USC Dental School Cost of Attendance

[SigmaFS]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

USC Dental just released their 2026-2027 cost of attendance $$$ (Cost of Attendance).

• Direct school costs (tuition, fees, equipment, etc) = $536,779
• Direct school costs and living estimates = $667,868

Keep in mind that these are static amounts for 4 years. Tuition and fees usually increase 3% to 5% per year and it does not include interest accrual if you're borrowing to pay for dental school.

 

[DentistRays]

I suddenly don't feel that bad about my student loans, tuition fees are getting insane.

 

[D1Bound]

CODA should require every dental school to explain to prospective students in plain English what their tuition is, what their ranking is (least to most tuition compared to other schools), how much interest a student is projected to leave the school with, what the realistic average salary of a dentist is, the avg student loan payment per month, and then also what the average car payment, home payment, disability/malpractice insurance costs, etc. All of this should be wrapped up in one big informed consent session and then signed by each applicant.

 

[JacquesVallee]

CODA should require every dental school to explain to prospective students in plain English what their tuition is, what their ranking is (least to most tuition compared to other schools), how much interest a student is projected to leave the school with, what the realistic average salary of a dentist is, the avg student loan payment per month, and then also what the average car payment, home payment, disability/malpractice insurance costs, etc. All of this should be wrapped up in one big informed consent session and then signed by each applicant.

CODA would never in one million years. CODA would accredit a sandwich.

 

[psimplic]

That's roughly $184k per year. So what will happen when come August (or whenever tuition is due) and 10% or so of the class physically lacks borrowing capacity to pay? Will they just have smaller class?

 

[deleted1202307]

That's roughly $184k per year. So what will happen when come August (or whenever tuition is due) and 10% or so of the class physically lacks borrowing capacity to pay? Will they just have smaller class?

Everyone who goes to USC is already rich. Definitely just catering to rich millionaires who want their only child to have a "Dr." attached to their name. What a joke of a school. Predatory and elitist, the worst combo.

 

[SigmaFS]

Everyone who goes to USC is already rich.

You are certainly wrong with that irresponsible statement. Oh well.

 

[deleted1202307]

Accountant by education, former Director of Financial Aid for the Ostrow School of Dentistry of USC, and married to a dentist that had federal and private loan debt. Now semi-retired doing some tax and accounting work.

Just so everyone knows, this guy was a Director of Financial Aid for USC.

Face reality. You helped create this hell-scape, so take some ownership. I know many people who turned down USC solely due to the cost. Anyone who isn't already loaded can't afford to saddle themselves with 700k of debt when a graduate salary is 150k on average. They aren't capable of taking that amount out on federal loans, so you're forcing them to attempt private loans. Low income students can't even get those private loans because their parents can't or won't cosign (like mine). So quite literally you have priced out lower-income applicants. Being an accountant shows that it's not ignorance you suffer from, just willful delusion.

 

[JacquesVallee]

You are certainly wrong with that irresponsible statement. Oh well.

I think this is true. I cannot fathom there are 144 families per year paying 600k for their kids to go in dental school.

Face reality. You helped create this hell-scape, so take some ownership. I know many people who turned down USC solely due to the cost. Anyone who isn't already loaded can't afford to saddle themselves with 700k of debt when a graduate salary is 150k on average. They aren't capable of taking that amount out on federal loans, so you're forcing them to attempt private loans. Low income students can't even get those private loans because their parents can't or won't cosign (like mine). So quite literally you have priced out lower-income applicants. Being an accountant shows that it's not ignorance you suffer from, just willful delusion.

I will say, I could not morally have any association with USC dental. It'd kill me knowing I'm part of a system that is designed to siphon as much money as possible from naive children and ruin their lives.

 

[SigmaFS]

Face reality. You helped create this hell-scape, so take some ownership.

Another irresponsible statement. Should I also assume "ownership" for similar financial outcomes at NYU, Columbia, UPenn, UoP, etc.? This landscape was made possible by Bush I when he authorized Grad PLUS program and Bush II when he authorized the Income Driven Repayments programs, and Obama when he expanded the IDR programs. But for these actions, the greed of higher education would have been contained.

It'd kill me knowing I'm part of a system that is designed to siphon as much money as possible from naive children and ruin their lives.

