You are right, your success is not based entirely on the school you went to, but having a degree from a top school does give you an edge in that first job search. I know that my Berkeley degree opened a lot of doors for me because in one company where I was hired the VP told me that they would throw away resumes from even San Jose State University.
Also I'd like to clarify that amongst the schools you listed " University of California – Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, and the New York University" only the University of California - Berkeley is a public institution. All the rest are private universities with fairly high tuitions just like the Ivies you listed in your first paragraph. They are all good schools, though.
The words Ivy League school connote a certain prestige among people, not just in the US but in the global community as well. After all, who wouldn’t want to receive a diploma from any of the eight places of higher learning comprising the so-called Ivy League—Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard , Penn, Princeton, and Yale.
In any survey of the top universities of the world, the University of California – Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, and the New York University are usually found at the top of the list (side by side with some of the Ivy League schools). Yes, these schools are state schools or state universities. Yes, these schools have outstanding programs which are considered the best in the field.
Ask yourself: is prestige really important? Would the place where I got my diploma matter in the real world? Or, would the experience I will be getting from the top state schools in the country far outweigh the advantages concerning the prestige of an Ivy League diploma?
There is a much easier way to know what is in season. Just go to the market and see what is the cheapest and what is filled to the top in the stands.
If there is a lot of it everywhere and it is cheap it must be in season.
First let me say - yes one can often find themselves in a situation where they are right in the middle and don't qualify for any significant aid. I found that this was the case due to my race (white) and means (middle class).
My only advice would be to consider how you anticipate your years after graduation. If you expect to work in an industry where a 4 year degree is all you need it probably makes sense to go into debt and go to a school that is respected in that industry. This was my situation as I am an engineer. However, if you need to get an advanced degree I would suggest that you go to a good instate public school.
What college recruiters will never tell a candidate is:
a) if your program/degree will be insufficient to attain employment. This is really unfortunate but is just they way it is for so many fields
b) when applying for a masters program the choice of your undergraduate degree is not significant
by shutting off the power strip it will not reduce phantom power. The power strip will still be drawing power and wasting it. use a meter and check it out
@christopher - if you're on your own, you need to study your school's residency and financial aid rules. Basically, you have to legitimately become an independent person, on paper, and the financial aid should become available. If it doesn't maybe you should change schools. Try UC Berkeley. Go Bears.
If attending the best school you can get into were a right, then it'd be "unfair" to have to foregoe MIT for lack of money. The system we have, of private universities, doesn't afford us that right. MIT is market-based education, and they aren't obligated to support their students any more than they deem necessary to get the student population they think they need.
A public school like UC Berkeley (or, more correctly, the entire UC system) is an entitlement. It was founded to educate the 12% most qualified high school grads in the state. To this end, we, as residents, have a right to be there if we qualify. We can even demand that tuition be lowered back to the 1960s price of $0.00 for residents. (Then, the issue of parental contribution would be less of a factor, as some here have complained.)
Just to remind everyone - market-advocate Republicans want to reduce public education, and increase private education. They believe that, fundamentally, attendance at the university should be based on the university's demand for students. In contrast, advocates for public education think, fundamentally, that attendance should be determined by the public's demand for education.
My financial aid was based on my dad's income, and since he made a high-ish salary, he was expected to make a huge contribution and I got bunk for financial aid.
However, that didn't take into account the massive medical bills he was paying off for himself and my youngest brother, and quite honestly very poor financial decisions in the past.
While those decisions were his fault, they weren't mine, and I was really upset. Now, of course, I get to be reminded of the situation every month when I pay my student loan bill...
I went to the school I wanted to go to. It was a government selective (for smart people) school. So fees were just $200/year and I got great education and finished in the top 6% of my state.
I was happy. The funny thing is I didn't ever go to university because I wanted to be a pastor/entrepreneur
Xin: You also free up quite a bit of income because you will have no rent or mortgage.
I like to think of it as freeing up cash flow. You're reducing your requirement for month-to-month living.
As to Ryan McLean (#6) (Rent money is dead money). NO, it's not dead, you have to spend money to have a place to live, even when you "own outright". The numbers are highly variable and do not support your thesis. Delving in to the blogosphere and asking the regular writers will confirm my point. Renting is a low-risk and efficient method of mitigating this cost of living.
Fred Lee (#18) nails it: ...money spent on rent is money gone, but the hidden costs of home ownership are huge,.... In fact, I'd go as far as to say there are no "hidden" costs to home ownership, just costs that people refuse to accept as part of the package.
Ever hear a home-owner complain about not having money because of "such-and-such" a home repair? (i.e.: the hot water tank needed replacement, the shingles needed fixing) The truth is, that hot water tank was going to need replacement, it was just a matter of when. Not having money in the bank when it goes just shows a lack of foresight and financial planning.
