• Categories
  • Archives

Stanford Tuition Will Now Be Free To All Students From Families That Earn Less Than $125,000 Per Year

Last week, Stanford University announced that more accepted students won’t have to pay anything for tuition, which normally runs nearly $46,000 a year.

Students whose families make less than $125,000 a year and have assets worth $300,000 or less, including home equity but excluding anything that they have saved in retirement accounts, won’t have to pay tuition. Students whose families make less than $65,000 also won’t have to pay for room and board, which can run about another $14,100. Scholarships or grants will cover the costs instead, and the school has a $21 billion endowment. The thresholds were previously $100,000 for free tuition and $60,000 for free room and board.

Students will still have to contribute at least $5,000 a year from part-time work during the school year, working during the summer, and/or savings.

“Our highest priority is that Stanford remain affordable and accessible to the most talented students, regardless of their financial circumstances,” said Provost John Etchemendy in a press release. “Our generous financial aid program accomplishes that, and these enhancements will help even more families, including those in the middle class, afford Stanford without going into debt.” The school says that 77 percent of undergraduates leave without student debt.

That makes Stanford graduates somewhat unique, as about 70 percent graduate with debt, owing an average of $29,000 at the end of last year. Student loan debt has tripled over the last decade.

To read more, continue to the next page. 

Page 1 of 2
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | Next | Last
View All


  • Show Comments

  • Ashy

    Is it even for the international students?

  • Kathy macdonald

    I was wondering if this was true, and if so how do we go about applying for these programs.

  • Vishesh Gupta

    Is it only for US students or applicable for international students as well?

  • Rahul Kashyap

    Is this applicable to students from India or other foreign countries?

  • Katrina

    Is there a plan out there for those who have already finished school and are buried under a pile of college debt?

  • Donald Gerard

    What about the books? Seems like that’s where they make most of their money – by changing course required books every year so you can’t buy used ones!

    • Glen Tank Bailey

      that’s where the $5k a year part time job comes in at @Donald Gerard.. I assume.. Imagine how many “FORMER” grads from Stanford that have to be FURIOUS over this resolve by Stanford..

    • KJ Dark

      If I was receiving free tuition and possibly also free room and board, paying for books would be the least gripe.

      Should colleges always renew books? Depends on the subject and how fast that field moves. However, when $130K+ of debt is removed from the equation for a 4-year degree, I think $5K in books over 4 years is tolerable. Also, e-books and rental options reduce cost versus buying a book the student knows they will never use again.

      I try to plan my own purchases based on review of the book prior to purchase. If I feel it will have valuable references for future courses or work situations, I am more likely to purchase a copy (e-book or hard copy) whereas if the book is redundant to previous course work, poorly written, critically disliked, etc then I may opt to only rent it for the course (again, e-book or hard copy pending best use and value) and be done with it.

      Either way, unless the publication is written by the University/Institution, most of the profits go to the publishers and resellers. And in an age where PDF rips are common, they will be forced to continue to raise prices on books to make a target profit range “in the black.” It’s a fairly vicious cycle and will not be remedied as long as words are so easily transferable.

      The only way to lower prices forever would be to somehow lock out all copy/scan and print functions, remove hard copy purchases, and cryptokey the e-book to a specific device of the user’s preference. And even then, someone will spend their efforts to recreate the book through raw typing or counter-hacking the cryptokeys. But, in theory, this practice would make the PDF version much rarer or non-existent of many a book and enable prices to lower (providing the corporation recognizes their efforts have reduced shipping costs, printing costs, and lost profit due to piracy).

      Of course, this is likely a pipe dream. Academia is too centered around the feel of paper and notes in text, and I personally love the feel of a good book in my hands. My tablet is great too, but I will always have a personal library of paper and ink and they were worth every dollar I ever spent.

      • karma713

        Lol, I love that saying, “Pipe Dream.” Was this free tuition thing around back in 2006? If so I wish I would have known about it. I would have loved to be able to go to college, learn more, and get a degree. I would have tried harder in HS to get the grades, instead of slacking off because I knew there was no way in hell i would be able to afford college.

    • dotag69

      …Books are the one area where I would not try to cut corners…I would not want a book which had been written all over by some C student.

  • Mwm Kjkjjkk

    Is this also for international students ?

    • L R


      • ReallyFedUp

        They probably only do this for international students.

    • indranee

      Nope. Just for citizens and legal residents.

  • OrganicForLife

    Vanderbilt had a program for many years that gave the children of their employees free tuition if they were accepted to the school. Not sure if they still do, but there are so many ways that education can be encouraged for all.

    • Jude I⚡caяiot

      Most schools have those programs. I have friends who are janitorial staff at colleges, and have been for years, with no intention of leaving because they have teenage kids and they want to get them in to the college for free.

      When I was at Columbia College in Chicago, one friend’s father was a maintenance guy at the school. Free tuition.

      But not everybody can get those jobs…

  • L R

    If the US slashed its obscenely high defense spending, it could afford universal health care, universal post-secondary education and universal child care.

    • Jude I⚡caяiot

      Yeah, but then those CEOs in charge of defense contractors won’t be able to send their kids to Stanford.

      • Chris

        Actually, now they will be able to!

        • karma713

          Lol, that’s what i was going to say. They can take advantage of this as well.

    • Robert Forslund

      But that would mean more peace in the world… We can’t have that, now can we? 😛

      • Michi Kaputnik

        You think with Russia China North Korea & the powder keg known as the middle east, if the U.S. cuts Military & Defense spending there will be more Peace? Nothing is Free in this world, it all costs money. Liberals & Conservatives are both one side of the same coin. All Politicians are nothing more then Hand Puppets bought & paid for by corporations owned by Billionaires. Why else would they spend tens of millions of dollars to be in Congress which pays $175 grand a year + benefits. Or about a cool $1 BILLION to get elected Potus in 2016 which pays $400 grand + benefits . Some of you folks are truly Delusional. World Peace lmbfao!

