Is Going To College Worth It?

[Tugg Speedman]

Heisy. I don't disagree with your premise that college is too expensive and changes should be made. But you hurt your own cause when you can't just say "oops, I misread that site. I guess 95% don't pay the sticker price. But even so, college is still too expensive."

Ok I misread the site and almost no one pays sticker. (Note they count low interest loans as financial aid.  In the strictest sense it is but your still paying sticker, or close to it.  Just over a longer period of time.)

But, as this notes, MU is hardly cheap.

http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/marquette-university/paying-for-college/net-price/

Net Price at Marquette University for College Costs

The actual sticker price a student pays for tuition, fees, room and board for Marquette often varies widely, based on the students' income levels and the amount of financial assistance they might receive. Take a look at the net price calculations for Marquette below.

Average Net Price of $37,657 For All Undergrads


To send three kids to Marquette would cost nearly half a million dollars.   That seems like an outrageous sum to pay.

[Jay Bee]

Ok I misread the site and almost no one pays sticker. (Note they count low interest loans as financial aid.  In the strictest sense it is but your still paying sticker, or close to it.  Just over a longer period of time.)

But, as this notes, MU is hardly cheap.

http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/marquette-university/paying-for-college/net-price/

Net Price at Marquette University for College Costs

The actual sticker price a student pays for tuition, fees, room and board for Marquette often varies widely, based on the students' income levels and the amount of financial assistance they might receive. Take a look at the net price calculations for Marquette below.

Average Net Price of $37,657 For All Undergrads


To send three kids to Marquette would cost nearly half a million dollars.   That seems like an outrageous sum to pay.

Wow, you found a completely eff'd website to quote stuff... didn't cut and paste this part though... "Grant and scholarship aid was given to 100% of freshman students."...

Awful website with bad info that does nothing to counter the attacks on your 71% claim. Shameful

[Tugg Speedman]

Wow, you found a completely eff'd website to quote stuff... didn't cut and paste this part though... "Grant and scholarship aid was given to 100% of freshman students."...

Awful website with bad info that does nothing to counter the attacks on your 71% claim. Shameful

I think I acknowledged the 71% number was wrong.  And yes 100% got it and it lowered the cost from $53k to $37.6k. You think #7.5k is reasonable?

[reinko]

Don't think this has posted yet, but great read about how cheaper in-state colleges do much better (by volume), of getting poor kids into the middle class.

"CUNY turned 6X as many poor kids middle class as 8 Ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford & UofC combined."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/opinion/sunday/americas-great-working-class-colleges.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

A kid going to CUNY costs about $7K if they choose to live @ home.  I think Yukon has a point, that not ALL colleges are worth it.  For most from low-income backgrounds, MU is a terrible choice (sorry MU).  But a poor kid from upstate WI or urban MKE, armed with a Pell Grant can 2 years free @ community college, and with the right GPA can then transfer to a UW school, again get over half of their college costs paid for with need-based GRANT aid. In this scenario, a student would graduate with less $20K in federal, low interest loans.

We can then make the argument, is this degree the student earns, a bachelors in whatever from a UW school (Whitewater, Madison, MKE, Riverside, GB...) "worth" $215 a month, for 10 years ($20K in standard repayment).  In today's economy, I would say 100% yes.   

Now, if this same student, went to MU or Ripon or St. Norberts...graduated with $50K or $60K worth of debt, parents took out loans, maxed credit cards, for that Art & Philosophy major, I would probably say, they were better off not going to school.

These are not black and white issues, but great discussion.

Note, I have worked in college financial financing for the past 12 years, but what do I know, I only have a bachelors in Poly Sci from MU   

[warriorchick]

Don't think this has posted yet, but great read about how cheaper in-state colleges do much better (by volume), of getting poor kids into the middle class.

"CUNY turned 6X as many poor kids middle class as 8 Ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford & UofC combined."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/opinion/sunday/americas-great-working-class-colleges.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

A kid going to CUNY costs about $7K if they choose to live @ home.  I think Yukon has a point, that not ALL colleges are worth it.  For most from low-income backgrounds, MU is a terrible choice (sorry MU).  But a poor kid from upstate WI or urban MKE, armed with a Pell Grant can 2 years free @ community college, and with the right GPA can then transfer to a UW school, again get over half of their college costs paid for with need-based GRANT aid. In this scenario, a student would graduate with less $20K in federal, low interest loans.

We can then make the argument, is this degree the student earns, a bachelors in whatever from a UW school (Whitewater, Madison, MKE, Riverside, GB...) "worth" $215 a month, for 10 years ($20K in standard repayment).  In today's economy, I would say 100% yes.   

