|
Petey posted:The best way to save for college might be to not, depending on how much you make and where you plan to send your kids. With the rate that tuition costs are going up, saving for college is a pointless endeavor. Unless you expose yourself to a huge amount of risk, anything you save will be eaten up by tuition hikes. With the financial situation state governments are in I don't see this changing anytime soon. If you want to invest in your kids' education, you'd get much more bang for the buck doing it while they are still kids. Use that money for private school tuition if the public school in your area sucks, spend it on enriching extracurricular activities they are interested in, or simply walk away from some money to spend more time with them.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
I mean I haven't done a ton of research on it but I know some higher ed admissions folk who have told me it doesn't make sense to save for college because a) you'll probably never be able to save enough to send them the full way, b) anything you do save will be counted against any financial aid award you might achieve), c) why not use the money you have now to put them in better schools as kids, and then d) take out a massive loan if you need to once they go to college.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
my kids are going to apprentice with plumbers and electricians
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
e)if higher education and the job market in the US are still in the state they are now in 18 years, the best play is to send your kid overseas on a student visa to study abroad for cheap(er) with the intention to never return
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Before I give my judge his copies of motions, I always make sure to highlight those items. I think they amuse him, but he's too nice to call out the attorneys on them. The general rule is that lovely, typo-filled garbage pleadings are absolutely fine and no problem at all for judges. We received a Complaint that repeatedly referred to Plaintiff as 'decedent.' They apparently thought their own client was dead. No problem. Then, when your guard is down, something will happen and you'll realize why partners are incredibly anal. I saw an ex parte application denied because the declaration stated 'I gave notice to all defendants on 11/10" or something like that. The problem? It needed to say "I gave notice by 10 am to all defendants on 11/10." Ex parte denied. Another actual fuckup is forgetting to put the right oath language at the bottom of a declaration. Magic language lives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
Copernic posted:The general rule is that lovely, typo-filled garbage pleadings are absolutely fine and no problem at all for judges. We received a Complaint that repeatedly referred to Plaintiff as 'decedent.' They apparently thought their own client was dead. No problem. I had an appeal dismissed because I failed to put the words "on issues of fact and law" in the Notice of Appeal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
I am glad my parents saved for college. All those loans you people are always talking about sound like they suck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
HooKars posted:I am glad my parents saved for college. All those loans you people are always talking about sound like they suck. One of my patrician friends was talking about how his parents - gasp - wouldn't pay for college for his older brother if he went to Grand Valley with his friends instead of taking an offer to ultra-prestigious MSU (lol). This was when I was a sophomore in high school. I went home and asked my dad if he'd pay for me to go to school if I went to U of M. He laughed so hard he started coughing and when the hacking subsided he said "gently caress you, boy." At the time I thought he was being a big meanie but I realize now how stupid and insensitive of a question that was
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:At the time I thought he was being a big meanie but I realize now how stupid and insensitive of a question that was
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
Linguica posted:Ummm sounds like a completely legit question to ask your parents when you are starting to think about college We were mega poor tho sorry this was a heavily contextual story not really of interest to anyone errybody move along nothing to see here
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 19:21
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Holland Oats was the name of a company on my civ pro final yesterday. They were incorporated in Nebraska and PPB was in Oklahoma, I think. There was not complete diversity with whomever was suing them. That's neat, I think. During early interview week, my last interview in a day where I interviewed with about 8 other biglaw firms was with Holland Knight. It was the interviewer's last of the day as well. About halfway through the 15 minute interview, I called the firm Holland Oats, mixing the firm with the band. He laughed and said that was a common mistake, and suggested that we talk about baseball for the last five minutes. My favorite interview of that entire week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
If my parents paid 15-20k a year to send me to private school and then told me at the end of it that they decided it was a better investment than saving for college, I would probably tell them to go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 23:18
|
|
|
I think I figured out where Phil Moscowitz drinks
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2010 23:29
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:If my parents paid 15-20k a year to send me to private school and then told me at the end of it that they decided it was a better investment than saving for college, I would probably tell them to go gently caress themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 00:11
