The T14 Ranked: Perentage of People Paying Sticker Forum

[03152016]

also just building on my last post

consider that in grant size, chi is at the top of the list, nyu at the bottom
yet median chi grant is $45k to nyu's $60k
and median chi debt at graduation is $154k (85% of students) to nyu's $147k (80% of students)

lot of things that could be going on here to account for these results, but my point is that % of people paying sticker isn't that insightful on the whole, at least in isolation from other factors

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what do the percentages mean if it's supposed to be a median? Also, wouldn't median debt at graduation be a more meaningful way of looking at which schools are more cost friendly than the median grant/who is paying sticker?

not a dumb question, the percentages reflect the number of students with debt, i should have made that more clear
as for your second point, i'm not saying that debt at graduation is a strong indicator of median grant or percentage paying sticker, but rather that singular metrics like the one presented in the op don't provide the full picture
and it also speaks indirectly to the point made earlier about schools "spreading aid around"; comparing chi and nyu again, chi has fewer people sticker but more people incurring debt and at a higher median amount, thus even if aid is spread around less at nyu, it doesn't seem to result in a less equitable outcome for nyu students on the whole, as far as indebtedness is concerned

[Winston1984]

also just building on my last post

consider that in grant size, chi is at the top of the list, nyu at the bottom
yet median chi grant is $45k to nyu's $60k
and median chi debt at graduation is $154k (85% of students) to nyu's $147k (80% of students)

lot of things that could be going on here to account for these results, but my point is that % of people paying sticker isn't that insightful on the whole, at least in isolation from other factors

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but what do the percentages mean if it's supposed to be a median? Also, wouldn't median debt at graduation be a more meaningful way of looking at which schools are more cost friendly than the median grant/who is paying sticker?

not a dumb question, the percentages reflect the number of students with debt, i should have made that more clear
as for your second point, i'm not saying that debt at graduation is a strong indicator of median grant or percentage paying sticker, but rather that singular metrics like the one presented in the op don't provide the full picture
and it also speaks indirectly to the point made earlier about schools "spreading aid around"; comparing chi and nyu again, chi has fewer people sticker but more people incurring debt and at a higher median amount, thus even if aid is spread around less at nyu, it doesn't seem to result in a less equitable outcome for nyu students on the whole, as far as indebtedness is concerned

Ah, this makes sense.

[smaug]

indebtedness at graduation is a bad metric because it's going to be obscured by the people with family help

there are many who fit that bill, especially at top schools

[Winston1984]

indebtedness at graduation is a bad metric because it's going to be obscured by the people with family help

there are many who fit that bill, especially at top schools

Well, I guess it would depend on how much family help obscures the number in your opinion. Do schools have data on how many students aren't debt financing their education (assuming median grant + family pays)? Also, by taking the median indebtedness, doesn't this at least help cut out the extremes on both ends and give us a somewhat realistic picture?

[smaug]

indebtedness at graduation is a bad metric because it's going to be obscured by the people with family help

there are many who fit that bill, especially at top schools

Well, I guess it would depend on how much family help obscures the number in your opinion. Do schools have data on how many students aren't debt financing their education (assuming median grant + family pays)? Also, by taking the median indebtedness, doesn't this at least help cut out the extremes on both ends and give us a somewhat realistic picture?

unless you're planning on having people help you, I don't know why or how indebtedness could paint a better picture than grant information

we don't know all the inputs, so measuring the outputs doesn't make sense, especially if you're trying to get at the inputs (i.e., how much aid was given)

[KD35]

I feel like the best metric would be grant $ per student. But I do think this is a good proxy.

[Winston1984]

indebtedness at graduation is a bad metric because it's going to be obscured by the people with family help

there are many who fit that bill, especially at top schools

Well, I guess it would depend on how much family help obscures the number in your opinion. Do schools have data on how many students aren't debt financing their education (assuming median grant + family pays)? Also, by taking the median indebtedness, doesn't this at least help cut out the extremes on both ends and give us a somewhat realistic picture?

unless you're planning on having people help you, I don't know why or how indebtedness could paint a better picture than grant information

we don't know all the inputs, so measuring the outputs doesn't make sense, especially if you're trying to get at the inputs (i.e., how much aid was given)

I'm not arguing using this to calculate your own estimated repayment, I'm just saying for the sake of analyzing which schools are the most affordable. I think several schools over estimate COL expenses, and don't take into consideration someone making a contribution based on 2L SA earnings. So if we just looked at grants, we wouldn't be getting the best picture. Not to mention, some schools do have a (somewhat) significantly higher tuition and/or COL.

[Desert Fox]

DF Thread