Stanford GSB Aid Director: ‘Guess I Shouldn’t Have Told You That’

‘INEXCUSABLE ANYWHERE, BUT WORSE AT A SCHOOL THAT TEACHES BUSINESS ETHICS’

That is what really troubles Behrendt who has become something of an advocate on the issue of financial aid at the university. In his editorial in the university’s student newspaper, Behrendt took Dean Levin to task for his first statement on the controvery because it downplayed the school’s deception and put more focus on the data breach.

“The leadership at Stanford Graduate School of Business was caught lying about its commitment to ‘need-based’ financial aid, which it has been doing for more than a decade. Yet this is only mentioned in paragraphs 12 and 14. Integrity should feature more prominently in Stanford’s official response, as it should in campus discussion more broadly, especially at the business school.

“University leadership knowingly misled students, donors and alumni, misrepresented its business practices and compromised Stanford’s reputation. This would be inexcusable anywhere, but it is worse that it happens at a school that teaches business ethics.”

Behrendt has become a staunch advocate for fairer and more transparent financial aid at Stanford, largely focusing his efforts at the undergraduate level for military veterans. He has gotten the university to change some of his policies by enlisting everyone from the U.S. attorney’s office to members of Congress. So after his meeting at the GSB, he wasn’t about to merely let Edwards’ comments go.

A SET OF EMAILS

Three months after they met, the student wrote Edwards an email to certify the conversation.

Dear Mr. Edwards,

There is no good way to do this, and for that I apologize.

However, I’m writing to remind you that you slipped when you were explaining ‘need based financial aid to Dustin and I, and in particular that you explained how you could make a more lucrative financial aid offer to, for example, ‘a black,  female engineer from MIT” by arbitrarily increasing her cost of attendance.

I know you do a great service for all students at the GSB, including veterans, but I needed to remind you because the undergraduate side of the house is continuing to push me. If they push too far, comments like yours may come into play.

Again, my apologies, but as you said, ‘(you) shouldn’t have told me that.’”

Best,

Adam

‘WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO BRING UP OUR CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATION’

Four days later, Edwards responded to Behrendt’s email with a mix of surprise and concern—but no disagreement over how the student portrayed the meeting.

Adam,

I would like to understand why you feel the need to bring up our confidential conversation, as it was arranged by Dustin, into your appeal regarding Veteran Benefits? I want to fully understand how you see these comments are related to your appeal with Central Financial Aid?

Thanks

Jack

Behrendt did not respond to Edwards, but later referenced his comments in a private letter addressed to the senior administration in January, which included the President, then-Provost, now-Provost, the Dean of GSB, the Dean of Stanford Law, and the vice president for undergraduate education.

‘NOBODY BATTED AN EYE AT THE COMMENT’

“Nobody batted an eye at the comment,” says Behrendt, who ended up writing an editorial for The Stanford Daily slamming the school for how it has handled the crisis. “From my experience, this means that at least Dean Levin was well aware of GSB’s financial aid practice, if not also the President and Provost of the University. My suspicion is that this fact underlies why the CIO was fired but not the Director of Financial Aid.”

Edwards could not be reached for comment. His voicemail indicated that he was on winter break until Jan. 7.  Poets&Quants’ initial request for an interview with Edwards about this meeting with Behrendt was made on Dec. 11. A spokesperson said today (Dec. 5) that in the past ” fellowships have been awarded to students with demonstrated need.  As part of this process, the GSB uses a standard budget to determine financial aid eligibility.  However, if a student has special circumstances, the Financial Aid office may be able to add additional items to a student’s cost of attendance. There was apparently a conversation with multiple individuals where several examples and anecdotes were provided and the intent and interpretation might be perceived differently.” 

Allcock’s discovery that more money is being used by Stanford to entice students with financial backgrounds–who presumably would least need scholarship money to attend the MBA program–suggests an admissions strategy that helps the school achieve the highest starting compensation packages of any MBA program in the world. That is largely because prior work experience in finance is generally required to land jobs in the most lucrative finance fields in private equity, venture capital and hedge funds.

MONEY GOING TO STUDENTS WHO DON’T NEED IT TO WIN OVER DUAL ADMITS FROM HARVARD?

Stanford sends a higher percentage of its MBAs into higher paying PE and VC jobs than Wharton, Chicago Booth, Columbia, or Harvard. In 2017, 15% of the graduating class of MBAs at Stanford went into private equity, 7% flowed into venture capital, and 4% into hedge funds. The average base salaries for a newly minted Stanford MBA was $177,653 in venture capital and $175,690 in private equity, far above the overall average of $144,455 for the Class of 2017.

Shinewald, whose clients include many MBA admits who have negotiated fellowship awards from schools, believes that the GSB could be using scholarship dollars as a tiebreaker to win over dual admits to Harvard. “Let’s face it,” he says. “If Harvard didn’t exist, Stanford wouldn’t have to offer a dime to their candidates.”

In his last public statement, Dean Levin noted that the financial aid issue has become a major topic  on campus. “There also has been extensive and heartfelt discussion on our campus,” he wrote in a message dated Dec. 7. ” I have heard from many students about their experience with financial aid, how it has enabled them to come to Stanford GSB, their disappointment with how the award process has been explained and communicated, and their questions and ideas about how best to distribute fellowships among students with demonstrated financial need.”

Levin added that he felt “it is vital that these fellowship awards are underpinned by a transparent and well-understood process that is forthright about how decisions are made and the principles that are used to make them. Here we fell short and we must do better. The explanation for how we award aid has not lived up to the ideals our students and alumni expect of us, and I deeply regret it. When differences in fellowship awards across students are not made clear, it leaves students wondering why they received a particular award, and questioning whether the decision was equitable.”

DON’T MISS: STANFORD MISLED MBA APPLICANTS & STUDENTS ON FINANCIAL AID or WHY GSB DEAN FIRED HIS CHIEF DIGITAL OFFICER