Geez, I don't know if I should be expecting a thank you card from you for "paying" for your education or if I should be sending you one for your service.
We are the 99%/Occupy Movement
- Thread starter SamAca10
- Start date
Geez, I don't know if I should be expecting a thank you card from you for "paying" for your education or if I should be sending you one for your service.
College tuition has gone up because the vast majority of states have greatly decreased the amount of money devoted to undergraduate education, either by decreasing funds devoted to higher education generally (ex: Wisconsin) or by allocating significant resources to non-essential, non-classroom costs (ex: New Jersey).
It's actually created a bizarre divide whereby private colleges are often far less expensive than state institutions. The Harvards and Yales and Princetons give huge quantities of private aid money to any student who is accepted, which makes them extraordinarily affordable for middle-class students (anyone who's family makes $60,000 a year can go to these schools for FREE). But there are a reeeaaaalllly limited number of spots at these schools.
So this idea that people are saddled with debt because they chose exclusive, private institutions over cheap, public institutions is the exception rather than the rule. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 75.3% of students go to public colleges. 14% go to non-profit private institutions (that's your Harvards and Yales and Dukes and USCs and Amhersts and Colorado Colleges, etc.). 7.4% go to private for-profit colleges (this area is seeing explosive growth, and explosive cost). Look at those figures. More than 5 times the number of students enroll at public colleges than enroll at private non-profit colleges (which proportionally give far more financial aid than publics).
The real point: the very existence of cheap, public institutions are the exception rather than the rule. If you got a great, dirt cheap, public education 20 years ago, that's terrific, but it's probably 200% more expensive now. That's the reality. Yes, there are still some great deals, but they are exceptions. As has been pointed out, not every student can quality for a scholarship. Scholarships are pointedly only for a small portion of students. The entire idea of them is to create incentives for top performers, so insisting that everyone just locate scholarships is deeply illogical.
The article that Hornetguy linked to is spot-on in identifying the financial problem facing students. It costs in the neighborhood of $9,000 a year just to enroll at state universities, with nothing extra. Quick examples just for tuition, and I chose the states that house service academies for comparability (and kicks): Maryland: $8,655; Colorado: $9,904 (this is just for Arts & Sciences; it's $14,494/year if you want to study in the Business School!!; $12,898 to study engineering!); New York: $5,270; Connecticut: $8,256.
The only state that offers a truly affordable education there is New York. And this is just tuition. It doesn't include book fees, living expenses, lab fees, and so on. I can't help but add in that if you're unlucky enough to born and raised in the otherwise great state of Illinois, it will cost you $15,928 a year in tuition to be a Chemistry, Life Sciences, Engineering or Business major. That's nearly $64,000 just in fall/spring term tuition for four years at a public university! And what if they don't have the classes you need at the times you need them to complete your degree program in, say, Chemical Engineering (which is notorious for the number of required courses that must be complete in sequence)? Then you're out of luck, which means you have to enroll in the summer or stay an extra semester or two. Massive state universities don't care if you can't get the class you want. This isn't because you're a lazy hippie, but because you want to be a chemical engineer. Now you're upwards of $70,000 just in tuition, nevermind living costs.
When we look at nation's like China or those in the EU, which soundly beat us on all educational indicators, you will find that their university systems are shockingly cheap. Cost simply isn't an issue for most people there. If you succeed in school you don't have make these "hard choices" because their culture has deemed an educated populace to be a cultural asset. The United States thought that way in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, which resulted in incredible innovation and a dramatic democratization of higher education. What we're dealing with now is the effect of deciding to divest our resources from education. The rise of for-profit colleges is the next natural step in that process.
The fact that Colorado and Illinois are creating financial disincentives for people to study to become engineers or chemists (or both) seems deeply illustrative to me. The logic is that it costs more to educate an engineer than a historian so you need to charge more--labs, materials, higher salaries for professors who have other career options. But as a society we need engineers and chemists. And we're well aware that U.S. students are studying math and science less--you can find an article about this in newspapers once a month. So why do we make it a harder choice? Where is the long view? Why don't we want to invest in the education of the next generation?
Yes, some of the people at the OWS protests are lazy, North Face wearing, Starbucks-swilling joiners who just want a "cause". But there's also a serious problem brewing in terms of the cost-structure of modern education, and if we don't figure out constructive solutions that don't demonize people as lazy and entitled, then we're going to have even more problems down the line.
