Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,775 posts, read 15,776,851 times
Reputation: 10880
Advertisements
I look at college payments this way. Take the average family - mom, dad, 2 children with two typical scenarios:
A. If mom and dad paid for their own education they often expect their children to do so, too. Therefore, each person is responsible for the cost of one person's college education. In this case they pay for their own.
B. If mom and dad had their college education paid for, they often pay for their children's college education. Again, each person is responsible for paying for one person's college education. In this case, each parent pays for one child's (or technically, each parent pays for 2 halves of each child's education).
In both cases, it works out that you are paying for one college education per person. So which way works out better, all else being equal?
In scenario A, child starting out after college are playing catch-up, trying to pay off debt the first 5-10 years, delaying retirement and other savings and then passing that same legacy onto their children.
To me, in the B scenario, the child has a better chance of financial success because the person starts off debt free and can save more early on in his life. Being able to start saving early on in your life makes a huge impact on your finances.
Neither of my parents actually went to college, but they knew it was important for their children to go, so they saved up for it and fully paid our way. Now we all have children ourselves, and we have already paid for our children's college or are planning to do so.
By starting my working life debt free, I was able to sock away a ton of money. I started my retirement savings at age 22 and started savings in my first child's college account a few months after she was born. Because I started savings so early (thanks to no debt) and could take advantage of compounding, my retirement savings account and our 3 children's college accounts are all in good shape.
My parents gave me the gift of a debt-free start in life, and I plan to pass on that gift to my children. I didn't feel "entitled" to have my college education paid for. It's just how things were done, and I greatly appreciated it. I knew my dad worked many nights to save up for his family, and I didn't squander his gift to me. I worked hard in college, got good grades and got a job when I got out.
I know everyone is not financially able to do that, but if you can pay for your child's college - at least part of it, it can mean a great start to your child's financial future and get people out of the cycle of starting out life in debt. Raising your children to appreciate what they are given will have more of an effect on their character than whether you give them a lot or a little.
My "children" graduated college in 2012 and 2013. They paid for their own school, one graduated debt free and the other had minimal debt. Both watched, horrified, as friends racked up huge debt or spent their parents money while they learned to be self sufficient and took pride in their achievement.
Back to the original question....I saved for retirement.
Did you have the time it would have taken to get a competitive score on the GRE? That takes a HUGE amount of studying and had I been forced to work, I simply wouldn't have the time. Yes, I would have time, but not enough! If I even had a "mere" 90th percentile score, I'm pretty sure I'd have been rejected. Perhaps you don't realize just how competitive the field is and how hard it is to sufficiently impress those reviewing your application.
Do you also seriously not realize just how much more difficult "working your way through school" is than it was even 10 years ago?
Tuition and fees are up in the sky these days and wages haven't even kept up with the costs of housing and food. And 18-22 year old people without college degrees face a very high rate of unemployment and underemployment (getting hours cut).
Are you really suggesting that in less than 10 years (I graduated university in 2009, by the way), that it has since become impossible to work to finance yourself and study, achieving high grades? Did you miss the part where I actually did grad school too? And I was pregnant with my 1st child.
Look Ncole, just because YOU weren't capable of doing it on your own, doesn't mean that other students weren't. You could have done it. You didn't HAVE TO go to grad school. You chose to do it. There are plenty of solid careers out there that can be done with a one-year technical certificate, you chose to do get an MA/PhD and that's on YOU if you aren't capable of working and studying at the same time.
Maybe you were capable, but you are so stuck in the mentality that it's impossible without parent's help, that you don't realize it.
I guess the difference between me and you is that I was raised by an immigrant mother who worked hard and started me off by making me work at 14. If your parents didn't encourage you to do the same, well, that's fine and it worked out for you - but don't act like it can't be done the other way either.
Pay for all your kid's tuition or don't pay for it, nothing wrong with either approach, but I sure as heck do not recommend paying for it all if they have some sort of entitlement attitude where they think they cannot do it without you. If they won't work because they have to study, or if they think you owe it? Hell no.
Did you have the time it would have taken to get a competitive score on the GRE? That takes a HUGE amount of studying and had I been forced to work, I simply wouldn't have the time. Yes, I would have time, but not enough! If I even had a "mere" 90th percentile score, I'm pretty sure I'd have been rejected. Perhaps you don't realize just how competitive the field is and how hard it is to sufficiently impress those reviewing your application.
Do you also seriously not realize just how much more difficult "working your way through school" is than it was even 10 years ago?
Tuition and fees are up in the sky these days and wages haven't even kept up with the costs of housing and food. And 18-22 year old people without college degrees face a very high rate of unemployment and underemployment (getting hours cut).
Sorry, but you are just making excuses. It is a rare student that can't work their way through college these days, especially if you include summer earnings. You are also over exaggerating the GRE score needed. It's no more difficult today than it was 10 years, 20 years, 30 years ago. If you do an apples to apples comparison of income to college costs, that ratio has actually gone DOWN in the past 10 years--meaning that if you compare job for job, salary for salary, the cost of college is actually less now. Now, if you just look at the "average income", which is not the right comparison, those numbers are skewed.
If you do an apples to apples comparison of income to college costs, that ratio has actually gone DOWN in the past 10 years--meaning that if you compare job for job, salary for salary, the cost of college is actually less now. Now, if you just look at the "average income", which is not the right comparison, those numbers are skewed.
Absolutely untrue. I've extensively proved this in a previous thread that college is MUCH more expensive now, and tuition has vastly outpaced inflation and salary growth.
I look at college payments this way. Take the average family - mom, dad, 2 children with two typical scenarios:
...
