Estimated Costs of Veterinary School

[NStarz]

I'm not trying to make it seem like homosexuality and depression are of the same nature, but they are both frowned upon, for lack of better phrasing. And to be honest, being a woman is often considered a medical condition, ignoring the insurance issues civilian women face. the military health organization/committee (?) Has "tips" on how to suppress your menstruation cycle. Women in combat zones are sometimes required to take meds to halt their menstrual cycles. Now, I can completely understand the inconvenience of having a cycle....every girl can. But to say that a woman can only be in combat/certain positions if she eliminates one of the biological processes that define the gender because it is an inconvenience when compared to a male soldier..
.

To be fair, it's more than an inconvenience for a woman to have a menstrual cycle in the middle of a combat situation.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

To be fair, it's more than an inconvenience for a woman to have a menstrual cycle in the middle of a combat situation.

Which is why I said I can understand it. You can say that inconvenience is putting it lightly, sure. It makes the point of being female being considered a treatable medication condition though. I'm not trying to go on any feminist rant or anything like that, fyi

 

[WildZoo]

To be fair, it's more than an inconvenience for a woman to have a menstrual cycle in the middle of a combat situation.

I'm not really sure why someone would want to have menstrual cycles while in a combat situation...

But to say that a woman can only be in combat/certain positions if she eliminates one of the biological processes that define the gender because it is an inconvenience when compared to a male soldier..

Some would argue with that statement.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I'm not really sure why someone would want to have menstrual cycles while in a combat situation...

Some would argue with that statement.

That's why I said any woman can easily understand why a women would opt herself to eliminate her cycle. Civilian women do it all the time.

And yeah, you can dispute that. I'm not trying to leave out any particular groups of people by saying menstruation is part of being female, because I know that not all of those who identify as female will experience it. But those groups still aren't allowed in the military.

 

[WildZoo]

Which is why I said I can understand it. You can say that inconvenience is putting it lightly, sure. It makes the point of being female being considered a treatable medication condition though. I'm not trying to go on any feminist rant or anything like that, fyi

If being female were defined by having a menstrual cycle there would be a ton of women who would no longer be able to claim female status. It might not sound nice in principle, but women in combat should be held to the same standards as men in combat. I know that for me personally, and probably for many women, having a menstrual cycle would inhibit that (to a greater degree for some than other). So I don't see the issue with it. I don't know any women who are so attached to their menstrual cycles that they wouldn't be happy for an opportunity to get rid of them.

 

[WildZoo]

And yeah, you can dispute that. I'm not trying to leave out any particular groups of people by saying menstruation is part of being female, because I know that not all of those who identify as female will experience it. But those groups still aren't allowed in the military.

I'm not just referring to trans women but also those who are already on birth control, those who were born with hormone deficiencies, have had hysterectomies, etc etc.

 

[DVMDream]

I do have a a bit of experience with older veterans, and it seema like they are sometimes just swept under the rug. It's really quite sad...good to hear that you have had a positive experience though.

I'm not trying to make it seem like homosexuality and depression are of the same nature, but they are both frowned upon, for lack of better phrasing. And to be honest, being a woman is often considered a medical condition, ignoring the insurance issues civilian women face. the military health organization/committee (?) Has "tips" on how to suppress your menstruation cycle. Women in combat zones are sometimes required to take meds to halt their menstrual cycles. Now, I can completely understand the inconvenience of having a cycle....every girl can. But to say that a woman can only be in combat/certain positions if she eliminates one of the biological processes that define the gender because it is an inconvenience when compared to a male soldier..

Again...not quite the same, but similar to someone not wanting to hire a woman because she could have a child in the future and require leave or something like that. Woman constantly face discrimination based off of the organs they possess, even before the questioning of women's physical abilities comes into play.

And still not comparable to depression/anxiety.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

If being female were defined by having a menstrual cycle there would be a ton of women who would no longer be able to claim female status. It might not sound nice in principle, but women in combat should be held to the same standards as men in combat. I know that for me personally, and probably for many women, having a menstrual cycle would inhibit that (to a greater degree for some than other). So I don't see the issue with it. I don't know any women who are so attached to their menstrual cycles that they wouldn't be happy for an opportunity to get rid of them.

