• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

A college degree is a lousy investment

We're going through the process right now with my son and we told him he could apply to out of state schools but he would have to have a really compelling case of why they offer something different from his in-state options before we'd ever send him to one.
 
I've been told that Georgia will offer "in state tuition" to students from contiguous states. Not sure if that is true or not. My wife told me that regarding our high school age son, but I didn't care enough at the time to look it up.

Re the Colorado schools, I'd tell my son that college is to prepare you for your future, not be a prolonged vacation. If you have the means to finance a summer for him there, then do it. But unless he develops an interest in mining, minerals, or geology, I'd steer him toward a NC public school for his education.

What about skiing ?
 
This is news to me. I've still got many years of states getting smarter before I potentially try gaming the system - but do they consider 529 funds "out of state" sources?

Kansas and Kentucky (where my daughter went) did not. YMMV.
 
We're going through the process right now with my son and we told him he could apply to out of state schools but he would have to have a really compelling case of why they offer something different from his in-state options before we'd ever send him to one.

Our son wants to get away and only applied in state to Wake and Davidson (he has expensive tastes).

I totally agree with the sentiment of this post but we really want him to experience something different in terms of geography. I suspect if he gets in, he'll end up at Wake which isn't all that different from where we live though he may go to Miami which has the programs he's interested in. Schools do throw a lot of cash at students these days. What did Kramer used to say? Only suckers pay retail? Leave it to my kid to make me a sucker. I do admit having him at Wake vs. Boston/Miami is an attractive option (for his mom). Should know in the next few weeks.
 
Our youngest applied to good schools in Colorado, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Got into all but going to App. Given the choice between state school and a vehicle or private school and no vehicle also helps them think through the options with better clarity. Our oldest is already at App and loves every minute there, even this year.
 
We loved touring at App. I can see why people like it there. Bet climbing those hills, stairs in icy snow gets old quick though.
 
Our son wants to get away and only applied in state to Wake and Davidson (he has expensive tastes).

I totally agree with the sentiment of this post but we really want him to experience something different in terms of geography. I suspect if he gets in, he'll end up at Wake which isn't all that different from where we live though he may go to Miami which has the programs he's interested in. Schools do throw a lot of cash at students these days. What did Kramer used to say? Only suckers pay retail? Leave it to my kid to make me a sucker. I do admit having him at Wake vs. Boston/Miami is an attractive option (for his mom). Should know in the next few weeks.

We really encouraged our kids to go away to college. Meet different kinds of people, etc. And since in state tuition in CA is pretty damn high, plus housing in places like the Bay Area, LA or SD is crazy, it was about the same cost for them to go out of state. Not the case for many of you in SC/NC, I know, so the financial advantage of staying in state is pretty attractive.
 
The problem is that a college degree used to be a symbol of achievement and everybody wanted one and you needed one to make that jump from pretty good job to really great job.

Then the government decided to help support that dream and made college attainable for those for whom it wasn't previously. Then colleges realized that they could raise tuition and people would keep going and paying because it was so easy to get loan money.

I've got friends from law school that are 250K in debt right now.

This pretty much nails it.
 
No. Because that argument suggests the solution is to reserve the benefits of a college degree for only those who can afford it.
 
No. Because that argument suggests the solution is to reserve the benefits of a college degree for only those who can afford it.

Not necessarily. It suggests colleges have taken advantage by raising the costs to obtain a college education at rates that vastly outstrip the rise in costs of other services in society in some part because the government has made the availability of debt rise dramatically. Colleges would adjust by restraining their operating costs if the amount of available debt wasn't so high. That doesn't mean fewer kids have to go to college.
 
Based on your explanation, how do more kids go to college? Your story blames the government for helping low income kids and assumes tuition and costs only go up because of loans.

You’re only telling part of the story by leaving out inequality and scholarships.

Colleges have adjusted to extreme income and wealth inequality in a global education market. They have a sticker price set by demand among the wealthiest people and then offer a secret lower price people who aren’t as wealthy can get by going through the process and being a competitive candidate.

Either way, the problem in terms of student loan debt isn’t elite colleges and universities as much as its state schools that are being starved of funding at the state level and predatory for profit colleges which both target lower income students.
 
Based on your explanation, how do more kids go to college? Your story blames the government for helping low income kids and assumes tuition and costs only go up because of loans.

You’re only telling part of the story by leaving out inequality and scholarships.

Colleges have adjusted to extreme income and wealth inequality in a global education market. They have a sticker price set by demand among the wealthiest people and then offer a secret lower price people who aren’t as wealthy can get by going through the process and being a competitive candidate.

