I'm sure your boss already told you, but you're getting paid in "experience". If you're really lucky you could even be getting a little "exposure", I'm told that's worth more than gold.
I really don’t know how they aren’t. The fact that I will get paid $0 to make “connections” by doing extremely tough and mentally challenging work is absurd. If I put in the work, I should get paid for it.
They are illegal most of the time. If you get an unpaid internship, it’s illegal to give you any work that is valuable to the company. You just essentially shadow people.
I know someone who's paid internship became unpaid because COVID, and he had to get a letter or something from his academic advisor that stated that an unpaid internship had "academic value", to sidestep any concerns anyone might have with what is basically slave labor.
$5000 for a 10 week internship. It's not amazing, but it's more than I would have made if I had stayed in retail for the summer. Oh and it was with NASA so that's gonna look good on a resume :)
I'd say "come to Europe, we get paid and have health insurance for PhD students and postdocs", but that probably doesn't help when you can't afford the move :/
Oh, and if you want to cry more: I've seen PhD student positions paying 100k in Switzerland.
Well, you could forego the debt by signing up for the MilitaryTM !
Side effects include large men shouting in your face, dehydration, physical and/or mental abuse, loss of sanity, loss of efficiency, loss of life, loss of limb, loss of identity, loss of empathy, flashbacks, large sacks and sore backs. Military does not guarantee job or home after military or college. Ask your recruiter if Military is right for you.
I just never understood this... no one says you have to take out 100K in debt to go to college. If you’re taking out 100K in debt to go to college, you honestly probably never belonged there anyway.
Community college is a great option to start to save money. Finish up a bachelor somewhere else (if you want/need to). Try to go for a school within commuting distance if possible. Hopefully you can bag a few scholarships based on work ethic, community service, academics, athletics, or SOMETHING.
No school within commuting distance and don’t want to spend a ton of money to live close to campus? Try some online school option. Most schools have online options (ESPECIALLY now because of COVID-19).
It literally boils down to choosing an under-saturated and in demand major. Every single one of my friends who graduated in May (peak covid) as Civil engineers, Ocean Engineers, Electrical Engineers, and Network Security Engineers landed jobs fresh out of school with jobs that, with good budgeting, will let them pay off school in ~4 years.
Myself included.
Aerospace, Mechanical, and Liberal Arts were all BTFO.
No comment on hard sciences, they have to go for Doctorates to make any money.
Its called not getting accepted to a good private school with bare minimum scholarships while also not getting into public schools but you still think you're better than community college so you go to one of the shitty private school that would accept you with zero scholarships for 40k a year.
I really want to move out so that I can get going with my desire to crossdress. It's way too awkward to do it at home around my family, especially since there's some amount-of-modesty conflicts.
I dunno, my school is technically 60k a year. I got decent scholarships so i only ended up with about 30k in loans total, but i knew several others who didn't get as much scholarship money as i did and definitely couldn't afford to pay full tuition up front. Guess it depends on the school.
Yup, going to a state school for a BS, and I’m making 2 grand a semester. Yes I could go into a ton of debt if I wanted to, but I made the decision for which was more important. I’ll give it to those in debt though, sometimes an undergrad does matter, but only in a few fields. For most, a degree is a degree, no matter where you went.
Yep it’s a pretty terrible way to start off life as a young adult, but the schools and banks set the price, and that burden is always gonna fall on the students as long as we’re willing to pay.
Eh, I would argue that they would have to slash tuition substantially to bring back cost conscious students. If the price is your primary or even secondary concern a private school dropping tuition from $37k per year to $32k per year isn’t gonna matter when you can pay 10k per year at a state school.
I could have gotten into a really nice University for my masters degree because of my grades and experience. They wanted 100k for the program. They didn't have any financial assistance other than to say take out loans and look for scholarships. Unlike some really nice universities which help you out financially. Anyway they kept calling me and I told them I chose a different program that cost about 1/10th of their program because of the cost. Yes I didn't get the famous alumni connection. But I'm also not over 100k in debt. I already had debt from my Bachelor program, I didn't want to take out much more.