I didn't say menstruation was the sole defining factor of being female. But, biologically, if a woman born female cannot menstruate, she either is doing so by choice or is physically unable to do so. Menstruation/producing eggs is attached to the gender, biologically speaking.

Again, I'm not saying it is advisable to allow menstruation in combat for the sake of being politically correct. It was a nod to the idea that being a woman isn't considered a medical condition.

 

[DVMDream]

. It was a nod to the idea that being a woman isn't considered a medical condition.

It isn't.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

It isn't.

In my opinion, requiring a woman to take medication/undergo a minor medical procedure to stop one of her natural biological processes...yeah, it is. Even to insurance companies, menstruation and pregnancy are medical conditions that cost them.

It obviously shouldn't be considered a "condition" to have a cycle, but it is in the eyes of the military. A preventable one at that, so it doesn't bar a woman from all service. Asthmatics? Not preventable without carrying your inhaler. That's obviously different than implanting a device into a woman to halt her cycle or providing her with oral medication.

 

[WildZoo]

I didn't say menstruation was the sole defining factor of being female. But, biologically, if a woman born female cannot menstruate, she either is doing so by choice or is physically unable to do so. Menstruation/producing eggs is attached to the gender, biologically speaking.

Again, I'm not saying it is advisable to allow menstruation in combat for the sake of being politically correct. It was a nod to the idea that being a woman isn't considered a medical condition.

I just don't think it holds up as an example, because there are very practical reasons for the recommendations/requirements. In normal society, no, you can't force a woman to take meds if she doesn't want to, but the military is a whole different thing, and people know that going in. They own you, like it or not. That's what you sign up for. Ensuring that nothing will keep their soldiers from being able to perform at whatever they consider to be an acceptable level is not the same thing as treating being female as a medical condition.

 

[DVMDream]

In my opinion, requiring a woman to take medication/undergo a minor medical procedure to stop one of her natural biological processes...yeah, it is. Even to insurance companies, menstruation and pregnancy are medical conditions that cost them.

It obviously shouldn't be considered a "condition" to have a cycle, but it is in the eyes of the military. A preventable one at that, so it doesn't bar a woman from all service. Asthmatics? Not preventable without carrying your inhaler. That's obviously different than implanting a device into a woman to halt her cycle or providing her with oral medication.

Yes, a woman has biological processes that may require a doctor at some point.

But being a woman in and of itself is not a medical condition.

And what you are calling the parts of being a woman as "medical" still aren't comparable to depression/anxiety...

 

[dyachei]

i guess women that are in menopause are no longer women. I should tell my mom.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

i guess women that are in menopause are no longer women. I should tell my mom.

Right...but menopause is also a normal process in a woman's body, so....yeah. I hear that life is all good after that's over with

Yes, a woman has biological processes that may require a doctor at some point.

But being a woman in and of itself is not a medical condition.

And what you are calling the parts of being a woman as "medical" still aren't comparable to depression/anxiety...

It was a tangent, lol. It's something that can be medically controlled. There's definitely less certainty in controlling mental health though...

Mind you, all of this no-menstruation business is just for women in supporting roles. Because women cannot participate in direct combat until it is scientifically proven that women can meet those standards the military has. Side rant.

 

[dyachei]

Right...but menopause is also a normal process in a woman's body, so....yeah. I hear that life is all good after that's over with

It was a tangent, lol. It's something that can be medically controlled. There's definitely less certainty in controlling mental health though...

Mind you, all of this no-menstruation business is just for women in supporting roles. Because women cannot participate in direct combat until it is scientifically proven that women can meet those standards the military has. Side rant.

i'm not sure why this issue seems to hit a nerve with you, but it appears that way from an outsider. That being said, the menstrual cycle can cause major issues for women even in supporting roles. So if you don't want to deal with it, don't sign up. To be honest, there are differences in the way men and women's bodies are made. With exceptions, it is why men tend to be better with upper body strength, etc. the angles and geometry of our bodies are different. So the qualifications should be different. and if the military has certain needs, you should fit those needs or not be allowed to enlist. That's just the way it is. yes, there is room for improvement.

 

[Minnerbelle]

Also, let's remember that this is a scholarship program where the army is investing over a quarter of a million dollars into you. Therefore, they can set the bar for whatever physical and mental fitness they choose to. It's not about fairness.

