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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go to the cheap school for undergrad. Get good grades. Go to a better school for your advanced degrees.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!!!!!!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, you were treating tuition money as an investment before- not an indulgence. That was rather slippery of you agent Starling...
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.]
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