I do have to say I see no small amount of irony in the idea that people are on a service academy forum bemoaning the existence of federally-subsidized educational loans, as Pima points out. Federally-subsidized educational loans are the bedrock of the democratization of education--the service academies representing the extreme (and positive) example of this. We subsidize the cost of the service academies in order to ensure that have a well-prepared officer corps. It's costlier than it would be if we outsourced it to private institutions a la ROTC, and we can get people to pay for the experience (Senior Military Colleges, anyone?), so why do we do it? We do it because we deem it important as a society.
**I'm new here, though I've been reading/lurking for awhile after stumbling over the website while doing research into specialized college admissions awhile back. Sorry my first post is so long, but I really found this back-and-forth fascinating and couldn't help myself.
It's actually created a bizarre divide whereby private colleges are often far less expensive than state institutions. The Harvards and Yales and Princetons give huge quantities of private aid money to any student who is accepted, which makes them extraordinarily affordable for middle-class students (anyone who's family makes $60,000 a year can go to these schools for FREE). But there are a reeeaaaalllly limited number of spots at these schools.
So this idea that people are saddled with debt because they chose exclusive, private institutions over cheap, public institutions is the exception rather than the rule. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 75.3% of students go to public colleges. 14% go to non-profit private institutions (that's your Harvards and Yales and Dukes and USCs and Amhersts and Colorado Colleges, etc.). 7.4% go to private for-profit colleges (this area is seeing explosive growth, and explosive cost). Look at those figures. More than 5 times the number of students enroll at public colleges than enroll at private non-profit colleges (which proportionally give far more financial aid than publics).
The real point: the very existence of cheap, public institutions are the exception rather than the rule. If you got a great, dirt cheap, public education 20 years ago, that's terrific, but it's probably 200% more expensive now. That's the reality. Yes, there are still some great deals, but they are exceptions. As has been pointed out, not every student can quality for a scholarship. Scholarships are pointedly only for a small portion of students. The entire idea of them is to create incentives for top performers, so insisting that everyone just locate scholarships is deeply illogical.
The article that Hornetguy linked to is spot-on in identifying the financial problem facing students. It costs in the neighborhood of $9,000 a year just to enroll at state universities, with nothing extra. Quick examples just for tuition, and I chose the states that house service academies for comparability (and kicks): Maryland: $8,655; Colorado: $9,904 (this is just for Arts & Sciences; it's $14,494/year if you want to study in the Business School!!; $12,898 to study engineering!); New York: $5,270; Connecticut: $8,256.
The only state that offers a truly affordable education there is New York. And this is just tuition. It doesn't include book fees, living expenses, lab fees, and so on. I can't help but add in that if you're unlucky enough to born and raised in the otherwise great state of Illinois, it will cost you $15,928 a year in tuition to be a Chemistry, Life Sciences, Engineering or Business major. That's nearly $64,000 just in fall/spring term tuition for four years at a public university! And what if they don't have the classes you need at the times you need them to complete your degree program in, say, Chemical Engineering (which is notorious for the number of required courses that must be complete in sequence)? Then you're out of luck, which means you have to enroll in the summer or stay an extra semester or two. Massive state universities don't care if you can't get the class you want. This isn't because you're a lazy hippie, but because you want to be a chemical engineer. Now you're upwards of $70,000 just in tuition, nevermind living costs.
When we look at nation's like China or those in the EU, which soundly beat us on all educational indicators, you will find that their university systems are shockingly cheap. Cost simply isn't an issue for most people there. If you succeed in school you don't have make these "hard choices" because their culture has deemed an educated populace to be a cultural asset. The United States thought that way in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, which resulted in incredible innovation and a dramatic democratization of higher education. What we're dealing with now is the effect of deciding to divest our resources from education. The rise of for-profit colleges is the next natural step in that process.
The fact that Colorado and Illinois are creating financial disincentives for people to study to become engineers or chemists (or both) seems deeply illustrative to me. The logic is that it costs more to educate an engineer than a historian so you need to charge more--labs, materials, higher salaries for professors who have other career options. But as a society we need engineers and chemists. And we're well aware that U.S. students are studying math and science less--you can find an article about this in newspapers once a month. So why do we make it a harder choice? Where is the long view? Why don't we want to invest in the education of the next generation?
