<p>Smart Money has recently published a great deal of data on the cost of college and the expected return on those investments expressed in terms of the compensation levels of gradauates just after graduating and again at a mid-career point. </p>
<p>At one level, there is clear redemtion here for many state and public colleges where the average returns rank at or near the top (U of Texas-Austin, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, etc.). </p>
<p>The big winner using this payback ratio analysis is Georgia Institute of Technology - Congratulations! </p>
<p>Alternatively, you can sort the date by average mid-career compensation and the Ivies dominate once again (top 3, 6 of top 10).</p>
<p>Same data - different conclusions. As one of my very first professors once said to me: "Statistics is often a mathematically precise line drawn between an unwarranted assumption and a foregone conclusion."</p>
<p>The column with the heading āTuition and Feesā is way off, at least for some colleges I spot checked including UC Berkeley. Even though the note at the bottom states it doesnāt include housing it actually probably is since the figure they indicate is pretty much COA including housing and not simply the tuition and fees. </p>
<p>As a data point, UCB Tuition and fees are $12,834/year which for 4 years would be $51,336 or just less than half of whatās indicated in the chart.</p>
<p>If theyāre using the wrong numbers in their calculation then their conclusions have no basis. Am I missing something?</p>
<p>This is a completely wrong way to look at college. College is not about getting a job. It is an investment to enrich the mind. The return you get is in being more well-rounded, and exposed to many different kinds of people, cultures, and topics. You end up as a good human being a well-functioning member of society.</p>
<p>This is yet another example of a magazine trying to be different for the sole purpose of generating some publicity and sales. There is no comparison possible between the numbers used by the āreportersā and the true cost of an education at the schools they listed. The impact of financial aid is ignored, and so is the length to graduate. There is no difference made for schools that are mostly residential and include a large part of the āincidentalā fees in the stated tuitions and fees.</p>
<p>Perhaps the management of Smart Money should unleash the journalistic powers of the Florida grad who compiled that garbage to analyze the return on our PUBLIC investment at the ā¦ schools they lauded. How much public money is spent in addition to the combined expenses of parents and the federal government per ā¦ graduate. How much per graduate in four years, five years, or even longer. How many classes do four year graduates really attend? How many are the result of credits via dual-enrollment programs or the AP boondoggle? </p>
<p>But, that, of course, requires a bit of work! This makes the HuffPo look legitimate!</p>
<p>I am a bit confused by the numbers. For public schools, numbers they are showing, are they in state tuitions? If thatĀ“s the case, what about tax money those residents have already paid into in order to benefit from lower tuition? It is hard for me to believe BerkeleyĀ“s 4 years tutition is 104815 (& fees).</p>
<p>Why do they not include room and board? If you want to attend NYU, you canĀ“t live in Kansas, you have to move to NYC, which is one of the highest cost place to live.</p>
<p>I am more than a bit confused about the whole project, and Iām not even objecting to doing this kind of analysis.</p>
<p>For fun, look at UNH vs. Dartmouth, a particularly appropriate comparison since they sit cheek-by-jowl in the chart at ##20-21, with the supposedly slim advantage going to the public university at 101-100. So, a virtual tie.</p>
<p>And what does that tie look like? 2009 UNH grads paid just under $44,000 less for their degrees, about 1/3 less that Dartmouth grads. The Dartmouth grads on average are making $9,200/year extra right out of the box, more than 20% better than the UNH crew. If their experience replicates that of the class of 1996 (for whom UNH tuition was slightly less relative to Dartmouth than it is now, about $27,000 difference), when they are 13 years out of college the Dartmouth grads will be making 60%+ more than the UNH grads. </p>
<p>The one-year average salary difference, pre-tax, 13 years out, would be enough to pay for the difference between the 4-year sticker prices. (Forgetting for the moment that few at Dartmouth pay full sticker price.) I understand time value of money, but if the Dartmouth grads start out earning 20% more and hit 60% more in 13 years, even if the gap remains the same or narrows in later years it will have been well worth their while to pay extra for Dartmouth. You would have to get a hell of a return on investing your savings ā that is, if you had the cash to pay Dartmouth but went to UNH instead ā even to get into the ballpark of being better off by going to UNH.</p>
<p>So how does Smart Money suggest, in good conscience, that Dartmouth and UNH are equivalent values?</p>
<p>As long as weāre contemplating flights of fantasy, who can help me calculate the ROI on our Afghanistan adventure? On erecting the Statue of Liberty? Rebuilding the west wall of the Pentagon after 911? Raising a child to age 18?</p>
<p>There are some problems and assumptions with the methodology, such as not accounting for the mix of majors at each school (Georgia Tech = lots of engineering majors), using only tuition (OOS for publics) rather than total cost of attendance, not considering financial aid (which will hurt the OOS publics in the comparison, but help some of the Ivies), and not showing separate listings for IS versus OOS for the publics.</p>
<p>I agree. A college education, while costly, is indeed priceless. People who are going to college hoping to make a living are totally missing the point. Colleges, especially Elite Us are already full of such people and do not want any more for whom the almighty dollar is everything.</p>
<p>If a college education were not helpful in making a living, far fewer people would go to college, as the high costs involved would make it an expensive luxury item that only a very few can afford. This does not mean that helping one make a (better) living is the only reason that someone goes to college.</p>
<p>When the student debt bust hits the fan there will be a major re-examination of the need, purpose and value of college. Too many ācollegesā do not deserve that name.</p>
<p>I just think that assessing colleges by the value of lifetime income is very crass. </p>
<p>If you use that metric some usual suspects will come out on top, like HYPSM. We all know that there are many, many wonderful small LA colleges which provide just as good an education, are just as costly or more, but the average income of graduates is much lower. </p>
<p>It is almost as crass as putting oneās income in oneās online dating profile.</p>
<p>As I read this thread it became apparent that there are very different reasons why someone might elect to go to college. IndianParent has a point of view that has been common for many. On the other hand, I believe huge percentages of students do not share his/her vision. For some, a college degree may be seen as a way to earn money and/or get ahead. At one end of this spectrum we would find the students who are the first generation in their families who will have the opportunity to attend college. At the other end, I personally find it very hard to believe that there is much altruism driving the massive numbers of students wanting to become doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, etc. Money is clearly a goal and, as such, a very meaningful measure.</p>
<p>I think the key question to ask is whether it should be. Clearly there is a consensus on CC that a college education is not vocational training. A LA education is all about opening minds. Where and how did we lose sight of that? Is the almighty dollar everything?</p>
<p>I guess the key question can be boiled down something even simpler, what is wrong with the world outside of CC?</p>
<p>āIf you use that metric some usual suspects will come out on top, like HYPSM.ā</p>
<p>Actually, they wonāt. This issue is well studied. The āsame studentā (from the same family background, etc.) attending HYPSM v. state university comes out ahead at state u (just slightly) unless they are very low-income. The advantage the HYPSM student has is access to family money/connections which they would have had in any case, and would still be the same well-spoken, exciting, intellectually curious student wherever s/he went.</p>
<p>āI guess the key question can be boiled down something even simpler, what is wrong with the world outside of CC?ā</p>
<p>Oh, just about everything - LOL! - letās not go there. (We come here to escape.)</p>