Spoke to a financial advisor about paying for PsyD

[RileyG]

relevant:

http://i.imgur.com/vJm22.jpg

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

I think it should be clear to the OP by now that conscious, premeditated excessive/needless borrowing (whatever you may be doing with the money) is a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars and of the federal loan system. It is also a giant financial gamble that you are betting will be picked up by a government program which may or may not be in existence when you finish grad school. This is as short and sweet as I can summarize it. When everyone else immediately sees why this is wrong and you apparently do NOT, then I think some reflection maybe in order. I agree with others observations that i see alot of "I" and "I wants" and "this is good for ME," without much refection upon who actually pays for this stuff or any of the other ethical/moral issues we have raised.

It is kind of frightening to me that you: 1.) would have such little understanding or regard for who pays the tab for charity program like IBR (ie., the US taxpayer....YOU). 2.) would knowingly and illegally exploit a system for your own financial gain. This does not bode well for someone who wants to spend their career in a position of enormous trust.

 

[jena2nsu]

If I were in your position, I would accept a financial aid award up to the COA in federally guaranteed funds (not private student loans). But I definitely would not invest any of my financial aid in stocks, etc. Financial aid isn't designed for one to have money left over to invest. Plus, who in the world would want to invest in the market like it is now???

 

[ThirdLittleBird]

silver, huh?

 

[erg923]

Lots of no talent ass clowns out there.

Nina: Michael...Bolton?
Michael Bolton: Yeah, that's me.
Nina: Wow! Is that your real name?
Michael Bolton: Yeah.
Nina: So are you related to that singer guy?
Michael Bolton: No. It's just a coincidence.
Samir Nagheenanajar: You know, there is nothing wrong with that name.
Michael Bolton: No, there was nothing wrong with it, until I was about 12 years old and that no talent ass-clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
Samir Nagheenanajar: Why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael.
Michael Bolton: No way, why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

 

[cara susanna]

Afghanistan had the support of both republicans and democrats, as did Iraq. To say otherwise is revisionist. Now, you might argue that Bush was the spearhead for that. But, look at Libya. We have less countries with us in our NATO pact than we did for Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet, Bush supposedly was acting unilaterally. We are still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet we've opened a 3rd front. G-Bay = still open. Troops = not home. Hmm. . .

Plus Bush had Congressional approval for Iraq, which Obama did not obtain for Libya.

And, man, that Student Loan pamphlet is scary! I actually heard some debt collectors are trying to get the ability to jail people who haven't made payments, so we'd be turning into 19th century England. Makes me very glad that so far I've made it through without student loans.

 

[DrGero]

silver, huh?

Oh yeah. Silver, gold (paper and physical), other precious metals, commodities, farm stocks, mining stocks. The moment the Federal Reserve starts raising interest rates, I'm happy to change that advice. At the moment, though, I'd stay away from equities (small caps in particular) and go with the above. Inflation is at our doorstep, you want to get away from things denominated in dollars and invest in things of actual value.

As an aside... people in lots of fixed-rate debt may in 10 years be sitting very pretty. Of course, the financial hell we'd all have to go through to get there won't be fun.

 

[DrGero]

Plus Bush had Congressional approval for Iraq, which Obama did not obtain for Libya.

However, Obama *has* UN approval for his action, which Bush did not for Iraq (and when's the last time a President had to get approval from Congress to use the military? Congress abdicated that power decades ago IMHO).

 

[O Gurl]

However, Obama *has* UN approval for his action, which Bush did not for Iraq (and when's the last time a President had to get approval from Congress to use the military? Congress abdicated that power decades ago IMHO).

The UN? What the.... what is that? Don't you know we are the top flight security of the world?

 

[O Gurl]

Plus Bush had Congressional approval for Iraq, which Obama did not obtain for Libya.

Do you really think *this* congress is going to approve a goshdarn thing Obama proposes? Even if it was an emergency defribilation to keep Boehner's mom alive, they would vote against it because it is all about 2012, baby.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

U.N.= The United States 'N some other countries added for show. Having their okay really doesn't mean much since the US already decided what it wanted to do. I guess that is one way to "justify" the Defense budget.

As for Obama...2012 can't come quickly enough.

 

[DrGero]

. . . that's the same UN that had Gadhaffi as it's Human Rights leader a few years back, that lead the oil-for-food scandal, that held a racism conference (which bush was blasted for not sending a delegation) that amounted to little more than an anti-semitic rant. Hmm. . .


These folks are the same types that gave Nobel Peace Prizes to luminaries such as Arafat, Koffi Annan, Barack Obama (for what?), Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore. Sense a trend? Hmm. . .

