buying into the plan.

            Clearly the best way to handle it is through the government, just like we do with the police, the fire services etc. The government can spread the costs over an entire population, which is far more than any private company can do.
      • blast_flame, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2The problem with universal healthcare isn't rich people helping poor ones, that's great. The problem is that the money is gained though taxes which when you look at it objectively is no different from a gang demanding protection money. If you were to fund universal healthcare without taxes or another form of coercive force (well... and also didn't ban private healthcare and didn't use it as an excuse to put more nanny state regulations in place) then I would be all for it.
        • Beery, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I lived 25 years under a system of universal healthcare (Britain) and I've lived 20 years in a country where insurance is private (the US). If my wife or I am ever really sick we've decided to move to the UK. There is no comparison. In England there's no insurance company trying to get you disqualified for pre-existing conditions - you just go in and get the help you need - and it's REALLY cheap. If one of the two systems can be likened to a protection racket, it's the US insurance companies.
    • ronaldinho, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2I wished my alma mater (BC) will follow this model. Tuition has been skyrocketing even when I was still in school. It's ridiculous.
    • hughesj919, on 02/21/2008, -5/+1Admirable? They have a 17.1 Billion dollar endowment...theres nothing admirable about that. Higher education has become a scam.
    • rmxz, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3Why base it on Income, tho?

      When I was making $100,000 I was barely able to afford a house where I lived.

      Now I make $1 - until my business breaks even and makes a profit - at which time I'll probably still have a "low" income; but hopefully very nice capital gains.

      Shouldn't they base this on assets instead of on income?
      • xxpor, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1the $100,000 is probably an estimate based on a the average EFC on the FAFSA of someone who makes $100,000
    • 1gunners4, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2By my count, they are far from the first to do this. Princeton, Harvard, and University of Virginia all have a minimum family income in order to charge tuition.
      • zman1117, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Yes, but Harvard's is at $40,000. $40,00 and $100,000 makes a big difference.
    • leffunov, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1It's not really that admirable because they will not accept more people and were charging more than the average persons salary for six years, plus you must remember that they still charge money for applications. $60 and how many applications do you think they'll get a year? 200,000? 500,000?
      • mavere, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3You can get the application fee waived (I've done it for 13 schools last year). In the past six years you say that they've been charging more than the avg salary, any family making near that amount probably had significant amount of finaid from Stanford or any elite univ. And they received a bit less than 25,000 applications this year.
        Research before you judge.
      • paulfi, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1applications for graduate school (which does not have a lowered tuition) are actually about $100.
  • cowboy86, on 02/21/2008, -8/+3About time.
    • korea, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2Yeah this is pretty amazing. Its been a while since I've actually wanted to be younger.
  • wilfordsy, on 02/21/2008, -8/+3It's because the topic is about Stanford!