    • You act as if it’s that easy. I certainly agree it’s too high, but the military also employs an immense amount of people that would ultimately lose their jobs if funding is cut too far. If the US is able to provide jobs elsewhere to better transition extra-budget military staff, then I can see us being able to do that. If we cut defense spending or presence, we best do it in the most efficient way. Locations that have fewest personnel and least value first, of the sort.

      Again, I do agree it needs to happen, but there are certain reasons other than the obvious war hawk congress we have right now why it’s so large at the moment. We need to consider all parties involved with matters such as this.

      • Brian Phillips

        If you’re worried about military jobs, the solution would be to transfer employment to the education and healthcare sectors after cutting the military budget. In other words, LR is not talking about cutting the overall budget, but rather a transfer of spending from one disproportionately receiving end to several others that would benefit many more.

        • Rebecca Herbert-Mariano

          How about using some military budget dollars to up staffing and conditions at VA hospitals?? The VA should have the BEST healthcare facilities in the nation, not the most embarrassing.

          • Brian Phillips

            I agree. Or alternatively, we could just have the best healthcare system in the world with access for everyone, thereby eliminating the need for VA hospitals altogether.

          • Tim

            I would be perfectly happy reducing military expenditures and taking that money and investing it into veteran services. First thing I would do after making sure every VA hospital was top notch would be making sure we don’t have a single vet on the streets living homeless.

            There is this old guy in the park across the street from me who used to annoy me… you know being homeless and in front of my house all the time… its not what you want to see. Then I talked to him one day. He fought in Vietnam and lost two brothers in that war. He has major PTSD, could never hold a job because he needs to take unexpected breaks when things trigger his PTSD reactions… I cried and felt embarrassed for ever judging him. And then I felt embarrassed for my government for not taking care of him.

      • Mark

        The jobs argument is not valid in my opinion. It’s the same argument the oil and gas and the coal industries use as well in their lobbying. But like in those industries, moving from fossil fuels to manufacturing sun and wind energy systems and for energy storage would result in more likely than not an increase in US jobs, not a decrease. Likewise, shifting military spending to NSF/NIH funding would lead to an explosion in employment of students, postdocs, faculty, and for many in the research support industry which is very heavily US based with a much bigger long term economic benefit likely to come from it (at one time, the US DOD spent a good deal on fundamental science itself, but for a decade now they have focused nearly exclusively on applied-level weapons technologies)

        But yeah, what you say in spirit is true. We still need a military, eliminating it isn’t an option right now, but reductions in military size needs to happen in a well-managed and carefully planned way. The funny thing is many within the higher ranks of the military WANT to close and consolidate bases and WANT to end many weapons programs, but Congress has no balls/ovaries to do this because for waay too many in congress, military spending is the ultimate pork project going to their districts.

        • Joe

          Well said!

        • Oh Please!

          Well, your opinion is fücking stupid. You think “slashing the military” is a good idea? Well, I hope you have that sun and wind farm up and running right now, and plenty of available jobs RIGHT NOW (not 35 years from now) because you are about to have literally millions of veterans unemployed, homeless, and looking to MARK for what we do next! And I don’t know if you’ve met a lot of transitioning veterans, but they aren’t exactly thrilled to be calling a civilian “Boss” in the first place, not to mention one who is an armchair economist with no clue on how to move forward.

          And, of course, that is before every superpower in the world floods in to carve our country up and, oops, we have a lot of renewable energy sources and universal healthcare, but no military.

          So misguided! Not only is the “jobs argument” valid; it’s kind of the point!

          • Ian Lowe

            The only funny thing here is that you guys still don’t think you are a socialist country… you totally are, you just direct your social spending into warfare… 😉

          • Lucifer999

            Very true. The majority of the US budget goes to socialist functions: Military + Medicaid/Medicare + SS.

            For those who throw around the term socialism without understanding what it is, socialism is any enterprise funded by taxpayers, administered by government, for the benefit of all.

          • Oh Please!

            Not really, genius. Read the wiki.

          • mrkeys1962

            Benefit of all? That’s where creative license is employed to pitch how the program is beneficial to all so that we can suck the working class with ever increasing taxes. Give a homeless man a dollar and he gets…..a dollar. Give the government a dollar to feed a homeless man and you’ll be taxed $1k to deliver it.

          • Tim

            ^that is not the definition of socialism.

          • Oh Please!

            Nah, we own neither our means of production nor the management of it. If anything, we are a plutocracy.

          • Tim

            You should give us at least a little more credit than that. We also subsidize the oil industry.

          • William Holz

            Why does slashing military mean that we can’t use the same money to give people jobs that are less wasteful, genuinely useful, and don’t involve ruining things that somebody else built?

            The jobs argument is valid ONLY if you just pretend all those resources vanish. What was offered up by the OP is a change in focus which easily and comfortably deals with that issue.

            As for the ‘OMGZ! They’ll invade us!’. That’s a massive pile of bullshit. Unless all those other countries with smaller militaries are getting invaded by anybody other than us?

            That’s like..grade school stuff, dude.

          • Oh Please!

            Some things people build need to be ruined. When the time comes to do that, are you going to pay for a commercial flight to Syria and do it yourself? With your own tools that you paid for out of pocket? No? Better leave it to the pros, then.

          • Lucifer999

            No moron, we’re saying that we don’t need the current level of spending to ruin those things.

          • Oh Please!