Yes, some of the people at the OWS protests are lazy, North Face wearing, Starbucks-swilling joiners who just want a "cause". But there's also a serious problem brewing in terms of the cost-structure of modern education, and if we don't figure out constructive solutions that don't demonize people as lazy and entitled, then we're going to have even more problems down the line.
I do have to say I see no small amount of irony in the idea that people are on a service academy forum bemoaning the existence of federally-subsidized educational loans, as Pima points out. Federally-subsidized educational loans are the bedrock of the democratization of education--the service academies representing the extreme (and positive) example of this. We subsidize the cost of the service academies in order to ensure that have a well-prepared officer corps. It's costlier than it would be if we outsourced it to private institutions a la ROTC, and we can get people to pay for the experience (Senior Military Colleges, anyone?), so why do we do it? We do it because we deem it important as a society.
**I'm new here, though I've been reading/lurking for awhile after stumbling over the website while doing research into specialized college admissions awhile back. Sorry my first post is so long, but I really found this back-and-forth fascinating and couldn't help myself.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Noooo..... if was a deal. You pay for my education and I do something for at least 5 years. I certainly appreciated the free education. It wasn't my only option, but I went for a reason other an not having to pay.
As you previously pointed out it wasn't "free". A good deal? I think so. I point this out to my aspiring son on a regular basis that it isn't free and he better have a better reason than money.
"if you suceed in school" are key words to higher education in German public school. In 4th grade, kids are selected for a "vo-tech" or a "professional" track. In 6th grade, there is a small number of students that go from one-track to the other, but that is the exception.
I am one of the "working poor" on the German economy, and my withholding is less than the typical German worker. I have 20% withholding plus my employer's 20%....for every 100euro I earn, the German gov't gets 40euro. Cost may not an issue for the individual, but that does not mean that the cost is not being paid.
The perceived importance of one college over another has been a pet peeve of mine for years.
Universities have for years marketed themselves to prospective students by saying they are the best, or ranked in the top 10, their tuition costs reflect that ranking. It has been drilled into kids from their freshman year in high school that if you want a good job you need to attend the best school. Students are spoon fed the rankings from publications like US News and World Report or the Princeton Review. Employers have drank the Kool Aid as well, they feel to compete for business and clients they need to add to their mareting that they hire only graduates from the highest ranked schools, all of this feeding into notion that only those who graduate from the top schools have a chance to gain employment with these firms.
Now these young people look at all these reports and feel they have no choice but to take out whatever laons they will need just to pay for one of these preceived top schools. Students feel...Why not take the loan...I'll get that great paying job and pay it off in no time. Now reality hits and they find that great job is no longer available and they can't figure out why.
Take Law School for example, A university, for example The University of Idaho, has a Law School, the cost is around $15,000 per year, cheap compared to say Harvard. I have talked with a few prospective law students who have said they would love to go to the U of I but are afraid they will not be able to compete with the Harvard and Yale grads. They like the idea of an affordable Law School but are willing to take on massive debt to try for a "Better" school. I'm curious, does Harvard or Yale have the secret code for Law School that only they know, do the smaller lesser known Law Schools just hand out the degree with no effort required, or have we as a soceity become so brainwashed that if you don't have that Harvard Law degree you are somehow just sub standard.
For years the big banks and wall street investment firms have filled their companies with "Top School" MBA's. They tout this to all their investors, they market this to all their clients. These companies have told us for years that they need the top talent to fill their positions. Well, that top talent was responsible for the largest bank and investment collapse in recent history. These are the same talented people that thought giving subprime loans on properties with over inflated assesments was a good idea and to cover their butts, they rolled them into bad securities.
Smart people are smart, what school they attend will not make them dumber. As long as we as a soceity put so much stock in the name of the University that is on the diploma our young people will be willing to take on massive debt to attend those schools.
Someone posted a question on this thread, why does Harvard charge so much for tuition when their endowments could effectivly pay for every student cost ....they do it because they can, they do it because there are thousands of students every year that are willing to shell out that cost because they have been sold the notion that unless you go to the best you will not succeed. So, while student loan dedt is the responsibility of those that take out the loans, we as a soceity bare some of the resonsibility for perpetuating the idea that you have to pay to get the very best.
Sorry for the rant and straying a bit off your topic.