But honestly, it's the common disease. People are equally bad about tracking ther cost of their cars, the general populace has simply proven "very bad at math" when it comes to seeing the "big picture" on financial decisions. It's easy to think that renting = "paying someone else's mortgage", but this is just a small part of the picture and grossly inaccurate.
Back to the point. At best, home ownership is a highly personal decision filled with risks that must be considered. Paying for a house in cash is equally personal and a really good case can be made either way. Thank you Xin for providing a neutral view.
I remember my first week of scout camp, and the withdraw symptoms from my beloved PlayStation. Well, it wasn't that bad.
Here's another great thing to keep most kids busy, at camp or otherwise: making lanyards with boondoggle. Most camps have this available at the camp store, and there's plenty of people who know how to do it and can teach. I made a ton of these at camp when I was a younger scout--great way to pass the time.
Gates VP, Thank you for your comment from a Canadian point of view. I'd like to clarify that I wasn't the one that wanted to go to MIT and I didn't feel screwed by them. My best friend was the one that went to MIT after going to Berkeley for undergraduate and I felt that she was screwed by the financial aid system. She ended up living at home for all four years and her parents paid for the tuition at Berkeley, which came out to about $20000 for all four years. Personally I was quite happy with Berkeley. I got in early and it was close to home. My parents were also happy with it because it is one of the best public schools in the nation.
I have heard of Elizabeth Warren and I heard her speak on the two income trap. Basically she wrote a book that said the most bankruptcies in America come from two income families with children because costs are going up and taxes aren't advantageous to two incomes. It's pretty disturbing actually. The video you linked is pretty good. I am watching it.
Mandatory work-world references (especially for those, like Philip, involved with computers): Mythical Man-Month, Peopleware.
I love this quote from the comments: Having enough savings to get you through a long job search and medical insurance separate from your job would be highly useful but most don't have that.
I'd like to extend the thought and state that "mobility mentality" and the cost of mobility are almost forgotten factors in the way people design their lives. The problem isn't just paying the mortgage, it's having to work close to the house on which I'm paying the mortgage.
Ever met anyone who turned down a job for lack of similar jobs nearby?
Philip, I'd love to see a follow-up talking about ways to identify and resolve work-level "mopping" behavior. Stuff off the top of my head:
- Don't "make work", there should already be enough work: identify and prioritize
- Couple delegation with empowerment
- Generate "deliverables" not "desirables"
- Know your numbers (revenue vs. your salary)
I think the concept of "turning off the tap" = "solving problems" is a great analogy for the work-world.
...I was under the impression that financial aid was largely award based on the previous years income tax filings. Yes? No?
I know that this previous year, I claimed myself on income tax, rather than being a dependent on my parents. Would claiming yourself on income taxes work better for poor students who get little parental help?
As far as the original post, as someone who went to a private 4 year school for his undergrad, I would say it's not all it's cracked up to be. That said, while my experience was not amazing, I certainly received a large amount of free money and a quality education. Drake University gave me $7,500/year to simply exist (and stay above a 2.5GPA). They paid me another 4k to play my guitar (music major), and I received a sizable amount of government grants each year. In all, I ended 4 years at a 30k/year school with $27,000 in student debt. I wish it was lower, but I am certainly luck to have escaped with so little--it would have been more expensive to go to a state school for me.
I would encourage new HS grads and parents to look into smaller, lesser known private universities. Often times they offer a lot of money. My education was top notch, but I did not completely fall in love with the vibe and fell of the campus. I did, however, feel that the college was trying to charge me for every little thing. Maybe that's the trade off.
Also, its worth noting that there's a lot of money available in most communities. My hometown sponsored thousands of dollars in scholarships each year. I took the time to apply for everyone I could and ended up getting around 5k for my freshman year of school. I hated filling out the applications, though.
When I filed my first FAFSA, my parents and I estimated our income (pretty well), but we were asked to submit the final documentation to the school I was to attend. Between the two events my mother lost her job (she is a teacher and unit allocations went down--last hired, first fired). When we filed with our corrected 1040 and enclosed the letter from the school district saying she was not hired back due to budget cuts, my Expected Family Contribution went up! It ended up being more than her entire (no longer applicable) salary. Funny story, but there was no way my parents could pay over 3/8 of their (pre-job loss) income for my education. I ended up transferring to a cheaper school midway through and paying my own way while working with a little help from them. I think it was the correct way for me--but I still have my acceptance letters from MIT and Yale in a drawer somewhere.
Xin: I fear that the middle class population is shrinking in America for the reason that it is the group of people that seems to pay for everything and never benefit from many of the social programs, but that may be another post entirely.
