<p>I'll also add that one of the smartest, most well-read, thoughtful people I know is a HS dropout. He farms an apple orchard, makes very little money, is a fantastic musician, and just shipped us a box of the most delicious apples you can imagine.</p>
<p>bethie, I agree too. But IMHO this is not like a zero sum game. By choosing wisely most families can have their children attend a fine college and have a wonderful experience while no incurring excessive debt. A prime example of what I am talking about is Curmudgeon's daughter and the choices she and her family made. I would put our family in that category too. And the final range of choices are rarely very stark. Its not Princeton vs Slippery Rock but perhaps Williams vs Rhodes.</p>
<p>Hey if a family can easily afford to finance a $200k college education, they have my blessing to make any choice they please. Go for it.</p>
<p>However if they are sacrificing significant retirement savings or placing a significant debt burden on their student, they should carefully consider all options.</p>
<p>originalog, nice thoughts. I am glad this approach worked for you. We found ourselves in a different position. The only affordable options were the State schools, which did not have the programs which fit my D's interests or needs. The costs for the privates were similar. The best financial offer was only about 30% less than the most expensive and that school definitely had less to offer academically.</p>
<p>The article asks the question, "Does it pay to go to college?" I think that's the wrong question to ask. A better question is, "Does it pay to graduate from college?" If a student doesn't graduate from college, all bets are off. But for the student that graduates, I think the answer is, yes, it pays.</p>
<p>The focus should be on graduating, not going, and graduating in 4 years (or less) if you have to borrow money. I would think most everyone who goes to college expects to graduate. However statistics tell us that after 6 years fewer than 3 out of 5 end up with a degree.</p>
<p>edad, I'm one of those people whom you've referred to having an above avg income w/o college. People like us are certainly the exception, not the rule. I'm sure you are aware that the typical, avg, usual, college grad has double the income of the avg, hs grad in a lifetime. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. I was thinking that we are speaking to the general rule of the cost effectiveness/benefit of a college degree vs not having one. In my particular vocation, it is much much easier to obtain a college degree than to be fortunate enough to have the job I have as well as make the kind of money I do. I would like to believe my childrens' economical, social, intellectual, etc, options would be exponentially greater than mine.</p>
<p>Didn't read the article, but it says college students who borrow $160,000 catch up in 14 years, no? This means that the person earned the same amount as the HS student did in those 14 years time plus 160k.</p>
<p>So assuming graduation at 22, we're looking at a 36 year old, who will probably work at about 28 more years.</p>
<p>Assume nothing changes. By age 64 this person is now $320,000 <em>ahead</em> of the non college graduate.</p>
<p>BlueDevilMike a poster on this board, particularly the pre-med section, has done some interesting number crunching on this exact sort of thing. The basic idea though is that money gotten NOW is always worth more than money gotten later - doubly true if you have to borrow, then pay off money to make more money in the future. From a pure economics standpoint this will always hold true. It's why you get less money from the lottery when you take the lump sum instead of the annuity.</p>
<p>However on the flipside, my dad always said "money doesn't buy happiness, but it does make misery much more bearable". </p>
<p>I agree though, there are benefits of college that extend far beyond purely monetary reasons.</p>
<p>EDAD: The author is guilty about their position and should move to Cuba. I agree with your post about the progressive tax. A Flat Tax is the answer. It will never happen because our country has too many people who are afraid of change. It is the same country that says that alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and pot is illegal. I have never even smoked pot or cigarettes, but I do know which hurts our country more, it is not even close. Sorry to digress......</p>
<p>I don't agree about the flat tax, even though I would gain a lot personally. I do think we need to look at some serious sort of deduction for tuition payments and loans.</p>
<p>You guys got it wrong. The premise of the study is: given the average cost of college is 40K/yr, whether you borrowed it or have the money to pay for it. I think the original premise wasn't desrcibed accurately.</p>
<p>That figure is hardly a given or correct. That may be true for a private but most kids go to publics and no instate public is anywhere near that much.</p>
<p>Read the article:
Specifically, he found that an 18-year-old who elected to borrow about $40,000 a year for college would have a lifetime consumption standard of $21,033 a year.</p>
<p>The average cost of college was not taken into account at all. You do not have to spend $40,000 a year, let alone $20,000. </p>
<p>PS There is nothing wrong with skipping college, and you might make more money, but it is tougher.</p>
<p>Greetings.</p>
<p>The very notion of a student (average or otherwise) borrowing $40K per year raises a point that we don't often see discussed on CC: We talk about the importance of personality/interest fit, but rarely about the importance of financial fit. We all want to give our kids the best; but IMHO allowing them (or ourselves) to go into hock for many thousands of dollars is problematic. An earlier poster noted that the average debt is closer to $19K. But given that that's an average, there are many students who owe much more than that. At my own small third-tier LAC I've encountered students who will owe upwards of $40-50K at graduation. While my Admissions people would be aghast at hearing me say this, I personally think this is a crime!</p>
<p>There was a book written back in the 1970s called " The Case against College" by a woman with a last name Bird. One of her arguments was that if the parents saved the college fund and gave it to the child after he/she started working, the child would have been better off financially in most cases. </p>
<p>I have also heard that assuming a retirement age of 65, a plumber out earns a doctor because of an earlier start and the magic of compounding. I find this all very interesting but not quite enough for me to work out the math to see if they are true.</p>
<p>I do know a custodian who started part time work as a junior in high school, became full time after grade 12 and retired in his forties with an unreduced pension. On the other hand, I was in school till 25 and took a reduced pension at age 53. For me, the moral of the story is that if you intend to stay in school for a while, make sure you study something that pays for your time and effort. I did not do so.</p>