Casting judgement when you have no knowledge of the circumstances. And the hyperbole - children and ruin their lives. All these are adults who completed undergrad, probably 22+ of age able to vote, drink, and engage in adult activities with all their associated consequences. Those that chose USC dental did so with knowledge of their financial commitment. I presented to both applicants during their interview sessions, D1 orientation, and annually to all continuing students, detailed projections for cost and loan repayment schedules. If they chose to ignore that information, then they might suffer the consequences of their immature behavior.

And as c3tribro mentioned, he knows may people that turn down USC solely because of the cost. I made a concerted effort to be transparent about the financial realities of attending a private dental school to these naive adults.

Attached is PP presentation share in DDS applicants invited to interviews.

 

[Rush_motion]

Another irresponsible statement. Should I also assume "ownership" for similar financial outcomes at NYU, Columbia, UPenn, UoP, etc.? This landscape was made possible by Bush I when he authorized Grad PLUS program and Bush II when he authorized the Income Driven Repayments programs, and Obama when he expanded the IDR programs. But for these actions, the greed of higher education would have been contained.


Casting judgement when you have no knowledge of the circumstances. And the hyperbole - children and ruin their lives. All these are adults who completed undergrad, probably 22+ of age able to vote, drink, and engage in adult activities with all their associated consequences. Those that chose USC dental did so with knowledge of their financial commitment. I presented to both applicants during their interview sessions, D1 orientation, and annually to all continuing students, detailed projections for cost and loan repayment schedules. If they chose to ignore that information, then they might suffer the consequences of their immature behavior.

And as c3tribro mentioned, he knows may people that turn down USC solely because of the cost. I made a concerted effort to be transparent about the financial realities of attending a private dental school to these naive adults.

Attached is PP presentation share in DDS applicants invited to interviews.

Sigma
I’m just curious to know what your motivation was/is to start this thread.
Honest question.

 

[JacquesVallee]

Sigma
I’m just curious to know what your motivation was/is to start this thread.
Honest question.

Are you from USC?

 

[SigmaFS]

Sigma
I’m just curious to know what your motivation was/is to start this thread.
Honest question.

If you read some of my other threads, heavy reliance on private loan to financial an education could be financial suicide. This is not exclusive to USC.

 

[Rush_motion]

If you read some of my other threads, heavy reliance on private loan to financial an education could be financial suicide. This is not exclusive to USC.

I personally think it’s great that you are keeping the community informed on this online forum.

May I ask - did something happen between you and usc? The tone you’re taking now is somewhat unexpected given that you closely worked with their admissions department for years.

I highly doubt you were giving this exact advice to predents on interview.

 

[SigmaFS]

I highly doubt you were giving this exact advice to predents on interview.

Obviously, you can choose to believe what you want to believe. I did attach a PP presentation on an early post in this thread - look at the 2nd slide.

 

[deleted1202307]

You’ve already moved the goalposts here.

The original argument was that people attending USC are effectively already wealthy, which you dismissed as “irresponsible.” But now you’re saying:

Those that chose USC dental did so with knowledge of their financial commitment.

If they chose to ignore that information, then they might suffer the consequences of their immature behavior.

I made a concerted effort to be transparent about the financial realities of attending a private dental school to these naive adults.

If the only people who can realistically attend are those who either already have financial backing or are willing/able to take on massive debt, that is a wealth filter. You’re describing the exact mechanism you said wasn’t real.

They aren't capable of taking that amount out on federal loans, so you're forcing them to attempt private loans. Low income students can't even get those private loans because their parents can't or won't cosign (like mine). So quite literally you have priced out lower-income applicants.

Lower-income applicants literally can’t access the financing required to attend. Even the option to take on the debt isn’t equally available, which just reinforces the point.

Now on the moral side, which you’ve pivoted to:

Saying “they’re adults,” “they were informed,” and “they chose it” doesn’t really resolve anything. It just shifts all responsibility onto the borrower while ignoring how the system is structured. Legality doesn’t equal ethics.

Payday loans are legal. Fully disclosed. Taken out by adults.
They’re still called predatory - because the model works by shifting risk onto compromised borrowers while the lender stays protected. They are profiting off of vulnerable populations that have been driven to desperate measures based on their current financial situation.