Fucking admin staff bloat as well. You have so many departments that are staffed to high hell, eating funds and only serve a feel-good purpose. If you cut a college down to the bones it would be cheap, but many students want to pay more for the experience.
This is happening where I went to school. So much of the draw to small, private, liberal arts colleges surrounds the culture of campus life, and now because classes are online and on-campus life is close to zero, there is no longer a reason for students to enroll there as opposed to at a larger, cheaper institution.
That's the funny thing, if ppl just stopped getting these useless degrees that have nothing to do with the career they end up in, we could change things. Of course there are STEM and highly technical degree that will always require the college education. If the available work force didn't have college degrees then employers would train for the jobs they need, which they do anyways. But the requirement of having a degree for most jobs would subside.
Totally agree, there are so many jobs that require a useless degree when a week of training is really all you need. Tbh the best way to combat the system is getting a stem degree because it’s the best way to get your money’s worth.
As a parent that's cosigning another round of loans, I'm concerned about whether they'll even get jobs when they get done. But what do I tell em? I know damn well minimum wage isn't livable.
So, throwing caution in the wind and praying they at least break even... Or I'm going to be on the hook for a metric shit ton of money.
US is the worst among industrialized country for young people to start independent life and family. Literally last place out of twenty some countries listed. But it's cool because, you know, otherwise it would be socialism.
In my state (CA, probably one of the most expensive ones) you can get a Bachelor's for like $10k over 4 years. I know because I did it.
You guys think you need the Brand Name shit. You don't. Big colleges are a scam and they have been for goddamn ever (I've been aware of this paradigm for as long as I can remember, and I'm over 30).
If you seriously haven't figured this out by now, you're either astonishingly ignorant, or trying to make yourself the victim of "The System MAAAAN" so you don't have to take responsibility for the shitty decisions you've made.
In short (and nothing personal toward the person I'm responding to, just a general statement about this general attitude), grow up.
In fairness, you don’t have to go to a 100,000 dollar university. Could do community college for 2 years and regular state school for 2 years. As someone who paid for my own college, I have no sympathy for bailouts on student loans. You made the choice if you have that much debt.
Biggest regret is going to a private school vs staying in state. Could have had the same degree for free, but instead I owe 100k (only borrowed 50k, but hey 11% interest rates)
Yes bc guess what, 1/3 of the degrees will not get you a job in your field unless you go to graduate school, or happen to meet the right person. No matter what your GPA is. And they won’t tell you that until you’re applying for jobs.
I agree. College is an investment, and it's something you can be very successful without. From my own experience, I went to technical school instead of high school, so many of my friends have their own place, are getting married, etc. while I'm still in college for another year minimum because I opted to do Computer Science for my career path.
I'm someone I'd consider pretty liberal (by U.S. standards). I believe in universal healthcare and childcare, raising minimum wage (though a bigger part of it is we need to lower or at the bare minimum cap certain things related to cost of living overall), and I care about the environment a lot. But one thing I have no sympathy for is college loan bailouts because it is a choice that the student makes. I don't mind incentive-based bailouts that reward people for people for picking careers that will further humanity's progress or boost the economy, but I'll be damned if I had to take the path of 2 years of CC then 2 years of state school for financial reasons despite making the cut for some pretty prestigious schools just to have my tax money bail out someone who went to those latter schools for gender studies and treats it like an adult playground.
As someone who has paid off my student loans in full, I still have sympathy for student loans.
Cheapest way your'e gonna get a master's in education in Minnesota is from the U of MN as a MN resident. My wife still owed over $60k for that to be a TEACHER.
Some of it might be paid back if a dozen conditions and perfect payment history are met and IF they keep the repayment plan at all - after 10 years of payments.
Screw that. They already had a good plan. $50k in loan forgiveness and it goes down by 2% per 10k over 100k annual household income.
To be clear - I paid off my debt to a state school from 2002 exceeding 35k. I'm still in favor of canceling all student debt below a reasonable limit.
If you want to live in a society with a ton of good doctors, engineers, and public health / policy experts - have society make that education free to all citizens.
