GT is ranked #19 in the country

[GTHomer]

If you are on LinkedIn, you may have seen this article. This ranking is of top colleges for your money. One of the metrics is how well schools enable students to repay their loans. Interesting article in Time Magazine that can be found at:

http://time.com/money/best-colleges/?news

Without question, GT is the top university in the state of Georgia using these metrics.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

If you are on LinkedIn, you may have seen this article. This ranking is of top colleges for your money. One of the metrics is how well schools enable students to repay their loans. Interesting article in Time Magazine that can be found at:

http://time.com/money/best-colleges/?news

Without question, GT is the top university in the state of Georgia using these metrics.

While these sorts of ROI-based studies should be based on hard, fast numbers, they contain a lot of subjectivity in them.

For example, if you look closely, you will notice the ratio of early career earnings to one year's cost is the highest at Georgia Tech (2.30) than any other school above it. There are a few (I didn't browse far) below us that are a tick higher of a ratio, but they have a lower cost and lower salary. There is a surprising number of colleges listed as 'the best for your money' up at the top where your early career earnings are less than a year's cost (ie < 1.00). Furthermore, our REAL ratio (average cost after financial aid) is 4.76 - ie one single year of early career earnings equals 4.76 years of the average cost to attend Georgia Tech. I didn't look far and wide, but on first glance I didn't see anybody with that high of a ratio.

It looks to me that we get dinged somehow because our average student debt at the end is higher than others. But to me that's an irrelevant number - the cost of what you pay is the cost of what you pay. What you earn is what you earn. If more folks from Princeton graduate with less debt, that just means they have more rich people attend. If you ignore people's ability to pay and just look at the straight numbers of earnings versus cost to attend, we are at the top. Princeton has more students who can pay up front, we have more that pay later, and lucky for those students with rich parents - if they had to pay their own way like more Georgia Tech students do, they'd have a much harder time paying for it, based on how expensive Princeton is (they make about the same earnings, but the school costs 30% more per year).

That's my head scratcher - Princeton is ranked #1 and we are ranked #19 in colleges that are 'best for your money'. Both places send students into the workforce to make approximately $69,000/year, which is just about the top. A Princeton degree costs 30% more. But yet look at the rankings, LOL.

 

[CTJacket]

While these sorts of ROI-based studies should be based on hard, fast numbers, they contain a lot of subjectivity in them.

For example, if you look closely, you will notice the ratio of early career earnings to one year's cost is the highest at Georgia Tech (2.30) than any other school above it. There are a few (I didn't browse far) below us that are a tick higher of a ratio, but they have a lower cost and lower salary. There is a surprising number of colleges listed as 'the best for your money' up at the top where your early career earnings are less than a year's cost (ie < 1.00). Furthermore, our REAL ratio (average cost after financial aid) is 4.76 - ie one single year of early career earnings equals 4.76 years of the average cost to attend Georgia Tech. I didn't look far and wide, but on first glance I didn't see anybody with that high of a ratio.

It looks to me that we get dinged somehow because our average student debt at the end is higher than others. But to me that's an irrelevant number - the cost of what you pay is the cost of what you pay. What you earn is what you earn. If more folks from Princeton graduate with less debt, that just means they have more rich people attend. If you ignore people's ability to pay and just look at the straight numbers of earnings versus cost to attend, we are at the top. Princeton has more students who can pay up front, we have more that pay later, and lucky for those students with rich parents - if they had to pay their own way like more Georgia Tech students do, they'd have a much harder time paying for it, based on how expensive Princeton is (they make about the same earnings, but the school costs 30% more per year).

That's my head scratcher - Princeton is ranked #1 and we are ranked #19 in colleges that are 'best for your money'. Both places send students into the workforce to make approximately $69,000/year, which is just about the top. A Princeton degree costs 30% more. But yet look at the rankings, LOL.

Not to mention Princeton has a HUGE endowment and can be liberal with need-based aid. If you get in and your parents lose their job, for instance, Princeton will pick up the tab because they don't like having people transfer out (which lowers their US News ranking). Of course in such an extreme example a student at Tech can apply for aid and will likely get it one way or another (loans may be one way). However people game the system with schools like Princeton so that they can get financial aid. Like you say, the cost is the cost and you should base it on that.

 

[MWBATL]

That's my head scratcher - Princeton is ranked #1 and we are ranked #19 in colleges that are 'best for your money'. Both places send students into the workforce to make approximately $69,000/year, which is just about the top. A Princeton degree costs 30% more. But yet look at the rankings, LOL.

Do you suspect that just maybe a Princeton grad wrote the article? Or at least an Ivy League grad? It is the media which is normally very northeastern US dominated.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Do you suspect that just maybe a Princeton grad wrote the article? Or at least an Ivy League grad? It is the media which is normally very northeastern US dominated.