Same thing here.

If the system only works because people:

• take on $600–700k in debt
• rely on long-tail repayment or overly optimistic income assumptions
• or need cosigners just to get in the door

then pointing to “well, they chose it” isn’t a defense - it’s exactly how those systems justify themselves.

So it’s not about denying agency.

It’s that you went from rejecting the idea that cost filters access… to basically describing exactly how it does, and then saying that makes it fine.

That’s the disconnect.

 

[JacquesVallee]

You’ve already moved the goalposts here.

The original argument was that people attending USC are effectively already wealthy, which you dismissed as “irresponsible.” But now you’re saying:





If the only people who can realistically attend are those who either already have financial backing or are willing/able to take on massive debt, that is a wealth filter. You’re describing the exact mechanism you said wasn’t real.


Lower-income applicants literally can’t access the financing required to attend. Even the option to take on the debt isn’t equally available, which just reinforces the point.

Now on the moral side, which you’ve pivoted to:

Saying “they’re adults,” “they were informed,” and “they chose it” doesn’t really resolve anything. It just shifts all responsibility onto the borrower while ignoring how the system is structured. Legality doesn’t equal ethics.

Payday loans are legal. Fully disclosed. Taken out by adults.
They’re still called predatory - because the model works by shifting risk onto compromised borrowers while the lender stays protected. They are profiting off of vulnerable populations that have been driven to desperate measures based on their current financial situation.

Same thing here.

If the system only works because people:

• take on $600–700k in debt
• rely on long-tail repayment or overly optimistic income assumptions
• or need cosigners just to get in the door

then pointing to “well, they chose it” isn’t a defense - it’s exactly how those systems justify themselves.

So it’s not about denying agency.

It’s that you went from rejecting the idea that cost filters access… to basically describing exactly how it does, and then saying that makes it fine.

That’s the disconnect.

I had a response typed out that basically along these same lines. Couldn't agree with this more.

After talking to pre-dents, they know nothing. They have zero business taking out 600k in loans given most of them have never had job and have been hounded by the boomers since birth they have to have a college degree and it will all work out. Heck, I was a pre-dent not that long ago. I was directly told by numerous mentors not to worry about the debt because dentistry will pay for itself. I very easily would've fallen for the scam. The system is designed to take advantage of the naive.

I think this represents the disconnect between the boomers and our generation. The boomers never dealt with ridiculous student loan debts, had a peak economy with amazing job markets, no dental saturation, etc. Instead of just admitting they had it better, they pulled the rug from us younger folks and pretend it was their "hard work" that led to their success rather than being part of a better system. Had they been born in our generation, they'd have fallen scam in the same way we were. The boomer generation seems to be incapable of extending any grace. Sad. If you read my posts, you'll notice how I always blame the system. I would NEVER say:

If they chose to ignore that information, then they might suffer the consequences of their immature behavior.

USC dental ruins their lives. They were cognitively naive children who shouldn't have been allowed to take out these loans. To blame them for ruining their lives instead of the system really irks me.

As I said, I could not in good conscience be a financial advisor at USC dental. USC dental is a scam. I know Sigma would NEVER recommend anyone take out full loans for USC. If that's the case, why work there, taking their money? I'd walk away. USC was filling their seats regardless. I'd rather work as a cashier at Walmart. What USC is doing should be illegal.

 

[SigmaFS]

Everyone who goes to USC is already rich.

Do you not recall you statement C3? This is what I responded to. About 70% financed their education through loans, 20% out of pocket, 10% HPSP, NHSC, and other scholarship. You're attempting to move the goal posts.

 

[deleted1202307]

Do you not recall you statement C3? This is what I responded to. About 70% financed their education through loans, 20% out of pocket, 10% HPSP, NHSC, and other scholarship. You're attempting to move the goal posts.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all - and this is exactly where your framing is misleading.

You’re treating “took out loans” as equivalent to “not wealthy.” Those are not the same thing.

Access to large-scale borrowing is itself a proxy for wealth and financial backing.

Like I’ve said repeatedly, and you still haven’t addressed, lower‑income applicants often cannot qualify for these loans in the first place. They hit hard constraints:

• federal loan caps,
• private loan underwriting,
• and cosigner requirements they don’t have access to.