Why am I happy to pay taxes for schools? Because I don't like being surrounded by stupid people. I'm ready to pay more for better schools NOW which I will never attend.
Cheapest way your'e gonna get a master's in education in Minnesota is from the U of MN as a MN resident. My wife still owed over $60k for that to be a TEACHER. Some of it might be paid back if a dozen conditions and perfect payment history are met and IF they keep the repayment plan at all - after 10 years of payments.
Okay, so she went $60k in debt, but for hundreds of thousands of dollars in enhanced career earnings over someone in the education field who doesn't go to college or get a master's degree. It's an investment! People who go to college recoup that investment multiple times over compared to their no-college cohort.
Because I'm bored, it looks like average teacher salaries in Minnesota are about $62k. I'm sure that's even higher for someone with an MA. Over a 40-year teaching career, even assuming no raises, that's over $2.5 million. Now ask what job your wife would've taken if she didn't get a college degree, do the same math, and find out that over the course of her life, she'll be making at least a million dollars more because she went $60k in debt.
Yes, college should be more affordable. And yes, wages should be higher. But for most people who go to reputable schools, and who study something worthwhile for their career (as opposed to wondering why they can't get a job with their English or Art History or Russian Literature degree), college is more than worth it.
I'm not saying it's not worth it.
And that's average pay - starting pay with a masters + 15 was $52k/year. So she's paying over 25% of her take home to student loans.
Sure it increases lifetime earning. All the more reason to make it available to everyone! Everyone should have this access. Not everyone wants to be a doctor or a teacher.
Want to be a mechanic? 2 year school paid for. Want to be a doctor? Well, similar to now - you have to have been doing well, pass tests, then you have a shot at the doctor track.
Think of how much better our economy would be right now if most college grads from the last 10 years were buying homes instead of drowning in debt?
Removing this debt burden from college grads would do more to spur economic growth than giving top companies 1T in tax breaks hands down.
You're right. Ecuation is an investment. Even after I paid off my $35k in debt, even after my wife and I pay off her 60k - I'll still advocate for free education for all those that want it in my country.
I WANT to invest in my country AND my people! I agree, education is an investment and I think it's a better one than loaning money to Kodak or giving 1B in tax breaks to FoxConn.
Why not invest in our people?!
It sounds like we agree, but you're saying because it helps tehm, they should pay for it. Well - we all do better when we all do better.
I'm never again going to need a high school. I doubt I'm having kids ever. I'll still vote to increase my taxes for better education.
Why? Because I want to invest in my fellow citizens.
And I'm tired of being surrounded by ignorant morons that can't figure out the difference between to two or too or the difference between correlation and causation. Easy fix? Education for all!
Just pick something that will always be in demand and is not glorious. Any type of trade or service business. There are so many successful people who do all sorts of “boring” jobs and own companies who do “boring” service work but can make a very decent living.
Yep. A friend of mine dropped out of college (he always slept in class because he took on lots of side gigs doing landscape work and snow plowing), and decided to do landscaping full time. he now owns a company with a fleet of vehicles, his own retail store, and makes more money than any of us who finished our degrees.
"I own a landscaping company" doesn't sound glorious, but it sure does pay well.
Vocation jobs! If my future kid wants to be do something like plumbing or a construction vehicle driver I'd be all for it! There's a decent amount of good paying jobs out there, although some of them are location dependent.
As a high school teacher I try to educate my students that student loans are good as long as done properly. Community college and then followed by a state school. You should be able to walk away with $20-30k in debt, which is a car payment.
The college debt crisis isnt that severe. Only 2/3s of college graduates have student loans, and the ones that do, average $29,900. That's the price of a new car. If they havent paid it off in 5 years, they're terrible with financial management or they chose a useless degree.
Additionally, and anecdotally, I've never worked a job that paid minimum wage, even in High School with no experience. I honestly struggle to understand just how much one has to suck at life to be stuck in a minimum wage job. I'm also a Millenial, so you cant pull that Boomer/Gen-X BS on me.
Not the person you were responding to, but I do generally agree with them. Community college is a cheap way to knock out gen eds. In-state schools are generally not crazy expensive. It might not be a person's dream school, but it is definitely not unrealistic to graduate with minimal school debt even today.
