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

[paying3tuitions]

My H and I attended a top LAC with majors in humanities. The civilized setting, development of intellect, cultivation of love of learning was all there. Teaching was superb. It has set us up for life.

How can I quantify the benefits? We have both weathered tremendous ups and downs in the economy because we fill our home with books, art and music. We're happy when others are miserable. Our kids came up with a similar outlook, and chose professions in the arts that are just beginning to emerge. We recently opened 3 IRA-Roth accounts for them to begin saving now from their jobs and are teaching them to take responsibility for creating their own pension fund if they stay in the arts.

A powerful private college education set us up for life, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I've since been to two graduate schools, retrained with the economy, was able to move with my spouse's career. This flexibility, creativity, ability to make human relationships is immeasurable and has economic payoff. What don't we do? Travel, buy retail, live large, buy boats. Our pensions and retirements are secure but we'll never see Asia or the Caribbean. We can live with that trade-off.

The power of a great undergraduate education in the humanities is that it conditions you to gain tremendous pleasure from the imagination, plays, concerts, books, and not just things/toys/material goods.

Taxguy, my future is secure. Perhaps I just don't measure life with the same yardstick. I'm satisfied. We've never been in it for the money, but we're doing okay. Nobody lives at home with us post-college. They all work, are self-supporting, have roommates and no cars, and perform in the arts.

A lot of the performing arts majors have very wealthy families, so don't worry about them so much. If they come from middle class families like ours, also don't worry because they don't have big eyes for "things."

The premise of your opening post is that it is always a mistake to major in the arts from a private college, because the major doesn't monetize effectively. I so disagree. It might not be for you or yours. I respect that. You are right to urge everyone to examine their retirement funds, but that being done, it is possible to encourage kids to pursue arts majors if they insist they are able to handle the many material sacrifices post-college. If they have a B.A. and it still doesn't break for them positively, they can retrain in their mid or late 20's. They have B.A.'s from shiny places, well-placed friends, and can think their way out of a brown paper bag. They won't sink. Life is long.

[anxiousmom]

Very nice post, P3t!

[-Allmusic-]

Bless you, P3t. I could not possibly have said it better myself.

[skrlvr]

While I do not think that ACT scores should be the only indicator of the type of education received, it was a quick way of comparing school districts. I also agree that the low ACT scores are not alway the 'fault' of the school, but also indicates what is happening at home.

I would agree that comparing the 23 ACT of city 3 with the 25 of city 2 and suggesting that somehow, city 2 is offering a better education would be off base. In this case, using ACT alone to make a decision would be problematic.

However, I also think it is unfair to suggest that there is a possibility that what is being offered at city 1's school system (with an 18 ACT) is equivalent to what is being offered in City 2 and 3's system. An ACT as low as 18, when the minimum requirement for the state flagship was 20 at the time, should be a big red flag. That low of an ACT probably indicates there are additional problems in the system. Would you chance it for your child?

[taxguy]

paying3tuitions notes,"The premise of your opening post is that it is always a mistake to major in the arts from a private college, because the major doesn't monetize effectively"

Response: Sigh, I never, ever said this! I don't even believe it. T he arts are a bit different from that of other majors in that they are more "vocationally"oriented. Kids seek jobs after graduation in these areas. Thus, if their state university doesn't have a quality program, they may well have to attend an out of state, private school. However, I do believe, that if there are good in-state alternatives at their state university then that might be financially a much better way to go.

[paying3tuitions]

Here is a post that I did concerning majoring in art at CMU about a year ago. However, it may be applicable to any art, design or theater major or other major that doesn't pay well. I just see too many kids and parents incurring substantial costs and debt with the attitude of "well, I love my kids so finances be damned."

Taxguy, I don't want to argue. I respect that you have expertise where I don't. But did I so misunderstand the above paragraph from your opening post?

I'd actually be relieved if you can walk me through that paragraph of yours in light of your very thoughtful concerns, in general, for parents financially. What am I missing here?

[mythmom]

paying3: I share your thoughts.

taxguy: I understand that you want each new crop of parents/students to examine their decisions very carefully in light of financial considerations.

No debate. I would rather my kids attend the kind of school paying3 describes than have vacations, a granite countertop, or retire at 62, but it sure is good to know what that decision entails. I'll probably be working until I'm 70. So be it. However, it is a choice.