They aren’t “choosing” not to borrow.
They’re not capable of borrowing at the level required.

So citing that “70% financed through loans” doesn’t refute the point—it actually supports it. Those loans are disproportionately accessible to applicants with:

• wealthy families,
• strong credit histories,
• or parents willing and able to cosign.

That’s the wealth filter. The fact that some students use debt does not mean they lack wealth—it often means they have the financial backing and risk tolerance to leverage debt safely. Lower‑income applicants don’t have that option.

So no, the goalposts haven’t moved.

You’re just redefining “wealth” as “didn’t pay cash,” while ignoring who is structurally able to access $600–700k in financing in the first place.

That’s the part you keep sidestepping.

 

[SigmaFS]

So citing that “70% financed through loans” doesn’t refute the point—it actually supports it. Those loans are disproportionately accessible to applicants with:

• wealthy families,
• strong credit histories,
• or parents willing and able to cosign.

Your comment speaks to your lack of knowledge and the misinformation you are spreading. Federal direct loans are available to grad student that is US citizen or eligible no citizen up to the cost of education (so, if USC, NYU, Columbia is charging $150K/year, it's cover by federal direct loans). No need to for cosigners, personal wealth, etc. Your ignorance of the federal programs just fuels misguided position and discussions.

 

[JacquesVallee]

Are you still upset that I challenged you about your admitted idol Charlie Kirk - a racist, bigot, etc.? And you continue with your naive children position...holding adult accountable is no longer acceptable?

Incredibly rude thing to say. I've been nothing but respectful towards you even though I strongly disagree with what you've pm'd me and said here. Also, pm's are private conversations, and you should be not publicly disclose them. No reason to crash out, brother. We should be adults and be capable of having discussions where we disagree.

 

[deleted1202307]

Your comment speaks to your lack of knowledge and the misinformation you are spreading. Federal direct loans are available to grad student that is US citizen or eligible no citizen up to the cost of education (so, if USC, NYU, Columbia is charging $150K/year, it's cover by federal direct loans). No need to for cosigners, personal wealth, etc. Your ignorance of the federal programs just fuels misguided position and discussions.

Oh the irony. You’re working off old info and it shows. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) fundamentally changed everything which applies to all dental students from here on out. The idea that anyone can just blindly finance $150k a year through the feds is dead. Also, you were incorrect about the old system as well, you couldn't take out Federal Direct for the whole cost. You would max out Federal Direct loans at $47k and then have to take out higher interest GradPLUS loans. The current rates are ~8-9% respectively, which is financial suicide for a loan of $6-700,000 if you aren't wealthy already.

Here’s the current reality:

• Hard Caps: Federal loans are now capped at a $257,500 lifetime limit. For professional degrees, the cap is even tighter at $200,000. Once you hit that wall, the government isn't cutting you another check, even if you’ve started paying them back. This includes undergraduate debt btw.
• Grad PLUS is GONE: Going forward GradPLUS loans don't exist. the 'blank check' that used to cover the full Cost of Attendance—is being eliminated for professional students. Without it, you're stuck with Direct Unsubsidized annual limits, which aren't even close to covering a $150k tuition bill.
• The 'Old System' wasn't better: Even before these new rules, your math is off. While dental students could pull about $40k–$47k in Direct Unsubsidized loans (more than the standard $20,500 for other grads), everything else came from Grad PLUS. Those carry near-9% interest rates and a massive 4.2% origination fee. Plus, they aren't guaranteed—you need a credit check, and if your history is shaky, you're looking for an endorser.

Please educate yourself on the current financial landscape before calling someone misinformed.

One Big Beautiful Bill Act NSLDS Eligibility Processing Updates (Updated May 7, 2026) | Knowledge Center

fsapartners.ed.gov

 

[deleted1202307]

Are you still upset that I challenged you about your admitted idol Charlie Kirk - a racist, bigot, etc.? And you continue with your naive children position...holding adult accountable is no longer acceptable?

The shift to ad hominem says a lot. If the argument were strong, you wouldn’t need to go there.

 

[psimplic]

About 70% financed their education through loans, 20% out of pocket, 10% HPSP, NHSC, and other scholarship.