Yes you are correct. More than just being "the group that pays for everything", the US middle class has constantly absorbed more and more risk into their lifestyles over the last 30 years. For more details with lots of facts, please see this Elizabeth Warren video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
CanadianGirl has a positive story, but that's because she lives in Canada. Canada has three big things going it's way:
1. more government funding
2. no "ivy league"
3. primarily commuter schools
Most schools in Canada are sufficient for most degrees. And Canadians in general just accept this principle. Also, any Canadian willing to "put in the hours" at University will graduate with little or modest debt.
This whole concept of graduating with 50k in student debt is alien to most Canadians because their degree simply didn't cost that much. With books and gear, my degree was about 20k (1998-2002), my wife's was < 25k (2002-2007, she even blew a year). We both graduated without student loans and debt-free. I had savings, but my wife paid for everything out-of-pocket. She lived at home, bussed to school and worked part-time during the school year with some better-paid summer student work.
The "average" Canadian University student lives at home and buses / carpools to school. They work part-time and hold down summer jobs. We still get the odd "middle-class" syndrome as you describe above with respect to government-backed loans, but school is simply not as prohibitively expensive.
BTW, commuting to school and living at home is a huge factor in saving money. The US students I've spoken with are spending more than half of their "tuition" on food and housing. Not only is the cost of classes more expensive (estimates I've seen range from 1.5 to 2 times), but then you "have" to live on campus in some places.
At the end of the day, the US system is simlpy broken. (I'm not going to preach the wonder of the Canadian school system, it has its own issues) The crux of the US problem is the concept that schools are more important than students. Consumers are blindly fighting to get into "the best schools" instead of making the value decision of how good these schools actually are. Yes, the school does matter, but dedication and passion transcend schools.
Xin, you may feel "screwed" by MIT, but maybe it's just as important to be humble and accept that MIT wasn't really knocking at your door either.
The best thing about card games -- interacting with family and friends.
When my family gets together, we always play cards. Our favorite is a progressive form of rummy called Shang-hi.
It goes like this:
Shuffle together 2 decks of cards, including all four jokers (Jokers are wild).
Deal 11 cards to each player (at least three; it gets precarious with more than 6).
Each round you are trying to a get a different combination of cards:
1) 2 sets of three cards of the same value (may be of any suit) for 6 cards total
2) 1 set and 1 run (four cards of the same suit in order) (7 cards)
3) 2 runs (8 cards)
4) 3 sets (9 cards)
5) 2 sets and 1 run (10 cards)
6) 1 set and 2 runs (11 cards)
7) 3 runs (12 cards)
As you can tell the seventh hand is impossible without this rule -- The "May I."
At any time in the game, in any hand, a player may "May I." If someone discards a card you want, "May I" it. If no one ahead of you wants the card, you can pick it up and take an additional card off the top of the draw pile (for a total of two cards). You can do this 3 times in a hand (no more than 17 cards per person).
After you lay down your meld (whatever you're going for in that hand), you can play other cards in your hand on other people who have also laid down. The goal is to get rid of all your cards first.
After one person goes up, everyone else counts their points:
1-7 -- 5 points
8-King -- 10 points
Ace - 20 points
Joker - 50 points.
After all seven rounds, the person with the lowest score wins.
The game is simple, but it gets cutthroat (and fun!) as people try to predicate what others are holding and steal "May I's." We've been playing this game for more than 30 years (I've been playing for about 10) and have yet to get tired of it.
I went to a public university for free...
Louisiana has a great program that provides free tuition to all of its high school graduates if they get a certain GPA, a certain ACT score and a certain number of credits in high school, including core credits. Depending on how high were scores/grades were, you can even qualify for an additional stipend each semester. I was at the top of the group and got $800 in cash along with tuition. Outside scholarships (one for an essay I wrote, one for being the child of an active Knight of Columbus) paid my fees and books. A student worker job and my parents paid for my other expenses. (My parents contributed less than $500 a month to my expenses from 1999-2003)
In short, I got a great education at a public school with an excellent program in what I wanted to study (journalism) and graduated with no debt. Maybe my public education meant that I didn't get paid as well in the beginning of career as my peers who graduated from more prestigious universities, but since I've never had to pay off school debt, I feel like I'm ahead. Now that I have five years of experience, my pay has equalized compared to others from schools with bigger names.
I just don't know how to summarize the situation other than "unfair". At that time I was only 17, and I honestly thought that it was unfair that my best friend had to give up MIT because of money.
Anyway, right now I still think that the way financial aid is determined is pretty flawed and punishes the middle class. Basically, if your parents have assets or income they are expected to pony up even if your parents may need that money for their retirement and living expenses. As you said, college costs are also growing faster than inflation so wages are not keeping up.
Also, like several people have said, their parents didn't feel obligated to pay so they had to take up huge loans because the schools think your parents are supposed to pay. If that's not unfair then I'm not sure what is fair.
I fear that the middle class population is shrinking in America for the reason that it is the group of people that seems to pay for everything and never benefit from many of the social programs, but that may be another post entirely.
