After a lot of thought, I decided that I wanted to go to Brandeis. My dad indicated that he wanted to talk about this, so tonight my mom and I explained for forty minutes why Brandeis would be a really good fit for me. I asked him what he thought and he said that he didn't care, he was about to miss combat, and that he wanted to know how I was going to pay for it since he wouldn't.
AHH!
How do I engage in reasonable conversation with him (and convince him to support me)?
I need to send in a deposit to either Brandeis or Binghamton by Friday.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
If you want college to paid you have to submit to whose paying's decisio., I learned a while ago that I am having no help getting through college, so I am free to go where ever I want. I dont think of it as a blessing though.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Will your father pay for Binghamton? Is there a difference in costs?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Where DID your father want you to go? (and why?) I don't think we can be that helpful without more information.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
But there should be no reason for the whole argument in the first place since my mom said it's okay and is completely willing. It's more a question of how to not have my dad make everyone miserable.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
My dad wants me to go to Binghamton which is MUCH cheaper (a little less than half the cost).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well none of us can answer that without knowing more about your Dad.
Can you get any money from your Mom? Seems to me you should be entitled to at least half of whatever they were gonna give you in the first place.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Your father has no obligation to pay for your education himself. Ask him what HIS ideas are, maybe that would open the door for you, and you might gain a little more insight to his though process.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
This:
"But there should be no reason for the whole argument in the first place"
conflicts with this:
"My dad wants me to go to Binghamton which is MUCH cheaper"
You can work on persuasion, but it sounds fruitless.
Did you try asking him to contribute the Binghamton cost toward Brandeis, as Raymond suggested? (If it's the much better fit for you, it'd be reasonable to look into student loans to pay for the difference.)
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
My father is a very complicated person. I'm not really sure what to say.
He used to be a total hippie and a communist. We still have a bust of Trostky in the basement and when everyone was discussing Obama's Bill Ayers connection during the campaign he found his old 1st edition of Prairie Fire to show off (while he explained that this proved what a dangerous man Obama was).
Now he's very conservative and a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh etc. He says that colleges in America all give the same liberal indoctrination so why should he pay double when Bingamton is such a good school (which it is) and is half the price and my brother is (so far) having a very good experience there.
What complicates this a lot is since this is an issue which involves a lot of money it brings up the other issue which involves a lot of money, my grandpa's (my mom's father) nursing home situation. So when we try to have a college discussion my parents usually end up in a fight about that instead.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh, one thing I would add: It is my opinion that community college is an incredibly valuable tool. When I first got out of high school, I kinda wanted to go out somewhere new and there was one college in particular I wanted to go to. I didn't get in, and instead I went to community college for free (my Mom worked there).
In the two years there, I watched other people who had gone off to the "good" college they wanted to go to flunk out and end up right where I was, having wasted a whole lot of money. In the meantime, I learned a whole lot about what things I actually wanted to do (as opposed to what seemed like a good idea RIGHT NOW).
So my personal advice to you would be to go someone even cheaper than Binghamton to get your general ed credits and to make sure you really know what you want to do.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
And I forgot one more thing: my dad thinks Obama is going to make it very difficult for Jews to live in America so he wants be be ahead of the game and move to Israel soon and has been making scary statements about me going to college there/ how he needs the money to buy a house there.
quote:Did you try asking him to contribute the Binghamton cost toward Brandeis, as Raymond suggested? (If it's the much better fit for you, it'd be reasonable to look into student loans to pay for the difference.)
I'm not really sure because we are never actually able to finnish a discussion about money. Which is part of why this is so frustrating. I would really like my parents to say the same thing so I know what is going on and what to expect but right now they are in total disagreement.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I see. Cutting through parental conflict to resolve your own issues can be pretty challenging. My own parents have a similar dynamic - all kinds of topics reignite conflict, sometimes fresh but usually old and festering.
Maybe you could try to schedule a formal presentation, complete with slides. (Not totally kidding. If you can introduce a novel setting it might disarm them.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I apologize in advance: this is going to be a bit harsh. But I think you're going to get a wake-up call sooner or later, and you're much better if with "sooner".
quote:Originally posted by adenam: But there should be no reason for the whole argument in the first place since my mom said it's okay and is completely willing. It's more a question of how to not have my dad make everyone miserable.
That's problem number one. This should not be you and one parent against the other. And you're old enough not to pull that sort of shtick.
quote:Originally posted by adenam: My dad wants me to go to Binghamton which is MUCH cheaper (a little less than half the cost).
Your entitlement issues are the second problem.
You are LUCKY that you have parents who are willing -- and able -- to pay for Binghamton. I'm assuming you're a NY state resident? That's still ~10 grand for next year, and that's if you live at home. Brandeis is 4 times that, and that's before dorm fees.
If you want to go to the expensive school, that's great. Take out loans to pay for it. Just be sure it's worth $120,000+ in loans to you.
If it's not, why should it be to your dad?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
I don't know about community college. I know it's really good for a lot of people but I really want to do a lot of Judaic studies and the best in the country are at Brandeis. Also, the idea of switching in the middle really scares me.
I've sort of done the presentation thing already (minus the slides), but my dad has a one-track mind. Different settings don't throw him off.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Well none of us can answer that without knowing more about your Dad.
Can you get any money from your Mom? Seems to me you should be entitled to at least half of whatever they were gonna give you in the first place.
While I do think it is reasonable if the parents were going to pay X amount for one school for them to pay x amount for another. However, I don't think that should ever be viewed as something you are entitled to. And I can see reasons why a parent would not be willing to pay for one school when they would another. With the sick mother, they might be concerned that they may have to cut off funding at a later date and want to make sure that you are at a school you could afford with loans if they had to stop contributing entirely.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
True. "Entitled" was a bad word, but "reasonable" isn't a bad one.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
rivka, thank you for talking straight.
I know this could easily turn into one parent against the other and I have been talking to my mom about avoiding that.
I do not live in NY, I live in PA where there is unfortunately no kosher food at my state college.
I was waiting for someone to start talking about entitlement. I wasn't really sure if it counted if one parent had agreed.
A question for you: Brandeis has offered us a little aid. However, next year I will be in seminary in Israel. Is there a way to make them increase it for the year after?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam: Is there a way to make them increase it for the year after?
If your parents are paying a significant amount of money for a parent in a nursing home (as you indicated), that is something to be sure the financial aid office is aware of. Many schools will adjust the available family income based on that. Be prepared to show bills.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Well none of us can answer that without knowing more about your Dad.
Can you get any money from your Mom? Seems to me you should be entitled to at least half of whatever they were gonna give you in the first place.
While I do think it is reasonable if the parents were going to pay X amount for one school for them to pay x amount for another. However, I don't think that should ever be viewed as something you are entitled to. And I can see reasons why a parent would not be willing to pay for one school when they would another. With the sick mother, they might be concerned that they may have to cut off funding at a later date and want to make sure that you are at a school you could afford with loans if they had to stop contributing entirely.
To clarify: thank God, my mom is healthy. Her father isn't. Part of the issues with loans is that we don't know how they work. My brother doesn't need them and didn't even get in to a place where he would need them so this is new and my family is not good with new.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by adenam: Is there a way to make them increase it for the year after?
If your parents are paying a significant amount of money for a parent in a nursing home (as you indicated), that is something to be sure the financial aid office is aware of. Many schools will adjust the available family income based on that. Be prepared to show bills.
My parents are not actually paying for my grandpa. It's a wierd argument that I don't want to explain, just that it really upsets both sides.
I just talked to my mom and apparently my dad has agreed for us to pay the enrollment fee at both. Is that allowed?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Possibly. Look at what the papers they sent you say. (Some schools are asking you sign what is essentially a contract that you will attend; others just want your enrollment fee, and as long as you realize it's non-refundable will not say boo if you later back out.)
If there are no unusual expenses (or none that haven't already been made clear to the financial aid office), then you are unlikely to talk them into more financial aid. It's not a negotiation.
However, you should talk to them about the option of private loans. It's not something you MUST do through them (unlike Federal loans), but I strongly recommend it.
Keep in mind the usual recommendation about loans: don't borrow more than your expected first year's salary. If you're not going to be making more than at least $100,000 for your starting salary, I strongly recommend reconsidering Brandeis. It's a great school. But there are many excellent options that are far cheaper.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Edit: asked and answered.
This stuff about your Dad and Obama and Israel, and his unwillingness to discuss any of it with you shows a few things generally. First, if your father is unwilling to discuss the financial situation with you, then it's cause to think he is possibly too worried or unsure of his status at the moment to give you (or himself) a clear appraisal of the situation. This talk about Israel and Obama's fight against the Jews sounds nutty, and it also seems to me that if your Dad is a rational person, he probably doesn't *really* believe it in any complete kind of way- it's a smokescreen for his insecurity about the money. In good financial times, people don't seem to worry about much of consequence, but in bad financial times, they get all flustered and worried about stuff that is equally stupid, but seems more important and "big," if you will. Thus, the conspiracy in the Clinton administration was that the President was a philanderer, whereas the conspiracies of the Bush and Obama years seem to be centered around global domination, religious persecution, and genocide. I don't recall a lot of people talking about Clinton or Reagan in that way, although they were not a whole lot different as human beings (different, but not THAT different). And, if you recall, the rise of Hitler in Germany was indeed on the heals of a financial disaster that had nothing particularly to do with Jews, but which (in my unexpert opinion) shook the snow-globe of German society just enough to allow the Nazis to grab power, and to carry out their plan. Had Germany been stable prior to that point, I doubt people would have bought into the hysteria, but as it was, I think a large part of the populace was duped into compliance simply because they didn't know who to trust- they didn't know which way was up. A lot of people are feeling that way now, to a lesser degree so far, but it's easy to see the parallel in the public mindset. That said, it establishes absolutely no equivalence between the the situations in any other terms- just that people feel vulnerable when the economy is tanking.
We are just about constantly reading these posts from newly adult members who are having trouble having a rational conversation with their parents. I recall a few threads of my own that went that way. My opinion is that parents get a little irrational when their kids are about to leave the house, or have just left, or are in some transitional period of unclear import to the relationship and authority structure. Combine this effect with the general effects of a financial recession or depression, and I think it's understandable. I hope knowing all of that helps you to think about what you really need from your father, and how to get him to do the best thing for you, and how to do the best thing for yourself as well.
[ April 28, 2009, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:or are in some transitional period of unclear import to the relationship and authority structure.
Quoted for truth.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If you want to go to the expensive school, that's great. Take out loans to pay for it. Just be sure it's worth $120,000+ in loans to you.
If it's not, why should it be to your dad?
Also quoted for truth.
Expensive schools are so, so, so much money, and in monetary terms often do not give enough return on investment to make it worth it, especially for undergrad. Not to say that there aren't other reasons, but if two schools are acceptable and one costs four times what the other one does but upon graduating does not get a salary that is four times what the other one would be, then...that's a personal choice to be in debt bondage, but it is definitely too much to ask from your parent.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
American schools are insanely expensive. It's really a terrible state of affairs. Your cheap school is $10,000 tuition?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is a whole range, even among universities. State universities are often much cheaper.
My state university charged less than $2500 a semester in tuition.
ETA: In fact, it still does. If you take between 12 and 18 credits, tuition is $2,476. Add in fees, and it is $2,862, or about $5,724 for the year.
I think school is a trade off. For what I ended up doing, my school was perfect. I might have done something different if I went farther away and to a more expensive school, but I can't imagine what and I adored my college experience.
More importantly, I can't tell you how freeing it was to graduate from college with no debt. You can take risks, you can start your life, you don't have to be afraid, and you can work in fields that don't pay as much up front. I have a dear friend who went to a posh school for undergrad and an exotic school for grad school. She loved her education and she has enjoyed the jobs she's been able to get, but she is also still $90,000 in debt with no assets at all.
If you are going for the knowledge and skills, you don't have to pay that much. If you are going for the name, then you have to pick a profession where you can trade the name for cash to pay for it.