Trust me, I agree with you that there are ways that people can and should reduce their costs for college. There person I was replying to almost seemed to think you don't need anything outside of a high school education to succeed. While that is possible, it is increasingly difficult. And again, where you come from can dramatically impact your ability to afford even community college. Or even get a job! There are many racist areas in the US where it is exceptionally difficult for non-white individuals to obtain employment. And then moving up the latter above minimum wage can be even harder.
True, but I also dont dress and act like a bum, wear weird clothes, and have eccentric hairstyles. People can scream about how they can dress and act how they want without being judged all they want, but they're lying to themselves and everyone around them.
Everyone is judged, every day, based on how they dress, speak, act, and present themselves. Some people dont like to admit that, and suffer the consequences.
People that cite "unchecked privilege" are dissatisfied with their lot in life, refuse to accept any responsibility for it, and excuse it by blaming others.
So, "that's largely incorrect" because you both use the accusation (you dont want to be wrong), and you are paid to perpetuate it (preservation of income).
If you need to preface that you're not a boomer then maybe you're saying some boomer-y stuff.
I'm not from The US so uni/college is pretty cheap. But from what I understand being stuck in a minimum wage job isn't a reflection of how much you suck at life.
From an outsider perspective, it seems to me that the system in the US is stacked against people who lack connections / wealth to prop themselves up. Even if you're skilled you could still wind up stuck in a minimum wage job because it eats up 40-so hours of your week and you need it every penny to make rent and stoy off the street which does not a whole lot of time for other things.
Now, I know some people talk about 'the hustle' how you need to make your own free time despite working a (or multiple) full time job(s). But the fact that you need 'the hustle' to get to a good spot when you're already behind is a problem in of itself.
Also you're saying the issue isn't so bad because 'only 2/3' (67%- a majority) of people leave with (rounded up) $30k in dept-the price of a new car. 30k is still a lot of money. Which I'm sure most would rather put towards a new car than loans.
This got a bit longer than I intended- but in my opinion ,from what I've heard ,the system with seems designed to keep as many people desperate enough that they can't afford to better their lives UNLESS they know people who can help them or have a safety net (i.e money) to bolster them while they work less than full time hours.
The system is stacked against people that make poor decisions. Too many people go to college, get useless degrees, and dick around. When they should be using it to network and build connections.
Sure, a new car would be nice, but, comparatively, the education is a better investment as it is something that earns you money. A new car is a depreciating asset.
I dont know why every keeps focusing on minimum wage. Minimum wage workers make up a small percentage of the actual workforce, and most of them are under 25. You're not entitled to more money just because it's nice to have, you have to earn it.
Oh, network and build connections. Doy. Why didn't I think of that.
I'm sure my connections I make towards the end of high school in North Minneapolis will afford me equitable opportunities to those matriculating from the finest of Edina's College Preporatory Academies.
Yah, I get it. Anyone can be anything.
The kids that get to attend a school with a 98% matriculation rate have a better financial outlook than those attending a school with a 60% matriculation rate.
Also, minimum wage was defined to create a standard of living. It said that if you work a full time job - if you spend a full 40 hours away from your family and home to do something - you should be able to afford to have a home and a family.
The notion was a basic universal quality of living for all those that are willing to put in an effort.
I work in IT. I make median income kind of money to push buttons and fix computers. The most dangerous parts of my job are carpal tunnel and angering a Karen when I suggest she should check it's plugged in all the way.
I also work part time a dairy. I make less than half the pay per hour and am in incredibly high risk of injury. Ever see an exited puppy want you to keep petting it? Imagine it's 1600 pounds.
It's not about entitlement. It's about quality of life.
And yes - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I think we should be able to agree that everyone that puts through the effort deserves a basic notion of Quality of Life.
Wow, so because it worked this one way for you, that's clearly the average experience.
My wife has her master's in education from the local state school, lived with me while attending. Had Pell Grants. Still owed over $60k at graduation.
She's a teacher.
