Cost of schools not that important?

Frankly, I find these posts and the pissing matches they spark to be a waste of my time. I come here to get information about new DL programs and reviews of current DL programs, not to engage in a "debate" based upon a hypothetical premise.

 

I started to post, then didn't, for exactly the same reason. I try to avoid the political nonsense and anything about Trayvon for the same reason.

 

There's nothing political about this thread. You guys are extrapolating like crazy here.

The issue is DL schools are oftentimes expensive. Everyone is concerned about cost. Some make it the determining factor in choosing a school. BUT, if you are employed in the right situation, cost becomes a relatively small issue because you aren't chaining yourself to debt for the next 30 years.

 

I didn't say this thread is political...I explained that I try to avoid blatantly political threads on the same grounds I initially avoided posting here. But what the heck here is my $.02

You just never know what will happen to your company, job, business. Through no fault of your own, the plan A. find a particular job, and B. remain there for a score of years or more may prove impossible. The reason doesn't matter...your plan relies too much on forces you have no control over. If the plan goes awry your stuck with a bill you might not be able to pay, and which is typically not dis-chargeable even in bankruptcy. This alone makes a mountain of debt undesirable, but there is more...

While you are carrying this debt it gets counted every time you apply for any other loan. Wanna buy a car? A bank officer will look at your income to debt ratio and decide if you can afford it. Wanna buy a house? Same story. Miss a payment or two and your FICO score is damaged. Even if the plan comes off without a hitch your exposed and under the gun until the debt is discharged.

Debt=someone else having control of your life. Your statements don't sound provocative, they sound inexperienced and a bit immature. Not typically fatal...but often painful.

On top of all the negatives rests the fact that there are typically excellent alternatives to acquiring the debt in the first place. Shop wiser, buy smarter, protect yourself. Higher education is a business, caveat emptor...

 

I agree with you on a few points, but I'm disappointed at the condescending tone in calling my opinion immature.

Higher education is business. It's an investment. If you are willing to take the risk for your investment to pay off, well, then it's worth it. People in big business take risks all the time. They take out loans all the time. And they do it with the idea that they will make more money by taking out the loan and investing in something. Think about it. If your degree is going to give you many more opportunities that you take advantage of, you can easily have your degree pay for itself within a 5-10 years. Also, the idea is that you will have more flexibility and a more desirable position.

I'm failing to see how the investment idea of higher education is immature at all. The IBR program allows for people working at certain jobs that are needed, but underpaid, to obtain relief from those loans. It's quite simple.

 

Odin I think you should do it. I fully encourage this behavior, it's legal, it's offered, you should take advantage of it while you can. Why not? May I suggest the Duke Fuqua School of Business MBA program after you complete your undergrad? Doing so will provide you with approximately $130 to 140K of debt when you are done assuming you spend the typical $30K-ish on your undergrad. The best part is when you are done with all of that you don't owe anything after ten years but you still have one top notch education. I mean...it's genius right?

But wait…what about the opportunity cost? I mean you lose 10 years of potential earnings because you are trying to stay below a certain salary. With that Duke MBA we could be talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. Okay I know, forget the money. But wait, when that ten years is up you will not have held the middle and senior positions your education would have qualified you for and thus lose future salary due to a lack of real world work experience. This will effectively almost guarantee underemployment for probably another decade or more. Okay let’s forget the underemployment thing then, after all this is an opportunity to “stick it to the man”, so what if it costs you years of working experience and untold money in salary lost…I mean it’s legal right? That must mean it’s probably also smart!

Sarcasm off: Since you’re talking about education being an investment, let me tell you this from a purely business perspective, the plan is fraught with risk, has huge opportunity costs, high dependencies and requires some pretty substantial assumptions (personal and professional). All in all, it’s bad business.

 

You wouldn't necessarily be trying to stay below a certain salary. If your salary increased enough where you could afford the payments, then there wouldn't necessarily be a reason to worry. If it didn't, however, the IBR would help.

The question isn't simply dollars and cents. University prestige, networking, etc. all come into play.

While unfettered borrowing is probably still a bad idea, with things like IBR and loan forgiveness, perhaps a student doesn't have to choose the cheaper but lower-ranked school. Maybe the student can choose a higher-tier school with the hopes of earning that higher salary.

Sure, an MBA or EdD from a lower-tier school might help you progress in your career, but the potential for career transformation is greater with a top-tier school, especially if you are early in your career.

 

THIS.

Gov't loans irritate me for this very reason. They can sometimes be forgiven through bankruptcy, income-sensitive repayments, forgiveness after 25 years of minimum payments, etc. Why should someone get this option, when I am screwed with private student loans? I scraped by through school, working, and getting private student loans myself. Middle class average parents. I didn't get a dime in aid. To think that someone else would screw the system and go endlessly into debt because they didn't have to pay it back ticks me off to no end.

 

Exactly. And, it probably means accepting lower income just to stay under a certain income bracket. $10,000 a year for 10 years = $100,000. I have a frickin' lot of student loans, but a decade could help snowball those even with $10k a year. A higher salary sounds a lot easier, and more profitable, than trying to stay under a certain mark to avoid loans.