[ April 28, 2009, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, it isn't that your schools are that much cheaper (for the most part -- Canada also tends to pay professors less, for instance), but that they're paid for through taxes. And we have a lot more world class colleges universities (even controlling for population) than you have, which arguably justifies the expense Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't think you can count on changing someone else's mind. In the end, the only person whose actions we can control are our own. So work with the facts. At university A, you can get so much money and have to come up with the rest. At university B, you get so much more money and hae to come up with less. If you can work out a way, through loans or work study or whatever, to come up with the rest, and you think university A is that much better (worth all the effort), then go for it. But you can't count on your dad. He said no.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the junior college option. I know it works for some, but it's harder to get scholarship when you transfer from one school to another, which can make it a worse option for many students. Also, I don't think the coursework at a junior college prepares a student for the coursework at a university. But I think the biggest reason, for me, was getting out of my parents house. I made mistakes, sure, we all do, but they were learning experiences and they were mine.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Also, it isn't that your schools are that much cheaper (for the most part -- Canada also tends to pay professors less, for instance), but that they're paid for through taxes. And we have a lot more world class colleges universities (even controlling for population) than you have, which arguably justifies the expense
Well, I mean for the students, so they don't graduate with crippling debt, even if they do go to the top schools, which are world class.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am a fan of getting out of the house as quickly as possible. You don't have to go to a junior college to get cheap tuition - there are universities that don't charge that much.
I do recognize that my university was a serious bargain - it always makes the lists of "Best Education Deals" because it's such a great school for so little in tuition. I appreciate that the state of Utah decided to fund the school enough to make that possible. Then again - that's the state. One of the biggest differences I've seen between the East coast and Utah is that in Utah, the assumption is that your parents do NOT pay for your school and you figure it out on your own. On the East coast, it seems the assumption is that you stay on the parental dole until your 30's.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What is the difference in tuition across the whole four years? Would you be willing to pay the difference yourself if your parents paid the equivalent of the cost of Binghampton? What future sacrifices would you be willing make in order to come up with the money for that? Would the benefit of going to Brandeis instead of Binghampton be worth those sacrifices to you?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Also, it isn't that your schools are that much cheaper (for the most part -- Canada also tends to pay professors less, for instance), but that they're paid for through taxes. And we have a lot more world class colleges universities (even controlling for population) than you have, which arguably justifies the expense
Well, I mean for the students, so they don't graduate with crippling debt, even if they do go to the top schools, which are world class.
No interest college loans that don't kick in often times until a year after graduation don't seem to qualify, to me, as "crippling." The fact that one has debt does not ruin one's life.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: American schools are insanely expensive. It's really a terrible state of affairs. Your cheap school is $10,000 tuition?
You're English right- or at least British? I got this a LOT living there. But the fact is that if you go to a public University in many states, fairly substantial accommodations are often made to those who don't have the means to pay. That doesn't mean everyone goes for whatever they can afford, because the system isn't like that, but if you are really financially strapped (and if your parents can't help you because they are unable- read: poor) there are options including very favorable loans, grants, and financial aid. In fact, a few of my friends had their tuition AND living expenses subsidized by the state.
Education is not Health Care in America. What I mean is that I think our public health care system is plagued by a sense of "the government has to help dirty poor good-for-nothings who don't buy insurance," whereas the education system seems to have a *slightly* more can-do attitude about funding- probably because public education and the people who partake in it have a good image, while public health care and the people who partake in it have pretty much the opposite image.
[ April 28, 2009, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Teshi: that's covered with financial aid. Most of the top schools offer generous grant packages to students with insufficient income to pay, above and beyond federal loans.
For instance, students going to Harvard whose families make under $60k have to pay absolutely no tuition, and a family making $180k only has to pay $18k.
They have one of the clearest policies, but many of the best schools are also very effective at subsidizing students.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
interesting. Why so many different schools? In Quebec theres like only two choices of Universities, a "good" one with high expectations and alot of focus on Law and Medicin and another "good" one with a focus on engineering, the choices of "colleges" boils down to either your local French-only college usually technical or the only english one in the whole province. As such most funding gets funneled to a relatively few and they're all free, 100$ per semester for college, roughly 3000$ for Univeristy semesters but its easy to get bursuries.
Why is everything so expensive in USA and why are there so many choices.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, generally people who claim the top schools are too expensive to be affordable are not being completely honest. The tuition policies these days pretty much establish that any family living within its means can pay for an ivy league education for at least one child. I went public, but my sister went to an Ivy League school, and though my parents paid the full fare (minus some incidental scholarships based on achievement), the price was that high because they could afford it. It hurt, but they could afford it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Why is everything so expensive in USA and why are there so many choices.
For the cost- see the information already posted. The price tag is one thing, but the most expensive schools also take in far less than half (iirc) of that price tag in actual tuition every year. They have endowments, grants, donations, scholarships, to cover the rest. If my memory serves me correctly, the vast majority of each of the top private university budgets is derived from non-tuition sources.
Why so many? So that we don't live in a place where there are "basically two choices."
Edit: having checked the numbers, Harvard University has an endowment of nearly 30 billion dollars. Interest alone at a nominal rate would accrue nearly a billion dollars a year.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It can be crippling. $120,000 of debt, which is very possible, may not "ruin" your life, but it limits your choices and creates a "lost" couple of decades where all the money you earn goes to debt instead of growing.
If you spend twenty years paying off $120,000, you break even at the end, having paid $90,000 in interest.
Monthly Loan Payment: $916.01 Number of Payments: 240
Cumulative Payments: $219,841.10 Total Interest Paid: $99,841.10
Alternately, look what happens if you invest $916 a month.
In bonds: $280,807.48, AFTER taxes.
quote:Initial Investment Amount: $1,000.00 Expected Interest Rate: 2.00% Periodic Investment: $1,000.00 How Often: Monthly Years Invested: 20 Your Federal Tax Rate: 28%
GROWTH CALCULATOR RESULTS
By purchasing U.S. Savings Bonds, in 20 year(s), your investment could be worth (after federal taxes): $280,807.48
Heck, just sticking it in a savings account instead will give you $275,883.94.
And then there is the opprotunity cost. What else do you have to give up or not do because you have to pay almost a $1000 a month? How crippling would it be to be stuck with this enormous debt that you can't even sell the asset to discharge? What does it mean to pay all that money and at the end having only broken even when you could have been $300,000 ahead?
It is a decision that has to be made. For most people who take on that debt, the financial payoff isn't worth it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that part of the reason we have so many choices is that we're so expensive.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
For most people, the benefits of attending an expensive top tier private school for undergraduate studies will never out weigh the expense.
There are many excellent top rated programs at public Universities that cost a fraction of what it costs to attend most private schools. The top graduates from these schools are competitive both for entrance into the best graduate programs and the job market. Many companies actually prefer to hire graduates from good public Universities over prestigious private schools because the programs are more often geared to the real world rather than the ivory tower.
Also of note, school rankings are most often based on graduate programs. Many top tier schools receive their high rankings based on the work of a highly recognized professors who you will never see in an undergraduate classroom. In contrast if you are a good student attending a public University, you can very likely work with the best professors in your field many of whom are as well recognized as those in prestigious private schools.
In most fields these days, you will need to do graduate studies to be considered a professional. Once you've attended graduate school, no one will care where you did you did your undergraduate work. In the science, you often have to do post-doctoral studies before you can get a real job. One of the friends did his undergrad and grad work at public Universities but then did a post-doc at Harvard. He's considered a Harvard man even though he never paid a nickel of Harvard tuition.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: Sounds like a plus for expensive, to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I second everything Rabbit said.
If a name school is worth it at all, save it for graduate school. In a lot of cases you can get financing, and that's the name of the school that matters.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"What does it mean to pay all that money and at the end having only broken even when you could have been $300,000 ahead?"
What makes you think a non-college graduate- even a number of non college graduates half that of the ones who take the loans, could actually save nearly a thousand dollars a month? That's a false equivalency- in many cases you don't earn the money if you don't go to college, and you don't reap the other non-financial or not directly financial benefits of college. (Unless you're comparing public to private, in which case I tend to agree, public is better in a cost-benefit comparison).
"For most people who take on that debt, the financial payoff isn't worth it."
You will find that difficult to quantify, let alone prove, and you should be clear that it is purely your supposition. This is not a dollars and cents trade-off. You can couch it that way, or play with the numbers to see what the odds and evens are, but real life, even real life in general, doesn't play by those rules.
Katharina, may I ask your college background? Your outlook on universities doesn't jive with mine, and I'm just curious where you developed it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You can and should go to college - you just don't have to go into major debt to do it. A college degree versus no degree will make an enormous difference. A college degree from a good, affordable school versus a college degree from a good, very expensive school will NOT make the same kind of difference.
I'm not surprised we have different outlooks - I'm from out West, and your outlook is closer in line with what I've encountered here on the East coast. I am also the daughter of an entrepenuer who built a successfull business without financial help from parents - he doesn't look fondly on legal adults asking for a handout. For college, he paid room and board and I got scholarships and worked to pay the tuition.
I didn't say the payoff isn't worth it, but the financial payoff isn't. A school that costs an extra $250,000 with interest, for most people, does not translate into $250,000 more in earnings. It definitely doesn't translate into $350,000 more to make up for the opportunity cost.
It may be worth for the experience and other non-tangible reasons, but in terms of earning power, the justification just isn't there.
[ April 28, 2009, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I had a friend who was able to go to William and Mary for about $5 per year after his scholarships and all his financial aide, and they are an expensive school. However, he did have the advantage(???) that he had done well in school, and his parents didn't have a lot of money which opened him up to a lot of financial aide opportunities.
I also have a friend who went to Bob Jones here in SC, solely because his father told him that was the school he would pay for. He met his wife there, and got a good education. He doesn't regret going, but it wouldn't have been his first choice. It's ultimately up to you, but if your father is willing to pay for one school and not the other, I would seriously consider going to the school he is willing to pay for. It was incredibly nice as an undergrad to finish school with no debt thanks to my parents planning and my scholarship. It meant that I had time to really decide what I wanted before graduate school, which I am only now 8 years later applying for.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
wow adenam, you sound like an unfeeling privileged narcissist. I know families where the whole idea of paying for a college education is not even possible; they have to pay bills and buy food. If you were their kids they would either laugh at you or kick you out as an adult for your ungratefulness.
Earn your own keep or keep your mouth shut. That is my answer to your question.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:What makes you think a non-college graduate- even a number of non college graduates half that of the ones who take the loans, could actually save nearly a thousand dollars a month?
Orincoro, You missed the key point behind Kat's arguments. She was never comparing a college graduate with $120,000 of debt to a non-college graduate. She was comparing a college graduate from a modestly priced state University to a college graduate from a high priced private University. The $120,000 of debt was put forth as the difference in cost between attending a school like Brandies and a lower priced school like Binghamton. From a purely financial perspective, to break even, using Kat's numbers, a degree from a a school that costs X +$120,000 would have to earn you $916/per month more than an equivalent degree from a school that cost only X.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And, of course, don't forget to talk to Brandeis and find out why they weren't offering you any financial aid.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Personally, I'm not a fan of the junior college option. I know it works for some, but it's harder to get scholarship when you transfer from one school to another, which can make it a worse option for many students. Also, I don't think the coursework at a junior college prepares a student for the coursework at a university.
Agreed. On average, it also slows down most students by 1-2 years, which is a significant opportunity cost. That's true even with articulation agreements.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No interest college loans that don't kick in often times until a year after graduation don't seem to qualify, to me, as "crippling."
That would be a subsidized Stafford loan. Current max for freshmen: $3500/year (goes up to $5500/year in your third year). Also, many middle-class (and up) students don't qualify for sub loans.
If you're taking out over $20,000 in loans a year, the bulk is either in private loans, which most certainly do accrue interest while you're in school, or PLUS loans. Which are parent loans, and also accrue interest while the student is in school.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What does it mean to pay all that money and at the end having only broken even when you could have been $300,000 ahead?
Incidently, if one compares going to college vs. not going to college, you'd also want to factor in the opportunity cost of going to college in that calculation. The four years that a student is in college are four years that they could have been out working and earning an income. If you get a job with a yearly income of $30,000, that $120,000 more on top of the $300,000 over the four years. In addition to that, four years of work experience is often worth a much higher salary as well, depending on what sort of job you have.