Milehimama, as mentioned by other commenters already, financial aid determinations do not take into account the willingness of parents to pay. My own financial need was calculated to be lower because of my father's assets even though I paid for all of my own costs. Because I was determined to graduate debt-free, I chose to forgo the more expensive Ivy League universities and instead went to a state school. I also took some semesters off to work and earn enough money for tuition.
Xin, your post does highlight the growing concerns I have about higher education costs in the US. It seems as if many college-aged middle-class Americans are almost forced to choose between furthering their education or starting their lives. The universities in my area have raised tuition about 10% nearly every year for the past several years. That far outpaces inflation.
One 30-year-old that comes to mind still lives with his parents. He was worked since he was 16 and if he did not have his master's degree right now he might have been able to buy a starter home. Instead his student loan payments are more than what I pay for rent. And he is one of the lucky ones. His parents supported his decision to continue his education. Others are not as lucky.
Perhaps if you didn't use words like "unfair" some of the nitpicky comments might have been less critical. That word just comes across as whiny. I don't know about others, but I tend to be more critical of statements I perceive as whining even if the underlying message is one I would support.
I'm not sure if folks in other regions make these, but my boyfriend and I find that the wheel helps us know what to eat both seasonally and locally. And it's so cute that we hung it in the kitchen.
easy for you to say, regents scholar, to people who can't get in free despite high grades and intelligence.
Hi guest, if you read my article you would have seen that I didn't get in for free. I was given $500 per semester, and that's it. That covered about 25% of the tuition when I went. Now the tuition has more than doubled compared to what I paid 7 years ago so $500 per semester is even less money than before. (Registration fee in 2001 to 2002 was 2061 per semester, now it's 4400 per semester)
Also, wildgift is right. Most people I met at college came from the same sort of families (middle class, not extremely rich but comfortable enough). A good percentage of students came from the Bay Area or LA so even though their parents incomes may seem high the cost of living is also very high.
Anyway, very few people go to public colleges for free these days in America.
While UC Berkeley might have many students who are bummed out that they couldn't afford the big ivies because they are middle class, it's also got a population of students who are struggling to afford Berkeley, because they weren't poor enough to get all the Pell grants. (This shows, probably, how generally wealthy UC Berkeley students are compared to the great masses of working people.)
If your family is working class but makes enough to, say, own a house or live modestly and save, or you have two relatively okay incomes, it's harder to get the financial aid at UC. For many families that "small" difference of a few thousand dollars makes a big difference.
So, it used to be that someone could get into an Ivy and a public ivy, but the aid for either was such that the expenses could be a big problem.... so off to the local state university or junior college.
The "secret" was to choose a less well-known Ivy, and get more financial aid. The parental contribution could be less than at a public ivy.
Fortunately, the situation has changed lately, and private universities are offering more financial aid to middle class and working class families. Publics are adapting, too, but by and large have abandoned the old ideal of a fully-paid-for education for in-state residents who qualify. (Believe it or not, UC Berkeley's registration fees used to be $0.00.)
This is not a comment about working too much, as the subject started out, but that I agree that our government doesn't help those who need it in many cases. I am 19 years old, and between my boyfriend and I we bring home about 90k a year, and rising. So I am pretty well off for my age, I suppose, but a little over a year ago, I was 17, living on my own, with a baby, and a job at Arby's. I went to the welfare office to get daycare for my son. I had an offer for the job I currently have, all I needed was help for 6 months to finish high school so that I could qualify for that job. What did I get?? DENIED! I didn't want cash, or food, or even free rent, I just wanted a little help with caring for my son, so that I could pay my own bills, and finish school to never have to deal with them again. But they denied me over 45 dollars a month!!! Luckily, there were others around that helped me in my time of need when my government would not. And I did not get the same dirty looks, and judgements that I felt when I walked into that welfare office. How is it that those of us that aren't as lucky as I, with the support group I have, to ever pull themselves out of the welfare trap. Those that make 45 dollars too much per month to get help, and the consequence of that is paying more than their wages for the care of a child? If my school hadn't taken care of my son for FREE, where would I be today? Still stuck barely making it, yet receiving no help?!
Before complaining about those living off welfare, think about the choices they have? In order to get out of the welfare hole, they have to essentially make themselves poorer first. Not many people can leap out of that hole. I was lucky, but most have to crawl carefully out, and as soon as their feet touch level ground, they slip into the next hole, which is much deeper. Making essentially the same amount of money, but with expenses that double or triple.
Before you badmouth a group of people, it would be good to try to step back, and try to understand what their other options would be. How much they are actually struggling, like most of us, no matter what our income is, or who helps us.
@Sam,
You are right, your success is not based entirely on the school you went to, but having a degree from a top school does give you an edge in that first job search. I know that my Berkeley degree opened a lot of doors for me because in one company where I was hired the VP told me that they would throw away resumes from even San Jose State University.
