'Financially Hobbled for Life': The Elite Master's Degrees That Don't Pay Off

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,945
Reputation
4,421
Daps
89,019
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
'Financially Hobbled for Life': The Elite Master's Degrees That Don't Pay Off


Recent film program graduates of Columbia University who took out federal student loans had a median debt of $181,000. Yet two years after earning their master's degrees, half of the borrowers were making less than $30,000 a year. The Columbia program offers the most extreme example of how elite universities in recent years have awarded thousands of master's degrees that don't provide graduates enough early career earnings to begin paying down their federal student loans, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Education Department data. Recent Columbia film alumni had the highest debt compared with earnings among graduates of any major university master's program in the U.S., the Journal found. The New York City university is among the world's most prestigious schools, and its $11.3 billion endowment ranks it the nation's eighth wealthiest private school.

For years, faculty, staff and students have appealed unsuccessfully to administrators to tap that wealth to aid more graduate students, according to current and former faculty and administrators, and dozens of students. Taxpayers will be on the hook for whatever is left unpaid. Lured by the aura of degrees from top-flight institutions, many master's students at universities across the U.S. took on debt beyond what their pay would support, the Journal analysis of federal data on borrowers found. At Columbia, such students graduated from programs including history, social work and architecture. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger said the Education Department data in the Journal analysis can't fully assess salary prospects because it covers only earnings and loan repayments two years after graduation. "Nevertheless," he said, "this is not what we want it to be."

At New York University, graduates with a master's degree in publishing borrowed a median $116,000 and had an annual median income of $42,000 two years after the program, the data on recent borrowers show. At Northwestern University, half of those who earned degrees in speech-language pathology borrowed $148,000 or more, and the graduates had a median income of $60,000 two years later. Graduates of the University of Southern California's marriage and family counseling program borrowed a median $124,000 and half earned $50,000 or less over the same period. "NYU is always focused on affordability, and an important part of that is, of course, to help prospective students make informed decisions," said spokesman John Beckman. Northwestern spokeswoman Hilary Hurd Anyaso said the speech-language pathology program is among the best in the world, leading to a "gratifying career path that is in high demand." USC spokeswoman Lauren Bartlett said providing students financial support and employment opportunities was a priority for the school.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,692
Daps
203,918
Reppin
the ether
They need to lower the prices of these degrees for careers that don’t pay. While publishing is probably unnecessary, you do need a masters in speech pathology to be a speech therapist (a needed profession) but FOH @ being six figure in debt for a $60k/yr job

There is some obvious cost-cutting that could take place in higher education (most of which relates to recruiting and the frills that are justified to enhance recruitment). But the truth is that a good education will always be expensive. Certain gifted individuals can learn certain skills independently, but if we're going to try to educate everyone and teach them everything they need to be effective, then those universities are going to need labs and workshops and highly qualified instructors and small working groups and individualized attention and personalized feedback and institutional support and gifted administrators. Not to mention living facilities and food and all that. It adds up.

The problem is that the societal benefits a job brings are never connected to the paycheck, much less paid back to the educators. I went to an underfunded school system that probably had one speech therapist for the entire district. She spent a few hours with me every week for five years. It was brutal but in the end I learned to speak correctly. The benefits to my life were unimaginable - I never would have been able to be an educator and public speaker if I had never learned to talk right, Bloomberg wouldn't be publishing my first book right now. How does my speech therapist from 30 years ago receive those benefits? Not in any way whatsoever. Same goes for my teachers and a lot of other people.

If we want society to work effectively, we should be paying FAR higher salaries to speech therapists and school teachers and social workers and EMTs and RNs and physical therapists and rehab counselors and farmers and elder care workers and a ton of other occupations I'm not thinking of at the moment. And then those people would easily be able to pay for the quality of education that they really need. But capitalism has no means to adequately cover societally important roles, and we've gone all-in on letting the capitalists determine what we will and will not pay for any particular profession.
 

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,328
Reputation
5,864
Daps
93,988
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
They need to lower the prices of these degrees for careers that don’t pay. While publishing is probably unnecessary, you do need a masters in speech pathology to be a speech therapist (a needed profession) but FOH @ being six figure in debt for a $60k/yr job

@DEAD7 believes the opposite

He wants to raise the cost on them to discourage people from taking them

He also advocates for burning books
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,588
Reputation
4,858
Daps
68,449
There is some obvious cost-cutting that could take place in higher education (most of which relates to recruiting and the frills that are justified to enhance recruitment). But the truth is that a good education will always be expensive. Certain gifted individuals can learn certain skills independently, but if we're going to try to educate everyone and teach them everything they need to be effective, then those universities are going to need labs and workshops and highly qualified instructors and small working groups and individualized attention and personalized feedback and institutional support and gifted administrators. Not to mention living facilities and food and all that. It adds up.

The problem is that the societal benefits a job brings are never connected to the paycheck, much less paid back to the educators. I went to an underfunded school system that probably had one speech therapist for the entire district. She spent a few hours with me every week for five years. It was brutal but in the end I learned to speak correctly. The benefits to my life were unimaginable - I never would have been able to be an educator and public speaker if I had never learned to talk right, Bloomberg wouldn't be publishing my first book right now. How does my speech therapist from 30 years ago receive those benefits? Not in any way whatsoever. Same goes for my teachers and a lot of other people.