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Seriously. I don't understand how private K-12 could be a better investment than undergrad. Granted, the (always public) schools I attended had resources for AP programs and extracurriculars. But unless the local public schools are chronically underfunded (and possibly even then) it seems like prioritizing private school over college would be massively counterproductive. I think the idea is that many colleges' financial aid programs are tied to an imputed parental contribution with the goal being to equalize the loan debt for all students. So if you've saved for your kid's education, those assets will get wiped out before any aid kicks in. If you haven't saved, more aid is available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
ewr2870 posted:I think the idea is that many colleges' financial aid programs are tied to an imputed parental contribution with the goal being to equalize the loan debt for all students. So if you've saved for your kid's education, those assets will get wiped out before any aid kicks in. If you haven't saved, more aid is available. If that's true, why save for college?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
Draile posted:If that's true, why save for college? Because if you save enough your kids don't have loans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Seriously. I don't understand how private K-12 could be a better investment than undergrad. Granted, the (always public) schools I attended had resources for AP programs and extracurriculars. But unless the local public schools are chronically underfunded (and possibly even then) it seems like prioritizing private school over college would be massively counterproductive. It depends on the school. Many of the elite private schools have special relationships (formal or informal) with elite colleges. So many colleges read by region, right? So that the admissions officers know all about the schools / areas / etc. Yale has three regions for the state of CT. One of them is Choate. Another is Hotchkiss. The last is...the rest of CT. And for MA, it's Deerfield, Andover...and the rest of MA. The reason parents pay for private schools isn't because the education is any better (generally speaking - sometimes it is). It's because the private K12s can get your kids into the private colleges. There are exceptions to this. The engineering undergrads are notably less reliant on private K12s (MIT is 75% public school K12 alumni, more than many state schools even). And the best sci/tech high schools in the nation are almost all public schools like TJ, Stuyvesant, TAMS, NCSSM, etc. Look, I went to public HS too. And I'm not a big fan of private HS for a variety of reasons. And I think it's totally possible to get a good, and potentially much better, education at public schools (especially schools like the ones I just listed) than at private schools. But the proposition that it makes more sense to invest in K12 programs than saving it for college isn't as ridiculous as it might sound. Because it's those K12 programs that can help you get into the colleges that will really help you beyond that. Also, ewr2870 posted:I think the idea is that many colleges' financial aid programs are tied to an imputed parental contribution with the goal being to equalize the loan debt for all students. So if you've saved for your kid's education, those assets will get wiped out before any aid kicks in. If you haven't saved, more aid is available. This is what I was talking about specifically. When you look at the way need-based aid works, when you look at federal loan programs, and when you consider how ridiculously expensive college is (nevermind will be by the time our kids are in school), there is a reasonable case for non-millionaires to just put their kids into a good educational situation and then figure out the finances later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
The private high school I went to sent more kids to harvard than anywhere else. Even almost 10 years later, the insane college placement rate still skews my view of what schools are 'good': the kid who ate frog organs on a bet while we were dissecting the frogs in bio went to UChicago. And to be clear, that wasn't the dumbest thing he ever did, that was pretty par for the course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
Texas has a prepaid tuition program. You buy credits (as in credit hours, I assume) to a state school at today's tuition/fee rate. It's structured as a 529, so you can still use the money for a private school if you decide not to go to a state school or leave the state, although I don't think the appreciation is anywhere near as good if you opt to do that. Besides being a massively irresponsible plan on Texas' part (how do they hedge against the cost?) it's a reasonably practical system for a parent planning to save for college. Given that four years of tuition/fees to UT-Austin in today's dollars is about $40,000, it's not at all inconceivable that someone could save that amount (or very close to it) in 18 years, even after accounting for tuition inflation. It is, of course, slightly more complicated, because the plan is designed to allow for the varying costs at different state schools and different pay-in systems, but it's a fairly reasonable solution to the problem. To answer the other questions about why bothering to save: If I'm not mistaken, $31,000 is the maximum amount you can borrow for undergrad under federal Stafford loans. Past that, you're reliant on parents cosigning for federal parent loans (which they may not be able to qualify for) or hitting up private loans (which won't qualify for IBR). IBR really does make the loan load reasonable and fair - if you can afford to pay, you do so, and if you can't, it essentially just becomes a "tax" that won't cripple you financially. See above about the cost of attending UT-Austin, which is about mid-range for a state school in terms of costs. Note that $40,000 doesn't include the cost for books, room, or board. You can pretty easily top $70,000 when all is said and done, and you've got to come up with that other amount somewhere. If the feds would set the loan cap at a weighted average for tuition/living for your state of residence, it might be a little more reasonable. As it is, a middle class family who doesn't save enough for their kids' education may leave themselves or their children in a bad place when they're trying to figure out how to pay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