And given that this thread is a sticky that serves as a resource for those looking for info on how to afford vet school... How about let's not fill pages pondering how the military should treat menstruating women, gay/transgender people, and mental health?

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Yeah we derailed. If you read my posts, I never once said that holding women to the same standards as men physically was a bad thing. I was disagreeing with someone's point of view and explaining why. I never said anything that being unfair. That's actually a good thing for women.

 

[ResoluteMike]

Don't worry, I wasn't necesarily disagreeing with you. However, I'm sure you know that there is more than combat positions in the military. To disqualify an asthmatic or someone with just general anxiety from an technology position? To disqualify some positions from women because we still "can't handle it?" I'm just saying that a lot of the reasoning behind who/what is disqualified is not always sound. Sometimes it is. It depends.

While some jobs are safer then others with lesser physical demands, any military member can be handed a gun with the expectation of using it as directed at any time. The enemy won't give a time out because of a medical condition.

 

[rockthatscoober]

Also, let's remember that this is a scholarship program where the army is investing over a quarter of a million dollars into you. Therefore, they can set the bar for whatever physical and mental fitness they choose to. It's not about fairness.

And given that this thread is a sticky that serves as a resource for those looking for info on how to afford vet school... How about let's not fill pages pondering how the military should treat menstruating women, gay/transgender people, and mental health?

This. All of this.

 

[SClENCE]

That's a lot of debt considering that vets don't make much

 

[Gwenevre]

That's a lot of debt considering that vets don't make much

Yes, yes it is

 

[Gemgrrrl]

I know this thread has already been hopelessly hijacked, and I am sorry for furthering that... but I have to say something about menstruation and combat...

It's not that hormones or periods are that much of an inconvenience. It's that babies are. A menstruating woman = a woman who can get pregnant. Put a bunch of guys and girls together and, well, stuff is bound to happen. In a combat situation, a pregnant woman is not something anyone wants to deal with. Nor should they. That's not sexist, it's realistic. Combat missions cost millions of dollars, and lives hang in the balance. Strategists already try to plan for every possible contingency - and there is no reason to add to either the cost or the risk by allowing for a possible pregnancy in-theater.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I know this thread has already been hopelessly hijacked, and I am sorry for furthering that... but I have to say something about menstruation and combat...

It's not that hormones or periods are that much of an inconvenience. It's that babies are. A menstruating woman = a woman who can get pregnant. Put a bunch of guys and girls together and, well, stuff is bound to happen. In a combat situation, a pregnant woman is not something anyone wants to deal with. Nor should they. That's not sexist, it's realistic. Combat missions cost millions of dollars, and lives hang in the balance. Strategists already try to plan for every possible contingency - and there is no reason to add to either the cost or the risk by allowing for a possible pregnancy in-theater.

Um....no. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with that logic. I know plenty of women in service who aren't sleeping with their peers, and I think that's a very bad way to look at women in service (and men, for that matter). We could go into this further and talk about things that happen to women/men without their consent, but this isn't the place for that. In reality, requiring birth control in order to prevent pregnancy/menstruation is likely only to prevent pregnancies that result from those events where consent is not involved (said events are disturbingly frequent in the military, and those are just the reported numbers).

 

[missdarjeeling]

I know this thread has already been hopelessly hijacked, and I am sorry for furthering that... but I have to say something about menstruation and combat...

It's not that hormones or periods are that much of an inconvenience. It's that babies are. A menstruating woman = a woman who can get pregnant. Put a bunch of guys and girls together and, well, stuff is bound to happen. In a combat situation, a pregnant woman is not something anyone wants to deal with. Nor should they. That's not sexist, it's realistic. Combat missions cost millions of dollars, and lives hang in the balance. Strategists already try to plan for every possible contingency - and there is no reason to add to either the cost or the risk by allowing for a possible pregnancy in-theater.