Oh, hey, no argument. But I think because of his UN cover, Obama certainly can claim "multilateralism" with his current adventure in Libya at least as much as Bush could claim it in Iraq (Afghanistan aside). However, I'm staunchly against all three of our engagements. I find myself in an odd position with my socialist wife - she's actually more pro-war than I am these days (she supports this whole Libya thing, I don't).

 

[roubs]

Plus Bush had Congressional approval for Iraq, which Obama did not obtain for Libya.

FYI, per the War Powers Act, a President has 90 days to either end the military involvement or seek congressional approval. We attacked Libya on March 19th.

 

[cara susanna]

I never said it was unconstitutional, but people always talk about how Iraq was an "illegitimate" war because it didn't have UN approval. I'd much rather a president obtain Congressional approval than UN approval.

I have mixed feelings about Libya.

 

[zupa]

Trying to re-focus on the actual topic....school financials

Having spoken to a few financial aid officers (thorugh my self-funded BA & MS) it has been explained to me multiple times that the *majority* of what does not get re-paid with programs like the PSLF is interest. More times than not the initial loan does get fully re-paid in the allotted time. When you take out the loan you agree to pay the interest, however there is not much "debt" that is being left for the taxpayers to shoulder, just a lack of interest recieved. In addition, although these payback programs may not be around in 5 or 10 years any federal and qualifying loans that were received in the time period when they were available would be grandfathered based on when the legislation was available, a lack of these programs would really only affect subsequent loans.

That being said, I do feel that there are too many schools that charge wayyyyy too much and tell their students that it will all be alright because someone else will just pay it back. That is definitely something you should never rely on. I was blessed to be accepted to a fully funded program but I worked my butt off to get the skills that would make me a strong candidate. Had I not been, I know I would not have taken an unfunded postition. I really do feel that these completely unfunded programs with sky high tuition are what is bringing our profession as a whole down. Grad school admissions should be hard, you should have to prove yourself to get in, not everyone should be accepted.

It is troubling to me that schools lead people believe that even though they are not a strong enough candidate to get in to a funded program (including partially funded), that they will be strong grad students, strong candidates for internships/post-docs/jobs.

 

[Sanity6]

Don't be silly. Self-interested reasons are much more compelling - like, a doctoral degree from Alliant or Argosy is probably not much better regarded than an MFT from a mediocre program.

Will you guys paallleeeezzzeee stop lumping Alliant and Argosy into the same hat!! Alliant is a not-for-profit! Say what you will (and I know you will ) about professional schools, but for Godzook's sake, get your facts clear first.

I personally don't believe that for-profit schools should even be allowed to receive federal money through the student loan program. It's bad enough to allow them to profit from students' debt in the first place, but if they do receive student funded loans, let them (and the students) work through private creditors. Who knows, it might even reduce some of the impact these school are having.

I mean, c'mon--letting corporations profit from providing education (with no requirement to reinvest it back into the institution) is like letting corporations make a profit off of providing medical care.

(As an aside, I'm not disparaging Argosy students directly. I'm sure that most had no ill intent for anyone--including the taxpayer. To me, it's an issue of the corporations and loan system, not so much the consumers.)

 

[KillerDiller]

Will you guys paallleeeezzzeee stop lumping Alliant and Argosy into the same hat!! Alliant is a not-for-profit! Say what you will (and I know you will ) about professional schools, but for Godzook's sake, get your facts clear first.

Yes, there are distinctions between not-for-profit and for-profit institutions. However, both are motivated to attract as many viable students as possible, just like corporations and museums are both motivated to attract as many consumers as possible. For-profit institutions take the extra money to give to share holders and not-for-profit institutions put the extra money back into the system in the form of hiring new positions, raises, new equipment, advertising, etc. Students likely see more benefit in the not-for-profit model, but let's not pretend that the two aren't motivated by the same market forces.

 

[O Gurl]

Will you guys paallleeeezzzeee stop lumping Alliant and Argosy into the same hat!! Alliant is a not-for-profit! Say what you will (and I know you will ) about professional schools, but for Godzook's sake, get your facts clear first.

I personally don't believe that for-profit schools should even be allowed to receive federal money through the student loan program. It's bad enough to allow them to profit from students' debt in the first place, but if they do receive student funded loans, let them (and the students) work through private creditors. Who knows, it might even reduce some of the impact these school are having.

For-profit and non-profit are distinctions, yes. However, Argosy and Alliant function similarly in many ways. Both take advantage of ill-informed students with aggressive marketing, both charge INSANE tuition and fees (one Alliant campus is reportedly now charging 1k per credit hour), both take in far too many students, many of whom could not get into a solid master's programs with their stats, both have marginal to poor outcomes in terms of attrition, matching to APA accredited sites, and EPPP pass rates, and both are contributing heavily to the loss of credibility for the field. So when you discuss the "impact these schools are having" please know that it is not just for-profits, but all programs that function this way.