SIHappiness posted:Texas has a prepaid tuition program. Some of these have gone broke, actually. Those are a gamble as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Because if you save enough your kids don't have loans. I've hedged in this thread because, for all the talk in this thread about no jobs etc, lawyers are members of a professional class where it might actually be possible to do this. But for most people, and many lawyers, this isn't realistic. I don't need to tell anyone in this thread about the price of college, but it really is insane that the majority of private schools cost more than the median annual salary. Even state universities are in the 20s or 30s cumulative. I mean, I would like to send my kids wherever without loans. But that may not be possible. And I'm paying off my undergrad loans right now through IBR and it's manageable. But I think college is going to be something that has to be thought of as financing, like a car or a house, and not for paying in bulk. People save up for the downpayment on a house but almost everyone still has to take out a mortgage. And I think college is basically the same nowadays and going forward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 04:09
|
|
|
Petey posted:I've hedged in this thread because, for all the talk in this thread about no jobs etc, lawyers are members of a professional class where it might actually be possible to do this. But for most people, and many lawyers, this isn't realistic. I don't need to tell anyone in this thread about the price of college, but it really is insane that the majority of private schools cost more than the median annual salary. Even state universities are in the 20s or 30s cumulative. That's true. However, I was under the impression it wasn't just your parents' assets that Colleges looked at, but income as well: they assume you've saved a certain amount and if you haven't, well, you're hosed. Is that not the case?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The private high school I went to sent more kids to harvard than anywhere else. Even almost 10 years later, the insane college placement rate still skews my view of what schools are 'good': the kid who ate frog organs on a bet while we were dissecting the frogs in bio went to UChicago. And to be clear, that wasn't the dumbest thing he ever did, that was pretty par for the course. Right this is an example of what I mean. The differences are insane. It is not something that I realized as a lifelong public school kid. But the elite private high schools - you pay for them because yes, the education is good, but mostly because they will get your kids into Ivies, with prestigious private schools as the safeties. The only thing that might change this is the rise of the public magnet math/sci school. The best schools in the country, by any meritocratic measurement, aren't the old private schools anymore. They're Stuy, TJ, NCSSM, SCGSSM, TAMS, TAG, Mass Academy, University Highs, and so forth. Those kids are doing better and better (in terms of colleges) because the Ivies etc realize that those kids are the ones who are going to be their most brilliant students, get Rhodes scholarships, and win Nobels. So if your kid is actually world-class brilliant, the best thing you can do for them is put them in a public math/sci magnet. But if you're just affluent, and want to position your way into an Ivy+, send them to private school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That's true. However, I was under the impression it wasn't just your parents' assets that Colleges looked at, but income as well: they assume you've saved a certain amount and if you haven't, well, you're hosed. Is that not the case? Well, it differs from college to college. It's incredibly complex. There definitely is an expected family contribution (EFC) based off of the income of your family. I honestly don't know the extent to which colleges take into account historical income data. But the point is - even if you were supposed to have saved a certain amount, if you haven't, the worst you can do is take out a loan at that time to cover it. Which may end up being cheaper, even with interest, than paying all the stuff you'd save + the EFC which takes that into account. I haven't done the math on this and this isn't professional advice. But I do think it's probably worth talking to some sort of financial advisor etc about. Because the answer isn't as clear as it once was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
Petey posted:It depends on the school. Many of the elite private schools have special relationships (formal or informal) with elite colleges. I'm surprised by the 75%/25% number at MIT. It definitely felt more like 50/50. I came from one of the top public high schools in PA, and a good number of my friends in college came from private schools, especially the ones along the Mainline in Philadelphia. They definitely seemed more prepared for the workload at MIT than I was. It didn't translate into a difference in grades, but it seemed as if their transition to college was a bit easier. If I have the choice some day I think I'll try to send my kids to private school. The college admissions game is only to get more competitive and I think most parents will try to give their kids any advantage if possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