Is that post-BBB? So all students matriculating in the Fall of 2026 managed to secure financing?

 

[SigmaFS]

Incredibly rude thing to say.

You question my integrity and professionalism and I'm rude. Please be a little more thoughtful.

 

[SigmaFS]

OBBBA only applies to incoming students. So, if it's a 4-year DDS/DMD program, D2s-D4s are grandfathered under the prior regs.

 

[SigmaFS]

Please educate yourself on the current financial landscape before calling someone misinformed

Again, your comprehension comes into question. This was in response to my historical information about paying for USC dental - 70% loans, 20% personal financial resources, 10% HPSP/NHSC/other scholarship - Past data which also addresses your misinformation that only the rich attended USC. Wrong!

OBBBA - I'm very familiar. I've posted on various social media the possible consequences of OBBBA. And one reason I'm no longer in the profession.

 

[deleted1202307]

Again, your comprehension comes into question. This was in response to my historical information about paying for USC dental - 70% loans, 20% personal financial resources, 10% HPSP/NHSC/other scholarship - Past data which also addresses your misinformation that only the rich attended USC. Wrong!

OBBBA - I'm very familiar. I've posted on various social media the possible consequences of OBBBA. And one reason I'm no longer in the profession.

Like I already addressed, your information about past years was also incorrect. They could not take out Fed Direct loans for the whole amount as you said. They would max out and then take out GradPLUS loans. Please read my response again.

 

[JacquesVallee]

You question my integrity and professionalism and I'm rude. Please be a little more thoughtful.

I calmly expressed my disagreement with the morality of being the financial director for USC dental without getting personal. I'm very open to an adult discussion on this. I never name called. I only presented arguments. You, on the other hand, brought up racism and bigotry in response. I recommend you simply respond to the substance of our disagreement rather name calling. It's bizarre, unhinged behavior.

 

[deleted1202307]

Again, your comprehension comes into question. This was in response to my historical information about paying for USC dental - 70% loans, 20% personal financial resources, 10% HPSP/NHSC/other scholarship - Past data which also addresses your misinformation that only the rich attended USC. Wrong!

OBBBA - I'm very familiar. I've posted on various social media the possible consequences of OBBBA. And one reason I'm no longer in the profession.

You’re still dodging the actual point. Notice how you never respond to the actual points. I raise something specific and you immediately sidestep to a different argument.

No one is disputing your historical percentages. Saying “70% used loans” does not prove what you think it proves—it doesn’t mean access was equal. It just means the people who could access financing used it.

That’s the distinction you keep ignoring.

The argument is that the system filters based on access to capital and risk tolerance (i.e., wealth), and your own breakdown actually supports that:

• 20% paying out of pocket → clearly wealthy
• 10% scholarships → limited and highly competitive
• 70% loans → only possible for those who can qualify and are willing/able to take on massive risk

That’s still a financial filter—especially when you’re talking about ~$600–700k at 8–9% interest.

And bringing this back to the present, you don’t get to hide behind historical data when the structure has fundamentally changed.

OBBBA makes access even tighter. So the barrier you’re denying already exists is now more pronounced.
At this point, you’re not engaging the argument—you’re just repeating that loans existed and hoping that settles it.

It doesn’t.

 

[SigmaFS]

They could not take out Fed Direct loans for the whole amount as you said. They would max out and then take out GradPLUS loans. Please read my response again.

C3 - GradPLUS loans are federal direct loans (https://studentaid.gov/plus-app/).

 

[SigmaFS]

And bringing this back to the present, you don’t get to hide behind historical data when the structure has fundamentally changed.

Please read some of early posts. Below is my response to an exchange with some Ostrow alumni:

 

[SigmaFS]

I recommend you simply respond to the substance of our disagreement rather name calling. It's bizarre, unhinged behavior.

As I said, your comments questioned by integrity and professional. I responded in kind by pointing out the fact you proudly supported a racist and bigot, which is reflection of your character.

OBBBA has changed the landscape for incoming students. Private loans do not offer Income Driven Repayments plans, did not offer a 40-month COVID no interest accrual forbearance, highly likely students would need a co-signer with a higher possibly of being denied in future years, etc. This might be the financial death knell for too many at high-cost institutions. I couldn't continue in that environment.