Also I'd like to clarify that amongst the schools you listed " University of California – Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, and the New York University" only the University of California - Berkeley is a public institution. All the rest are private universities with fairly high tuitions just like the Ivies you listed in your first paragraph. They are all good schools, though.
@wildgift - haha yeah Go Bears!
The words Ivy League school connote a certain prestige among people, not just in the US but in the global community as well. After all, who wouldn’t want to receive a diploma from any of the eight places of higher learning comprising the so-called Ivy League—Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard , Penn, Princeton, and Yale.
In any survey of the top universities of the world, the University of California – Berkeley, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, and the New York University are usually found at the top of the list (side by side with some of the Ivy League schools). Yes, these schools are state schools or state universities. Yes, these schools have outstanding programs which are considered the best in the field.
Ask yourself: is prestige really important? Would the place where I got my diploma matter in the real world? Or, would the experience I will be getting from the top state schools in the country far outweigh the advantages concerning the prestige of an Ivy League diploma?
There is a much easier way to know what is in season. Just go to the market and see what is the cheapest and what is filled to the top in the stands.
If there is a lot of it everywhere and it is cheap it must be in season.
First let me say - yes one can often find themselves in a situation where they are right in the middle and don't qualify for any significant aid. I found that this was the case due to my race (white) and means (middle class).
My only advice would be to consider how you anticipate your years after graduation. If you expect to work in an industry where a 4 year degree is all you need it probably makes sense to go into debt and go to a school that is respected in that industry. This was my situation as I am an engineer. However, if you need to get an advanced degree I would suggest that you go to a good instate public school.
What college recruiters will never tell a candidate is:
a) if your program/degree will be insufficient to attain employment. This is really unfortunate but is just they way it is for so many fields
b) when applying for a masters program the choice of your undergraduate degree is not significant
-Chris
by shutting off the power strip it will not reduce phantom power. The power strip will still be drawing power and wasting it. use a meter and check it out
@christopher - if you're on your own, you need to study your school's residency and financial aid rules. Basically, you have to legitimately become an independent person, on paper, and the financial aid should become available. If it doesn't maybe you should change schools. Try UC Berkeley. Go Bears.
If attending the best school you can get into were a right, then it'd be "unfair" to have to foregoe MIT for lack of money. The system we have, of private universities, doesn't afford us that right. MIT is market-based education, and they aren't obligated to support their students any more than they deem necessary to get the student population they think they need.
A public school like UC Berkeley (or, more correctly, the entire UC system) is an entitlement. It was founded to educate the 12% most qualified high school grads in the state. To this end, we, as residents, have a right to be there if we qualify. We can even demand that tuition be lowered back to the 1960s price of $0.00 for residents. (Then, the issue of parental contribution would be less of a factor, as some here have complained.)
Just to remind everyone - market-advocate Republicans want to reduce public education, and increase private education. They believe that, fundamentally, attendance at the university should be based on the university's demand for students. In contrast, advocates for public education think, fundamentally, that attendance should be determined by the public's demand for education.
I had a similar problem when I went to school.
My financial aid was based on my dad's income, and since he made a high-ish salary, he was expected to make a huge contribution and I got bunk for financial aid.
However, that didn't take into account the massive medical bills he was paying off for himself and my youngest brother, and quite honestly very poor financial decisions in the past.
While those decisions were his fault, they weren't mine, and I was really upset. Now, of course, I get to be reminded of the situation every month when I pay my student loan bill...
I went to the school I wanted to go to. It was a government selective (for smart people) school. So fees were just $200/year and I got great education and finished in the top 6% of my state.
I was happy. The funny thing is I didn't ever go to university because I wanted to be a pastor/entrepreneur
Xin: You also free up quite a bit of income because you will have no rent or mortgage.
I like to think of it as freeing up cash flow. You're reducing your requirement for month-to-month living.
As to Ryan McLean (#6) (Rent money is dead money). NO, it's not dead, you have to spend money to have a place to live, even when you "own outright". The numbers are highly variable and do not support your thesis. Delving in to the blogosphere and asking the regular writers will confirm my point. Renting is a low-risk and efficient method of mitigating this cost of living.
Fred Lee (#18) nails it: ...money spent on rent is money gone, but the hidden costs of home ownership are huge,.... In fact, I'd go as far as to say there are no "hidden" costs to home ownership, just costs that people refuse to accept as part of the package.
Ever hear a home-owner complain about not having money because of "such-and-such" a home repair? (i.e.: the hot water tank needed replacement, the shingles needed fixing) The truth is, that hot water tank was going to need replacement, it was just a matter of when. Not having money in the bank when it goes just shows a lack of foresight and financial planning.