Petey posted:But the elite private high schools - you pay for them because yes, the education is good, but mostly because they will get your kids into Ivies, with prestigious private schools as the safeties. Personally, I think this is the biggest scam right here. Half of my extended family are public school kids but a good portion of my family did the whole Exeter/Deerfield boarding school route. Many of them got into better schools than I did but when you look at where we all are now, the better undergrads haven't really equated into better or more prestigious jobs. I consider one of my bigger mistakes to be going to UVA instead of UCONN undergrad - to the extent that while I loved my experience, the added cost didn't justify any added benefit even if it sounds more prestigious. There may be certain career areas like politics where your college and the connections you make may be more significant and there are some colleges like Yale or Harvard or MIT that may be worth the extra cost, but to the extent you're choosing between say, Duke or Cornell or some prestigious liberal arts school or whatever and XYZ state school, the XYZ state school is probably going to get you to the same place in life for much less. To the extent you have a high income, it's probably a good idea to save for your kid's college.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 04:39
|
|
|
Can someone recommend some good study courses of action? I know I can simply buy some big, fat study book, but I'd prefer do something else too. Does anyone know of any online study programs, something a little more interactive than a big book?
Shit just got real fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Dec 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:I'm surprised by the 75%/25% number at MIT. It definitely felt more like 50/50. I came from one of the top public high schools in PA, and a good number of my friends in college came from private schools, especially the ones along the Mainline in Philadelphia. They definitely seemed more prepared for the workload at MIT than I was. It didn't translate into a difference in grades, but it seemed as if their transition to college was a bit easier. If I have the choice some day I think I'll try to send my kids to private school. The college admissions game is only to get more competitive and I think most parents will try to give their kids any advantage if possible. It's 75/25 and has been that (or close) for years, maybe the last decade. But I think you're probably right about the transition. It's just a matter of sophistication and perspective, I think. Even students from very good public schools generally don't have the same preening for college that private school kids have. I mean, like I said, I have a number of problems with private schools for a variety of reasons. And I do think that the top public schools provide a better education (and a better chance at the top colleges, if your kids do well) than the private schools do. But, back to the whole thing that started this discussion - it's really not ridiculous to think about putting a priority on private K12 as compared to saving for college, if you're going to plow your money into anything. HooKars posted:Personally, I think this is the biggest scam right here. Half of my extended family are public school kids but a good portion of my family did the whole Exeter/Deerfield boarding school route. Many of them got into better schools than I did but when you look at where we all are now, the better undergrads haven't really equated into better or more prestigious jobs. I consider one of my bigger mistakes to be going to UVA instead of UCONN undergrad - to the extent that while I loved my experience, the added cost didn't justify any added benefit even if it sounds more prestigious. There may be certain career areas like politics where your college and the connections you make may be more significant and there are some colleges like Yale or Harvard or MIT that may be worth the extra cost, but to the extent you're choosing between say, Duke or Cornell or some prestigious liberal arts school or whatever and XYZ state school, the XYZ state school is probably going to get you to the same place in life for much less. Yeah I do agree with this post. tgrbkr posted:Good evening goons, However, if you really want to study for the LSATs, the answer is: powerscore. Order a bunch of tests from LSAC, take a diagnostic under realistic conditions, figure out what your weak area is, get the powerscore book to help you teach it, work through the book cover to cover, and then take real tests (and repeat studying as necessary). That's the best preparation. Courses are often counterproductive to the extent that they don't cover real material. Petey fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Dec 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
lol oh finals season (series of emails to the law school mailing list recently)Anne posted:I have a 12 hour layover in Paris on all day Tuesday, and figure that with transportation, etc I will have about 7 hours to kill in the city. I haven't been since I was 12. Michael posted:You should check out The Rue Saint-Denis. You'll fit right in there. Theo posted:I'm sure if you find a couple nice French boys they'd be happy to 'give you the tour,' so to speak. Anne posted:You guys are being totally inappropriate. Please stop. Theo posted:Michael was simply suggesting that you partake in a beautiful and well-regarded world monument while you had a golden opportunity. I wanted to add that such an endeavor would be more joyful and full of meaning with a pair of friendly locals to shape your experience. What part of our attempts to be helpful did you find odious? Mary posted:Odious: The part where you are a gratuitous rear end in a top hat and full of poo poo, so to speak. Justin posted:u mad