Well, this has been a problem ever since women were allowed to work in the military in any capacity. When my husband was in, right before every deployment, there would invariably be more than one woman on his ship who got pregnant. They were simply not deployed and continued to work on base until they reached the point in their pregnancy where the rules dictate you can no longer work. From what I understand, these women were redeployed after a certain period of time, something like 6 months after birth, IIRC. Women who get pregnant while deployed are likewise sent back home, but a Navy study has shown that loss of work time from pregnant women is no higher than loss of work time from men, who are often out due to disciplinary issues or non-service-related injuries. So it's not even clear that losing pregnant soldiers is a major contributor for loss of billets. And for what it's worth, there's a serious stigma attached to getting pregnant, since everyone automatically assumes you did it to get out of deployment or go home, and there's pressure to terminate. Which leads me to...

It gets more complicated when you look at the politics of public money and reproductive health. It wasn't until 2010 that the DoD made the morning after pill available in all military hospitals and clinics, and it wasn't until a few years ago that the Navy started making a serious effort at providing sex ed and services to its soldiers. In the past, access to contraceptives was a bigger problem, especially for deployed women. To make matters worse, the laws prohibiting use of public funds for abortion services except in case of rape, incest, or a life-threatening complication have put deployed women in bad situations. Military facilities are barred from performing abortions, regardless of who's paying, and servicemembers can't use Tricare to pay for it at an outside facility. Even if they could, it wouldn't be exactly easy for a woman stationed in Afghanistan, for example, to hitch a ride to a private medical facility for an abortion. So it seems to me that if there is a serious concern about pregnancies interrupting military operations, then there's still a lot more that the military can do to mitigate some of these problems.

Anyway, sorry for derailing, so to tie it all back, I agree that the military needs to be able to set certain standards and that people with certain medical problems may never be able to fulfill their duties. I'm not convinced a history of simple depression justifies keeping someone out of the military altogether and I think that some issues can still be reasonably accommodated. But given how competitive HPSP is, I don't think it's wrong for them to have super strict criteria. They are footing a massive educational bill and they are ideally looking for someone who truly wants a lifelong career in the military. To me, that's pretty different from just showing up at a recruitment office and enlisting.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Well, this has been a problem ever since women were allowed to work in the military in any capacity. When my husband was in, right before every deployment, there would invariably be more than one woman on his ship who got pregnant. They were simply not deployed and continued to work on base until they reached the point in their pregnancy where the rules dictate you can no longer work. From what I understand, these women were redeployed after a certain period of time, something like 6 months after birth, IIRC. Women who get pregnant while deployed are likewise sent back home, but a Navy study has shown that loss of work time from pregnant women is no higher than loss of work time from men, who are often out due to disciplinary issues or non-service-related injuries. So it's not even clear that losing pregnant soldiers is a major contributor for loss of billets. And for what it's worth, there's a serious stigma attached to getting pregnant, since everyone automatically assumes you did it to get out of deployment or go home, and there's pressure to terminate. Which leads me to...

It gets more complicated when you look at the politics of public money and reproductive health. It wasn't until 2010 that the DoD made the morning after pill available in all military hospitals and clinics, and it wasn't until a few years ago that the Navy started making a serious effort at providing sex ed and services to its soldiers. In the past, access to contraceptives was a bigger problem, especially for deployed women. To make matters worse, the laws prohibiting use of public funds for abortion services except in case of rape, incest, or a life-threatening complication have put deployed women in bad situations. Military facilities are barred from performing abortions, regardless of who's paying, and servicemembers can't use Tricare to pay for it at an outside facility. Even if they could, it wouldn't be exactly easy for a woman stationed in Afghanistan, for example, to hitch a ride to a private medical facility for an abortion. So it seems to me that if there is a serious concern about pregnancies interrupting military operations, then there's still a lot more that the military can do to mitigate some of these problems.

Anyway, sorry for derailing, so to tie it all back, I agree that the military needs to be able to set certain standards and that people with certain medical problems may never be able to fulfill their duties. I'm not convinced a history of simple depression justifies keeping someone out of the military altogether and I think that some issues can still be reasonably accommodated. But given how competitive HPSP is, I don't think it's wrong for them to have super strict criteria. They are footing a massive educational bill and they are ideally looking for someone who truly wants a lifelong career in the military. To me, that's pretty different from just showing up at a recruitment office and enlisting.

I think that part right there is something all pre-vets considering the scholarship need to realize, regardless of whether you'd actually qualify or not.