    And cool decision too! If only I could go there and enroll!
  • fuhcough, on 02/21/2008, -8/+59Ok so if I'm over 18 and make under $100K, does that mean I have a free ride to Stanford? I don't mind living off-campus...
    • enclaved, on 02/21/2008, -1/+25i know for federal aid, you're considered a dependent until you're 24 so probably not.
      • Numbski, on 02/21/2008, -2/+40This is precisely why I couldn't make it through college. My parents contributed NOTHING. I worked, worked, and worked some more, but couldn't afford tuition and room and board. I lived off campus, but still couldn't make ends meet. I finally gave up and entered the work force. By the time I was 24 I was too entrenched in bills to consider going back to school. :(
        • G-RaZoR, on 02/21/2008, -1/+15Heh, was same way with me. Working full time and going to school full time is a BITCH.
        • freefoodisgood, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2Same with me, my parents contributed nothing to my college so I had to work full time. Fortunately my local university has relatively cheap tuition so I was able to continue going, now I only have 2 more semesters left.
        • gstep, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Couldn't you get student loans? I'm in the same situation (parents make money but don't give me any of it) so I just pay for my tuition with federal loans and work to pay rent. I could bitch but it's not that bad. I'll finish about 30k (public university) in debt but the difference in what you can make with a degree more than makes up for the cost of school in just a few years.
        • saranagati, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1""I'll finish about 30k (public university) in debt but the difference in what you can make with a degree more than makes up for the cost of school in just a few years."
          Is that kool-aid purple flavored?
        • Jashobeam5, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1Saranagati- It's true that people who earn degrees make quite a bit more than those who do not. We are in deep debt due to school loans, but we can actually afford to pay them off because our income continues to rise with each degree acquired.
      • plizard, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6unless you get married, have a kid or join the military!
      • TheTyrant63, on 02/21/2008, -2/+0You are only a dependent if your parents claim you on their taxes as such. Which means you must claim yourself on your own taxes, hence making you an independent. But I think what the catch22 is that you MUST be considered a dependent to get into this program.
        • gstep, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Thats not true. If you are in college, unless you're married, 24, or other rare exceptions they are REQUIRED BY LAW to claim you as a dependent. If this wasn't so, every single kid in America would claim "independent" to get loads of federal/institutional aid. Trust me, I thought of your idea a long time ago, because it would be sweet, but you can't.
        • blatantninja, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1@gstep, actually you are not. You are only required by law to claim them as a dependent if you are materially supporting them.
    • MindStalker, on 02/21/2008, -1/+25Yea you have to be atleast 24 for your parents to not be considered, and thats for public institutions, its likely if your parents are well off and your past 24 private institutions like Standord will still count your parents, if they just barley make $100K and live in a city where $100K isn't much you could probably still get close to a free ride.
      OF COURSE this all depends upon your getting IN to Stanford in the first place? You have a 4.0 average with community service, etc etc..?
    • cadmiumpaint, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6only if you can get accepted to the school.....which is not easy.
    • jaundicedave, on 02/21/2008, -1/+32You have to get in first, sport.
      • chamanbuga, on 02/21/2008, -2/+2What kind of marks do you need to get into undergrad Stanford engineering? I keep hearing thinks like Canadian universities undergraduate programs are much better than American, but American universities post graduate (masters and doctoral) wipe the Canadian universities up and down. is that true?
        • dued007, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2thats because for Masters an Doctoral, American Universities have bigger budgets for their Engineering programs. We don't have big budgets for post grad here in Canada, therefore a lot of our engineering research is on very general stuff. If you want to get into something specific, definitely consider the US for post-grad. Also there are a lot more engineering companies based out of the US that also pour tonnes of money into their universities. Canada a few years ago, tried to put in certain measures, such as giving more money to certain professors to attract better research to Canadian universities, but most of the best professors for post-grad still go to the US because the money is still better.
      • smurfsahoy, on 02/21/2008, -4/+1probably 3.7, 3.8+, top few (10-15?) in class, lots of APs if your school offers them, and some kind of deep extracurricular stuff, like engineering work experience, or community service, etc.

        Nothing has to be THAT great, so much as you have to show very consistently good results across a wide range of measurements.
        • mavere, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2While that may have been true a while back, college admissions have gotten ridiculously cutthroat over the past several years.
        • paranoidfox, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2I have two friends who attend Stanford right now. One of them was our Valedictorian and she had a 4.9 or 5.0 I believe. The other had a 4.5. On the SAT's I remember the Valedictorian had somewhere around 1520 and the other had like a 1480. Hope this is any help.
        • legoalert33, on 02/21/2008, -4/+1*cough* ***** *cough*
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4Yeah what would I know? Despite going to Stanford for years now, and knowing accurate high school grade information for at least a dozen friends who go here as well, I have absolutely no source for this information other than complete fabricated *****.

          Wait, no! I actually know what I am talking about, and those numbers are far more common than 4.0s. And @ paranoidfox, 4.5 in a 5 point scale is the lower than the numbers I cited for a 4 point scale... So you're not really doing a good job of refuting me.

          The extracurriculars are not just fluffy talk, though. They're very important. Most people I know here had some very involved stuff going on outside of school. Awesome musicians/composers, personal research, intense community service, etc. etc. Most people here are systematically ignoring that part.
          • paranoidfox, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1You don't seem to recognize that the 4.0 you quoted will always be based upon a 5.0 scale when AP and honors classes are involved. Since they are always applicable then technically everything is based upon this scale. If we were to leave these out then the yes they would both have 4.0s. Having a 3.7 is nowhere near Stanford level.
      • Pro28, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2To get into Stanford now, you need to be spectacular or really lucky.

        Rejects with perfect SAT scores or 4.0s or 10 APs with a million extra-curriculars are not that rare from Unis at Stanford's level.

