<p>I would argue that that is demonstrably false, at least within the confines of this thread, which I thought was discussing only schools ranked in the top 117 (as set in the first post by Hawkette). You said it yourself - most private universities do not prorate their tuitions, yet the fact is, the top 117 schools are comprised mostly of elite private universities. Hence, all of my calculations are what I specified them to be. </p>
<p>Now, if you want to make the ancillary argument that public schools are, on average, cheaper to attend than private schools, that’s a different argument entirely. I would then posit that elite private schools often times tend to provide far better financial aid to poor students than do public schools, so the effect is probably a wash. Middle-class students take a bath at private schools, but I don’t know too many middle-class students who have to financially support their families, for that seems to be a contradiction in terms. {How can you be a middle-class student if you have to financially support your family.} </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Demonstrably false, for I’m sure they do earn more: because they are already smarter and more motivated, on average, in the first place. The fact that they merely attended college (but never graduated) had little to do with the bump in earnings, but is merely an artifact of the selection effect. I recall back in high school that almost everybody with some reasonable level of dedication and preparedness attended some college, even if it was just the local community college. The only students who did not attend college at all were invariably the least motivated and least ambitious of the class. </p>
<p>The key effect to be measured is the effect of the college degree, apart from any self-selection effects. I believe numerous studies have shown that the degree alone, apart from selection effects, has been demonstrated to be a key boost of lifetime earnings, above and beyond those students who attended college, even for many years. That notion aligns with the screening effect that many employers now impose on prospective recruiting candidates in which a college degree (as opposed to mere college attendance) is required or heavily weighted for most decent jobs, even those jobs for which the college degree isn’t particularly necessary.</p>
<p>Then I would argue that you could have probably graduated in 3 years, or perhaps even less, if you didn’t have to work. After all, working for an average of ~33 hours a week for 2.5 years is a lot of hours: surely putting those same hours into your studies would have greatly accelerated anybody’s curriculas. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So add in a factor for interest. How much are we talking about after just 1 year: another $2-3k at most? The 4-year graduate is still better off than the 5-year graduate. </p>
<p>My calculations are already with after-tax figures. Like I said, the average college graduate makes ~$35k to start. Subtract taxes and work-related costs (i.e. transportation), and he is left with around $25k, which is greater than the financial differences calculated above. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the guy who chooses to work and hence delays his graduation is taking on more chronological risk. Like I said, the guy who needs to work during school is still sans degree after 4 years. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I think we did. How much would it cost? Like I said, I can agree that if you’re SW Missouri State University, you probably can’t support these programs. But we’re not talking about SW Missouri State University. Remember, we are talking about schools that are in the top 117 - most, if not all, who ought to have sufficient financial resources to support such a program. The costs would simply be an interest subsidy, taking advantage of historically low interest rates and the ability of institutions in the top 117 to access the debt markets, and a provision for loan-losses. I doubt that’s going to be particularly expensive. </p>
<p>As a case in point, since UM was a prior subject of discussion, let’s invoke it as an example. UM has a whopping $7.5 billion endowment. And they can’t afford to provide sufficient aid - perhaps in the form of grants - to each and every one of its poor students, at least to the point where UM can enjoy a 4-year graduation rate at least as high as UVa? Really? That deeply strains credulity. What exactly are they doing with all that money?</p>
<p>Sakky, I didn’t want to graduate in 3 years. I chose 5 with no debt over 4 with debt. OK? My choice. There were advantages to graduating in 5 years and working than graduating in 4 years and not working. I understood the real world a little better than some of my classmates. My working helped me understand the material better than I would have otherwise.</p>
<p>And I’ll take a 50,000 debt over a 70,000 debt and a 25,000 after tax income for one year. </p>
<p>Because I’ll be richer. Because it costs more than $5,000 a year to live after business and transportation costs.</p>
<p>But you can choose the other option.</p>
<p>And I’m sure you can find other options that make graduating in 4 years better. But there are options that make 5 year or 6 year options better too. </p>
<p>If you find an option that makes graduating in 4 years better, it doesn’t mean graduating in 4 years is now better. There are many options.</p>
<p>Bclintonk came up with examples that showed many times it’s not better.</p>
<p>What “top 117 schools”? 48 of the top 100 and 60 of the top 120 national universities in US News are publics. Now if your argument is just that poor students who have to work to get through top PRIVATE schools owing to inadequate FA are getting screwed, that may be right. But that’s not what you started out arguing. Or at least you weren’t clear about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh come now. Are you going to make the same argument about people who complete a bachelor’s degree—that it’s not their degree but their superior native smarts that gets them those additional lifetime earnings? What about people who get graduate or professional degrees? If not, I think you’re being inconsistent.</p>
<p>But I suspect you believe, as I do, that it’s not just the native intelligence but also the upgrade in skills, credentials, and social contacts that makes the difference at each of these levels. And if you acknowledge that with respect to bachelors, graduate, and professional degrees, I think consistency and common sense demand that you acknowledge as much with respect to those who attend but do not complete college. </p>
<p>I personally have know many employers who would hire someone who attended but didn’t complete college over the holder of an ordinary HS diploma any day of the week—especially if their reason for dropping out was lack of funds. Why? Shows ambition. Shows enough smarts to take the plunge, and perhaps enough smarts to do well if the withdrawal wasn’t for academic deficiencies. Suggests a higher level of skills—probably better grammar, better writing skills, better reader, probably better listener, possibly better at math. You learn a lot in the first two years of college. Not as much as four, but way more than no college. So it only stands to reason that the plucky persons who attend college for a year or two but drop out for financial reasons are going to have, on average, a lot more employment opportunities, and on averge some better employment opportunities, than the HS diploma-only group. And that’s going to contribute substantially to the former group’s higher average earnings.</p>