|
Post by WahineFan44 on Nov 10, 2019 18:37:59 GMT -5
If prospective students aren’t applying to Stanford because of the cost, that’s probably a strategic error. The average debt burden for Stanford graduates is actually lower than grads of UC and CSU schools because Stanford can afford to give so much need-based aid and because their financial aid packages don’t require students to take out loans. I’m not sure exactly how other aid works with athletic scholarships, but the catch with the very rich, elite schools like Stanford and some of the Ivies is usually getting in, not paying for it. www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/14/why-stanford-may-be-the-most-affordable-university-in-the-bay-area/Isn’t Stanford free if your parents make below like 100,000 a year of something?
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 10, 2019 20:55:06 GMT -5
That's an interesting point. I knew starting in about 2014 that at Harvard the cutoff for family income was something like 62,000 for zero pay of tuition or room and board, and at then a sliding scale up to 120k for room and board but tuition was still waived.
Let's say the number at Stanford is $75,000. Does that mean a highly recruited student athlete of family income of below $75,000 would pay nothing, but it is not an athletic scholarship, but a need based scholarship???
I think I'm starting to understand how a lot of the non-revenue sports at Stanford can recruit the best of the best, with admissions being the primary hurdle. Let's say a particular sport has 8 equivalency scholarships as a limit. Can they have 8 on full scholarship and 8 more on need based zero pay? Or 6 on full, four on half, then 6 on need-based zero pay?
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Nov 10, 2019 20:57:30 GMT -5
Isn’t Stanford free if your parents make below like 100,000 a year of something? I don't remember the cut-off, but it is something like that. At least tuition and (I think) room&board. Not sure about books, etc. The real hurdle is getting admitted. IIRC, bvb did not have the ability to tag student-athletes for admission (like other sports do), until it became an NCAA championship sport (3 years ago?).
|
|
|
Post by socalplayer on Nov 10, 2019 21:08:31 GMT -5
Both schools are in CA...and Stanford has more money than UCLA. I think they could make it happen... This comment makes no sense. 1) Stanford's tuition/fees is about $55,000, UCLA's tuition/fees is about $14,000 2) No matter how much money a school is willing to spend, the NCAA won't allow more than 6 grants in aid. Even if Stanford were willing to pay for 14 players, the limit is still a total of 6 grants in aid (each valued at about $75,000 "cost of attendance" Tuition/fees/room/board/books/incidentals/travel), or a total of about $450,000 divided as they see fit into quarter, half, two thirds, three quarters, etc. grants in aid. Or maybe I missed your point? You did. I’m saying that Stanford is a better school than UCLA. They also have more money. They should be able to get a better coach who would recruit better and they should be able to get better players. Then win a championship.
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Nov 10, 2019 21:37:08 GMT -5
Stanford offers free tuition for families making less than $125,000. ... Since 2015: "The university said that no parents with an annual income and typical assets of less than $125,000 will have to pay a single cent toward tuition. The threshold for this aid was previously $100,000"
However, I recently spoke with the family of an indoor volleyball recruit who were deciding between a two year scholarship offer from a state school and a private school. The tuition difference to them was pretty significant, and they went with the state school.
Very few families of volleyball players in California make less than $125,000. You certainly can't buy a house on that salary. So the tuition difference between Cal Poly or UCLA and Stanford is pretty significant. And not all beach players are 'high academic' kids who are eligible for Stanford.
So, for the typical top recruit beach volleyball player who is not going to get a full ride, you would pick UCLA or even Cal Poly.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 11, 2019 17:34:12 GMT -5
This comment makes no sense. 1) Stanford's tuition/fees is about $55,000, UCLA's tuition/fees is about $14,000 2) No matter how much money a school is willing to spend, the NCAA won't allow more than 6 grants in aid. Even if Stanford were willing to pay for 14 players, the limit is still a total of 6 grants in aid (each valued at about $75,000 "cost of attendance" Tuition/fees/room/board/books/incidentals/travel), or a total of about $450,000 divided as they see fit into quarter, half, two thirds, three quarters, etc. grants in aid. Or maybe I missed your point? You did. I’m saying that Stanford is a better school than UCLA. They also have more money. They should be able to get a better coach who would recruit better and they should be able to get better players. Then win a championship. "better school" is relative to major and living preference, to an exent. 40 years ago Linguistics was Harvard, then UCLA/MIT, with Stanford around #10. There is also whether an 18 year old would prefer to live "On the Farm", which can be quite isolating and culturally stagnant in comparison to a big city, or in LA, Chicago, NYC, etc. Believe it or not there are legit reasons to prefer UCLA, Berkeley, Northwestern, Duke, to Stanford.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 11, 2019 17:39:15 GMT -5
So, for the typical top recruit beach volleyball player who is not going to get a full ride, you would pick UCLA or even Cal Poly. Yeah, I get where you're coming from on that. I suppose you're not going to have a high percentage of elite Club players whose combined family income is under $100k. It's interesting b/c in this country, the wealthy, and low income can afford college a lot more than the middle income families, which is most people. College affordability has become a national disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Nov 11, 2019 22:07:29 GMT -5
College affordability has become a national disgrace. I agree with you in general on this. And I don't want to come off as a Stanford homer. (For the record: I attended state schools; I just work for Stanford.) Just want to add the fact that if your family income is above $125k, you're not immediately on the hook for 100%. I believe there is a sliding scale of assistance, if you are between $125k and $225k. Note that from $65k to $125k, you still need to pay room & board and fees. Below $65k you get basically everything covered at Stanford. I expect many top private schools have something like this. But also true, it is very rare for someone to go through club, etc., and become a top VB player without some family resources.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Nov 18, 2019 21:14:43 GMT -5
For the 2021 season, Stanford has announced three recruits: Xolani Hodel, Maya Harvey and Ellie Gamberdella. RichKern.com also lists Kate Reilly and Emmy Sharp.
