Sorry Lin-Manuel, that’s just not how Stanford works.
What “In the Heights” gets wrong.
Warning Spoilers Ahead
Friday night, on Stanford’s campus, I watched In the Heights. I went in cold, knowing only the catchy tune from the trailers. While I enjoyed the movie overall, I left disappointed at how it portrayed Stanford University. It got some crucial things wrong! Things that might impact viewers’ decision to apply to or attend Stanford.
Before I go on, I should add some disclosures/caveats. First, I am a Stanford alum. Second, I have worked for the University for over 15 years. Still, my views in this article are wholly my own. I am not speaking in any official way on behalf of the University. It has a group of very talented folks who do that just fine. The views below are my subjective, personal views, independent of my employer. My experiences at Stanford inform them, but I am not sharing them as an agent of the University.
I am, however, sharing them as someone the film characterizes as “the one who got out” — I am my community’s “Nina.” I speak as a Chicano alum who went to the University despite growing up below the federal poverty line. I enrolled in 2000 and graduated in 2004, just a year before the musical’s tryout in Waterford, Connecticut.
It’s important to talk about what the movie got wrong because had I watched it as a high schooler, I might have chosen not to apply to Stanford, let alone attend.
That’s a big deal when you consider the size of the movie’s audience. It’s also a big deal when you read the movie as a celebration of Latino culture. By the end, you’re left feeling like Stanford’s not for Latinos. At best, you’re left feeling like attending Stanford means “giving up everything back home.” In my experience, this just hasn’t been the case. Moreover, the producers could have easily avoided the mistakes below had they done even a small amount of research.
Mistake 1: Stanford’s Unaffordable for Low-Income Students
When I ran the numbers in 2000, Stanford was by far the most affordable school for me to attend, including going to my local community college. This surprises most people because they associate Stanford, like many schools, with its huge, six-figure sticker price. Unfortunately, the movie leans into the commonly held belief that elite colleges are unaffordable for low-income students.
In reality, Stanford and other colleges like it, may be the *most affordable options* for talented low-income students.
That’s because Stanford is one of a relatively small group of schools that meets 100% of its students’ financial needs. This article from Money Magazine details what that means if you want to get into the nitty-gritty.
Here are the basics:
- Applicants complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and the College Scholarship Service Profile (CSS Profile).
- The FAFSA and the CSS Profile calculate how much an applicant’s family can afford to pay for college (any college) in general. This is an applicant’s “Expected Family Contribution (EFC).”
- University financial aid offices use EFCs to create financial aid packages. Essentially, they take the cost of attendance, subtract the applicant’s EFC, and try to make up the difference using grants or loans.
- Schools that are “100% need-met” (schools like Stanford) commit to meeting all of the need demonstrated. This means students with lots of need are better off going to a place like Stanford than they would be going to a school that is not 100% need-met.
As a result, most Stanford students (70%) receive some form of financial aid. In addition, the University has clear cut-offs for calculating parent contributions for families with incomes below $75,000 ($0 parent contribution toward all educational costs) and folks with incomes below $150,000 ($0 in tuition charges). The University makes this information freely available on its Financial Aid website.
This means “not being able to afford tuition at Stanford” really isn’t as common as In the Heights makes it out to be. It’s more likely the case that a low-income student would struggle to pay for a school that is not 100% need-met. That’s why community college would have been more expensive for me than going to Stanford. Community colleges have much smaller sticker prices, but they also have much less generous financial aid — to say nothing about their low transfer rates.
While many audience members will take Nina’s plight as a given or even a truism, for the sequence of events in the movie to occur, Nina and her family would actually have to be in a very particular (read: uncommon) financial circumstance. The formulas used by the FAFSA and CSS would have to “miss” their financial need, but it would still somehow have to be material.
Put another way, Nina would have to be “rich on paper,” but “poor in practice.”
To be clear, the details of a student’s specific financial situation really matter. It’s not “impossible” to be in a difficult financial position despite the University’s efforts to take money off the college admission table. But it is very improbable.
