On the heels of Harvard’s discontinuation of its early action policy in 2006, Princeton and the University of Virginia quickly followed suit, echoing Harvard’s assertion that early admissions caters to and rewards upper-income students who often have assertive parents and well-connected school counselors. In late 2007, Harvard shook the college admissions world once again with a new financial aid policy that included “middle-class scholarships” and multi-million dollar increases in financial aid. The generous Harvard package caps tuition liability at 10 percent of a family’s income for those making under $180,000 a year and at zero percent for families making less than $60,000. Harvard has also led a renewed commitment to grant aid as opposed to work-study responsibilities or student loans.

Harvard’s avant-garde financial policies are challenging other schools, especially its major academic rivals like Stanford, to make similar, sizable changes to their aid packages. It is the opinion of the Editorial Board that Stanford should welcome this challenge and rise to the task. As of now, the financial aid office has announced significant increases to its financial aid outlays for next year. Stanford’s financial aid, however, still lags behind.

Harvard is increasingly able to afford these tuition breaks due to its enormous endowment, the largest in the country at $35 billion, which earned nearly $6 billion in interest just this past fiscal year. Even a fraction of the return on Harvard’s investments can pay the tuition costs for every student at the Cambridge, Mass. school, allowing the university to move towards its more liberal financial aid policy.

In a Jan. 9 front-page article in The Stanford Daily, Director of Financial Aid Karen Cooper was quoted as saying, “I believe our financial aid program is one of the strongest in the country and we can all be proud of the University’s commitment to financial aid.” But should Stanford be content with having a “strong program?” The University was organized in 1891 on five founding principles as elucidated by the Stanford’s — one of those five principles was free tuition. Granted, times have changed (and so has the value of the dollar) but have they changed all that much? At the time, the University didn’t need to charge tuition because its endowment was so large. Now, the endowment stands at a little more than $17 billion, the third largest in the country.

Harvard’s new aid packages, which have been received almost entirely positively, are likely to lead to some unforeseen consequences. If only the richest schools are able to offer these tantalizing scholarships to middle class students, the already hectic and agonizing college admissions process will most likely become all the more competitive. Some students might feel that the only way to make college affordable for their families is to attend one of the very selective private schools that offer middle class scholarships, ramping up the competition to yet unhealthier levels.

Currently, there is discussion in Congress over the alarming and rising costs of college tuition, even relative to inflation. Some have speculated that Harvard’s adjustment in aid policy was made in anticipation of eventual Congressional mandates requiring colleges to spend a portion of their endowments on financial aid programs. But as Congress wavers to support new financial aid policies, in the meantime many of Stanford’s early admits hesitate to commit to Stanford due to financial concerns. Why not change Stanford’s financial aid policy now?

Stanford should be a leader, not a follower, in this growing collegiate trend of financial aid. If the day comes when the top private universities in the United States are effectively free, we should be proud to say that Stanford made sacrifices and shifted budget priorities to make our education as affordable as possible, as soon as it was possible.