To me this is a “so what.” Yes my 23 yos in their first apartments no longer live the lifestyle they grew up with. So? They’ll get there one day.
edit: wrong context!
“Hmm…I guess for DS’s GF, her living environment is upgraded after graduated, but the life style is downgraded – due to very long work hours. But this is just my speculation only because we rarely hear much about it. (We have a call every other week AT MOST and we do not talk much about his GF other than just asking “Is she or are you two OK toward the end of our call with DS?”)”
Well, why would you really talk about her? It’s his business. You’ve not even met her. She’s not yours to talk about, beyond a friendly “how is she?”
This is the extent of the conversation I have with my S about his gf. " How’s J doing?" “Great, thanks.” What more is there for me to ask about or talk about? Her life isn’t my business. And your son’s GF’s life isn’t your business either beyond a friendly inquiry.
And her socioeconomic status and standard of living aren’t my business, either. I know what her parent does for a living and I can guess that she is not as well-to-do as we are. Oh well. It’s not my job to speculate on any of this. You really are way too enmeshed in your son’s relationship.
Please note this information (50 best colleges) has no credibility whatsoever. I have been reading Business Insider for years, and unfortunately the writers are paid for controversy and whenever you read this drivel, they obtain a few cents. If you are a long time reader, you will note the “best places to live”, “the best college with most attractive students”, “the best barbecue joints in the country”, “top of the line sandwiches for each state”, need I say more.
This BI article is useless. Starting salaries and self-reported with major sampling error. Instead look at department of education scorecard based on TAX RETURNS!! Much harder to hide money from the IRS, than whatever lame schmuck goes to payscale and inputs their college and starting salary. Link to Ny times article aggregating the data is here. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/upshot/gaps-in-alumni-earnings-stand-out-in-release-of-college-data.html?_r=0
^
Those data are just for students who had federal loans.
^ @2018dad, I believe the federal College Scorecard data on incomes represents all students who received any form of federal financial aid, including work/study, Pell grants, and either subsidized or unsubsidized federal student loans. That’s a lot of students: 71% of students at private non-profit 4-year colleges and 64% of students at public 4-year colleges and universities, according to NCES. It’s possible that the incomes of college grads who didn’t take out loans would skew higher (or lower) than those who did take out loans, but 60-70% is a large enough sample size that the earnings of that group should tell us something about the earnings of graduates of a particular college in general. Because of the larger sample size and the fact that the federal data comes directly from income tax returns, the College Scorecard data is much more reliable that what’s reported on payscale.com, which represents unverified reports by tiny numbers of self-selected reporting individuals. The College Scorecard data would be least reliable for a handful of wealthy institutions like Harvard where only 10% of students receive Pell grants and only 3% take out federal loans.
@bclintonk. I agree with everything you said except the last part. I went to Harvard and about 60-70% of students, depending on the year, get financial aid of which the majority need to apply for federal student loans as part of a condition to receiving university grants or low interest/zero-interest loans. So, yes my numbers, as well as most of my classmates, would have been in the College Scorecard data, and I can say that anecdotally, for Harvard and what the NY times reported from data of men and women enrolled in 2001-2002, that it is pretty spot on. My graduating debt was only a couple thousand dollars (what scorecard says is average) despite the very high sticker price. Is the database perfect? Nothing is. But for the purpose of people interested in the topic of this discussion forum, I think it is the best available source of information right now.
^ @Kilbeez012, I have no reason to question your experience at Harvard, but I’m having some difficulty squaring what you describe as Harvard’s policy with what the federal College Scorecard itself says, which is that only 3% of Harvard students take out federal student loans.
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?166027-Harvard-University
(under “Financial Aid & Debt”)
Can you reconcile this apparent discrepancy?
So true… Which accounts for the difficulty in transitioning back to civilian life…
@bclintonk. So, I can explain the differences between my experience and the current Harvard setup. The 3% number is accurate for CURRENT students, but that does not mean that the EARNINGS data – which by definition has to be non-current students – represented a larger portion of the Harvard class in 2000’s (i.e. graduated students). Currently 70% of students get financial aid, but most get a big Harvard Scholarship based on need (essentially a university grant), and have the option to get Federal aid to make up their personal and student/work contribution. The reason for this difference between my experience and the current one is several fold. (1) there has been a transition over the past decade to zero or significantly reduced parental contributions for families earning under a certain amount. (2) prioritizing the Harvard Scholarship (aka university grant) over taking out any loans – federal or private (so you could have a financial aid package have a big grant, and zero loans in it). This is all part of making Harvard accessible to deserving outstanding students regardless of ability to pay. That being said, if the worst socieconomically off Harvard students are making 120K+ 10 years after graduation, that is a pretty good outcome.
