It's the Student, Not the College - Gifted Issues Discussion Forum

It's the Student, Not the College (2015) is a book which discusses ways in which students can distinguish themselves. In one chapter, the Congressional Award for youth is mentioned, and the author is herself a recipient of the Congressional Award bronze medal.

Originally Posted by Back Cover and also description of this book on Amazon

TO: All students wondering �Can I get into my dream college?�
CC: All parents wondering �Can we afford it?�
FROM: Educational consultant Kristin M. White

MEMO: COLLEGE RANKINGS DON�T MATTER. This claim might sound crazy, but it�s true: Research shows that where you go to school makes little difference to future financial success or quality of life�personal qualities such as ambition, perseverance, and a sense of purpose are all more important.

Kristin M. White has helped hundreds of parents and students look beyond the dream-school hype and focus on what�s most important. Now, in It�s the Student, Not the College, she shows how to avoid unrepayable debt and set yourself up to grow, excel, and enjoy yourself at any school.

Instead of obsessing over GPA cutoffs and SAT scores, students will learn how to build a personal �Success Profile��by adopting the traits that help stellar students make the grade in school and life. Plus . . .
�Why what you do in school counts more than where you go
�14 surefire ways to develop your Success Profile as a student and beyond
�Criteria to consider when choosing a college
�How to find a good fit for your family�s finances
�And tips for graduating career-ready and landing a great first job.
Expensive, elite colleges have too much sway over the minds and bank accounts of students and parents. It�s the Student, Not the College breaks that stranglehold�and reveals the real secrets of success.

Thanks for posting. I'm growing quite weary of hearing of students strapped with 50k-150k plus of student loan debt starting off in their career. People need to understand that state college is a good option in most states and a heck of a lot less expensive in the majority of instances.

Yes. Particularly for gifted kids (any variety) the local public college, or a modestly priced small school, can and does provide a great undergraduate education that can still unlock elite graduate programs.

It's a little crazy to think that a few years of education should leave a student (or parents) with 100K+ in debt. That is the kind of debt that prevents home ownership, building a family, or accepting an exciting (but not well-paying) first job that comes with non-monetary career advantages.

It's unfortunate that states are defunding their public schools. My sister recently completed a bachelors at a California State campus, transferring from a community college with junior standing. Due to overcrowding, credit limits, and difficulty registering for her required courses, it took another three years and 40K in debt to finish. Terrifying.

Originally Posted by Old Dad

Thanks for posting. I'm growing quite weary of hearing of students strapped with 50k-150k plus of student loan debt starting off in their career. People need to understand that state college is a good option in most states and a heck of a lot less expensive in the majority of instances.

State colleges often get you $100,000 in debt.

It's the private colleges that get you up to $200,000+.

Where I'm from, state college tuition & fees is 8k a year for undergraduates, with books room & board, one can easilty do $18,000 a year here. Work a part time job or land a partial scolarship and one can then easily escape with an undergraduate degree in 4 years with 50k or under of debt upon graduation......of course, if your degree at that time can't make you more than 30k a year then you choose unwisely to be able to afford your field of study.

Originally Posted by ljoy

It's unfortunate that states are defunding their public schools.

Some may say that the sad fact is there simply are no funds. Our country is in debt. This National Debt means that the taxes collected are not enough to pay for all the services people have become accustomed to.

This ties in with a current thread, Kids & money, as parents must make important decisions as to what to teach their children about money management, from earning money, to personal finance and time value of money, credit, debt, etc.

Quote

My sister recently completed a bachelors at a California State campus, transferring from a community college with junior standing. Due to overcrowding, credit limits, and difficulty registering for her required courses, it took another three years and 40K in debt to finish. Terrifying.

If I understand correctly, with junior transfer standing, she anticipated completing her degree in two years, and it took three years (one additional year)?