So really, a college with a high tuition could be costing you $400,000-$500,000.
But on the other hand, college graduates have lifetime earnings that are almost $1 million more than non-graduates - although this is going to vary a lot from case to case, depending on things like major and future career. On top of that is this simple fact that many extremely valuable things are not easily put into monetary terms - such as the college experience and the lifetime personal value of knowing stuff... or any worry associated with having lots of loans.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Personally, I'm not a fan of the junior college option. I know it works for some, but it's harder to get scholarship when you transfer from one school to another, which can make it a worse option for many students. Also, I don't think the coursework at a junior college prepares a student for the coursework at a university.
I'm fully agreed. A junior college or community college is a good option for people who aren't ready to commit to a 4 year program either because they aren't prepared academically, don't have the resources to go to school full time or just don't know what they really want to do yet. But they are not a good option for a serious student.
The teaching staff at community colleges and junior colleges rarely have the qualifications that would be needed to teach at a University. You may get some great ones, but you will also get some real clunkers. On average, students GPA drops one full grade point when they transfer from a community college to a 4 year University. That does not reflect well on either the quality of education at junior colleges or the students who attend them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: wow adenam, you sound like an unfeeling privileged narcissist. I know families where the whole idea of paying for a college education is not even possible; they have to pay bills and buy food. If you were their kids they would either laugh at you or kick you out as an adult for your ungratefulness.
Earn your own keep or keep your mouth shut. That is my answer to your question.
And your attitude has graced you with such poise.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Adenam, while I agree with most of what has been said in regards to your father's right not to pay for a college he can't afford, or doesn't wish you to attend, I will offer one other bit of advice.
The first rule in successful sales is to point out the advantages not to you, but to the buyer. If I went up to you and tried to sell you a car by saying how much I would enjoy the commission, and how great that commission would fit into my lifestyle, I doubt you would be interested.
Telling your father how great a fit the more expensive school is for you is selling the school to you, not him.
He wants to move to Israel. He cares about his religion, and the people who share it.
You casually mentioned to us that the reason you want to go to the more expensive school is to better study Judaic law and philosophy.
Does he know that?
He wants to move to Israel? What would be more supportive to him than a child who is on a quest for Judaic wisdom?
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I took a few community college classes while still in high school. It was wonderful in that it got a bunch of basics out of the way and saved me some money as the classes were free to me. However, it was my experience that the classes were not even close to equivalent to university classes. In fact, my high school classes were more challenging. I had an English class at the CC that was particularly low level in my opinion. A lot of the students were older and had not done well in H.S. ten to twenty years prior. In this class, they struggled with simply finding the noun and verb in a sentence and freaked out about having to read three novels in a semester. This was far less than I was required in my Senior English class at HS and wouldn't even come close to what was required of English 101 students at a university. I do wonder sometimes if these CC prepare students at all for University level classes. It seems like they are better suited as more technical schools or for more technical fields.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I was waiting for someone to start talking about entitlement. I wasn't really sure if it counted if one parent had agreed.
Entitlement "counts" if both parents agree to support you. Entitlement is a feeling that comes from you, regardless of whether it is supported.
I am aghast at your disappointment with your dad. Everyone in our family was 100% responsible for our own college education. I was lucky with scholarships and grants, but my siblings took on debt. All four of us graduated, and some of us got our Masters.
Had my mom had the means to pay for any part of my college I would have been grateful, not upset because it wasn't enough.
You're an adult now. Shoulder the responsibility or adjust your plans.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In most fields these days, you will need to do graduate studies to be considered a professional. Once you've attended graduate school, no one will care where you did you did your undergraduate work.
This is not really true, particularly when you are starting your career, with the exception of certain careers in certain fields (law, medicine, science, etc.) And even in those exceptions, the graduate program is going to likely care what undergraduate school you went to when considering whether to admit you.
It should also be noted that, as far as career advancement goes, the value of a "top" school is arguably less from having that school on your resume than it is the connections you form at the school.
Having said that, while the undergraduate school is a factor, other factors are far far more important - like skills, character, and experience. Those attributes will not only get you jobs but will allow you to excel. And a well-respected school won't necessarily give you those things any more than a less prominent school will. My impression has been that almost any major college can offer a great education comparable to the top schools, if you take advantage of what it offers. When compared to that, the prestige of the school is a fairly minor factor.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm not surprised we have different outlooks - I'm from out West, and your outlook is closer in line with what I've encountered here on the East coast.
Wait, where do you think I'm from? It would be quite impossible to have been raised farther west than I was- I've spent a total of 4 days in my life anywhere on the east coast.
That said, my father did go to Harvard, and all of my sisters went to school on the east coast either for undergrad or grad school, though one did grad school in California, where I did my undergrad.
I won't argue the point that a reasonably priced school is a better deal than an overpriced one, even allowing for name recognition. I myself attended a public school. But I will argue that for a lot of students, going to an expensive school is not financially crippling. The most expensive schools are designed to allow for less wealthy people to attend, and for rich people, paying the tuition is not a crippling burden if the parents are helping. Attending a private university, at least in my view, essentially requires parental support- that's a part of the model for them. If you're going it alone, then it's your choice, but yes, in that case I do think that saddling yourself with that burden is probably not worth what some people think it is. On the other hand though, if you have parents willing and able to put you through an expensive school on their dime, I see no problem. The benefit of having money is that money doesn't have to matter as much- the freedom to make a decision to go to any school that accepts you is pretty special.
I had that freedom, but still went public, despite the urging of my parents to look at small private colleges. I was too young to make the decision on my own, but my parents were pretty unwilling to make it for me- they didn't say a single word when it came to my college decisions, and now I think that's because they knew that it was something I would live with forever, and it had to be my doing if I was going to make it work. That's a luxury, to be sure, but I'm still the farthest thing from an east coast anything.
quote: I do wonder sometimes if these CC prepare students at all for University level classes.
Not in my experience as an English student or a Music student... especially as a music student. There were rare exceptions in English- but they were rare, and I came into contact with quite a few undergrads who did JC.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Go to the cheap school for undergrad. Get good grades. Go to a better school for your advanced degrees.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: I am aghast at your disappointment with your dad. Everyone in our family was 100% responsible for our own college education. I was lucky with scholarships and grants, but my siblings took on debt. All four of us graduated, and some of us got our Masters.
Had my mom had the means to pay for any part of my college I would have been grateful, not upset because it wasn't enough.
You're an adult now. Shoulder the responsibility or adjust your plans.
This really can't be said enough in discussions like this: WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR FAMILY.
Offer your experience as a comparison or as a perspective, not as a prescription. You don't understand what it means to be in someone else's family, much more than to be in someone else's culture. The expectations and understandings within a family are unique, and you don't have the experience necessary to know how another person is expected, taught, or conditioned to feel. You really don't. "I had it much worse," is a weak statement.
I suppose some poor soul from some godforsaken corner of the world could as well post: "I'm aghast that you expect your parents to provide you with food as a child, when I was a kid, we got food for ourselves." If this parent has consistently developed and maintained an expectation with his child that he/she will attend college, and that at such a time, financial arrangements will be made with his help, then hell yes, a person has a right to be disappointed if that evaporates or changes drastically. You're forgetting the pressure that the child feels from the parent, of needing to fulfill their expectations, and needing to accept their generosity and guidance as a young adult. It can become important to a young person, if it is built up enough (as it surely was in my family) that he/she accept this part of their parent's role in their lives not as what is "owed" to them, but as a familial obligation that cuts both ways. In many cases, for a child to deny financial support would be equally hurtful to the parents as the parents withholding of support would be. Some parents set this part of the life of their children down as their due and proper, and if the contract isn't held up, by either party, one will feel disappointment.
I have to say that there were some hurt feelings on my father's side when I didn't pursue an Ivy League education. What would you tell him- "I'm aghast that you would want to give your son more than he wants?" He had spent his life believing that when he had a son (me) he would send that son to some far off brick lined place of proper education. When it didn't happen like that, he was hurt, and I felt badly about it. You need to understand that this too is possible.
[ April 28, 2009, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's true - expensive schools are not crippling if your family is wealthy.
It hardly needs saying that if your family can afford to pay out of pocket everything is easier. That wasn't exactly in doubt.
It also doesn't make it financially more sensible - it just means that's where the disposable income goes. If you can afford to throw away half a million dollars, it doesn't matter where it is going.
It also sounds like you don't have the foggiest idea what it means to not have that cushion of parents with bottomless pockets. A financial plan consisting of "be born to wealthy parents" does not qualify you to give advice, especially very bad, inaccurate advice concerning student loans.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well see, then I'm not so sure it's being "thrown away." The pejorative meaning of the term has to do with waste- and I think in talking about education, developing a dollars and sense value, much less defining an individual's experience, is pointless and impossible to boot. I just don't think you can look at the price tag that someone pays, and get any kind of meaningful comparisons, leastwise any that matter to that person.
On the same token, you can get a first class college experience at a public school, like I got, and pay less money. I still don't think that I "saved" anything by going there. I don't think I could have gotten the experience for more money than was payed... if that makes any sense. It all comes down to the anecdotal experience, and for all the ratings and stats and prices, there is no really good way of saying what an education means to a person in any individual case.
As a for instance: I think someone like me, who had the means to pay for a more expensive school, got something valuable out of working with teachers who also didn't want to be at those schools (or couldn't be). On the flip side, I think some students would gain something from working with teachers who are aware of the prestige of their institutions. Still other students are motivated by the fact of their circumstances, while others are motivated to distinguish themselves from those circumstances, because they are "too rich/poor," and or the school is "too cheap/expensive." Each person requires a different fit- so I don't think you can even talk about which type of person should be in which school. The same school could appeal to a thousand people in a thousand bizarrely random ways.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not speaking about the subjective value of the experience. In purely financial terms, the return on investment just isn't there.
I am not suggesting that people live solely on financial terms, and if you can pay cash, do whatever you want. If someone is looking for advice, though, and doesn't have money to burn, then it needs to be said that those four fun years will cost twenty years of interest and opportunity cost, and the difference in your earnings will not compensate.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But I will argue that for a lot of students, going to an expensive school is not financially crippling. The most expensive schools are designed to allow for less wealthy people to attend, and for rich people, paying the tuition is not a crippling burden if the parents are helping. Attending a private university, at least in my view, essentially requires parental support- that's a part of the model for them. If you're going it alone, then it's your choice, but yes, in that case I do think that saddling yourself with that burden is probably not worth what some people think it is. On the other hand though, if you have parents willing and able to put you through an expensive school on their dime, I see no problem. The benefit of having money is that money doesn't have to matter as much- the freedom to make a decision to go to any school that accepts you is pretty special.
I think you have an overly idealized view.
Here are some concrete numbers. I'll compare the University of California System and Stanford. Both highly respected and in the same region. According to the UC website, fees, room and board for a California resident run 20,300/year. At Stanford, tuition, room and board run $49,000/year, a difference of $28,700/year or $114,800 for a 4 year course of study. Stanford offers free tuition to families that earn less than $100,000/year which is terrific but lets look at what happens for a family with two kids that earns $200,000/year. That family would be looking at a difference of 1/4 of their income to send their kids to Stanford rather than U.C. That's a very sizable chunk. And while a family that makes $200,000 a year is well off by any standard they aren't so wealthy that spending an additional $230,000 to send their kids to Stanford doesn't preclude other opportunities. Sending a kid to Standford rather than UC will mean they can't save that money for retirement or give it to their child to buy a house or any number of other things they might choose to do with over $100,000.
And this isn't just a hypothetical situation. I have a family member who is sending one daughter to an expensive private school and will the second one will be starting next year. They are in an income bracket where they qualify for only limited financial aid, they are paying over $30,000/year for the one child attending college. This pretty much wipes out anything they might have saved for retirement and any other discretionary spending they might consider or anything else they might give their children.
If this is the way they choose to spend their money, I guess that's fine but I tend to suspect they haven't really thought through all the implications. Its one thing in the abstract to say you want to help your child to attend any school they desire. Its another thing to reasonably consider what you can't give them because you are giving them an expensive education and whether the trade off is worth it.