The difference seems to be - did the Scorecard pull the tax data of all those who filed FAFSA or only those who eventually borrowed or received grants from the government? I think whoever is applying for FA, FAFSA is mandatory, in addition to CSS profile although many of them end up not receiving/borrowing any from the government. A question for Mr Ted Mitchell I guess.
To be clear, the $126 K salary figure for Harvard grads 10 years out comes from payscale.com, based on a non-scientific collection of a small number (118, to be exact) of unverified self-reported salaries of Harvard alums (or people claiming to be Harvard alums) who voluntarily elect to report that information on payscale.com’s website. That’s hugely unreliable, IMHO, The federal College Scorecard data, based on actual tax returns of Harvard alums who received federal financial aid, say that the average Harvard grad made $82,700 10 years out. That’s still a pretty handsome salary, but a far cry from $126 K.
This is by no means the only discrepancy between salary figures reported on payscale.com and those reported on the federal College Scorecard. In an article in today’s New York Times, columnist James B. Stewart asked economists at the Brookings Institution to create a “value added index” for him, to show which colleges added the most value (as measured in salaries), controlling for characteristics of the incoming students (e.g., test scores) and choice of major. That exercise turned up Marietta College, an undistinguished LAC in Marietta, Ohio, as one of the top “value-added” colleges. Who’d a thunk it, right? Well, it turns out the Brookings economists were using payscale.com’s salary figures, showing an average salary of $89,300 for Marietta College graduates 10 years out. But if you drill into the payscale.com data, you’ll see that figure was based on exactly 5 self-reported salaries. The federal College Scorecard data say the average Marietta College grad made $42,600 10 years out, less than half the figure reported on payscale.com, which would place Marietta nowhere near the top “value-added” colleges. James B. Stewart and the Brookings economists should be ashamed of themselves for relying on such obviously unreliable “data,” which is no more than a small and unrepresentative collection of unverified anecdotes. They’re old enough to know better.
The small sample sizes for each college is likely why Payscale does not stratify many of its reports by college and major. Actually, Payscale may be slightly more useful when comparing post-graduation pay levels associated with majors (not colleges), due to what are likely much larger sample sizes.
Some posts I liked starting with #31 by Pizzagirl when I caught up with this thread again. We became 1%ers I think- after long hours and living below our means. Yup- no connections for doctor’s kids. Gifted kid happened to like math/comp sci and ended up with jobs that pay well straight out of college (stimulating enough so he doesn’t want grad school yet, sigh) so he can afford the same standard of living he grew up with. Of course, kid is as frugal (or more so) than his parents and didn’t grow up with everything. Parental values differ based on professions I believe- people in business are there to make money (for the company if not themselves) while for many in other professions that may not be the focus. We sorted out wants and needs early on, plus what something is worth instead of just affordability.
@bclintonk k. Actually, I DO MEAN the college scorecard numbers for 10 years out. Look again at the table in the NY Times article (see below). It is not easy to see directly from scorecard 10 years out, without analyzing the raw tables. They only show all comers at 87.2K. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/upshot/gaps-in-alumni-earnings-stand-out-in-release-of-college-data.html?_r=1. Somebody already did that for you. Harvard males that took out federal loans make over 160K on average 10 years out, women 112K.
Both the Scorecard website and the NYT table are for 10 years out. The difference is Scorecard is reporting median earnings, and the NYT table is reporting mean earnings. The large difference between the two probably relates to a few students who are reporting extremely large earnings, leading to a non-normal distribution. Also note that 11% of students were not included in either the mean or median due to not actively working.
I think median is a more relevant measure for typical earnings, but that is not the most misleading part of the article. The biggest problem I see is focusing on women reporting lower salaries than men without mentioning differences in majors and fields of studies. Men are more likely than women to pursue most higher salary fields, particularly technology, so I’d expect women to average lower salaries at nearly any college that does not control gender distribution in majors.
I have been reading BI for many years, and you must understand that the author is getting a very small amount of money to come up with you reading his article. Credibility has nothing to do with this article, its the number of hits, if you follow BI, than you will know that the articles are controversial enough to pique your curiosity. How many have you looked at this list based upon your alma mater or perhaps the school that your child is currently attending. If you have been a long term reader of BI, you will notice every year, the “Best Restaurants in the US”, “The Best Sandwiches in every State”, and of course “The Smartest Students in College”. Of course my favorite is the top demand for jobs in this country with dental hygienist topping the list.