<p>From the article: Stanford</a> to eliminate tuition for families earning less than $100,000</p>
<p>"In a radical change to its financial aid program, Stanford University will announce Wednesday that it will no longer charge tuition to students whose families earn less than $100,000 a year.</p>
<p>In addition, the university will waive room and board fees for students whose families earn less than $60,000 a year."</p>
<p>From the same article:
"The university said it would continue to take into account a family's assets and overall situation, in addition to earnings, in determining the financial aid it could receive."</p>
<p>It's a step, but I think it's too little when compared to it's peers.</p>
<p>Now some accepted students who hate cold and are accepted at Stanford and Harvard have no reason to grit their teeth and choose H.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's a step, but I think it's too little when compared to it's peers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps true, but prior to the new Finaid policies of its peers, S lost the cross-admit battle big time. Thus, the new finaid policies of its peers might mean it loses a few more cross-admits, but probably only a few more. Thus, don't need to compete that much with $.</p>
<p>That's a good point bluebayou.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps true, but prior to the new Finaid policies of its peers, S lost the cross-admit battle big time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices</p>
<p>S performs somewhere between Y and P in cross-admits with H and each other. I don't know what you mean by loses "big time," because the only school that wins cross admits from S by a considerable margin is H.</p>
<p>Mors:</p>
<p>the data for that table have been discussed on cc ad nauseum, for the built-in survey bias; hint: geographic & financial. But, regardless, I'm just going off of what a former Stanford Admissions officer says publicly. If I recall, historically, S loses ~80% to H and about ~65 to P. Yale fluctuates 50-70% bcos the cross applicant numbers aren't as large as they are to H & P. </p>
<p>All of which make sense to me: the vast majority of apps to HYP are from the population centers in the NE, and, like all kids, the NE crowd would prefer to attend a college within a day's drive from home.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the data for that table have been discussed on cc ad nauseum, for the built-in survey bias; hint: geographic & financial.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>bluebayou, this is your standard response to every mention of that working paper and its distillation into the New York Times chart, but you haven't shown the work for why we shouldn't believe the general tenor of the results. (The authors themselves acknowledge that revealed preference may change over time, and theirs is still the newest study of the issue.) </p>
<p>Harvard has much more of a national draw and out-of-region draw than Stanford, although here in Minnesota Stanford gets more test scores sent to it than Harvard does.</p>
<p>tokenadult, sorry, but way back when, several of us went thru it pretty critically. </p>
<p>1) the authors clearly state that they purposely sampled schools that send many kids to highly selective colleges. Since most of these highly selective colleges are located in the NE, and most of the attendees of these highly selective colleges live east of the Misssissippi, is it not logical to assume that most of the high school sampled are in a similar geogrpahic area? (Earlier drafts of the study footnoted the sampled schools, but the current one that I've seen no longer does; perhaps you know a link?) </p>
<p>2) I have an extremely hard time believing that their adjustment for finaid/merit aid is statistically valid. Yes, the math may work, but their adjustment cannot correct for someone like 'Mudgette choosing R over Y. (But, then, again, 'Mudegette's HS would never be in their sample to begin with.) Or, a good friend who turned down Yale & Brown to accept a local full ride. Or, consider the finances another way: as you and others have noted, H & P (and UVa) have spent thousands on a road show to gen up more apps from less wealthy kids....obvsiously, they aren't receiving the applicant pool that they would like from these lower income schools. And, therefore, by definition these lower income schools are excluded from the RP study...</p>
<p>Now, if I was the authors of the study, I'd likely retitle it something to the effect of 'Revealed Preferences of Wealthy NE kids.....' :)</p>
<p>And, of course, Harvard has a national draw; heck, it has a worldwide draw. But, that reinforces 1) my earlier point about Stanford not needing to play the finaid game; and, 2) my suggestion that the RP study is geographically-biased -- and that the cross admits tend to reside more in the east than they do in the west...</p>
<p>Just my $0.02.</p>
<p>Any guesses whether the $100,000 income level referenced will be Adjusted Gross Income, or total income?</p>
<p>BB, I think that your numbers would be hard to support. </p>
<p>We</a> offered, they declined: Many admits choose other prestigious universities</p>