Universities have for years marketed themselves to prospective students by saying they are the best, or ranked in the top 10, their tuition costs reflect that ranking. It has been drilled into kids from their freshman year in high school that if you want a good job you need to attend the best school. Students are spoon fed the rankings from publications like US News and World Report or the Princeton Review. Employers have drank the Kool Aid as well, they feel to compete for business and clients they need to add to their mareting that they hire only graduates from the highest ranked schools, all of this feeding into notion that only those who graduate from the top schools have a chance to gain employment with these firms.
Now these young people look at all these reports and feel they have no choice but to take out whatever laons they will need just to pay for one of these preceived top schools. Students feel...Why not take the loan...I'll get that great paying job and pay it off in no time. Now reality hits and they find that great job is no longer available and they can't figure out why.
Take Law School for example, A university, for example The University of Idaho, has a Law School, the cost is around $15,000 per year, cheap compared to say Harvard. I have talked with a few prospective law students who have said they would love to go to the U of I but are afraid they will not be able to compete with the Harvard and Yale grads. They like the idea of an affordable Law School but are willing to take on massive debt to try for a "Better" school. I'm curious, does Harvard or Yale have the secret code for Law School that only they know, do the smaller lesser known Law Schools just hand out the degree with no effort required, or have we as a soceity become so brainwashed that if you don't have that Harvard Law degree you are somehow just sub standard.
For years the big banks and wall street investment firms have filled their companies with "Top School" MBA's. They tout this to all their investors, they market this to all their clients. These companies have told us for years that they need the top talent to fill their positions. Well, that top talent was responsible for the largest bank and investment collapse in recent history. These are the same talented people that thought giving subprime loans on properties with over inflated assesments was a good idea and to cover their butts, they rolled them into bad securities.
Smart people are smart, what school they attend will not make them dumber. As long as we as a soceity put so much stock in the name of the University that is on the diploma our young people will be willing to take on massive debt to attend those schools.
Someone posted a question on this thread, why does Harvard charge so much for tuition when their endowments could effectivly pay for every student cost ....they do it because they can, they do it because there are thousands of students every year that are willing to shell out that cost because they have been sold the notion that unless you go to the best you will not succeed. So, while student loan dedt is the responsibility of those that take out the loans, we as a soceity bare some of the resonsibility for perpetuating the idea that you have to pay to get the very best.
Sorry for the rant and straying a bit off your topic.
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
I agree Jcleppe, we as a society have "bought in" what the colleges are doing. That was and is my point. These protesters are angry at WS, but who they really should be mad at is their self for "buying in" or drinking the Kool Aid from the college that promised job placement.
They to me are the norm. They bought in that college has 95% job placement upon graduation. The problem is how many were placed in their field, how many took jobs for a paycheck? They went in debt, right or wrong because of the dog and pony show (campus tour), they were sold a bill of goods. Nobody in 07 that went to these tours, and heard the 95% placement rate, could predict 3 yrs of 9% unemployment. They heard 95% and thought take the debt, because you will get a job. They didn't ask for a further breakdown...what is the avg salary, how long did it take them to get a job, how many are working in their field?
Again, they were the fools that said pour me another glass.
I do see a new growing trend regarding college. Many of the kids in our area that can get into great colleges are opting to do 2 yrs at the CC and transfer later on. Our DD's BFF got into Gtown, but when the merit was deducted from the bill, and what her parents could afford to pay, she was still left with a big chunk in loans. She decided to go to a CC, take no loans, leave what her parents had in the bank to accrue more int. Her belief was if she could get in as a HS sr., in 2 yrs from now they will take her as a transfer. At that point, she would be able to pay for it without loans.
I thought that took a lot of nerve, especially since most of her friends would be going to a 4 yr college. She worked basically FT her freshman yr, her parents continued to put money away for her college account. They saved enough money, during that time, for her to move up transferring to this year with no loans. Received the same merit packet that she got in HS.
That was smart on all of their parts.
My DD's other close friend, did the same, and now is in the process of transferring to Cornell. Accepted in HS too, but merit didn't meet ability to pay. Dad is an O6, and still could not swing it for 4 yrs with 2 younger children that would enter while he was in college. He told him, what I do for you I must do for your siblings. Told him if you go the loan difference is on you.
