What Price a Degree?

[OrphanPip]

That is absolutely not how it works here in North America. There are some scholarships to be had, if you dig them up, qualify, and apply for them. Very few people are able to get through without debt, especially students who pay their own way (without help from parents). A lot of graduate-level programs come with a stipend to lessen the blow. Government aid will allow you to put off payment until after the end of your program, but it must always be paid back in full, and many don't qualify for it in the first place (ie, if your parents make too much money, even if they aren't contributing).

Though it depends where you live in North America too. University for a Quebec resident is about 4000 a year, which was manageable for me to get through, though I did work 3 jobs simultaneously during one school year and that was a rough time. My graduate funding involves a 17,500 research grant from the federal government, I also received a 6000 dollar entry fellowship from McGill, and about 10,000 in additional funding from TAships. I work another job on the side and it provides enough to live modestly.

This is far better than it would have been for me out of province though. UoT offered me no graduate funding. McMaster and Ottawa offered me in the 17-20k range, which doesn't leave much to live off of after the 10k in tuition.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Though it depends where you live in North America too. University for a Quebec resident is about 4000 a year, which was manageable for me to get through, though I did work 3 jobs simultaneously during one school year and that was a rough time. My graduate funding involves a 17,500 research grant from the federal government, I also received a 6000 dollar entry fellowship from McGill, and about 10,000 in additional funding from TAships. I work another job on the side and it provides enough to live modestly.

This is far better than it would have been for me out of province though. UoT offered me no graduate funding. McMaster and Ottawa offered me in the 17-20k range, which doesn't leave much to live off of after the 10k in tuition.

.
Definitely true- you can't really even compare Canada and the US. Tuition for me was between 7 and 8 thousand a year (everywhere else is more expensive than Quebec). I had saved enough throughout high school to cover first year, and then I worked every xmas break, reading week, and summer, and still went into debt after first year. In third and fourth years I had two jobs during school to keep on top of things, and then when I went back for an upgrade year after I graduated, I worked three jobs.

I was in conversation with a prof about doing graduate work- the program was going to be coursework-based as opposed to thesis-based, which meant that I have to pay tuition and any research I did had to come out of my advisor's funding- I myself would not be eligible for any government funding. It would have been more expensive than undergrad work, with no stipend or additional funding/income (excluding TAships, which are not guaranteed). Really makes you wonder if its worth it, long term.

[AuntShecky]

This thread was the inspiration for:

Educating Waiters

[Ecurb]

A degree isn't worth much; an education is priceless.

[Nick Capozzoli]

You guys in the UK/Canada seem to have a system that spares folks who've incurred huge educational debt from pauperism (or at least from debtor's prison) in the event that they can't earn enough to live and pay back the debt. Does that apply only to folks who go to government universities (called "State Schools" here in the USA) or does it also apply to those who go to what we call "Private Schools?"

I have mixed feelings about forgiving tuition debts based solely on inability to repay them just because one can't find a job in the field of the degree. There are consequences to our life choices, and deciding to spend several years paying tuition at a college is a major life choice. If you pay cash (out of savings or from labor) for this experience then "you pays your money and takes your chances." If it doesn't work out for you, "you loses your money," as the expression goes. If you borrow money for this experience, then you, personally, don't lose your money, unless you have to pay it back. But if you don't pay it back, someone else (like maybe all the taxpayers in your country) do lose money.

On the other hand, we have to realize that the colleges themselves should have an obligation to be honest and upfront with their students regarding the "value" of what they are "selling," which is an education and college degree. We use the phrase caveat emptor to admonish folks to be wary of what they are buying. If, for example, you buy a BA in Literature, Sociology, Psychology, or Classical Greek, at a cost of say $100,000 (tuition +/- other costs) and the best employment you can find pays $35K/year doing something like flipping burgers at MacDonalds, whose fault is that? "Very mean" folk would say it is the student's fault (caveat emptor), and they should face the consequences of a bad choice. "Less mean" folk would consider that the colleges may have duped their students by failing to give them an honest cost/benefit analysis of the "product" they are selling.

I hear all the time about folk who have been duped out of their money by all sorts of predatory con-artists who beguile decent folk by promises the con-artists have no intention of keeping, and I'm particularly angry about the predation by sociopaths upon economically vulnerable folk like elderly pensioners. Well, young students are also quite vulnerable to being bilked out of their money by unscrupulous sellers of college degrees.

I do believe that there are great benefits to society and the individual from a college education in an "economically low return" field of study, like Literature, and the "Humanities" in general. That being said, the sellers of such education should be very clear about the economic and non-economic value of what they are selling.

