<p>Sax -
I share your sentiments. But, of course, I think our kids are at the same State U. </p>
<p>When we were looking at colleges, specifically colleges with good engineering programs, we did not detect a large difference in quality between the $45k+ programs and the $25k+ programs, at least in terms of cost/benefit. All the programs were ABET and all had similar curriculums. All had opportunities for undergraduate research, if desired. Of course, the difference in cost is after tax, as alluded to earlier. So, for example, that $45k program in after tax dollars is actually costing over $68k per year in earnings (assuming a 28% incremental federal tax rate and a 6% incremental state tax rate). If you throw in the FICA rate of 7.5%, the earnings number goes up to over $75k). Maybe it's the economist in me, but I cannot fathom that an undergraduate degree, any undergraduate degree, is worth over $300k in earnings.</p>
<p>We here read a lot on CC about schools being reach, match, or safety, but I think the more correct terms might be “affordable” and “not affordable”. The parents need to let the kids know where they can reasonably expect and afford to go. You can apply to “reach” schools if you want, but if the money is not there then let it go and move on to something you can afford. Don’t set your heart on going to a certain school that realistically is not going to be affordable. While we might not like it, college tuition is like many things in life and different people can afford different options. We shouldn’t whine that we can’t afford this college or that we can’t get accepted to that university. Some people save and others don’t. Some students get a lot of scholarship money and others don’t. Figure out what your situation allows, make a decision that works for you and move on.</p>
<p>DS is a sophomore at State U where he received some merit money. He will eventually graduate (hopefully!) with little or no debt, and a fine education. DD1 is a high school senior and may end up at the same school. She has some thoughts about a small private college that interests her, but unless she receives a great deal of scholarship money she realizes it won’t work out for her. She understands the situation and is fine with wherever she ends up. The whole application process for us is pretty easy, and for that I am grateful. Sometimes I really like my kids.</p>
<p>Dstark- of course I agree with you, I was being tongue in cheek. A close relative is a retiring math teacher; BS in Math from Radcliffe back in the dark ages. She's won numerous awards from educational groups, community groups, math publishers, etc. for her ground-breaking techniques. She could not get hired in my district where the math instruction is generally considered lousy-fair. We spend millions on remediation, but can't hire a math teacher who knows math. She admits that she'd have "slung hash" after graduation rather than enter a Master's program.</p>
<p>Emerald Kitty and others,
The situation with the advanced studies people in humanities is the most legitimate example I can provide because of my particular discipline. And yes, although the colleges do not necessarily owe these students success there are substantial issues resultant from the excessive costs vs the credibility of these programs.
And as noted flexibility is needed for success in this field. However the associated problem is that from a pragmatic level that flexibility might entail not associating with advanced collegiate studies in the humanities. And how many academics have the option of overtly stating to students there might be better alternatives than being within these programs? And its even more unlikely that college adminstrators will truthfully advise students of the inherent risks. The tendency is to redirect the students questions to the very adaptable people who have 'made it' because or in spite of the education. As noted there are some out there who succede in various outre endeavors as making armor, doing theatrical versions of manga and pro-wrestling, and other such endeavors. But these are exceptions and not the norm. And it could be argued that the expectations and conditioning in academic humanities might be maladaptive towards this kind of flexibility. Or force that very flexibility because the learning itself is not all it was sold to be... Either alternative does not ultimately reflect a particularly nice situation.
Before the contention arises that the students should have known better, perhaps some acknowledgment of how complex the collegiate system is would be in order. For example until the NY AG began the investigation into the SL scandals and attendent corruption how many were even aware of the problem, or had the ability to obtain that kind of information? And that's within a global pararmeter which affected all students.
Within specific programs such as the humanities its not that hard to get some general stats about costs and success rates but specifics are much harder to obtain. And even more obscured when the college systems themselves use misleading statements to redirect away from questions which probe too closely. For example I have personally observed recruiters state that within their humanities programs the majority of the graduates gain full time employment. And then with the speed of a meth crazed cat move quickly away from that line when a student (or parent, or prof) asks about what specific arenas these graduates are actually employed. Obviously full time employment can also include the economic bliss of being the lord of the french fry station. Long ago as a student or in the years since as a prof, I recall very few ever mentioning that enviable status being the end product. At least in an open public forum where it would be of the most benefit. And its not a matter of some in the system being immoral or cowards they are trapped because there is too much to lose.
So it does relate to the cost to benefit issue in a substantial way. Because unfortunately many of these programs simply do not offer any meaningful training or learning compared to the potential benefits. And as noted earlier there is little impetus to restructure the philosophies behind these curriculums.