My kids could not get the experiences they are having at our publics. D is in NYC. Her American Studies major sends her frequently to do primary research at the great NY libraries and the NY Historical Society.

S participates in many extracurriculars that a large uni would not allow because I really do think the competition would be too great.

It's up to each family to decide how much these experiences are worth.

taxguy: I actually agree with you that the state unis would have yielded excellent results in terms of job placement/grad school. I myself attended one and was accepted to an Ivy for grad school. I foolishly didn't go (financial concerns) and have been a bit stymied in my career. But I know you don't disagree with that.

[skrlvr]

Add my kudos to p3t's post.

I would also like to add this point to the overall discussion. While I agree that you can get a fantastic education at an in-state public flagship, it is interesting to notice the efforts that these schools are making to improve the overall experience and quality of education for their students.

These efforts include such programs as the following:

1. More honors programs. Here, students typically have smaller classes, more interdisciplinary offerings and more contact with professors.

2. Offering Freshman learning communities/first year experience courses. These types of programs involve linked courses, some of which have a cap on enrollment. Students are with the same bunch of about 20-25 for most of their first semester. Again, these programs allow for more contact with a professor, and because they see the same students in all their classes, students feel more connected to each other. These courses also involve an orientation component which gets them more connected to the university. Studies at Georgia Tech have found that students in these programs have a higher GPA, are more likely to stay in school and are more satisfied with their education than comparable students who did not enroll in the program.

3. Setting up Residential Colleges--again these programs help keep students connected to each other and keep them connected to the college. These colleges are typically supervised by a faculty member who lives in the dorm with these students.

4. Increased advising


What is interesting to note here is that many aspects of these programs (more contact with profs, more contact with a small group of students, residential colleges, one on one advising, special freshman seminars etc) have traditionally been associated with small LACs or elite universities. In other words, big state schools are trying to creates environments like that at small LACs because, in general, these big state schools find that students in these types of programs are more satisfied, do better academically and are more likely to stay at the university.


I strongly disagree with the notion parents are fools who send their children to these LACs or elite universities. State schools are doing what they can to try to become more like LACs, while maintaining their mission of offering an college education to their qualified in-state students at a somewhat reasonable cost. This suggest that LACs are doing something right.

[Christcorp]

The stats that I'd like to see are:

1. How many adults here went to a high priced / ivy type college and THEIR PARENTS went into major debt to pay for it?
2/ How many adults here went to a high priced / ivy type college and THEY went into major debt to pay for it?
3. How long did it take the parents to pay off that debt?
4. How long did it take the student to pay off that debt?
5. How many parents here are miserable with their life and believe it would have been so much better if they had gone to an ivy league / high priced college?
6. Of the parents here who didn't go to a high priced / ivy league school and have become quite successful financially and culturally, if you believe so highly in going into debt for your kid to go to an ivy / high priced school, why if the less expensive school was good enough for you?
7. Finally; of the parents who believe so strongly in sending their kids to private / high priced / ivy league schools; including the pre-college private school K-12; and believe that money shouldn't be a consideration and it's worth the debt; how many of you went to an expensive / ivy league type of school? Wonder how many of the yes' are justifying their going to such a school.

Remember; this is about GOING INTO DEBT. When money isn't an issue; maybe someone like P3T; then it's a totally different discussion and point of view. Based on your description, you probably wouldn't be going into substantial debt to send your kids to an expensive / ivy league type of school or private K-12 school. And for what it's worth, you can become very successful, educated, prosperous, etc... without going to an expensive / ivy league school. All those qualities of your life that you attribute to going to a LAC type high end school, can be and has been realized by just as many individuals who went to University of "X". I've got 3 degrees; am very successful financially and socially; and could pay for both my kids to go to an Ivy league school. Especially with the scholarships, grants, and loans available. That doesn't mean I will or should. If my contribution, scholarships, grants, and any remaining loans my children incur are reasonable, then that Ivy league school may be a very good option. I personally don't think it is if you are going to be limiting your future because paying back $200,000 in loans is a major issue. Either for the parent or the student.

[originaloog]

p3t, regarding your post #107 was one which many here can appreciate on many, if not all points. In fact I can relate to almost all of the items elucidated, including a wonderful undergrad experience, a life of learning and appreciation for the finer things in life.

However why do you think such benefits come only from a private or liberal arts education? In fact I attended the College of Engineering at OSU and it seems that our experiences throughout life have been quite similar.