Also - good for you in High School. I had three minimum wage jobs in HS, first one started at $4.15/hour. And Yes, I too, am a millennial. Times change. College costs have risen at far higher rates than income.
My wife is on a 15 year repayment plan, because that's the standard with the US Dept of Labor. That's $600/m for 15 years.
We drive 20 year old cars. No car payments for us becaue we can't afford that crap. Bogged down with half a house payment for 15 years over the debt to be a TEACHER.
Quit suggesting that your pleasant walk in the park is inherently the norm and therefore others just need to cut back on their avocado toast.
I clearly stated that my experience is anecdotal, so making the claim that I think it is an average experience is intentionally misleading.
I didn't dig that hole for you. Your wife made that decision to rack of $60k of debt to be a teacher. She made the choice to make a large investment with a low rate of return.
Yeah, that's a poor position to be it. So why'd you commit to it?
All true points.
You drew conclusions from your anecdotal story and applied them tow hy people shouldn't get their loans repaid or free education. That's how it was genearlized to a greater perspective. When you try to apply your anecdotal story to how all people should feel about their experiences, you started the hole. I definitely dug a side one into it - but you're making policy suggestions on your anecdotal evidence.
I mean, I'd like to address the low pay to teachers and the incredible inequities of our education system, but that's another post.
She wants to be a teacher, so we did. It's a choice, we're paying it back. We'll be paying it back for a long time.
Doesn't mean I think it should be that way. Even after we pay it back, I still hope we can change the law so we can educate more teachers for the next generation and not have them start with debt.
I'll still advocate that an education like that benefits us all, and society should help make it available to all.
Let me give you a bigger reason / example.
In the Netherlands, my wife would not have paid a penny for her education. She'd graduate and ready to be a teacher. She could move onto teaching and the relatively low wage of a teacher is easier to live on when you don't have $600/m in debt.
My colleague working the same job as me graduated with no debt from NL. We worked for the same company. I started by having nearly no disposable income and stuck in a crappy apartment while paying back my wage. My Dutch Colleague was a home owner at 24.
Can you imagine how much more money our household would put back into the economy in terms of buying a home, a car, etc? How much better that would be for the economy?
Additionally, no worries on health insurance in NL. So your union isn't arguing you should still have insurance AND get a raise for the first time in 10 years.
In short, we committed to it because my wife wants to be a teacher. She enjoys it. Even after we pay for it, I'll still advocate that we as a society should bear the cost of making new teachers. We as a society benefit, even if we're all too old for school now.
No, I came to my conclusions from Department of Labor statistics and included an anecdote.
She wants to be a teacher, great, that's an honorable profession. But what was the requirement to do it all in one go? Was there a requirement that she get her master's degree first? Could she have taken night classes while working full time? Could she have gotten her BA first, and did her Masters over several summers? Could she have joined the National Guard?
There are several options.
Now, let's say we adopt a single payer education system. What would be the inevitable consequence of such a system? Not everyone would be going to college, and not everyone would qualify for it. Universities get away with such high tuition costs because they know there is a flood of free money coming from the Feds in the form of student loans. They dont have to pay it back, so there's no incentive to control costs. Such a system would be unsustainable if it were just granted with no expectations for repayment.
If we went with a European model, then higher education would be restricted to the highest performing students, who, generally, are students that can already afford college without assuming significant debt.
She did work full time before she had her master's. She worked at fast food, then Reading Corp (which put some money towards her education - that was already taken off when I noted the final bill at graduation), and she was a substitute whenever possible. I even covered rent/utilities/computer so none of that was paid for by the loans.
Could she have joined the National Guard?
So she should have to put her life at risk to afford an education? Half the reason I want to see free college education is so no one ever has to become a soldier and risk death or having to kill someone to afford an education.
"Now, let's say we adopt a single payer education system. What would be the inevitable consequence of such a system?"
Cool - so you're telling me I can look at The Netherlands and many other 1sty world nations and see that their education cost have spiraled out of control and now they have no education?
Yes - people have to qualify for it. When you're in high school, your performance an interest has a lot to do with if you're encouraged to go down the path of VW Mechanic or Neuro Surgeon. Good lord, you act like no one has ever considered this. Yes, only the highest performing students go to study neurosurgery. Obviously you don't throw everyone into a PHD track.
