4 ms·

I don't know why they're singling out Stanford. Probably just because it's the SF Gate (same reason the only comparison made was to Berkeley).

by mlinsey 18y ago

gleb 18y ago
With articles like these, it's no surprise that Chronicle is going out of business. I was a low-income student in Staford, this article is a curious mix of misleading and plain wrong. I know that time is ripe for class warfare, but come on. * Financial aid does not cover housing during the summer because Stanford undergrad is not in session during the summer * Seeing how Stanford covers tuition and all the expenses for low-income students it's actually cheaper to go to Stanford than to stay at home. It's vastly harder for middle-income families to afford full cost of Stanford, than it is for low-income. Welcome to the modern elite college price discrimination/income redistribution. * having a car for an undergrad is unnecessary and uncommon in Stanford (it's a large and self-sufficient campus), it's a luxury or cost of doing business if you have an off-campus job. * there are good opportunities for low-income students got make a little extra money. Taking out a bit more in federally subsidized loans (reasonable if you expect your income to increase past college) and subsidized on-campus jobs which pay more than most post-undergraduate starting salaries would be good options. * so on, so on ... The lower-than-Berkeley Pell grant percentage is interesting. In addition to irrational belief that Stanford is "school for rich kids" I'd also point to the following rational reasons: * Stanford is more selective. You get drastically fewer poor kids as you move to the right of the bell curve. * Stanford practices affirmative action based on race. Berkeley is prohibited by law from using race and does it based on socio-economic status. Meaning that relatively to Berkeley Stanford discriminates against poor kids to free up space for protected minorities.
- tokenadult 18y ago
  I was a low-income student in Staford What is the defining range of "low-income student" in this statement of yours, and in your several other comments in which you refer to other students? What is the boundary line between "low-income" and "middle-income" in your second bullet point?
  - gleb 18y ago
    When I started college, somewhere around $30k family income I think, no assets. I would have qualified for the free ride under the current rules. We were recent immigrants, my parents' income rapidly went up during my junior/senior year, so I've seen both sides of the picture.

I don't know why they're singling out Stanford. Probably just because it's the SF Gate (same reason the only comparison made was to Berkeley).

by mlinsey 18y ago

I don't know why they're singling out Stanford. Probably just because it's the SF Gate (same reason the only comparison made was to Berkeley).

gleb 18y ago

With articles like these, it's no surprise that Chronicle is going out of business. I was a low-income student in Staford, this article is a curious mix of misleading and plain wrong. I know that time is ripe for class warfare, but come on. * Financial aid does not cover housing during the summer because Stanford undergrad is not in session during the summer * Seeing how Stanford covers tuition and all the expenses for low-income students it's actually cheaper to go to Stanford than to stay at home. It's vastly harder for middle-income families to afford full cost of Stanford, than it is for low-income. Welcome to the modern elite college price discrimination/income redistribution. * having a car for an undergrad is unnecessary and uncommon in Stanford (it's a large and self-sufficient campus), it's a luxury or cost of doing business if you have an off-campus job. * there are good opportunities for low-income students got make a little extra money. Taking out a bit more in federally subsidized loans (reasonable if you expect your income to increase past college) and subsidized on-campus jobs which pay more than most post-undergraduate starting salaries would be good options. * so on, so on ... The lower-than-Berkeley Pell grant percentage is interesting. In addition to irrational belief that Stanford is "school for rich kids" I'd also point to the following rational reasons: * Stanford is more selective. You get drastically fewer poor kids as you move to the right of the bell curve. * Stanford practices affirmative action based on race. Berkeley is prohibited by law from using race and does it based on socio-economic status. Meaning that relatively to Berkeley Stanford discriminates against poor kids to free up space for protected minorities.

tokenadult 18y ago
I was a low-income student in Staford What is the defining range of "low-income student" in this statement of yours, and in your several other comments in which you refer to other students? What is the boundary line between "low-income" and "middle-income" in your second bullet point?
- gleb 18y ago
  When I started college, somewhere around $30k family income I think, no assets. I would have qualified for the free ride under the current rules. We were recent immigrants, my parents' income rapidly went up during my junior/senior year, so I've seen both sides of the picture.