A possible downside to transfers (not that this specifically occurred with your sister's education) is that individuals may receive many of their transfer credits as "electives", then face the challenge of scheduling the required courses for their major. For decades, many colleges have not offered every course every semester. For example, some courses may be offered during the Spring semester only, Fall semester only, or offered on a rotational basis every third semester. Students, especially transfer students, may need to engage in a lot of planning and discussion with department heads in order to set up a schedule for graduating on a timely basis. Options for online courses, blended courses (online and in-person) and accelerated courses may, in some cases, help a student set up an optimal schedule.

Originally Posted by Old Dad

field of study

Agreed. These resources have been mentioned elsewhere on the forums, but may also be helpful here, to future readers of this thread.

1) The US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, has an Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) which may be helpful for looking into various fields of study.

2) The "Big Future" feature of the College Board also provides information about majors and careers.

Thinking of career choices brings to mind a post in an old thread:

Originally Posted by post in an old thread

... Forty or fifty years ago, the US offered lots of manufacturing jobs that paid a living wage, and people who weren't bright enough to be lawyers or engineers or whatever (or who couldn't afford college) could find a decent job.

Now we've outsourced a lot of these jobs, and we've decided that everyone should just go to college and become a knowledge worker. IMO, this is insane. You can't make people smarter by wishing it so, and the results are predictable. People with college degrees end up working as security guards, at Starbucks, and in other low-skill jobs (but they have huge loans to pay off). We're building an entire economy around a fantasy.

On top of this, we put so much effort into average and below-average students, we forget about the bright students who actually have the talent to be high-caliber knowledge workers. This happens through a combination of ignoring them in elementary school and then watering down math, science, and English courses in middle school and beyond.

And then everyone wonders why things don't improve. We hear that the real problem is that we need to throw more money at the issue, while ignoring how we spend the money and the fact that the US education expenditures are above average among OECD countries. We even spend more than the much-vaunted Finland as a percentage of overall public expenditure....

Originally Posted by indigo

If I understand correctly, with junior transfer standing, she anticipated completing her degree in two years, and it took three years (one additional year)?

A possible downside to transfers (not that this specifically occurred with your sister's education) is that individuals may receive many of their transfer credits as "electives", then face the challenge of scheduling the required courses for their major. For decades, many colleges have not offered every course every semester. For example, some courses may be offered during the Spring semester only, Fall semester only, or offered on a rotational basis every third semester.

Correct. The courses she needed were offered on a very reasonable schedule. However, due to budget constraints, only half the students who needed a course were able to register for it at a time. At least once, she had to go on leave for a semester because she could not register for the exact courses she needed - they were offered, but were full by the time her registration lottery number came up. (I did not count time off in the 3 years above.) She did fully utilize online options, and these were not small classes.

Students were also capped at less than a full credit load, decreasing their eligibility for financial aid if the schedule was not perfect - for instance full load might be defined as 16 credits, but the cap is 12 credits, and for financial aid you must register at least 3/4 time. This means that if you can't register for exactly 12 credits, you are not eligible for any aid at all. Caps were declared as little as 2 weeks before the registration date. If a class is cancelled after the first day of the term, you *will* have to repay any financial aid you have received for the term, unless you can miraculously late-add a course that is exactly the same number of credits.

My point is that while a state school can look like a great deal on paper, the logistics of actually graduating can make it a lot less attractive. This changes year by year, with little notice, and is getting much worse very quickly.
ETA: CSU may still be a great choice for an accelerated kid who can live at home. In that situation, it makes much less of a difference whether you graduate in 4 years vs 6 or more. There would be less urgency about finding a job to cover rent on zero notice when financial aid is pulled and you therefore have to go on leave for the semester. For an independent adult, it was a nightmare.

Originally Posted by ljoy

ETA: CSU may still be a great choice for an accelerated kid who can live at home. In that situation, it makes much less of a difference whether you graduate in 4 years vs 6 or more.

No, because two years of peak earnings could amount to $200K or more.

