Wow, Editorial Board. You fail at critical analysis.
First, you cite the Stanford endowment's size being bigger than the GDPs of many countries as a reason that students shouldn't be paying so much money for tuition. Clearly you understand why that comparison is so meaningless since you later compare the annual return on the endowment to nations' GDPs. Why, then, would you mislead your readers with such a misleading comparison?
You go on to discount the conclusions of "ivory tower Stanford elites crunching mathematical formulas". That kind of anti-intellectual imagery might work if you're running for public office, but it doesn't work when your audience is mostly Stanford-educated. We like numbers here. Your job is to convince us that those numbers are wrong.
You also seem to have an issue with the fact that Harvard is always ahead of us when it comes to making tuition more affordable. It's easy to see why they are: their endowment is twice the size of ours. Stanford shouldn't irresponsibly manage its endowment just to keep up with the Joneses.
Throughout your editorial, you question why Stanford spends so little of its endowment on making our education more affordable. Why didn't you actually ask someone? Anyone who is informed about the issue knows that students spend less than it actually costs for a Stanford education. Furthermore, irresponsibly increasing the amount of the endowment we spend every year would reduce the amount that future generations of Stanford students could benefit from. The goal is to *grow* th endowment, not shrink it.
There might be a convincing argument for reduced or eliminated tuition, but you haven't made one.

Hey Fail - if you think the Daily fails at critical analysis, then you simply fail at reading - you say "The goal is to *grow* th endowment, not shrink it." Did you happen to read the part where it says that even if they make tuition free for all students they WOULD STILL MAKE $1.2 BILLION DOLLARS? Furthermore, "keeping up with the Joneses" IS necessary because we are competing with them for applicants.

And Re: keeping up with the Joneses: I have no problem with competing for qualified applicants, but we should do it *responsibly*. The editorial does not adequately consider the fiscal responsibility of the policy they're suggesting. This is the real world, not Congress. We actually have to worry about how we're going to pay for things.

"And yet for some strange reason, some of its students are still paying nearly $200,000 to attain an education."
"Stanford’s undergraduate tuition for the 2007-08 school year is a staggering $34,800"
$34,800 * 4 = $139,200. Food and housing would have to be paid for regardless of getting an education, so unless students are paying over $50,000 for books, "nearly $200,000" should be "nearly $150,000."

Uh, some grad students have substantially higher tuition rates, so they are paying closer to $200,000. It's not as clear, but it does say 'some' students so it is true.

Yes, according to the registar's webpage (http://registrar.stanford.edu/students/finances/), the professional schools (law, business, and medicine) have substantially higher tuition rates. Business and law degrees, however, take only 2 and 3 years to complete, respectively. The master's degree is typically 2 years or less, especially as part of a coterm program. There are also many more opportunities for master's and PhD student funding through RA (research assistant) and TA (teaching assistant) positions, as well as fellowships, that allow most graduate students to dedicate plenty of time to their classes and research while paying little tuition.
The discussion in this article, which focuses on comparisons to Harvard's recent changes, is primarily about undergraduate education.

As an admitted student SCEA, I now have to make the choice between Stanford, other elites, and some full ride second tier schools. Our family is in the middle class, so while we don't qualify for any need-based aid, paying roughly 150,000 for four years would put a strain on the household. It is rather discouraging having to choose between the amazing Stanford, with the 150,000 strain on my family, or the second tier full-rides. I sincerely hope that Stanford, my dream school, will make this choice easy by eliminating or reducing tuition.

As an admitted student SCEA, I now have to make the choice between Stanford, other elites, and some full ride second tier schools. Our family is in the middle class, so while we don't qualify for any need-based aid, paying roughly 150,000 for four years would put a strain on the household. It is rather discouraging having to choose between the amazing Stanford, with the 150,000 strain on my family, or the second tier full-rides. I sincerely hope that Stanford, my dream school, will make this choice easy by eliminating or reducing tuition.

Back to the issue at hand. I'd love to see tuition rates go down. It'd make me happier. I'd also love to see nicer dorms and better equipped classrooms. Overall though, I want the endowment to be used responsibly and properly for us and future generations.
I agree with the editorial board in that lowering tuition is good. But is not the current direction of the endowment even better? I'm not informed enough to say yes or no. In fact, doing some preliminary research on the endowment I couldn't find a chart or table that could back up the university's claims. How much of the endowment actually is earmarked for special programs like constitutional law, and how much is earmarked for undergraduate education? If these statistics were made public, or more easily accessible, then the students would accept the university's statement that tuition will stay as it is. Or they could demand a change. I don't know if Stanford will do this because it's a private institution and its not obligated to. Nevertheless though, we can make an educated statement only after we know the facts on hand.
Editorial Board, while agreeing with your opinion I don't like your article. First of all, why not use your real name? Afraid of attaching your name to crappy work? I can't even find out who's on the board in the About section of the website. Second, your use of facts is not clear and convincing. It is not $200k total for four undergraduate years. The cost of an education is not $38k, it is about $44k including room and board & books & other fees. Why not use this number and ask Stanford to pay for our housing too? Especially if they require it of us for four years. You also do not respond to the university claim that most of the money is earmarked. Your arguments about Harvard envy and free education are moving, but you lose credibility when skimming over the facts especially in front of a Stanford engineering student like myself. Conclusion: Pay more attention in PWR class. Or hire a fact-checker.