Edit: they have announced Reilly and Sharp, too.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Nov 22, 2019 1:50:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beachindoor on Dec 20, 2019 15:55:17 GMT -5
If Plummer were to play pro beach in a few years after indoor, which vet would pair well with her?
|
|
|
Post by butteryhands on Dec 20, 2019 18:56:54 GMT -5
If Plummer were to play pro beach in a few years after indoor, which vet would pair well with her? Hughes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 23:40:15 GMT -5
If Plummer were to play pro beach in a few years after indoor, which vet would pair well with her? Sponcil. They would be the best hand setting team around.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2019 17:22:18 GMT -5
If Plummer were to play pro beach in a few years after indoor, which vet would pair well with her? Hughes Couldn’t disagree more. This game is going to bigger and bigger defenders. Hughes is small at 5’10. Her game is okay. She got a ton of publicity and is solid but...Heck, in Hawaii...Callahan out dug her and out killed her in their 3 set match. If Plummer goes to the beach by that time she will play with a much bigger defender. This game is changing so fast on the women’s side; bigger and bigger and bigger. 6’2-6’3 defender with a big blocker like Plummer will take up a ton of space. A side out and transition game with a powerful, big defender would be mind blowing. Just can’t emphasize enough how fast this game is changing and how big the players are getting. In 3 years you’ll be hard pressed to find a defender under 6-6’1.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Dec 26, 2019 17:42:41 GMT -5
That's an interesting point. I knew starting in about 2014 that at Harvard the cutoff for family income was something like 62,000 for zero pay of tuition or room and board, and at then a sliding scale up to 120k for room and board but tuition was still waived. Let's say the number at Stanford is $75,000. Does that mean a highly recruited student athlete of family income of below $75,000 would pay nothing, but it is not an athletic scholarship, but a need based scholarship??? I think I'm starting to understand how a lot of the non-revenue sports at Stanford can recruit the best of the best, with admissions being the primary hurdle. Let's say a particular sport has 8 equivalency scholarships as a limit. Can they have 8 on full scholarship and 8 more on need based zero pay? Or 6 on full, four on half, then 6 on need-based zero pay? I actually became curious about these details upon re-reading this thread. As of 2019, this is what I find on the Stanford Financial aid website: Income under $150,000: Tuition is waived unless there are significant assets NOT in 401k, IRA, primary residence. Room, Board, Fees, Incidentals and travel are paid by the student. Generally that would mean a student would pay about $20,000 per year, and have need-based scholarship of about $46,000 to cover tuition. Income under $75,000, same asset conditions as above: No tuition, no room and board, no fees. Not sure about incidentals and travel expenses. Now, when you look at the population of student athletes for the 25 or so female non-revenue sports, and you look at median income in the US... by far MOST students at Stanford would be paying zero tuition. This makes the affordability of walk-on athletes at Stanford slightly better than the affordability of similar walk-on IN-STATE students enrolled at tOSU, Texas, Florida, Michigan, UCLA, etc. And Out of State... Stanford's cost remains at $20,000, while at all the Flagship state Unis... more like $55,000 for walk-ons.. The bottom line is that Stanford Athletics has a significant financial incentive to walkons over flagship in-state Universities for the vast majority of college students... of course the student has to get though Admissions! This may explain in part how Stanford is able to dominate so many non-revenue sports, and dominate the Director's Cup year after year. This may not be as relevant for Volleyball, given the cost of Club volleyball may skew parental income upward for those athletes, but most non-revenue sports don't have that expensive Club feeder.
|
|