But honestly, it's the common disease. People are equally bad about tracking ther cost of their cars, the general populace has simply proven "very bad at math" when it comes to seeing the "big picture" on financial decisions. It's easy to think that renting = "paying someone else's mortgage", but this is just a small part of the picture and grossly inaccurate.
Back to the point. At best, home ownership is a highly personal decision filled with risks that must be considered. Paying for a house in cash is equally personal and a really good case can be made either way. Thank you Xin for providing a neutral view.
I remember my first week of scout camp, and the withdraw symptoms from my beloved PlayStation. Well, it wasn't that bad.
Here's another great thing to keep most kids busy, at camp or otherwise: making lanyards with boondoggle. Most camps have this available at the camp store, and there's plenty of people who know how to do it and can teach. I made a ton of these at camp when I was a younger scout--great way to pass the time.
Here's a good site with some basics:
http://www.boondoggleman.com/
-CD
Gates VP, Thank you for your comment from a Canadian point of view. I'd like to clarify that I wasn't the one that wanted to go to MIT and I didn't feel screwed by them. My best friend was the one that went to MIT after going to Berkeley for undergraduate and I felt that she was screwed by the financial aid system. She ended up living at home for all four years and her parents paid for the tuition at Berkeley, which came out to about $20000 for all four years. Personally I was quite happy with Berkeley. I got in early and it was close to home. My parents were also happy with it because it is one of the best public schools in the nation.
I have heard of Elizabeth Warren and I heard her speak on the two income trap. Basically she wrote a book that said the most bankruptcies in America come from two income families with children because costs are going up and taxes aren't advantageous to two incomes. It's pretty disturbing actually. The video you linked is pretty good. I am watching it.
Mandatory work-world references (especially for those, like Philip, involved with computers): Mythical Man-Month, Peopleware.
I love this quote from the comments: Having enough savings to get you through a long job search and medical insurance separate from your job would be highly useful but most don't have that.
I'd like to extend the thought and state that "mobility mentality" and the cost of mobility are almost forgotten factors in the way people design their lives. The problem isn't just paying the mortgage, it's having to work close to the house on which I'm paying the mortgage.
Ever met anyone who turned down a job for lack of similar jobs nearby?
Philip, I'd love to see a follow-up talking about ways to identify and resolve work-level "mopping" behavior. Stuff off the top of my head:
- Don't "make work", there should already be enough work: identify and prioritize
- Couple delegation with empowerment
- Generate "deliverables" not "desirables"
- Know your numbers (revenue vs. your salary)
I think the concept of "turning off the tap" = "solving problems" is a great analogy for the work-world.
...I was under the impression that financial aid was largely award based on the previous years income tax filings. Yes? No?
I know that this previous year, I claimed myself on income tax, rather than being a dependent on my parents. Would claiming yourself on income taxes work better for poor students who get little parental help?
As far as the original post, as someone who went to a private 4 year school for his undergrad, I would say it's not all it's cracked up to be. That said, while my experience was not amazing, I certainly received a large amount of free money and a quality education. Drake University gave me $7,500/year to simply exist (and stay above a 2.5GPA). They paid me another 4k to play my guitar (music major), and I received a sizable amount of government grants each year. In all, I ended 4 years at a 30k/year school with $27,000 in student debt. I wish it was lower, but I am certainly luck to have escaped with so little--it would have been more expensive to go to a state school for me.
I would encourage new HS grads and parents to look into smaller, lesser known private universities. Often times they offer a lot of money. My education was top notch, but I did not completely fall in love with the vibe and fell of the campus. I did, however, feel that the college was trying to charge me for every little thing. Maybe that's the trade off.
Also, its worth noting that there's a lot of money available in most communities. My hometown sponsored thousands of dollars in scholarships each year. I took the time to apply for everyone I could and ended up getting around 5k for my freshman year of school. I hated filling out the applications, though.
When I filed my first FAFSA, my parents and I estimated our income (pretty well), but we were asked to submit the final documentation to the school I was to attend. Between the two events my mother lost her job (she is a teacher and unit allocations went down--last hired, first fired). When we filed with our corrected 1040 and enclosed the letter from the school district saying she was not hired back due to budget cuts, my Expected Family Contribution went up! It ended up being more than her entire (no longer applicable) salary. Funny story, but there was no way my parents could pay over 3/8 of their (pre-job loss) income for my education. I ended up transferring to a cheaper school midway through and paying my own way while working with a little help from them. I think it was the correct way for me--but I still have my acceptance letters from MIT and Yale in a drawer somewhere.
Xin: I fear that the middle class population is shrinking in America for the reason that it is the group of people that seems to pay for everything and never benefit from many of the social programs, but that may be another post entirely.