Perhaps you need to put the question to the child, do you want a Stanford education or a UC education and $120,000 when you graduate.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:The expectations and understandings within a family are unique, and you don't have the experience necessary to know how another person is expected, taught, or conditioned to feel.
I have seen lots of young adults complain about the limits or tradeoffs associated with the financial support they receive from their parents, and it seems deeply silly, and upon inspection seems to stem from a childish outlook - a lack of adult perspective. (To paraphrase, 'but they're my parents, of course they should help me.') So I don't mind when people point out that once offspring reach adulthood, parental support is entirely discretionary.
I don't think harsh criticism is warranted, because as you point out sometimes the expectations are reasonable based on past experience and agreements. But when those expectations are not met, a little perspective (it could be worse, like it is/was for me/them) doesn't seem out of line.
No matter your unique family circumstances - if you're the infernal spawn of Donald Trump or your mom lives on social security - it's probably a good idea to be mentally prepared for a day when you're on your own, any time after your 18th birthday. Go ahead and make plans otherwise, if you seem to have extra support coming to you, but recognize that it's a luxury, not an entitlement.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If someone is looking for advice, though, and doesn't have money to burn, then it needs to be said that those four fun years will cost twenty years of interest and opportunity cost, and the difference in your earnings will not compensate.
And I'm saying that this is not grounds for a sound piece of advice. There is more in the equation- a lot more. Individuals- we're talking about individuals. We are not ruled by statistics, the statistics are just there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mine is extraordinarily good advice. Paying attention to money in the short and long term means freedom from debt and other people owning your time.
Orincoro, I suspect you don't have the foggiest idea what it means to not have that cushion of parental support to fall back on. It is very irresponsible to encourage people to go into insecured debt because it fits with your philosophy. Maybe you've never had to worry about money, but most people do and definitely should. Especially when we are talking about that much money.
You may not like to hear it, but the financial return on investment is just not there. It may be worth it for non-financial reasons, but it has to be non-financial reasons becuase the financial justification is absent.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: No matter your unique family circumstances - if you're the infernal spawn of Donald Trump or your mom lives on social security - it's probably a good idea to be mentally prepared for a day when you're on your own, any time after your 18th birthday. Go ahead and make plans otherwise, if you seem to have extra support coming to you, but recognize that it's a luxury, not an entitlement.
I grimace for a lack of better means to establis my attitude on this. Yes, you're right. The problem is that "get some perspective," ironically, comes from someone who has as much perspective as anyone else- only different. From some people's perspectives, the constitution is a luxury, roads are a luxury, water is a luxury. We expect these things, and we are right to expect them, because if we don't, there will be no one to maintain them. A certain level of expectation and faith keeps the whole thing going. And it is this way with family.
You should be reasonably prepared for change and disappointment, but your parents prepare your expectations for life, and their expectations of you, very carefully when you are a child- to deviate from those expectations in your actions is considered a transgression, but these arguments seem to insist that the expectations of the child, stemming from the parents in the first place, are somehow less real or less important. I don't believe that should be the case- and obviously experience has proved that young adult children feel the same way.
Should a father expect that his daughter attend high school? Legally, she may drop out before finishing, and there would be nothing he could do. Would he be wrong to be hurt, even devastated, in his way, if she didn't do this? What about religion? What about language? Culture? The expectations of the parents are actually fairly massive, but they are regularly met. Children are taught their expectations- they are taught what it is they should want and are right to have. Thus, to you and others it is no shock when a parent reneges on a college promise, while to others it is deeply disturbing- a crack in the foundation of their understanding of their parents.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Sounds like a plus for expensive, to me.
*nod* That's how I meant it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Orincoro, I suspect you don't have the foggiest idea what it means to not have that cushion of parental support to fall back on. It is very irresponsible to encourage people to go into insecured debt because it fits with your philosophy. Maybe you've never had to worry about money, but most people do and definitely should. Especially when we are talking about that much money.
You know very little about me, and have no room for speculation. I support myself, and have no financial support from my parents- so far, all of your assumptions about me have been off. I make no assumptions about you, so please do me the courtesy of taking me at my word. I did have that experience, and I speak only from that experience- you are no better than me. Besides, I'm talking about the idea of money "wasted" if it is not a terrible burden, and that's ALL I'm talking about- I have no other experience to rely on, and you have none but your own, so back off of criticizing me.
I suspect you don't have the foggiest idea of what it means to be male. Dear God! How can you understand anything??!?? YOU HAVE NO PERSPECTIVE!!! YOU ARE NOTHING!!!! AAHHHHH!!!!!!
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I was waiting for someone to start talking about entitlement.
quote: WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR FAMILY.
quote:I suppose some poor soul from some godforsaken corner of the world could as well post: "I'm aghast that you expect your parents to provide you with food as a child, when I was a kid, we got food for ourselves."
quote: Some parents set this part of the life of their children down as their due and proper, and if the contract isn't held up, by either party, one will feel disappointment.
I know we are not talking about my family. I am responding to solicited dialogue on "entitlement."
He is feeling entitled. You're right in that I felt entitled to food from my parent growing up. I do not consider all feelings of entitlement wrong and I do feel something unseemly about his feelings of entitlement to university tuition.
I did not jump on him at the beginning because he does have a different culture, but when he solicited further discussion I felt it was appropriate to contrast his current situation.
I am no fan of adults who feel entitled to things higher up on Maslow's Pyramid. That is my personal belief for what it's worth.
There is a significant difference from feeling disappointed, like your father felt or another parent might feel at being denied the privilege of helping with tuition, and feeling entitled to make decisions for an adult child.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yet some parents feel entitled to make decisions for their adult children. There's not much accounting for it, in my opinion. Every family has its unique system.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't consider "wasting" money spent on entertainment/hobbies/whatever, if you can afford it, as a bad thing. Everyone spends their money on different things. Some people spend their cash to burn on show horses, some on speed boats, some on bigger and fancier houses, some on travel, some on playing the stock market, and some on tuition. That's all fine, and I'm sure they enjoy it.
It doesn't make it an investment, however, and the tuition money needs to be recognized for what it is: an indulgence. That means advising those who can't afford it to spend money they don't have on a similar indulgence is doing them an extreme diservice.
Returning to thread topic, it also means asking for someone else to fund that indulgence when THEY can't afford it is quite shady, even if it's your father.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Funny, you were treating tuition money as an investment before- not an indulgence. That was rather slippery of you agent Starling...
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Thus, to you and others it is no shock when a parent reneges on a college promise, while to others it is deeply disturbing- a crack in the foundation of their understanding of their parents.
This exactly sums up my experience. I grew up in a community where it was expected that every child would go to the very best school that they could get into and the parents would pay. If you got into an Ivy League school, you went. I'm sure many people had student loans after, but it was pretty much universally regarded as worth it. Those who went to state schools, it was because they didn't get into better private schools. Certainly not a mark of shame, but a mark of less than superior achievement. We started preparing in sixth grade for the SATs with vocabulary lessons. This continued all through high school. Everyone know everyone else's GPA, class rank, SAT scores, etc. Parents started saving for college when they discovered they were pregnant. Starting junior year, we went to visit top colleges on the weekend.
Their kid was going to go to a good school, no matter what sacrifices the family had to make. Conversations started with, "My son at Brown...", "My daughter at Harvard..." I'm not necessarily advocating this, it was incredible pressure. But this was life.
I have a feeling that the OP grew up in a similar environment (upper class, Jewish). It would have been quite a shock if after all of that, my parents told me that I could not go to my first choice school. It would have felt that all of my years of hard work were betrayed. That they pushed me towards a goal and then ripped it away when I finally was there. Whether the OP is "entitled" to Brandeis, I'm not even going to try to guess. But if you are going to judge him, at least do it in the right context.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is an indulgence precisely BECAUSE it is such a crappy financial investment.
If someone insisted on paying face value for Confederate dollars because they are pretty, that would also be an indulgence.
In my high school, most of the students had a car and the parking lot was littered with porches and mercedeses and all those other things. It was expected and it certainly gave social status and other things, but they were still all indulgences. Some people and some cultures think those indulgences are worth it. Some cultures (the same ones?) think having seven kids is an unimaginable indulgence. Kids are always expensive, but the families I know with 5+ children expect their children to 1) go to college, and 2) pay for it themselves.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Returning to thread topic, it also means asking for someone else to fund that indulgence when THEY can't afford it is quite shady, even if it's your father.
Beethoven's father, recognizing the potential of his son to become a world class pianist, pushed and harassed his son into practicing every day for hours and hours, comparing himself, and his son, to the Mozart father and son dynamic. Problem was his father, a professional bassist, was not anywhere near the musician, teacher, or father figure that Leopold Mozart had been. In the midst of his profound and heavy expectations for his son, the father found that he did not have the means to provide what his son really needed to fulfill them. At a very young age, Beethoven died of alcoholism (and probably syphilis) after having led a less than happy life trying to make the greatest achievement in music that had ever been made. He did it, and died because of it. Who was to blame here? Who was missing out?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: In my high school, most of the students had a car and the parking lot was littered with porches and mercedeses and all those other things. It was expected and it certainly gave social status and other things, but they were still all indulgences.
Did that burn you up? Are you a class warrior because of it- if you are a class warrior?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know what you mean by class warrior, but almost certainly no.
I AM a fan of responsibly managing your money and of being self-reliant, which is what led to the advice in this thread.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
It's worth noting that some of the benefits of private education include: smaller class sizes (often by orders of magnitude), more accessible professors, classes not taught by TAs, a larger diversity of support services, etc.
It's a little silly to equate paying for in private education with buying you kid a sports car.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That depends on the university - in both directions. Some private ones offer their undergraduates a poor education where they are taught mostly by grad students, and some public universities offer an outstanding education where the professors are chosen as much for their teaching skills and dedication as their publications.
School name = sports car is not a silly comparison. Even in Mucus' example, the school the child attends is a status symbol. It serves exactly the same function as a sports car does in other micro-cultures.
The sports car is usually cheaper.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
whoa... I agree with almost everything katharina said in this thread.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: School name = sports car is not a silly comparison. Even in Mucus' example, the school the child attends is a status symbol. It serves exactly the same function as a sports car does in other micro-cultures.
:tsk: See I was with you until you said this. This just tells me you're bitter and resentful that your college didn't have a big name- did it have a big name, or does it just sound that way? Did you go to a big school and get nothing of value out of it? Where are you coming from with this? Because either way, you went to undergrad somewhere, and unless you did it twice (or some combination), you have one experience to offer.
The school someone attends is a lot more than a status symbol. It's a school. You are familiar with the differences between a school and a car aren't you? Simplify and generalize and marginalize and mock all you like- each school is a different thing to each person who attends. I see no reason to cast derision on big name schools simply because education is possible outside of their walls- and make no mistake, that statement casts derision.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nonsense. You're wrong.
I understand that people make all sorts of different choices, and where people what to spend their extra cash is their business.
However, a bad rate of return is a bad rate of return. The justification for paying for an expensive school is going to have to be other than financial, because financially it does not pay off.
I am not casting derision on big name schools - I am saying that if someone is looking at the numbers, the extra cost in tuition does not lead to extra earnings. Financially, it is a crappy investment.
Life is not lived only financially, so there are other reasons to make choices. For big name schools, the status symbol of having gone to that school is one of those other reasons. For some people, that's worth it. *shrug* Their money. I'd rather have private freedom from debt and/or financial savings than a status symbol, but clearly some people prefer the opposite arrangement.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(For the record, it wasn't me in that last exchange between Orincoro and Kath)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Nonsense. You're wrong.
Yeah, no.
quote: However, a bad rate of return is a bad rate of return. The justification for paying for an expensive school is going to have to be other than financial, because financially it does not pay off.
And you're back to investment. You don't get it both ways, if you want to make a claim one way or another. I don't, by the way- I don't think it's either.
quote: Life is not lived only financially, so there are other reasons to make choices. For big name schools, the status symbol of having gone to that school is one of those other reasons. For some people, that's worth it. *shrug* Their money. I'd rather have private freedom from debt and/or financial savings than a status symbol, but clearly some people prefer the opposite arrangement.
:sigh: Your problem is that it's all about YOU.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I'll agree that private schools are not always better than public schools, but certainly it's inarguable that some private (and/or expensive) schools are better than some public (and/or cheap) schools?
