Choosing the full ride or your dream school?

[futureSLP063]

I have to commit to a MA program by next Friday.  This week I was about to commit to a school ranked in the top 20's in the nation and 1st in my state.  Last minute, I was offered a full ride+stipend at a school ranked between #100-120 in the nation.   This school will also allow me to become certified in something fairly competitive in my profession - but is not an ideal location, doesn't offer every clinic placement I desire, and is not thought of as an "amazing" school.   The top school is one I attended for my undergraduate career - it has a huge brand name, a large variety of clinic placements, and could potentially make me competitive.  The top school, however, does not offer any funding. 

What would you do? 

[MathCat]

How much does the top school cost, taking into consideration the cost of living? How big of a difference do you expect it will make for your employment prospects?

My normal response is to take the full ride. But if the cost of attending the top school is not too high and you expect that the difference in employment prospects will balance it out, it might be worth it.

[rising_star]

full ride + stipend. Unless you like being in debt.

[compscian]

Very field specific question, and I wouldn't give a blanket answer like @rising_star. In my field (CS), most students would prefer an unfunded MS from Stanford or CMU over a fully funded offer from a school outside the top 20-25. This is because (a) there are ample TA opportunities in CS, so at least 1 sem is likely funded; (b) summer internships are very common, and can nearly cover 1 sem. Effectively people pay just half the degree cost. Considering the job opportunities and increased salary these degrees command (especially in startup scene), the investment is well worth it.

You can try to reason along the same lines. How much is it likely to cost you, and is the additional cost worth it? Some parameters to look are job placements, salaries offered to graduates, opportunities for PhD after masters, and more subjective ones like your compatibility with the program and city in general. Are there any opportunities for funding in later semesters (like TA) and do students effectively use such opportunities etc.

[rising_star]

@compscian, I wasn't trying to say that the advice above is blanket advice. It was and is actually tailored to the OP of this particular post because considered their field before posting. My understanding of Speech-Language Pathology (SLP) is that the main priorities are going to a program where you can get licensed/certified afterward, which means being able to complete the right coursework plus a clinical experience. In that sense, prestige may be less important. From what I've learned here, SLP programs typically do not have TA positions because of the need for internships, not all of which are paid (though it seems like some programs can sometimes arrange paid field placements for their students).

In addition, I thought about the discussions on here about the wages SLPs earn after graduation. It's nowhere near what people in CS earn, which could make paying off debt more difficult or burdensome. Median pay for a speech-language pathologist is $58K according to a quick Google search. Taking on two years of student loan debt to attend a program would likely involve taking out at least that much in loans.

compscian, YMMV obviously but I think that CS and SLP are pretty different fields.

[compscian]

@rising_star I agree that I don't know anything about SLP. I just gave my perspective on what factors people consider as important and how to reason about them. Though the specifics may vary, the criteria on which decisions should be made remain constant across fields. Of course, some of these factors are more (or less) relevant for different fields. Just my 2 cents. 

[rising_star]

7 hours ago, compscian said:

Though the specifics may vary, the criteria on which decisions should be made remain constant across fields. Of course, some of these factors are more (or less) relevant for different fields. Just my 2 cents. 

I strongly disagree with this statement. The criteria aren't the same because the norms aren't the same across fields. In some fields, unfunded programs are the norm (think med school, law school, and other professional programs). In others, an unfunded program offer is a borderline rejection. Similarly, the amount of debt one could or should take on varies across fields because of vastly different employment prospects and future salary ranges. 

[casechaser5]

To the OP:

I am in a similar situation but here is my advice to you:

If the MA program is only for 1 year, and this is the last degree/school before your profession, I would say that the more reputable school would be worth it as you will readily be able to pay it back once you have a strong career. Plus, although opportunities abound in both places, I'd say there would be more choices in the better ranked school.

[COGSCI]

SLP is a professional degree so I wouldn't spend too much money unless you are planning on doing a doctoral training after. 

I think it is more important for you to consider placement/practicum opportunities that are available at each institution 

[compscian]

8 hours ago, rising_star said:

The criteria aren't the same because the norms aren't the same across fields. In some fields, unfunded programs are the norm (think med school, law school, and other professional programs). In others, an unfunded program offer is a borderline rejection.