 

Why would you try to stay below a certain salary? It's not like whatever raise you get it all goes to student loans. A small percentage will. I fear that your sarcasm is misplaced because you simply don't understand the system.

 

No offense, but I was in a very similar situation as you and I skated by with ZERO private loans. Everyone knows that private loans are a b!tch and really screw you over. So please don't complain to the people that were more frugal with their loans and loan structure and blame them for your decisions.

Anyway, nobody is saying that people should go endlessly into debt. Let me simplify this. You want to become a teacher. You go to school and end up with...say 20k of debt from undergrad. Well, now you have to get certified. That's another 20k. Oh, now for you to progress you need a masters. Lets say another 30k. So at this point you've been teaching for a few years, and even with a masters you may be between 40k and 50k with 70k in student debt. Teachers are a necessity and the government does whatever they can to help make things attractive to graduates, even though the pay is so low. They do this by offering things like the 10-year forgiveness IBR program. It's the governments way of saying, "Thanks for offering this service and getting paid such a low salary. We think you're worth more than that."

I know that most of the people that plan on working in the private sector and shooting for the stars probably hate this. And really, deep down inside, in the recesses of their soul, they're really pissed off because they weren't invited to the party. They can't take part in the relief. So they lash out at others that took the lesser paying jobs. After all, why should those low lifers working those crappy teaching jobs get a break? Right?

 

Hi Odin -

I think the logic breaks down at the point where you say that teaching jobs are crappy. The jobs are fine. The students can make it challenging and frankly, sometimes the administration doesn't help matters but overall the job in its core purpose is wonderful.

Now on to the salary issue. I know HS teachers in good school districts within STEM disciplines making 75-85k per year with tenure. I know HS teachers in privates making much less, ostensibly because their students are "nicer to deal with". The private teachers aren't getting the benefit. The public teachers are.

This example is one reason why I'd be bent out of shape, if I cared one way or the other. In this case, the person that needs the benefit is the person who isn't getting it until much later.

Personally, I've managed to get by with 17k worth of student debt and I'm looking at doctoral programs that I'll have to pay for from non-profs. I can absolutely guarantee you that I'll be paying that off for 25 years and my biggest problem will be not the forgiveness rules, but the fact that graduate tuition isn't eligible for a tax write-off.

C'est la vie.

PS. To Kizmet - Though Odin has made it a point to court you with his posts and has also professed his love. I am not Odin.
To Odin - Don't worry, you're not supposed to understand that. It's an in-joke that I hope to laugh with Kizmet about at a DI reunion in the future.

 

I was being sarcastic when I said that teaching jobs were crappy. I actually think they're great, but there is sometimes a perception in American society that they aren't. I've found in many other countries, that's not that case.

Your argument about private HS teachers making less doesn't hold much weight. Firstly, the private HS teacher doesn't need to be certified. I've known people that teach at private Christian schools that don't even have BA's. Sure, there are some high end private HS's that require a lot from the teachers, but the parents are usually VERY well off, pay high tuition, and the teachers are compensated. Private teachers don't have near the standards nor the problems that public teachers have to deal with. Essentially, private teachers don't make less because it's a more desirable job with better kids, so the admin can offer less...they make less because private schools are usually barely keeping their heads out of the water financially. They have no money.

 

Hi Odin -

So is your position that private school teachers are compensated as well as public, or not?

 

Ok, I'll repeat what I said.

Private school teachers that teach in the few, elite, wealthy private schools are well compensated. These schools are not common and are usually reserved for kids with parents in the highest income brackets and superstar athletes on scholarships.

The rest of the private school teachers are not very well compensated. But why? Well, for one, the schools don't require near the standards or education that the public schools require. Most of these schools are Christian schools, and parents are usually more worried about keeping their kids safe while maintaining a religious spin on all of their studies. These schools rely on tuition paid by the parents. It's no different than a struggling private business. If money isn't coming in, you can't pay out as well.

 

My opinion, is that I can't go through life owned; just not my style, but I appreciate that others see it differently. I don't think it's unethical to participate in a loan forgiveness program- these exist in several industries besides education (medicine, nursing, etc) and for many people they probably are a saving grace. That said, all gifts have strings, and you just have to decide what you're willing to do for that cash.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. It all comes down to what you're willing to do for the money. (I'm starting to sound like a prostitute...)

 

Odin I understand the system just fine, I misunderstood your intention...which I thought was to get a "free" education or otherwise not earn enough that your payments could possibly be adjusted to where you had to actually "pay" for "your" loans.

But hey, I still think you should do it. Let us know how that works out.

 

Understood. if you had actually said that in the first place, I'd have replied differently.

Next, please provide me some examples of the elite, wealthy private schools you're talking about and at least one example of the lesser private schools. If you could limit your search to Massachusetts and the greater North East US I'd appreciate it.

For disclosure, I've got connections at many of them so it's wise if we're going to discuss to pull real data. Choose your poison and I'll get the stats.