Since most students are only accepted by a handful of schools, it seems the relevant question is less "what is the cheapest school that provides a quality education?" than "which of the schools to which I've been admitted will provide the best education?"
If the point is that students shouldn't rule out the cheaper alternatives when sending in applications, that seems logical. But those state schools, by and large, cannot accept all applicants--they simply don't have the space.
I have a friend right now who's preparing to go to medical school in the fall. She applied to every public medical school in her state--none of which accepted her. Should she turn down the one school that did accept her and try again another year, rather than taking on loans and forging ahead? She doesn't think so--and I'm hard-pressed to disagree.
[eta: None of which is intended as a commentary on the OP's dilemma. I know nothing about the two schools to which he's been admitted and so am in no place to offer an opinion on which of the two he should attend. Perhaps they're both equally excellent--in which case attending the cheaper one seems to make sense. But I suspect few prospective college students are presented with a choice as clear as that.]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Where you accuse of saying what I'm saying because of all those negative things? Yes, you really are.
What, is there some sort of polite unspoken agreement to pretend that a degree from a big name university is sure to make the possessor earn more than a good, affordable university? Because I have said several times that the financial concern is only of several factors in making life decisions. I am focusing only on the financial factor.
Stating the truth doesn't require me to have negative traits. The financial facts - if it doesn't, generally, add signifigantly to the earning power of the graduates, then there needs to be reasons other than financial for going, because the numbers won't justify it.
I'm a little surprised by the hostility. You'd think I'd just said that the emporer has no clothes on.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: School name = sports car is not a silly comparison. Even in Mucus' example, the school the child attends is a status symbol. It serves exactly the same function as a sports car does in other micro-cultures.
I am on your side in this, but I don't agree with you on this one point. I never went to a private school or an ivy league school, but I don't think they serve merely as a status symbol.
Altho I have little faith that they offer better "education," I would think that they offer better "connections" which would lead to higher paying jobs.
I would expect a Harvard educated lawyer to make much more than a University of Utah lawyer--not because Harvard offers a better education (which they might) but because students from Harvard are more likely to be sought after from powerful law firms and their professors are more likely to be well connected.
It may just be a status symbol, but it is a status symbol with benefits.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
From the earlier link:
quote:Many people believe that a degree from an Ivy League institution will open the doors to high-level, prestigious employment. The truth is, unless you aspire to work as a financial consultant on Wall-Street—one of the few bastions of employment where an Ivy League degree may have an impact on your employability—where you obtain your degree (as long as the institution is accredited) isn’t as important as the kind of degree you obtain.
quote:But maybe the kids who got into Yale were simply more talented or hardworking than those who got into Tulane. To adjust for this, Krueger and Dale studied what happened to students who were accepted at an Ivy or a similar institution, but chose instead to attend a less sexy, "moderately selective" school. It turned out that such students had, on average, the same income twenty years later as graduates of the elite colleges. Krueger and Dale found that for students bright enough to win admission to a top school, later income "varied little, no matter which type of college they attended." In other words, the student, not the school, was responsible for the success.
Research does find an unmistakable advantage to getting a bachelor's degree. In 2002, according to Census Bureau figures, the mean income of college graduates was almost double that of those holding only high school diplomas. Trends in the knowledge-based economy suggest that college gets more valuable every year. For those graduating from high school today and in the near future, failure to attend at least some college may mean a McJobs existence for all but the most talented or unconventional.
But, as Krueger has written, "that you go to college is more important than where you go."
quote:"For certain kinds of jobs, a Harvard degree might help you get a foot in the door," says economist Robert Klitgaard, the author of Choosing Elites. "But if you look at outcomes -- earnings and social status -- it is very hard to make the case that going to Harvard is worth eight times going to UCLA, which is roughly the difference in their tuitions."
quote:Start with Yale. Attending Yale would cost you about $35,170 this academic year, including tuition, room and board, personal expenses and books. For four years, that all adds up to roughly $141,000.
Yale expects you and your parents to pay for a little less than half that, or $13,650 a year, out of pocket, and assumes you'll get about $6,000 a year in federal student loans. Assuming you cover the remaining $15,600 with more loans from other, nongovernment sources, you will have borrowed a total of about $86,000 after four years. Factor in roughly $37,000 in interest on all that debt, and your repayments will total $123,000 over 10 years.
By comparison, tuition and fees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last year would have cost a nonresident about $84,000 over four years. The university would expect your family to pay about $10,000 a year upfront. If you didn't receive any financial aid, you'd have to cover the remainder--about $44,000-through federal and other loans. Add interest payments of roughly $17,000 to the total debt, and your total loan payments would come to about $61,000.
Compared with Yale, that's a huge difference. Yet the first-year starting salaries earned by graduates of the two universities are very similar, at least on average. The alumni office at Chapel Hill says the average starting salary for its graduates is the same as the national average--about $27,000. Yale's alumni office says its average is about $28,500.
I do agree with this statement:
quote:I would expect a Harvard educated lawyer to make much more than a University of Utah lawyer--not because Harvard offers a better education (which they might) but because students from Harvard are more likely to be sought after from powerful law firms and their professors are more likely to be well connected.
Then again, that's graduate school/a law degree. That isn't the undergrad.
[ April 28, 2009, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I'm a little surprised by the hostility
Don't be. I saw a level of personal attack in this thread from Orincoro that greatly surprised me. He wasn't just attacking attitudes or behavior; he went full gusto against the person.
I generally enjoy reading Orincoro's posts (including the points he brings in this thread), so I am guessing that whatever is bringing out this hostility will eventually pass. Until then, take it in stride.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Stating the truth doesn't require me to have negative traits. The financial facts - if it doesn't, generally, add significantly to the earning power of the graduates, then there needs to be reasons other than financial for going, because the numbers won't justify it.
From the article itself:
quote: Alan Krueger and Stacy Berg Dale examined this phenomenon quite closely; and found that, all things being equal (meaning when you look at students of similar abilities and aptitudes) , over a period of time, salary doesn’t have a direct association with the name of the institution granting the degree.
Bolding mine.
From the study it refers to:
quote: The researchers Alan Krueger and Stacy Berg Dale began investigating this question, and in 1999 produced a study that dropped a bomb on the notion of elite-college attendance as essential to success later in life. Krueger, a Princeton economist, and Dale, affiliated with the Andrew Mellon Foundation, began by comparing students who entered Ivy League and similar schools in 1976 with students who entered less prestigious colleges the same year. They found, for instance, that by 1995 Yale graduates were earning 30 percent more than Tulane graduates, which seemed to support the assumption that attending an elite college smoothes one's path in life.
This study looks at post graduation outcomes in terms of income, controlled for ability. It seems to establish that the salaries of individuals with degrees from schools of different levels of notoriety is not affected when all else is equal. What it does not do is establish the track record for private schools at enhancing the abilities of their students, nor does it seem to establish how the post-graduate salary corollates to pre-college abilities of the student. It does look at students who were accepted into ivy leagues, but didn't go, however it never establishes the overall effect of the education on salary outcome, only the effect of the degree name on salary outcome. As far as I can see, it never takes into account the compared pre-college performance of ivy-league and other school students or compare that with the post degree outcomes.
In short, it doesn't establish what you seem to think it does. If you want to apply these articles in a meaningful way to this situation, you would have to be talking about two *graduates* of universities with similar skills- but of course two people going into university with similar skills (or different skills) are not guaranteed to leave those schools with the same skill levels or skill sets. Which is why saying that the numbers don't add up is not that important in this case- the best education for the individual in question is. If you were able to do a side-by-side comparison of two identical people, one going to "the right" school for them, and one going to "the wrong" school for them, the outcomes would of course be different- but of course such a study is impossible. You shouldn't try to apply this data to the question at hand.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Orincoro, this is clearly a subject that is very dear to your heart and you are very hurt and offended by the numbers.
I can't do anything about that. Go pat a school bumper sticker to make yourself feel better. And try to remember that someone giving sound financial advice doesn't need to have a hole in their soul to do it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm not sure this debate will be very helpful unless adenam gives some indication as to why he prefers one school over another. I certainly don't think its safe to assume prestige is his reason.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I don't think it is. Rather, I have no reasons to think so. That was a more generalized point.
However, likelihood of higher financial earnings when graduated should NOT be a reason, unless there is a specific program that is not available at the other school.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: I'm a little surprised by the hostility
Don't be. I saw a level of personal attack in this thread from Orincoro that greatly surprised me. He wasn't just attacking attitudes or behavior; he went full gusto against the person.
Oh please. He deserved it. I'm glad he had no answer.
quote: I generally enjoy reading Orincoro's posts (including the points he brings in this thread), so I am guessing that whatever is bringing out this hostility will eventually pass. Until then, take it in stride.
Thanks, I suppose. I'm living in a relatively new place with challenging attitudes. Rectifying that with my own experiences, and the attitudes of the many other people I encounter day-to-day, from many countries, is not easy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Orincoro, this is clearly a subject that is very dear to your heart and you are very hurt and offended by the numbers.
I can't do anything about that. Go pat a school bumper sticker to make yourself feel better. And try to remember that someone giving sound financial advice doesn't need to have a hole in their soul to do it.
No amount of condescension on your part makes the ground you stand on firmer. I am not hurt and offended by the numbers, I am offended by misuse of numbers to push your personal agenda, which you are trying to do.
And I've said numerous times here, and many times previously on Hatrack, that I went to a public school, and it was not expensive. (And if you want to know my personal experience, I make twice the average for my profession and experience level).
quote: Oh, I don't think it is. Rather, I have no reasons to think so. That was a more generalized point.
Didn't look like a more generalized point to me. Looked to me at one point like you were offering advice based on those numbers. In fact, you just called it "sound financial advice," which it isn't, by your admission.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I would expect a Harvard educated lawyer to make much more then a University of Utah lawyer--not beacsue Harvard offers a better education (which they might) but because students from Harvard are more likely to be saught after from powerful law firms and their professors are more likely to be well connected.
A big distinction needs to be made between undergraduate studies and Law school (or any other graduate degree). I, and I believe most other here, have been talking specifically about undergraduate education. The same rules do not apply to graduate and professional schools. Ask your self this, if someone has graduated from Harvard Law School, do you think anyone will care whether they got their Bachelors at Yale or Montana State?
The only people who are likely to care at all would be those who also got the B.A. at Yale or Montana State.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't agree with Orincoro's method of arguing, which seems overly wild and vehement, but I agree with what he is saying.
Some parents encourage financial independence in their children from an early age; in some cases as early as 10 or 12. Others not only don't do this but they frown upon it. They give their children economic support.
18 is a pretty random age to be suddenly cut off. Any parent who gives no indication that his or her (up till then complete or partially complete) funding will suddenly be cut off between the ages of 18 and 25 shows a lack of empathy.
My parents went to university on their own but in a totally different economic climate. They went to school in England, where their education was funded by the state to an extent that I believe they graduated without significant debt. Such was the economic environment that they both started on lucrative full-time jobs upon graduation. Neither of these things apply in North America at the moment-- they are much worse in America than Canada.
Nowadays, an undergraduate degree, even one in the sciences, is certainly not a ticket to a full time job. The idea that I would spend $120,000 American dollars to get the education I have at the moment, which has me eligible for a very slender amount of employment, is insane.
In Canada, it requires more education to become a librarian than it does to become a teacher. Even in Canada, the amount of capital invested in order to have the privilege to be employed by the city as a librarian is ridiculous. Journalists have expensive journalism degrees but produce no better work; Engineers with Master's degrees struggle to find employment.
This is a roundabout way of saying that I don't think it is all that much to do with entitlement that the average graduating high schooler expects some financial help from his well-established and fully-employed parents.
However, he will be subject to their wishes as if he were still a minor. Those of us who make use of our parents financial assets, even if they are given generously by parents wishing to help us make a start in the world, must accept that we are subject to parental demands.
Katharina is right. Attending an insanely expensive school and accruing incredible debt is financially unsound. Unless you plan on becoming a lawyer, a doctor or a business person, it's not going to pay off. The way the North American system is set up, an undergraduate degree is almost virtually useless except as a stepping stone (which makes it crucial), especially in this economic climate.