Thank you for sharing these difficulties, as this may help others to go into a situation with a raised awareness of what they might encounter.

Three thoughts on changes which may improve a student's ability to navigate the system:

1) Some schools are admitting record numbers of students, and have failed to plan accordingly, whether raising class size, creating more sections, or more delivery formats (evening, accelerated, online, blended, etc). They may need or benefit from upgrades to their computer forecasting and scheduling systems. Based upon declared majors and minors, schools ought to create capacity to provide the education which they essentially promised by admitting these students.

2) It is my understanding that as a part of the accreditation process, colleges may be evaluated, in part, on their recent graduate job placement statistics. A downturn in hiring may therefore result in restrictions in the number of students graduated overall, and/or in a particular program or major. Better forecasting and/or student advising may help the schools deliver on the education promised to the students they've admitted.

3) Some schools may be limited by contracts with their professors, adjuncts, and others who may teach a limited number of classes.

Great point, about an early college entrant possibly living at home to help offset costs.

Originally Posted by ljoy

My point is that while a state school can look like a great deal on paper, the logistics of actually graduating can make it a lot less attractive. This changes year by year, with little notice, and is getting much worse very quickly.

I moved to the Bay area in 1996 and had a job that allowed me to meet a LOT of college students and recent graduates. Every single person who went to CSU or UC had the same story, and it was what you mentioned above: required classes offered once a year that were oversubscribed, the five-year plan, and costs. These days, the same problems are there, but as you say, they're worse. UC costs a lot more and now students talk about the six-year plan. They have to take basic classes like Chem 101 over the summer because now it's not just 300-level major classes that aren't offered frequently enough. So not only do they lose earnings because of extra time in college, they also have to increase their loan burden because they can't work full-time in the summer.

The obvious solution is to add sections of CHEM 101 and ENG 358 to meet demand. I mean, that solution is blindingly painfully obvious to an eight-year-old. So if the colleges aren't doing it, it's a deliberate choice that has nothing to do with contracts (because they could just hire another adjunct or, gasp, a tenure-track assistant professor).

Originally Posted by Val

Originally Posted by ljoy

My point is that while a state school can look like a great deal on paper, the logistics of actually graduating can make it a lot less attractive. This changes year by year, with little notice, and is getting much worse very quickly.

I moved to the Bay area in 1996 and had a job that allowed me to meet a LOT of college students and recent graduates. Every single person who went to CSU or UC had the same story, and it was what you mentioned above: required classes offered once a year that were oversubscribed, the five-year plan, and costs. These days, the same problems are there, but as you say, they're worse. UC costs a lot more and now students talk about the six-year plan. They have to take basic classes like Chem 101 over the summer because now it's not just 300-level major classes that aren't offered frequently enough. So not only do they lose earnings because of extra time in college, they also have to increase their loan burden because they can't work full-time in the summer.

The obvious solution is to add sections of CHEM 101 and ENG 358 to meet demand. I mean, that solution is blindingly painfully obvious to an eight-year-old. So if the colleges aren't doing it, it's a deliberate choice that has nothing to do with contracts (because they could just hire another adjunct or, gasp, a tenure-track assistant professor).

According to http://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/berkeley-data-visualizations/undergraduate-graduation-rates, 73% of students in the 2008 and 2009 classes graduated in 4 years, up substantially from 55% for the students who entered in 1998 and 1999. Difficulty in graduating in four years may be concentrated in certain majors.

Interesting. Thanks for posting that graph. I wondered if STEM fields took longer (a final-year class in spectroscopy is more expensive than, say, a senior seminar in Russian history). And still: 27% of students not finishing on time isn't good.

I dug a bit and found this report from UCSD. STEM majors do indeed take longer. The report says that Engineering major requirements require an extra quarter or two, but this doesn't seem to be true for the other STEM fields.That said, graduation rates in 4 years are lower overall at UCSD.

I found this site. I was confused because the estimate for UCSD on this site is much higher than in the report I linked to.