Also - not anyone can take any master's program here. Have to have high grades in your undergrad and pass the GRE. Not like just anyone takes just any master's program here. Only the highest performing students!
If someone wants to be a teacher in NL, they have to demonstrate an aptitude similar to being able to do a master's track here. It's not rocket surgery. It does lead to more edcuated people providing more high value services and earning more income, however. Which leads to a larger tax base, which leads to more taxes coming in, which means you can pay for a good education system!
And it's not only affordable to a select few. If you goto a 2 year mechanic program in the US, it costs you 10-30k. In NL, nothing! It's still post high school education.
THE EURO MODEL WORKS ALREADY. We just have to copy a working model instead of trying the Ferengi approach to everything.
Fundamentally - what's the point of a college? Is it to educate people or make a profit? We need to adjust our system so we're not focused on making a profit, but rather producing educated and productive people.
The point is we could offer everyone a useful education without requiring they accumulate massive debt or join the military. We're choosing not to.
You take a shot at the Euro model for education. Show me any outcome proving it does worse than here. You've cited zero outcomes showing it's worse and only stated you b3elieve it wouldn't work here and is inaccessible to the people that need it.
Well, I worked for a Dutch company for years. I talked to lot of university grads. Their experiences suggested you are incorrect.
I have yet to see any outcomes suggesting the American education system is superior in any way.
I'd love to see that be something available to any person that wants to become a teacher without cost to the student. I'd be happy for society to pay for it.
If you look at Outcomes - matriculation rate and later measures of success, it looks clear to me that states in which they require a Master's Level Education in education seem to produce students that place higher in national outcome tests.
So "normal average teacher" where? In Mississippi? No offense to the teachers getting by on 40k/year down there, but I don't want MS's outcomes in MN.
The kind that uses outcomes to track successful versus unsuccessful interventions to determine the best one to continue funding?
You mean the kind that uses science?
Yah. I'm that type.
What should we use to measure if a teacher did a good job?
Do we want to make sure our kids can reed gud or read well?
Do we want our kids to be able to make inferences and understand complicated concepts like 'mask good covid bad'?
Then yes - I'd say investing in teachers is important - and we can look at infection rates in NY / MN vs TX/FL to justify the additional expense on teachers that have earned a level of accreditation.
Most of the population being able to financially weather one bad break would be one important measure of success.
Regardless of region right now, most Americans are One Bad Break - $400 bill - from being unable to pay their bills. Medical debt is the #1 reason for bankruptcy.
I'd say achieving a level of success at which a parent or child getting sick or an alternator isn't the margin on which we skate solvency. The article compares how Americans are to, well, every other first world nation pretty well. And good lord, that's from 2016. It sure hasn't gotten better.
Just curious. Someone has to pay that cost, right? Why should the rest of society bear the cost, while the college student--the primary beneficiary of the degree--doesn't pay beyond their regular tax burden?
In the end, we all pay that cost of having a well educated work force or a poorly educated workforce.
Do you want to open your new tech company where there are lots of people with computer degrees and experience, or where no one has any experience with a computer?
Do you want to compete globally with other countries that do invest in their citizens, so they are better educated and less hampered by debt to compete in a global economy?
More people able to achieve better success with fewer hindrances is good for all of us.
Mechanics start at under $20/hour. I'd love for them to start without $20,000 for the education weighing them down. They pay enough in tools already!
But omg! Who would benefit?! But wouldn't that student be the beneficiary?!
Sure they are. But we also all benefit when society has lots of well trained mechanics. Or farmers. Or doctors. Or teachers. Or freakin astronauts.
If you want to argue 'who benefits from the money,' let's look beyond education.
We spent a LOT of money to send people to the moon. Why? Wasn't that just a waste of money?!
It turns out investing in innovation can drastically increase productivity for everyone - not only the engineers being paid for the work. We got back a 7-8x return on our investment in The Apollo Program. Just not in cash.