I doubt that they will spontaneously ever do so. Academic bureaucracies, like bureaucracies elsewhere, tend to self-perpetuate and expand. They hardly ever "tighten their belts" unless they are forced to do so. Since one of the main sources of income for colleges is student tuition, they will do everything possible to maintain and increase that income source.

We here in the USA all know that college tuition has risen over the past 30 years far in excess of the national rate of inflation. I'm not sure how much that is so in the UK. Here, at least, a great deal of the increased cost of running a college is due to the expansion in the middle levels of academic managerial bureaucracy. One would imagine that computerization would have allowed colleges to function with "fewer" administrators and to cut costs, but this has not been the case. I remember registering for classes when I arrived at UC Berkeley 37 years ago. Tables were set up in Sproull Plaza and we submitted IBM cards to register for our classes. Tuition "fees" at that time were about $300 per quarter. Fast forward to the present...UCB has an efficient on-line registration service obviating a need for armies of "card collectors," but tuition fees have increased more than 15x while professor salaries have increased at most 4x. Where does the added cost to run UCB come from to justify such remarkable tuition costs? Well how about expansion of bureaucratic "middle management?"

[*Classic*Charm*]

You guys in the UK/Canada seem to have a system that spares folks...

You have misread, I'm afraid. Canada DOES NOT have the same system as the UK. In Canada, you're responsible for paying your debts in full, no matter what.

[mal4mac]

I reckon it's because they have no voice. I agree with the sentiments, but mention money and taxation and the arms fly. As it is, I hope kids aren't put off as it's an investment that could lead to a good career. If it doesn't, then I don't think education is wasted.

They seemed to have a voice in the sixties! Maybe that's why I was given a full grant in the seventies If all students went on strike today then the government would have to reintroduce a "full grant" system. When more students are working as waiters, perhaps trying to exist as Bohemian artists, what's to stop the bankers & politicians reducing the threshold at which the loan has to be repaid? The idea of the "wage slave" came to prominence on the fifties, now we also seem to have the "debt slave". The CEOs of the UKs top energy companies earn £10 000 000 a year (for what?), while students get into debt and can only find jobs as waiters. The world is crazy! Here's an interesting video on "Wealth Inequality in America", I'm certain a very similar video could be made for the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

... they're burying themselves in debt for an education that they could pick up for the price of a library card.

You have to pay for a library card!? When the politicians tried to close a library near me readers took out the maximum number of books and emptied the library. They refused to return the books unless the library was kept open. The library was kept open. Maybe you could start a similar campaign for free library cards? Maybe you can afford the card, but what about poor kids, the poorly paid, and the unemployed?

You guys in the UK/Canada seem to have a system that spares folks who've incurred huge educational debt from pauperism (or at least from debtor's prison) in the event that they can't earn enough to live and pay back the debt. Does that apply only to folks who go to government universities (called "State Schools" here in the USA) or does it also apply to those who go to what we call "Private Schools?"

All universities in the UK are government financed (apart from the University of Buckingham.)

[Delta40]

In oz it doesn't matter whether its private or public, everyone is entitled to HECS which operates through the tax system.

[OrphanPip]

Private universities in Canada are considered to be the worst quality schools, and there are few of them anyway. The public research universities have the largest endowments and are the most prestigious schools.

Edit: I wish someone could make 35k a year working at McDonalds, they'd barely make 20k working fulltime in Canada and our minimum wage is higher than the US.

[Nick Capozzoli]

You have misread, I'm afraid. Canada DOES NOT have the same system as the UK. In Canada, you're responsible for paying your debts in full, no matter what.

Thanks for the clarification. So you guys up North are in the same boat as we Yanks...

[*Classic*Charm*]

Private universities in Canada are considered to be the worst quality schools, and there are few of them anyway. The public research universities have the largest endowments and are the most prestigious schools.

Edit: I wish someone could make 35k a year working at McDonalds, they'd barely make 20k working fulltime in Canada and our minimum wage is higher than the US.

We have private universities??!!??

[OrphanPip]

We have private universities??!!??

They're mostly theological colleges owned by religious organizations.

[AuntShecky]

I have mixed feelings about forgiving tuition debts based solely on inability to repay them just because one can't find a job in the field of the degree. There are consequences to our life choices, and deciding to spend several years paying tuition at a college is a major life choice. If you pay cash (out of savings or from labor) for this experience then "you pays your money and takes your chances." If it doesn't work out for you, "you loses your money," as the expression goes. If you borrow money for this experience, then you, personally, don't lose your money, unless you have to pay it back. But if you don't pay it back, someone else (like maybe all the taxpayers in your country) do lose money.

