Until recently I did not think it possible that one of my children would aspire to attend a university such as Stanford. I have an eight year old who is very gifted academically. We have made choices in which schools he attends currently based on his ability to excel. He recently informed me that he would like to attend Stanford or Harvard and that he needs to set his standards high. Of course I was stunned seeing that he is only eight. He will graduate at the age of 16 if he stays on the course he is on. We have invested our money in home for our family and in the State of California that has been a high price to pay. As sad as it is around every turn there are rising costs in Medical care, Gas, and just basic daily needs that force the Middle class family to struggle to stay a float not allowing them to put that extra money(?) away for their children’s college funds.

I stumbled across these comments and feel that what Stanford is doing is wonderful. We have struggled over the years to successfully support our and raise our children. We have not been able to invest money for college due to our children’s everyday needs and medical necessities (we have one child with special needs).

It seems easy for people to think negatively of those that will benefit from this program but not think twice of the Athletes that benefit just the same for their Athletic ability. A lot of those students that receive full rides to good universities for football, baseball or whatever the sport may be have families that could afford the education as well.

If a child has the academic ability to be accepted into Stanford University, which is no easy task, and is able to attend due to this program then I say Kudos to Stanford for allowing the opportunity for these children.

Keep in mind a six figure income of $100,000 is not what it used to be in the state of California and with all of the rising costs in California it doesn’t go far.

If you see nothing wrong with Stanford giving financial aid to millionaires, then I’m sure no one is going to convince you otherwise.

Many people, including donors, would rather see:
1) People pay their share for something for which they are the prime beneficiary, due not only to an inherent sense of fairness but also to incentivize future achievement

2) Resources going to research and quality of instruction instead of tuition breaks for rich kids

If Stanford already pays the whole way for the lower income families, a lot of my concern is removed. As you approach 6 figures in income, though, you are talking about people who often have the capability to game the system.

At $100k I could argue successfully that there aren’t a lot of families who are making $100k and scrimping and saving for their children’s education, especially at Stanford where all in costs are $70k a year. If I was wrong on this issue, then what we would not have seen in recent decades is the significant growth in financial aid and debt to cover education.

I still don’t understand the point you are making by saying “Maybe instead of raising the maximum family income level they should instead give richer aid to lower income families (e.g., not just free tuition but larger living stipends or allowances for books & materials).” That is exactly what Stanford is doing, they are giving the motherload of financial aid to families who can’t afford a Stanford education on their own, and for families below $60k they are covering literally everything. What do you want them to do, throw in a salary for kids at the very low end of the poverty scale?

Lastly, Stanford could raise this to $1m a year and I still would not object because there is nothing, absolutely nothing to criticize about a private institution providing what is essentially a free education to those who meet the academic and other standards for acceptance. This was the original idea behind public education, use taxpayer dollars to fund public higher education, but in this case the “taxpayers” are the private donors to Stanford’s endowment and the investment returns that it generates.

I’m not attacking the concept of financial aid. I’m questioning whether a family making $100K needs financial aid. How many of your 130 examples have families making $100K? I’m guessing about none.

Many lower- and middle-class people saved and sacrificed their whole lives to pay for their children’s education. Now they see that people with significantly more income who didn’t make similar sacrifices are getting free tuition. Is that the right way to use the university’s resources? Maybe instead of raising the maximum family income level they should instead give richer aid to lower income families (e.g., not just free tuition but larger living stipends or allowances for books & materials).

If they raised the maximum family income limit for free tuition to say $150K or $200K would you then conceive of the possibility that is rewarding the wrong behavior?

Honestly, I’m having a hard time understanding what your particular bias is to suggest that someone is getting something that they don’t deserve. You suggest that returns are getting skewed to people who don’t need them, but on what basis are you making that assumption?

Maybe you should come up to SF and meet with some of the young people who the nonprofit I support works with. The only way these kids get to a school like Stanford is through scholarships and plenty of debt that takes them 10+ years to pay off. You can meet with Aaron Bianco who grew up in Richmond with his single mom and no father in sight, until protective services removed him at age 10. He left Princeton in his senior year to care for his uncle, who was diagnosed with a brain tumor that he would die from. Aaron returned to Princeton and graduated on to Boalt School of Law.

I have over 130 stories just like this, a significant number of them went on to schools like Stanford (in some cases, Stanford), Harvard and Princeton. If any of these young people had the opportunity to qualify for a school like this and not have to pay tuition, well they wouldn’t spend the first part of their professional lives paying off debts that were the table stakes for a better life.

I think your argument is preposterous and small minded. You are preoccupied with someone getting something they don’t deserve even though it has no impact on you, I would prefer to focus on the opportunities this creates for those that are deserving of it.

I don’t think we’re questioning whether they are entitled or legally able to do so; the issue is whether we think it’s the correct action.