The American educational system is, in this respect, broken. By setting young people up with large debts you are essentially putting a very heavy, private tax on new workers as they enter the workforce. It's tremendously cold, especially since getting that undergraduate degree is a ticket to all high-status jobs (if not all high-paying jobs).
Sorry, this is rambly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I don't agree with Orincoro's method of arguing, which seems overly wild and vehement, but I agree with what he is saying.
I prefer "emphatic."
quote: The American educational system is, in this respect, broken. By setting young people up with large debts you are essentially putting a very heavy, private tax on new workers as they enter the workforce. It's tremendously cold, especially since getting that undergraduate degree is a ticket to all high-status jobs (if not all high-paying jobs).
There's a whole lot about public anything in America that strikes me as cold.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Yep.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I went to an Ivy League school (Columbia) and finished with very little debt. I had an academic scholarship from the school and 2 other scholarships, so I had very small student loans. If you have what they are looking for, you can go to an Ivy League school without incurring much debt. I believe Harvard and Yale are actually free to around 60% of their undergraduate student body at this point and the other Ivies aren't far behind (again, I'm not sure - feel free to chime in if you know more about it).
My own personal experience does not jibe with those articles. I have literally gotten every single job I've ever applied for and I've been offered jobs that I didn't apply for. I applied for one job where turned out I wasn't remotely qualified (their job description was very vague) and they actually offered it to me. I told them as soon as I realized it was way over my head and they offered to train me. Honestly, I was appalled. I was also practically guaranteed a spot in 2 top graduate programs that I was being groomed to attend. Everyone I knew in college, with 1 exception, got into the grad program of their choice. The 1 exception was blackballed by the head of her department and ended up going to Columbia Law School instead. Maybe things have changed and maybe this is only the case for me and the people I knew.
BTW, I don't think I'm smarter or better than anyone else because of all this. I will say that I worked very hard in high school to get into top colleges because I wanted a better life for myself. And I received what I feel is an excellent and unique education at Columbia ( Core Curriculum).
As to the original post, I agree with what Minerva wrote. I went to a private secular high school that was largely upper-class Jewish. We were discouraged from getting jobs ("School is your job.") and pressured to go to the best school we could get into, regardless of whether it was a good fit. I was actually called into the headmaster's office when I refused to apply to Harvard or Yale because I had no interest in going there. I stuck to my guns and it caused a huge scandal.
I have no problem with a parent chosing not to pay for college. However, if this is the case, then the parent has a duty to let the child know this so that the child can make informed plans. If you tell your child that you will pay for their education or allow him to belive this and then change your mind his senior year of high school, you have done him a huge disservice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks, Teshi, but this isn't true:
quote:The way the North American system is set up, an undergraduate degree is almost virtually useless except as a stepping stone (which makes it crucial), especially in this economic climate.
An undergraduate is often very useful. It depends on what you want to do and what industry you are doing it in. For a lot of professions, the way to gather expertise is NOT to spend more time in school, but that bachelor's degree is essential to being allowed to gather that expertise. In that case, it is very useful. For example: engineers. You can get a masters in engineering, but you can also have a very good and successful career with a bachelor's degree. You can't even darken the door without one.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
BTW, I know Stacy Berg Dale and saw her this weekend. Every year the dads and older kids play at her house while the moms attend the ladies' tea I was in town for. She's a lovely person. I actually had only the vaguest idea of what she did. I'll have to email her.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I appreciate your story, but I believe not every intelligent, contributing member of society pulls scholarships or, in my opinion, should have to.
As a B+ student who's part of a B+ family myself I believe that B+ students should be able to attend good colleges and graduate without crippling debt.
My brother struggled in high school. He's exceptionally bright and applies himself with far greater ability than I can when he's interested. This was particularly noticeable in high school, where he pulled a combination of high nineties and 50s and 60s, depending on the class.
He went to a solid university, took solid classes but graduated without particularly stellar results (B+ student, remember, no scholarships here). He was employed in his field on the strength of personality and extracurricular, head-hunted while at work, used the money he had earned and built from investments to go to film school, where his considerable artistic ability is being stretched.
My brother was never a stellar scholar, but he needed that education to get where he is today. Nobody was flinging academic awards at him in high school or at university, but I have the utmost confidence that he is brilliant.
Had he graduated with debt of even $50,000 for the five years he stayed in college, he would be years behind where he is now.
I have a friend, K, who failed out of the college we attended together and now attends a smaller college where he is doing much better. Again, he is a brilliant intellectual, but not a brilliant scholar. He needs and deserves a university education to put him on a path where his considerable creativity and inventiveness can be put to use. But he should not have to sacrifice his inventiveness (which takes up a lot of his studying time) in order to pull those marks that universities reward with scholarships. It would undermine exactly what makes him valuable.
Long live the B student, and college accessibility, whether that means parental involvement or better state or governmental involvement.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:An undergraduate is often very useful. It depends on what you want to do and what industry you are doing it in. For a lot of professions, the way to gather expertise is NOT to spend more time in school, but that bachelor's degree is essential to being allowed to gather that expertise. In that case, it is very useful. For example: engineers. You can get a masters in engineering, but you can also have a very good and successful career with a bachelor's degree. You can't even darken the door without one.
Perhaps I was overzealous in proclaiming it entirely useless. There are a few jobs which will hire people without a second degree or college specialization/training. The government, for example, will hire a few undergrads who undergo six-month long standardized testing. It's notoriously difficult.
It's kind of hilarious that engineers can get a job with a bachelor's degree but librarians can't.
[ April 28, 2009, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's kind of hilarious that engineers can get a job with a bachelor's degree but librarians can't.
This is because -- and I mean this in complete sincerity -- engineers need to be better trained than librarians, and require more skill.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Are you saying that the two extra years of school required to be a librarian is because they need less actual on the job training?
EDIT: Assuming you're not joking. I still can't think of a good reason why librarians shouldn't be hired from people with Bachelor's degrees in something applicable and trained on the job, just as they used to be.
As far as I can tell, Librarians need Master's degrees because someone has decided that they do. It suits the universities and it suits the union.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Teshi, I don't quite understand what you mean.
It sounds like you're saying that people should be gifted with free educations just because they're brilliant. In that case, I strongly disagree with you. Being brilliant does not entitle you to anything. If you're not willing to apply your brilliance in high school, then you don't deserve the chance to not apply it in college. I didn't "pull" a scholarship, I earned it. No one "flung" academic awards at me, I earned them. I honed the gifts I was blessed enough to be born with and I applied them to the things I knew would get me into the school of my choice.
Ability does not entitle anyone to anything. A gifted athlete is not entitled to an Olympic gold medal - he needs to compete and earn it. A talented singer is not entitled to be a soloist at the Met - she needs to train and audition.
If you meant to say that people who learn differently should be helped and/or accommodated, then I do agree. Parental involvement is particularly important in those instances.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you saying that the two extra years of school required to be a librarian is because they need less actual on the job training?
And less skill. The two years "required" to be a librarian are not years necessary to impart skill; they are necessary to ensure a librarian has jumped through all the appropriate hoops and can be integrated into the profession. They are there to finish the indoctrination, not the education.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You sort of misunderstand me.
I'm saying brilliance should not be and cannot be measured by academic excellence (achieving consistent As), and yet having the ability to attend college without crippling debt the same as those who do achieve As is just as important.
I'm not saying school should be free--it still can be to those who are incredibly good at school--, I'm saying it should be accessible to those who are equally brilliant but not so good at school.
quote:...people who learn differently should be helped and/or accommodated...
Neither my brother nor K "learn differently." They simply incapable of getting/pulling/achieving A+s in every class. It could be because they hate having to write 1-3-1 essays, or they spend that extra time designing gadgets. Not everyone can squish their head into a school-shaped shape. I could. My brother couldn't. I believe he is more intelligent than I am.
I know people who got straight As in high school and even university who I don't regard as particularly intelligent. They're good at school and work hard, but lack creativity, for example (by creativity I don't mean, artistic creativity, I mean creative or colourful thought).
Of course, there are people whose intelligence includes academic ability.
My point is that getting that university degree is a crucial stepping stone to certain jobs (as katharina has rightly corrected me) where these people flourish. They do apply themselves in an excessively dedicated fashion, but they may not necessarily apply themselves to academic achievement and I don't think they necessarily should. My friend K's brilliance emanates from his combination of academic knowledge combined with his own interests. He studies less because he's spending time doing other things.
If he only worked on academic achievements, he would not be as useful to the workforce as I believe he has the capability to be.
My point is that many students are exceptionally gifted and driven, but not to their studies. They will get into university, no problem, but they will not get scholarships that enable them to graduate virtually debt-free.
It is these people's dedication to things outside of university (although they still need and want that degree), that makes them so valuable. They deserve a similar shot as very academically inclined people like yourself because I believe they are just as useful.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm a bit confused; most financial aid in the US is determined by need, not ability, and people of truly high ability are generally able to get into at least one or two of the best schools (who don't look at grades nearly as much as is often thought). Any of the people in your example who actually is 'truly brilliant' would have no trouble getting into a school of the best sort that would provide him sufficient financial aid based on his family's ability to pay so that he had no problem attending the school with a moderate familial contribution or some small gov't loans at good interest rates.
And that's even neglecting the many ability-based scholarships out there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think Teshi's point is that you shouldn't have to be an outlier to get a good job and avoid graduating in mountains of debt. Especially the mountains of debt part.
MY point is that you most certainly don't. Anecdotes aside, the data is that on a general basis, the ivy leagues aren't financially worth the financial cost incurred.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If that's her point, she's saying a lot of extra things that she doesn't really mean.
And given that you don't have to be an outlier to do so, I'm not sure what the problem is.
edit: and my response to you would be, most people don't have to bear the sticker cost or anything like it, so acting like the sticker cost is the cost is quite inaccurate. For instance, someone attending Harvard whose family makes $100,000 a year would have to pay less than $10k per year after need-based aid alone. And for many people, five to ten thousand dollars a year for a Harvard education would be well worth it, much less the zero dollars that quite a few Harvard students pay.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Harvard is not the only ivy or expensive school out there. It is my understanding that the generous terms Harvard offers is not offered at the majority of the other big 25 schools. A few, but definitely not all. I don't blame them - most schools don't have a billion dollar endowment.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Katharina: that's roughly my point. It's close enough to what I mean that I'll allow it.
I'll try to make it very clear:
$10,000/year tuition is not cheap. No B or B+ student is going to get scholarships to help with that, although they may be just as useful to the workforce*.
If there are B students graduating with $40,000+ debt from reasonably good schools, because they are good enough to get in but not good enough to be subsidized by the University, then there's something wrong with the system.
It sounds like a lot of people don't rack up debts quite so immense, but that they are a real reality for at least the fellow in this thread, should he go it alone.
My point, in response to Mrs. M's story, is that not every "most valuable player" has 'A's (or necessarily best achieves his or her potential by getting them) at school and will be able to defray the cost of school through scholarships.
*I am making a distinction between academic potential and potential in the workforce/real world, which is what all the anecdotes are about and what my argument hinges on.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm so not getting in the middle of this kerfuffle.
Two points though:
Adena is a she.
She was offered some financial aid from Brandeis (enough, I guess, to make it twice the cost of the state school; I didn't pick up on that yesterday), just not enough to make it cost the same. Which makes loans a more feasible option -- unless the financial aid that made Brandeis "cost less" already IS primarily loans.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
-- Ooh, sorry adenam.
-- Is Brandeis a "better school"? Why, if Brandeis is a "better school", does Adenam get no financial aid from the state school? Does that not happen in America?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
State schools primarily give financial aid to residents of their own state. (Except for those students who qualify for Pell, which appears to not be the case here.) For reasons she explained, the NY school is a better option for her than the PA school.
Residents of a state pay in-state tuition for their state schools, which is usually somewhere in the range of 1/3-1/4 of out-of-state tuition. They may also be eligible for additional aid in the form of state grants or fee waivers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: No B or B+ student is going to get scholarships to help with that
This is nonsense. I know several B/B+ students in high school who have received multiple academic scholarships for school. Of course, a B/B+ student who didn't have other things to raise likelihood of entrance wouldn't be getting into a really good school, and if the B+ student isn't willing to take the time to seek out and apply for available scholarships, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator the student wouldn't do as well at the school or afterwards as someone who did.