Either way, the problem in terms of student loan debt isn’t elite colleges and universities as much as its state schools that are being starved of funding at the state level and predatory for profit colleges which both target lower income students.

And yet somehow African American graduates average 25K more debt than White students and, even more telling, four years after graduation about half of those African American students end up with at least 12.5% more debt than when they graduated.

The fact remains that college costs have long risen way more rapidly than the CPI increase and even more rapidly than medical expenses. Inflation adjusted significant sources of annual Federal and State aid that is not grounded in debt actually increased 13.1% between 2007 and 2017. This included general state assistance to state universities, research funding from both states and the Feds and non-debt sources of tuition for students. You are correct that state general aid did decrease during those 11 years. But (again inflation adjusted) it was by 3.2%.

Total student debt has grown from about 350B in 2004 to over 1.7T in the Fall of last year. That's an insane increase given the total number of students enrolled in college increased just 12% over the same time frame. Of course the above numbers include people in college and who have graduated, but we had loads of college grads in 2004 as well. Their debts were just much lower on average than those of students today.

On only an anecdotal level I find your statement about colleges pilfering the rich to pay for the poor just way off. My daughter was pretty average HS student with good but not great test scores. She was not eligible for any need based aid. She received free money that ranged from just over $5K a year to tens of thousands a year from the schools to which she was accepted. The tens of thousands per year offers came from both public and private universities and included schools where she was punching above her weight and places where she was in frame to be admitted. Just this past week she received a completely unsolicited offer to transfer with significant grants from a school she rejected last Spring. Colleges clearly have aid to dole out for all sorts of students and are not just handing it out to the poor.

So, yes, this is a complex story. And colleges and universities are, again, in part to blame for this mess.
 
Now sure why you said “yet somehow” while quoting my post that explained how.

Your anecdote doesn’t really counter my post either. Blaming the federal government for having a student loan program is a limited understanding of the problem and why it exists. Stopping loans isn’t going to curb rising college costs. It would actually give more power to private lenders.
 
No. Because that argument suggests the solution is to reserve the benefits of a college degree for only those who can afford it.

Admittedly, I did not complete my thought. My point was that by promoting trades, apprenticeships, and jobs training we can reduce the demand for worthless degrees at overpriced universities. My Uber driver on Thursday is $300K in debt because of a law degree at a soon to be unaccredited law school.

I played football with plenty of guys that started working in various trades right after high school. By the time I finished law school they all owned their own homes and had families. At this point they’re starting to take over the businesses they worked at all with 0 debt.
 
Now sure why you said “yet somehow” while quoting my post that explained how.

Your anecdote doesn’t really counter my post either. Blaming the federal government for having a student loan program is a limited understanding of the problem and why it exists. Stopping loans isn’t going to curb rising college costs. It would actually give more power to private lenders.

The yet somehow is noting that the tuition pilfering the rich schtick is obviously still leaving a group more likely to be poor with gobs more debt.

No anecdote can counter macro facts. That's why it's an anecdote. But you also have not posted any macro facts.

More broadly your storyline about colleges all 'pilfering the rich' to help the poor absent you providing actual facts doesn't seem to hold up logically. If you can provide actual facts, great. Otherwise all I see are some pretty obvious holes in the logic. For starters, students more prone to be poor still end up graduating with a ton more debt a typical student (who would still likely need some debt). If colleges were really magnanimous about helping the poor they'd up the free aid to keep the debt ratios at their individual schools more equal. And then there's the simple fact that college admissions is obviously a competitive game for colleges. Most students have multiple choices about where they can attend college. And the colleges don't know where else each student is applying and therefore cannot engage in any collaboration on how much tuition reduction to offer each student. In turn my daughter's storyline is repeated tens of thousands of times each year. Some schools rejected her. All the schools that accepted her cut her tuition despite her not being a needs based student. And some of the schools that accepted her reduced her cost burden by massive amounts. This despite her being an average at best applicant per their own published metrics.

I'm not so dumb as to understand the "why" behind this phenomena. I'd imagine there are at least some colleges that keep tabs on how much more money someone who has been admitted and has no needs requirements are likely to donate to the school in the years after they graduate.

So does anyone really pay full boat. And, if not, why does the debt burden continue to mushroom year after year after year? You claim it's because schools don't have the money they need to operate. Somehow I refuse to believe the cost to educate a student has to massively outstrip the cost of living increase by margins that exceed all sorts of other services when measured in constant dollars over the last 40 plus years. I'm willing to have my mind changed. But it requires actual data.
 
Back
Top