Yet, the movie pivots on this exact point. Kevin (Nina’s father) sells the family business to pay Stanford’s tuition. Realistically this is unlikely to happen. The FAFSA excludes small businesses that have fewer than 100 employees. So, “Rosario’s Car and Limousine Service” would have to be pretty big (and successful) to even be part of Nina’s EFC.
The formulas used by the FAFSA and the CSS do not address everyone who feels like they are a “family in need.” But they do a good job of capturing a wide range of folks who might count themselves out of “being able to afford” Stanford. Thus, clarifying this point is essential:
Having a significant financial need should not discourage you from applying to Stanford.
If anything, students with strong academic performance and small EFCs (lots of need) should go out of their way to apply to schools that are 100% need-met. These schools, like Stanford, are the most likely to meet that need. I should also take a moment to say that this commitment includes undocumented applicants (I’m looking at you, Sonny).
Really, Stanford is doing a lot to ensure that stories like Nina’s aren’t very likely.
If you have a lot of financial need, you *should* apply to schools like Stanford, because they’re the schools that are most likely to meet *all* of your need.
Take away 1: talented high school students with lots of need *should* apply to Stanford and to other 100% need-met schools. Nina’s situation is unlikely given current practices in financial aid at elite institutions.
Mistake 2: There’s No Latino community at Stanford
At some point during the movie, Nina mentions feeling very isolated at Stanford. Indeed, many first-year students miss home regardless of their background. But implied in Nina’s story was a critique of the Latino community at Stanford. In my experience, the Latino community has been strong and is thriving. So the implication that Nina was the only Latina on campus just isn’t plausible.
There are prominent examples of thriving Latino communities in centers like El Centro Chicano y Latino and the Chicanx and Latinx themed house, Casa Zapata. There are also numerous student organizations ranging from Habla En La Noche to La Familia de Stanford to Salseros de Stanford.
Unfortunately, the movie perpetuates the idea that Stanford is devoid of *any* Latino culture or influence. This feels very wrong to me, given Stanford’s physical location — California. Maybe there are fewer Puerto Ricans in California than there are in New York, but fewer Latinos? That’s just not true.
Bluntly, there are more “gente alzando sus banderas” in California than there are in Nueva York. There are many folks like Nina at Stanford and in California broadly. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t really untangle why she felt isolated. It assumes the audience will imagine Nina as the lonely Latina on campus and take that at face value.
That doesn’t mean Nina’s homesickness wasn’t legit. Going to college, especially predominantly white colleges, can be demanding on people of color. Getting confused “for the help” might happen. Stanford’s certainly not exempt from that kind of ignorance. That part of the movie felt very real.
But Stanford’s got its own “Latino thing” going on. There are places where I felt “at home” on campus as an undergrad and where I think Nina would have felt at home too… maybe she had a hard time finding them, sure, but to say or imply they’re straight up missing is just plain old wrong.
Takeaway 2: Stanford has a thriving Latino community like many communities in California. Yes, it is a “predominantly White institution,” but people like Nina can find places that feel like home. There are lots of Latinos in California.
Mistake 3: You’re Going to Get Searched by an RA at Stanford
This last mistake may be the most difficult one to explain. At a particularly pivotal moment in the movie, Nina reveals that her college roommate accused her of stealing and that in response, the RA searched Nina’s things. Understandably, Nina felt targeted, ashamed, and robbed of her privacy.
But this, again, would be very unlikely to happen at Stanford.
Let me explain.
RAs or “Resident Assistants” at many schools play a complicated combination of roles, including peer advisor, peer counselor, and enforcer of residence policies. This means doing “rotations” while “on duty” and, at many schools, sometimes searching fellow students for alcohol and drugs. RAs, in other words, actively participate in the disciplinary processes of their institutional employers (e.g., they “write you up” if you break the rules). Thus, Nina’s story about being searched by the RA will seem plausible to many viewers familiar with the role. There’s just one problem:
At Stanford, RAs are not “enforcers” the way they are at other schools. They do not conduct searches and are not de facto involved in the University’s disciplinary process. In fact, there is no write-up process at Stanford.