Now, if this same student, went to MU or Ripon or St. Norberts...graduated with $50K or $60K worth of debt, parents took out loans, maxed credit cards, for that Art & Philosophy major, I would probably say, they were better off not going to school.

These are not black and white issues, but great discussion.

Note, I have worked in college financial financing for the past 12 years, but what do I know, I only have a bachelors in Poly Sci from MU   

To be fair,  most of the schools you compare to CUNY do not confer undergraduate degrees in things like business, nursing, or education, which CUNY does. Those degrees are the straightest route to the middle class for most folks.  CUNY also has several times the undergraduate enrollment that those combined universities do.

You really aren't comparing apples to apples. 

[reinko]

To be fair,  most of the schools you compare to CUNY do not confer undergraduate degrees in things like business, nursing, or education, which CUNY does. Those degrees are the straightest route to the middle class for most folks.  CUNY also has several times the undergraduate enrollment that those combined universities do.

You really aren't comparing apples to apples.

I didn't write the article, take that up with David Leonhardt.  But point well taken...

Say we omit the whole comparison to Ivies and the elites, fine.  The fact still remains that lower cost, in-state public institutions still provide real pathways of poor kids into the middle class.

[warriorchick]

I didn't write the article, take that up with David Leonhardt.  But point well taken...

Say we omit the whole comparison to Ivies and the elites, fine.  The fact still remains that lower cost, in-state public institutions still provide real pathways of poor kids into the middle class.

No argument there.

[forgetful]

Don't think this has posted yet, but great read about how cheaper in-state colleges do much better (by volume), of getting poor kids into the middle class.

"CUNY turned 6X as many poor kids middle class as 8 Ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford & UofC combined."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/opinion/sunday/americas-great-working-class-colleges.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

A kid going to CUNY costs about $7K if they choose to live @ home.  I think Yukon has a point, that not ALL colleges are worth it.  For most from low-income backgrounds, MU is a terrible choice (sorry MU).  But a poor kid from upstate WI or urban MKE, armed with a Pell Grant can 2 years free @ community college, and with the right GPA can then transfer to a UW school, again get over half of their college costs paid for with need-based GRANT aid. In this scenario, a student would graduate with less $20K in federal, low interest loans.

We can then make the argument, is this degree the student earns, a bachelors in whatever from a UW school (Whitewater, Madison, MKE, Riverside, GB...) "worth" $215 a month, for 10 years ($20K in standard repayment).  In today's economy, I would say 100% yes.   

Now, if this same student, went to MU or Ripon or St. Norberts...graduated with $50K or $60K worth of debt, parents took out loans, maxed credit cards, for that Art & Philosophy major, I would probably say, they were better off not going to school.

These are not black and white issues, but great discussion.

Note, I have worked in college financial financing for the past 12 years, but what do I know, I only have a bachelors in Poly Sci from MU   

CUNY has a total enrollment of 516,000.  The 8 ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford and UofC is 115k.  So CUNY has 4.5 times the enrollment. 

Given that CUNY also has a far higher "poor" enrollment, the ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford, and UofC are more successful in raising people from poverty.

[reinko]

CUNY has a total enrollment of 516,000.  The 8 ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford and UofC is 115k.  So CUNY has 4.5 times the enrollment. 

Given that CUNY also has a far higher "poor" enrollment, the ivies, Duke, MIT, Stanford, and UofC are more successful in raising people from poverty.

33% of CUNY students receive Pell grants,  while look at the ranking for the Ivies and the elites it varies between 15% and 25%, is that far higher?

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools


http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/federal-and-state-grants/

And again, even taking that point, thoughts on the other 95% of my post?

[forgetful]

33% of CUNY students receive Pell grants,  while look at the ranking for the Ivies and the elites it varies between 15% and 25%, is that far higher?

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools


http://www2.cuny.edu/financial-aid/federal-and-state-grants/

And again, even taking that point, thoughts on the other 95% of my post?

Didn't think it would be that close. Thanks for the info.  Still the difference combined with the 4.5x larger enrollment would make it predictable that they should exceed that group by 6x.

What that tells me is that the key to move out of being "poor" is to get a college education.  Where, likely doesn't matter much as long as it is quality.  CUNY is a top notch education system.  Its cost is heavily subsidized by tax payers.

You emphasize community colleges.  Outside of Wisconsin (and maybe 5 other states), community colleges are terrible.  My university doesn't even accept transfer credits in core classes from them, because when we used to the students would fail all the upper level classes.  The courses were just useless.