Prior to OBBBA, the IDR plans were a reasonable financial option given the blank check the federal government authorized. I understood the IDR plans and felt in a position to educate students on their options. I can only imagine you'll be critical of my position on IDR plans, but that's more of a reflection of your knowledge. But please feel free to be judgmental.

 

[mjzccle19701]

Again, your comprehension comes into question. This was in response to my historical information about paying for USC dental - 70% loans, 20% personal financial resources, 10% HPSP/NHSC/other scholarship - Past data which also addresses your misinformation that only the rich attended USC. Wrong!

OBBBA - I'm very familiar. I've posted on various social media the possible consequences of OBBBA. And one reason I'm no longer in the profession.

It’s pretty wild people who aren’t financial aid advisors are arguing about financial aid with someone who has worked in the field. Similar to how they say pre dents know nothing about being a dentist. People are just angry about reality. Thanks for trying to shed light on the current landscape and being a resource to students.

 

[JacquesVallee]

As I said, your comments questioned by integrity and professional. I responded in kind by pointing out the fact you proudly supported a racist and bigot, which is reflection of your character.

You're just repeating yourself. I calmly and rationally explained why I think it's immoral to be director of financial aid for USC dental. See my response below.

I had a response typed out that basically along these same lines. Couldn't agree with this more.

After talking to pre-dents, they know nothing. They have zero business taking out 600k in loans given most of them have never had job and have been hounded by the boomers since birth they have to have a college degree and it will all work out. Heck, I was a pre-dent not that long ago. I was directly told by numerous mentors not to worry about the debt because dentistry will pay for itself. I very easily would've fallen for the scam. The system is designed to take advantage of the naive.

I think this represents the disconnect between the boomers and our generation. The boomers never dealt with ridiculous student loan debts, had a peak economy with amazing job markets, no dental saturation, etc. Instead of just admitting they had it better, they pulled the rug from us younger folks and pretend it was their "hard work" that led to their success rather than being part of a better system. Had they been born in our generation, they'd have fallen scam in the same way we were. The boomer generation seems to be incapable of extending any grace. Sad. If you read my posts, you'll notice how I always blame the system. I would NEVER say:

USC dental ruins their lives. They were cognitively naive children who shouldn't have been allowed to take out these loans. To blame them for ruining their lives instead of the system really irks me.

As I said, I could not in good conscience be a financial advisor at USC dental. USC dental is a scam. I know Sigma would NEVER recommend anyone take out full loans for USC. If that's the case, why work there, taking their money? I'd walk away. USC was filling their seats regardless. I'd rather work as a cashier at Walmart. What USC is doing should be illegal.

I would love a substantive critique of my arguments (hint, calling me a racist and bigot when debating the nuances of working for an institution that is ruining lives of pre-dents is not a good argument). Bringing in private PMs and especially the murder of Charlie Kirk is freaking bizarre. If you can respond with actual arguments, I will hear them out on their merits. If you're going to repeat I questioned your "integrity and professionalism" and repeat that I'm a "racist" or "bigot" (no correlation to the discussion about USC btw), then I have no response to give as it shows you aren't interested in a fruitful conversation.

Edit: Think about it like this, I have friends who are vegan and think eating animals is immoral. I'm not a vegan. When they tell me this, I don't say "are you questioning my integrity and character!?" Rather, we talk about the merits of their arguments since I know they aren't attacking me personally. View this the same way. Same principle here.

 

[SigmaFS]

It'd kill me knowing I'm part of a system that is designed to siphon as much money as possible from naive children and ruin their lives.

How am I to interpret, "ruin their lives"? Seems like a rather hysterical comment devoid of reason and rationality. You and others seem selective on what you choose to forget or ignore. Is it killing you to know you support a bigot and racist.

 

[SigmaFS]

It’s pretty wild people who aren’t financial aid advisors are arguing about financial aid with someone who has worked in the field. Similar to how they say pre dents know nothing about being a dentist. People are just angry about reality. Thanks for trying to shed light on the current landscape and being a resource to students.