        The result of too many good students vying for a few thousand spots...
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1People with stats you mentioned could well be terrible candidates. 4.0 is nothing without supporting credentials. And being in AP classes doesn't do you any good if you don't do really well in them. Extra curriculars aren't so hot either without the gpa, etc. They all need to be working together in one person, but if they are, none of them needs to be utterly spectacular.
    • ackbz1, on 02/21/2008, -2/+9if you live off campus in Palo Alto you will pay roughly $100,000 in rent
    • Rock3tman, on 02/21/2008, -0/+0Check out EAST Palo Alto, pretty damn ghetto.
    • antiorblkflag9, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1What if my family makes $100,001. Should my dad ask for a pay decrease?
  • 11familyguy11, on 02/21/2008, -9/+48What a fantastic idea. No student should sacrifice their potential because they can't afford to fulfill it. This is going to make it possible for many children/teens to view college as a real possibility regardless of their mother/father's poor financial choices.
    • EarlOfLade, on 02/21/2008, -5/+16You sound like this is something new and revolutionary when only in USA has higher education cost a fortune while the rest of the world has known that access to high quality education is vital to a country's development.
      You need to realize the world is bigger than USA!
      • 11familyguy11, on 02/21/2008, -1/+8You need to realize that my comment was clearly directed towards teens/children in the United States. An affordable education in another country doesn't mean much for your average U.S. citizen.
        • GameFinisher, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2I agree. I mean Digg is a U.S. based site. We don't hear much news about say... Australians running for election. Hmm... I wonder if Digg has any stories about people running for president for any other country?
          • wellyuk, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1You probably won't do as much because people running for power in other countries tends to be less of a media circus.
        • EarlOfLade, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2So, you are saying that USA is totally isolated from the rest of the world and ideas from other places can not be used in USA unless they were suggested by an American. Strange mindset...
    • MaskedSlacker, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1What's more amusing that EarlofLade's post is that almost no one can get in to Stanford. This doesn't change anything for hardly any students. It just makes it easier for the few highly talented but not ridiculously wealthy students. Fact of the matter is, most students who can get in to Stanford (not just afford it, but even be accepted) their parent's are above $100k/year.
    • gstep, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Poor people have been able to go to college for a long time thanks to FAFSA. It's the middle class that gets nickle and dimed.
    • skewer324, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2"their mother/father's poor financial choices." LOL ALL POOR PEOPLE ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY CHOOSE TO BE.

      Nice. Real nice. Fascist.
      • goldenratiophi, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1huh?
        • moghua, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Not everyone is poor because of "poor financial choices". In the USA a lot of people are poor because they went bankrupt paying for critical health care typically because they were uninsured due to pre-existing conditions, or even because they were insured but were denied payment through some technicality. Medical costs are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US.

          http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankrup ...
        • skewer324, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1Crap. Replied to wrong commend nest. I meant to reply to that wacktard 11familyguy11 who has the second most original name in the history of the internet.
  • YojimboJango, on 02/21/2008, -4/+269The kicker is everyone will sign up and you'll end up needing a better than perfect GPA to get in.
    • cowboy86, on 02/21/2008, -17/+1or the school will just continue to grow to accept more and more students.
      • mike17032, on 02/21/2008, -1/+18With no extra income? Ya, dont think so.
        • MindStalker, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4You do realize where that billions of dollars in endowment comes from right? Previous students who struck it rich and gave back to their University. Any poor person who made it after going to Stanford is going to donate well above their initial cost of education back. OF COURSE their standards will always be high, they don't want to take in someone who won't succeed, its a bad investment.
          • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3"billions of dollars"
            That's just from Tiger!
    • tomz17, on 02/21/2008, -3/+43So, .what's wrong with that?
      • woohalladoobop, on 02/21/2008, -6/+3everything
        • decyx, on 02/21/2008, -5/+2I think you mean, "EVERYTHING BITCH!!"
      • ganlet, on 02/21/2008, -0/+7I like to think that a student's value is more than just a GPA, so yes I think there should be more criteria.
        • slvrbullet87, on 02/21/2008, -2/+4your right if you have a 2.9 with low scores on your SAT's they should still let you into standford. The reason having a diploma from standford is such a big deal is because they only take the best.
    • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -3/+1Pessimistic.
    • dnields, on 02/21/2008, -1/+8Yeah, I don't know why others don't see it. This sounds great on the surface, and it is, but it's not like they are going to accept just anyone because it's free. The number of students who get in for free will be very, VERY small.
      • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5It sounds and looks great everywhere! This could give some poor kid with 4.0 which their are many or with a lesser grade and a talent, a Stanford education. This could be a opportunity of life time, that could change the future generation for their families forever. Even if only one poor kid gets accepted its great but their will be many more. I think its a sad day when a prestigious college that whats to give poor kids a free education, then people can still find a negative about it.
        • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Excuse me!, "University"
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4I think his point was that the number of poor 4.0 perfect people is relatively small, because even if you're really smart, if you don't live in a rich family, it's a lot harder to get internships, good grades, to go to schools that offer advanced programs, etc.
          • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -3/+1Do me a favor, Don't ever answer for me. Thank You!
          • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1That wasn't my point, my augment was it doesn't matter how many, its just a great opportunity. also universities are businesses so they cannot give everyone a free ride, but there are enough poor students that can qualify and fill every class room if it were free
          • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1"ever" makes it sound mean and that wasn't the case.
          • smurfsahoy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1"Do me a favor, Don't ever answer for me. Thank You!"