If we want society to work effectively, we should be paying FAR higher salaries to speech therapists and school teachers and social workers and EMTs and RNs and physical therapists and rehab counselors and farmers and elder care workers and a ton of other occupations I'm not thinking of at the moment. And then those people would easily be able to pay for the quality of education that they really need. But capitalism has no means to adequately cover societally important roles, and we've gone all-in on letting the capitalists determine what we will and will not pay for any particular profession.
Fam, I have friends that work at those universities in the administration and I can ensure you it doesn’t need to cost nearly this much. They’re charging that much because they can.

Look at law school for example, why exactly does a school where you’re literally just reading cases and then taking one exam at the end of each semester cost 60,000 dollars a year?
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,692
Daps
203,918
Reppin
the ether
Fam, I have friends that work at those universities in the administration and I can ensure you it doesn’t need to cost nearly this much. They’re charging that much because they can.
Like I said, there are places where costs can be cut but it's still gonna be expensive.

Just stating, "My friends told me" without giving any breakdown is a vague argument that doesn't give a path forward. Where on the books are you going to reduce costs to an affordable level? Outside of the shytty scam for-profit schools, it's not like these institutions are even clearing enough from tuition fees to cover their costs, most of them require endowments and gifts to subsidize what their students pay.




Look at law school for example, why exactly does a school where you’re literally just reading cases and then taking one exam at the end of each semester cost 60,000 dollars a year?
Sounds like a pretty shytty law school that isn't doing anything to actually prepare you for a career. But I'm not sure where we were talking about law school anyway. Any real education in an essential field is going to require far more effort than that, especially if you're serving any students other than those who would already be equipped to succeed anyway.
 

ogc163

Superstar
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
9,027
Reputation
2,150
Daps
22,319
Reppin
Bronx, NYC
I don't think it changes at all sadly, if Covid didn't undermine the power of average to above average colleges, then it's likely nothing will.

The university system is tied to the job hiring system which is already a mess, as several Nobel prize winning economists have admitted it's one of the most inefficient systems in the out there.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
30,588
Reputation
4,858
Daps
68,449
Like I said, there are places where costs can be cut but it's still gonna be expensive.

Just stating, "My friends told me" without giving any breakdown is a vague argument that doesn't give a path forward. Where on the books are you going to reduce costs to an affordable level? Outside of the shytty scam for-profit schools, it's not like these institutions are even clearing enough from tuition fees to cover their costs, most of them require endowments and gifts to subsidize what their students pay.





Sounds like a pretty shytty law school that isn't doing anything to actually prepare you for a career. But I'm not sure where we were talking about law school anyway. Any real education in an essential field is going to require far more effort than that, especially if you're serving any students other than those who would already be equipped to succeed anyway.
The official law school thread was created before you were even a member of this board. I’ve posted about this stuff ad nauseum. I don’t know what else to say aside from you’re either tragically idealistic or woefully uninformed about how higher education works. And I admit that I skimmed your post but the stuff I said is standard knowledge.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,692
Daps
203,918
Reppin
the ether
The official law school thread was created before you were even a member of this board.
What does that have anything to do with anything? :why:




I’ve posted about this stuff ad nauseum. I don’t know what else to say aside from you’re either tragically idealistic or woefully uninformed about how higher education works. And I admit that I skimmed your post but the stuff I said is standard knowledge.
You literally haven't posted anything to even debate whether it is or isn't accurate tho. You just put forward a vague claim using an Argument from Authority and left it hanging. You didn't even say how much costs could be cut or in what areas.


1. I state that costs can and should be reduced but a high-quality education in essential fields will always be expensive, and list exact reasons contributing to that expense.

2. You counter that universities are overcharging, without specifying anything about where costs can be cut or how much they can be cut by, and as an example you vaguely refer to a degree field that wasn't even in the discussion.

3. When I ask for specifics, you refuse to provide anything other than some insults.


I'll point out again - outside of for-profit colleges, most schools don't even make enough from tuition payments to fully cover their costs. I do believe costs can be cut, mostly in terms of costs related to recruitment. But if we're going to try to educate everyone and teach them everything they need to be effective, then universities are going to need labs and workshops and highly qualified instructors and small working groups and individualized attention and personalized feedback and institutional support and gifted administrators. That's going to be expensive. If there was a lane for "high quality education at low cost without outside subsidies", then why hasn't some institution filled that lane yet?
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,692
Daps
203,918
Reppin
the ether
One thing that’s frustrating about professors is that the highest paid do the least actual teaching. Many actively avoid it.

This.

The most competitive universities engage in an arms race for the most highly regarded professors. Their promotional materials love listing how many Nobel Prizes they've won and how much original research they've done, but ignore whether those particular professors are actually engaged or effective in teaching undergraduate students. And your average student applying for colleges isn't well-equipped to figure out the answers for themselves. Doing original research seems like a really good thing for universities to be engaged in, but there needs to be more emphasis in the hiring and tenure process on having professors provide a quality education to their students and not just hit a certain threshold for published research.

A large % of the issues that make college more expensive than necessary can be tied back to things that are done to compete for incoming students. Big part of that is the US News and World Reports commodification of college rankings, which has contributed greatly to increase in education costs (as universities race to spend money on things that will improve their ranking) while doing nothing to improve the quality of education.
 
Top