I appreciate your comments. My approach was to act in the best interest of students. I anticipated when the Federal Direct GradPLUS was authorized, the Bennet theory would be supported. With the introduction of the IDR plans, there was a financial opportunity to reduce the cost of loan below more traditional amortization options. Some took advantage, while others did not. Similar to tax policy, some benefit from all allowed deductions and credits, while others remain under or uninformed.

But let others cast judgement when they aren't familiar with the facts and circumstances.

 

[Rush_motion]

As I said, your comments questioned by integrity and professional. I responded in kind by pointing out the fact you proudly supported a racist and bigot, which is reflection of your character.

OBBBA has changed the landscape for incoming students. Private loans do not offer Income Driven Repayments plans, did not offer a 40-month COVID no interest accrual forbearance, highly likely students would need a co-signer with a higher possibly of being denied in future years, etc. This might be the financial death knell for too many at high-cost institutions. I couldn't continue in that environment.

Prior to OBBBA, the IDR plans were a reasonable financial option given the blank check the federal government authorized. I understood the IDR plans and felt in a position to educate students on their options. I can only imagine you'll be critical of my position on IDR plans, but that's more of a reflection of your knowledge. But please feel free to be judgmental.

I’m impressed that someone like you can publicly distance yourself from usc and publicly disagree with them charging so much for tuition/taking out so many private loans.

Great to read your posts and to hear your perspective. I learned more reading about student loans in this one thread.

 

[Rush_motion]

This might be the financial death knell for too many at high-cost institutions. I couldn't continue in that environment.

I disagree with you about this.
They will still fill their class sizes with kids from wealthy families and international dentists who want to live the American dream.

 

[Neo__]

Hi guys, I have a question. Where do we draw the line between financial suicide and like actual suicide?

Like when you say financial suicide, do you mean I won't be able to afford dinner, that my children will be living middle-class lives? Or you mean I won't be able to afford this fluffed up wealthy dentist lifestyle everyone dreams of with 2-3 homes, and a wild Porsche collection.

I feel like we need to define what all of that means in very plain and simple terms if you want pre-dents to understand the magnitude of your words.

 

[D1Bound]

How am I to interpret, "ruin their lives"? Seems like a rather hysterical comment devoid of reason and rationality. You and others seem selective on what you choose to forget or ignore. Is it killing you to know you support a bigot and racist.

You’re demonstrating that you’re a poorly informed individual by saying that Charlie Kirk was a bigot and a racist. Throughout the Bible there are consistent themes of loving thy neighbor, about the innate value human beings have, AND also speaking out against evil and immorality. Charlie was a devout Christian. He did these things through a biblical lens. Just because he didn’t bend the knee to the way you see the world doesn’t mean he’s some Larping Klan type racist. That’s intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you’re the intolerant bigot for not agreeing with Charlie? Because it was an intolerant person that took his life. Let’s remember who the victim is in that situation.

 

[JacquesVallee]

Are you still upset that I challenged you about your admitted idol Charlie Kirk - a racist, bigot, etc.?

I responded in kind by pointing out the fact you proudly supported a racist and bigot, which is reflection of your character.

Is it killing you to know you support a bigot and racist.

@D1Bound Please, do no expect any sort of serious, good faith discussion. I presented a respectful critique on the morality of working for USC dental and got lambasted as a racist and bigot with no response to a single one of my actual, well thought-out arguments (seriously, Sigma didn't answer a single point I made). Anyone who resorts to name calling using buzzwords is someone whose argument is weak, who has no faith in their ability to have discussions, and who has an attitude towards disagreement that is thuggish.

 

[SigmaFS]

I’m impressed that someone like you can publicly distance yourself from usc and publicly disagree with them charging so much for tuition/taking out so many private loans.

Not sure if this leaves a positive impression, but I will occasionally email the dean & leadership team on the current landscape.

 

[SigmaFS]

You’re demonstrating that you’re a poorly informed individual by saying that Charlie Kirk was a bigot and a racist. Throughout the Bible there are consistent themes of loving thy neighbor, about the innate value human beings have, AND also speaking out against evil and immorality. Charlie was a devout Christian. He did these things through a biblical lens. Just because he didn’t bend the knee to the way you see the world doesn’t mean he’s some Larping Klan type racist. That’s intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you’re the intolerant bigot for not agreeing with Charlie? Because it was an intolerant person that took his life. Let’s remember who the victim is in that situation.