And Blossom your mention of teacher ed programs and the pressure to obtain MS's MA's is also very salient to this conversation about costs and benefits. In may states the pay for schoolteachers is fairly low and it simply doesn't make pragmatic sense to to add the debt for those degrees. However there is a substantial pressure from the state dept of ed/universities to require just these type of degrees. And a reverse form of systemic surrealism is not uncommon as I've known Phd's/MFA and like terminal degreed people to have to go back and take low level education courses so they could find employment in the public schools. Doubly ironic as I've taught education theories and methods courses but having let my state licensure expire I currently cannot enter public school teaching.</p>
<p>Doubly ironic as I've taught education theories and methods courses but having let my state licensure expire I currently cannot enter public school teaching.</p>
<p>I do know of schools that have teachers in the classroom who have emergency certification, but wouldn't you just have to retake to liscensing exam?</p>
<p>We knew we were full pay. Son applied to 10 of top 50 schools. As we went down the list after financials came in the merit aide and the schools interest generally increased from $0 to the point of full ride. He was able to choose based on this and strength of program. If the money was better he would be at his first choice and #1 program in the nation. He actually chose the best financial offer and lower ranked school which was as karp mentioned an excellent, excellent choice. Looking at what he was able to accomplish/experience as a freshman I can't imagine what he might have missed at #1. Additionally he became, at age 18, financially independant of us and I know this is a great source of personal pride for him.</p>
<p>Very difficult to justify spending $180,000. I think we are at the cusp of the full pay vs. financial aid group. A very difficult place to be. So that's what happened here. I hope some of the HS seniors give this some thought as they are applying to various schools. Tuition Dad and karp have it right on the money.</p>
<p>Depends on the state whether you can retake, and on what time parameters. But its still silly to have to do so, whilst having taught the courses which allow licensure.<br>
And the problem is the PS schools lose because of the insistence on licensure. Without licensure (or alternative licensure such as Texas has adopted) the advanced degrees people usually cannot teach in a PS. When the charter movement was first started there was a focus on considering advanced degrees as equivalents to state licensure, but pressure from the NEA and other groups largely stopped that initiative.
As far as financial pressures on the working class and collegiate costs. For reasons best known to the divine and the agendas of political cronyism, the recent small grant increases are not getting to the students. Of the 790million provided by the Academic competiveness grant, only 430 million has been disbursed in the 2006-07 year. Granted these monies are for 'low income' students, but what the government considers middle class, often isn't. And due to declining status increasingly there'll be little difference between the lower classes and the supposed middle classes.
The non allotment of grant monies (despite all the publicity) is interesting when contrasted to what recently happened with Nelnet. Nelnet hit the US government for some 200 million + in misapplied fees and other somewhat shady dealings. The US department of education let them keep the money. So theres always cause to wonder who is actually benefitting from the tax dollars collected for education via the goverment? And obviously this misallocation of resources is one of the reasons for some in the middle classes being wiped out by educational costs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
my company is looking for statisticians. I don't believe we've interviewed anyone yet who is US born... the college kids with the right educational training all want to go work for a Hedge fund...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>blossom, What exactly is your company looking for in the way of educational credentials for statisticians?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Within specific programs such as the humanities its not that hard to get some general stats about costs and [bold]success rates[/bold] but specifics are much harder to obtain. And even more obscured when the college systems themselves use misleading statements to redirect away from questions which probe too closely.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Atana, I appreciate your informative posts.</p>
<p>I've been trying to figure out a way to learn, online, about college campus recruitment, or new-grad recruitment and hiring, for various BA/BS degree programs. Sometimes I see a list of companies that visit a campus, but that's far too general. Sometimes I see a list of employers for X major. That's more helpful (especially when I see 'restaurant waitstaff' listed). But I'd love to see some more specific information on outcomes. Where do we find this? Anyone?</p>
<p>After all of the awards were in, we had a range of paying from $0 to $50k/yr; all top 25 schools. We took a big trip to visit most of the need only schools. All of them were great, with wonderful opportunities. But so was the full ride school, and the money saved buys a lot of educational and EC opportunities. The other part which is not always mentioned are the non-monetary perks of receiving a named scholarship. During her first semester, my D was able to take a closed studio class and bypass a manditory bio lab. The latter was based on her previous experience during a summer program, internship and course work, but I doubt it would have been possible without the department chair recognizing that she was one of 50 selected from the 10s of thousands that applied last year. </p>
<p>The best part in my mind is what she will be left with at the end of 4 years: options. For professional school, for travel, buying a house, taking chances...</p>
<p>Question for anyone: My family and I are US citizens but I work outside the US in the Middle East and my sons go to an American School here in the Emirates. We sold our home in New Jersey and thus do not have a home in the US anymore. Should I then see ourselves as having to pay out-of-state no matter where my son goes? We pay US taxes... Any advise would be great from anyone. My son wishes to study engineering. Regards, AL</p>
