Even paying for a cheap in-state school is beyond the reach of most people without assistance.
Simply not true. Attending such a school full-time while working full-time
and living independently is beyond the reach of most people. Which is why most people never attempt more than two of these things at a time. Full-time students generally work part-time and live far less independently. People who live independently generally work full-time but limit their expenses and do part-time school.
At the graduate level, it does make sense to travel. But it makes more sense to find an employer who offers free tuition as a benefit. Many hospitals, banks, and engineering firms do this. I don't think it's an option for doctors or lawyers.
At the graduate level, in law, the problem with graduating from Overpriced U instead of Podunk U is that you might get hired into a big firm at $150k per year, however the lifestyle that goes with that kind of firm is anything but frugal as some of the other threads here may attest. On paper it looks like a piece of cake to pay off that big debt with that big salary, but for many people it doesn't happen. The wedding, the Lexus, the swanky condo, and the bespoke suits suddenly become more important. Easy come, easy go. Then something happens: maybe there's a kid. Maybe you get sick or divorced. A couple threads over, there's a discussion of a guy who makes $190k but isn't lined up for retirement very well.
The notion that you instead go to Podunk Community College And Bait Shop while mowing lawns every evening to avoid the terror of student loan debt is insane. Your increased lifetime earnings will pay off loan a hundred times over. (Same thing applies to med school, etc.)
And yet, astoundingly, many of these high-earning doctors and lawyers aren't pulling it off. They aren't paying down the debt.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If you think you'll drop out, don't go to school at all. If you're a top student and dedicated, go to the best school you can that will enable you to reach your goals.
They're all top students, though. None of them start thinking they're going to drop out. Most of them have been told from birth what special little snowflakes they are and how they're sure to succeed.
Isn't it a little ironic to expect 18-year-olds to have the skills and work ethic to earn their way through college but then tell them not to go to a good college because they can't hack it?
Speaking of irony, isn't this board a bit of a risky place to assert that the only "good" option happens to also be the "extremely expensive" option? :)
Fact is, the "Podunk" state universities you appear to despise turn out competent graduates who perform every bit as well as the ones from the expensive elite universities that teach the exact same material. But something even more interesting happens to the ones that don't make it. The cost to exchange (engineering school for something else) is far lower for the student at the cheaper local school.
Maybe because a full-time student who is in class 15 hours a week, spends another 45 hours studying and doing assignments, then another 40 hours working to pay for it literally does not have an extra 14 hours a week left for commuting.
The only time the student needs to work 40+ hours per week is when school is out. The numbers I set up assumed only about 12 hours of work per week while school is in session, which is a very manageable schedule particularly since it's possible to study on the bus or train. Most academic terms are based on 16-week semesters, and there are two semesters per year. That leaves a full 40 weeks of available time. There's really no excuse to not work through the summer.
I'm not sure what you think an order of magnitude means, but I'm pretty sure 500% of people don't own their own business.
I exaggerated slightly. The real figure is closer to 50% but that's a mean and not a mode, because many people own more than one business especially over a lifetime. The Pew research only counted businesses that were actually registered, but most of the entrepreneurial activity is grey market and not necessarily taxed or declared. Most people have at least one business or side hustle (not always set up officially) at some point in their lives, generally in partnership with a spouse or someone else.
Only a small percent of people own profitable businesses.
No, most businesses are profitable which is why they exist. When a small business loses money, or even when the money it brings in doesn't justify the effort of having it, the owners shut it down. Unless of course it's the MLM sector, but people with MLM "businesses" generally don't actually go to the trouble of setting up their own company.
Telling people that they should work for their daddy is not only useless to most people, it's borderline offensive. Being able to work for your family is a mark of class privilege. Wondering why everyone doesn't do so reveals cluelessness as to the actual economic status of most people.
Ah: I think I see where this is going.
Some people do indeed find it offensive to be compared to the working class. That's the group of people that produces (and enjoys the benefit of) the kind of opportunity that can create short-term or seasonal income without requiring a degree.
Skills, labor, and the opportunities that they create have always been the prerogative of the working class, not the middle or upper-middle class. By "working class", I mean people who either have to work for a living, or who require their children to work for a living. (Some surprisingly old and wealthy families do this, to keep their children from growing up to be embarrassments. It doesn't always work but it helps.)
Social strivers who fancy themselves part of a "professional", "educated" elite but who don't have the family history or money to rub shoulders with the socioeconomic elite really do experience near-total lack of economic opportunity without the cachet that comes from an expensive piece of parchment. It's because they lack skills. The only way they know how to solve a problem is by throwing money at it (which is one of the reasons they keep trying to buy class and influence). Their children actually reach the age of adulthood without being able to actually
do anything.
That's the trouble with cliques of people who emphasize professional degrees and education in order to achieve social mobility: if they commit too much to the lifestyle, they end up with bugger-all to offer their kids in terms of skills or opportunity. It's impossible to share the benefit of the degree except by throwing money at the next generation's education: the next generation can't plug into any of the family businesses if the entire family does things that require advanced professional degrees to get in the door. A lot of the time the second or third generation ends up incompetent, insufficiently challenged, and stressed or even addicted. Kids like that might get good grades, but they're likely to drop out of engineering school. They're also likely to be traumatized for life at the idea of flipping a burger or washing a car, which unfortunately will be all they're good for because they can't do anything that the rest of the world considers useful enough to pay for.
It's an extremely rare Yuppie who can offer significant paid work to a teenager, or who has a network of people who can.
Luckily, not everyone suffers from Yuppie culture. Most people come from "higher" or "lower" social classes (however a person chooses to measure that), where opportunities exist.
