Tuition reimbursement

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
b*rizzle

b*rizzle

Master of Useless Info
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
548
Reaction score
1
Members do not see this ad.
This is a generalized question for my friends already in pharmacy school:

I'm investigating the logic behind tuition reimbursement, and I can't seem to make a super-positive case for it. It seems like a great deal, because Target offers $3000 a year for pharmacy school, but it seems like no matter what you do, you pretty much end up as an indentured servant for X number of years after you graduate, depending on how long you choose to benefit from the money, thus lowering your overall value when you graduate and are wheeling-and-dealing for jobs.

Can anyone make a positive case for it?
 
If you need the money, take it. If you don't want to work for them in the end, it will convert to a loan which at 12,000 you can probably pay back in about 3 months.
 
b*rizzle said:
Target offers $3000 a year for pharmacy school, but it seems like no matter what you do, you pretty much end up as an indentured servant for X number of years after you graduate
Click to expand...

I really have never heard of any indentured servant getting $90,000 a year.
 
Maybe indentured employee would be a better term to describe getting totally shat upon relative to one's peers as a consequence of accepting an obligation to work for a certain time period as a condition of recieving funds. 😛

I guess it could be worth it if you absolutely know that you want to work for the company making you the offer, and being there is worth the crap you put yourself at risk for.
 
nothing's stopping you from using your sign-on bonus from one employer to pay back the tuition reimbursement from another. ...as long as RPh's are in demand, you still hold the upper hand when bargaining, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
 
imperial frog said:
If you need the money, take it. If you don't want to work for them in the end, it will convert to a loan which at 12,000 you can probably pay back in about 3 months.
Click to expand...

See...trying to avoid extra loans. I have enough as it is and I haven't even started pharmacy school yet.
 
bananaface said:
Maybe indentured employee would be a better term to describe getting totally shat upon relative to one's peers as a consequence of accepting an obligation to work for a certain time period as a condition of recieving funds. 😛

I guess it could be worth it if you absolutely know that you want to work for the company making you the offer, and being there is worth the crap you put yourself at risk for.
Click to expand...


Banana,

Do you have some examples of the above? I am trying to decide whether to "sign" with my current employer for tuition assistance. Some examples of what it is like for recent "indentured" graduates relative to other pharmacists who don't owe the company money would help me, I think.

Thanks!
 
pharmaz88 said:
nothing's stopping you from using your sign-on bonus from one employer to pay back the tuition reimbursement from another. ...as long as RPh's are in demand, you still hold the upper hand when bargaining, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...
Let's say you get a $5,000 tuition reimbursement and you decide not to work for the company after you graduate. I know the $5,000 will probably be payable immediately, but is there any interest (or default fees) tacked on top of the original "loan"?
 
b*rizzle said:
This is a generalized question for my friends already in pharmacy school:

I'm investigating the logic behind tuition reimbursement, and I can't seem to make a super-positive case for it. It seems like a great deal, because Target offers $3000 a year for pharmacy school, but it seems like no matter what you do, you pretty much end up as an indentured servant for X number of years after you graduate, depending on how long you choose to benefit from the money, thus lowering your overall value when you graduate and are wheeling-and-dealing for jobs.

Can anyone make a positive case for it?
Click to expand...

I've looked into tuition reimbursement quite a bit and have came to the conclusion that it's just not logical. You are obligating yourself at a point when you have little bargaining power, and you are getting peanuts. If you just wait four years when you have your Pharm.D in hand you will have more leverage. A lot of places have $10K/year student loan repayment...and maybe even a sign on bonus to boot.

Remember, good things come to those who wait...
 
ICA said:
Let's say you get a $5,000 tuition reimbursement and you decide not to work for the company after you graduate. I know the $5,000 will probably be payable immediately, but is there any interest (or default fees) tacked on top of the original "loan"?
Click to expand...
My employer requires 7.5% interest (or something like that) be added to the repayment.

I think these programs are good if you are pretty sure you want to work for the company when you get out of school. If you are totally up in the air about what you want to do then I'd probably pass.

I passed because I don't know what my future holds and if I have a baby after pharmacy school I don't want to be required to work full time because of the tuition reimbursement thing. (I like having options!)

Many employers offer to pay money towards your student loans as part of the incentive package. My company has done that for other fresh graduates, so I'm hoping that I can get a package like that despite the fact that I turned down their tuition help earlier.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
The key is to convince them to pay off your loans AFTER you graduate. That's my plan, anyway.
Click to expand...
Yep! That IS a good plan. 🙂
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
The key is to convince them to pay off your loans AFTER you graduate. That's my plan, anyway.
Click to expand...

