OT: college; fear of debt

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]My vote is for the JC route. Maybe my experience is different from that of other posters, but my whole family went the JC route. My dad got an MBA from a state college, mom graduated with honors from UCLA, and I got a teaching credential (two years post-grad) from a state college. I also have many, many friends and former co-workers who did the same thing. Nowhere on any of these degrees does it state that we did the first ~2 years at JCs. All of these people were successful, even though many didn’t pursue careers that matched their degrees.

I’ve asked high school counselors about this very topic, just to make sure I wasn’t missing anything, and they told stories about the ultra-competitive 4-year college/university application process and the stressed-out parents who are desperate to (unnecessarily) pay tens of thousands of dollars extra just so that little Johnny and Susie can enjoy “the dorm experience.” Not worth it, in most of their opinions.

Like a couple other posters have mentioned, if your child is going to apply to graduate schools or programs where it actually matters where they finished their first two years (very rare), and where there is a very high likelihood that they will be able to easily pay of any student loans in a short period of time, then go ahead and send them directly to a 4-year university.

All that being said, I do think it’s important to go to specific universities for some graduate/professional programs, and this is where the money should be spent…after they already have their 4-year degree from a local JC->UC/CSU. Just my 2 cents.

Best of luck to you![/quote]

I agree that the most money SHOULD be spent on graduate school, IF the student plans on going there and IF money is an issue for the family.

I am concerned, however, as to how easy it will be in the coming years for a FT CC student to obtain all their needed GE’s in two years time at the (urban) CA CC’s. I feel that it’s entirely possible that a FT CC student in SD may end up having to attend Mesa, Miramar and even City College concurrently or go back and forth between them trading semesters in order to get all the credits they need to transfer, due to budget cuts affecting class offerings.

Practically speaking, I’m not sure its worth all the hassle. Your kid could get so frustrated driving all over town and/or driving to campus twice as many times per week (due to not being able to get classes together) that they just end up quitting. Also, it’s hard to hold down a PT job, when you have a class at 8:30 am, another at 1:30 pm and another at 7:30 pm (poss at different campuses) all in the same day.

[spdrun]

47 years old. Born 1965. Graduated college in 1986 at age 21. Bought first home in 1992 at age 27. Unheard of? Seems quite normal to me for the time period.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]47 years old. Born 1965. Graduated college in 1986 at age 21. Bought first home in 1992 at age 27. Unheard of? Seems quite normal to me for the time period.[/quote]

That “age milestone” of 27 (and even younger) USED to be the avg age of a FT buyer (FTB) in socal back in the ’80’s and prior.

But not so anymore. There are exceptions (very young professionals and those with local family help) but the avg age of a FT buyer is about 33-40 now.

The reason for this is not entirely due to price. Yes, the prices are higher today but the bulk of local residential RE which is thickly-traded today among buyers with minor children was built from ’89 forward and these dwellings are larger in square feet.

Generations past (boomers and prior) had no qualms about buying a 900-1400 sf SFR for their first home at the age of ~23 because this is what was available and what they could afford. Many (most?) of these FTBs did not possess college degrees but had stable local jobs. Only a very small percentage of current FTB’s would even consider a SFR of this size today, IMO.

[begin rant]The first CFD pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (1982) was formed circa 1987 in SD County. These bonds allowed developers to subdivide and build entire “master-planned communities” on huge undeveloped swaths of (outlying) land (nka “lizardland”). The first MR-encumbered “master-planned communities” built between 1987 and 1991 had the effect of creating a “sea-change” in values of FTB families seeking a principal residence. Even though HOA fees/MR made these homes far more costly in the long run, FTB families saw the “size” and “newness” of the homes in these developments and disregarded their smaller lots and greater distance to job centers when making buying decisions. Because of the greater initial cost (due to increased building costs, size and age) and addt’l carrying cost of these properties, the FTB’s buying them tend to be 10-15 years older than FTB’s of yesteryear.[end rant]

[spdrun]

Construction finished on the first master planned community in what, ’89? Three years doesn’t seem to be enough time to effect a total change in buying habits for something as illiquid and conservative as real estate. I’m assuming that there were still some people, especially of good blue-collar upbringing, who bought one of the smaller houses in the early 90s in their early 20s.

The “900-1400 sf = bad” thing is funny to me. I currently own a home and a rental. Total square footage, added together, is about 900 🙂 My sister’s first place is a bit bigger, at about 1200 sf.