It is actually becoming quite common here. The stigma of going to a 2 yr CC because no 4 yr college will accept you is disappearing, it is becoming fiscally smart people opting this route image.
They to me are the norm. They bought in that college has 95% job placement upon graduation. The problem is how many were placed in their field, how many took jobs for a paycheck? They went in debt, right or wrong because of the dog and pony show (campus tour), they were sold a bill of goods. Nobody in 07 that went to these tours, and heard the 95% placement rate, could predict 3 yrs of 9% unemployment. They heard 95% and thought take the debt, because you will get a job. They didn't ask for a further breakdown...what is the avg salary, how long did it take them to get a job, how many are working in their field?
Again, they were the fools that said pour me another glass.
I do see a new growing trend regarding college. Many of the kids in our area that can get into great colleges are opting to do 2 yrs at the CC and transfer later on. Our DD's BFF got into Gtown, but when the merit was deducted from the bill, and what her parents could afford to pay, she was still left with a big chunk in loans. She decided to go to a CC, take no loans, leave what her parents had in the bank to accrue more int. Her belief was if she could get in as a HS sr., in 2 yrs from now they will take her as a transfer. At that point, she would be able to pay for it without loans.
I thought that took a lot of nerve, especially since most of her friends would be going to a 4 yr college. She worked basically FT her freshman yr, her parents continued to put money away for her college account. They saved enough money, during that time, for her to move up transferring to this year with no loans. Received the same merit packet that she got in HS.
That was smart on all of their parts.
My DD's other close friend, did the same, and now is in the process of transferring to Cornell. Accepted in HS too, but merit didn't meet ability to pay. Dad is an O6, and still could not swing it for 4 yrs with 2 younger children that would enter while he was in college. He told him, what I do for you I must do for your siblings. Told him if you go the loan difference is on you.
It is actually becoming quite common here. The stigma of going to a 2 yr CC because no 4 yr college will accept you is disappearing, it is becoming fiscally smart people opting this route image.
Great example of being responsible and making sound decisions.
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
Scout,
I did not want you to think I was avoiding/ignoring your post. It just happened to be you were a page before Jcleppe's most recent post.
So let's go point by point.
As you know by being an AD member, you pay monthly for TriCare and Concordia. It is deducted from your LES.
So as much as your parents paid for our kids health care, we got hit harder. We not only paid taxes like your parents, but the premiums which your folks didn't. We also paid the co-pay and deductibles.
Tell me did your parents pay for their personal health care program, BCBS, Aetna, through their federal taxes and than pay a monthly premium?
No they didn't. Their taxes paid for the military just like your taxes. You pay a monthly premium to Tri-Care just like me and federal taxes too. To state that our kids were on their dime is wrong. We actually get hit 2x.
Unless I missed the check from Scoutpilot SR, we paid the difference, plus the co-pay and premiums. I am 100% positive that I never paid the premiums, co-pay and deductibles for ScoutSR's for their health care insurance when they had an insurance carrier.
When our DD was rushed by ambulance for being bitten by a copperhead snake (3X), took 5 vials of anti venom from the CDC which cost 12K, spent 3 days in the hospital, Bullet and I paid the co-pay, not your folks. We were charged for crutches out of pocket by Tri-Care. I didn't get that check from Scoutpilot SR for her crutches.
Back in 93, when I was pregnant with DS2, I was forced off base for OB/GYN...no room at the inn (82nd AB). I got sick, I had to pay co-pay for a doc. DS2 also could not get a ped. apptmt. on post. We paid for the 1 week, 2 week, 1 mo, 2mos, 3 mos, 6, mos, 9 mos, and 12 mos check ups using Tri-Care and co-pay for immunizations.
We were actually paying for the military health care system like your folks, and worse yet, we couldn't get the bennies as an AD member.
OBTW, we in this area cannot get into any military hospital now. We are retirees and they over crowded. Your folks are paying for our health care, but tell them no fear, the only people being seen for retirees on base/post is the person who actually served. 3 yrs after retirement and our kids are still Tri-Care.
Start popping out kids and use only your Tri-Care bens; than talk to me about how my kids were on your folks dime. Your DW is a doc, do not use her, or her insurance for medical care. Tell me when you visit the folks that are 500 miles away from your post, and your child gets so sick you took them to a doc, and now had to pay a co-pay that they paid with their taxes for your health care.