The key, go to a quality college.  Consider your major and earning potential before choosing a University.  Wherever you go, be one of the best.  Get a graduate/professional degree...profit.

What I'd be interested in seeing is who does better at taking "poor" people and making them part of the 1%.  My guess is that the IVY+ dominates that ranking. 

[MU82]

I didn't write the article, take that up with David Leonhardt.  But point well taken...

Say we omit the whole comparison to Ivies and the elites, fine.  The fact still remains that lower cost, in-state public institutions still provide real pathways of poor kids into the middle class.

Yep. But that doesn't make good screamin' headlines.

NOBODY CAN AFFORD COLLEGE! is much more effective.

[reinko]

Didn't think it would be that close. Thanks for the info.  Still the difference combined with the 4.5x larger enrollment would make it predictable that they should exceed that group by 6x.

What that tells me is that the key to move out of being "poor" is to get a college education.  Where, likely doesn't matter much as long as it is quality.  CUNY is a top notch education system.  Its cost is heavily subsidized by tax payers.

You emphasize community colleges.  Outside of Wisconsin (and maybe 5 other states), community colleges are terrible.  My university doesn't even accept transfer credits in core classes from them, because when we used to the students would fail all the upper level classes.  The courses were just useless.

The key, go to a quality college.  Consider your major and earning potential before choosing a University.  Wherever you go, be one of the best.  Get a graduate/professional degree...profit.

What I'd be interested in seeing is who does better at taking "poor" people and making them part of the 1%.  My guess is that the IVY+ dominates that ranking.

My point was that the community college route can be an effective/affordable route for low-income young people, when faced with an alternative of a middle of the road private 4 year institution saddled with $10K per year in debt.

If that same student has the academic credentials to immediately go to a 4 year affordable school, 99/100 that is the better choice because you are right, the data shows they have a much better shot at graduating.

The silver bullet is NOT sending all poor kids to CC, and I hope I was not implying that, because all that is doing is create a haves and have not system.  Plus, most CC systems are even less funded than their 4 year counterparts, they face many challenges.

When I work with low income young people in trying to figure out how they will afford college, I have to take a risk-based approach.  This will be one of the biggest financial decisions they will ever make in their life, and it's emotional for all involved.  They have to know the serious implications of taking on a huge amount of debt their first year of college.  Young people who have debt and no degree is a growing at an incredible pace, and they are the most @ risk to default, and the impacts it has on their credit, future borrowing, access to future Pell grants (those in federal default cannot get grant aid)...

As for your last question, do you really think anyone can actually get into the 1%?  The 1% is locked in from birth.
 

[MU82]

My point was that the community college route can be an effective/affordable route for low-income young people, when faced with an alternative of a middle of the road private 4 year institution saddled with $10K per year in debt.

If that same student has the academic credentials to immediately go to a 4 year affordable school, 99/100 that is the better choice because you are right, the data shows they have a much better shot at graduating.

The silver bullet is NOT sending all poor kids to CC, and I hope I was not implying that, because all that is doing is create a haves and have not system.  Plus, most CC systems are even less funded than their 4 year counterparts, they face many challenges.

When I work with low income young people in trying to figure out how they will afford college, I have to take a risk-based approach.  This will be one of the biggest financial decisions they will ever make in their life, and it's emotional for all involved.  They have to know the serious implications of taking on a huge amount of debt their first year of college.  Young people who have debt and no degree is a growing at an incredible pace, and they are the most @ risk to default, and the impacts it has on their credit, future borrowing, access to future Pell grants (those in federal default cannot get grant aid)...

As for your last question, do you really think anyone can actually get into the 1%?  The 1% is locked in from birth.

I agree with just about all of this, which isn't unusual since you and I agree on most things. That last point, though ... I don't think "anyone" can get into the 1%, but I do think people do ascend from middle class (or even lower) to the 1%. The odds are long, but there are regularly stories about those who overcome them through hard work, luck, incredible ability (athletes, performers) or some combination.

[reinko]

I agree with just about all of this, which isn't unusual since you and I agree on most things. That last point, though ... I don't think "anyone" can get into the 1%, but I do think people do ascend from middle class (or even lower) to the 1%. The odds are long, but there are regularly stories about those who overcome them through hard work, luck, incredible ability (athletes, performers) or some combination.

Point taken and agreed with, and you are correct, a hyperbole on my part.  As it stands, an annual income in the ballpark of $450K a year puts you in the 1%.

US Median income is $55K, so while rare and very difficult to do in one generation, would most likely take multiple generations to get there.

