<p>My older son graduated from Stanford in June. When he began at Stanford, our income was right around $60,000, and our son had about $4000 in savings, and I believe Stanford asked our family (us and our son) to pay about $5,000. All through his time at Stanford, his financial aid (not counting loans) covered more than tuition. So Stanford was already providing excellent need-based aid; this appears to just take it a bit further and make it an official policy.</p>
<p>Yes, I think it's important to point out that Stanford didn't just go from "no aid" to "full aid for under 45K". The were being very generous prior to the announcement, with full aid for families making not much less than that, depending on parental assets. What it appears they've done is made it an across the board open thing, which helps with families feeling more comfortable applying at that level. They're also going to be lowering the family contribution for families in the 45K-60K range, which is also a big deal. In much of the country, that really helps firmly middle class families. </p>
<p>As far as room and board, yes, Stanford's need-based aid covers room & board, and expenses. </p>
<p>As an aside, though, I am really troubled by the comments being made about how terrible it is for schools to provide room and board assistance. The assumption seems to be that since parents already do that, they should cover it at college. The problem, of course, is that often, we're talking apples and oranges: a student portion of a $500.00 a month apartment for a family living on a tight budget, with limited grocery costs is in no way the same as the expensive cost of dorms and dorm food. Even if we say, "Well, make the students live off campus", the housing costs in the areas being mentioned (Boston, Silicon Valley), are <em>much</em> higher than they are in much of the country. You can get a $500.00 2 bedroom apartment (for a family of 4) in many places in the country, but NOT in Boston, and NOT in the Bay area, where that apartment can run $1,800 or more a month, easily. (And we're talking tiny, with no central heat, basic appliances. I kid you not.) </p>
<p>The comments about "How dare they use my donations to fund the poor kids' room and board" smacks of elitism in the worst way, and reinforces the terrible negative stereotypes of the Ivies as schools for the financially elite, which is unfortunate. <em>sigh</em></p>
<p>"The comments about "How dare they use my donations to fund the poor kids' room and board" smacks of elitism in the worst way"</p>
<p>What kind of elitism is it for you to tell others that they should make charitable contributions to the gold-plated Harvard and Stanford Student room and board scholarships rather than to soup kitchens?</p>
<p>well i wont "sigh", but the poster gave away his attitude with the use of the term "low income types".</p>
<p>Are we talking 45-60k GROSS or net income?</p>
<p>"Why again, exactly, after providing free education at such a great school, should they offer them free room and board (especially if it is paid for in part by other students' tuition)?"</p>
<p>Let's remember that we are not talking a lot of students here. Only 14% of Stanford students are on Pell Grants (income under $40k). This compares quite favorably with Harvard (about double) and with Princeton, but it's not a lot. They do it in order to compete for top low-income candidates with HP and etc., or with other schools offering better merit aid. They also do it because they know that poor financial condition is closely associated with drop-out rates, and it costs the school quite a bit to accept a student only have him/her drop out to go to work or take care of his/her family. Stanford does it because they believe the SCHOOL (including the well-heeled students) benefit as a result.</p>
<p>Only 24% of Stanford students come from the bottom three quintiles of the U.S. population in income ($60k or below.)</p>
<p>So I think this is a good thing, though in the larger scheme of things, it doesn't amount to a heck of a lot.</p>
<p>Daderoo--if you think that financial aid should cover tuition only, not room and board, then low income students basically couldn't attend any residential college.</p>
<p>That's not the way financial aid works. Federal, state, and insitutional aid all assume that room and board is part of the cost of school. It's not like that part of the policy is new.</p>
<p>And yes, it would be pretty elitest to bar kids whose parents can't afford room and board from residential colleges.</p>
<p>But thankfully, that's not how it works.</p>
<p>Actually, Stanford could set up a tent city in East Palo Alto for the poor kids, and invite them to go dumpster diving for dinner. (Maybe even make it a required course! ;))</p>
<p>The education at these schools is predicated on a 24/7 residential experience. That is why financial aid at most schools is calculated on the basis of tuition, room, board, books, and other extras. At my d's school there is grant money for study abroad, stimulating summer internships, hiking/bonding trips, and even community service. Although two centuries ago students arrived on campus with slaves in tow, and half a century ago there were different dorms for rich and poor undergraduates, today the administrations of these schools recognize that there is something infinitely valuable about the creation of a community of peers.</p>
