Stanford University Graduate Housing Affordability Report
Completed by the Graduate Student Organization
Department of Anthropology, Stanford University
Introduction
In its annual survey, Residential and Dining Enterprises solicits no data from graduate students about the affordability of on-campus housing at Stanford University. Although both Stanford University and Santa Clara County designate on-campus graduate housing at Stanford as “affordable housing,” this designation is not substantiated by information about the affordability of this housing for the only demographic of Santa Clara County residents who may access it: graduate students and graduate student employees of Stanford University. Stanford, a residential university, has saved millions of dollars through the designation of its on-campus graduate housing as “affordable on-campus housing that meets Santa Clara County’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment” by being exempted from cash payments to the County of Santa Clara’s Stanford Affordable Housing Fund, while simultaneously profiting from graduate students who must pay large percentages of their income to meet basic housing needs. This study asks a question both Stanford University and Santa Clara County have neglected to provide a substantiated answer for: Is on-campus housing at Stanford University in any meaningful sense affordable? The results of this study are definitive: It is not. We seek relief from the County and University for the wrongful designation of on-campus graduate housing at Stanford University as “affordable housing,” which has saved Stanford University millions of dollars while burdening the residents this designation is meant to protect.
Study Methodology
Using graduate student employees in the Department of Anthropology as a case study, this online survey solicited self-reported financial data and perceptions of housing affordability from the eighty-four graduate student employees in the department. Thirty-two graduate student employees responded to the survey.
Study Findings
97% of graduate students reported contributing 30% or more of their income to housing costs, which is the federal definition of unaffordable housing as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Furthermore, over 60% of graduate students would be classified by U.S. HUD as “severely rent burdened,” as they contribute 50% or more of their income to housing costs. 71% of graduate students described on-campus housing as “unaffordable” or “very unaffordable.” 94% of students believe Stanford has an obligation to provide on-campus housing that meets the federal definition of affordability for graduate students.
Study Conclusions
On-campus graduate housing at Stanford University, a self-designated residential university, does not meet any reasonable standard of affordability for graduate student employees, who are undercompensated by an institution that fails to provide them a living wage even as that institution profits on grossly unaffordable housing.
Recommendations
We seek relief from Santa Clara County on four counts:
We ask that Santa Clara County deny Stanford University’s claim of a $103 million affordable housing subsidy in its 2018 General Use Permit, which the University claims despite constructing housing that will in no meaningful sense be affordable.
We ask that new on-campus housing in the 2018 General Use Permit not be designated as “affordable housing” unless projected annual rental costs are estimated to be less than 30% of mean graduate student income.
We ask that the county revoke its designation of Kennedy Graduate Residences and Munger Graduate Residences as affordable for “low- and very-low income populations” in accordance with the 2000 General Use Permit. We ask the county to explain through what criteria housing at Munger Graduate Residences, which costs between $1,493 and $1,910 per person per month, has been designated as affordable for very-low income populations.
We ask that since development of on-campus graduate housing at Stanford is available to only one class of Santa Clara County residents, namely Stanford graduate students and graduate student employees, these units should not be counted as “affordable housing” for the purpose of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), if their affordability is calculated based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for Santa Clara County, a calculation irrelevant to the only class of Santa Clara County residents who may access such housing, whose median incomes are much lower than the AMI.
We seek relief from Stanford University on four counts:
We ask that Stanford University, which wrongly claims a $103 million affordable housing subsidy in its 2018 General Use Permit despite constructing housing that will in no meaningful sense be affordable, provide said $103 million to the County of Santa Clara’s Stanford Affordable Housing Fund.
We ask that within one year, Stanford University devise a plan to provide access to affordable housing for graduate students within five years. We ask that within five years, the mean annual on-campus graduate housing cost does not exceed 30% of the mean graduate annual income.
We ask that Stanford University make good faith efforts toward salary parity for graduate student employees across disciplines.
We seek evidence of Stanford’s unsubstantiated claim in their 2018 General Use Permit Application that “Stanford’s student rents are 40 percent less than what is charged in the surrounding rental market” (2018 GUP 6.10).
Further Research
Gender. Further research is needed to determine whether disciplinary pay disparity has disparate effects on female-identified graduate students. We hypothesize that the cost burden of unaffordable housing is placed disproportionately on female-identified employees, because Stanford compensates graduate student employees in disciplines with disproportionately male employees more than disciplines with disproportionately female employees. We seek data from Stanford University about variation in income among graduate student employees in different disciplines, and the distribution of gender across those disciplines.
National origin. Based on our preliminary study findings, we hypothesize that international students are more likely to live in efficiencies, the least expensive housing option, which contains limited amenities and space. We seek data on the distribution of the national origin of students across different levels of on-campus housing. We seek data on the national origins of occupants of double- and triple-occupancy rooms and data on what percentage students of a particular national background, such as Chinese nationals, are assigned roommates of the same national background.
Appendix A: Survey Results
Q1A. Are you able to cover your living expenses with the stipend/salary from the department?