<p>This is for my class of 2008:</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the Class of 2008, the university admitted 2,486 students; 1,665 accepted the offer of admission and arrived at the university last month. Of the 821 students who declined admission and filled out a form that indicated where they were going instead, 28 percent said Harvard, 20 percent said Yale, 13 percent said MIT and 8 percent said Princeton.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That should indicate that about 230 students picked Harvard over Stanford. To lose 80% of cross-admits, there must have been only 280 students out of the more than 2400 who secured admissions at both schools.</p>
<p>Another poster, iandoh, gave two more helpful links in a different thread. </p>
<p>Stanford</a> | Financial Aid Office |
Stanford</a> enhances undergraduate financial aid program</p>
<p>The first link was particularly interesting. Whatever4, it refers to "total annual income." It also gives a thorough explanation of what "typical assets" for such families are considered to be. Home equity is still capped at 1.2 times annual income. Three cheers to Stanford for the transparency.</p>
<p>From data found on the Yale website for the Class of 2006, these were the cross admit rates of elite schools with Harvard:</p>
<p>Harvard + Stanford: 345 admits
Harvard + Yale: 292 admits
Harvard + Princeton: 182 admits
Harvard + MIT: 109 admits</p>
<p>255 chose Harvard, 90 chose Stanford
246 chose Harvard, 46 chose Yale
133 chose Harvard, 49 chose Princeton
60 chose Harvard, 49 chose MIT </p>
<p>Therefore, percentage of cross admits that Harvard wins:</p>
<p>Stanford: 74%
Yale: 84%
Princeton: 73%
MIT: 55%</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>doesn't your post #14 (74%) actually "support my numbers" (80%), which obviously fluctuate in any given year?</p>
<p>Moreover, the article from Stanford News is not far off either. Regardless on whether H wins the cross-admit battle with Stanford 4:1 (80/20) or 3:1 (75/25), it does seem to be a "big time" route. :D</p>
<p>I know you'd say that BB but you would need to plug in corrections for trends. I'd venture to say that the Class of 2012 will look different from 6 years ago.</p>
<p>As far as transparency, I hope Stanford will clarify these two items</p>
<ol>
<li>More Generous Method for Determing Family Contributions </li>
</ol>
<p>Decreasing the assessment rate for student assets from 25% to 5% per academic year </p>
<ol>
<li>Students Not Expected to Borrow to Meet Educational Costs </li>
</ol>
<p>Students are no longer expected to borrow student loans as part of their financial aid packages. Instead, students can cover their expenses by working part-time during the academic year, with a standard earnings expectation of $2,500.</p>
<p>The question mark is for the unadressed summer earning expectation. Does the $2500 replaces the current $1700 (or 2100) + $2000?</p>
<p>perhaps I can obtain some of that product in post #17 while its still cheap. LOL</p>
<p>I realize that my numbers are a couple of years old, and based on early-senior memory. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the source doc. But I'll keep searching.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps true, but prior to the new Finaid policies of its peers, S lost the cross-admit battle big time. Thus, the new finaid policies of its peers might mean it loses a few more cross-admits, but probably only a few more. Thus, don't need to compete that much with $.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
doesn't your post #14 (74%) actually "support my numbers" (80%), which obviously fluctuate in any given year?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess I'm confused with what you're saying. No one is arguing that Stanford beats Harvard in the cross-admit battle; I was saying that S does as well as YPM in cross admits with H and others, which my numbers (and yours) seem to support. You're right to say that S won't pick up many (if any) more cross admits from H as a result of the new aid policy, but it will ensure that S doesn't lose them, will encourage more middle-income students to apply, and will probably help with the small number of admits who choose to attend less expensive schools for financial reasons.</p>
<p>As a student going to Stanford, I am really in shock at how far they missed the ball. The reason that Harvard's and Yale's new policy is so innovative is that it was so simple. 10% of income, give or take a little based on circumstances. It's easy to see how much you would pay, which can make the difference if your parents don't want you to apply for financial reasons. It brought a new level of transparency to the financial aid process, in addition to be generous.</p>
<p>Stanford, on the other hand, has chosen to not only keep their old system but also make that system harder to understand. Students with parental incomes below $100,000 don't pay TUITION. There are about $15,000+ costs associated with attending Stanford after tuition. Will students be able to afford that? This system lacks any transparency like the others, as statements in the press release clearly indicate ("Other significant enhancements have been made to the program that will benefit aid recipients at all levels of income." - not that we list them).</p>
<p>I just think that Stanford missed the point. They could have made the system 15% of income, or even 20%. The effect and the easy marketing would be the same. Clearly, Stanford needs to listen to its enormous entrepreneurial talent in order to understand marketing (starting with Keep It Simple). This program does nothing but add more questions, questions that other top universities eliminated entirely.</p>