And any B/B+ student who really was just a typical B/B+ student would probably be going in-state to a state school, and thus paying considerably less than $10k a year, most likely.
For another thing, really good schools subsidize primarily based on need, not ability. The best schools provide aid almost entirely based on need. This has been pointed out several times, but you keep saying things like this:
quote: because they are good enough to get in but not good enough to be subsidized by the University
That doesn't make sense in the context of how thing are actually done.
Now, the way things work isn't perfect. There is an odd gulf between the very best (I'm using this in a reputational sense) schools that can heavily subsidize needy students and the very good state schools that are state subsidized, and in that gulf fall the quite good but not quite very best schools that can't afford to heavily subsidize needy students. However, given the state schools are available, I don't see anyone being forced to acquire loads of debt to get a very good education.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Are you saying that the two extra years of school required to be a librarian is because they need less actual on the job training?
And less skill. The two years "required" to be a librarian are not years necessary to impart skill; they are necessary to ensure a librarian has jumped through all the appropriate hoops and can be integrated into the profession. They are there to finish the indoctrination, not the education.
Dear god, what does a person do for two years in librarian school? Much less two years in librarian school after having already studied the subject in college? I'm being completely serious, I've had people tell me "it's complicated," but I'd like to know how. Is it learning the government bureaucracy? The decimal system? The history of libraries? Statistics? Accounting? Are there any skills that can't be learned on the job?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Librarians used to learn on the job. About 20 years ago, that was the most common scenario. Now, for whatever combination of reasons, there are almost no jobs for librarians that do not require an MLS.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's kind of hilarious that engineers can get a job with a bachelor's degree but librarians can't.
This is because -- and I mean this in complete sincerity -- engineers need to be better trained than librarians, and require more skill.
Incidentally, in Ontario -- where Teshi and I both reside -- as well as in most if not all of the other Canadian provinces, an engineer with a degree is legally an "engineer in training." It takes four years of engineering work experience, recommendations from supervisors and colleagues, and an ethics exam before you can become licensed to pratice engineering professionally. In some disciplines, this actually matters a lot -- most piping designs, for instance, need to have a professional engineer's stamp.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I work in one of the highest rated library schools in the country. I refer to the students (out of hearing) as undergraduates part 2, which is pretty true for most of them.
Now, some it is not true of, in particular the ones focusing on unusual specializations, and some of the coursework is useful, but it is nothing that couldn't be handily covered at an undergraduate level.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It's kind of hilarious that engineers can get a job with a bachelor's degree but librarians can't.
This is because -- and I mean this in complete sincerity -- engineers need to be better trained than librarians, and require more skill.
Incidentally, in Ontario -- where Teshi and I both reside -- as well as in most if not all of the other Canadian provinces, an engineer with a degree is legally an "engineer in training." It takes four years of engineering work experience, recommendations from supervisors and colleagues, and an ethics exam before you can become licensed to pratice engineering professionally. In some disciplines, this actually matters a lot -- most piping designs, for instance, need to have a professional engineer's stamp.
It's this way in the US, too. And, in point of fact, you're not allowed to legally present yourself as an engineer in any of your documents (letterhead, business cards, email signatures) unless you have a PE. This, of course, is never enforced.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hm, this argument is getting away from me. I didn't wish to make quite so broad a point as it is becoming. My approach to education is obviously based on a more even, socialized model.
As for Librarians...
quote:Librarians used to learn on the job. About 20 years ago, that was the most common scenario. Now, for whatever combination of reasons, there are almost no jobs for librarians that do not require an MLS.
As far as I can tell, most librarians still learn on the job in England.
quote:Now, some it is not true of, in particular the ones focusing on unusual specializations, and some of the coursework is useful, but it is nothing that couldn't be handily covered at an undergraduate level.
What is the coursework? I've never successfully figured it out.
I can see a local library requiring one person with formal education and a large one requiring several, but I'm afraid I don't see quite how libraries are improved by only employing people willing to take six years of school.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
If you were a library scientist you'd see.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Now, the school doesn't just do MLS, but most masters students in the school are in the MLS program. A good number are in the MIS (information science) program, including several people doing both.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
I'm sorry I've been away so long. Suprisingly enough for my generation, I've been doing things that kept me away from a computer all day.
First off: rivka thank you so much, the male pronouns were really confusing me.
My education experience has been very similar to Minerva's description, even more so because I am the designated "smart one" in my family. Incidently, I didn't get into the Ivies I applied to, or the other top-tier school we really thought I would get into, so we really weren't prepared for this scenario. Which has of course made everything harder.
What we seem to be in agreement about now is that I (aka my parents) will pay to enroll at both schools and we'll reevaluate finances next year because so much is in flux right now. My dad's job is (always) unstable, because of the nature of his work, and we really won't know what's happenning in Israel until he goes later this year. We really need to know what those situations will be before anything is committed.
I've definately begun to consider much more the "real" cost of Brandeis. I really want to go what will be the best place for me not only right now, but also many years down the line, which I have just learned are not necesarily the same thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's a difficult lesson. And one many students several years you senior have yet to grasp -- so good for you!
And good luck. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
We're all in agreement that paying your own undergrad tuition is a waste, right? I've been telling Skyler for years that, if she isn't getting free tuition (either through 1 big scholarship, or several together), she doesn't need to go to that particular college. Both her mother and I had totally free tuition for undergrad.
It also goes without saying that, except for maybe certain particular fields, paying tuition for grad school is a big waste as well, right? We're all on that boat? I refuse to get my master's. You can make just as much money without one, or more, it just requires some hustle and some brains. Granted, the hard sciences almost force you to get those advanced degrees to get ahead, like EE, physics, etc., but...that's about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: We're all in agreement that paying your own undergrad tuition is a waste, right?
That's not what anyone said. Some students can get free rides (need-based, merit-based, or some combination thereof); most cannot. Doesn't make going to college a waste.
And if you don't want to get your master's -- don't. But don't think that doesn't eliminate certain job possibilities, because in almost every field that requires a bachelor's, a master's gets you more pay and access to job opportunities that a bachelor's does not. It's certainly true in my field, even though the majority of people in it have a bachelor's.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
I just want to add my own experience. I spent two years at private college that really suited me and I loved it there. However halfway through my second year my mother became unexpectedly ill. She was unable to continue working and our family income fell by over 60%. I had several scholarships (over 30,000 a year), was taking out the maximum in federal loans, had a work study job and my parents were taking out additional PLUS loans to help fund the private college.
My parents didn't ask me to transfer, but I did, because it was clear that it was a hardship for them to continue to pay for it. When I got to my new state university I was dismayed. I had one class with over 200 students in it. The 300 level courses were teaching material covered in 100 level courses from my old school. I had left good friends behind, and was upset at the apparent decrease. Also at my previous school there were no graduate students which made lab work a lot easier for undergraduates to get involved in. Furthermore I was sure that my chances of getting into medical school were gone without a prestigious degree.
But some surprising things happened. First I met my husband and married him, which alone made it worthwhile. Second the bigger school had an excellent pre-med advisor who gave me more advice on medical school than I had even known existed. Third, having a bigger school means more diverse classes. I was able to take classes like parasitology that weren't offered at my other school because there would not have been enough student interest in the smaller student body. There were also some classes that had a deliberately limited class size to help students interact better with professors (most of these were upper level). I graduated on time (despite the transfer) so my scholarships covered most of the remainder of my schooling with subsidized loans covering the rest. I got into the top ranked medical school I really wanted, and I discovered in medical school that the wider variety of courses prepared me better for medical school than many of my classmates who chose smaller schools.
So I would agree that private schools have more intimate classes, and often have special areas of study that are really cool (I chose mine because it had a strong Classical Latin and Greek studies minor). But bigger schools have a lot to offer as well, including a more diverse student body, which means more student groups you get to choose from and get involved in, as well as better odds at making friends. Money is a factor that can help sway you, but don't discount the benefits of a big state school. It is a different type of education, but in the end the experience is what you make of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I know several B/B+ students in high school who have received multiple academic scholarships for school. Of course, a B/B+ student who didn't have other things to raise likelihood of entrance wouldn't be getting into a really good school, and if the B+ student isn't willing to take the time to seek out and apply for available scholarships, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator the student wouldn't do as well at the school or afterwards as someone who did.
Nonsense. I was a B+ student who got a full scholarship out of sheer luck and a selection process tilted towards test taking. I did fabulous in school.
Awareness of scholarships as a senior in high school - especially when everyone and their dog is saying that your grades aren't good enough - is NOT indicative how well you do in you chem class as a freshman in college.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I did fabulously in school.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam: First off: rivka thank you so much, the male pronouns were really confusing me.
For what it's worth, I had an instinct that you were female just from reading your post, so I stayed gender neutral- at least I think I did.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nope, you ruined it. I was gunning for a particular style evocative of an effusive stock character in a vaudeville.
I'll let you know if your "expertise" is wanted.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You aren't a counterexample for what I said; you received your scholarship, so there's no way of knowing if you would have sought out other scholarships if you saw the price of your schooling would have been more than you could afford. Also, you seem to be overestimating what I mean by "pretty good indicator". If you were wondering who would be more likely to do better in school and beyond, between two B+ students who had the same sorts of grade, course, and extracurricular records, but one who had sought out three competitive scholarships, applied for them, and received them, and another who had none, are you saying you would still hold they were exactly equally likely to do well?
I'm not saying seeking out and getting competitive scholarships determine your life, but it definitely provides evidence of willingness to work for what one wants.
Of course, you also serve as yet another handy counterexample to what Teshi said.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The scholarship I got has changed their requirements - they still award it to the top scorers, but you have to have a 3.8 GPA to be allowed to take the test. I wouldn't have gotten it again. Anecdotally, it is getting harder and harder to get flat out scholarships - aid has changed from grants and scholarships to loans, and that is a problem.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, large scholarships are getting more difficult absent a particular GPA, though many schools still give (for instance) full scholarships to national merit semi-finalists. Of course, part of this trend is because it is becoming easier and easier to maintain a high GPA in many places.
There are still huge numbers (thousands upon thousands) of scholarships in the several hundred to a few thousand dollars range, though, that are significantly or entirely based on essay submissions.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's kind of crazy the amount of hoops you have to jump through to go to college in America. SATs, scholarship exams, scholarship essays, maintaining GPAs...
In Canada, you can work full time in the summer and part time during the year and mostly make it through without hugely gigantic debt, including living costs. No or few scholarships required.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with that, Teshi - you shouldn't have to go hunting for scholarships or go into huge debt or basically jump through all these crazy hoops. The cost of tuition compared to regular inflation is downright shameful, and it means that unless you do a thousand extra little things, college is an ornerous burden.
quote:Final prices will not be set until state budgets are finished in the coming months, but the trend is clear. In California, the governor's proposed budget would raise university fees around 10 percent. Florida's governor is trying to give several state schools more power to raise prices. And universities in both states plan to cut enrollment slots.
Other states could not wait until fall and have passed unusual midyear increases, including a whopping 14-percent increase in New York.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can generally do that in the US, too, if you attend a state school in-state. We just also have other options.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, you can't - you can't only work during the summer and earn enough to pay for a year of school. What job nets an 18-year-old $3,000 a month? That's at least $40,000 a year.
quote:In the current academic year, the average list price for tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose 6.4 percent to $6,585, according to the College Board.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
But that's not comparable. We don't have a radical distinction between "good schools" and "state schools". We have schools. You can do that at the top schools in the country or you can do that at the smaller, undergraduate ones.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Many of our state schools -- such as the UC system (which I attended) and the SUNY system (that Binghamton is part of) are ranked as high as many (sometimes most, if looking at specific campuses, like UCLA) of the Ivies and other "really good schools". I would estimate that there are probably 5-10 tiers of four year undergrad colleges in the US, depending how ones breaks them down.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Perhaps I was overzealous in proclaiming it entirely useless. There are a few jobs which will hire people without a second degree or college specialization/training. The government, for example, will hire a few undergrads who undergo six-month long standardized testing. It's notoriously difficult.