            Um, it's a public forum. I'm referencing you as a convenient and flowing way of actually making my own (clarifying or not) point. Please get over yourself and learn how to understand that you are not the direct supervisor for complete strangers. Thank You!
          • mal1964, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1No Comment.
            You wouldn't get the point again!
      • mavere, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3I'm sorry if I don't feel nearly as bad for families making 6 figures paying some tuition. And it's not like anyone making over 100K will automatically be charged full tuition anyway; the aid will gradually decrease to zero with higher income.
    • NJank, on 02/21/2008, -2/+81you say that like they're letting slackers in now...
      Seriously, they turn away 4.0 students as it is.
      • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -1/+7He speaks the truth!
      • cawpin, on 02/21/2008, -2/+18This is why you shouldn't waste your time trying to keep a 4.0.
        • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -9/+1This is why you should try to keep a 4.0

          This is why I'm hot
          I dont gotta rap
          I can sell a mill sell you nothing on the track
          I represent New York
          I got it on my back
          And they say that we lost it
          So I'mma bring it back
          I love the dirty dirty
          Coz ***** show me love
          The ladies start to bounce
          As soon as I hit the club
          But in the Midwest
          They love to take it slow
          So when I hit the H
          I watch you get it on the floor
          And if you needed hyphy
          I take it to the bay
          Frisco to Sac town
          They do it eryday
          Coppin a Hollywood
          As soon as I hit LA
          I'm in that low low
          I do it the cali way
          And when I hit the Chi
          People say that I'm fly
          They like the way I dress they like (they like my) my attire
          Move crowds from side to side
          They ask me how I do it and simply I reply
        • andrewmac44, on 02/21/2008, -2/+4Ha, you suck.

          "I can sell a mill sell you nothing on the track"
          should be
          "I can sell a mill sayin nothing on the track."
        • joegibes, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6A 3.5, a good ACT (33), and a nice volunteer service record got me into one of the best engineering schools in the nation... Although a 4.0 is useful for getting money.
        • ggacid, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Try throwing an AP course in your best subject in high school and get a 4.1 or 4.2... Do good in your SAT and you're set!
        • flyingfoggy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6An AP course? All of my classmates who are going to Stanford-grade schools have taken at LEAST 10 AP classes.
        • ZigVicious, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4I reccomend taking OVER 9000 AP courses!
          or for a serious suggestion, take your schools IB program.
    • HomerS1, on 02/21/2008, -6/+13Going by GPA/merit alone would not meet the diversity requirements.
      • Slizzo, on 02/21/2008, -4/+9But it would make a whole lot of sense.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/21/2008, -3/+3You fail at sociology. Not that the system is a great one, but gpa/merit alone is plain dumb and shortsighted
      • kingmanic, on 02/21/2008, -2/+3Going by GPA alone, they'd certainly not meet diversity requirements! It'd all be South East Asian and East Indian people.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 02/21/2008, -0/+9its not "the kicker" its called standards. you still have to meet them to go to a top tier school......this is something that most people under 25 don't understand...sometimes you have to go out and actually earn it. you can't just get something because you want it.
      • trisweb, on 02/21/2008, -2/+3Well, the thing is, at Stanfurd you always used to be able to get it just because you can pay for it. Interesting standards indeed.