Go for it. I have shown 2 issues where we paid out of pocket. I can also show that during a PCS I contracted Lyme disease and because we were at my Mom's home,(no military base near) we had to pay for the doc office bill for the diagnosis and we had to pay a co-pay for the meds. Bullet was AD O5 select.
Point being? He pays his taxes? So do I.
We are not talking about LITS SR here. We are talking about LITS. LITS IMPO used the system wisely. I do not begrudge him one bit.
My issue was his post saying I didn't take any debt. I felt it was condescending because he didn't have to take any FINANCIAL debt since he went to an SA, and got his Master's as an AD officer. Yes 5 yrs of his life, so don't go down that road.
That is not the traditional route for the avg college kid. He was afforded this opportunity because of my dime as a taxpayer. Just as a Pell Grant recipient is afforded the same opportunity. It is the tax payer that pays.
LITS SR didn't receive a statement from the CGA for tuition due. He didn't get it because our tax dollars paid.
I never had an issue with him or anybody attending an SA, accepting ROTC scholarship, SMP, GI Bill, etc.
My issue was this comment from LITS, he is implying on that post he is paying. He was replying to Hornet's comment
LITS took tax payer dollars so he would not have debt. He owed 5 yrs., and also during that time he also got assistance for his Masters from GTU or GW, can't remember which. At the same time he is blasting Hornet for his opinion of taking a loan to attend Harvard which would be backed with tax payer dollars.
Let's keep it apples with apples. Hornet is stating him and many other kids would take loans, 93% repay those loans. Only 7% default.
LITS is correct who pays for that debt? US, the taxpayer. I like him a lot, but also at the same time, I am going to be honest. He worked the system to his advantage. No judgement just saying.
He is angry right now, and I get it.
He jumped without a job. I am not inferring or implying he shouldn't have. That is/was a personal decision. However, I am saying don't play the no debt card.
Honestly, his employment issues should illustrate to everyone that has an SA degree, and a Masters with a security clearance how bad it is out there.
FLAME ON.
I am 1000% sure you will find fault in my defense and I have no issue with that fact.
Fly safe
I did not want you to think I was avoiding/ignoring your post. It just happened to be you were a page before Jcleppe's most recent post.
So let's go point by point.
As you know by being an AD member, you pay monthly for TriCare and Concordia. It is deducted from your LES.
So as much as your parents paid for our kids health care, we got hit harder. We not only paid taxes like your parents, but the premiums which your folks didn't. We also paid the co-pay and deductibles.
Tell me did your parents pay for their personal health care program, BCBS, Aetna, through their federal taxes and than pay a monthly premium?
No they didn't. Their taxes paid for the military just like your taxes. You pay a monthly premium to Tri-Care just like me and federal taxes too. To state that our kids were on their dime is wrong. We actually get hit 2x.
Unless I missed the check from Scoutpilot SR, we paid the difference, plus the co-pay and premiums. I am 100% positive that I never paid the premiums, co-pay and deductibles for ScoutSR's for their health care insurance when they had an insurance carrier.
When our DD was rushed by ambulance for being bitten by a copperhead snake (3X), took 5 vials of anti venom from the CDC which cost 12K, spent 3 days in the hospital, Bullet and I paid the co-pay, not your folks. We were charged for crutches out of pocket by Tri-Care. I didn't get that check from Scoutpilot SR for her crutches.
Back in 93, when I was pregnant with DS2, I was forced off base for OB/GYN...no room at the inn (82nd AB). I got sick, I had to pay co-pay for a doc. DS2 also could not get a ped. apptmt. on post. We paid for the 1 week, 2 week, 1 mo, 2mos, 3 mos, 6, mos, 9 mos, and 12 mos check ups using Tri-Care and co-pay for immunizations.
We were actually paying for the military health care system like your folks, and worse yet, we couldn't get the bennies as an AD member.
OBTW, we in this area cannot get into any military hospital now. We are retirees and they over crowded. Your folks are paying for our health care, but tell them no fear, the only people being seen for retirees on base/post is the person who actually served. 3 yrs after retirement and our kids are still Tri-Care.
Start popping out kids and use only your Tri-Care bens; than talk to me about how my kids were on your folks dime. Your DW is a doc, do not use her, or her insurance for medical care. Tell me when you visit the folks that are 500 miles away from your post, and your child gets so sick you took them to a doc, and now had to pay a co-pay that they paid with their taxes for your health care.
