Should you incur substantial debt for dream school or even pay the "dream" tuition?

[NJ_mother]

Mafool: Not all universities allow profs to consult (mine doesn't).

Also with regard to doing 2 years at CC then trasnferring: D#1 went to Cook (a Rutgers college). Cook won't accept Cc courses, period, the end. So one has to be sure on's dream prestige name school will accpet all the cc credit before going this route (my alma mater didn't accept this either, the few kids who tried it had to retake or change majors to graduate in 4 years).

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

My boyfriend applied to UCLA (in-state) and was rejected. He has already been accepted to an honors program at a nearby CC, which guarantees that he will be accepted to UCLA if he completes all the requirements. It is a one-year program, and will end up saving him some money. He was disappointed that he won't get the freshman experience, but otherwise content with the situation.

That sounds like a good program. UCLA rejects many applicants even who have very high stats (as can be seen on the UCLA thread). Once there though, people from several different years are taking all kinds of classes so the fact that he transferred won't be noticed by others and probably won't be felt much by him. If he can live in transfer housing he even gets to have that 'campus' experience.

[mafool]

NJ_mother: Did not know that. Thank you. I don't know for a fact that S's college permits consulting, either. But mine did, and I, without thinking, made that assumption.

[Atana]

Clay Soul,
Admirable you are electing to pursue your interest in the arts. However, a few cautionary words. The universities have a bad habit of implying that everyone with an advanced arts degree (MFA,PHd etc) will be attaining a well paid professorship. Actually that's equivalent to a chimera hiding in the fog. Some, about 10% in the recent past, do attain these positions, but as noted the pay is often less than those in other fields. Additionally, many who do work as profs are cursed with the status of being adjuncts, which can be ok if one can become used to the uncertainty and periods of economic difficulty. Many in the arts, do end up in such as galleries, arts centers, PS teaching or etc rather than professorships.
As far as the concept that parents should incur substantial debt to ensure their kid goes to a flagship school. Gods no don't do it! It's already problematic or impossible for many to pay the debt load incurred at regular schools, let alone the toll for an elite school. And the financial shell game promoted by the loan companies and their government compadres can easily inflate a 'normal' student loan debt, over the term of its life, to a form of educated indentured or indebted servitude. For example many of us who are professors (supposedly living a privilaged life) struggle with paying the costs of our education. To the extent that some do little else but pay the loan tolls, avoiding such normal acts as buying homes or even considering marriage. And its not a condition limited to profs, the AMA has begged the government to restore deferments and loan forgiveness for doctors.
The whole situation of college costs, loans is a looming financial disaster, and it may eclipse the mess of such as Bear Stearns and the mortgage situation. Accordingly it might be better for parents to settle for more affordable schools, or even defer their kids education until some political action is taken to remedy the situations inherent to appalling college costs, and the debts incurred as a result. And the whole mess is something which the colleges, financial institutions and government will no longer be able to disguise. What happened with the mortgage mess, will soon occur within collegiate finances and the loan industry. And unfortunately the current trend is to bail out the corporate elite rather than the people caught in the backwash of inappropriate financial manipulations. Academia should never have become a wellspring of massive profits for any financial body, nor should academia and government be accessories to this cabal, but nonetheless it has happened. Until this is reformed, any parent incurring large debts for a kids education could be condemning themselves and their kids future for years. Simply put, don't do it.

[blossom]

I took on debt, got an MBA, and my starting salary was about 400% what I had made prior to my MBA. During the 10 years it took me to pay off my loans, I bought a house, married, had two children, and continued to advance in my career.

Not all educational debt is bad. Not all degrees are created equal. Not everyone is willing to move or get transfered for work, or only take a minimal maternity leave. I was willing to do all those things; my degree continues to pay dividends on a weekly basis. Simply put, I have had a better career with more money and more interesting work than someone who does what I do without an MBA (it is not a requirement in my field... HR... where many people have a Master's in counseling or something related.)

Some people are risk averse and that's fine- don't take on loans. Some people would not move for their jobs- and that's fine- you're probably not a good candidate for a lot of loans either. If you're planning on having kids in your 20's and would want a year or two off when you do... then don't take out educational loans.

If you're prepared to work in a focused way to pay off the loans while being able to move your life forward then go for it.

[owlice]

Blossom, the question referred to "substantial debt," not "any and all debt," and referred to paying for the "dream school."

No one has said ALL educational debt is bad. Would you have taken on $100K in loans for a salary that was 2% more than what you were making before? 5% more? In a field with no openings at all?

[blossom]

Atana is painting all debt with the same brush- bad, evil, brought to you by venal colleges and irresponsible banks.

I would not have (nor would I encourage my kids) taken on debt for a Master's in Counseling, a Master's in Mass Communications, or a Master's in Labor Relations (the advanced degrees held by three junior members of my team.) Each of them could easily have gotten their current job with a BA; there's no evidence that the networking provided by their schools has been at all beneficial professionally; many companies won't even recruit for Master's level candidates on campus. They didn't learn enough to be subject matter experts in their fields, and the alumni associations are non-existent.

That doesn't mean that all master's degrees are bad.

[Atana]

That there is a certain venal quality to the whole business cannot be denied. Why do you think that first line schools such as Harvard, MIT, and others are currently seeking alternatives to the loan as a medium for students attending their schools? It's because they have seen that being linked to the developing problem and building scandal of excessive costs and mounting student/parent debt load is very detrimental to the reputation of their institutions. Granted their income parameter to receive reduced tuition and sponsorship is very high, but it is at least an acknowledgment of the problem.
And obviously not all degrees have an end pay which is anywhere close to the costs of the education. But its very rare for the collegiate system to tell that aspect to incoming students. And if we base our educational choices simply on cost to wages for education...well that about wraps it up for teachers in our k-12 schools.
And concern about costs vs benefit has even affected what used to be 'safe' degrees. That concern has even effected MBA programs, to the extent that many universities are seeing a decline in students seeking those degrees.
Additionally on average the costs of college have increased 6% a year since the 90's. This is largely attributed to cutbacks by the federal government in need based aid such as Pell grants. Rushing in to fill that void were corporate loan and finance companies, who then received unprecedented concessions from both the federal government and the collegiate system. Even these extremely profitable concessions do not seem to have been enough, as is borne out by the recent scandals within the student loan industry. These include the investigations by the NYS attorney general, inquiries by Senator Clinton, into kickbacks, hidden fees and etc. Additionally the US secretary of education, Spellings has allowed several major companies to keep almost a half a billion in monies which they had over billed the US government. And that despite calls from Congress and state governments and academia to investigate the matter. And all the aforementioned abuses are common knowledge having been covered in reputable sources such as The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Now, the unfortunate reality is that the last generations of students, and current students are having to borrow large amounts of money from an industry which has been permitted to use academia as source of unparalleled profits. So yes, some may benefit from the investment in their education. But the question of why private corporations should be allowed to benefit so much more from co-opting, for their own profit, systems which were established for the common good?
Because of these conditions, yes education costs too much. And parents do need to consider that the money they spend (or God help them borrow)for their children's education may not be going to directly benefit either their child or the college which they attend. And so unfortunately, alas, much of the current means of funding students has indeed become a venal industry. To the extent that other countries have begun to look at the US collegiate system with horror. Wondering how, as a nation we elected to permit higher education to become a system which generates massive profits for entities which are not the actual providers of learning, but have somehow invaded the ivy halls.
And alas, virtually all I have written here has been noted in august journals such as the Chronicle, so something is very, very wrong in academia.

[taxguy]

Since this thread is digressing a bit, let me note that when I started the thread, it assumed the debt or high tuition was for UNDERGRADUATE studies. I don't think that too many folks would object to debt for professional studies such as medical or law school.

[EMM1]

Depends on the law school choices. If you can get into one of the 20 or so "national" law schools, you should go for it, as you have a very strong chance of getting a six figure salary when you graduate. Otherwise, (absent specific geograhic issues), state U is a better choice.

[Atana]

Well quite true debt is incurred for professional or terminal degrees. However undergrad degrees are still affected by the unfortunate trends of reduced government funding for higher education resulting in greater costs for the collegiate system and the unfortunate and excessive profits made by private lenders who have filled the vacuum left by those same cuts in pells and etc. Literally, the last generation of those who could actually and practically afford college were those who went in the seventies-before the whole system was co-opted by the the loan cabal. That generation had substantive pell support, and should they have needed to take out loans there were protections in place. Todays students, be they undergrads or grads, have had those protections removed. They cannot file for chapter bankruptcies, and on some loan company applications even suicide is within the authority of the loan holders. I've seen some loan apps which have the provision that if an overstressed student does take their life, the family is bound to provide a special copy of the death certificate to the loan company. Apparently even the states word on the matter isn't enough. So any parent who wishing the best for their kid, and who does chose to incur high debt loads for a flagship school-could be placing themselves into a loan situation which has no equivalent in other arenas of the finance industry. And how many know this... And these problems extend beyond the loan itself, some state governments have even considered denying drivers licenses to those who are behind on SL payments. So there's obviously a lot parents are not being told.
Undergrad degrees within the professions have been substantially and adversely affected by the rising costs and the associated problems which have arisen within student funding. The January 2008 edition of the NEAToday had a very disturbing article on the excessive debt loads carried by students in teacher certification programs. Now if one did go to a flagship school for education, they'd no doubt be incredibly good teachers...but appallingly in debt and very probably unable to remain as teachers as a result.
In general the average debt burden of a Bach in 2004 is 60% higher than it was in 1994 (Public Interest Research Group). It's very unlikely even if one does attend Pudunk U that this level of debt load could be considered reasonable. And those who do attend elite schools for a Bach, will run up numbers close to the cost of terminal degrees at a lesser institution.
So the whole situation is almost terminal, and currently its clear only a limited contingent of unwholesome people do benefit from what is happening. If these trends continue, the ability to attain even a bachelors degree will be beyond everyone excepting the profoundly wealthy. And that gentry, will take us right back to the 19th century.

[cgarrett101@aol.]

Well, I admit to NOT reading all the posts here...but I still have something to say: I went to a crappy public high school in Florida, a mediocre college and law school, and I worked for a well-known international law firm alongside Ivy Law graduates.......Yes, it took a lot of work, but I did it!

However, I am paying for D2 to attend a top-tier college (not sure which one, but that's another story...).

[Christcorp]

cgarrett; may I simply ask; "WHY"? Is it because you can simply afford it without any financial strain, or is it because you believe that there is some major advantage to paying for your daughter to go to a top-tier (debatable definition) school. I definitely spend money on some expensive things because I can; but there's also many things that I don't spend excess money on; for numerous reasons. Just curious for your reason. Not a big deal either way; just curious.

[Atana]

Well congratulations cgarret101, you did what our society expects, and it worked well for you.
These are complex posts because of the social implications behind the apparently simple issue of how much one should borrow to educate their scions. One of the most disturbing aspects of this situation relates to a parents relative affluence and the excessive debt loads which have now become an accepted part of the toll to attain a college degree. From those of the lower orders, who have the intelligence, ability, and drive and who wish to improve their lot and contribute to society, the increasing debt loads and tuition demands are going to rapidly close the pathway of education as elevation. And of the many who in the recent past have have dared to aspire beyond their class, an unfortunately high number are being driven back into deprivation by the unreasonable and morally bankrupt demands of these financial institutions.
There is a conceptual irony in the whole situation, in that an educational system established to promote the common good, has been co-opted for massive private profits. And if these trends continue, there will be the unfortunate point where many, including the upcoming generation of admirable people like yourself, will be unable to even contemplate providing educational improvement for their children.
And ultimately as fewer and fewer are able to even consider the possibility of advanced education, be it at a state or elite school, the question will have to be answered whether our societies priorities were either ethical or just. Perhaps that's another reason the elite schools are considering an end run around the SL industry's, within even such elite institutions they know the dangers inherent to a perception by a people, that they will have no real chance to ascend to the promises implied by their society, or to their own potential.
And by no means, or rationale, can this very real social danger be compensated by certain financial cabals raptures about making a billion dollar profit for one year, or getting a few hundred millions as a 'gift' from our governments officials.
In some regards, yes this discussion is overtly about parents borrowing for a ivy education, but within that main discourse are the looming demons of very disturbing social trends.

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

And of the many who in the recent past have have dared to aspire beyond their class, an unfortunately high number are being driven back into deprivation by the unreasonable and morally bankrupt demands of these financial institutions.

How do you reconcile that statement against the fact that a number of the top colleges essentially become a 'free ride' for those in lower (and increasingly, more middle) income groups if the student is admitted in their need-blind admissions?

And ultimately as fewer and fewer are able to even consider the possibility of advanced education...

Is this true or are, in fact, more and more people not only considering but actually receiving an advanced education? Ivies aren't the only path and there are many affordable and viable solutions.