        That's not going to change now that they also have a set of strictly academic standards -- most of their students will still be paying the big bucks for all those A's.
        • cadmiumpaint, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Dear Bitter,

          Whats the name of the community college that you go to?
      • YojimboJango, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2It was early when I posted that, however what I was trying to get across was that you'll need AP and college classes while still in highschool to be able to even qualify for entrance. That's not something that a lot of poor folks have, but it is something that the upper middle class would be able to pull off.
        • cadmiumpaint, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2i see your point, but how is that Stanford's fault? SO they should lower their standards to improve diversity? I mean now you're talking about state and city issues of underfunded schools...plus, there are ways that poorer people can get better HS education..magnet schools and what not. not a solution, but i think there are some work arounds if you want it bad enough.
    • hmunkey, on 02/21/2008, -0/+5At least Stanford will have the people who will contribute greatly to our future getting a good education.
    • textalon, on 02/22/2008, -2/+0Unless you play the race card
    • democrap, on 02/22/2008, -5/+2you mean a buncha black people
  • itchie, on 02/21/2008, -3/+11Bravo to Stanford if this is true.
  • mal1964, on 02/21/2008, -4/+23"$" My sons in!
  • dafragsta, on 02/21/2008, -1/+10This is awesome and it's especially cool that it's coming from one of the top tech schools in the world.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Stanford aka the birthplace of Google!!
    • nikipedia, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2That's probably a big reason why they CAN do it. Rich alumni-->massive endowment.
  • cptshamrock, on 02/21/2008, -32/+46The practice of charging students based on what their household makes should be illegal. There is no other industry that gets away with this. Imagine going to the grocery store and having to give them your credit profile so they can figure out how much you can "afford".
    • Akaricloud, on 02/21/2008, -7/+7Hows about the legal industry? They get a set commission based upon how much you WIN.
      The real estate industry, when selling/buying a home, you pay a set commission of the houses selling value.
      Thailand, the amount of money you pay for a speeding fine is proportional to your overall income.

      I know its slightly different to what you are talking about, but it follows the same lines.
      • cptshamrock, on 02/21/2008, -1/+5First, this isn't in Thailand. Second you are talking about commission, based on agreed upon terms. When you buy a house the price of it does not go up or down based on your income, the interest rate on a mortgage might change, but not the price. If regular companies could do this they would. One way they try and replicate it is to make essentially the same product but change it slightly and charge way more for it. One of the most successful examples of this is starbucks
        • MiDri, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1emmm Starbucks, delicious!
        • Beery, on 02/21/2008, -1/+0Maybe a house's value SHOULD be dependent upon the income of the person buying it. At least that would make more sense than my old house (which I only owned for two years) selling for five times the price I bought it just because the housing market was in a bubble. It would make more sense than my current house, which has declined in value due to the housing slump even though I've finished the basement and added an addition onto the kitchen. I mean if we're talking about the level of silliness, our current system beats most.
    • diatonic1, on 02/21/2008, -8/+11They don't charge students differently - It's just that lower income students receive more financial aid.
      • cptshamrock, on 02/21/2008, -6/+9What you just said is the difference between calling someone retarded or mentally handicapped, they are the same thing.
        • MiDri, on 02/21/2008, -1/+7Um not it's not, its providing education to people who could not receive it otherwise and deserve it. If you're smart enough to go to Stanford you should be able to go, regardless of the fact that you might have grown up in the projects.
        • mmortal03, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1"Um not it's not, its providing education to people who could not receive it otherwise and deserve it. If you're smart enough to go to Stanford you should be able to go, regardless of the fact that you might have grown up in the projects."