Having attended the aforementioned state university, an Ivy League university and having spent a career in academics I have observed that the quality of a person's education and life thereafter do not depend on the college attended but upon on the intellectual discipline and curiosity of the individual.

So while I have no doubt that you did recieve a fulfillling education which has benefited you throughout your life, please do not assume that those of us who attended wonderful public universities have been somehow deprived of similar benefits. I can assure you that it need not be the case.

[kelseyg]

paying3tuitions;

You should be glad you're privileged enough to afford private schools. Good for you that you had a good experience. I'm having a good experience, too, at a "lesser" school. It also also set me up for life. Don't think your experience is somehow unique to selective LACs.

The fact of the matter is that some people aren't as lucky as you, and to fill your post with phrases about how you don't have eyes for "things" is frankly kind of offensive to me, since that carries an implication that those of us who chose not to incur substantial debt to go to college are spending that money on fancy electronics. That we're going to state schools because we're too busy "living large". Please.

You are certainly very lucky in life, but please don't make assumptions about the priorities of people who aren't as fortunate.

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

Our pensions and retirements are secure but we'll never see Asia or the Caribbean.

The part about travel is too definitive (unless you want it to be). You never know. One of your kids might someday invite you on an all-paid cruise or visit to these or other areas. I've done that with my mother and MIL on several occasions. I figure after 18 years of paying for me and putting up with me it's time for a little bit of payback on their investment.

[owlice]

I'm all for being able to afford that on which I spend money. I'm in my 50s; S is a HS freshman. I'm not going to be borrowing wads of cash to put S through college; it would be foolish of me to take on huge debt at this stage of my life.

I'm also all for S being with kids at his level intellectually. I'll take on short-term, relatively small debt if I have to to ensure he gets to do that on occasion (at CTY). I see that as a parental obligation, and that cost is never going to rival the cost of my first home, as college debt could. I will also take on short-term, relatively small debt if I have to to partake of opportunities that come our way or that I make that rely on his being young, such as certain vacation opportunities. There are experiences I want him to have as a child that I believe will enlighten him, be fun for him, engage him, help him grow. The time I have with him is short, and I cannot turn back the clock to give him these opportunities after he is grown.

I expect my son to pay some of his college expenses, either through paid work or ferreting out scholarships. I can't possibly cover it all, nor save it all.

Re: a life of arts: I attended four different undergrad schools, one a small private women's college, one a large, private coed university, and two large public schools. It was at the public schools that I got my greatest arts opportunities, including taking classes with a singer who is quite well-known in music circles (I had no idea who he was, of course, in my callow youth), and singing with major orchestras under world-class conductors in major venues (Carnegie Hall, Kennedy Center and Berlin Philharmonie among them).

I don't know that I'd have been able to have such rich musical experiences elsewhere; I certainly couldn't have gotten them at the two privates I attended. I'm very grateful to have had them; they were very rewarding.

[taxguy]

paying3tutions, your quote of my introduction did NOT say what you ascribed to it. I certainly DIDN'T say "Don't go to an expensive school for the arts."

You also left out part of my message which stated,"Note: I am not knocking parents who scrimp and save and borrow to pay expensive tuition. I am just raising the issue for consideration."

I simply want folks to consider the less expensive alternatives and to really understand the financial consequences that their college decision entails.

Again, I am assuming that there are equal, less-expensive alternatives for the desired major in their state university. If a comparable major doesn't exist then the in-state option may not be right. If I didn't make that clear, let this post serve as clarification!

[paying3tuitions]

I described myself as middle class and I am. I must have sounded like a blue-blood. That's a real first for me.

All 3 of my kids attended LAC's on financial aid in the form of grants, student loans and year-round jobs. The older two applied to LAC's that granted need-based aid.

The youngest compared our in-state university conservatory offering in performing arts against a mid-size private university with a special major in the same creative field. Need and merit scholarships from the private uni (sticker price $45K) would pay for half of his education. For the difference of $8K, we chose the private midsized university because the program was far superior.

With the older 2, we just had some nerve to apply to well-endowed private colleges and universities. With the youngest, we also applied to the state university, so could compare.

I deeply, deeply regret that I offended anyone attending a public university.

My point was to stand up for ANYONE majoring in the arts. Meanwhile, I went on about the value we gained from our LAC's.

If you went to a public university, please don't assume everyone from a private college has no money issues.

Middle class = middle class.