We both bought what we could afford in our late 20s.

Lastly, I’d be interested to know what demographic things like 2/2 condos in the mid to high $100k range are going to. First time buyers, mainly landlords, or older empty-nesters?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Construction finished on the first master planned community in what, ’89? Three years doesn’t seem to be enough time to effect a total change in buying habits for something as illiquid and conservative as real estate. I’m assuming that there were still some people, especially of good blue-collar upbringing, who bought one of the smaller houses in the early 90s in their early 20s.

The “900-1400 sf = bad” thing is funny to me. I currently own a home and a rental. Total square footage, added together, is about 900 🙂 My sister’s first place is a bit bigger, at about 1200 sf.

We both bought what we could afford in our late 20s.

Lastly, I’d be interested to know what demographic things like 2/2 condos in the mid to high $100k range are going to. First time buyers, mainly landlords, or older empty-nesters?[/quote]

spdrun, the “sea change” in SD Co’s FTB’s “home-preference” values occurred gradually over about 15 years, beginning in ~’87. I distinctly remember when the first MP community in SD Co was under construction in Chula Vista (Eastlake Shores). At the time, I had a dozen or so “youngish” co-workers who put in “reservations” for floor plans based only on tabletop models and floorplan drawings from the sales offices and even before the grand opening! Several of them were renting larger, more conveniently-located houses with larger yards at the time but wanted “new construction” and like the “idea” of a planned community around a (man-made) “lake.” There were no schools for miles around the MPC back then and any new families’ children were bussed out until the schools were built (with the elementary being first).

There WAS an abundance of “middle class” blue collar families in SD until about ’94. At that time, the county lost many thousands of decent, blue collar jobs when General Dynamics moved out. All its subsidiaries moved out shortly after, along with Rohr Industries in Chula Vista and a few other, smaller mfrs.

The 2/2 condos you speak for the mid-high $100K’s in SD Co are likely going to (LL) investors for all cash. Or out-of-county parents of a local college students for all cash. That is, what few there are available. I don’t think these types of properties, if priced right, spend too long on the market.

From your post, it seems to me that FTB homebuying values and preferences are different in NY than socal and possibly different in other large east coast cities, as well. Perhaps, in the absence of bonds issued to pay off the infrastructure of large new developments and, I suspect, the dearth of land to build them on, as a FTB you have to buy what is available that you can afford. Also, San Diego County alone is 68 x 72 miles and cities on the east coast are much older (long-established multi-county metropolitan centers) as opposed to SD and its surrounds.

[paramount]

95% this, 90% that…it might pay off, it might not.

I was in Vegas (riding an elevator to the 35th floor) and it occurred to me that I’d bet elevator mechanics make bank.

Once you get the experience, your set for life.

Screw this college crap – break the mold for a change.

[spdrun]

spdrun, the “sea change” in SD Co’s FTB’s “home-preference” values occurred gradually over about 15 years, beginning in ~’87.

So I don’t see why some people still wouldn’t have bought a 1200-sq footer in the early 90s. 5 years was basically the start of the change. 🙂

As far as NY, preferences seem to be to rent in the city for a decade after college, then move out to the ‘burbs and buy something. What I did was pretty rare. Same with my sister in DC, which is sorta my point.

This being said, I kind of wish I was older and was able to buy in 1995. One building had co-ops going for $15,000 (corporation/HOA was bankrupt) that are now selling for about $300,000.

[jwizzle]

[quote=squat250]

you will be stuck in CA forever probably, but that is a good thing, if you want your kid to stay in CA. CA is big, bold beautiful and diverse.

yes the odds of passing the bar are low statsistically, but that’s not a function of the school itself, it’s a function of who is going to the school.

Look– if you took the UC Hastings freshman class, put them on a bus, and sent them to this school, the bar pass rate would probably be very very close to what UC hastings’ pass rate is.

Theerstwhile hastings’ law first years could work p/t as a security guard, study nights, and maybe even have a higher pass rate, since at this “lesser” school they would actually be studying the actual subject matter on the bar exam, not waste time with “multiculturalism and the law” …or as I wasted time, with “ERISA law” and “mental health law”….