            I know what you’re saying, you stupid teenage nitwit. You have NO CLUE what you’re talking about. You wouldn’t know the first thing. Do you really believe you know more about this than generals and vested legislators? Get real.

            How about you actually provide some real ideas, instead of insults? Think you can manage that, sweetheart?

            Anything besides, “We just need to cut… some stuff. Duher.”

          • Tim

            He calls you a nitwit then tells us to listen to the generals and congress. LMFAO

            Generals gathered in their masses,
            just like witches at black masses.
            Evil minds that plot destruction,
            sorcerer of death’s construction.
            In the fields the bodies burning,
            as the war machine keeps turning.
            Death and hatred to mankind,
            poisoning their brainwashed minds…Oh lord yeah!

            Politicians hide themselves away
            They only started the war
            Why should they go out to fight?
            They leave that role to the poor

            Time will tell on their power minds
            Making war just for fun
            Treating people just like pawns in chess
            Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah!

            Now in darkness, world stops turning,
            ashes where the bodies burning.
            No more war pigs have the power,
            hand of god has struck the hour.
            Day of judgement, god is calling,
            on their knees the war pigs crawling.
            Begging mercy for their sins,
            Satan, laughing, spreads his wings…Oh lord, yeah!

          • jrboss93

            We’ll put a boot in their ass, it’s the American way.

            … don’t like it, feel free to move to France.

          • Lucifer999

            This is a really stupid comment. Nobody proposed ‘canceling’ the US military.

          • Oh Please!

            Oh, well what exactly do you propose we “slash?” I’ll grab some popcorn.

          • Tim

            You don’t know the difference between cutting back and eliminating? Not surprised reading your other comments.

            you pretty much have zero intellect.

          • Nerdsamwich

            Which other superpowers? Russia, whose economy largely depends on us buying their petroleum, or China, whose economy mostly depends on us buying their consumer products? Is there another one?

            Besides, “slashing the military budget” does not mean getting rid of it entirely. We could cut our defense spending in half and still be outpacing the next top five spenders combined, most of whom are our military allies. We’d be doubling China’s levels, by the way.

            The jobs argument is bullshit. As of 2010, the latest year I could find numbers for, personnel costs accounted for around a sixth of the Defense budget. Procurement, that is buying new tanks we don’t need–that the Joint Chiefs don’t even want–costs nearly as much as personnel.All we need to do to save billions on Defense is to get our troops home, stop buying unnecessary materiel, and raise recruitment standards.

          • Tim

            Funny, he thinks that collecting a paycheck from the u.s. taxpayers hard word makes you an economic savant. Not like those stupid tax payers who work and build and create to pay for the military in the first place.

            The anger, pessimism, and insults are a nice touch too. The next five largest militaries combined are smaller than ours, and I don’t see their countries being invaded and chopped up.


        • TheZookeeper

          My SIL was an Osprey mechanic in the USMC. How does that translate into one of these boom jobs you mentioned? When he joined, he and my daughter bought a house because he was non deployable and would be stationed in the same place throughout his enlistment. They were not worried about selling the house because they were in b a military town and the USMC provided a housing stipend. With the military cutbacks they were able to find a renter, not a buyer.

          Tell me about these high ranking officers who want to close and consolidate bases because that doesn’t make sense to me.

          • Gideon Korte

            If your SIL was an Osprey Mechanic and can’t find a job in the current Economy, he wasn’t a very good mechanic. Nine times out of ten an even quarter of the way decent engineer can find a job without effort. It’s literally one of the most sought after positions in the US or any country.

          • TheZookeeper

            I didn’t say he couldn’t find a job. He found one just fine,

        • HLOPLT

          What needs to be reduced are the number of civilians in the DOD.

      • dantrr

        Jobs shouldn’t be an issue, companies generally give vets a higher employment chance.

        • Oh Please!

          On paper, they do. In practice, not so much.

          • dantrr

            Hmm, interesting..

      • Mick

        I may be wrong, but I don’t believe personnel is the only expense for the military. Corporate contracts are enormous.

      • William Holz

        That comes up a lot, but it’s not really a good reason to cling to military jobs. Every potentially useful job (manufacturing, construction, so many more) have parallels in the public sector and by definition spending money on military is ALWAYS going to be far less beneficial then spending on the consumer sector.

        The people trying to legitimize time and effort spent on military activities as somehow a net positive are being very disingenuous.

      • charles Jackson

        same thing was said about the telephone operators. invest the money on fixing our country roads and infrastructure will bring good paying jobs lord knows we need that

        • Lucifer999

          Spending on telephone operators shifted to spending on Internet infrastructure. I would call that a good move.

      • Lucifer999

        I would be happy if we started the process by transitioning the spending/jobs to something that benefited Americans, like infrastructure development and renewal.

      • Rik Holets

        Instead of training machine killers, they could train machine builders

      • sveltesvengali
      • Helen Goldsmith

        So… you would rather obscene amounts of money were spent keeping military personnel employed than educating future generations so that they will be able to enter the workforce as skilled employees? Some people will never have the chance to be hired if they do not have a formal education. That is the reality of funding your defense force.

        • Yes, pretty much. The government doesn’t serve as a tool to educate individuals, that belongs to the private sector.

      • Mike Meoff

        We have to get out of the business of murder for profit. All that politicians do is wrap any potential conflict with the American Flag,and the Bible, and the suckers that comprise the American public buy right into it. Cutting the defense budget by half would be a good start, since we spend more on defense than the next 55 countries combined.

    • Alex

      Tell China and Russia to cut theirs too first…

      • Lee Grandmaison

        Considering America outspends both China and Russia combined ( And almost the rest of the world, for that matter. ) they don’t really need to.