Also, graduation rates are not pretty at Cal State.

The usual situation where GT kids are taking in a dozen to 3 dozen credit hours of college credit from HS into their first year of college sure helps the odds of graduating in 4 years and even if that's not a problem, helps the work load to remain reasonable so a student can not be so stressed out.

Yes, some kids are great at ferreting out opportunities and cobbling together a bunch of courses and experiences from different sources, with a unifying theme. I believe this is the type of self-development which the author is referring to in the book, It's the Student, Not the College.

This reminds me of another interesting book, Self-Directed Learning, whose author presents for the DYS parents, with several summaries of these presentations available on the Davidson Database. This book was also mentioned a few weeks ago on a related thread, Where you go is not who you'll be.

It's important to remember that average student loan debt is still "only" about 30-35K. This is rising, but 100K or even 50K is by no means the norm.

I agree about state universities and not finishing in time. This happened to a family member of mine despite his coming in with many credits. It was an issue of not being able to enroll in classes needed for his major (STEM field). This problem was completely unheard of at my small liberal arts college. I do mean unheard of--as in, I had never heard of it!

Originally Posted by ultramarina

It's important to remember that average student loan debt is still "only" about 30-35K. This is rising, but 100K or even 50K is by no means the norm.

Yes, and the difference in average annual earnings between college and high school grads is close to $30K https://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/Facts_For_Education_Advocates_Sept.pdf . Even $100K of debt is no more than 4 times the average earnings differential.

Originally Posted by ultramarina

It's important to remember that average student loan debt is still "only" about 30-35K. This is rising, but 100K or even 50K is by no means the norm.

Valid point, however, we're in a Gifted forum where little that involves our children is "average" with many if not most of them being in STEM fields (which we've discussed as often taking longer to complete) going to high cost private colleges, and / or going onto graduate degrees, all of which boost the probable debt amount of the average student of this forum. The average student loan is unlikely to look like the average Gifted student loan for those reasons.

Originally Posted by Old Dad

Originally Posted by ultramarina

It's important to remember that average student loan debt is still "only" about 30-35K. This is rising, but 100K or even 50K is by no means the norm.

Valid point, however, we're in a Gifted forum where little that involves our children is "average" with many if not most of them being in STEM fields (which we've discussed as often taking longer to complete) going to high cost private colleges, and / or going onto graduate degrees, all of which boost the probable debt amount of the average student of this forum.

STEM graduate students should be getting teaching and/or research assistantships and should not be taking on debt.

Originally Posted by Bostonian

STEM graduate students should be getting teaching and/or research assistantships and should not be taking on debt.

It would be great if it worked that way, however the economy is changing. It is unclear if this statement is based on research, statistics, anecdotes, or personal opinion... and what particular areas of STEM graduate studies you are referring to. Might you clarify?

Originally Posted by indigo

Originally Posted by Bostonian

STEM graduate students should be getting teaching and/or research assistantships and should not be taking on debt.

It would be great if it worked that way, however the economy is changing. It is unclear if this statement is based on research, statistics, anecdotes, or personal opinion... and what particular areas of STEM graduate studies you are referring to. Might you clarify?

At my physics PhD program in the 1990s, graduate students who did not have research assistantships were given teaching assistantships. The stipends were enough for a single person to live on. They were not charged tuition and were not taking on more debt. This was the norm, and I believe it still is in the natural sciences. See for example MIT Department of Physics Graduate Funding Information. I think too many people go to graduate school as it is, and I would even more strongly discourage anyone from going to graduate school if they needed to borrow to do so.

It is still the norm across most STEM disciplines, as far as I'm aware.

Yes-- graduate school SHOULD be "free" to those going. IMO.

If "too many" are going to grad school, does this mean that there may be more grad students that what the institution can place as research assistants and teaching assistants? Or what is "too many"... how does one determine the threshold?