Go for it. I have shown 2 issues where we paid out of pocket. I can also show that during a PCS I contracted Lyme disease and because we were at my Mom's home,(no military base near) we had to pay for the doc office bill for the diagnosis and we had to pay a co-pay for the meds. Bullet was AD O5 select.
Point being? He pays his taxes? So do I.
We are not talking about LITS SR here. We are talking about LITS. LITS IMPO used the system wisely. I do not begrudge him one bit.
My issue was his post saying I didn't take any debt. I felt it was condescending because he didn't have to take any FINANCIAL debt since he went to an SA, and got his Master's as an AD officer. Yes 5 yrs of his life, so don't go down that road.
That is not the traditional route for the avg college kid. He was afforded this opportunity because of my dime as a taxpayer. Just as a Pell Grant recipient is afforded the same opportunity. It is the tax payer that pays.
LITS SR didn't receive a statement from the CGA for tuition due. He didn't get it because our tax dollars paid.
I never had an issue with him or anybody attending an SA, accepting ROTC scholarship, SMP, GI Bill, etc.
My issue was this comment from LITS, he is implying on that post he is paying. He was replying to Hornet's comment
LineInTheSand said:
LineInTheSand said:
LITS took tax payer dollars so he would not have debt. He owed 5 yrs., and also during that time he also got assistance for his Masters from GTU or GW, can't remember which. At the same time he is blasting Hornet for his opinion of taking a loan to attend Harvard which would be backed with tax payer dollars.
Let's keep it apples with apples. Hornet is stating him and many other kids would take loans, 93% repay those loans. Only 7% default.
LITS is correct who pays for that debt? US, the taxpayer. I like him a lot, but also at the same time, I am going to be honest. He worked the system to his advantage. No judgement just saying.
He is angry right now, and I get it.
LineInTheSand said:
He jumped without a job. I am not inferring or implying he shouldn't have. That is/was a personal decision. However, I am saying don't play the no debt card.
Honestly, his employment issues should illustrate to everyone that has an SA degree, and a Masters with a security clearance how bad it is out there.
FLAME ON.
I am 1000% sure you will find fault in my defense and I have no issue with that fact.
Fly safe
Last edited:
Agree with your example, but simply law school students are not paying for education only, rather education plus access.
Using the example, what's the goal of the student considering U of I vs Harvard or Yale? If the student's goal is to become a lawyer and work in local law firm/judicial system, a local law school makes perfect sense. If the goal is to work at Wall Street, yes need to attend Harvard or Yale. If you goal is politics, local law school works better (I think).
Pima
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 13,900
Our cousin works as a lawyer for the fed. govt. He was an Army Officer. He stated that they also do a form of the WCS.
College matters for them. Not because it was Ivy or Public, but their actual school profile.
I also agree with Member and disagree. WS cares about the college, but not every company on WS is top tier.
Just like to say politics is fine for the local law school. Rick Perry and K street in DC would disagree.
College matters for them. Not because it was Ivy or Public, but their actual school profile.
I also agree with Member and disagree. WS cares about the college, but not every company on WS is top tier.
Just like to say politics is fine for the local law school. Rick Perry and K street in DC would disagree.
This.
If you want to work at Big Law (big NYC firms), you had better have gone to a top school. It's even been tougher for HYS (Stanford is the "S") grads in the legal market over the last couple of years.
There are around 180 ABA law schools in the US. How many are represented on the Supreme Court? Three. They are all Ivy schools.
SamAca10
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,045
Wouldn't you say that that's because of networking though? For instance, Yale alumni hooks up another Yale alumnni with spots.
We actually had a speaker last night, one of the "distinguished graduates" who come and speak with the Corps each year about how the CGA prepared them for life after the academy. This man in particular went to law school (forget where) where only the dean had heard of the Coast Guard Academy. Surrounded by Ivy Leaguers, his peers didn't know his school, and some even looked down upon the "non-ivy leaguer".
6 months later he was at the top of his law class.
Point being is that coming from Yale/Harvard/Princeton doesn't matter. It's your performance and willingness to work hard. All of us know not to judge someone from their commissioning source, so why do people judge others from their alma mater?
Does it matter?