And have ZERO DEBT when it’s over…

it’s common for “lower” schools to focus on the meat and potatoes subjects (criminal procedure, evidence, wills and trusts, etc.) on the bar, while elite schools ignore the subject matter on the bar and study random shit. just to show how smart they are, they say their students will learn all the bar crap in the two month bar review course before the exam…whcih of course the goddamn STUDENT pays for… and never even take HALF the subjects ont he bar exam.

that was my experience…

am I right, JWIZZLE? of course im right, at least on this bar review bar prep bullshit. BARBRI was a few grand back in the 90’s. i just checked the website a few moments ago and saw it is $4135 today.

GOOD LORD, LAW STUDENTS OF AMERICA…is this a scam or what?

So if you know in your heart you are going to do whatever it takes to pass the bar, as I knew for an absolute certainty when i began law school, then you will pass, IF you have the mental horsepower (which i’d say is a 90% percentile on the LSAT and above–at least that puts it in the very good bet category).

the thing is, people with a 90% plus LSAt view themselves as “too smart” to go to this school.

but maybe they’re not as smart as they think.

look, I did substantially higher than a 90% plus LSAt score and went to a top 20 law school. But if I had it to do over again? no way. i’d go to ca southern–also keep in mind with my application, i’d probably get a free ride at this school too…

I disagree with you that p/t 7,000 school is the “same”as 11k full time, since many people can pull together 7k p/t per yearand pay as you go, but when you start to get much higher, you start accruing interest bearing debt.

for my own kid, I am absolutely certain if he went to this school, and wanted to pass the bar exam, he would pass the bar exam, if he wanted it…[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you on several of these points. These schools low passage rate are most likely a function of the student body. Your smart son could go someplace like that and pass the bar if he wanted to. He may or may not waste time studying “useless” subjects, although that is partially up to him (I took most of the so-called “bar” classes in law school and didn’t have any interest in “multiculturalism and the law” type classes). It is possible to work part time while in law school, regardless of where you go – I know, I did it my 2nd and 3rd years to decrease my debt load. My grades were actually better when I worked p/t. I didn’t make nearly enough to actually pay for tuition, but I did take home enough to cover a lot of my living expenses.

As far as teaching and Barbri, most people will end up paying for Barbri regardless of where they go to law school – there is so much to remember that most people need the refresher. Barbri IS a total racket. It is also an “investment” – learning the test so that you won’t have to take it over and over again (which, at $614-750 per, depending on whether you use a laptop, can add up fast if you need multiple attempts).

Look, I don’t disagree that most law schools are way overpriced. And some of the analysis changes when you are talking about someone out of undergrad vs. a 2nd career adult. If you are looking at a 2nd career as an adult, something like California Southern might work out. For someone young, I lean the opposite direction as you – rather than look someplace super inexpensive, where they can avoid debt, I want the debt to pencil out financially. I want them to be employable. I don’t want them to be like one of my co-workers, who was 2nd in her class at Thomas Jefferson and has complex lit work and community recognition for her accomplishments (and who is very good looking, statistically increasing her likelihood of getting a job), but who absolutely cannot get an interview anywhere else because people can’t look past the name of her law school. And, as much as I hate to imagine my kids moving away from me, I think it’s a little selfish to try to limit their opportunities geographically by encouraging a local non-accredited school.

Basically, if my kids couldn’t or didn’t get into a T14 law school where they have a very good chance of getting a good paying job that can comfortably service the debt/pay it off at an accelerated rate (and make valuable connections that will help them throughout their career), I would tell them they should reconsider law school.

[flyer]

A friend found this article when checking out college info for his kids. Some of you might also find it interesting. . .

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/27/pf/college/college-salary/index.html?iid=F_Jump

[scaredyclassic]

elevator repair is a six figure career. tight union. i got into a conversationw itha guy once. there’s also carpentry electrical involved they do everthing invovled in the elevator.

[scaredyclassic]

what if colleges in general are all a bunch of thomas jefferson law schools?

[jwizzle]

[quote=squat250]what if colleges in general are all a bunch of thomas jefferson law schools?[/quote]

I think the majority are, which is why I’m a proponent of going to a UC or CSU for undergrad (depending on your future goals, as others have noted) – a good balance between cost and opportunity.

[scaredyclassic]

this looks like the best deal in the nation.

http://www.cooper.edu

looks a bit selective tough.

[spdrun]

“A bit selective” is like saying Stalin was “a bit nasty.”

[scaredyclassic]

http://www.deepsprings.edu/home

another tuition free amazing school.

i was actually contemplating applying as a senior but didn’t have the guts…

[Author]

Posts