Reinventing

With that level of debt, your total monthly loan payments would be around $1,000, right? And with interest, you might actually end up paying back closer to $125,000 in the end. I would only take on that level of debt if I couldn't live doing something else, and would be miserable every day of my life if I weren't doing this kind of work, even though it meant I'd have to live with 10-15 years of incredible financial stress.

And knowing what I know now, if I actually had that perspective, I would talk to a lot of people in the field to learn about the realities of that work, do extensive research on salaries and opportunities, and invest time and/or money in career counseling with a reputable counselor to make sure I was really being honest with myself about the other opportunities in life.

There are plenty of people who get into these schools who don't have a concept that $100,000 (or $125,000) is actually a huge amount of money to a lot of people. There are others who have not yet experienced loan repayment. Taking the loans is much easier and quicker than paying them back. There's also a lot of hype that "education debt is good debt." But take it with a grain of salt. Education is much more expensive than it was for previous generations, a large return on the investment is not guaranteed by any stretch, and ed debt never goes away (as you know, it can't be discharged by bankuptcy).

Personally, I would not do this. Crunch the numbers and see if it's worth it to you. That's really what it comes down to. But if you wanted to hear from someone who says, "That's crazy. Unconscionable, even," well, I'll say it.

I would recommend trying to keep the education debt less than 10% of your total expected yearly pay (before taxes). So if you expect to get a job offer for $50k, keep your monthly debt bill at $500 a month (this means you could probably afford to accumulate $50k of debt total between your two degrees, grad and undergrad). $500 a month will still be quite a dent (you probably won't be eating out, buying nice clothes, or going on vacation for a while), but it will be manageable. Any more than that probably wouldn't be worth the financial stress level.

I have known several people who got into Ivies and turned them down to avoid putting themselves in financial dire straits. They accepted lesser schools with funding and are doing quite well. I also know a few Ivy grads, and they are pretty candid about the obnoxious and limiting level of their debt load.

It is a somewhat strange question.

Most people would not do both a Master's in Higher Ed and an MBA. It does not make much sense, and I have never seen a top-tier, dual-degree program combining these. You would have to do them separately, and so most people choose to do one or the other. If employment stats and salary are the primary concern, a top-tier MBA might fit the bill. If you want to work in a university, a degree in higher ed is usually the best choice, unless you want to work in a business or finance role/program, and then an MBA could be an asset.

Rankings on top-tier MBA programs are easy to find, and generally are released each spring through US News, Businessweek, FT, etc. Master's-level education programs do not track employment statistics like MBA programs do.

AACSB is the organization that accredits MBA programs. All good schools will have this. For education, CACREP accredits some programs; but if you go to a reputable school (state school or Ivy), you don't need to worry too much about accreditation unless you want to do counseling work. Those jobs do seem to request CACREP or other accreditation.

As for MS, MEd, and MA, there's usually very little distinction. I think most programs for higher education are MEd programs, and in some cases there are reasons why a program is classified as an MS or MA program (MS sometimes means more stats/tech classes, MA sometimes fewer stats classes; but there's no hard-and-fast rule).

No one will tell you what your likelihood of getting a job is based on a bunch of statistics. No school can promise to employ you after you graduate. Students at top schools may have an easier time getting jobs, and may have access to different types of roles, but your ability to get a job depends greatly on a number of factors, including your career interests, work experience, education, fit with the jobs you apply for, and the level of effort you put into networking and your job search.

Most people select a program based on things like reputation of the school, reputation (and content) of the program, faculty research areas, research opportunities, fit/community, strong alumni network, cost, location, etc. But no one can come up with a list of the best schools for you to apply to. You could just pick the top 10 from the US News rankings if you want to make it really easy, or go through the spreadsheet and pick those with the top 10 highest employment figures, but you'll be ignoring whether the program is really a good fit for you. I wouldn't leave the decision up to statistics, if I were you. You have to do the research.

It is a somewhat strange question.

