s/o Sending your child to a small liberal arts college for $50k a year is a rip-off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking as a college administrator, it seems that several posters are misinformed about financial aid, especially at the most prestigious liberal arts colleges (Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams, Wellesley, Pomona, etc.). These schools have tremendous endowments that enable students who qualify for financial aid (using fairly standard financial aid formulas via FAFSA) to attend with minimal, and sometimes, no loans. In other words, if your children are able to get into these highly competitive schools and you qualify for financial aid, you may actually spend less money than sending your child to a state school under severe budget restrictions. It really pains me to see excellent students from poor families who don't even bother to apply to these schools because their parents believe that the price tag is too high. That is simply not the case.

I wish we could get a median income for the DCUM board, but I'm confident to say most people on this board won't qualify for any financial aid. My parents made $60,000 per year and I paid $40,000 of $50,000 in tuition. Makes no sense. I'm not sure who they were offering aid to, but it didn't seem to be many people.

Hard to speculate based upon the info you gave. First, are you talking about the very highest tier liberal arts colleges (Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams)? Most schools do not have nearly the same endowment as those top, elite schools, so they are not going to be as generous with financial aid. Also, $60K in income today should allow you to qualify for a lot of aid, but there are many other factors to consider. (BTW $60K HHI in 1990 needs to be dollar adjusted for 2012.) For example, did your parents their home outright, have other sources of income, etc.?

I went to a school with a much larger endowment than the liberal arts colleges you mentioned. I think its top 5. I didn't go to school that long ago, but I'm the PP that was in school before the congressional investigation so things have definitely changed at my university and others. They claim now that anyone making less than $75,000 per year gets full-ride paid. I don't know if I believe it, but that's what they say.

Even if this board is representative of all incomes in DC the median income is $100,000 which is far above what my parents made and the current full tuition promises. That being said I get the feeling the average income of people here is higher than $100K per year.

Again, your details need to be clearer. Did you attend a university or a liberal arts college for your BA? Swarthmore, Amherst, and Williams are typically considered the top 3 liberal arts colleges in the country, with Wellesley usually 4th or 5th, each with endowments of over $1 for very small student bodies of around 2000 each. Per capita, that is a lot of money--far more per capita than at a university that serves ten times that amount.

Also, a lot of students don't know the assets of their parents. Your parents may have made only $60K/year, but if they had a lot of other assets which they haven't disclosed to you, the you would not have qualified for aid.

I'm not going to give away lots of personal details. I did not attend a liberal arts college or Ivy, but its on the top 10 US News list every year so that probably will give it away. My parents had no outstanding assets. We had a negative net worth if anything. Only one home with a large mortgage, two used cars, etc. My father was fired that year and starting a business. You are right that the university claimed all of his business assets (computers) as "income" and took away some financial aid. His business and he had no income. Even today his business has a negative net worth. But these geniuses in the financial aid departments find ways to make you pay more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My spouse: Ivy Leaguer. Her best college friends are: medical doctors, lawyers, Ph.D.'s, theologians, and overall brilliant people.

Me: state school. My best friends are journalists, truck drivers and cops.

It ain't the quality of education you're paying for. It's the quality of your professional network.

This is SO true.

I went to Georgetown. I know a LOT of lawyers, etc. My SO went to University of MD. He's moderately successful in his technical career but had no one to network with from college, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Community college then to a four-year school.

Partying is fun, but I'll be damned if I'll pay a $200k cover charge.

The higher ed bubble will continue until it bursts.

I think this says more about your personal perceptions of college than others. I went to a top liberal arts college and while I did go to parties, I spend the vast majority of my time researching, reading, and writing, and having amazing conversations with friends and professors. And I left for a grand total of $10K in student loans for a school that cost $35K/year in the 1990s. That education is/was invaluable to me, and I have no doubt that my college experience led me to my doctorate. And if my school stats are right, about 50% of alum go on to receive graduate degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op blanket statements such as that are ignorant. I graduated from one of the top liberal arts schools, received a fabulous education, both in the classroom & out, went into finance & began making 6 figures by 2 yrs after graduation. I paid off all of my loans quickly & find myself tapping into the network of alums fairly regularly. I would do it all over again & encourage my children to do the same.

I agree with this sentiment. I graduated from a very highly-ranked small liberal arts school and have benefited in so many ways because the alum group is very powerful, loyal, and I received an excellent education. In large part thanks to the education, I earn a very high salary now and it was the best investment I ever made. I finished undergrad and then law school with over $100K in loans (and DH had another $100K). I'm 34 and we have almost paid them off--the remaining balance is at super low interest rate.

What really matters is the quality of the education and the prospects after education. If my kids want to go to pricey small liberal art schools, they had better be goods ones or no.