Students from families that value labor most likely won't be working for "daddy"; statistically it's more likely to be "mommy", "grandma", "auntie", or "uncle". There are restaurant families, motel families (Patel not Trump), bodega families, general contractor or painting families, musical families, auto shop families, landscaping families, bookkeeping families, caterer families, hairstylist families, nursing and first responder families, martial arts families, teaching families, and lots more. If you grow up in a nursing family, you'd have to be a mouth-breathing imbecile to not have CPR instructor training or a phlebotomy license before graduating. If you grow up in a car family, you know which end of the wrench to hold onto and should be able to at least perform basic maintenance or repairs.
My daughter, for example, has family connections that include painting, hairstylist, real estate, music, nursing, and more. Painting and drywall prep happen to be among her skills because I taught her to do it. If at any point she wants work doing painting and trim, all she'll have to do is pick up the phone. That's how the system works. Meanwhile, by the time she graduates high school, since she's interested in nursing she'll have her phlebotomy license or whatever credential my ex-girlfriend (nursing family) says is in demand. Result: no need to flip a burger for minimum wage, unless she wants to manage or eventually buy a fast food franchise. (Hint: "working class" families often know how to stash the cash; read "The Millionaire Next Door" by Stanley and Danko for details.)
Anyone who can sew can get work doing alterations in May and June. Anyone who can play the top 10 most requested wedding marches on the piano, organ, or guitar can get a wedding gig. Anyone who can write can free-lance once in a while and sell an occasional piece of work. That's the sort of thing people start doing in high school. It's not the kind of steady reliable year-round work a person needs to earn an independent living, but it doesn't have to be. A working-class family often has more than one breadwinner of this type, and they don't follow Yuppie nuclear family models.
In reality, employers and post-graduate schools will care very much about the quality of institution that you attended. The people you meet and relationships you form will impact you for life.
Chiefly for those who acquire or confer a MRS degree.
Yes, what is wrong with the kids these days that every high school student doesn't have over $60,000 in savings?
Seriously, do you not see how totally unrealistic this is? It's not that it can't be done. It's just not reasonable to expect it as a matter of course.
The $60k is spent over a period of 4 years during which the student has more time to work and a higher earning power. If the high school student scrapes together $15k in scholarships and 'stache before graduation, he or she will be in reasonably good shape. The goal is to minimize and delay debt, or possibly to eliminate it. The entire amount doesn't have to be available before the first day of school.
$15k is just not that unreasonable; I managed to stash more than that myself more than 20 years ago using a combination of skills that I picked up. My kid brother stashed even more because his skills were in higher demand at the time than mine were. My parents did require that we stash half of our take-home pay starting from day one, and they did invest it.
I agree that earning, saving, and limiting consumption isn't the norm. A high consumption, earn-to-spend lifestyle is the norm. We frugal types are the weirdos.
Oh, they can and will pay you less than minimum wage. The law has all sorts of loopholes for young and inexperienced types. Some of the things you have mentioned will literally pay nothing and are pure volunteer work. Internships exist as a means of putting young people to work without actually paying them. I used to work as a camp counselor. It probably paid about a buck an hour when it came down to it. You don't do it for the money.
Typical work for an unskilled 18-year-old who seriously needs to earn a living (never mind paying tuition) will be found in food-and-beverage. Waiting tables will get you above minimum wage. Being a line cook will start you at minimum wage, but you can work your way up. This is grueling, honest work that sucks hard and leaves you exhausted after every shift. In other words, a real job. If you can do that while being a full-time student, good for you. Some people reasonably choose just to be students instead.
You're focusing on "earn a living". Why is that? The entire purpose of going to school locally is to save money by living in a family home. Maybe there's token rent, or maybe there's work in lieu of rent. There are also usually fewer keg parties.
There's really no excuse for not at least working through the summer break as an undergraduate. I don't see how a person with student loans would be justified in doing otherwise.
"Just" being a student is a pretty attractive proposition, but it's sort of like "just" being an aspiring actor or novelist. It's the lifestyle appropriate for people who are either having their bills paid for them or who are already financially independent. People who aren't, or who are from the classes where work is expected, have to Do Something, Or Else. Those who genuinely don't need the money and who are extremely wealthy are the ones who can afford to do free internships or to go backpacking through Europe without worrying about how tuition is going to be paid next term.
A full-time, minimum wage job will gross you exactly $300 a week. Take-home pay will hover around $250. Tuition and fees at today's rates if you are a full-time student and if you only go to an in-state public school will run you $180 a week. You need to work full-time, year-round just to cover your educational costs, never mind incidental costs like food and a roof over your head. A few weeks a year or part-time won't do it.
As I've said several times before, food and a roof should be provided by the family at a cost that's much lower than an apartment or dorm. In an area with reasonable economic activity, the only people who have to work minimum wage jobs are the ones with no skills, no connections, no community, no social skills... basically people who are grown-up infants. Even rural communities often have plenty of work. But it's seasonal.
Seasonal work is brutal for people who try to make a full-time living off of it, but it's ideal for students.
Right. Kids are kids. Expecting each and every one to live like a Spartan and generate a $60k nest egg by age 18 is a bit much.
Like I said, the student only needs $15k by graduation, and maybe a couple of AP courses to free up time during the first year and avoid having to pay for the privilege of repeating the content learned in high school. Whether he or she can be expected to pull it off depends on the cultural ideals in which he or she is raised.
Many people, for example, expect a student to be a "kid". It's somehow acceptable to them. Expect more, and often you get more. It won't be "each and every one", but if it ever becomes the majority we might actually see tuition rates to start coming down because more people will be selecting options that provide maximum bang for the buck.