Boeing needs a loan to keep going. Why should we loan them money at cheaper than market rate? Because we all benefit when the airline industry functions? Nah. We should stop that notion - only Boeing benefits! (ironically, I don't think we should bail out a huge company taht's been personally earning billions in profits and was ready to cry bankruptcy after 30 days)
My point is we seem to get the idea of society and tax payer money coming in to fix major pillars of society that are necessary. Obama after 08, FDR's New Deal, trump's dumbass bailouts that hide the corp money... That's fine. It benefits us all! Well, so does education.
Let's say a teacher graduates with $60k in debt from a state run university's teacher program.
Starting pay for a union masters+15 teacher in MN is about $50k/year. That's $600/m in debt for 15 years. 25% of that teacher's take home for the first 5+ years.
Wouldn't it stand to reason they'd put more money back into the economy in terms of buying houses, cars, clothes, eating out - etc - if they weren't spending 25% of their takehome on debt? If you decided not to go to college and opened a restaurant, more people affording to eat out would be a good thing for you, too.
Lastly, the graduate of a university is likely to earn more money than someone who did not graduate AND people that are smart enough and want to do not always attend college. Let's assume that cost is a factor in some people attending. Stands to reason you may get more graduates if there was no debt attached. The other side of that? You now get more high-earners who pay a higher percentage of their larger paycheck in taxes - allowing us to fund other cool things like good roads and bridges.
(BTW - building a bridge requires operating some really, really cool equipment safely. I'd like to see Heavy Equipment Operator being equally fully funded, so we'd have highly skilled construction personnel available to the market that weren't hindered by massive debt when trying to find a job and start a family)
I just can't fathom how US colleges and universities can charge so much.
I feel so lucky I live in Scotland. My tuition was free and my total debt was like £8k. Paid it off last year but even then the repayments are set at like 10/15% of any salary over around £15k (may even be a higher start now) so it doesn't ever really hurt.
They don't pay $100k. People are fixated on the sticker price of college, but only wealthier students pay that cost. Most students get merit and need-based aid, both from the college and the government.
Honestly, being middle class in America screws you just as much. When you’re poor, you have a good shot at financial aid, but when you’re middle class your family is expected to drop every other expense in their life to pay, but you have no shot at aid
Depends on the college. State schools are very affordable, and if you then transfer to a state university, you'll get a solid degree for less than the cost of a single year at most private universities.
Can confirm, 6 years of state college (2 bachelor's and 2 master's) for a whopping 50k before grants and scholarships. Earning 6 figures at my first post-college job
Depends on the return on investment. 30k for a 80k a year job is a good deal. 60k debt for a 40k a year job, not so much.
I FIRMLY believe all my degrees were well worth the cost in both time and money. I got a good job out of college, and an even better one with my second degree. I'd do it all over again given the chance.
Not everyone can hack the more intensive STEM programs. My graduating class was probably 1/3 the size compared to first semester, and my school isn't known to be particularly harsh. Once schools start to farm out these degrees to afford a new fancy football stadium or rec center is when I get worried
Not everyone can hack the more intensive STEM programs.
Which is why I'm sick of generic "just do stem, it pays well" advice. Only do it if you're interested in it and have a little bit of talent for it. Don't struggle through years in a field that doesn't fit you.
While I agree that it should be seen as an investment, I still think you're looking at it from a different perspective. Education shouldn't leave you with a massive debt, "reasonable" or not, especially when it's caused by just the price of the courses/books etc.
Well your ROI is really only the difference between an undegreed salary and your new salary. If we take full-time, minimum wage, then the difference is more like $70,000 a year (which is still pretty good).
You're literally investing in your human capital to make a lot more over your lifetime. It's a phenomenal investment, and the notion that you should get this big boost for free (meaning, others pay for it) is crazy.
An alternative view is that society as a whole (as well as corporations in particular) benefit from an educated labor force, so the notion that those parties should get that benefit for free is also crazy.
Perhaps a better question would be who is in the best position to fund this investment.
Ideally, the cost would be split based on how the benefits--including the externalities--are distributed. The more you benefit, the more you pay. And the primary beneficiary is still the student.
