<p>Perhaps this explains the increased emphasis on the fundraising capabilities of university and college presidents. Yes, even at state institutions. I was at a fundraiser for a local community college and I'd guess that they took in about $120K in receipts. It's not a massive amount of money but it goes a long ways at the Community College level. The performer himself has already donated a million for scholarships.</p>
<p>In the future, I think that you'll see more of an emphasis on fundraising for the selection of state university presidents as state budgets contract after getting overextended in the boom years.</p>
<p>Probably so, the university and college presidents will be hired as much for their ability to get donations as they will for administrative abilities.
And alumni organizations will get more aggressive on their donation campaigns. And will be under some serious pressure to use donations for core needs rather than athletics or memorial structures.<br>
As these trends continue it'll be a potential PR disaster for state colleges and universities insofar as they'll have a hard time explaining why such enhanced fund raising is actually needed. It'll be a hard sell to parents who paid unreal tolls for their kids college, or students who are in debt bondage for a large part of their working career because of what their educations cost them to acquire. It would be difficult to explain because of the hellish complexity of the situation. And made even more difficult because at some point just exactly who benefited from the co-opting of higher education and who aided and abetted the development of this unworkable and inequitable system will need to be outed. And that would be politically very troublesome as it would indict some very influential people and institutions and won't be limited to just academia.
However there is now enough economic and social pressures which arose from intended and unintended consequences from the educational funding mire...that it's not going to be too long before such exposes are written. And these will be widely read as opposed to the current paradigm of such exposes being distributed and read by specialists or within academia itself.</p>
<p>One other thing to consider: Higher education in many countries around the world is free for its citizens (paid for by taxes, of course, but nothing extra out of pocket).</p>
<p>Can Americans compete in a global economy where we burden ourselves with such educational debt?</p>
<p>In one of the other debt threads, there was the idea that the debt is worth it if you know that you're going into a field where compensation is near guaranteed. Well, those that have had a few years in the workforce know that nothing is guaranteed unless you have a relative that owns the business.</p>
<p>HONG KONG (MarketWatch) -- Citigroup Inc. plans to lay off as much as 10% of the 65,000 workers in its investment-banking division, with the first round of dismissal notices to be issued as early as Monday, according to a published report.</p>
<p>The New York bank, which employs about 350,000 workers worldwide, will dismiss thousands of workers this week, adding to the 9,000 layoffs that had been issued as of March 31, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing unidentified individuals familiar with the matter. </p>
<p>(CBS Marketwatch)</p>
<p>LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Investment bankers are preparing themselves for an acceleration in job cuts after Goldman Sachs made further cuts at its investment banking division, despite being the best performer in the sector, according to a report in the Financial Times Monday. Goldman is cutting about 10% of the division, which offers advice on deals and corporate fundraising,</p>
<p>rcdmom,
You're quite correct about how many other countries do realize that proper investment in education, including not damning their intelligentsia with impossible debts, is socially and economically beneficial. And quite correct that we cannot compete globally if this predation is allowed to continue.
And as to the rhetorical question whether the US can continue to compete in a global economy whilst burdening our most intelligent and ambitious with debt bondage to any rational and observant person the simple answer is no.
The consequences of the edudebt industry are wide ranging and will have varied and detrimental consequences. On one level for the edudebt industry to absorb such a high percentage of the income of professionals, at the onset on their most productive years, denies that income to more productive arenas of the economy. Another consequence is that our educated people will make the choice to leave the US, or drop out from the economy, because the unreasonable and unceasing demands of the edudebt industry will leave no other reasonable alternative. Granted at this point, there haven't been a exodus of people choosing this alternative but there will be more as the economy worsens. And as noted on other threads, the SL industry has been on a feeding frenzy for about a decade, deriving massive profits from an unsustainable and artificial condition, and its a matter of time before that speculative bubble explodes. Unfortunately when it does the government will save the SL speculators first, as is evident from the recent and massive inflows of government money to 'save access to student loans'. But as a struggling economy worsens and more are unable to pay the rigged demands of the edudebt companies what we will be seeing is a crash worse than the mortgage disaster.
On a more subtle level, one of the more malevolent aspects of this situation is that it will destroy a very essential core of social belief. What we have done is permitted profiteers to literally bind people into often appalling debts. Effectively what we have done is bind people to often impossible debt loads for the use and honing of their own minds. And as increasing amounts of their income are directed to these companies, those afflicted will use that same mind to draw the conclusion that our system has itself betrayed all the promises in which they had believed. And that loss of belief by our intelligent and dedicated people will be incredibly destructive to our society. Allegorically put Horatio Alger and Andy Hardy will die of starvation whilst imprisoned in the coffers of the edudebt financiers.
