"Scholarships" don't matter--indebtedness at graduation does
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:21 pm
If I may offer my two cents. A number of posts here treat scholarship amounts as something to flaunt or something remarkable or impressive. Really, scholarships are some of the worst indicators of "value" for school.
It doesn't distinguish between public and private school costs.
It doesn't distinguish between inexpensive and expensive schools.
It doesn't distinguish cost of living in a region.
It doesn't reflect tuition hikes, which some schools have seen increase by double-digit percentages (especially public schools in struggling states), and which some have broadcast in advance (e.g., Berkeley will cost, tuition and fees, $57,573, excluding cost of living, in 2012-2013 for nonresidents).
It doesn't reflect the few schools that "lock in" tuition for you at a specific rate for all three years.
Instead, indebtedness at graduation is the best metric. And it's not difficult to calculate.
You take the tuition at the school, and you estimate the tuition increases to be whatever they've historically been, perhaps 5% (or you use the actual numbers if they're available); you add in the cost of living, with annual increases accordingly, perhaps 5%; you wrap in a "bar loan" of a few more thousand dollars to cover the expenses for living that last summer and bar expenses; and then you subtract the three-year projected total of scholarships.
At the end, you may end up graduating with less debt--if you, for instance, secure an elite firm that pays generously during the summer, allows you to work during the year, and pays for your bar expenses. But, at the very least, those kinds of factors aren't up front calculated and highly contingent.
Just a thought. There are lots of people here throwing around scholarship totals, when I can't think of a more meaningless or deceptive "cost of attendance" stat.
It doesn't distinguish between public and private school costs.
It doesn't distinguish between inexpensive and expensive schools.
It doesn't distinguish cost of living in a region.
It doesn't reflect tuition hikes, which some schools have seen increase by double-digit percentages (especially public schools in struggling states), and which some have broadcast in advance (e.g., Berkeley will cost, tuition and fees, $57,573, excluding cost of living, in 2012-2013 for nonresidents).
It doesn't reflect the few schools that "lock in" tuition for you at a specific rate for all three years.
Instead, indebtedness at graduation is the best metric. And it's not difficult to calculate.
You take the tuition at the school, and you estimate the tuition increases to be whatever they've historically been, perhaps 5% (or you use the actual numbers if they're available); you add in the cost of living, with annual increases accordingly, perhaps 5%; you wrap in a "bar loan" of a few more thousand dollars to cover the expenses for living that last summer and bar expenses; and then you subtract the three-year projected total of scholarships.
At the end, you may end up graduating with less debt--if you, for instance, secure an elite firm that pays generously during the summer, allows you to work during the year, and pays for your bar expenses. But, at the very least, those kinds of factors aren't up front calculated and highly contingent.
Just a thought. There are lots of people here throwing around scholarship totals, when I can't think of a more meaningless or deceptive "cost of attendance" stat.