Brief response as I prefer focus on the cost of a dental education, but please remind me of his position on the Civil Rights Act? Please feel to begin another thread to not pivot from the original post.

 

[SigmaFS]

(seriously, Sigma didn't answer a single point I made).

Once again, you can be sooo selective.

 

[JacquesVallee]

Brief response as I prefer focus on the cost of a dental education,

Are you still upset that I challenged you about your admitted idol Charlie Kirk - a racist, bigot, etc.? And you continue with your naive children position...holding adult accountable is no longer acceptable?

Is it killing you to know you support a bigot and racist.

I responded in kind by pointing out the fact you proudly supported a racist and bigot,

You have to be trolling at this point.

Please feel to begin another thread to not pivot from the original post.

YOU erratically opened this line of discussion by mentioning racism and bigotry when talking about USC dental.

 

[SigmaFS]

I disagree with you about this.
They will still fill their class sizes with kids from wealthy families and international dentists who want to live the American dream.

In another social media post to USC Ostrow alumni, I presented two possibilities:

The concern with international students is the current political environment does not support international students.

 

[SigmaFS]

YOU erratically opened this line of discussion by mentioning racism and bigotry when talking about USC dental.

I'll disagree as this was initiated on your part when you questioned my integrity and professionalism when you wrote,

I could not morally have any association with USC dental. It'd kill me knowing I'm part of a system that is designed to siphon as much money as possible from naive children and ruin their lives.

Please continue to rationalize your comment.

 

[JacquesVallee]

Once again, you can be sooo selective.

View attachment 419063

Brotha, this felt like you vaguely stating your mindset on pre BBB dentistry. It didn't feel like a direct response to my (many) specific points. But, if you want to claim it is, I'm happy to grant that. Had you not brought up racism and bigotry, it'd be a lot more easier to view it in that lens.

And you are correct, I do respectfully disagree with you about IDR. But, you've been so uncontrollably hostile, I have no impulse to explain my position because your responses so far have been completely unhinged.

This issue is when you respond to someone's critiques numerous (I count 3) times by calling them racist and bigot, then, well, don't be surprise when someone isn't as nuanced with your responses as you'd like when you are so purposefully hostile and inflammatory.

It does feel like you're trolling at this point by stating you don't want to open a political discussion when you've obsessively been talking about it and i've done everything to steer away from that.

I'll disagree as this was initiated on your part when you questioned my integrity and professionalism when you wrote,

Please continue to rationalize your comment.

Re-read my comment. I said "I". Not "YOU". Seriously, read it. I only used personal pronouns because I do not at all assume you ever had bad intentions. My goodness. My Vegan friend says "I could not morally eat animal products" =/= I am questioning your integrity if you are not a Vegan. Again, I was talking about from my point of view and I calmly explained my reasoning. I know your mindset is different. I do not assume you EVER had bad intentions by being USC's financial director and NEVER stated you did. How many times do I have to keep explaining this? To add, I said "I could not have any association with USC dental" meaning I would morally never be a clinical faculty there in good conscience. Does that mean I think everyone there is grossly immoral and unprofessional? Of course not! They don't have the same view as me. I understand this. I'm sure they have wonderful people there who are trying to do a great job. My response was a shot against USC as a whole, not you. For me, I just don't want any association with an institution that charges 600k to students just as I have friends who won't, say, shop at Walmart in good conscience while I would.

Edit: Think about it like this, I have friends who are vegan and think eating animals is immoral. I'm not a vegan. When they tell me this, I don't say "are you questioning my integrity and character!?" Rather, we talk about the merits of their arguments since I know they aren't attacking me personally. View this the same way. Same principle here.

Edit: And if you think my response to you was a shot saying I think you are unprofessional, it was not. Let me make that clear. It was never my intentions for my statement to be interpreted that way. So, let's move on.

 

[SigmaFS]

Edit: And if you think my response to you was a shot saying I think you are unprofessional, it was not. Let me make that clear. It was never my intentions for my statement to be interpreted that way. So, let's move on.

Rationalize all you want. Your comment about "ruining lives" was the first shot over the bow. But for your comment, this thread would have continued on its intended course...a discussion on the cost of a dental education.