 

[Gemgrrrl]

@pinkpuppy9 and @missdarjeeling - I put my response to birth control and the military in the random stuff thread.

 

[LullaBelle]

The total loan amount I've been offered is more than what I estimate I'd need for outside expenses. Would it be better to just take it all and then be able to take out less in the future, or take out about $10,000 less this year and need the same amount next year? Basically, does 1 year of interest really make a difference in the whole scheme of things?

 

[DVMDream]

The total loan amount I've been offered is more than what I estimate I'd need for outside expenses. Would it be better to just take it all and then be able to take out less in the future, or take out about $10,000 less this year and need the same amount next year? Basically, does 1 year of interest really make a difference in the whole scheme of things?

Well, is one year of I would estimate about 6.8% interest on 10K worth saving to you? Only you can decide that. To me, yes I would like to save money wherever I can, why pay the government more interest than they deserve?

 

[pinkpuppy9]

The total loan amount I've been offered is more than what I estimate I'd need for outside expenses. Would it be better to just take it all and then be able to take out less in the future, or take out about $10,000 less this year and need the same amount next year? Basically, does 1 year of interest really make a difference in the whole scheme of things?

I'm looking at my finaid now, too. I highly doubt I'll need that much for living expenses as well. It guess it'd depend on what loans you qualified for. My loans start accruing interest right off the bat...it wouldn't make financial sense to borrow what I don't need. If you have a loan that doesn't start accruing interest until you graduate, I can see how over-borrowing would make a bit more sense, at least for the first year while you get a feel for how much you'll actually need. I have always heard to borrow the bare minimum, though!


Side question: Does anyone know if you can take out a portion of your total loan package, and then take out the remainder if you need to? Or are you given only one opportunity to borrow federal loans before being forced to seek loans elsewhere?

 

[KCgophervet]

Side question: Does anyone know if you can take out a portion of your total loan package, and then take out the remainder if you need to? Or are you given only one opportunity to borrow federal loans before being forced to seek loans elsewhere?

I have heard you are able to do this (take out the minimum/less than offered and then go back to them later and say hey actually I do need the rest of that moolah you wanted to give me). I have not tried this though, but I remember learning about it from someone with some officialness to them (which is partially what convinced me to not accept all they were offering).

 

[pinkpuppy9]

I have heard you are able to do this (take out the minimum/less than offered and then go back to them later and say hey actually I do need the rest of that moolah you wanted to give me). I have not tried this though, but I remember learning about it from someone with some officialness to them (which is partially what convinced me to not accept all they were offering).

That's good to know, I'll have to look into it more!

 

[catnips]

- I don't know if this should be in factors when picking a school thread but...-

If deciding between 2 OOS spots, and the tuition price difference in total comes up to be around 40k, would that make your decision sway in the cheaper direction? Or is that a minute amount compared to what an OOS takes anyway that it can be ignored and other factors should be considered?

Trying to decide between two schools. The cheaper school is also located in a cheaper cost of living area.

I loved both of the schools, but the expensive one just a little more.

 

[WildZoo]

- I don't know if this should be in factors when picking a school thread but...-

If deciding between 2 OOS spots, and the tuition price difference in total comes up to be around 40k, would that make your decision sway in the cheaper direction? Or is that a minute amount compared to what an OOS takes anyway that it can be ignored and other factors should be considered?

Trying to decide between two schools. The cheaper school is also located in a cheaper cost of living area.

I loved both of the schools, but the expensive one just a little more.

If the cheaper school is also in an area with a cheaper cost of living, I would go there. Is that 40k for all four years?

 

[catnips]

If the cheaper school is also in an area with a cheaper cost of living, I would go there. Is that 40k for all four years?

Yes. The difference in tuition itself is just 5k per year, but one school charges for the summer between the 3rd and 4th while the other doesn't, which brings up the tuition difference. And yes, the cheaper school is in the area with cheaper cost of living.

I think I'm gonna decide on the cheaper school but wanted to make sure that my reasoning (the small price difference) is legitimate.

 

[WildZoo]

Yes. The difference in tuition itself is just 5k per year, but one school charges for the summer between the 3rd and 4th while the other doesn't, which brings up the tuition difference. And yes, the cheaper school is in the area with cheaper cost of living.