Yes you are correct. More than just being "the group that pays for everything", the US middle class has constantly absorbed more and more risk into their lifestyles over the last 30 years. For more details with lots of facts, please see this Elizabeth Warren video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
CanadianGirl has a positive story, but that's because she lives in Canada. Canada has three big things going it's way:
1. more government funding
2. no "ivy league"
3. primarily commuter schools
Most schools in Canada are sufficient for most degrees. And Canadians in general just accept this principle. Also, any Canadian willing to "put in the hours" at University will graduate with little or modest debt.
This whole concept of graduating with 50k in student debt is alien to most Canadians because their degree simply didn't cost that much. With books and gear, my degree was about 20k (1998-2002), my wife's was < 25k (2002-2007, she even blew a year). We both graduated without student loans and debt-free. I had savings, but my wife paid for everything out-of-pocket. She lived at home, bussed to school and worked part-time during the school year with some better-paid summer student work.
The "average" Canadian University student lives at home and buses / carpools to school. They work part-time and hold down summer jobs. We still get the odd "middle-class" syndrome as you describe above with respect to government-backed loans, but school is simply not as prohibitively expensive.
BTW, commuting to school and living at home is a huge factor in saving money. The US students I've spoken with are spending more than half of their "tuition" on food and housing. Not only is the cost of classes more expensive (estimates I've seen range from 1.5 to 2 times), but then you "have" to live on campus in some places.
At the end of the day, the US system is simlpy broken. (I'm not going to preach the wonder of the Canadian school system, it has its own issues) The crux of the US problem is the concept that schools are more important than students. Consumers are blindly fighting to get into "the best schools" instead of making the value decision of how good these schools actually are. Yes, the school does matter, but dedication and passion transcend schools.
Xin, you may feel "screwed" by MIT, but maybe it's just as important to be humble and accept that MIT wasn't really knocking at your door either.
The best thing about card games -- interacting with family and friends.
When my family gets together, we always play cards. Our favorite is a progressive form of rummy called Shang-hi.
It goes like this:
Shuffle together 2 decks of cards, including all four jokers (Jokers are wild).
Deal 11 cards to each player (at least three; it gets precarious with more than 6).
Each round you are trying to a get a different combination of cards:
1) 2 sets of three cards of the same value (may be of any suit) for 6 cards total
2) 1 set and 1 run (four cards of the same suit in order) (7 cards)
3) 2 runs (8 cards)
4) 3 sets (9 cards)
5) 2 sets and 1 run (10 cards)
6) 1 set and 2 runs (11 cards)
7) 3 runs (12 cards)
As you can tell the seventh hand is impossible without this rule -- The "May I."
At any time in the game, in any hand, a player may "May I." If someone discards a card you want, "May I" it. If no one ahead of you wants the card, you can pick it up and take an additional card off the top of the draw pile (for a total of two cards). You can do this 3 times in a hand (no more than 17 cards per person).
After you lay down your meld (whatever you're going for in that hand), you can play other cards in your hand on other people who have also laid down. The goal is to get rid of all your cards first.
After one person goes up, everyone else counts their points:
1-7 -- 5 points
8-King -- 10 points
Ace - 20 points
Joker - 50 points.
After all seven rounds, the person with the lowest score wins.
The game is simple, but it gets cutthroat (and fun!) as people try to predicate what others are holding and steal "May I's." We've been playing this game for more than 30 years (I've been playing for about 10) and have yet to get tired of it.
I went to a public university for free...
Louisiana has a great program that provides free tuition to all of its high school graduates if they get a certain GPA, a certain ACT score and a certain number of credits in high school, including core credits. Depending on how high were scores/grades were, you can even qualify for an additional stipend each semester. I was at the top of the group and got $800 in cash along with tuition. Outside scholarships (one for an essay I wrote, one for being the child of an active Knight of Columbus) paid my fees and books. A student worker job and my parents paid for my other expenses. (My parents contributed less than $500 a month to my expenses from 1999-2003)
In short, I got a great education at a public school with an excellent program in what I wanted to study (journalism) and graduated with no debt. Maybe my public education meant that I didn't get paid as well in the beginning of career as my peers who graduated from more prestigious universities, but since I've never had to pay off school debt, I feel like I'm ahead. Now that I have five years of experience, my pay has equalized compared to others from schools with bigger names.
Hey Judith,
I just don't know how to summarize the situation other than "unfair". At that time I was only 17, and I honestly thought that it was unfair that my best friend had to give up MIT because of money.
Anyway, right now I still think that the way financial aid is determined is pretty flawed and punishes the middle class. Basically, if your parents have assets or income they are expected to pony up even if your parents may need that money for their retirement and living expenses. As you said, college costs are also growing faster than inflation so wages are not keeping up.
Also, like several people have said, their parents didn't feel obligated to pay so they had to take up huge loans because the schools think your parents are supposed to pay. If that's not unfair then I'm not sure what is fair.
I fear that the middle class population is shrinking in America for the reason that it is the group of people that seems to pay for everything and never benefit from many of the social programs, but that may be another post entirely.
