Grad Plus loans can cover up to the full Cost of Attendance. If taxes are included in the Uni’s COA, then yes one could borrow for them. (not a good financial idea, but possible.)
How could the COA include taxes? Aren’t taxes related to individuals?
I mean, I’ve lived on less. But I also had food stamps and medicaid to supplement it. I also lived in a 2 bedroom apartment about the size of my current living room with 3 other people to make it work.
But you’re 1 everything away from homelessness. One needed car repair (no public transportation here), one illness, etc from losing everything. It’s a horrible way to live.
The only reason we survive on our stipends around here is because health insurance is covered and most of us have departments who will help us in a pinch (like mine have helped with medical bills and when I screwed up my car in an accident a month or so ago).
Why? My second year PhD student will be affected and I’m indifferent to it. (I must be a bad dad, huh?)
My parents are furious. They know this is my dream and I might be watching it slip away. They also know that they can’t help me if anything happens.
Honestly though, it seems like most parents just don’t know about this. I haven’t heard much from my other phd friends about what their parents think. A lot of people in my department are like me though- the first in their family to go to college- so their parents don’t always know what all of this means.
The COA does not include income taxes. BUT even with a tuition waiver, and a stipend, most grad and professional students are NOT covering the full cost of attendance. So the Direct Loan is offered to them. So is the grad Plus Loan… it I would not advocate taking loans unless necessary. For some students…this might be necessary if this tax on waivers goes into affect for 2017.
They might have Direct Loan eligibility left…and may have no choice.
It does not today but that is not to say that Unis could not add it. Some include a laptop, for example in COA so those without can borrow enough to purchase the equipment on day 1. Others include medical insurance since it is required. Others include the prepaid loan interest (aka points) as part of COA.
(Well, a Scottish grad student here has been recounting the Thatcher Tax Strike coordonated by Presbyterian churches in Scotland, so far that’s the reaction here, the grad students can’t believe it and are angry but don’t know how to organize - not to mention the fact the American students having to pay and non Americans being exempt. Culturally I doubt we’ll have riots over taxes the way the British did with their “poll tax” and I don’t see how the Scottish tax strike would work. Although “riding it out” is an option that’s been mentioned, which wouldn’t have any political overtones but would have the same effect.)
There’s a lot of “moving away” talk, which, as I said, is not good for the US as a whole.
not sure how you can include “taxes” on COA - a generic number?
(And borrowing to pay taxes still seems bezerk to me. Absolutely locos. Even stupider than opening a credit card in order to pay another credit card bill.)
^actually, the US has very little in terms “government-bestowed entitlements” compared to all other developed countries. Compare to Germany, Canada, the UK, France, Japan. (We do better than rising and developing countries, of course, but we don’t compare ourselves to India or Indonesia or Brazil for much, be it lifestyle, education quality, Olympic medals…)
And this tax doesn’t pay for “entitlements”, unless you mean tax exemptions for golf course owners and private jets. Those owners seem the “entitled ones” here.
I think the argument about professional school is bogus. People don’t go into these fields unless they are confident it will be lucrative. My brother did MBA at a CUNY instead of law school because the lawyer business was soft in the early 90s and the risks too great.
Many people who currently get PhDs do so because it is NOT that risky, and while financially it is sustenance living, the life of the mind is very rewarding. What happens if this passes is that it is no longer feasible for most people to pursue academic PhDs. The amount of time it takes is unknown (you have to create new knowledge, how do you schedule that), and if you have to borrow to do it, you have extremely intelligent people just digging a very large financial hole. These smart people just won’t do it, and we all lose.
Exactly. just run a tax calculator for a single person, and see what the number is. no different than when colleges assume a laptop costs $2,000 and builds that number into the COA.
No doubt that its an awful idea. But then so is attending grad/professional school for many, even if fully funded (including full living stipend). Heck, there are thousands that attend law school today who will never be able to find a legal job requiring the JD that they just spent 3 years of thier lives earning.
Agree…everyone will have some skin in the game.
BUT doesn’t anyone think it’s strange that this tax reform keeps credits for golf clirse maintenance, private planes, and offers a permanent tax reduction for corporations, and allows a lot more in inheritances before being taxed…but takes way the LLC, the college loan interest credit, taxes tuition waivers?
Yes…seems like those folks are benefiting from this plan big time.
No we don’t. At least not to the poor.
Yes, there is rampant corporate and wealthy welfare. But we have an extremely small social security net compared to basically every other wealthy nation in the world.
This might be somewhat true in medicine, at least if you avoid family or internal medicine. It’s definitely not true of law school or a MBA. Most law students don’t get positions in big law, and those who do usually don’t make equity partner(some leave voluntarily, but others get weeded out in the up or out structure). Likewise, there’s no guarantees associated with a MBA.
Indeed. In fact, approximately half all US law schools grads – 50% – do not get a job that requires a JD within a year of graduation.
Maybe my sense of PhD students is that they as a lot are smarter than law students :-).
(I’m just joking in case anybody takes this seriously).
Well, it seems to be that most law students hope to make more money than with a BA, whereas graduate students know they’ll make less money with a PhD than with a BA.
In addition, it seems a lot harder to get into a PhD program with any sort of tuition waiver and/or stipend, than it is to get into a lot of law schools. Students at top 20/flagship lawschools WILL make more money than if they had a BA.
And the sole point of MBAs is that they help you advance on your career (IE, get more benefits and a better salary).
I expect that a whole lot of students will either not start grad studies or will go abroad. Canada’s been poaching our international CS graduates for years now, there’s no reason they’ll stop at that.
My guess is that MIT, HYPS, etc., will find a way. Our great public flagships? Not so much.
I’m not sure I believe that, but let’s assume it’s true anyway. That represents a strong signal the market for PhDs is over-saturated.
Nah, it’s because academia doesn’t pay well, especially compared to a medical doctorate, and more than half positions are non tenure track (meaning not entry level with a career attached and paid 20k a year) due to universities restructuring and cutting funds for teaching, but they’re still needed since, you know, undergrads…
(BTW, if grad students aren’t there to teach undergrads, are adjuncts going to replace them? I imagine that would be cheaper. But at some point the pool would dry since adjuncts are former grad students?)
Definitely not true in STEM. New CS PhDs are commanding around $150K. The reason borrowing for this is hard is because some PhDs can take 7 years. It’s definitely digging with an uncertain outcome and uncertain duration.