[Anonymous]

I'm a grad of a top LAC (Wellesley) and I'll be forever grateful to my parents for the opportunities I enjoyed there. In terms of the investment value, it paid off in name value and networking, but the consumption value has been even greater -- my Wellesley education has enriched my life as a parent, a citizen and in every other way. That said, there are some great state schools out there which make sense for folks who can't pay out of pocket and don't want to take on the debt. In fact, if your child is contemplating a career in a less lucrative field, that might be the best option. Similarly, if your child is contemplating grad school in a field where there is little financial aid available (e.g., law) but where it's important to go to a name-brand school, you might want to save the money to pay for grad school.

[Anonymous]

Georgetown ~50g/year. Graduated in upper 10% of class, saddled finance job coming out. Will have my loans paid off in less than 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you can afford it then sure throw your money away but if you're saddling your kid with loans (i.e. saddling the American taxpayer with loans) it's really a shitty purchase. Send them to a larger state school, spend 20k a year less and have them get a real degree or a artsy-fartsy degree at a fraction of the cost. Go Tarheels!

Chapel Hill costs $40K/yr out of state. If you went out of state, you and your parents probably paid the equivalent of private school prices for a state school.

+1
...and without the aid that a private university would have offered.

[Anonymous]

I went to a "top 20" liberal arts school in the late 90s. Graduated with very little debt thanks to scholarships. Would have been a *disaster* if I had borrowed more. But, I'm pretty sure there is no college anywhere worth going into serious debt for, not even Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if you can afford it then sure throw your money away but if you're saddling your kid with loans (i.e. saddling the American taxpayer with loans) it's really a shitty purchase. Send them to a larger state school, spend 20k a year less and have them get a real degree or a artsy-fartsy degree at a fraction of the cost. Go Tarheels!

How are taxpayers being saddled with loans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a "top 20" liberal arts school in the late 90s. Graduated with very little debt thanks to scholarships. Would have been a *disaster* if I had borrowed more. But, I'm pretty sure there is no college anywhere worth going into serious debt for, not even Harvard.

ITA but there is a problem with the premise 'serious debt'. Even state schools @ 25K per year = $100K debt. So then what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you can afford it then sure throw your money away but if you're saddling your kid with loans (i.e. saddling the American taxpayer with loans) it's really a shitty purchase. Send them to a larger state school, spend 20k a year less and have them get a real degree or a artsy-fartsy degree at a fraction of the cost. Go Tarheels!

How are taxpayers being saddled with loans?

Because most student loans are made/guaranteed by the federal government. The default rate is hovers around 25-40%, so taxpayers are on the hook. Plus the new "loan forgiveness" programs will also seek to have taxpayers absorb some of the debt. (However, those "loan forgiveness" programs aren't nearly as generous to student borrowers as they appear at first glance; very few will qualify and those who do will be extremely hard up financially, probably for life.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you can afford it then sure throw your money away but if you're saddling your kid with loans (i.e. saddling the American taxpayer with loans) it's really a shitty purchase. Send them to a larger state school, spend 20k a year less and have them get a real degree or a artsy-fartsy degree at a fraction of the cost. Go Tarheels!

How are taxpayers being saddled with loans?

Because most student loans are made/guaranteed by the federal government. The default rate is hovers around 25-40%, so taxpayers are on the hook. Plus the new "loan forgiveness" programs will also seek to have taxpayers absorb some of the debt. (However, those "loan forgiveness" programs aren't nearly as generous to student borrowers as they appear at first glance; very few will qualify and those who do will be extremely hard up financially, probably for life.)

What's your source for that stat? According to the New York Times:

"The default rate for all federal student loans was 8.8 percent in the 2009 fiscal year, the latest year for which data was available; it was 4.6 percent in 2005, mirroring the rest of the economy. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/us/politics/student-loan-debate-becomes-election-year-fight.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Community college then to a four-year school.

Partying is fun, but I'll be damned if I'll pay a $200k cover charge.

The higher ed bubble will continue until it bursts.

I think this says more about your personal perceptions of college than others. I went to a top liberal arts college and while I did go to parties, I spend the vast majority of my time researching, reading, and writing, and having amazing conversations with friends and professors. And I left for a grand total of $10K in student loans for a school that cost $35K/year in the 1990s. That education is/was invaluable to me, and I have no doubt that my college experience led me to my doctorate. And if my school stats are right, about 50% of alum go on to receive graduate degrees.

I went to a second-tier liberal arts college that hovers around #100 on the US News rankings. It cost $25k a year or so in the mid 1990s, and I left with a $17k debt thanks to a full-tuition scholarship.

While in college, I served as student gov't treasurer and editor of the newspaper, which I steered back to a weekly status for the first time in decades, and was active in other organizational things (e.g. I'd be one of like a dozen fans at the women's basketball games, I went to every single thing the drama group put on, etc.)

My academic/research credentials were mediocre at best, and there were plenty of psych/sociology majors who were just there to party it up for a few years -- let's not kid ourselves.

[Anonymous]

According to a friend who used to work on loan default issues at Education the real problems with student loan defaults tend to be the barely accredited schools (like those that advertise on TV). It's not kids going to Williams.

[Anonymous]

A college degree is a passport to employment. The higher ed bubble isn't going to burst unless employers stop only hiring college grads.