        • karma713

          We don’t want them stronger than us, ya know

          • Lee Grandmaison

            They wouldn’t be. You could cut your budget in half, and still have the strongest military in the world. By quite a bit.

          • karma713

            I have no idea, it would just make sense that generally, the more one spends on military, the stronger it is.

      • abacobeachbum

        “to cut theirs too first?” What?

        • dotag69

          ..Tell China and Russia to cut their military spending, also, and they should be required to cut their military budget before the USA cuts its….And no one believes you are stupid enough not to have figured that out for yourself..Or maybe you are..

          • abacobeachbum

            Oh, so now you’re the victim because you can’t put a proper sentence together? So typical.

            And speaking of stupid…As has been stated here by someone else, the US spends more on defense than the next 15 or so top countries combined. Yet, like a typical dumb American, you think that some of the others should have to cut their spending as well. I get it. The US accounts for 5% of the population of the world, yet consumes 25% of its resources. So it’s only logical that you’d come from a sense of entitlement.

          • karma713

            So much hatred. I think it was meant more to reduce the size of their armies so that they wouldn’t overpower us were we to reduce our spending? Not sure though.

          • Oh Please!

            You literally do not get what the original guy was saying (who wasn’t dotag69, by the way). He is saying if Russia and China do not cut back their military and we do, they will INVADE AND CONQUER us, you bottom feeding idiot.

          • neroden

            That’s completely delusional.

          • Oh Please!

            Well, to be fair, I believe it…

        • karma713

          I’s speaks teh engrishism

          • Alex

            Nie perdol kretynie…

        • Oh Please!

          You must have received one of those free college educations, huh?

          • Alex

            You hit the nail on the head. Colleges are free in Russia and that’s where I came from…

      • Lucifer999

        Why? Theirs are a small fraction of ours.

        • neroden

          Theirs added together are less than 10% of ours.

          • Alex

            I was never good at math but where is the 10% coming from again?

        • Alex

          Small fraction? Hmm?
          And that’s only by looking at their official reports. Good luck if you believe these numbers.
          US 680B
          China 131B
          RuSSia 69B

    • abacobeachbum

      Yeah, but the military welfare machine would suffer on the back end. I do agree with you though.

    • Brien Bowers

      Defense is the governments job. Education and handouts are notm

      • Zaperbranner

        Has the US Military actually ever defended us from anything in the past 50 years? Or is it just a tool for meddling in the affairs of other countries at this point? Why is something costing us so much money when in reality that spending is crippling our countries ability to actually use that money to improve infrastructure, public education, and pay back debts we should have never accumulated? I am curious and would like to hear your thoughts 🙂

        • Mark

          The US military certainly has overreached in my opinion, but during the cold war a strong military presence was rather important to the defense of the western world to an expansionistic Soviet superpower. Nowadays, operating against terrorism overseas is still falling on the US’s plate, not that everything in that war is going well, but there is level of necessity in putting a check on the terrorist groups that have done a good deal of attacks in Europe and around the world.

          I agree though, military spending is bloated and our military capability can run on a much leaner budget. Putting just 10 or 20% of the military budget into infrastructure and education would severely reduce our investment shortcomings in those areas. I just wouldn’t be so naive about dismissing the role of the military in the protection of westernized democracies though.

          • Lucifer999

            Don’t forget that our military meddling is also a cause of the current mess in the middle east. I argue that we’ve made ourselves less safe.

            Sadly, a big part of our problem is misplaced priorities. For example, I read last week that McKinney TX is laying off underpaid teachers, but has approved a $60M football stadium.

          • neroden

            The US military has basically been generating terrorism.

            Frankly, it’s incompetent. The US has *lost nearly every war since the end of the Korean War*, which was a tie. Exceptions are Grenada, Iraq I and Kosovo.

            I trust Thomas Ricks’s analysis of this: the problem is that the military has become a careerist bureaucracy. Prior to the Cold War, the US military was basically dissolved after every war and restarted for the next war, which made it *extremely agile* and caused it to adapt to new circumstances. Now the military is always fighting the last war, so it always loses.

        • Oh Please!

          You know, Zaper, things look quite a bit different from what you might call “the realm of knowing what you’re actually talking about” than they do from your couch. If you are ignorant as to just what it is the military “actually ever defended us from in the past 50 years,” might I suggest putting your money where your mouth is, and enlisting? You’ll learn everything you ever wanted to know about how the world works, it should satisfy your curiosity, and you might actually understand what “paying back debts” really means. (And you don’t now–don’t even pretend…)

          • Lucifer999

            Why don’t you just answer the question or shut up. Your stupid statements aren’t adding anything to this discussion.

          • Tim

            Because if you are in the military and gone through their inoculation process you will be a much smarter person about whats really going on in this country… acknowledged by no one with an IQ over 10….. EVER.

        • Lucifer999

          The military currently works for the oil industry. I wouldn’t mind that as much if it were funded by shareholders instead of taxpayers.

          • Tim

            Shipping lanes? Sweat shops in asia need safe shipping lanes to get those products made by impoverished people for 48 cents an hour to the GAP stores in america.

        • Liz

          Just having a strong military is protection, even if they don’t actually need to defend the country. Weaken the military and all the countries that are snarling just out of reach will consider this country fair game.

          • neroden

            The US military currently spends more than every other military in the world added together.

            We could cut it by, oh, say, 75% and still be by FAR the biggest military spender in the world.

          • Tim

            That isn’t true. They spend more than the next five largest militaries though.

      • Tim

        Yeah!! Killing is the governments job, not educating people or helping them.

        You are smart.

