The Institute (協会)

One alternative is to go to a community college part time and then decide if you want a four year degree, while you're working. One of the nasty reality of most schools, especially big state schools, is that your first two years are spent on "weed out" courses that really are better taught by the community colleges.

Another alternative is to make sure kids work during the summers through high school, and learn how to save. I worked my arse off through high school and college doing construction and landscaping. The hours are long, the work hard, but the pay is decent. I have debt, but it's not excessive in comparison to others I know. Another wise move is to get married. Having one person who works while the other goes to school equals little or no more debt. But, I realize that is not something you can actually plan for.

I'm into econ, so the answer is... it depends.
Mostly on what you are studying and how much you can get paid for what you are learning.
If you go to school and learn a lot of complex mathematics, statistics and analytical tools, then you have basically purchased a high-end trade. The payoffs for that kind of knowledge are substantial, and given the low interest rates of student loans and likelihood of inflation in the future, student loans are a bargain.
But if you spend $30K+ a year reading Shakespeare, Jung, Schama, or Rawls, well then you've blown a lot of cash on what my friend Will Hunting once said you could get for $2.10 in late fees at the public library.
Now how you like 'em apples?
Nathanael Snow

I was going to add to my comment, and now in response to jurisnaturalist's---the economics of the issue are black and white, for sure. But what about the aspect of calling? That's a tough one for people to wrestle with, especially young high-school/college kids. Is it worth the financial risk to pursue what you feel called to do?

Although I was blessed to do the 4-year school bit, I would echo Bike Bubba's assessment.

Even if one went straight to working, I would still recommend taking a class or two on the side (at night). That way progress was still being made.

My concern with blowing off school all together is momentum. It's hard to get it back if you take much of a hiatus.

Jake the answer to your "calling" question is simply, NO!

BTW, i hope you arent teaching high school/ college kids to pursue some sort of "calling". That which is unknown but will be revealed in time is the worst thing anyone could tell a person in that age group. B/c then every (usually poor) financial decision (along with tons of others) all fall under the umbrella of some sort of calling.
Plus those that never "feel" called will wonder whats wrong with them or are in waiting for that "calling" day to arrive, only to sit around and become less active in pursuing anything less it be the wrong "calling".

Bottom line, God doesnt "call" anyone into debt. You may incure it but then when it comes time to repay it, and you're a youth pastor, well... all your spare time will be spent saying," Would you like fries with that?" for a damn long time.

STork, I wasn't definitively stating that the issue of calling must have a bearing on whether or not we choose to go to school. I was just raising the question.

And I'm curious, how exactly do you define calling? It's a little ambiguous to me what you mean by the word.

I'm glad I went to a private institution, but the debt does suck. so I'll be counseling my kids to strongly consider a quality public school unless they get crazy scholarships or something.

Another alternative for American students is to pursue post-secondary education in Canada, as an example. Some of the public universities, such as the University of Toronto and McGill University are excellent schools, and as there are more government subsidies for education, the cost is much more affordable. There are also a number of very good Christian institutions (such as Regent College in Vancouver). Student visas are easy to acquire, and as far as I know, it is now possible for American students to work in Canada without additional paperwork while they are studying there.

My wife is from Michigan, but chose to go to school in Ontario. At the time (2003) it worked in her favor, as the exchange rate heavily favored Americans. Her first three years were very inexpensive. Only in her last year as the US dollar began its decline in value did it become more expensive (though by comparison, still quite inexpensive). Anyway, just to throw that out there---not just because I'm Canadian, but for something to chew on.

Hmm, yes maybe not taking debt in the short term is good but the long term consequences may be harsh. The question that needs to be ask is why in the hell do parents think that when their child turns 18 they magically know how to use debt? Everything has been given to them and the parents are asking them to take a drastic lifestyle reduction? Then you hear the parent say but I did it, who the hell cares you where not rich before then ask to spend the next four years living like popper for some future benefit that may be 5-10 years off.