Many might say that this is an extreme scenario, but it has already begun. In academia, many faculty, have become very discouraged about the equity of the their own system and discouraged about the chances for their students. And that disillusionment correlates closely with the rise of the edudebt industry and its attendant feeding frenzy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The personal expenses of $1500 is way more than any student would ever spend for pocket money, and $800 for transportation is also estimated way high, especially since most freshmen and sophomores living on campus don't even have a car. The $1500 estimate for books & supplies cost can also be trimmed down by simply buying used books, and then selling them back at the end of the term.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>UCLA Mom:</p>
<p>It sounds as though your son was particularly frugal. My son is as well as he is trying to make his pocket money stash of cash last all four years (so he has the option of internships instead of working during the summers) and I am hoping my daughter will be as frugal when she goes off in a year. However, they are the exceptions-- most students would have no problem spending $1500 pocket money. I think many would have trouble keeping it under $1500. I live near the University of Delaware and I see the students out and about in restaurants, bars, stores, shows, cruising around town in their very nice cars (many nicer than anything I own). Living on a budget does not appear to be a concern for many of them. Heck, there are some who spend $1500 on Starbucks alone. My son confirms that there are many big spenders at his school and those of his friends. There are many students who are frugal and do have to watch every penny but I think it is off base to say no student would ever spend $1500. (Although I would agree that few students need to spend more than $1500.)</p>
<p>Transportation costs will vary widely depending on how far away home is. My son is 5-6 hours away and has not had a car his first two years, although he will for the coming year. He has traveled back and forth through a mix of Amtrak, we go down and get him or take him back, getting rides with other students, or taking one of our cars for short periods (like between Thanksgiving and Christmas). The train is $150 - 180 round trip, driving uses up a couple of tanks of gas (so $80 - 120 and going up every day), and even bumming rides means chipping in $15-20 each way. The $800 estimate is a pretty good average -- some will be lower but many will spend that much or more.</p>
<p>Books and supplies depends heavily on the area of study -- most should be able to do it under $1500, unless you are counting a computer in there. My son's books (English and anthropology double major) run $350 - 700 a semester, and that includes buying as many as he can find from online used book sellers. While we do turn around and resell what we can, he ends up keeping about a third of his books, about a third aren't saleable (not in demand, an out-of-date edition, etc.), so only a third can be resold for any significant amounts. </p>
<p>Those estimated expenses do not seem that far off to me. You are just fortunate that your son has good money sense and you live close enough that transportation is not too big a ticket.</p>
<p>I noticed that as well. If Band Mom's son lived in the dorms and paid tuition ("fees"), then according to UCLA's website, just those two expenses alone are $20,432.</p>
<p>I was only addressing the pocket money, transportation, and books & supplies. No idea how they got their total costs down to $15K - maybe there were scholarships or other FA not mentioned.</p>
<p>My son did not live in the dorms, he lived in a fraternity where rooms cost about half as much as the dorms. He did not buy a full meal ticket, instead he made his own sack lunches. I gave him my Costco card to use for food purchases. We live about an hour away, so the Metrolink train costs about 15 bucks for a round trip ticket, he only came home once or twice per quarter. My son's books typically cost him about $250 per quarter, he always bought used books if he could, and sold his books back at the end of the term. Many of his science and engineering books were good for the entire year. He worked a part time job on campus, and always had a summer job as well, which gave him all the spending money he needed without having to ask us for more. I carried him on my health plan. He does not spend a lot of money on clothes.</p>
<p>He has now graduated. And he has zero debt from student loans. He had a small scholarship his Freshman year, but none thereafter. Next year he has a full ride fellowship.</p>
<p>Also, the tuition I paid was for the years 2004 through 2008. The tuition has been rising about ten percent a year, so the $15K costs that I paid would of course be higher for future years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point in my original posting is that parents and their children don't necessarily have to incur as much debt as they think for that private "dream school" ... there may be ways to pay for it that take some creativity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Rcdmom:</p>
<p>It's great that you were able to find a solution that worked for you. However, the financial trade-off you made is not much different than assuming debt. You have given up home equity, an important component in most people's net worth and in their retirement funding, in exchange for no debt (either yours or your daughter's or some combination). Either way, the balance sheet is pretty much the same - either no debt but no home equity or debt but home equity. Of course, this is not an exact balancing - the vagaries of the real estate market and that sweet job benefit on the tuition are big variables. </p>
<p>Additionally, your situation is pretty unusual - not many can or should sell off everything, move cross country, and totally change our lifestyle. Nor could many line up jobs that would make it even doable. Your ability to do this attests both to your own ability to reinvent yourselves and your marketable skills acquired (or honed?) at state schools.</p>
<p>Do you see this change as permanent for you or do you envision your city living as just until your D graduates and goes out on her own?</p>
<p>K9Leader, I thought exactly the same thing. Giving up home equity to avoid debt may have worked, but in the end, it's a big piece of the retirement funding that is now gone. It's one solution that this family can handle because the student is an only child & good jobs were available across the country. </p>