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 06:24
|
|
|
HooKars posted:Personally, I think this is the biggest scam right here. Half of my extended family are public school kids but a good portion of my family did the whole Exeter/Deerfield boarding school route. Many of them got into better schools than I did but when you look at where we all are now, the better undergrads haven't really equated into better or more prestigious jobs. I consider one of my bigger mistakes to be going to UVA instead of UCONN undergrad - to the extent that while I loved my experience, the added cost didn't justify any added benefit even if it sounds more prestigious. There may be certain career areas like politics where your college and the connections you make may be more significant and there are some colleges like Yale or Harvard or MIT that may be worth the extra cost, but to the extent you're choosing between say, Duke or Cornell or some prestigious liberal arts school or whatever and XYZ state school, the XYZ state school is probably going to get you to the same place in life for much less. While I went to lovely parochial high school in the boonies, I am going to go ahead and disagree with the undergrad prestige assessment here. While it might not matter as much as some people make it out to, having gone to Columbia has opened some doors that I don't think would've been available otherwise. It helps if you can put Latin and Greek titles to describe your degree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 07:17
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:While I went to lovely parochial high school in the boonies, I am going to go ahead and disagree with the undergrad prestige assessment here. While it might not matter as much as some people make it out to, having gone to Columbia has opened some doors that I don't think would've been available otherwise. It helps if you can put Latin and Greek titles to describe your degree. Yeah, and I do think that Cornell / Duke / Columbia are probably worth it. But there is definitely a tier of private colleges (Boston example: Suffolk) where the education, prestige, network, etc, are indistinguishable from, say, UMass, except that it's two or three times as expensive. Those examples pretty clearly aren't worth it unless the school really is that good of a match for you. So I agree with the spirit of HooKars' post if not necessarily all of the specific examples. (HooKars - I didn't go to UVA/UConn, but I did freshman year at WM and then transferred to UMass, so it's not that far off; the dropoff in rigor, overall education, and opportunity was pretty tremendous, so don't shortchange your decision that much) Petey fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Dec 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 07:31
|
|
|
Penn >> Columbia/Cornell/Duke
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 07:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Penn >> Columbia/Cornell/Duke 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 07:39
|
|
|
I went to UCLA which is fine of course, but I wish when I was in high school I had more of a grasp of PREFTIGE so maybe I would have applied to some other schools besides Harvard, Stanford, and MIT, and when I got rejected from all those places in course I would have maybe gotten into some other well-regarded schools. But would it have really changed anything? Who knows.
Linguica fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Dec 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 07:42
|
|
|
Petey posted:that looks...familiar: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 07:42
|
|
|
Linguica posted:I went to UCLA which is fine of course, but I wish when I was in high school I had more of a grasp of PREFTIGE so maybe I would have applied to some other schools besides Harvard, Stanford, and MIT (so when I got rejected from all those places in course I would have maybe gotten into some other well-regarded schools). This is one of the things that private schools have over any public school hands down. My high school was one of the best and most well-funded in the state, and I never even heard of UChicago (which is too bad because I think it would have been a good match for me, knowing what I know now). None of the engineering students at my school applied to Mines. It was basically 'oh, well, apply to UNH/UMASS/UConn/BC, then whatever other random things you can find in that Princeton Review book over there.' And that's in a school with everything going for it, nevermind some CA public with a 1:450 student:GC ratio. Compare this to private schools where GCs go to NACAC/NEACAC/SEACAC every year and actually are paid to know poo poo. That's just something that 99% of public schools will never be able to offer as well as their counterparts. evilweasel posted:that looks...familiar: god he's even smugger than sam
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 07:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Penn >> Columbia/Cornell/Duke Columbia >> Penn >> Cornell/Duke, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 08:05
|
|
|
I went to UConn for undergrad and I turned out...oh, is it 5 AM already?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 11:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?story_id=17723223 You guys aren't alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2010 17:18
|
|