There very well may be a new attorney from State U who is smarter than a Yale guy. With regard to the Big Law job in NYC, it's going to the Yale guy. If you want that kind of job, you need to study hard and get accepted to an Ivy law school.
And before people get too carried away, I fully understand that there may be some anecdotal story about some guy you knew who went to the University of Alabama and then went right to work for a giant law firm in New York. That's the exception rather than the rule.
Call it nepotism, call it cronyism, call it networking, call it underpants...that's how it is.
Last edited:
Sprog has it right. For a lot of things it is not what you know but who you know. You have to get in the door to show how smart/good etc you are and those contacts are what will get you in the door.
For most people, I still can't buy into taking on a ton of debt to get that degree from "Prestigious U". Take note though that an out of state state U may cost as much as the prestigious school.
For most people, I still can't buy into taking on a ton of debt to get that degree from "Prestigious U". Take note though that an out of state state U may cost as much as the prestigious school.
Sprog and MemberLG, you have both made my point to a tee.
NYC Law firms, Wall Street all look to the Ivy's to recruit, they do so because they use that recruitment as a marketing tool for their clients, "We are the best because we hire the best" Nobody at these firms have a clue if these new recruits will be a good or terrible asset to their firm, what they do know is that they can market them to their clients.
My point was note whether this occurs in the Law and Business world, of course it does. My point was that everyone has been so indoctrinated that this is the way it is that new college students are willing to take on massive debt to pay for it. So when these students are protesting along with the OWS folks they really need to look at the root cause of the reason these loans are so eagerly taken.
On a side not their have been articles and some studies done lately that show that the gap between the higher priced Ivy's and public schools in regard to hiring has begun to close, we can only hope, the current stock of Ivy grads on Wall Street have sure made a mess of things.
One more thing, regarding the make up of the Supreme Court being all IVY, well that doesn't sit to well with a growing number of people. There has been a lot written about how the court is out of touch, also this is the first time all the judges have been from Ivy's.
NYC Law firms, Wall Street all look to the Ivy's to recruit, they do so because they use that recruitment as a marketing tool for their clients, "We are the best because we hire the best" Nobody at these firms have a clue if these new recruits will be a good or terrible asset to their firm, what they do know is that they can market them to their clients.
My point was note whether this occurs in the Law and Business world, of course it does. My point was that everyone has been so indoctrinated that this is the way it is that new college students are willing to take on massive debt to pay for it. So when these students are protesting along with the OWS folks they really need to look at the root cause of the reason these loans are so eagerly taken.
On a side not their have been articles and some studies done lately that show that the gap between the higher priced Ivy's and public schools in regard to hiring has begun to close, we can only hope, the current stock of Ivy grads on Wall Street have sure made a mess of things.
One more thing, regarding the make up of the Supreme Court being all IVY, well that doesn't sit to well with a growing number of people. There has been a lot written about how the court is out of touch, also this is the first time all the judges have been from Ivy's.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Let me be a little more clear. I had scholarships at other, non-SA schools. I would have been debt free had I gone to my back up instead of CGA. I would have been debt free had I gone to my back up to my back up....and my back up to my back up to my back up. I would have also been debt free had I gone to the back up of my back up of my back up... and beyond that I would have had minimal debt.
Why? Because I did well in high school, took difficult classes got good scores on standardized tests, was well rounded, interviewed well and put in the effort.
Could I have gone to expensive schools that I didn't have scholarships for? Sure. But why? I didn't "go to a SA so I didn't have to pay." I went because the end plan was being in the Coast Guard.
Scout's point is LITS Sr. also paid, and paid MORE than you for my education. Guess who also paid.... LITS! I went to school on your dime, my penny, and my father's half-dollar.
Finally my point with Hornet is.... Hornet says he'll take a LOAN for Harvard over a less expensive state school. Not that he's using govt funds, but that he feels that, I assume everyone, taking a huge loan to go to Harvard is better than not taking a loan and going to a state school. Take that risk, assume you'll get a job BECAUSE you went to Harvard, but then don't come crying to the U.S. public that the jobs you thought a Harvard degree would buy you AREN'T there, and you're saddled with debt.
I no more "gamed" the system than a depended of a service member, or even better, the kids of a service member. The benefits exist because it's "valuable" for the service. I also don't think all of those benefits will always exists.
Last edited: