That intrigued me so I followed the link to see what else it said.
Huh? Are they equating a 1600 SAT with a 25 ACT? And how likely is it that a kid with a 1600 would have a 3.0? I think that’s got to be a mistake.
@roethlisburger While govt jobs often do pay less cash salary wise, they often offer superior benefits to the private sector.
There is loan forgiveness as well, which is available for some people who go into high need, low paying positions, such as qualifying non-profits, some positions with the federal government and others. The prospective employer may consider your indebtedness as one of the factors in deciding whether to employ you. One of my employers required us to submit our credit reports from all 3 of the major credit bureaus every year.
I wish I had known about this program sooner. It does look like the link I provided was a bit inaccurate. the actual NSA web site says you need a 1200 on SAT - 600 on both math and reading basically.
Unfortunately the deadlines have all passed and my son missed it. A $30K SCHOLARSHIP would have made all the difference in the world for him. This would have been a great opportunity for him. Definitely better than going into the NSA with a $120K debt load.
^The Stokes scholarship is considered taxable income, so it’s not quite as good as a traditional scholarship in that regard.
@roethlisburger Really? That is interesting. I wonder why they carved that out to be a different scholarship than others. So is an ROTC scholarship taxable also? I just figured all academic scholarships were tax free.
So if I understand this right. A straight scholarship/grant from a college is not taxable but money (this money in particular) with strings attached is taxable? Interesting.
Scholarships and grants that cover qualified education expenses (tuition, required fees and course materials) are generally tax free. If a particular scholarship or grant that is used to pay these expenses is considered to be taxable income, my guess is that is because there are strings attached.
^
My understanding is that because there are employment strings attached(work for NSA), the IRS considers this as part of your compensation for employment. As for ROTC, I read, https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/1672093-how-do-i-report-my-air-force-rotc-monthly-stipend-and-scholarship, that Congress specifically exempts ROTC scholarships from taxation.
Interesting. Thanks.
So how is this different than doctors who agree to practice in areas where there are physician shortages…in exchange for some relief from their med school loans?
The difference in taxable can include whether or not you’re expected to work for the money. Not work study, but, eg, grad TAs. That sort of string. Of course, some other considerations, but you aren’t working for NSA when they give the grant, right?
That would definitely explain it. If you become an NSA employee under some type of deferment program where they allow you leave to attend college for 4 years while receiving $30,000 compensation (like a co-op program) payable to the school directly (to be used for tuition/fees). I can see it under those circumstances.
Again, without the carve out by congress for ROTC, I see little difference.
I am personally far more cynical/skeptical than this. No private company is going to want to “invest” in a future teacher or social worker who goes to an expensive private school. That’s not an investment in the financial sense (although I happen to believe it’s an investment in the social sense). Let’s take, for example, a student who goes to an expensive private school that costs $60,000 a year for four years; let’s even say that half the cost is covered through a combination of grants and scholarship aid, meaning that there’s $120,000 left over to finance. The student gets invested in by an ISA and the agreement is 10% of their income paid over 10 years. Then they become a teacher, and their salary averages out to $55,000 a year over those 10 years. The investing company only gets back $55,000 on their $120,000 investment, leaving them in the hole $65,000 - they didn’t even break even!
If the student averages $65,000 a year over 20 years of teaching, and the ISA takes 10% of the student’s income, then they make $130,000. But the company only makes $10,000 on their investment, after 20 years! They could’ve invested in something much higher-yield and made a lot more money.
The article even says this:
I don’t see a lot of companies wanting to do this for students who intend on lower-income careers - it doesn’t make financial sense for them. That would explain why most ISAs currently are in those X-week coding camps that promise to rapidly increase a student’s salary in a short time. Those programs are relatively inexpensive to run - they’re not enormous universities with sprawling campuses to landscape, big faculty salaries to pay and rock-climbing walls to maintain. Hiring a couple people to teach some basic coding is pretty cheap; you can rent facility space. Also, attendees are almost definitely going to be older, career-oriented students who know that they want to go into computer science and are thus almost guaranteed a higher salary than they currently make. Partnerships with tech companies enhance the chances of them getting high-paying jobs at top companies. That’s not a super-risky investment.
Investing in covering a six-figure education for a 17-year-old sociology major? Meh. At best, you don’t even know what they want to do; at worst, they want to pursue a low-paying career like social work or education. Some altruistic companies might do it, but then they’ll do it out of their philanthropic wings and it’ll really be more of a scholarship for the kids than an investment for the company.
Interesting. I know another Clarkson student who took the free tuition in exchange for signing over the rights of something he had designed. He dropped out after a year. I am not sure what became of his invention or the agreement.