I think we are saying the same thing with different vocabulary. Norm = specifics of the field. The underlying criteria is essentially return on investment in some form or the other. How much return you can expect from a degree obviously varies across fields and universities - you can call this "norm", specifics, whatever. Another important criteria is fit with program and city in general. How you define and measure "fit" is field specific (or norm). In any case, I believe I have made my point, and have no intention to carry on with this squabble. 

[juilletmercredi]

What are your goals? What about your field?

As was already pointed out, in some fields it's worth it to borrow the extra money to go to a top school because it's far easier to get a job from those top schools than from lower-ranked schools, or the salary differential is so large that it makes sense to borrow. In other fields, it simply doesn't matter - the pay and opportunities don't differ so it doesn't make sense to borrow.

What kind of field is your field?

I would say that the more reputable school would be worth it as you will readily be able to pay it back once you have a strong career.

Not necessarily - it depends on the amount of debt. Speech-language pathologists tend to make in the $50-60K range, so borrowing - say - $120K wouldn't make financial sense.

Norm = specifics of the field.

Norms and specifics mean basically opposite things. There are field-specific norms, which I think is what you are getting at, but that's why people were disagreeing with the statement that decision-making criteria should be constant across schools. What you said in your last post is essentially the opposite of what you said in the first one you made.

[compscian]

12 hours ago, juilletmercredi said:

What you said in your last post is essentially the opposite of what you said in the first one you made.

I have been very consistent. The point of my first post was to enumerate various considerations and how to reason about them. If you notice, I never recommended one option over the other, but just gave a list of things to consider.

Secondly, the norm being refereed to by us all here is essentially field-specific norms i.e. generalizations of various patterns that are specific to the field like salary, funding opportunities, employment goals, employment hubs (cities) etc. You can call this whatever you want, but I am essentially referring to this.

Finally, criteria remain the same across all fields because goals for professional masters programs remain the same across all fields - to land the (dream) job of interest and ear a lot! Essentially, there are only two main criteria - return on investment and fit with the program/city. Both of them depend on all the above factors and more (eg climate). 

At the core, only two questions are important: (a) will you be happy at the program/city and can it help you land the job you desire; (b) is the cost of attending the program worth the benefits. Factors in the second para can help answer these questions, and the amount of importance given to different factors are subjective/personal.

[juilletmercredi]

Well, no, you haven't been consistent. In the first post you made you said

Very field specific question ... Some parameters to look are job placements, salaries offered to graduates, opportunities for PhD after masters, and more subjective ones like your compatibility with the program and city in general. Are there any opportunities for funding in later semesters (like TA) and do students effectively use such opportunities etc.

But then you say

Though the specifics may vary, the criteria on which decisions should be made remain constant across fields.

But in the very next sentence:

Of course, some of these factors are more (or less) relevant for different fields

Even in your last post you list a bunch of different criteria ("salary, funding opportunities, employment goals, employment hubs (cities) etc. ") and then say only two criteria are important.

I'm saying this not to be pedantic, but for anyone following the thread - because I really do think that more than two criteria are important and that how to decide what program you attend is going to vary a lot across fields and on your personal and career goals.

 

 

[svent]

Full-ride + stipend. I think it's more important what you accomplish, not just the name of the school. Then again when I had this decision to make, the schools' rankings weren't too far off... certainly wasn't looking at any non-top-100 schools. Sure, if it's Stanford CS or Harvard Law, maybe you take a chance. But in this day and age, I think it's smart to minimize debt when it comes to school (or anything else for that matter).

Edited April 16, 2016 by svent

[compscian]

On 4/16/2016 at 10:10 PM, juilletmercredi said:

Even in your last post you list a bunch of different criteria ("salary, funding opportunities, employment goals, employment hubs (cities) etc. ") and then say only two criteria are important.

This may no longer be relevant for this year, but I'm going to post it anyway for future students.

There is a fundamental difference between factor and criteria:

Factor: a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result.  (read: attribute)
Criteria:  a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided. 

In other words, factors help you decide between options: to say one option is better than the other. Criteria is the evaluation metric itself. For example, if you want to drive from point A to point B, there are a number of factors that will influence your ride. They can include weather, traffic, condition of roads etc. Criteria is what you want to optimize: for some people it will be travel time, for others it can be smoothness of ride, fuel consumption etc. Once you fix the criteria, you can then use various factors to reason which option/route is better.

Salary, employment opportunities, prestige of program etc are all factors. What you must optimize on are return of investment, and some measure of happiness for which fit with program and city is a good proxy.

Edited April 23, 2016 by compscian