          I agree with you if it is a private school, which in this case, it is.
        • YojimboJango, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Cptshamrock: Which one are you?
      • plax3, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1It's called price discrimination. They charge the maximum you would be willing to pay.
    • NJank, on 02/21/2008, -18/+43thus sayeth the pissed off spoiled rich kid
      • cptshamrock, on 02/21/2008, -15/+11Thus sayeth the person who thinks all their problems come an imaginary poor v. rich struggle.
        • Beery, on 02/21/2008, -3/+9If you don't think the poor are in a struggle to make more money and the rich are in a struggle to keep it (from the poor) then you don't understand simple economics.
          • datastorageguy, on 02/21/2008, -3/+3The contrary is true. You seem to not understand that market economics is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created not partitioned. If you think that a rich person (who is not someone making over 100k a year by the way) is actively keeping money from the poor than you are completely mistaken at the most fundamental level.
          • YojimboJango, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Says the rich man trying to rationalize his decision to put thousands of familys out of work so he can have another beemer.
      • datastorageguy, on 02/21/2008, -12/+10Thus sayeth the person who spends all their time resenting others for what they have instead of going out there and earning what they have.
      • d17182, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Nice ad hominem.
    • scottfarner, on 02/21/2008, -4/+16The idea is to promote diversity amongst applicants and therefore future matriculants. It is in the university's best interest to ensure they have an incoming group of students that come from a variety of walks of life. This will encourage the brilliant kid from the inner city/farm/trailer park to apply without wondering how the hell would he ever pay for this. Don't say Financial aid because it is not enough. This decicion is not a punishment for Richie Rich who went to the best private schools and has had every opportunity in the world given to him.
    • Beery, on 02/21/2008, -9/+8Diddums! The poor little rich kid is whining that schools are going to be infected by the unwashed masses. Oh dear! I must try to put some time aside to sympathize with the predicament of the wealthy.
    • sk11, on 02/21/2008, -2/+12I think you lost at equating education with industry. Schools are not businesses, they're not there to make profit.
      • moshin, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1"In capitalist america, road forks YOU!"

        are you serious? isnt EVERYTHING in america to make money?
    • westopher3, on 02/21/2008, -3/+2Its called FOOD STAMPS!!
    • Zain123, on 02/21/2008, -2/+1This is a form of price discrimination, and grocery stores do it as well. What do you think coupons are?
      • pirloui, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1Could you have paid for higher education if your parents didn't help you?
        Did you merit their money?
        • YojimboJango, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1My parents wouldn't help me. They made enough money that I couldn't get any financial aid. If this would've been around 6 years ago I would've jumped at it.
      • Zain123, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I don't think you understand. "Price discrimination" is not a negative term, nor am I against financial aid. It's just the economic term for pricing the same product or service differently to your customers.
    • smurfsahoy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Car salesmen. Jewelers. Real estate. TONS of businesses do this. Basically anything really expensive and potentially luxury. Sometimes it's as simple as looking at the clothes you wear and inferring income. Sometimes its more active measures.
    • onefinalstep, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3Why should it be illegal. Think about it. If a grocery store charged you based on your credit, people with money who could pay more wouldn't shop there. Then the store would go out of business. If this is truly a bad thing, Stanford will go out of business. But my guess is the kids who will have to pay will still accept the Stanford degree. You shouldn't claim that policies that organizations take which you don't like should be illegal. Thats what liberals do, and they ruin freedom.
      • smurfsahoy, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1A big reason why it's ridiculous is that the cost of education has gone way up FASTER than inflation. Thus, it's perfectly possible for them to run a university on less. They're just charging more because they can. Which is a pretty scary and dangerou thing to do for an institution that is crafting our futures. There's a reason why you don't pay privately to go to elementary school.
    • nikipedia, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Right, that would be a horrible system, if people who couldn't afford food had to pay less for it. Jeez, we wouldn't want people to have equal access to things like education and food without worrying about their socioeconomic status. THAT would be an awful society to live in.
      • cam0man, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1worrying about food and education?!?! the cutoffs in this article say families that make under $100k! That's not exactly poverty.....Granted Bay Area living is much more expensive, but this is targeting everyone. It's not like they're offering free tuition to those who make wages in the poverty cutoff, it's 60-100k salaries...
    • Miketwo345, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1The price of Stanford is constant. They're just giving a discount to lower income families... Like a giant food stamp.
    • cam0man, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I also think this is wrong....it's one thing to provide loans, student employement opportunities, merit/athletic scholarships - free handouts aren't the answer. My school gave out a lot of 'scholarships' - but they were only issued based on wealth. My family lives pretty comfortably, but it's because my parents work their asses off and struggled the first 30 years of their life. Newsflash - everyone has the chance to be succesful, no need to punish those who have spent their lives working hard.
  • dominikkom, on 02/21/2008, -4/+190So what happens to the students whose families may earn over 100,000$ but don't financially support them?
    • zgoos, on 02/21/2008, -5/+59S.O.L., just like under the current financial aid system with the estimated family contribution, I imagine. I'm a little uncomfortable with awarding things to people based on their parents.
      • Smiths, on 02/21/2008, -1/+3No, that's not true. It's all about dependency status.
        • zgoos, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4You are only considered independent if you meet one of the following(from http://admissions.tc.umn.edu/costsaid/finaid.html) ...
          * at least 24 years old
          * a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces
          * in graduate or professional school
          * married
          * an orphan or ward of the court or have legal dependents for whom you provide at least half of their support