I think I'm gonna decide on the cheaper school but wanted to make sure that my reasoning (the small price difference) is legitimate.

Small differences add up, so I definitely think that's a legitimate reason. I mean, the impact it will have will depend on your personal financial situation, but if you're taking that extra 40k out in loans, plus the added extra cost of living, it really starts to add up with interest and all that.

 

[DVMDream]

- I don't know if this should be in factors when picking a school thread but...-

If deciding between 2 OOS spots, and the tuition price difference in total comes up to be around 40k, would that make your decision sway in the cheaper direction? Or is that a minute amount compared to what an OOS takes anyway that it can be ignored and other factors should be considered?

Trying to decide between two schools. The cheaper school is also located in a cheaper cost of living area.

I loved both of the schools, but the expensive one just a little more.

If you are taking that 40K out in loans and the interest amount is 6.8% (don't know what it is currently, but that is about average for federal loans), then the interest on that 40K is $2,720, however you won't have the whole 40K right off the bat. So you might start with 5K, 6.8% interest on that, then 10K add 6.8% interest on that... so on and so forth. Then take all that interest and add it to the 40K. So, let's say you add on maybe $1500 in interest.. .you now have to take $41,500 and figure out the interest on that over 25 years (if you take that long to pay off the loan). But, let's say you do an internship and can't pay on your loan, so you put it into a forebearance, so now you are getting $2,720 in interest on 40K over that one year of internship, but then you go into residency, which is another 3 years of $2,720 of interest each year. Then you add those 4 years of interest and now you figure out interest on $50,880 over however many years you take to pay it off... and you can see how this goes. So while 40K seems a bit like a drop of water in the bucket compared to the total cost of vet school, that 40K could cost you near 100K or more once it is paid off. Obviously the amount of interest will decrease each year as your principal decreases with payments, but that is just a general way to kind of take a look at it.

 

[Skimble]

What DVMD said plus the difference in cost of living. How much more will you need to take out in loans to account for the higher cost of living? Will that $40k difference turn into a $100k difference over 4 years?

 

[catnips]

What DVMD said plus the difference in cost of living. How much more will you need to take out in loans to account for the higher cost of living? Will that $40k difference turn into a $100k difference over 4 years?

I haven't done a budget yet, but the weird thing is, both schools give out about same amount of cost of living (actually the cheaper school in cheaper town gives 5k more). I still suspect up to to maybe 10k difference per year.

My family will help some, but I will be taking out most of it in loans. I don't want to be too big of a burden to them at this age, u know.

SDN is seriously so helpful. I'm glad to see everyone is thinking about this along the same lines as I am. Feels like I will be making the right choice with the relatively cheaper school.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Anyone on here have a private loan with variable interest? Right now, I qualify for a student loan through Discover with my father as a cosigner. For the variable rate, my interest at this point in time would be 3.4%, and fixed would be 6%, both lower than my federal loans. If you have a variable rate, how often have you seen that rate increase? The "20 year plan" difference comes out to be about $40k between the variable (with the rate I was offered today) and the fixed.

 

[DVMDream]

Anyone on here have a private loan with variable interest? Right now, I qualify for a student loan through Discover with my father as a cosigner. For the variable rate, my interest at this point in time would be 3.4%, and fixed would be 6%, both lower than my federal loans. If you have a variable rate, how often have you seen that rate increase? The "20 year plan" difference comes out to be about $40k between the variable (with the rate I was offered today) and the fixed.

Just remember that private loans don't qualify for any of the special income based repayments. Read carefully because many of those low interest ones require a payback within 10-15 years. My current private loans are only in the 2-4% range fixed, but I have to do a 15 year repayment. If I want to do loan consolidation and pay them off over a longer period of time, then the interest goes up to 6% and is variable and can get up to 8% or more.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Just remember that private loans don't qualify for any of the special income based repayments. Read carefully because many of those low interest ones require a payback within 10-15 years. My current private loans are only in the 2-4% range fixed, but I have to do a 15 year repayment. If I want to do loan consolidation and pay them off over a longer period of time, then the interest goes up to 6% and is variable and can get up to 8% or more.