 

[psychphd111]

On an IBR loan repayment program, it wouldn't matter all that much if I had 200k or 400k in student loans (just arbitrary numbers here, 400k is quite exaggerated), my monthly payment would be the same, about 10% of my income. This is subject to change in the event that I did not need to take out a "huge" (whatever that means) amount and/or got a decent job.

For instance, say I take out 200k in student loans and land a job making 60k a year. 10% income = 6k per year in student loan repayment. 10 year IBR = 60k paid (140k I wouldn't have to pay), 25 year = 150k paid (50k I wouldn't have to pay). I'll most likely qualify for a 10 year repayment program.


So, even though it seems as though borrowing 200k or so for a PsyD is financially irresponsible, it is investing in my own earning potential, and I most likely (assuming a new act of Congress isn't passed) will not have to pay it all back.

So why not go on with it?

WHAT THE F***?? Who the hell would take out $200k in loans to land a 60k job, fully expecting not to pay the majority of it back. This is the very definition of being financially irresponsible as well as immoral. Our society is pathetic. Debt doesn't just "magically" disappear. It is not YOU who is investing in your own earning potential, it is the poor souls who end up paying that $140k so you can have your f*ing psyd. This post makes me sick. If you want to borrow 200k+ then become a doctor (medical) so that you can actually pay off your debt to society.

 

[aequitasveritas]

(one Alliant campus is reportedly now charging 1k per credit hour)

...actually, ALL Alliant campuses are charging 1,010 per doctoral credit.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Look, there are many advents that Alliant has accomplished since it's inception as CSPP in 1969.

It has done some very credible things with the field of clin psych and still does. It was the first independent school of psychology in the world, it responded to the US gov's request for more trained clinicians to meet the demand of war veterans, it has produced some incredible clinicians, and the SD and SF PhD is still generally acknowledged to be respectable. So, I agree with a previous post that Argosy and Alliant should not be lumped in with eachother for some very good reasons.

However, the point of the SDN cosmos is that the cost has outweighed the ends. Alliant has overgrown any students financial reach within reason. Argosy and other for profits are just more obvious violators. Pro schools that charge incredible tuition are actually more insidious though.

There are MANY other schools that are equally violating: Pepperdine (credit cost well over 1k), PGSP (over 1k per credit), Nova SE, Chicago School (also called CSPP btw), Forest (awful), Adler (awful), ISPP, GSPP, MSPP, Adelphi, Seton Hall, the New School, Columbia Teachers, and virtually any Psy.D program whether they are associated or attached to a university or not. There are distinctive qualities, such as match rates, reputation, and obvioulsy training.

However, each of those issues become pale when the financial discussion arises. There is a bad, bad financial trend happening in clinical psych and it needs to be reigned in through the collective effort of those in the field. That is the purpose of these threads.

The mills are diluting our presence in the health community and on our professiona ilk. It sucks when I interact with yet another inept peer and think, oh-they're here because they took on loans and that's all...and they'll have the same title as I do.

 

[Jegg]

Nina: Michael...Bolton?
Michael Bolton: Yeah, that's me.
Nina: Wow! Is that your real name?
Michael Bolton: Yeah.
Nina: So are you related to that singer guy?
Michael Bolton: No. It's just a coincidence.
Samir Nagheenanajar: You know, there is nothing wrong with that name.
Michael Bolton: No, there was nothing wrong with it, until I was about 12 years old and that no talent ass-clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
Samir Nagheenanajar: Why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael.
Michael Bolton: No way, why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

Actually his birth name is Michael Bolotin...

 

[berlin81]

First, I think the original poster is cheating the system, pure and simple. Student loans should not be minimized as the government is initially placing trust upon the student to pay back the loan they've taken out. Cheating the system just gives politicians with poor-impulse control incentive for hurting everyone involved with federal loans.

Second, there needs to be a "mental clarification" on what it means to take out federal student loans. I personally don't care on where someone gets their degree. Yes, there are some very shady professional schools that are not helping the profession, but that topic is better served in another forum (which it clearly has been). My point is that any student needs to take their student loan agreement seriously and understand that it means you are responsible with making your payments on-time and not abusing the system.

If someone decides to attend a program that will require federal loans, that should mean you have a responsibilty to the US taxpayers to work hard in school and starting paying back your loans as soon as possible. With that, it means not living beyond what you are bringing in. If that means you have to live in an apartment for 20 years after you graduate? So be it.

What bothers me is that many students believe that they will be making a ton of cash once they are out of school. Obviously that is not the case in the this day and age. All of us have to meet our obligation with our student loans, and that should mean accepting the fact that the graduate might not live the life they want financially.