          How many applying freshmen you know who meet one of those?
          • Beery, on 02/21/2008, -1/+4There's always the option of (SHOCK! HORROR!) waiting until you're 24 to go to college. I think people have to get beyond the notion that college is an entitlement that they have to enjoy between the ages of 18 and 23.

            Get a job, bring in some $$ for a year or four and learn a bit about the real world, THEN go to college. Life is not a race that you have to get through in the fastest time possible.
          • ganlet, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Beery
            I've got a better idea. Once you turn 18 and your legally an adult why cant you just be seen as that. I dont recieve any funds from my parents in fact I've had to pay my moms rent more than once. I do have to go to school slowly because every couple semesters I have to drop and work in order to save up enough money to attend school.

            you should be able to get a government loan regardless of your parents. (I'd be able to pay it back once I get my degree)
          • nikipedia, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1You can become legally emancipated and then be considered independent as well.
        • Beery, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Apart from anything else, getting a full-time job before college might teach kids a little about real work - the kind of work you don't need a degree for.
    • cpritchett42, on 02/21/2008, -11/+5If their families make over $100,000 and don't support them, perhaps it is time they considered no longer being dependents.
      • dominikkom, on 02/21/2008, -0/+6But does that get them any financial support?
        I know federal aid has its own age (24) of when your considered no longer dependent.
      • Lukesed, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3I've heard of a parental divorce for child actors and the like who are under 18, but is it possible to get a "parents giving their grown up kids financial support" divorce?
      • scottfarner, on 02/21/2008, -0/+7From personal experience, it is nearly impossible to convince the financial aid people that you are no longer "dependant" on your parents. You essentially have to prove you were abused, molested, left out in the street as a preteen to get that status as an undergraduate.
      • OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 02/21/2008, -1/+0I think you can legally declare your independence. I don't know the process. A family law lawyer or an estate planning lawyer might know
        • ganlet, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1No you cant and its completely ***** up. I'm in the middle of it right now. My family makes absolute ***** but my dad wont file his taxes (he is 100% disabled from the military so his income from the VA isn't even taxable) he has an extreme case of PTSD and doesn't trust the government with anything other than getting a check he doesnt like any government office of any kind, which I guess is understandable due to his case of PTSD. anyways means I cant file fafsa without financial records from both of my parents.
          http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/FOTWWebApp/fotw0809/Worksh ...
      • Lasereth, on 02/21/2008, -0/+7You can't formally declare independence unless you no longer live with them for at least a year and a whole load of other BS. Trust me, I went through this a few years ago when I got through college. My parents make over $100k combined but wouldn't help me out with college so I got zero grants, zero scholarships, zero anything because of THEIR income. Hell, I couldn't even get enough student loans to pay for college. They wouldn't even LOAN the money to me because of my parents' income. Pure bullcrap.
        • whoamarcos, on 02/21/2008, -0/+4I feel your pain man. The whole system is *****.
        • YojimboJango, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I went through this exact thing. Except my parents only made about $60k a year, and had 3 kids.
          I was the step son from a previous marrige and relations were already strained. My parents had just had 2 other kids and because they were too young to be in school they 'didn't count' when calculating financial aid. The counselors at college told me that the smartest thing I could do was putting it all on a master card.
          It is BS and I never graduated (I made it to jr. status before I ran out of my own savings), but that's the way life is. If you're poor you get government aid, and if you're rich you hire someone to figure out how to weasel out of paying. If you're middle class you end up paying for everyone else and get the satisfaction of being the only demographic that gets ***** done.
    • NJank, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3hmmmm... someone clue me in. Is federal student aid 'dependent' status tied at all to IRS dependent claims status? That would make sense...
      • cawpin, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Well, since it makes sense, no. I'm not really sure. I would think it is somehow attached to it. I wasn't still dependent on my parents at 24.
        • MiDri, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Most college financial aid considers you a dependent of your parents untill you are 24-25 years old, regardless of your current living arrangement (Marriage is the only loop hole I know about.) -- the amount of financial aid you can receive is based off how much they told the IRS they made the year before.
      • TheUngod, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2No, unfortunately it doesn't. Unless you go through a court proceeding to be claimed "legally independent", you are a dependent according to financial institutions until you're 24.
      • YojimboJango, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1It's easier and cheaper to get a divorce than to be declared legally independent. Basically unless you're planning on spending the next 8 to 10 years in college it isn't worth it.
    • gringuitica, on 02/21/2008, -5/+10If your parents don't support you financially, that means you work and pay your own taxes, right? In that case -- when you're not a dependent -- colleges generally view you as the breadwinner (for your minifamily) and will award you financial aid based on your last tax return, not that of your parents.
      • DapperDave, on 02/21/2008, -0/+8That's false...you're considered a "dependent" until you're 24 years old, regardless of living arrangement / tax filings. As mentioned before, I think marriage is the only way out of this.
        • that1guyty, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2and military service... i think.
          • ezflip, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1I work in the financial aid office at my towns community college (in Michigan.) Here is the Federal Guidlines to Dependency status.