Instead, the Office of Community Standards uses the Fundamental Standard as the primary code of conduct for all students. Here it is in its entirety:
Students at Stanford are expected to show both within and without the University such respect for order, morality, personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good citizens. Failure to do this will be sufficient cause for removal from the University.
In short, Stanford expects students to be “good citizens.” It established this two-sentence guide to student behavior in 1896 (yes, 125 years ago). It’s not the “only rule” on campus per se, but it’s the primary one. Moreover, because of it, RAs at Stanford aren’t really part of the Student Accountability Process.
Instead, the Office of Residential Education manages all RAs and trains them to play, above all else, an educational role within the residences. You can find a complete job description of this role here. For those of you who were RAs at an institution that expected you to enforce policies, you’ll notice its glaring absence in the description. Instead of instructing RAs to police students and to conduct searches, the first sentence in the description characterizes the role at Stanford:
“Undergraduate residential student staff (‘student staff’) play a critical role in the creation of safe, inclusive residential communities that support student health and well-being and promote personal and intellectual growth.”
Full disclosure: I was an RA as an undergrad at Stanford. I was also in charge of portions of RA training as a staff member within the Office of Residential Education. I also supervised dozens of RAs as a live-in Resident Fellow at Stanford for 7 years.
All of this to say, if one student accused another student of stealing from them, it is doubtful that the RA, or any other residential staff, would search the accused student. It’s not impossible; RAs make mistakes too. But it’s not something that would “normally happen” at Stanford. What’s the learning outcome there? How would that support the health and well-being of the students involved? How would that promote personal and intellectual growth?
It’s just not how Stanford works.
Takeaway 3: RAs at Stanford are not enforcers. They almost certainly are not going to search you. Their role centers on health, well-being, and promoting growth. They’re charged with educating and empowering students not policing behavior.
Why It Matters
Ok, ok, don’t get me wrong. I enjoyed the movie, and I’m a fan of Lin-Manuel Miranda. I understand that the film had an overarching message around race and class in America. I know that the ideas of gentrification, community, and belonging were primary themes. I also appreciate the heartfelt optimism of the story and the way Miranda’s work has increased representation on Broadway. I don’t want to lose sight of all of that progress.
At the same time, I don’t want the future Ninas and the future Sonnys watching In the Heights to walk away thinking that Stanford is “not for them.” In the Heights will likely reach millions of people, many of which might wonder whether or not they should go to schools like Stanford. As a result, the movie might discourage some folks from applying when in reality, those very folks might be well-positioned to succeed at Stanford — regardless of financial need or documented status.
We should give credit where credit is due. Stanford’s admissions process is not perfect. But, it is need-blind, and Stanford meets 100% of non-International students’ financial need. This means that American stories like Nina’s, as portrayed in the film, don’t really match reality. Yes, there’s always room for improvement (¡paciencia y fe!), but I am proud to have called Stanford “home.”
I am disappointed that a film with so much reach would get so much wrong. Maybe the internal conflict of “going to Stanford” makes for an interesting, face-valid story, but there’s something to be said for the much brighter reality. A reality that may be more difficult for some to believe…
In America, someone like me, like Nina, and like Sonny, can thrive at Stanford.
Why not tell that story? Why not leave the audience feeling hopeful and inspired about the actual opportunities available to them? It feels like one giant missed opportunity on the part of the creators, especially given the movie’s theme around sueñitos (dreams).
I’ll say it one more time for good measure:
If you are a talented low-income student with a dream, Stanford’s for you.
Please share this with your Medium friends and click the ♥ button below to spread it around. Also, if you’re feeling particularly connected to your alma mater, don’t be shy about expressing it below.
