Skip to main content

Paying for College and Getting Your Money's Worth

According to the Student Loan Marketing Association (more commonly known as Sallie Mae Bank), the average tuition, room and board at a private college comes to $43,921. Public tuition for in-state students at state colleges amounted to $19,548 (about half of which is room and board), with out-of-state students paying an average of $34,031.

How are parents and students finding the cash to afford this expense?
  • Sallie Mae breaks it down as follows: 34% from scholarships and grants that don’t have to be paid back, coming from the college itself or the state or federal government, often based on need and academic performance.
  • Parents typically pay 29% of the total bill (an average of $7,000) out of savings or income, and other family members (think: grandparents) are paying another 5%.
  • The students themselves are paying for 12% of the cost, on average.
  • The rest, roughly 20% of the total, is made up of loans. 
The federal government’s loan program offers up to $5,500 a year for freshmen, $6,500 during the sophomore year, and $7,500 for the junior and senior years. If that doesn’t cover the remaining cost, then students and parents will borrow from private lenders. The average breakdown is students borrowing 13% of their total tuition costs and parents borrowing the other 7%.

Does it matter whether the university is considered an elite? Research has shown showing that the majority of American-born CEO’s of the top 100 of the Fortune 500 companies did not attend elite universities. There also was no pattern in where they went to school. The Platinum Study by Michael Lindsay studied 550 American leaders including 250 top CEO’s, and he found that over two-thirds graduated from non-elite schools. This finding is generally consistent regardless of profession. Many studies have documented that where you go to college has little predictive value for future earnings or levels of well-being.

Is the cost of college worth it? The Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently published a report on the labor market for college graduates. The conclusion, in graphical format, is that younger workers have experienced much higher unemployment rates than their college graduate peers—the figures currently are 9.5% unemployment for all young workers, vs. just 4.2% for recent college graduates. Overall, the unemployment rate for people who have graduated with a 4-year degree is 2.6%, and even during the height of the Great Recession, it never went over 5%.

And income is higher as well. The average worker with a bachelor’s degree earns $43,000, vs. $25,000 for people with a high school diploma only. The highest average incomes are reported for people with pharmacy degrees ($110,000 mid-career average), computer engineering ($100,000), electrical engineering ($95,000), chemical engineering ($94,000), mechanical engineering ($91,000) and aerospace engineering ($90,000).  

Lowest average mid-career incomes: social services ($40,000), early childhood education ($40,000), elementary education ($42,000), special education ($43,000) and general education ($44,000).

Among the lowest unemployment rates: miscellaneous education (1.0%), agriculture (1.8%), construction services (1.8%) and nursing (2.0%).

Yes, there are some themes here, and of course people in every career can fall above or below these averages. Nor does everybody who graduates with a particular degree end up in a career that tracks that degree.  The point is that despite the cost, a college degree does seem to provide significantly better odds of getting a job, and getting paid more for the job you do get.
 
 
To Your Prosperity,

Kevin Kroskey, CFP®, MBA



This article adapted with permission from BobVeres.com
 
Sources: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/pf/college/how-to-pay-for-college/index.html?iid=SF_LN
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market/college-labor-market_unemployment.html

 

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day.

The Value of Double-Checking & Monitoring Your Retirement Strategy

Motivational speaker Denis Waitley once remarked, “You must stick to your conviction, but be ready to abandon your assumptions.” That statement certainly applies to retirement planning. Your effort must not waver, yet you must also examine it from time to time. 1       Perhaps you may realize that you under-estimated your health insurance costs and will need more retirement income than previously assumed. Or perhaps, with today's low interest rates you are not getting the level of investment returns you counted on. With those factors and others in mind, here are some signs that you may need to double-check your retirement strategy.     Your portfolio lacks significant diversification. Many baby boomers are approaching retirement with portfolios heavily weighted in U.S. equities. As many of them will have long retirements and a sustained need for growth investing, you could argue that this is entirely appropriate. Yet, U.S. equities by some measures may be over-valued by

65-80 Year Olds … A New and Exciting Demography

Should today’s 70-year-old American be considered “old?” How do you define that term these days? Statistically, your average 70-year-old has just a 2% chance of dying within a year. The estimated upper limits of average life expectancy is now 97, and a rapidly growing number of 70-year-olds will live past age 100. Perhaps more importantly, today’s 70-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age. In most developed countries, healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigor and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed. A recent series of articles in the Economist magazine suggest that we need a new term for people age 65 to 80, who are generally healthy and hearty, capable of knowledge-based work on an equal footing with 25-year-olds, and who are increasingly being shunted out of the workforce as if they were invalids or, well, “old.” Indeed, the a