            For the 2008-2009 academic year, a student is automatically determined to be an independent applicant for Federal student aid if he/she meets any one of the following criteria:

            1. the student was born before January 1, 1985;
            2. at the beginning of the 2008-2009 academic year, the student is working on a master's or doctorate program;
            3. the student is married (as of the date the FAFSA is completed by the student);
            4. the student has children who receive more than half of their support from the student; or
            5. the student has dependents (other than a spouse or children) who live with the student and receive more than half of their support from the student, now and through June 30, 2009;
            6. both of the student’s parents are deceased or the student is/was an orphan or ward of the court until the age of 18;
            7. the student is a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces (called to active duty for service other than training).

            Where a student lives really does not matter in determining how a student files for aid. A student who lives outside of the parent's home is not automatically independent for financial aid purposes. A student may be independent for financial aid purposes, and still be living in the parent's home.

            Sometimes students have unusual circumstances, and ask that the financial aid office review their dependency status. The financial aid office provides the following guidelines to students requesting a status review.

            1. Independent status will be considered if an irrevocable severance of family ties due to extremely difficult/life threatening situations exists, and the student no longer resides with his/her parents.
            2. Acceptable situations may include that the student was abandoned by the parents, or was forced to severe ties because of physical or mental abuse, or was faced with a life threatening situation, and the student no longer resides with his/her parents.

            Detailed documentation supporting the change of status request must be provided by the student.

            Students who want us to change their status to independent or self-supporting should be aware that the following situations do not warrant such a change of status.

            *parents refuse to contribute to the student's education
            *parents refuse to provide required information
            *parents live out-of-state
            *student chose not to live with the parents
            *student chose to live with other relatives
            *student has no communication with the parents
            *student will not qualify for aid if parent's income is used
            *student demonostrates total self-sufficiency
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Stanford is a private university, they can and do give people copious breaks for being financially independent. As do many private institutions, and I would guess public institutions in certain states.
          • ezflip, on 02/21/2008, -0/+0That's all fine and dandy, but in that case, the "break" would be given in the form of institutional monies, not federal monies.
        • ganlet, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1these are the ways you can become an independant student
          http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/FOTWWebApp/fotw0809/Worksh ...
      • MaskedSlacker, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Absolutely wrong. For FAFSa you're dependent until 24, married, bearing children, enlisted in the army, or legally emancipated. PERIOD.
    • Beery, on 02/21/2008, -5/+45They have to do what my wife did - work their way through college and deal with the student loan at the end of it. The fact that poor folks are finally being given a break does not mean that the entire fabric of the universe is falling down around us. If a family earns more than $100,000 their kid is going to get breaks that a kid from a family earning under $100,000 will never get. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't understand how the real world works.
      • charliecharlos, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Ever watch "Love Story"?
        • Beery, on 02/21/2008, -0/+0Yeah, but Ali McGraw's character didn't get free tuition.
      • RedHairedMan, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2You're saying that just because a family earns 100k a year means that kid automatically gets some magical, intrinsic bonuses for college? So where are my magical bonuses? Because between my family taking care of 3 little k