Milehimama, as mentioned by other commenters already, financial aid determinations do not take into account the willingness of parents to pay. My own financial need was calculated to be lower because of my father's assets even though I paid for all of my own costs. Because I was determined to graduate debt-free, I chose to forgo the more expensive Ivy League universities and instead went to a state school. I also took some semesters off to work and earn enough money for tuition.
Xin, your post does highlight the growing concerns I have about higher education costs in the US. It seems as if many college-aged middle-class Americans are almost forced to choose between furthering their education or starting their lives. The universities in my area have raised tuition about 10% nearly every year for the past several years. That far outpaces inflation.
One 30-year-old that comes to mind still lives with his parents. He was worked since he was 16 and if he did not have his master's degree right now he might have been able to buy a starter home. Instead his student loan payments are more than what I pay for rent. And he is one of the lucky ones. His parents supported his decision to continue his education. Others are not as lucky.
Perhaps if you didn't use words like "unfair" some of the nitpicky comments might have been less critical. That word just comes across as whiny. I don't know about others, but I tend to be more critical of statements I perceive as whining even if the underlying message is one I would support.
For Bay Area residents, the Local Foods Wheel is great for knowing what's in season: http://www.localfoodswheel.com/
I'm not sure if folks in other regions make these, but my boyfriend and I find that the wheel helps us know what to eat both seasonally and locally. And it's so cute that we hung it in the kitchen.
easy for you to say, regents scholar, to people who can't get in free despite high grades and intelligence.
Hi guest, if you read my article you would have seen that I didn't get in for free. I was given $500 per semester, and that's it. That covered about 25% of the tuition when I went. Now the tuition has more than doubled compared to what I paid 7 years ago so $500 per semester is even less money than before. (Registration fee in 2001 to 2002 was 2061 per semester, now it's 4400 per semester)
Also, wildgift is right. Most people I met at college came from the same sort of families (middle class, not extremely rich but comfortable enough). A good percentage of students came from the Bay Area or LA so even though their parents incomes may seem high the cost of living is also very high.
Anyway, very few people go to public colleges for free these days in America.
While UC Berkeley might have many students who are bummed out that they couldn't afford the big ivies because they are middle class, it's also got a population of students who are struggling to afford Berkeley, because they weren't poor enough to get all the Pell grants. (This shows, probably, how generally wealthy UC Berkeley students are compared to the great masses of working people.)
If your family is working class but makes enough to, say, own a house or live modestly and save, or you have two relatively okay incomes, it's harder to get the financial aid at UC. For many families that "small" difference of a few thousand dollars makes a big difference.
So, it used to be that someone could get into an Ivy and a public ivy, but the aid for either was such that the expenses could be a big problem.... so off to the local state university or junior college.
The "secret" was to choose a less well-known Ivy, and get more financial aid. The parental contribution could be less than at a public ivy.
Fortunately, the situation has changed lately, and private universities are offering more financial aid to middle class and working class families. Publics are adapting, too, but by and large have abandoned the old ideal of a fully-paid-for education for in-state residents who qualify. (Believe it or not, UC Berkeley's registration fees used to be $0.00.)
This is not a comment about working too much, as the subject started out, but that I agree that our government doesn't help those who need it in many cases. I am 19 years old, and between my boyfriend and I we bring home about 90k a year, and rising. So I am pretty well off for my age, I suppose, but a little over a year ago, I was 17, living on my own, with a baby, and a job at Arby's. I went to the welfare office to get daycare for my son. I had an offer for the job I currently have, all I needed was help for 6 months to finish high school so that I could qualify for that job. What did I get?? DENIED! I didn't want cash, or food, or even free rent, I just wanted a little help with caring for my son, so that I could pay my own bills, and finish school to never have to deal with them again. But they denied me over 45 dollars a month!!! Luckily, there were others around that helped me in my time of need when my government would not. And I did not get the same dirty looks, and judgements that I felt when I walked into that welfare office. How is it that those of us that aren't as lucky as I, with the support group I have, to ever pull themselves out of the welfare trap. Those that make 45 dollars too much per month to get help, and the consequence of that is paying more than their wages for the care of a child? If my school hadn't taken care of my son for FREE, where would I be today? Still stuck barely making it, yet receiving no help?!
Before complaining about those living off welfare, think about the choices they have? In order to get out of the welfare hole, they have to essentially make themselves poorer first. Not many people can leap out of that hole. I was lucky, but most have to crawl carefully out, and as soon as their feet touch level ground, they slip into the next hole, which is much deeper. Making essentially the same amount of money, but with expenses that double or triple.
Before you badmouth a group of people, it would be good to try to step back, and try to understand what their other options would be. How much they are actually struggling, like most of us, no matter what our income is, or who helps us.
/endrant.
easy for you to say, regents scholar, to people who can't get in free despite high grades and intelligence.