HA! Who knows. I mean its partially true - if Exxon and Chevron are both looking at a $50 million plant expansion, and Exxon can pay in cash while Chevron has to issue debt and pay interest, one has a different ROI than another. But I think its a bit disingenuous to extend that to the ROI on college. People aren't well capitalized corporations. To say that one college has a better ROI than another only because their students have more rich parents is silly to me.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I don’t know who wrote this article but I paid way more than $29.5k/yr to send junior to GT 8 yrs ago. Did it get cheaper to attend?

 

[RonJohn]

If more folks from Princeton graduate with less debt, that just means they have more rich people attend. If you ignore people's ability to pay and just look at the straight numbers of earnings versus cost to attend, we are at the top.

Princeton's endowment pays the full tuition of a student whose family's income bracket cannot afford it. They pay 100% of all costs to attend if a family's income is less than $65,000. They pay 100% of tuition if the family's income is less than $140,000. The student qualifies for tuition assistance if the family's income is below $180,000. The school has a $24 billion endowment that has been increasing by about 12% a year. They can afford to pay tuition for all enrolled students.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016...ancial-aid-allows-students-graduate-debt-free

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Princeton's endowment pays the full tuition of a student whose family's income bracket cannot afford it. They pay 100% of all costs to attend if a family's income is less than $65,000. They pay 100% of tuition if the family's income is less than $140,000. The student qualifies for tuition assistance if the family's income is below $180,000. The school has a $24 billion endowment that has been increasing by about 12% a year. They can afford to pay tuition for all enrolled students.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016...ancial-aid-allows-students-graduate-debt-free

Lucky for them the $24 Billion cost isn’t factored in at all in the study.

 

[RonJohn]

Lucky for them the $24 Billion cost isn’t factored in at all in the study.

It's because they are comparing average student loan debt to average salary. $7,500 is easier to pay off with a $69,800 salary than $24,000 is to pay off with a $68,100 salary. Seems like a perfectly good study to ask: If you go to school X, how long will it take to pay off your student loan. Doesn't matter if the full cost of attendance is paid for with assistance from an endowment, HOPE, or leprechauns.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It's because they are comparing average student loan debt to average salary. $7,500 is easier to pay off with a $69,800 salary than $24,000 is to pay off with a $68,100 salary. Seems like a perfectly good study to ask: If you go to school X, how long will it take to pay off your student loan. Doesn't matter if the full cost of attendance is paid for with assistance from an endowment, HOPE, or leprechauns.

I know, and that’s what’s so silly to me. Pay attention to the net cost of tuition after financial help. You’ll notice Princeton isn’t free. So if you have 2 schools that cost roughly the same but one has students graduating with higher debt, it’s because the other has students coming from rich parents. So Princeton is the best ROI if you’re rich. Um, okay.

 

[RonJohn]

I know, and that’s what’s so silly to me. Pay attention to the net cost of tuition after financial help. You’ll notice Princeton isn’t free. So if you have 2 schools that cost roughly the same but one has students graduating with higher debt, it’s because the other has students coming from rich parents. So Princeton is the best ROI if you’re rich. Um, okay.

I think you are misunderstanding the numbers. That isn't the "net cost of tuition after financial help". According to the methodology it is:

The data on merit and need-based grants you’ll see reported on our website are numbers reported by the colleges to Peterson’s, and are for your information but are not used in the rankings

So the report shows the cost after need-based grants as determined by the federal government. It does not include school issued assistance over the Pell Grant limits, nor does it include HOPE in Georgia. It does not say how many Pell Grant students there are at Princeton. But there are enough for it to be listed. As I stated before, Princeton gives aid(that isn't reflected in the "price with avg. grant") to students up to a family income of $180,000. They pay full tuition for students up to a family income of $140,000. It isn't hard, relatively speaking, for most who get into Princeton to pay for school.

From a NYT study:

The median family income of a student from Princeton is $186,100, and 72% come from the top 20 percent

The median family income of a student from Georgia Tech is $130,000, and 59% come from the top 20 percent.

There is a difference in the averages of family incomes between Princeton and GT. However, it isn't all rich at Princeton and all middle income at GT as you seem to be suggesting.

BTW, the mutts are almost equal with GT in regards to family income, but they are far behind in terms of outcome:

The median family income of a student from University of Georgia is $129,800, and 59% come from the top 20 percent.

The median income of a graduate at 34 for GT is $78,900 while the mutts are $49,900. A poor student at GT has a 57% chance to become rich, while at the mutts it is 35%.