Most people would not do both a Master's in Higher Ed and an MBA. It does not make much sense, and I have never seen a top-tier, dual-degree program combining these. You would have to do them separately, and so most people choose to do one or the other. If employment stats and salary are the primary concern, a top-tier MBA might fit the bill. If you want to work in a university, a degree in higher ed is usually the best choice, unless you want to work in a business or finance role/program, and then an MBA could be an asset.

Rankings on top-tier MBA programs are easy to find, and generally are released each spring through US News, Businessweek, FT, etc. Master's-level education programs do not track employment statistics like MBA programs do.

AACSB is the organization that accredits MBA programs. All good schools will have this. For education, CACREP accredits some programs; but if you go to a reputable school (state school or Ivy), you don't need to worry too much about accreditation unless you want to do counseling work. Those jobs do seem to request CACREP or other accreditation.

As for MS, MEd, and MA, there's usually very little distinction. I think most programs for higher education are MEd programs, and in some cases there are reasons why a program is classified as an MS or MA program (MS sometimes means more stats/tech classes, MA sometimes fewer stats classes; but there's no hard-and-fast rule).

No one will tell you what your likelihood of getting a job is based on a bunch of statistics. No school can promise to employ you after you graduate. Students at top schools may have an easier time getting jobs, and may have access to different types of roles, but your ability to get a job depends greatly on a number of factors, including your career interests, work experience, education, fit with the jobs you apply for, and the level of effort you put into networking and your job search.

Most people select a program based on things like reputation of the school, reputation (and content) of the program, faculty research areas, research opportunities, fit/community, strong alumni network, cost, location, etc. But no one can come up with a list of the best schools for you to apply to. You could just pick the top 10 from the US News rankings if you want to make it really easy, or go through the spreadsheet and pick those with the top 10 highest employment figures, but you'll be ignoring whether the program is really a good fit for you. I wouldn't leave the decision up to statistics, if I were you. You have to do the research.

Definitely familiarize yourself with the higher ed organizational structure(s) before you jump into more education. There are some great posts about this on the career forum at Chronicle.com (Chronicle of Higher Education). Here's a quick boildown (and note, all universities are a little different):

At many schools, there are two tracks:
1) student affairs administration and
2) academic administration (department/school Deans)

If you want to get into a senior-level position in student affairs/administration, you will likely have to work your way up a position or two. You might start mid-level (your degrees now may be sufficient) and work for the promotion. Possibly acquiring a PhD along the way, if it's required. It's unlikely they'd sail you to the top right away--you will after all be heading up a group of other people who've been following the track for 10-20 years, and will be lacking "experience" (non-profit experience is not the same thing as student affairs experience).

If you want a senior-level position on the academic side, it's very unusual to get this without having some experience as faculty. After all, if you're basically the head of a group of people, you want to have some familiarity with their world. And you usually come from their ranks and have proven yourself there.

That said, I know there are a number of colleges that blur these distinctions. Your best bet may be to pick several schools you'd like to work at, and do the research to figure out where there leadership came from.

Hi !
I've just visited this forum. Happy to get acquainted with you. Thanks.

Congratulations--I'm glad things worked out.

If it makes you feel any better, having been on both sides of that fence, many schools are deciding not to allow deferrals, especially where funding is involved. You have to keep in mind the impact of your deferral. It makes things more complicated for the school. These days, you never know what is going to happen with budgets, and if you'll have money to give next year. A professor may want you for a certain project they are doing right now, and won't need you later. They may also have specific goals for a certain class (certain size, certain distributions). Many students who defer do decide not to attend. The administrative people are not trying to make it more difficult, they just have a different perspective, goal, and responsibility in the situation. But like I said, I'm glad it all came to a happy conclusion!

Could be just to rake in revenue.

The decision is completely out of your hands, so there's no need to nit-pick and freak out on here. Just be patient. PLEASE.

<Other comments edited by Mod to assist in keeping things civil>

Hardly naivete, if anything the rule that no funding = rejection is one of the few glimmers of cold realism displayed by applicants.
This is a game about expected values.