B. If mom and dad had their college education paid for, they often pay for their children's college education. Again, each person is responsible for paying for one person's college education. In this case, each parent pays for one child's (or technically, each parent pays for 2 halves of each child's education).
In both cases, it works out that you are paying for one college education per person. So which way works out better, all else being equal?
...
To me, in the B scenario, the child has a better chance of financial success because the person starts off debt free and can save more early on in his life. Being able to start saving early on in your life makes a huge impact on your finances.
...
By starting my working life debt free, I was able to sock away a ton of money. I started my retirement savings at age 22 and started savings in my first child's college account a few months after she was born. Because I started savings so early (thanks to no debt) and could take advantage of compounding, my retirement savings account and our 3 children's college accounts are all in good shape.
My parents gave me the gift of a debt-free start in life, and I plan to pass on that gift to my children. I didn't feel "entitled" to have my college education paid for. It's just how things were done, and I greatly appreciated it. I knew my dad worked many nights to save up for his family, and I didn't squander his gift to me. I worked hard in college, got good grades and got a job when I got out.
I know everyone is not financially able to do that, but if you can pay for your child's college - at least part of it, it can mean a great start to your child's financial future and get people out of the cycle of starting out life in debt. Raising your children to appreciate what they are given will have more of an effect on their character than whether you give them a lot or a little.
This is our perspective as well. My wife and I came from relatively modest immigrant families. Fortunately, both my wife (scholarships and her parents paid for college) and I (attended a tuition-free school) didn't have to take out any loans for undergrad, which gave each of us a huge leg up right after college. Not having that debt meant that we were able to invest more in our future both in terms of education (medical school, grad school and business school) and savings, with minimal stress. It has also allowed us to always be financially stable, and it's a gift that we intend to pass on to the next generation (we'll even pay for medical/law/business/grad school). Hopefully they'll take care of the generation afterwards, and they'll take care of our great-grandkids, etc.
Absolutely untrue. I've extensively proved this in a previous thread that college is MUCH more expensive now, and tuition has vastly outpaced inflation and salary growth.
Yes, it IS true and has been proven otherwise in numerous threads on this topic including links to valid sources showing the exact numbers. The problem is that people us "median" income as a benchmark but that's not a valid benchmark either because it is not looking at the income/age group of people paying for college. Feel free to search the boards for these posts.
If you compare the salary of a middle management position in 1970 vs the same job/same area today the ratio of college costs to income is nearly identical, and actually slightly less today--it's been a consistent 20% ratio for the past 40+ years.
Problem is, they are quoting the consumer price index or "inflation" vs actual incomes. They also are not taking into consideration the reduced funding for state schools over the past 20 years or more.
Back in the 70's when in-state costs (tuition) was maybe $1200 or so depending on where you live, minimum wage was $1.60, so an annual salary of about $3300--36%. Today that same school tuition is about $6000. Today with a minimum wage of $7.25 and an annual salary of $15,000, about 40%.
That's just comparing minimum wage jobs too--so a likely college student wage. Even at earning $15,000/year, get a scholarship or two, living on campus with room and board paid and there you have your college costs covered by your job in today's dollars.....
You are living in fantasy land. Tuition is now $9700 at the state university where I went to undergrad--when I attended in 1992 it was $3500. If tuition had risen the same as inflation, the cost should be only $5800. I later attended law school at a premier state school--at the time, the tuition for me as a state resident was $12k. Now, just ten years later, it is almost $50k. Salaries for 80% of Americans have stagnated since the 1980s--they have not kept pace with inflation--was it you who in another thread was offering the salaries of astronauts as evidence to the contrary? I love your bit about mitigating these costs by just getting 'a scholarship or two'. In that case, I'll take three! Well, it's obvious we have a slight disagreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
Yes, it IS true and has been proven otherwise in numerous threads on this topic including links to valid sources showing the exact numbers. The problem is that people us "median" income as a benchmark but that's not a valid benchmark either because it is not looking at the income/age group of people paying for college. Feel free to search the boards for these posts.
If you compare the salary of a middle management position in 1970 vs the same job/same area today the ratio of college costs to income is nearly identical, and actually slightly less today--it's been a consistent 20% ratio for the past 40+ years.
Problem is, they are quoting the consumer price index or "inflation" vs actual incomes. They also are not taking into consideration the reduced funding for state schools over the past 20 years or more.
Back in the 70's when in-state costs (tuition) was maybe $1200 or so depending on where you live, minimum wage was $1.60, so an annual salary of about $3300--36%. Today that same school tuition is about $6000. Today with a minimum wage of $7.25 and an annual salary of $15,000, about 40%.
That's just comparing minimum wage jobs too--so a likely college student wage. Even at earning $15,000/year, get a scholarship or two, living on campus with room and board paid and there you have your college costs covered by your job in today's dollars.....
You are living in fantasy land. Tuition is now $9700 at the state university where I went to undergrad--when I attended in 1992 it was $3500. If tuition had risen the same as inflation, the cost should be only $5800. I later attended law school at a premier state school--at the time, the tuition for me as a state resident was $12k. Now, just ten years later, it is almost $50k. Salaries for 80% of Americans have stagnated since the 1980s--they have not kept pace with inflation--was it you who in another thread was offering the salaries of astronauts as evidence to the contrary? I love your bit about mitigating these costs by just getting 'a scholarship or two'. In that case, I'll take three! Well, it's obvious we have a slight disagreement.
You are missing the point--nothing moves strictly at the rate of inflation AND at your state school, your STATE funding has dropped--the costs haven't increased as much, the burden of those costs have shifted..there is a difference. The cost of a candy bar has increased about 800%...way more than inflation--in the past 40 years too....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
