They take out loans for it, and as the now-in-jeopardy relief program shows they often can't pay those loans back.
A lot of schools don't even have the prestige but have this pricing problem: if we keep letting colleges access "free money" on the backs of 18 year olds, they will keep taking that money and spending it regardless of if it benefits the students.
-
If you walk into a bank as an assetless 18 year old and ask for a $100,000 for "a big bet that will probably pay off just trust me", you'll be politely but firmly asked to leave.
Why are we letting that happen just because some school offering 0 collateral happens to be the co-signer?
Most people aren't literally taking out a 100k loan.
It's a very complex problem. Not everyone wants to code, for many professions you really need to get into a top school. That top school might cost a bit of money.
Recently I've found it's best to worry about oneself to be frank.
Know you don't want to take out 100k for a top school, but don't judge those who do.
Assuming that results in an additional 5 to 10k in income per year after graduation, it easily pays for itself.
For you, since you already have an established career it makes little sense to spend that much
I didn't judge the students who go there, or imply such a thing.
My parents both came to this country from a third world country and spent the better parts of their lives working towards their doctorates, so I'm not looking down on people for seeking education.
-
My entire point is that the act of paying tuition isn't what makes you 5-10k, going to the school as a whole is.
NYU is a school where according to their own numbers the average student does in fact pay out more than 100k for a 4 year degree after the >30k in aid the average student gets
And so I'm questioning if that extreme level of cost is actually a requisite of NYU creating a student worth more than average.
Do they really need to spend 1 billion dollars more a year than UC Berkley, on a slightly smaller student body, to make students who make near identical salaries?
-
At the end of the day no one person can answer that, but I'm highly skeptical and would rather see downward pressure on tuition in the form for cutting off the money faucet that is 18 year olds taking out loans.
If the schools really generate equivalent value to what they're asking, that shouldn't be an issue: richer graduates will still benefit their endowments, better outcomes will still differentiate them, etc.
They take out loans for it, and as the now-in-jeopardy relief program shows they often can't pay those loans back.
A lot of schools don't even have the prestige but have this pricing problem: if we keep letting colleges access "free money" on the backs of 18 year olds, they will keep taking that money and spending it regardless of if it benefits the students.
-
If you walk into a bank as an assetless 18 year old and ask for a $100,000 for "a big bet that will probably pay off just trust me", you'll be politely but firmly asked to leave.
Why are we letting that happen just because some school offering 0 collateral happens to be the co-signer?