[forgetful]

My point was that the community college route can be an effective/affordable route for low-income young people, when faced with an alternative of a middle of the road private 4 year institution saddled with $10K per year in debt.

If that same student has the academic credentials to immediately go to a 4 year affordable school, 99/100 that is the better choice because you are right, the data shows they have a much better shot at graduating.

The silver bullet is NOT sending all poor kids to CC, and I hope I was not implying that, because all that is doing is create a haves and have not system.  Plus, most CC systems are even less funded than their 4 year counterparts, they face many challenges.

When I work with low income young people in trying to figure out how they will afford college, I have to take a risk-based approach.  This will be one of the biggest financial decisions they will ever make in their life, and it's emotional for all involved.  They have to know the serious implications of taking on a huge amount of debt their first year of college.  Young people who have debt and no degree is a growing at an incredible pace, and they are the most @ risk to default, and the impacts it has on their credit, future borrowing, access to future Pell grants (those in federal default cannot get grant aid)...

As for your last question, do you really think anyone can actually get into the 1%?  The 1% is locked in from birth.

Agree with all of this.  The last comment, I agree with MU82, certainly extremely challenging to get to the 1%, but not impossible.  Both my wife and I came from low middle class backgrounds, which grew to middle class as we grew up. 

We are not in the 1% yes, but each year we get a little closer.  If it wasn't for major health issues, we probably would have made it there a few years ago (hoping for no more major health set backs).  So it is definitely, possible...although the major health issues were likely related to being overworked, and over-stressed...which those born into the top 1% do not have to worry about.

[reinko]

Agree with all of this.  The last comment, I agree with MU82, certainly extremely challenging to get to the 1%, but not impossible.  Both my wife and I came from low middle class backgrounds, which grew to middle class as we grew up. 

We are not in the 1% yes, but each year we get a little closer.  If it wasn't for major health issues, we probably would have made it there a few years ago (hoping for no more major health set backs).  So it is definitely, possible...although the major health issues were likely related to being overworked, and over-stressed...which those born into the top 1% do not have to worry about.

+1

wait...did we just come to a consensus through critical thinking, reflection, owning up to hyperbole, and using real, not alternative facts???

wow, just in awe 

[MU82]

+1

wait...did we just come to a consensus through critical thinking, reflection, owning up to hyperbole, and using real, not alternative facts???

wow, just in awe 

Wait? Is this Scoop?

As for the 1%, I always thought it was a total-net-worth thing and not an annual-salary thing. I just did a little googling (and you know how fun that can be) and found that both measures are fairly widely used.

I never will get within a zillion light years of the $400K annual salary to be a 1-percenter by that measure, but the net-worth threshold is much more attainable - slightly less than $1 million, according to Fortune magazine. That is a worldwide figure. In the U.S., one needs a net worth of more than $8 million to be in the 1%. I won't get there, either! Top 5% is a shade under $2M net worth; that's as good a goal as any for a middle-class bum like myself.

[mu03eng]

There are many paths to wealth, my personal opinion is we over-emphasis a 4 year college degree as the route to wealth.

Of the people that I know who are upper middle class (don't know anyone in the 1% that I'm aware of) at least 50% of them didn't get a degree past high school, went to trade school/apprenticed, or went to community college.

It's anecdotal, of course, but I think it's illustrative of a "lost" path because of the focus on college. My son's godfather went into steamfitting after high school, worked his way up and made good money along the way, eventually gained enough experience and knowledge that he started his own company. Eventually, though wildly successful, for medical reasons he decided to sell the business, get a 4 year degree part time as a project manager and is now working for a engineering company. He's been making more money than his wife (BS and NP in nursing) as well as both my wife and I (we both have masters) for a number of years now. I might catch up to him at some point for various reasons, but both he and his wife have been living comfortably for a number of years because he took a different route.

I don't know that people realize it, but with the rise in automation while non-college jobs involving manual labor go away there will be a significant increase in non-college jobs that involve technology connectivity. We need to find ways to move people in those directions as well.

I get that it's easy for me to say since I went to a 4 year college but I made that choice for two very practical reasons: to fly for the Navy you have to have one, and I knew my interests lay with technical innovation/designing stuff and an engineering degree was the best way to do that. If my interests lay somewhere else, I might not have bothered with college if it didn't matter.

Bottom line for the thread title, it is if you are doing for a particular reason and not doing it just because you think that's what you are suppose to do.

[forgetful]

There are many paths to wealth, my personal opinion is we over-emphasis a 4 year college degree as the route to wealth.