Yes 63%
No 37%
Q1B-C. If not, how do you pay for your expenses or supplement your income? Is attending this graduate program more expensive than you anticipated? Select responses:
Yes, I am able to cover my living expenses with my stipend. BUT an efficiency is the only form of housing I can afford (among the options that let me at least have my own room), and if I hadn't gotten an efficiency, I wouldn't have been able to afford being here. I literally cannot afford any of the other housing options offered by Stanford, and I definitely cannot afford to live off campus.
Without taxes taken out, I am able to cover the expenses, but I live in constant fear that I'm going to owe more than I've been able to save for my taxes. Living here has been much more expensive than I thought it would be.
I can cover it with my stipend but it's tough, mainly because the department appears to believe that we do not pay rent, eat, or have medical expenses over summer quarter.
To supplement my income, I have done childcare, done odd jobs for the department, taught extra courses at Stanford in other departments, applied for supplemental funding, and found small paid gigs. However, one year I had to ask my parents to help me pay taxes, and I have not been able to pay them back due to the difficulties in having comfortable savings.
No - I have taken extra teaching jobs in order to cover cost of room and board. Attending grad school here has become much more expensive than I anticipated - had I realized it would have increased the way it has over the past 5 years I might have chosen a different program
Q2A. Do you have student loans?
Yes 41%
No 59%
Q2B-C. How much do you owe now? How much do you think you will owe upon earning your PhD?
The mean debt owed, among graduate students reporting student debt, was approximately $27,000. The median student debt reported was $16,500.
Q3. Could you calculate for us what percentage of your annual income goes to housing costs? The US Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing as costing less than 30% of one’s income.
30% or more of income goes to housing: 97% of graduate students
50% or more of income goes to housing: 63% of graduate students
60% or more of income goes to housing: 19% of graduate students
Mean reported percentage of income going to housing costs: 49%.
Q4. Would you describe on-campus housing as “very affordable” “affordable” “unaffordable” “very unaffordable”?
Very affordable: 0%
Affordable: 26%
Unaffordable: 58%
Very unaffordable: 13%
Q5. Would you describe off-campus housing as “very affordable” “affordable” “unaffordable” “very unaffordable”?
Very affordable: 0%
Affordable: 3%
Unaffordable: 39%
Very unaffordable: 55%
Q6. In its ability to meet your expenses, would you describe your income as a graduate student as:
Very adequate: 3%
Adequate: 31%
Inadequate: 59%
Very inadequate: 6%
Q7. Which buildings have you lived in on-campus (please also name the housing style such as "efficiency" and monthly cost if possible), or which cities have you lived in in the Bay Area, and how would you describe your citizenship status, national origin, marital and parental status, race and ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic/class status, or any other identities and statuses? We are curious about the relationship between various backgrounds and accessibility to differently priced on-campus accommodations, and any reflections you may have. Selected reflections:
The cheaper living costs in Oakland are offset by the fact that getting to campus on public transit is not only expensive, but time consuming. My time commuting to and from campus is in average 5 hours a day, forcing me to limit the days I can go to campus because those days are unproductive.
The fact that I'm from a low-income family has had an impact on the fact that I have been content to live in an efficiency (though, my heart has ached -- ACHED -- when I have visited those of my friends who live in the studios, Munger, well, any other housing. Oh how I wish I could afford to live there too. But, I tell myself, I'm in grad school, and that's how it goes. But then I remember that Stanford has gone out of its way to demonstrate that it is very ok with inequality, by constructing grad housing buildings that are so ridiculously different from each other so that financial disparity is built into the very infrastructure of the university. Who ever heard of such a thing?! Even the furniture in the buildings is different. The beds - not just the size, the type of mattress.
As a foreign national there is almost no way to help yourself make extra money if you need to as the student visa is incredibly restrictive on how many hours/week you can work and in what field. On top of this, foreign nationals are subject to a heft withholding tax of 30% so we lose 30% of our stipend/grant money automatically and we do not qualify for many tax credits as alien residents, but DO qualify as residents for taxation.
My reflection is that I actually prefer not to live with people with same ethnic background, but I'm always assigned to apartment with Chinese roommates. It happens to many of my friends too, but the strategy of house allocation with regard to his aspect is not made clear in housing application system. The application asked you about everyday habits, I want to know if those issues are really taken seriously.
Q8. Do you believe Stanford should have stipend and salary parity across departments for PhD students, in which PhD students studying different disciplines are paid the same or close to the same stipend?
Yes: 84%
No: 6%
Did not know/want to learn more: 9%
Selected responses:
Yes. While there can be some differences, the fact that social science students make consistently less than their peers in some other schools is cause for concern. Students in some programs are clearing 34-35k per year, while we in Anthro earn less than 27k. The difference would be equivalent to a 30% pay increase for an Anthro student. However, even our peers in Classics and History have thousands of additional stipend dollars per year. So the School should at minimum move toward parity within similar programs.