Yeah, that's how this loan seems to be as well. I'm just seeing a silver lining with the variable rate, assuming it doesnt go up past 6-7%. But there's obviously no guarantee

 

[DVMDream]

Yeah, that's how this loan seems to be as well. I'm just seeing a silver lining with the variable rate, assuming it doesnt go up past 6-7%. But there's obviously no guarantee

Yeah. The lower interest is nice, if it stays low, but there is no guarantee. Also, it would suck to get stuck in a loan payment that you can't afford because you are only making 50K a year. Personally, I would stay away from variable interest as much as possible, but that is just me. I also like having the various government loan repayment options available to me, which you just can't get on a private loan...

Just something you are going to have to weight out the pros and cons on and decide for yourself.

 

[pinkpuppy9]

Yeah. The lower interest is nice, if it stays low, but there is no guarantee. Also, it would suck to get stuck in a loan payment that you can't afford because you are only making 50K a year. Personally, I would stay away from variable interest as much as possible, but that is just me. I also like having the various government loan repayment options available to me, which you just can't get on a private loan...

Just something you are going to have to weight out the pros and cons on and decide for yourself.

Yeah, I think I'll make a spreadsheet for this haha. The variable scares me, especially since it can go up to 9%. However, with a cosigner, more options become available. I'd just hate to end up defaulting and then get my dad in hot water.

 

[Gemgrrrl]

Yeah, I think I'll make a spreadsheet for this haha. The variable scares me, especially since it can go up to 9%. However, with a cosigner, more options become available. I'd just hate to end up defaulting and then get my dad in hot water.

Double check your fine print. I'm pretty sure Discover variable rate loans are based on the 3-month LIBOR plus a margin, and can go as high as 18% depending on the LIBOR.

Right now the 3-month is 0.38%, which means your margin is 3.02%. But we've been at a very low rate for a while now, so the chances of it going up are very high. You're going to have this loan for a while, most like 10-15 years (at least). If you look at the historical, the LIBOR was 3.21 ten years ago, and 6.393 fifteen years ago. The 15-year average is 2.25. With your margin, if you paid the historical average, you're looking at ~5.27%. You can get a fixed rate of 6%. I would consider the difference a very small overall savings for taking that kind of gamble, because if it goes above the historical average you're going to end up paying more.

http://www.fedprimerate.com/libor/libor_rates_history.htm

 

[cowgirla]

Yeah, that's how this loan seems to be as well. I'm just seeing a silver lining with the variable rate, assuming it doesnt go up past 6-7%. But there's obviously no guarantee

I looked into similar loan options and came to the conclusion that the chance of decent interest wasn't worth the risks. There were all sorts of benefits to staying federal- Income based, forgiveness, consolidation, can go back to school, discharged if you die, better forbearance/deferment options, etc.

I also don't think you can claim interest paid to private loans on your tax return, but I can't remember for sure on that.

Even if you don't anticipate needing an income based plan , it's a really nice safety net.

 

[NStarz]

I just have to say that every time I see this thread title, I think "too much." Hahahahaha. (Okay, not that funny, I suppose)

 

[Gemgrrrl]

I just have to say that every time I see this thread title, I think "too much." Hahahahaha. (Okay, not that funny, I suppose)

But so true...

 

[DVMDream]

I looked into similar loan options and came to the conclusion that the chance of decent interest wasn't worth the risks. There were all sorts of benefits to staying federal- Income based, forgiveness, consolidation, can go back to school, discharged if you die, better forbearance/deferment options, etc.

I also don't think you can claim interest paid to private loans on your tax return, but I can't remember for sure on that.

Even if you don't anticipate needing an income based plan , it's a really nice safety net.

You can claim interest paid on private student loans on taxes, as I have done so before. But, I agree that it isn't worth all the other risks.

 

[DVMDream]

I just have to say that every time I see this thread title, I think "too much." Hahahahaha. (Okay, not that funny, I suppose)

I laughed. That kind of disappointing I need to laugh because otherwise I'd cry.

 

[Gemgrrrl]

This blog post in US News kind of made me sad... it's about scholarships for veterinary school. They're so paltry, compared to the average $112k it costs to attend vet school, that they're almost laughable. I mean, every bit counts, but there's not a lot out there to offset the cost.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blo...-veterinary-education-with-these-scholarships