When something is "free" at point of service, that means the costs are being transferred to other individuals. Who should pay for these students to attain higher degrees and the potentially higher salaries they may expect to earn? Who should sacrifice so they may benefit?

Originally Posted by indigo

If "too many" are going to grad school, does this mean that there may be more grad students that what the institution can place as research assistants and teaching assistants? Or what is "too many"... how does one determine the threshold?

"Too many" does indeed mean that there are more students than can be placed in jobs in the field. The problem is worst in the humanities, but affects the sciences as well.

Humanities: article in Slate

STEM: The Atlantic

And on and on. Just google something along the lines of "phd can't get job."

Originally Posted by indigo

When something is "free" at point of service, that means the costs are being transferred to other individuals. Who should pay for these students to attain higher degrees and the potentially higher salaries they may expect to earn? Who should sacrifice so they may benefit?

Ah-duh. They're supposed to go on and make discoveries that will ultimately improve the lives of others. Research studentships are supposed to be investments in the future of the society, but selfish Americans have trouble seeing past the idea that they're getting a "free" Ph.D. (note: they're actually working their little backsides off).

They work for peanuts, which is why the universities love them and why there are too many of them.

Originally Posted by indigo

When something is "free" at point of service, that means the costs are being transferred to other individuals. Who should pay for these students to attain higher degrees and the potentially higher salaries they may expect to earn? Who should sacrifice so they may benefit?

Careful there, you're opening a new can of worms that has been opened previously on these forums and was hotly debated (smirk) There is not right answer to your question, only opinion.

One side says, "We need to invest in the future by investing in our best and brightest"

The other side says, "Why do I want to invest in our best and brightest? Our best and brightest need to invest in themselves as they'll be the ones who reap the financial reward and can afford to pay it back."

Neither thought pattern is "wrong".....both have logical thought patterns.

Originally Posted by Val

They're supposed to go on and make discoveries that will ultimately improve the lives of others.

Is there a statistic on how many do this?

Are the discoveries believed to be great enough to offset the debt that the future society will inherit, in part to have funded these discoveries? Will gifted kids of the future, who must pay down the national debt, feel that decision makers of today were acting in their best interests? Will they experience a beautiful deleveraging? International news about the Greek debt crisis and austerity measures may hint at the future of the US, when US debt US debt comes due and needs to be repaid. The work of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may also be of interest.

Quote

Research studentships are supposed to be investments in the future of the society, but selfish Americans have trouble seeing past the idea that they're getting a "free" Ph.D. (note: they're actually working their little backsides off).

There are many professions which benefit the future of society, with dedicated individuals working long hours, but not receiving a "free" Ph.D.

Quote

They work for peanuts, which is why the universities love them and why there are too many of them.

What might be the predominant reasons that a large number of individuals are choosing this path?

Originally Posted by Val

"Too many" does indeed mean that there are more students than can be placed in jobs in the field. The problem is worst in the humanities, but affects the sciences as well... google something along the lines of "phd can't get job."

Yes, this seems to disagree with statistics which state that there is low (or virtually no) unemployment for individuals with advanced degrees. Possibly some of the statistics are historical, and do not reflect current trends.

Originally Posted by Old Dad

Careful there... your question

Yes, Socratic method. Possibly no right answer, only opinion, and yet a prevailing opinion may become policy and exert influence.

Quote

One side says, "We need to invest in the future by investing in our best and brightest"

The other side says, "Why do I want to invest in our best and brightest? Our best and brightest need to invest in themselves as they'll be the ones who reap the financial reward and can afford to pay it back."

Neither thought pattern is "wrong".....both have logical thought patterns.

Agreed. Underlying the viewpoints may be various blends of free-market, capitalism, managed-economy, socialism. Additionally when discussing free college tuition, there may be more than two sides... free college for some? ...for all? ...to what level of education? ...who decides?

There may be a balance between "free" (meaning without cost at point of service) and "free" (meaning self-determining).