Yes, I am aware. I am among those whose stipend is on the lowest end. When I first heard about the disparity, I was surprised and insulted. It mirrors the disparity among salaries paid to professors in different departments. CS professors get paid more than Humanities or School of Education professors. It's wrong. I do think that students should get paid the same across departments. I think female professors should be paid the same as male professors. I think professors of color should be paid the same as white professors. I think Anthro professors should be paid the same as Engineering Professors. Even within the school of H&SS, don't economics professor make much more than their anthropology or history counterparts? Yes. I think there should be pay parity for PhD students across disciplines. And I think this should not be accomplished at the cost of reducing the number of students admitted to those programs currently paying lower stipends i.e. they should be allotted more funding, instead of required to reduce size. All that said, I wouldn't trade places with my EE roommate. She gets paid more than I do, which I resent, and she is guaranteed summer funding (ie she gets 4 quarters of funding each year) but she is 'employed' by her advisor to work in his lab, which sounds awful. She's lucky if she gets to take a week off each year to go see her family. I work just as hard as she does, for just as many hours each week, but on my own terms, because of my discipline and the structure of my program. Because I have the freedom to apply for external funding for the summers, I can do my own research, away from Stanford. Some university administrators would argue that it's ok to pay students differently because the 'work' they do 'for' the university is different, but that's not a correct assessment. Students in anthro only TA twice, sure, but students in TAPS and History TA a lot more quarters yet do not receive stipends as high as those in EE or CS. I'm not saying that stipends should depend on how many times students TA; I'm saying that extant 'justifications' for the disparities are flawed.
Yes, and this is beyond ludicrous, while certainly not beyond the capabilities of the university to fix. It is unclear to me why students in certain departments appear to have a right to a more comfortable living than others or why the university is fine with arbitrarily valuing students' work differently.
Q9. Have financial considerations ever impacted your sense of performance as a student?
Yes: 84%
No: 16%
Select responses:
Yes, absolutely. Every hour I spend earning the extra cash I need to visit my family, travel to conferences, and conduct fieldwork is time taken directly from my research and scholarly output. I make this trade off literally every week here.
Finding affordable housing, sometimes having to move from sublet to sublet on a quarterly basis, was a constant source of anxiety during my second and third years as a doctoral student and it had negative impacts on my overall wellbeing, and my extension on my performance as a student.
Absolutely. When I cannot make ends meet, I have to find income else where by working, and when working, I am not doing my job as a graduate student, and therefore fall behind in meeting deadlines. Not too mention being over-stressed and tired. It pushes one to their limits, and that effects work that requires extensive mental labor.
Yes. I did fieldwork for only 1/2 the summer after year 1 and year 2 so that I could work; if I hadn't done this, I would still have far more student debt than I do.
Yes – the stress of periodically not having access to cash (even if I, in theory, had the money) threatened my ability to make rent made studying for exams and applying for grants worse.
My family and relatives ridicule my pursuit of the degree because of my failure to maintain financial independence at my age.
Absolutely. When I had to live in [an affordable city far from Stanford] I couldn't get access to campus easily. I couldn't access amenities I deserved or attend lectures I deserved to attend. I was only able to come onto campus 1x per week or every other week.
Yes, it is very hard to keep up with work, deadlines, obligations when you are homeless for three months and moving from place to place of friend's or sublets for months on end because there is no affordable housing or housing vacancy
Low-level tension basically all the time. Some illegal housing situations to lighten that load somewhat, which add their own stresses.
Yes, I have taken on many additional or small jobs from the department, which is offered equally to all students but of course only taken up by those who need them.
Yes - it is a significant stress and I have to work extra to make enough money to live by
Q10A. Do you think Stanford has an obligation to provide housing to graduate students that meets the federal definition of affordable housing?
Yes: 94%
Want more information: 6%
Q10B. What percentage of graduate student income would be appropriate? (Open-ended question).
Select Responses:
Yes, absolutely. Regardless of its status and privilege as an elite educational institution, Stanford is not exempt from the national social contract that Americans have collectively decided is an appropriate minimum. It is completely ridiculous that we pay DOUBLE the affordable housing guidelines even as Stanford owns most of the properties in which its students live. But regardless of whether the property is owned by Stanford, the university must provide adequate housing which meets federal guidelines.
Yes, absolutely. The Bay Area is one of the most expensive places on earth. I believe Stanford, as one of the wealthiest institutions in the country, has a moral obligation to provide affordable housing to its graduate students. 30% of graduate student income would be appropriate and in keeping with federal guidelines.
I would want to know more about the economics of housing on campus before saying whether I think they have an obligation. I would have an issue with it if the residence & dining co is making big profits by charging phds 40% their income b/c the only alternative is off-campus, which is worse.
Yes. Or rather, preferably, and instead of undertaking enormous building projects that keep us (let's be honest) in dorms like children with the university in loco parentis, Stanford could just raise our stipends commensurate with the cost of housing in the Bay. Stanford's endowment is upwards of $22,000,000,000. We live in the most expensive area of the country. I don't feel more needs to be said.
Absolutely. Stanford should be ashamed that its current graduate student pay and graduate student housing rate ratio does not meet federal (or anyone's) definition of affordable housing. Over 50% of my income goes to Stanford housing.