5 ms·

The central problem here is that Stanford is saying one thing and doing another. The central question, which isn't asked in the article, is why. Stanford is cre

The central problem here is that Stanford is saying one thing and doing another. The central question, which isn't asked in the article, is why. Stanford is creating an exclusive, private club, as is their right, but not being upfront about the rules of exclusion. More importantly, the reasons for exclusion.

soneca 9y ago
Maybe the Alumni donors like to say they are donating to allow the education of Stanford to people that couldnt afford it, but actually they enjoy being part of an exclusive club.
firstplacelast 9y ago
Why is the idea of a meritocracy pushed in the US? For the same reasons. If you can convince the people who are getting fleeced that their situation is because they haven’t worked hard enough, they won’t struggle when you steal the coat off their back.
namelezz 9y ago
Stanford is just being passive-aggressive.
fovc 9y ago
I was thinking about this myself. In addition to the PR benefit when soliciting alumni donations ("This money is helping needy students") I think there could be a more immediate business reason: I bet a lot of finance types (or otherwise wealthier applicants) don't apply for financial aid (and don't feel bad about not receiving an offer) because there's this myth about it being need based. Now it seems like everyone might as well apply for aid and play coy, especially if they have other offers
- matt4077 9y ago
  The idea has always been that admission and aid are separate decisions (for US citizen), and that applying for financial aid would therefore never have negative consequences (beyond the time to fill out the application).
  - lnanek2 9y ago
    Yes, but before people believed Standford's lies that aid was needs based, so if they had money from a job or something, they would expect to get nothing and not bother applying. I was in a similar situation, my parents both worked, and was offered nothing in terms of financial aid. Now that we know aid is not needs based, and in fact a lot of aid goes to people with the most finance experience, it makes sense to apply even if you have money already.

soneca 9y ago

Maybe the Alumni donors like to say they are donating to allow the education of Stanford to people that couldnt afford it, but actually they enjoy being part of an exclusive club.

firstplacelast 9y ago

Why is the idea of a meritocracy pushed in the US? For the same reasons. If you can convince the people who are getting fleeced that their situation is because they haven’t worked hard enough, they won’t struggle when you steal the coat off their back.

namelezz 9y ago

Stanford is just being passive-aggressive.

fovc 9y ago

I was thinking about this myself. In addition to the PR benefit when soliciting alumni donations ("This money is helping needy students") I think there could be a more immediate business reason: I bet a lot of finance types (or otherwise wealthier applicants) don't apply for financial aid (and don't feel bad about not receiving an offer) because there's this myth about it being need based. Now it seems like everyone might as well apply for aid and play coy, especially if they have other offers

matt4077 9y ago
The idea has always been that admission and aid are separate decisions (for US citizen), and that applying for financial aid would therefore never have negative consequences (beyond the time to fill out the application).
- lnanek2 9y ago
  Yes, but before people believed Standford's lies that aid was needs based, so if they had money from a job or something, they would expect to get nothing and not bother applying. I was in a similar situation, my parents both worked, and was offered nothing in terms of financial aid. Now that we know aid is not needs based, and in fact a lot of aid goes to people with the most finance experience, it makes sense to apply even if you have money already.