    • GardensButterfly

      LR, if the people of the US stopped running up the trillions of personal debt, we would be able to afford universal health care, etc. Just think, if the people of this country paid their credit card debt, medical debt, etc that is now being paid by the government, we could have almost anything we wanted in this country.

      If we did what you would like…when war was to come up or any other thing that we might need defense for, there will not be the money to do it. What do you suggest we do at that point once we have taken the money away from defense? I am all for health care and such but with consumer debt being so outrageous, that will not happen

      • neroden

        To pay that debt, the people of the US would have to have MONEY. As in, WAGES.

    • Jennifer Jansen

      Most of the funding that goes in to the DOD gets out right back into American hands. The DOD can only purchase items that are Made in America for manufacturing and are required to put at least 70% of the funding back into the economy. Meanwhile you have the 1% utilizing every tax loophole available to end up not paying a dime in taxes on their billion dollar incomes. We need to fix the taxation in this country first and make the 1% start paying their share.

      • Les Ford

        The top 1% pays 50% of the taxes while 50% of the people in this country pay no taxes. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102581780

        • neroden

          The top 1% has 94% of the money. So they damn well better pay more than 50% of the taxes.

          We live in an aristocracy.

      • Lucifer999

        So what? That isn’t good enough. The same could be said for infrastructure jobs, and infrastructure provides benefits for Americans.

    • SecondGuesser

      In today’s government finance climate, your argument is false. The government spends whatever it wants on all sorts of things and does not have to trade off one line item versus another. Reason: there is no balanced budget requirement in federal law. The government has taken in less than it has spent for the better part of two decades now, and simply borrows and grows the debt to cover more spending.

      If giveaways are your thing, there’s nothing stopping us from giving everything away and bankrupting the country. That would actually be a more noble approach since all of us (rather than our grandkids) would have to suffer the consequences of such imprudence.

      On the other hand, if responsible spending is your thing, then almost ALL spending needs to be cut across the board. Any other discussion is purely masturbatory.

    • Lucifer999

      Let’s not call it ‘defense’ spending. It hasn’t been just ‘defense’ spending in a very long time. Let’s just call it ‘military’ spending.

    • BlackJesus

      or better yet, maybe they could stop killing the middle class with taxes.

      • Lucifer999

        Americans pay significantly less tax for what they get than most other developed countries. Personal taxes aren’t the problem. Out of control health care and education costs need fixing. Reduced business taxes *and plugged loopholes* would generate more tax revenue and more middle class jobs. The golden rule for companies should be “if you do business here, you pay taxes on that business here, regardless of your global structure.”

        • Tim

          “if you do business here, you pay taxes on that business here, regardless of your global structure.”

          double, triple, quadruple taxation? That is ridiculous.

          If you want to make a change, say if your product is made outside of the country where u.s environmental or labor laws are circumvented…. you can’t sell your product in the usa.

          That would fix everything over night.

    • Andy Felty

      Yeah, Russia, China, Iran, ISIS, and a handful of our other global enemies would really like this idea as well…

      • Tim

        So you support your “enemies” financially?

        • Andy Felty

          No. They would like if we cut our defense spending. Read the original post to which I replied.

    • Tim
    • jrboss93

      …and we could cure global warming with unicorn farts.

      • Tim

        very intelligent comment. Republican or Tea Party or both?

    • Cpt_Justice

      As long as they slash defense contractors & not the salaries/care of the soldiers.

    • Winfield

      Sure lets cut the military that already makes below welfare pay.

    • John Hunkler

      You act as if defense spending is cutting into education. You do not realize that the US spends money twice as fast as the tax base will allow. It is not a matter of finite funding where part goes here OR there. Simply put, politicians do not care about education…none of them. The LAST thing a politician wants is a highly educated populace.

    • Stan Kulp

      The preamble of the US Constitution lists the military and roads as the only two specific federal outlays. By taking down military spending and spending on ‘social programs’ the people get soft and the military gets to a point of not being able to defend the country’s interests.

      The Roman Empire got to a point where a third of the population was receiving a form of welfare and the military budget was being diminished. This, and supply delays from failing roads toward the North is how the military fell. This scenario is not uncommon. In fact, every major nation that has fallen has gone through a time of ‘socialism’ prior to the fall (no matter if the fall is from a military takeover or starvation).

      When using simple logic in a political issue, be certain that it is not based on a false premise. Research needs to be involved. Thus, the reason affluent societies find themselves in trouble: the masses get lazy with the growth of technology to the point that they no longer even look up anything (even in the computer age where we can investigate things aw we type messages to each other!). This and the powers that be knowing that they can take over the school system and feed most people only propiganda for one generation…..

    • AtomicMountain

      You’ve got to stop getting your facts from bumper stickers.

      If the US completely ELIMINATED defense spending from the budget, that would leave $1650 per person for health care, education and child care per YEAR (or about $31 per week.)

      Where did I get this info? Math. The Defense budget is $495 billion per year. There are 300 million Americans.

      Currently, in total welfare benefits, TANF, SNAP, Section 8 Housing, Medicaid, Heat and Utility assistance, the average welfare recipient receives $40,000 in federal benefits annually. (That doesn’t include aid from the State.)

      The estimated annual federal welfare budget (all programs) is $668 Billion per year.

    • James Ritchie

      If the US had more people who would get off their lazy asses and take responsibility for their own lives, we wouldn’t need universal heath care, food stamps, or welfare.

      You want everything in life paid for by someone else. The government has no money. None. All that money you want comes out of the pockets of people who did get off their asses and earn it.

      If you want to live in a piss ant socialist country that will provide all your needs, go find one. I’m sure you’ll be very happy living that way. If you want to stay here, stop saying stupid things about defense spending, get off your lazy as, get a good education, and pay your own damned way through life.