On the other hand, we have to realize that the colleges themselves should have an obligation to be honest and upfront with their students regarding the "value" of what they are "selling," which is an education and college degree. We use the phrase caveat emptor to admonish folks to be wary of what they are buying. If, for example, you buy a BA in Literature, Sociology, Psychology, or Classical Greek, at a cost of say $100,000 (tuition +/- other costs) and the best employment you can find pays $35K/year doing something like flipping burgers at MacDonalds, whose fault is that? "Very mean" folk would say it is the student's fault (caveat emptor), and they should face the consequences of a bad choice. "Less mean" folk would consider that the colleges may have duped their students by failing to give them an honest cost/benefit analysis of the "product" they are selling.

I hear all the time about folk who have been duped out of their money by all sorts of predatory con-artists who beguile decent folk by promises the con-artists have no intention of keeping, and I'm particularly angry about the predation by sociopaths upon economically vulnerable folk like elderly pensioners. Well, young students are also quite vulnerable to being bilked out of their money by unscrupulous sellers of college degrees.

I do believe that there are great benefits to society and the individual from a college education in an "economically low return" field of study, like Literature, and the "Humanities" in general. That being said, the sellers of such education should be very clear about the economic and non-economic value of what they are selling.

Up until fairly recently, the airwaves used to be full of PSAs touting the notion "If you want a good job, get a good education." One of the ads-- I still remember-- depicted Abraham Lincoln (a noted autodidact) with a brusque personnel officer who asked the iconic statesman, "Ya got a chauffeur's license?"

The epidemic of unemployment and "underemployment" with waiters with Ph.Ds shows what an outrageous lie that was. It is true that advanced degrees are requirements for professions, but the dirty little secret is that the daughters and sons of the privileged classes have first dibs at placements, simply because their families have influence. "It's who you know" is a cliché, but sadly true.

At the same time, colleges and universities have gotten away from educational priorities and instead are concentrating on the bottom line. The institutions with high-profile athletic departments, including athletic directos and coaches paid multi-million dollar salaries, are not at all ashamed of giving football and basketball more attention than academic pursuits and honors. All those lucrative television contracts, those generous contributions from affluent alumni are just too tempting to dismiss.

Our society is nothing but materialistic, and it seems that everything (except maybe poetry)lives and dies by the dollar. This is true of non-profit institutions as well as profit-making online diploma factories, some of which encourage enrollees to take out student loans they may never be able to pay back.

We have to get back to the original mission of education and stop perpetuating the myth that a college degree will automatically set a person on the right path.

[Paulclem]

Up until fairly recently, the airwaves used to be full of PSAs touting the notion "If you want a good job, get a good education." One of the ads-- I still remember-- depicted Abraham Lincoln (a noted autodidact) with a brusque personnel officer who asked the iconic statesman, "Ya got a chauffeur's license?"

The epidemic of unemployment and "underemployment" with waiters with Ph.Ds shows what an outrageous lie that was. It is true that advanced degrees are requirements for professions, but the dirty little secret is that the daughters and sons of the privileged classes have first dibs at placements, simply because their families have influence. "It's who you know" is a cliché, but sadly true.

At the same time, colleges and universities have gotten away from educational priorities and instead are concentrating on the bottom line. The institutions with high-profile athletic departments, including athletic directos and coaches paid multi-million dollar salaries, are not at all ashamed of giving football and basketball more attention than academic pursuits and honors. All those lucrative television contracts, those generous contributions from affluent alumni are just too tempting to dismiss.

Our society is nothing but materialistic, and it seems that everything (except maybe poetry)lives and dies by the dollar. This is true of non-profit institutions as well as profit-making online diploma factories, some of which encourage enrollees to take out student loans they may never be able to pay back.

We have to get back to the original mission of education and stop perpetuating the myth that a college degree will automatically set a person on the right path.

It's the same here - though the context is different, it's still money/ privilege that will get on in the material world. We don't have the same sport links though.

I like the idea that everything except poetry lives and dies by the dollar. I suppose that's true. I've seen glimpses of the secret life of poetry. A colleague once mentioned to his workmates that he really liked reading it. He, and I, were really surprised by how many people surreptitiously gave him a small collection of their poems to look at.

I think education is good whether it leads to a job or not. Here in the UK, we have a pay back when you earn enough system, which seems to me to be fine. If you achieve a good salary - you pay. If not - you don't. There's this hangup about it being a debt hanging over kids, but I think the alternative is not to have an advanced education in what you want which may possibly limit a person's life chances.

[Nick Capozzoli]

AuntShecky,

I agree completely with your comments.