<p>About a year ago, Yale also instituted a financial aid policy that eliminates the parental contribution for families with incomes of $45K or less. They also reduced their expected contributions for parents with incomes under $60K. Students are still expected to take advantage of work study during the school year and to work summers.</p>
<p>Making a distinction between tuition and room & board seems non-sensical to me. As do comparisons of various schools that only look at tuition. As a parent currently paying the "full freight", it matters little to me (other than at tax time) how the costs break down. My S works summers and covers all of his expenses while away. To me, that contribution is no less important than if he paid part of his tuition bill directly.</p>
<p>Marite was absolutely correct when she said that every student was being subsidized. I applaud the effort of every school that's making a college education more accessible to those who could not afford it previously. The issue shouldn't be whether to subsidize room & board. It ought to be how can we encourage more students to stay in school and take advantage of these opportunities ... from which we all benefit.</p>
<p>Harvard students from households with incomes under $40,000 still have a a "self-help" expectation of approximately $3,500 per year which can be met from parental resources, a part-time job, an outside scholarship, or borrowing. Everyone has to have some skin in the game. $3,500 from some families may involve as great a sacrifice as $35,000 from others.</p>
<p>Also, as Marite has noted, "full freight" families don't pay the full freight. According to Harvard, the list price covers only two-thirds of the cost of attending the College. The rest comes from endowment income, gifts and grants. </p>
<p>Bottom line: all Harvard students receive an implicit scholarship. All are subsidized by someone. The amount of skin in the game is simply a function of one's ability to pay.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If this is just charity, maybe their should use their wealth to provide food or health care for other Americans or Africans, perhaps, who have much less.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allowing a first generation student to attend HYPSM permentaly lifts them and their depondents out of poverty forever. A HYPSM education helps out a poor person much more than any other form of charity.</p>
<p>Daderoo, that's what the term "full ride" means: tuition, room, board, books, medical, etc. All colleges with Div. 1 football teams give out over 70 of them - basketball, too. Other sports give out partial scholarships. I get your point, but calculation of college costs (including FAFSA) includes the cost of living at the college. I'm not sure why need based aid should be different.</p>
<p>TrinSF - yeah, I was curious about that; I was aware that Stanford already gives out a lot of need based aid - I'm not sure if this announcement really signifies an actual change in the net expense of a Stanford education for anyone?</p>
<p>I know of a low income minority student at Stanford on a "full-ride." Part of her full ride includes a $3500 work study (I could be wrong about the exact $) and a student loan of $1,700K per year. Still, not bad for a $47K/yr Stanford education.
She is a 1st generation college student. This gift of an education to a well deserving student will definitely lift her (and probably her immediate family) out of their low income status; or at least I believe that is what Stanford and many other top universities in the country think. Unfortunately I make too much money so I will pay the $47K per yr and my son's stats are good enough to get him into this level of education, but not quite high enough for merit money.</p>
<p>Well, I think that some of the articles about the Stanford announcement point out that for families making less than $45K, the average family contribution was in the ballpark of $2,600. We're not talking a vast amount, but it's helpful, and I am sure there are going to be some families really celebrating. </p>
<p>Also, I'd like to confirm what someone else pointed out -- full financial aid at Stanford still comes with a <em>student</em> contribution expectation, which the portion the student is expected to contribute via workstudy. Recently, Stanford changed their policy so that students could use their outside scholarships to offset that amount first. Prior to that, if you got outside scholarships, Stanford just reduced the amount of need-based aid you got by the amount of the scholarship, which provided students with no incentive to work to gain scholarships. </p>
<p>And finally, what someone else said about college at these schools being a 24/7 thing is really true at Stanford -- they have "Residential Education", and consider the dorm to be part of the learning environment. Some programs, like Structured Liberal Education and Sophomore College, explicitly involve the dormitory as learning spaces.</p>
<p>My comment didn't mention anything about how anyone "should make contributions". I just find the attitude shocking. No one likes to think that exemplars of a negative stereotype actually <em>exist</em>, so it's difficult to be confronted with such an exemplar.</p>
<p>The true Harvard experts can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the elimination of family contribution from families with incomes under $40k was a step intiated by former president Larry Summers.</p>
<p>Yes, that was instituted during Larry Summers' term. However, he is not yet the <em>former</em> president of Harvard. He remains in office until June 30.</p>