    • Scipio

      First, while it is nice to think of universal childcare, universal health care, and post secondary education, those are individual responsibilities. Do some people need help? Help them through a temporary situation. Unfortunately, many think they are owed. Second, how much do we “slash” defense spending? Do you even know why we have such an “obscenely high defense spending?” It’s because we want a global security climate that will allow us to thrive economically, and we’re willing to pay for it unlike the British, French, Germans, and all the other countries that benefit from it. We have the big guns so that we don’t get told by the likes of Russia and PRC how things are going to go simply because they say so. We at least operate in some pseudo Westphalian free market construct. It’s nice and comfortable to dream about free this and free that when all you’ve known is the freedom provided by the very institution you want to “slash.” Yes, DoD has A LOT of inefficiencies, but so do other government programs like medicare-medicaid (estimated at $60mil-300mil) and college grants and student loans for many drop outs. Frankly, the “employment” aspect of the military has been overblown and sometimes gets in the way of financial efficiencies. There’s a lot of “fat” in DoD civilian employment and contracting aspects that should indeed be optimized – but that’s a far cry from “slashing” to a point that would “afford” more waste in health care and post-secondary education.

    • Island_Boi

      If cities and states dumped their money pit pension plans it would free up tens of billions for infrastructure, school spending, other far more important needs. Back in the early 80s when the 401k plan was approved, cities and states should have moved all new employees to them.

    • lolohthor

      you are a fuckin fool if you think that you sheep. Welfare, social security, and all these other welfare programs are blood sucking federal programs for lazy fucks like your bitch ass. Faggot.

      All those three programs I mentioned above cost MUCH MUCH more than military defense spending. You ungrateful seedling. Should let some radical terrorists go into your house and use your wife/daughter as one of their 7 virgins.

    • Justmom

      Or they could just close all foreign military bases and station all military personnel within the US borders. That would cycle all that spending back into the US economy rather than hemorrhaging dollars out into the world.
      Oh, and then it would be a defense department.

  • Tracie

    My daughter goes to a private college with a large endowment, and because of our financial situation, pays minimal money to attend. My son attends a state school, and I can barely afford to keep him there. It’s so wrong. And neither one of them will be able to find jobs that will allow them to live AND pay off their loans. Our post-secondary education system needs to be revamped.

    • dagsteel

      so you’re sending your kids to college at great personal expense to earn a degree that will be of absolutely no value to them yet they will need to pay back loans. brilliant, just brilliant.

      • Melilyn

        That’s… kind of why it’s broken? That’s the point.

      • Brian Phillips

        So in your view the solution would be not to go to school?
        Never mind answering, you’ll undoubtedly tell me that they could go to trade school like you did, or your son, or daughter or your second cousin’s half-brother did. Did it ever occur to you that some people might not be cut out for vocational school, just like some people might not be cut out for the university? This is exactly why it is not much of a choice. People need to have access to the field of study that most challenges and interests them. Otherwise they truly are wasting their time, or they could always just not study, but I’m sure that you can understand why that’s not a good option. Right?

      • jane smithers

        Your not to bright are you? At the least you don’t know how to read. She didn’t say anything about the degree not having value, but that living and paying off loans despite the degree is near impossible. People with doctorates in medicine are bankrupting over student loans. It is kind of the whole point.

        • Lucifer999

          Bankruptcy does not wipe out student loans in this country. if it did, every kid would declare bankruptcy after graduating, and therefore nobody would loan them money.

          • jane smithers

            Thanks I knew that. That doesn’t stop them from declaring bankruptcy for everything else. So the same difference but even worse. Also all student loan debt is now federal debt so if you don’t pay then any government assistance can be used to pay the debt b/c bankruptcy on student debt isn’t possible.

      • Tracie

        you’re kind of rude – their degrees will be of value. The point is they (and most students) will have approximately 32K or more of debt when they graduate, and WHAT entry level position is going to pay enough to live and pay off loans.

        • Frank Smith

          They have to intern. I had 6 internships before graduating. I made $40,000 in debt but worked nonstop at starbucks threw school and was able to pay $15,000 off before graduating. My first job I made 28,000 and in 6 months I was making 32,000 and in a year later I was at 35,000 then changed jobs and now make $45,000 (with an art degree that I don’t use). Your kids can pay back the loans and can get a good paying job if they work. When I graduated I had 20 extra cedits, a full time job, 6 internships and had a very active social life and was part or 4 clubs on campus. Was it hard yes but when your kids enter the real world they are competing with everyone not just people their own age. If your kids work hard, get a part time job (or better a full time one) loans and the job hunt is not so hard (not easy but not hard). If your kids are not a B+ student they need to work harder and pick up a job and an internship. School is about having fun but is also about being responsible. I have $5,000 left in loans to pay but I also have a good amount of savings and a great life all from a state art degree. If you work hard you can do anything. Saying “. Neither one of them will be able to find jobs that will allow them to live AND pay off their loans.” is just devaluing your children and your belief in them. I think if they try hard, pick the right major and be responsible they can do it if they try. Then again if they are D or C students and barely got into school they need to break that habit immediately and start working harder.

        • Lucifer999

          But didn’t you just say that your daughter is paying ‘minimal’?

      • Lucifer999

        I bet they’re enrolled in useless arts or social science degree programs.

    • dotag69

      Tracie – It sounds as though they need to change their majors..If they will not be able to support themselves after graduation, then they are wasting both their time and your money…And our money for that matter..

      • Tracie

        Dotag69 – no they don’t need to change their majors. My point was, most students that attend 4 year schools have a minimum of 32k of student loan debt. What entry level job is going to pay enough to pay those loans AND have any standard of living. .