All in all, I caution everyone who are taking out loans. It doesn't matter if you have a few thousand or 200K in debt. The bottom line is that you are obligated to pay your loan, and don't assume that you will catch a break by working at gov't affiliated agency.

 

[PikminOC]

I'm not holding my breath. Obama also said he'd close Guantanamo in a year, have transparent government, was the Nobel-Peace-Prize-Guy (now fighting three wars at once).... I'm not impressed by the grand promises of that guy anymore.

How's he look now?

 

[PikminOC]

Republicans are full of ***t as well. Obama's "fiscally responsible" budget gets us at at 68 percent debt-to-GDP ratio by 2022 (2022??!!??). Paul Ryan's budget by the same time window? 70 percent.

Rand Paul's budget proposal, however, balances the budget in 5 years.

How do you feel now?

 

[PikminOC]

WHAT THE F***?? Who the hell would take out $200k in loans to land a 60k job, fully expecting not to pay the majority of it back. This is the very definition of being financially irresponsible as well as immoral. Our society is pathetic. Debt doesn't just "magically" disappear. It is not YOU who is investing in your own earning potential, it is the poor souls who end up paying that $140k so you can have your f*ing psyd. This post makes me sick. If you want to borrow 200k+ then become a doctor (medical) so that you can actually pay off your debt to society.

I looked up IBR, etc. I don't see where the loan is forgiven, just slower payments or less interest..
http://www.ibrinfo.org/what.vp.html

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I looked up IBR, etc. I don't see where the loan is forgiven, just slower payments or less interest..
http://www.ibrinfo.org/what.vp.html

Under the current system with IBR and ICR, loans are forgiven after 25 years. With Pay As You Earn, the balance is forgiven after 20 years: https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/understand/plans

Obama's relatively recent budget proposal included a cap of somewhere around $55k for PSLF, but I don't remember hearing about a cap for IBR, ICR, or PAYE.

 

[PikminOC]

Under the current system with IBR and ICR, loans are forgiven after 25 years. With Pay As You Earn, the balance is forgiven after 20 years: https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/understand/plans

Obama's relatively recent budget proposal included a cap of somewhere around $55k for PSLF, but I don't remember hearing about a cap for IBR, ICR, or PAYE.

Is this commonly used in psyds?

 

[Mad Jack]

A lot of people forget that IBR is taxable, so if you let enough interest compound on your IBR loan, you end up with a devastating tax bomb that you owe to the IRS on the year your debt is forgiven. I'd rather not owe 6 figure sums to people that can seize my assets or put me in prison.

 

[erg923]

If you mean by psyd graduates, then I would say yes.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Is this commonly used in psyds?

Well technically no one's gotten paid as of yet; I think the first forgiveness "class" is maybe 2017. But the average Psy.D. graduate has more debt than the average Ph.D. graduate, so I'd imagine more of those folks are planning on trying to utilize forgiveness.

And yep, as of right now, the forgiven amount is taxable. Although I believe Obama's budget proposal included making it non-taxable.

 

[PikminOC]

Well technically no one's gotten paid as of yet; I think the first forgiveness "class" is maybe 2017. But the average Psy.D. graduate has more debt than the average Ph.D. graduate, so I'd imagine more of those folks are planning on trying to utilize forgiveness.

And yep, as of right now, the forgiven amount is taxable. Although I believe Obama's budget proposal included making it non-taxable.

I didn't work for a year and had no idea about this.

 

[smalltownpsych]

The NHSC loan repayment program is not-taxable. It works well for me since I like living in an underserved area. I don't like the looks of the loan forgiveness program that is being discussed. I also echo the sentiments of others on the board about the student loan debt bubble and the risks to our field. Wanted to add that it is all over the education system and not just psych.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The NHSC loan repayment program is not-taxable. It works well for me since I like living in an underserved area. I don't like the looks of the loan forgiveness program that is being discussed. I also echo the sentiments of others on the board about the student loan debt bubble and the risks to our field. Wanted to add that it is all over the education system and not just psych.

Agreed and agreed. And yep, the NHSC is a solid repayment option, as are the repayment assistance sign-on bonuses you can get through the VA. It's basically free money, particulary for NHSC if the hospital/clinic to which you are applying happens to be on their list of approved programs.

 

[mrvsevolodovich]

Case 1: You get the degree and after 4 years you make a low income for the next 20 years. As a result, you get to make payments representing 10 percent of your income. Congratulations you are poor and you spent 4 years of your life to be poor.

Case 2: You get a degree and after 4 years you have a normal successful career in which after 10 years you are making decent money. Congratulations, you have to pay 1k a month for the next 10 years. Maybe that doesn't sound like a lot now, but just wait for it.