<p>It kind of reminded me of that old Steve Martin routine, How To Make a Million Dollars & Not Pay Taxes. --- "First, get a million dollars....." Families with other kids, elderly parents to care for, less flexible job opportunities, etc., etc., etc. could never use this solution.</p>
<p>In this particular case, selling the home was a wise move, college funding or no college funding. The price of houses does not always go up in an intermediate timeframe. In my area, prices dropped thirty to fifty percent in the previous recession. Selling 10% off the top allows you to buy when prices are supported by the average income and/or average rents.</p>
<p>I agree that this kind of change is available to only a few but it appears to be a big win for the family involved. They can sock away their cash from equity in a safe investment while the housing market continues to fall. I certainly don't see a recovery in 2008 and 2009 is a stretch. I think that home prices are still crazy relative to incomes in California.</p>
<p>K9Leader, StickerShock, BCEagle91: Housing prices in our area of Calif. were already on the downturn, and we actually got out just in time to save a decent amount of profit (although if we had sold a year before, we probably would have netted another $100K).</p>
<p>To make a long story even longer :-), here is what we did. When we moved to NYC, we bought a tiny and relatively inexpensive (under $200K) co-op in the Bronx. It was much cheaper on a monthly basis (by at least half) than renting an apt. anywhere in Manhattan. </p>
<p>Because we have this great benefit where Columbia Univ. (our employer) is paying our daughter's NYU tuition, we now had additional money freed up from the sale of our home in Calif.--so we used some of it to buy an investment property in Paris. It will be rented to vacationers, and we will use it 2 weeks/year.</p>
<p>So now, we own 2 properties, both in cities with considerable home-value appreciation possibilities. The NYC area seems to be immune to the housing downturn. And even if it isn't completely, we are still saving money by not renting. Paris has seen consistent real estate appreciation for the past 15 years or more and our money is now invested in Euros.</p>
<p>To answer a couple of other questions: We are both writers, so yes, our job opportunities can be more flexible (albeit less lucrative) than other people's. But it was scary to move across the country without jobs waiting for us.</p>
<p>Is this a permanent change? Yes. Our ultimate goal is to move to Europe and probably retire there. To put it succinctly, we are nervous about growing old in the U.S. and want a better safety net. So moving over there is our next challenge once our daughter graduates from NYU. </p>
<p>It might be interesting to know what other employers have that nice benefit of covering children's college tuition. I know that many universities and colleges cover tuition at the home institution. I also know that for people who rise up in the management hierarchy, the benefit extends to other institutions. But I didn't know that anything like the Columbia benefit existed. Talk about a sweet recruiting tool, especially for those with kids in high school where there's a reasonable chance the benefit will still be there when your kids finish high school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
be sure to bring your own air conditioner
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How true! It was shameful how France neglected senior citizens who died in great numbers because nobody cared about their well being during heat waves. Watch out for the rioting, as well.</p>
<p>Columbia covers private K-12 and undergraduate tuition. They used to cover graduate school, but no longer.</p>
<p>I know Johns Hopkins has the same tuition benefit: for each parent employed, they will pay 50 percent of your child's tuition anywhere they attend. </p>
<p>At Columbia, you have to be an "officer" to receive this benefit, but that category covers the majority of skilled workers. The best thing is, it's called a scholarship so there is no tax.</p>
<p>(The reason why many people died in the European heatwave is because, similar to NYC, most apartments face one direction and do not have cross-ventilation. It usually doesn't get that hot in Paris, thankfully--not nearly as warm as NYC.)</p>
<p>"Our ultimate goal is to move to Europe and probably retire there. To put it succinctly, we are nervous about growing old in the U.S. and want a better safety net.' Rcdmom its very likely an increasing number of people will chose that alternative. </p>
<p>For those who did have the misfortune to graduate with high ticket education and loans, or had a smaller amount blown up by fees and enhancements their safety net was ripped apart. And ripped apart several years ago by special interest lobbying by the edudebt industry. Unique to all other forms of debt, social security payments and such as state disabilities can and have been seized by these companies. And there is no remedy because the conventional protections relating to consumers rights and debt have been shredded within the SL context.
And there are other tricks such as the denial of professional licenses for outstanding student loans. These policies have been proposed and in some cases have actually been sweet hearted by some state policies...which essentially shred the social safety nets for those who have made the mistake of educating themselves in the professions. They won't be able to apply that profession for their own stability or to pay their inflated debts. </p>
<p>Some of my generation who have obtained advanced degrees have elected to leave the US because of these conditions. They no longer perceive the US as a place wherein their educations can be applied without having the costs of that education marginalize them or the unreal harassment which government policies have granted to the edudebt cabal makes a stable life impossible. Recently and to the detriment of the common good a lawyer who served with distinction for a victim rights organization has elected to make that decision and has left the US. </p>
<p>In my case I have taught outside the US, and if I take another such posting I don't think I'll return to the US again. For the simple reason that safety nets and legal rights seem to have been so compromised that it seems to be better to be elsewhere.</p>
<p>Going to a top 50 university with a debt of 6000 per year for room/food (~24000 total debt) vs. going to a third tier - but growing - university without having to be indebted. I also plan on going on some kind of grad school (bus, med, law) after undergrad...</p>