        • Frank Smith

          Secretary all teaching jobs, Teacher assistant, Residence adviser, bartender, coordinator, TA, assistants. All make 30+ a year but if your children are hard workers they can make more. Also they can always work while in school. It is not impossible.

          • Tracie

            I don’t know where you live Frank, but where we live, no starting secretary makes over 30K a year. Both my kids do work they have work study jobs, summer jobs, and they work over break. My daughter is doing a paid internship now, my son’s school does not offer paid internships.

            But this isn’t specifically about my kids. I only used them as an example. My point was, most people graduating from college don’t start out in jobs that pay them enough to pay off their loans and have a decent life. You sound like you were an exception, and that is GREAT – but I’m watching my kids friends graduate and struggle, and it’s hard to see. I have no problem with people paying for an education – you tend to value it more if you pay, but I think that the tuition costs and the cost of text books is unbelievable and at the state school level, schooling should be more affordable.

        • Lucifer999

          Engineering, Comp Sci, Geophysics, Architecture, …

    • karma713

      Wish I could have went to college 🙁

      • Tracie

        why not go now.

      • Lucifer999

        “could have went” Lol.

  • Kristen Slater

    I transfered to a local community college where I pay about $5,000 a year out of pocket from a State university where I accumilated about $24,000 in debt for the three semesters I went there. I wish more colleges would allow free or minimal tuition so when my brother starts college next year he won’t have to deal with so much debt.

  • Derfius

    I lose all hope for my country when SO many Americans buy into this concept of “free.” There is NO SUCH THING.

    • ryneandal

      Did you bother to read the article?

      “Scholarships or grants will cover the costs instead, and the school has a $21 billion endowment.”

      • dagsteel

        it’s still not “free” other people are paying for it

        • ryneandal

          What is your point? That’s the entire purpose of the endowment fund, to further grow the university.

        • Mark

          Right, alumni donors are paying for it, (sort of – more like the earnings on the donations made by alumni are paying it). Are you mad because alumni are donating to Stanford so much money that Stanford can choose to not charge accepted middle and lower class students? You paid nothing for this, you have no say in how other people donated this money (though, you do have a say on the tax deductions we give to the donors for their donations)

        • jane smithers

          I just thought it was magic. Your telling me it is not a $21 billion endowment? Way to ruin the wonder of life. You going to go tell a kindergarten class Santa isn’t real next?

      • Carl F Bruschnig Jr

        And where do you think that money is coming from?

        Other people. Someone (or many someones) are still paying for this.

        • ryneandal

          Yeah, the university is paying for it via dividends on fundraising money ($21 billion endowment with 15.5% return is ~$3.1 billion [ROI source – http://www.nacubo.org/About_NACUBO/Press_Room/2014_NACUBO-Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments_(Final_Data).html]).

          Part of the endowment dividends, and the scholarships will be covering the tuition. It’s essentially an investment for the school (more alumni means more donations, which means more funding and better teaching/more outreach to get even more students). What is the issue here, considering that was the entire purpose of both donations AND the scholarship?

          I understand reading comprehension is difficult for some people, but this is a rather minuscule article…

          • Mark

            And to add, of all of the things that endowments support, scholarships to students is one of the best in my opinion. It is a direct investment into the students of today for the immediate workforce of the next 5-50 years. A lot of things that endowments support don’t have nearly such a clear utility (things like professor chairs are just gifts of fun-money to professors who are usually well funded already in research, for example). I say that as a professor with a 50/50 chance of landing a endowed chair within a few years too.

        • Victoria Clark

          Has it occurred to you that educating people is the best way for a country’s economy to grow? Perhaps these students will give back to the University by helping to fund scholarships and grants? Perhaps they will start scholarship funds of their own. It’s about time people started to REALLY help each other instead of blaming people for their circumstances and not helping! Education is paramount, an uneducated population is a vulnerable population!

          • Lucifer999

            Correct. Thank you. Things like affordable health care also full economic growth. Sometimes this country is very short-sighted.

    • Shaun Harrison

      Read the article again its not technically free

      • dotag69

        …No, but it is not the public’s money…Not one penny will come out of your pocket…It is all donated money.

    • dotag69

      ..This is not your money they are using…It is money donated to the university…The government has nothing to do with it..

    • Bill Burchard

      It’s not “free.” From the article: “Students will still have to contribute at least $5,000 a year from
      part-time work during the school year, working during the summer, and/or

      We need an educated population if we are going to compete on a global scale. Free college education is an investment.

      • slf1214

        It says tuition will be free. There are many other costs associated with attending college. I think the kids getting accepted there will understand the wording and the benefit

      • indranee

        It’ll be work-study. My brother and I work-studied our entire college years. We also did other jobs. But work-study was a good part of our daily college-going lives.

    • Mark

      What a dramatic talking point. NO ONE THINKS THINGS MAGICALLY APPEAR – that is a right wing straw man argument that is tired, old, and lame.

      For these students, they go for free – the definition of which is that they don’t have to pay tuition. That doesn’t mean that someone else isn’t paying for it or that the students even think that.

      • karma713

        Why are people hating on other people being able to further their education for little to no cost to them?

        • Mark

          I think its part of the innate conservative value system though. Letting lower class and middle class students rise above their station and socioeconomic class with help is an affront to a belief system that puts value in birth-class and independent ‘bootstrapping’.

    • Lucifer999

      Why do you feel that way? What is wrong with state-sponsored education and health care, especially when it leads to a higher standard of living and a stronger middle class? The American standard of living, which was #1 for decades, is in decline relative to the rest of the world. We still do some things better than anyone else (there is no better country if you’re an entrepreneur), but education and health care delivery are two critical areas that need attention, or it’s going to bite us.