Are you talking about specifically how it works in Canada?
In the U.S., less than 10% of Americans have garduate degrees. The other 90% do have jobs, and a fairly large percentage of those more or less require bachelor's degrees. So, I'd say a bachelor's degree is definitely useful in career terms.
Also, on a more practical level, I found the actual coursework/learning required for the degree to be far more useful than the degree itself. I use skills I learned or refined in college literally every day in most activities I do. This may vary some by major, but I really think anyone who is measuring the worth of a undergraduate education based solely on its ability to land you a job is skipping over most of its value. The utility of the intangible aspects of the education is probably by itself, in many cases, worth more than the utility of the money required for tuition. (Although I'd agree that those intangibles are often found just as easily in inexpensive colleges as they are in expensive colleges.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: It's kind of crazy the amount of hoops you have to jump through to go to college in America. SATs, scholarship exams, scholarship essays, maintaining GPAs...
There are many schools that require none of that. Worst case, two-ish years of community college followed by (if your CC grades are good or better) two-ish years at a four year school.
Unfortunately, the availability of this option means too many students party and all but flunk out of HS, knowing the CCs will take them without a HS diploma. Fortunately, someone who made bad choices or had problems in HS has this route.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Anecdotally, it is getting harder and harder to get flat out scholarships - aid has changed from grants and scholarships to loans, and that is a problem.
Not merely anecdotally. I don't feel like digging for them, but there are studies backing that up. I agree it's definitely a problem.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The utility of the intangible aspects of the education is probably by itself, in many cases, worth more than the utility of the money required for tuition. (Although I'd agree that those intangibles are often found just as easily in inexpensive colleges as they are in expensive colleges.)
QFT
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Teshi: Many of our state schools are good schools; quite a few are at or above the level of all but two or three schools in Canada.
katharina: First, notice Teshi mentioned working part time during the school year. Second, notice that summer for a college student is not two months long. For instance, IU's summer break is nine days shy of four months.
So, someone attending IU working full time the summer before and the three summers during, plus part time during the school year for ten hours a week, could expect to earn about $3668 for the summer plus $2161 during the school year. That's enough to keep the cost in loans to a reasonable level, or allow it to be wiped out by spending some time applying for scholarships. And I'm a bit bemused at the idea I see in Teshi's recent posts that students having to seek out and work for scholarships if they want to have more of their education paid for is a bad thing.
Note that in Canada the person who goes to college so cheaply still has a burden of additional costs to pay, it is just paid in taxes instead of loan payments. And, since student loan payments are allowed to scale with income and be stopped by very low income, the effects for reasonable amounts of loans aren't regressive. The US system is just making those payments more explicit. Acting like they aren't present in Canada isn't accurate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I was assuming minimum wage (before the rate hike this July), and of course many people working during school work fifteen hours a week rather than ten hours. If a person was averaging $8/hour (typical in many school jobs, not that hard to get outside of school) and working fifteen hours during school, that would bring the total to $4480 for the summer and $3960 during the school year. That's tuition plus a good chunk of living expenses at most state schools.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:knowing the CCs will take them without a HS diploma
Whoa, really? Pretty sure you have to graduate here.
quote:the person who goes to college so cheaply still has a burden of additional costs to pay, it is just paid in taxes instead of loan payments
This is sort of my point from the very beginning. Loan payments are extremely localized, heavy taxes upon entry into the workforce. To me, that seems cold. If everyone in the country is contributing slowly to cheaper education, it spreads out the burden. The burden is still there, of course, but it's easier to carry if everyone helps a little. I pay taxes now so other people can go to university or college-- and I'm glad to.
quote:And I'm a bit bemused at the idea I see in Teshi's recent posts that students having to seek out and work for scholarships if they want to have more of their education paid for is a bad thing.
Different approaches to education, I guess. Public school is free, university is like running a marathon. Seems a little weird.
I don't think university education should be free, but I think it should be acceptably affordable without having to pimp out your essays.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Oh, and I was assuming minimum wage (before the rate hike this July), and of course many people working during school work fifteen hours a week rather than ten hours. If a person was averaging $8/hour (typical in many school jobs, not that hard to get outside of school) and working fifteen hours during school, that would bring the total to $4480 for the summer and $3960 during the school year. That's tuition plus a good chunk of living expenses at most state schools.
Seriously? If the $6500 annual average of tuition and fees is accurate, that's less than $2000 a year left over. And let's not forget textbooks--estimated at around $1000 annually, last I checked, even taking into account that most students shop used.
You think less than $1000 is a "good chunk" of rent, food, and bus fares?
Right - $1000 will in no way pay for rent, food, and living expenses for an entire year.
Fifteen hours is a lot of time for a full-time student, and that's assuming they can get a job for $8 an hour but only work so few hours. Maybe in a city, but not in a tiny college town where there is an oversupply of poor 18-year-olds.
Then again, if they are in a city, $1000 is DEFINITELY not going to put more than a tiny dent in the cost of room and board for the entire year.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Right - $1000 will in no way pay for rent, food, and living expenses for an entire year.
Of course, and I didn't say it would. I said it would cover a good chunk. Even in many cities, that can easily be two or three months of rent for a college student living with other college students.
Not to mention that if we want to bring full cost of living into it, Teshi's assertion is quite false for universities in cities in Canada (edit: heck, most universities; I can't find one decent university in Canada that doesn't have cost of attendance over $10k), especially the best ones (such as the University of Toronto). The tuition and fees schedule can be covered, certainly, but the estimated cost of attending for someone not living at home is much higher.
quote: Canadian citizens and permanent residents living away from home can anticipate costs in the $16,000 to $17,500 range.
In fact, since cost of living in the US is pretty comparable to cost of living in Canada for the most part, this means the only difference between typical Canadian cost of attendance and typical state school cost of attendance is about two thousand dollars (UoT charges nearly $5k for typical undergraduates in the coming year, and nearly $8k for some majors, like computer science: http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/link/students/fees10/dom_csc.html ).
Heck, that means it is cheaper to go to several of the better schools in the US for computer science than it is to go to UoT. For instance, the University of Washington (#6 in the US) charges under $7k for residents. And then there are fields like Engineering, where UoT will be charging just over $9k per year for entering undergraduates.
[ April 29, 2009, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I haven't been following the debate, I just happened to pop into the thread and saw your 11:19 post, fugu. Couple of comments.
Cost of living in Toronto is a lot higher than the cost of living in the locations of other Canadian universities. I don't think Toronto the most expensive place in Canada, but it's higher even than some other large Canadian cities. It's certainly much more expensive to attend U of T than it is to attend -- say -- Queen's, Dalhousie, or another well-regarded Canadian university that isn't in a city of 2-4 million people.
It costs quite a lot more than going to my own alma mater. And, of course, the CS and engineering programs at Waterloo are way better than those of U of T.
Incidentally, $7k US is currently roughly equal to $9k CDN. The Canadian dollar dropped back to a more realistic and sustainable $0.80 US last fall.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, true, mustn't forget exchange rates. In that case, it is currently more like four to six thousand dollars more a year in up-front costs to attend many good state universities than to attend a good Canadian university such as your own. And if we factor in the amounts that are paid in taxes (on both sides, since state schools are subsidized in the US), I suspect that narrows some. We're still hardly in the realm of dealbreaker differences in amounts of debt.
I note that most of the savings at your alma mater have to do with cost of living, not tuition (which is also higher for CS students). Also, given your school's cost projections, it looks like most students still can't cover it all with just full time work in the summer and part time work in the school year.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Norwegian model is probably unrealistic for the American population, but it might be interesting as a basis for comparison. If you graduate from high school doing the general/economic/admin line - and I do mean graduate, lowest passing grade is sufficient - you can almost certainly get into a university. (For the popular majors, the ones with more applicants than positions, you do need high grades; but there are many open majors, which will take any warm body. On the flip side, these tend to be the tough ones like physics and math; the reason they take any warm body is that the first couple of terms weed out the ones who can't do the work.) Once you get in, you can get loans from the state, no interest until you graduate, and part of the loan is converted to grant upon graduation unless you lived with your parents during your studies. The loan will cover a reasonably frugal student lifestyle, unless of course you blow it all on beer the first month, which I have seen people do. The year I graduated they changed the rules so the loan was paid out in monthly installments instead of one big chunk at the start of the term.
Anyway. The other side of this is that the universities are state-owned, and charge only a token tuition, around 60 dollars a semester when I was there. So the loans only have to cover living expenses and books. On the gripping hand, there are only five universities in Norway, about one per million people. Some private colleges as well, but they are more like trade schools.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I note that most of the savings at your alma mater have to do with cost of living, not tuition (which is also higher for CS students). Also, given your school's cost projections, it looks like most students still can't cover it all with just full time work in the summer and part time work in the school year.
Note that all engineering degree programs at UW are co-op programs that alternate four-month school terms with four-month paid work term internships. Quite a number of other degree programs have co-op options or requirements as well. I believe this was UW's main innovation when it got started as an engineering school in the mid-20th century.
In any case, with only my tuition being covered (by my parents, not by scholarship), I was able to earn enough money on my work terms to live on in my school terms, and thereby graduate with no debt. I don't know what the average debt load of a UW engineering grad is, although I don't personally know anyone who accrued more than $10k.
In the aggregate, though, student debt is absolutely a problem here in Canada, and it's one reason that our left-of-centre New Democratic Party consistently pushes for increasing government funding for postsecondary education at both the provincial and federal levels.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh, I didn't mean cover it all, I meant that they can cover a lot of it, plus aid like OSAP, and graduate with non-crippling debt.
If U of T is comparable to a cheaper US university, consider this: it's considered one of the top universities in the world, generally speaking.
Let me actually go to my invoice, for a Bachelor of Arts:
I paid $452/half-year class, which roughly added up to $5,000, including other fees, for five classes. Residence, including food for the School Year, was also $5,000. So far that's $10,000. I see a couple hundred for books and supplies, depending on the courses and how second hand you are. That still doesn't approach $16,000.
If I work full time in a reasonably lucrative student employment job at say $13/h for eight hours a day, five days a week for three months, that's $6240 and more than $600/month 8-month rent taken care of.
I work part time (15 hrs, let's say-- two shifts a week) for eight months at my lower paying min. wage (9.50) job that's $4560 and I top $10,000.
This is before scholarships, in Toronto rent and paying Toronto B.A. fees.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[ May 01, 2009, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
rivka, your second link isn't working for me, for reasons I can't figure out. It looks like a good url when I mouse over it, but when I click it I get a server error as though it started with www.hatrack... instead of the url shown when I mouse over it. Any clue why?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"That's not what anyone said. Some students can get free rides (need-based, merit-based, or some combination thereof); most cannot. Doesn't make going to college a waste."
Yes, I know that's not what anyone said. I was asking, hence my use of a question mark.
I personally feel that tuition (plus the ridiculous cost-of-living in the US) have, together, gotten so far out of hand that it's just not smart to pay more than maybe 25% of your own tuition. I see not getting the great majority of your tuition paid (through scholarships/grants) as basically society saying "no, we don't need you working in that field."
Seriously, either find a field that people will pay for you to go to school in, or don't bother with school. I'm not sure I'd make many exceptions for that, except maybe some trade schools.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tatiana, not sure. Try it now?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The link worked for me. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Since most students are only accepted by a handful of schools, it seems the relevant question is less "what is the cheapest school that provides a quality education?" than "which of the schools to which I've been admitted will provide the best education?"
It's a bit belated, but I need to say that I find this a specious argument. People only get accepted to a handful of schools because they only apply to a handful of schools. With few exceptions, private schools have more stringent admissions criteria than comparable public schools. I've never heard of a student who got admission to a good private College who could not have been accepted in to a top tier public school. The only possible exceptions might be "legacy" children who are guaranteed a spot in some private schools from birth regardless of their performance.
Cost should come into consideration when you are applying to schools and not just after you've been admitted.
[ May 01, 2009, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
That's not what anyone said. Some students can get free rides (need-based, merit-based, or some combination thereof); most cannot. Doesn't make going to college a waste.