posted
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
-- 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?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
You can generally do that in the US, too, if you attend a state school in-state. We just also have other options.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.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.