Of the people that I know who are upper middle class (don't know anyone in the 1% that I'm aware of) at least 50% of them didn't get a degree past high school, went to trade school/apprenticed, or went to community college.

It's anecdotal, of course, but I think it's illustrative of a "lost" path because of the focus on college. My son's godfather went into steamfitting after high school, worked his way up and made good money along the way, eventually gained enough experience and knowledge that he started his own company. Eventually, though wildly successful, for medical reasons he decided to sell the business, get a 4 year degree part time as a project manager and is now working for a engineering company. He's been making more money than his wife (BS and NP in nursing) as well as both my wife and I (we both have masters) for a number of years now. I might catch up to him at some point for various reasons, but both he and his wife have been living comfortably for a number of years because he took a different route.

I don't know that people realize it, but with the rise in automation while non-college jobs involving manual labor go away there will be a significant increase in non-college jobs that involve technology connectivity. We need to find ways to move people in those directions as well.

I get that it's easy for me to say since I went to a 4 year college but I made that choice for two very practical reasons: to fly for the Navy you have to have one, and I knew my interests lay with technical innovation/designing stuff and an engineering degree was the best way to do that. If my interests lay somewhere else, I might not have bothered with college if it didn't matter.

Bottom line for the thread title, it is if you are doing for a particular reason and not doing it just because you think that's what you are suppose to do.

I know a lot of people in the top 1%.  All got at least a 4 year degree (most an advanced degree), all also were already born into the top 1%.

Can it be done, yes, but your changes drop precipitously if you either were not already born into the 1% and/or you do not get at least a 4-year degree. 

Also, curious as to what salary you define as upper middle class.

[MU82]

When I worked for one large news organization, there were six of us who hung out fairly regularly.

I went to Marquette. One guy went to Brooklyn College. One went to Ball State. One went to Harvard (and later got his master's at Yale). One went to Georgia. One went to to school somewhere in Europe (he lives in Brussels). Six people, all working basically the same job, all making within a few thousand dollars of each other. Six very different schools.

Indeed, lots of paths.

[mu03eng]

I know a lot of people in the top 1%.  All got at least a 4 year degree (most an advanced degree), all also were already born into the top 1%.

Can it be done, yes, but your changes drop precipitously if you either were not already born into the 1% and/or you do not get at least a 4-year degree. 

Also, curious as to what salary you define as upper middle class.

Not being flippant, but what are the odds that someone is getting into the 1% anyway? A number of factors go into getting into the 1%, college certainly is one of those factors but should we be shoving everyone to college because that gives them a 0.0003% better chance of being in the 1%? The 1% by definition are limited to a small number of people.

As to definition of classes, I'll assume a family of 4 since that's the metric that always seems to be used. I'd say middle class is (depending on where you live) $75k annual income with upper middle class somewhere around $125k or $150k annual income starting for upper middle class. Anything over $250k is pretty darn wealthy.

[Tugg Speedman]

Not being flippant, but what are the odds that someone is getting into the 1% anyway? A number of factors go into getting into the 1%, college certainly is one of those factors but should we be shoving everyone to college because that gives them a 0.0003% better chance of being in the 1%? The 1% by definition are limited to a small number of people.

As to definition of classes, I'll assume a family of 4 since that's the metric that always seems to be used. I'd say middle class is (depending on where you live) $75k annual income with upper middle class somewhere around $125k or $150k annual income starting for upper middle class. Anything over $250k is pretty darn wealthy.

What defines someone in the 1%?

[forgetful]

Not being flippant, but what are the odds that someone is getting into the 1% anyway? A number of factors go into getting into the 1%, college certainly is one of those factors but should we be shoving everyone to college because that gives them a 0.0003% better chance of being in the 1%? The 1% by definition are limited to a small number of people.

As to definition of classes, I'll assume a family of 4 since that's the metric that always seems to be used. I'd say middle class is (depending on where you live) $75k annual income with upper middle class somewhere around $125k or $150k annual income starting for upper middle class. Anything over $250k is pretty darn wealthy.

That's not the reason to go to college.  The reason to go to college is statistically, your chances of being in the middle class/upper middle class/1% all substantially increase...whereas if you do not go to college the statistical likelihood of ending up in the bottom 20%, substantially increases. 

You don't go to college hoping to get into the top 1%, you go to ensure you position yourself for the most success possible. 

[Jay Bee]

Biggest reason to go to college = the broads, ain''a?

[mu03eng]

What defines someone in the 1%?

Really? Salary and/or accumulated wealth that us in the top 1% of earners in US.

Must've slept through the Occupy era