That makes the most sense to me. Tuition forgiveness instead of tuition reimbursement. I've seen several jobs that offer this. One offered $7,000 for each year you work for them up to 3 years. I image you get the money after you complete each year. Atleast that way, you don't have to feel pressured to stay just so you don't have to pay back a "loan". Now that sounds like a sweet deal!! 😀
 
Can't really make a positive case only offer my viewpoint. I've looked into "tuition reimbursement" and have generalized that they are basicly a student loan that will be repayed by that organization or company if you work for them after graduation. I look at in this way: if you need a loan to pay your tuition or living expenses your going to borrow the money from somewhere (Gov't, bank or private company). The bottom line is that most of us will be repaying student loans when we graduate. When taking a loan I look at the interest rate and repayment agreements in choosing a loan. If you look at in this respect I don't believe that you become locked in or hurt your negotiating power upon graduation. the nice thing about this loan is that there is a chance you may not have to pay it back. I think some of my fellow students get to wrapped up in their "negotiation" upon graduating. Choosing your practice should be based more on wether or not you will enjoy your practice, money of course is important but I don't believe there is a position out there that will grossly underpay you.
b*rizzle said:
This is a generalized question for my friends already in pharmacy school:

I'm investigating the logic behind tuition reimbursement, and I can't seem to make a super-positive case for it. It seems like a great deal, because Target offers $3000 a year for pharmacy school, but it seems like no matter what you do, you pretty much end up as an indentured servant for X number of years after you graduate, depending on how long you choose to benefit from the money, thus lowering your overall value when you graduate and are wheeling-and-dealing for jobs.

Can anyone make a positive case for it?
Click to expand...
 
WSU2007 said:
Can't really make a positive case only offer my viewpoint. I've looked into "tuition reimbursement" and have generalized that they are basicly a student loan that will be repayed by that organization or company if you work for them after graduation. I look at in this way: if you need a loan to pay your tuition or living expenses your going to borrow the money from somewhere (Gov't, bank or private company). The bottom line is that most of us will be repaying student loans when we graduate. When taking a loan I look at the interest rate and repayment agreements in choosing a loan. If you look at in this respect I don't believe that you become locked in or hurt your negotiating power upon graduation. the nice thing about this loan is that there is a chance you may not have to pay it back. I think some of my fellow students get to wrapped up in their "negotiation" upon graduating. Choosing your practice should be based more on wether or not you will enjoy your practice, money of course is important but I don't believe there is a position out there that will grossly underpay you.
Click to expand...

I think this is a very naive way to think. If a company has your guarantee to work for them, then why would they waste their time trying to recruit you with more generous salarly offers. Of course you can always pay back the money and look elsewhere, or you could just not make the deal to begin with.

Why would you want to commit yourself to working for company X for a mere $2,000 per year. So you have $6,000 less debt when you graduate, big deal.....you still owe $90,000.

I would just hold off on accepting offers. Even if the money difference isn't that great, you should just keep your options open.
 
When I investigated tuition reimbursement I did not get the impression that by participating I was "guaranteeing" that I would come to work for them. That is why the reimbursement programs are set up as loans and not true reimbursement packages. My point is simply that if you have to take loans to pay for your education I treat the reimbursement packages offered as simply another loan option. You don't have to go work for that compnay, the advantage to going to work for them is that you do not have to pay back the loans, hence the reimbursement. I think it is more of a recruiting tactic rather than a tactic aimed at paying you less. There is such a great demand for pharmacists that a tactic such as this (aimed at paying you less) would be unsuccesful. I believe that your salary offer would be the same regardless of wether or not you have a loan from the company. What do they have to gain by letting you go because of the low balling that you proclaim is out there? Nothing! If you ask me they have more to lose by letting you go because they obviously have already invested time and resources in putting together the reimbursement package. And in most cases you probably have interned there for most of your pharm school years so you have experience in their system, so you are more valuable than someone who was not "brought up" in their system. It is up to the recent graduate to realize this and not allow this type of low balling to occurr.
alwaystired said:
I think this is a very naive way to think. If a company has your guarantee to work for them, then why would they waste their time trying to recruit you with more generous salarly offers. Of course you can always pay back the money and look elsewhere, or you could just not make the deal to begin with.

Why would you want to commit yourself to working for company X for a mere $2,000 per year. So you have $6,000 less debt when you graduate, big deal.....you still owe $90,000.

I would just hold off on accepting offers. Even if the money difference isn't that great, you should just keep your options open.
Click to expand...
 
When employers pay off your loans after graduation, do you get ripped off at all when it comes to your salary? Or would you get a solid amnt + loan payment? Seems like that'd be a sweet way to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Walgreens market/floater pharmacist travel expense reimbursement
Replies
12
Views
7K
watchfulwaiting1957
watchfulwaiting1957
VictorOfHungerGames
Reimbursement
Replies
0
Views
609
VictorOfHungerGames
VictorOfHungerGames
I
Independent Pharmacies Reimbursement on Immunizations
Replies
1
Views
710
CetiAlphaFive
CetiAlphaFive
BC_89
Supreme Court Unanimously Upheld Arkansas' PBM Law Concerning Reimbursements
Replies
5
Views
1K
Pronounce Doxazosin
P
ZakMeister
Super low reimbursements!!
Replies
19
Views
2K
Sine Cura
S
Top