The point though is if there be truth in advertising etc, should'nt a regulatory or some government body hold Stanford accountable for false and misleading statements? Next year's low income applicants should probably think twice before taking up Stanford on its PR words.
What is
patricularly ironic is that I used financial aid as a leading mechanism
to whittle down my choices to 5 colleges to apply to in order to be able to afford
the application and related fees.
The difference between the Stanford fin aid office and Princeton is
palpable. MIT and Caltech were such gentlemen without any prompting.
What is particularly disquieting is that the kind of people a visitor
like me meets at the fin aid office - a deputed bureaucrat not one who
has authority do anything to actually help. This implies a systematic
policy in effect to delay and deny. Ooh that one must have fallen through
the cracks...
At princeton when you talk, you are put through to a person who works
your case and gets back with answers.
Interestingly AXESS had my parental contribution at 0 for almost 2 weeks
before the "aid award letter" said otherwise and suddenly the
numbers changed (but of course they put up a CYA warning on the page
saying things can change).
---------
Oh the OOS comment had to do with perceived yield. With stats that put people preferences
for colleges higher within the 150-300 mile radius it
stands to reason the fin aid office will be favoring CA/Oregon/WA... just
logic no hard stats.