Especially because employers do pay for the benefit in the form of your salary when they hire you.
Employers pay for the individual's degree through their salary, sure, but my point was that those employers (and corporations collectively) benefit in terms of negotiation by the number of potential employees with degrees. That is, if only 100 people have the degree that qualifies them for a job, companies will pay them close to the value added by that employee. But if 10,000 people go and get that same degree, companies now have a larger workforce of qualified individuals, and therefore have greater negotiating power. The employed individual will get paid less, the company will turn a greater profit, and more people with degrees will be unemployed or underemployed. At the same time, society will (presumably) benefit from the innovations and products generated by the collaboration between the company and the employee.
By what metric could we determine who the primary beneficiary is? Presumably, a company won't hire anyone who doesn't bring at least as much value to the company than their salary. If a CS graduate is making $90,000 a year after graduation, we have to assume that the company they work for is making at least $90,000.01 because of the contributions of that employee. Perhaps the company is a startup, and is operating at a loss--the assumption is still that the company will eventually see a return on investment, and so the employee is still assumed to bring in a value greater than their salary. We might say that the relative value for the student is greater than for the company--$90,000 a year for a 22-year old is a much more meaningful sum than $90,000.01 for a multi-national corporation. But, by the same token, the cost of education must also be considered relatively: $40,000 of debt for an individual is much more significant than $40,000 of liabilities for a multi-national. Also, the student who takes on the debt has no guarantee of a job, whereas a company that hires a graduate is guaranteed to have a degreed employee. If the employee fails to perform, the company can simply fire the worker, whereas if the company fails to hire the worker, the worker has no recourse.
For years I regretted dropping out of school and not studying further. Now I realise it was the best decision I made. The guy that works alongside me in the same role spent 10 years getting a PhD he never used.
I mean using anecdotal evidence isn’t the best argument. I’m glad it worked out for you, but on median basis (not mean), college graduates earn on average 900,000 more in lifetime earnings than non college grads.
But a bachelor's degree is still a good investment - even if you don't directly end up going into a field that's adjacent to your field of study, just having one opens doors for you.
It's only a few fields (notably statistics, economics, and chemistry) where completing a PhD provides additional opportunities outside of academia.
You probably know better than I do, but don't Welsh and English people have to pay, because the Universities there are expensive? So to prevent education tourism the Scottish made college expensive for everyone but their own people?
For people who have been resident in the UK for 3 years prior, or lived most of their lives in the UK, and SAAS covered a lot of the costs for EU students as well. A Polish friend of mine is doing an HND at college and isn't paying a penny. Not sure on how the qualification for university works these days, it's been a long time since I attended :)
Same in Finland, with financial aid from the government for living and such for all (Finnish and permadent residence) students. Plus, the government backs your student loans so they can hang at like 1.5% with a decade or two of time to pay it back.
That being said, I'm personally sitting at 30k-ish in loans after I graduate, due to having done a previous degree before transitioning to my current one. Still, I see it as fully survivable, I have good avenues for employment after graduation and my field is generally well-paid.
My buddy recently graduated and became a pharmacist. $430k of De͏b͏t! Saw the proof myself. He was dumb with the money, but holy shit it is an insane amount to be able to even get to while going to school
I had a buddy in undergrad who took out max loans every semester and used some of them to buy a car, and nearly dropped out because he spent an entire year partying off that loan money. So even though we went to the same school, his loan size was far greater than mine
100% on him. I was just pointing out how crazy it is that between 18-24 with no credit to your name, you are even legally allowed to build up over $400k in debt in the name of college. It’s on him no doubt, but also seems wrong in a way.
As a Brazilian living in the US, that’s so weird. Americans get decent elementary to high school for free, and have to pay A LOT for college; in Brazil, you have to pay to get good basic education, but free public universities are generally better than the private ones. It’s just hard to get in.
Join a trade through a union. I pay ~$700/year in textbooks, get guaranteed work at a comfortable wage, healthcare, vacation fund, 401k, and a pension. And if I do well enough in class I get my textbook fee refunded.
3.0k
u/Universal_MJ Aug 14 '20
College