That study was in 2014

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I think you are misunderstanding the numbers. That isn't the "net cost of tuition after financial help". According to the methodology it is:

So the report shows the cost after need-based grants as determined by the federal government. It does not include school issued assistance over the Pell Grant limits, nor does it include HOPE in Georgia. It does not say how many Pell Grant students there are at Princeton. But there are enough for it to be listed. As I stated before, Princeton gives aid(that isn't reflected in the "price with avg. grant") to students up to a family income of $180,000. They pay full tuition for students up to a family income of $140,000. It isn't hard, relatively speaking, for most who get into Princeton to pay for school.

From a NYT study:

There is a difference in the averages of family incomes between Princeton and GT. However, it isn't all rich at Princeton and all middle income at GT as you seem to be suggesting.

BTW, the mutts are almost equal with GT in regards to family income, but they are far behind in terms of outcome:

The median income of a graduate at 34 for GT is $78,900 while the mutts are $49,900. A poor student at GT has a 57% chance to become rich, while at the mutts it is 35%.

That study was in 2014

That wasn’t what I was saying. The tuition cost is approximately the same. The incomes are about the same. But we are ranked 18 spots lower due to the level of income of the parents (amount of debt people have at graduation). That just strikes me as an odd way to do ROI rankings. It should be based on what it costs and how much you make afterwards and not how much money your parents have. But it is what it is I suppose.

 

[RonJohn]

I dug into the actual data they are using and I was wrong. Those numbers do include the institution grants and scholarships. It still doesn't show that all Princeton students are rich. 60% of Princeton students receive aid, which averages $44,128. That 60% includes students with family income up to $180,000. Students with families up to $65,000 receive full cost of attendance which is much higher than $44,128. Students with families of up to $140,000 receive full cost of tuition. It is easier for lower income families to have a student attend Princeton than many public universities.

 

[RonJohn]

That wasn’t what I was saying. The tuition cost is approximately the same. The incomes are about the same. But we are ranked 18 spots lower due to the level of income of the parents (amount of debt people have at graduation). That just strikes me as an odd way to do ROI rankings. It should be based on what it costs and how much you make afterwards and not how much money your parents have. But it is what it is I suppose.

And my point is that it isn't strictly "level of income of the parents". Princeton pays FULL cost of attendance for low income students. Those students don't pay for tuition, books, room, or board. Their parents are poor, yet school for them is free. They get a very good ROI if you only count money because they don't invest anything. Even for a family up to $140,000, the family does not pay anything for tuition. They have to pay for books, room and board. The majority of all students at GT have to pay that. For families up to middle-middle class, Princeton is a very affordable school with high returns.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

And my point is that it isn't strictly "level of income of the parents". Princeton pays FULL cost of attendance for low income students. Those students don't pay for tuition, books, room, or board. Their parents are poor, yet school for them is free. They get a very good ROI if you only count money because they don't invest anything. Even for a family up to $140,000, the family does not pay anything for tuition. They have to pay for books, room and board. The majority of all students at GT have to pay that. For families up to middle-middle class, Princeton is a very affordable school with high returns.

I didn’t say Princeton was a bad deal for lower income people. I said it’s silly to me to factor in how much money your parents make to the equation. Our tuition is less and our income is similar. We get dinged because we don’t have as many families who have incomes such that their kids graduate debt free.
——————-
The median family income of a student from Princeton is $186,100.

The median family income of a student from Georgia Tech is $130,000.

 

[RonJohn]

I didn’t say Princeton was a bad deal for lower income people. I said it’s silly to me to factor in how much money your parents make to the equation. Our tuition is less and our income is similar. We get dinged because we don’t have as many families who have incomes such that their kids graduate debt free.
——————-
The median family income of a student from Princeton is $186,100.

The median family income of a student from Georgia Tech is $130,000.

We also don't have as big an endowment that can make school pretty much free for all families above our median family income. It isn't just "rich families". It is that Princeton can afford to make school absolutely free to many of it's students. Until you get to $140,000 family income, Princeton makes it absolutely affordable to attend. The median GT family would not pay any tuition to attend Princeton. Sounds affordable to me.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

We also don't have as big an endowment that can make school pretty much free for all families above our median family income. It isn't just "rich families". It is that Princeton can afford to make school absolutely free to many of it's students. Until you get to $140,000 family income, Princeton makes it absolutely affordable to attend. The median GT family would not pay any tuition to attend Princeton. Sounds affordable to me.

My previous comment said another way:
The difference in the parents’ median income more than pays for Georgia Tech.

Or said another way:
If the parents of Georgia Tech were instead those of Princeton, students wood graduate from Georgia Tech debt free.

 

[RonJohn]

Or said another way:
If the parents of Georgia Tech were instead those of Princeton, students wood graduate from Georgia Tech debt free.

Or another way:
If Georgia Tech had the endowment and policies of Princeton, the median income families of Georgia Tech would pay no tuition whatsoever and would graduate from Georgia Tech debt free.