  • Robert Forslund

    You people ought to come to Sweden and get your education here, its 100% free, except for living expenses of course but we all need to eat anyway, right?! ^_^

    Welcome to Sweden! =)

    • I would personally love to do that. I’ve always been a fan of the Scandinavian countries and know they have some of the best education in the world. I wish it was a bit more practical for me to head over there, though 🙁

    • Steven Boyde

      men då skulle de behöver lära sig att tala svenska.

    • karma713

      But but…we is ‘Merica! “Land of teh Free*”


    • Oh Please!

      And except for taxes. Don’t forget to mention that 😉

      You lot pay plenty for that “100% free education.”

      • Lucifer999

        Swedes get more for their taxes than we do, so their standard of living is higher than ours, even with a higher tax rate. But our 1% are better off than their 1%, so it’s all good.

  • Martin Rossing

    How very semi-socialist of them.
    (Of course, me being from a scandinavian country, this is meant as a good thing.)

    • karma713

      Lucky. That’s ok though, because we ‘Merica! Land of teh free*.


  • slf1214

    Kudos to Stanford. They are a class act and their dedicated alumni network is enabling worthy students to get a quality education that they may otherwise be unable to afford. The University of Virginia has one of the largest endowment programs for a public university so it isn’t only the private schools that do this. As for overall affordability, if the Federal Govt would stop providing such huge loan amounts so that they can make the interest off of them schools would be forced to cut costs because no one could afford to attend.

    • indranee

      UVA is an excellent school, as well.

  • Brian Phillips

    Sadly, most families that earn under the $125,000 figure are not those that produce Stanford students. Stanford, Harvard and most universities of this caliber, harvest from private college-preps that charge an average of $20,000 per year in tuition.

    • guice

      Not necessarily. Income doesn’t necessarily equate to education level. However, you are correct in a large number of accepted students are from well-off families. This news will give those lower income kids something they can actually shoot for. Now they have a goal, because they will no longer have to worry about excessive costs for going to college.

      • Brian Phillips

        I taught at a prestigious secondary school in Maryland for a bit, and now I work at a public university. I am thoroughly aware of what it takes to be accepted to both Stanford and the place I currently work. The kids coming out of college prep and private secondaries have more than a leg up on the rest of Stanford’s applicants. They are prepared inside and outside of the academy, through volunteer programs and networking societies. Additionally, these students are given specific and individualized help in writing college essays and letters of application. That sort of guidance is, sadly, bought with money. So, while there are a select few who do not fall in to this mold, those few typically have some other attribute that is not easily acquired or wanted in most cases; I am thinking here of the athletic acceptation or music scholarship. Those types of students have a particular talent. You are by no means wrong, but I see this as more of a publicity and marketing scheme than actually providing substantive aid to those in need.

  • -Matthew ☺ Carr-

    What about mature students?

    • indranee

      What about them?

  • John

    I’m going to round my numbers down for simplicity’s sake, but they’re still not so far off the mark as to be misleading.
    Currently the U.S. Military budget sits at over 600 billion dollars annually, let’s use 600 billion.
    10% of that budget would cover a free higher education for every citizen in America, leaving 540 billion dollars annually, that’s 320 billion more each year than China, our next biggest ‘competitor’ and the next biggest spender.

    Just imagine what return that investment would give to the country after a few years…
    I suspect that if we cut out a few of the Government contracts going to senator’s relatives, and let the troops do the jobs they’re trained to do, we wouldn’t actually notice the loss.

  • Kirk Hilles

    That’s great to the 5% of people who apply and get accepted there (13k students). For the rest of the 99.99% of you/us, this means nothing until other public universities follow suit.

    • indranee

      Let’s hope more and more do. I believe this will be a trend…

  • PeterDreier

    Peter Dreier This is great for students at Stanford, which has a huge endowment. But what we need is a national policy that makes community college free for all (Obama’s plan) and that also provides free tuition at all four-year public colleges and universities (which is Bernie Sanders’ plan). http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/20/3660351/2016-candidate-wants-make-college-free-taxing-wall-street/

  • Ashley

    I think that all states need to start a program something like West Virginia has. If a kid goes to college, works hard and maintains a 4.0 grade point average, the state picks up the cost of your education (for instate students). My cousin took advantage of this. It gives the kids the incentive to work hard if you don’t want debt when you graduate. If Pennsylvania would have had something in place like this, I know I would have tried even harder in college to not have student debt.

  • mrkeys1962

    Those who are white need not apply

  • Lucifer999

    I’m glad to hear that room & board is taken into account because if you can’t afford to pay tuition at Stanford, you can’t afford to live in the Palo Alto area either.

  • Kelly McFinnely


  • Lilyrose

    What they didn’t tell you: Their quota of people to accept is 3.

  • Maggie

    I sure hope Stanford adds a course for Comment section etiquette, because this thread wins the prize for the most unproductive, misdirected hate-fest I’ve seen recently. Between individuals who appeared to have intelligent points to make – but devolved into calling each other nitwit, sweetheart and douches.

  • $5000 sure sounds like tuition to me, it’s what I paid annually for my degree from 1982 to 1986 at Michigan Technological University.

  • AndyB11

    This is ridiculous. Stanford is one of the top universities in the world. Graduates have terrific earning potential. Parents earning six figures should need to pay at least something. Is it fair that someone who earns 125K pays nothing when someone who earns 250K or whatever is paying full tuition of 46K per year to subsidize them? This whole mentality that things should be “free” is getting out of control.

  • Mathieu Clerte

    If only australian universities could follow this example !