<p>I think the question of residency is one you'll have to discuss with the various colleges involved. You may have to pay out of state tuition for public universities because you do not pay taxes in that state. Paying federal income tax doesn't matter. I know that NJ has an income tax - do you still pay income taxes to NJ?</p>
<p>And remember, in state or out of state matters only for public colleges and universitiest. Private ones have the same tuition, in or out of state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We sold our home in New Jersey and thus do not have a home in the US anymore. Should I then see ourselves as having to pay out-of-state no matter where my son goes?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think so. If you still have your home in NJ and still paying property tax, you may be able to make a claim for NJ residency. However, you really don't have a home in the US and pay no state tax, you really can't claim any residency.</p>
<p>Well, it's interesting how this thread seems to be devolving into a working mom/stay-at-home mom debate. I've done both over the past 17 years of being a parent. Spent about 50 percent of the time working at my profession and the other 50 percent being 100 percent at home with kids. I've always just tried to deploy myself where I could help the overall family most. Sometimes it meant bringing in income. Sometimes it meant keeping the sanity so that my spouse could focus on his career and the kids could live in a more rational household for a while. Having lived both "tracks" I can say that I totally don't support any sort of tax benefit to households that choose to keep a parent at home. That is, indeed, a choice. However. I have worked for some years now and we are confronting the massive cost of private college education. I do feel bitterly angry that we are lumped into a "higher income" bucket that includes hedge fund managers. $50k per year will definitely cause us pain. Can we do it? Yes. Is it fair that we have to but others don't. No. Why should parents who earn for their kids be unfairly penalized for doing so? And someone will no doubt say it's about the kids, not the parents. Baloney. Kids whose parents never saved, never sacrificed for their education can get loans. Someone at some point in their family tree should have to make some sort of sacrifice to "earn" the luxury of a premium education.</p>
<p>Not owning a home doesn't have anything to do with state residency. You most likely claim some residency and (maybe) even pay state income taxes if your state requires it. Whatever state you claim as your residence is where you can be in-state. Even Washington, DC, for DoS employees working overseas, is recognized as in-state for admissions and tuition by all Virginia state schools. </p>
<p>Is deciding to have one parent stay at home to raise kids somehow less worthy than failing in business, or any other ways the population manages to form the bottom half of the income bracket? Y'all are harsh! I don't blame my kids for my choices and I'm glad there are schools who strive for economic diversityfor the benefit of poorer kids as well as their wealthier classmates.</p>
<p>I guess you all haven't been reading the discussion about how two-wage-earner households are being blamed for problems kids have today? So why is child-care tax deductible and not parent-care-for-kids? Is the time a spouse stays at home rearing kids not as worthy as paying someone to do the job for you? Why? Or why not? Explain yourselves.</p>
<p>
[quote]
how two-wage-earner households are being blamed for problems kids have today?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep, my husband and I have been blamed from day one for putting kids in child care. Nevermind, the cost of quality childcare was the equivalent of an Ivy league tuition.</p>
<p>Several pages ago on this thread, one of the posters warned that it seemed like the "Mommy Wars" were about to erupt, and now it seems like this is happening again. There was some discussion at that time about being careful not to denigrate others' choices, and I think that bears repeating here. At that time, I wrote: "Everyone does what they feel is best for their family and their particular circumstances" which is something I think we can all agree upon.</p>
<p>ProudDad - I really think the comment about two-wage earner households being blamed for the problems kids have today is out of line and serves no constructive purpose. That kind of a statement is just hype for which there is no factual basis. There are plenty of great kids from both one-earner and two-earner families and plenty of kids with terrible problems from both types of families. I am sure we all know plenty of families (one-earner or two-earner) who have a mix of great kids and problem kids.</p>
Kids whose parents never saved, never sacrificed for their education can get loans. Someone at some point in their family tree should have to make some sort of sacrifice to "earn" the luxury of a premium education.
It's too simple to lump all those "earning" financial aid into a lower level of the undeservingwithout comment. Did you find that constructive? I asked why tax credits are acceptable for child-care and some credit for staying at home with your children to raise them is not. At the risk of some mod telling me I'm not toeing the CC conservative line here, MotherOfTwo, go defend someone else. I'll stick up for those who do what they can for their kids without being sanctimonious about it. If you find class-battering constructive, just keep it up.</p>
<p>I am not too versed in the ins and outs of financial aid, as our income is sort of on the lower border of those who don't get any (e.g. nowhere near a hedge fund manager :) ) so I don't have anything to say one way or another about mammal's statement which you quoted. My husband and I were fortunate to be able to send our two kids to the schools of their choice (private) without needing financial aid. </p>
<p>The topic of who deserves aid and who doesn't can be endlessly debated. For example, someone with twins gets more aid than someone with two kids four years apart, all other things being equal. Is this fair? And there are endless other similar hypothetical situations - which ever way aid is given out, it seems some people get an advantage while others are at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>But that issue of fairness in giving out aid is totally unrelated to your statement that two-earner households cause PROBLEMS in their kids. I repeat that the statement has no basis in fact and serves no constructive purpose, unless your purpose is just to say something negative to the previous poster. If you don't agree with mammal, then I suggest you debate his or her point, instead of just throwing out random unrelated insults.</p>