So what you see is students running up massive amounts of debt to keep their lifestyle going, with little regard on how to pay it in the future. Why should they care the future is so damn cloudy all they can see is for the next 4-8 years they can live off loans and have a fun life. Many then choice degrees that do not provide the post college salaries to live comfortably and pay of the loans.

Then God help the person who decides to not take on debt and not attend college. If if they have the competence level to work a specific job, not having a degree is a black mark against them compared to someone else who has that beloved degree. Our society puts so much value on college, ever look at Government jobs most require Masters and some even Ph.Ds(to be a CIO, what the hell?). At this point it is no longer rational you take on the debt because you have to.

Then you have rich kids like me whose school is paid for. So we get to get the degree and come out debt free. If our parents are any bit involved in our life we are taught how the system really works, instead of how academia proposes. End result we stay rich. Also we are taught now to use leverage to our advantage instead of detriment.

We cannot serve two masters at once, either you live to advance God's kingdom or you live to advance yourself alone. Maybe the school debt is used to advance the Kingdom in a way that you other wise could not have as effectively, but if it is to live comfortable that is an idol. Maybe just maybe you need to let that idol die. That is a ton to ask of a modern 18 year old.

I had no idea what I wanted to do either when entering or leaving college. It actually took me about 4 years of work after college before I figured out what the best use of my gifts is. I definitely would not have discovered it unless I had seriously considered my strengths and weaknesses in light of ACTUAL work experience.

During those 4 years, I paid off my college debt, so it turned out okay. That only happened because I had marketable skills. Kids should not be taught to "find themselves" in college, or any somesuch. They should be looking for skills that will prove USEFUL somewhere. This may not hold true at a place like Yale or whatever, where art history majors get investment banking jobs, but it should be true everywhere else.

Debt should be a means to an end. If your expected end result is a low-paying job, then fine - don't take on debt. If your expected result is a high-paying engineering job, then you can take on more. Either way, it's important to have a good grip on what individual skills one has to offer, and how much one can reasonably expect to earn right after college. High schools need to do a better job of helping kids figure out their strengths.

Jake u r Canadian? Can you even post on this blog? Ha ha jk

Seriously, you raise a great ques about the definition of calling. I took ur use of it in the general sense. A) we are all born the same
b) then something along the path of life, other than circumstances (usually identified as the HS or Christ or God), compels us to pursue something that, no matter what our (personal) desires, one is compelled to pursue X. Other than that, "calling" per say, is an ambiguous term. You are 100% right in wanting the def of calling. I do too :)

I would just say if the HS/CHrist/God were to call someone to something/anything, and that something was to pursue X and incur debt, I would never question/obect to that. I would say however, that certain callings are descriptive, and one could say so, but those experiences should never b prescriptive or indicative of a theological norm or whatev norm. thats it

Well, Anthony hasn't blocked me yet, so I guess my being nationality isn't part of the criterion for commenting here. :)

But thanks for the clarification, STork. I guess we talked past each other, because what I meant by calling was what you indicated by the leading of the Spirit. That calling is not something we pursue on a whim, but only after (much) prayerful consideration in conjunction with spending lots of time in the Word, and seeking wisdom and guidance from spiritual mentors.

Ha ha :)

A couple of years ago the government released a report citing the average earning difference between those with and without a Bachelor's degree to be about $23,000 per year - $23,000! If the "I should not have gone to college" option sounds good, then you could subtract $23,000 from your salary for the next 2.5 years and put it towards paying down your debt. At the end of that time you will have no debt, a clear understanding that living on $23,000 LESS per year is a bad idea, and a deep thankfulness that you can live the rest of your life without an artificial limit placed on what you can earn.

Honestly, we (in our ministry context) frequently work with bright and talented people who decided not to go to college. Now they "decide" to work at Starbucks for $8/hour or perhaps score something in the $12-15/hr range somewhere else. Even at $15/hour it is tough to raise a family - at least in the city. The issue of "call" aside - low paying jobs are rarely deeply satisfying, especially since you are out of options.

Debt is hard and we could probably make wiser decisions (such as: don't go to a private college and become a psychology major like I did). However, the reality is a college degree opens doors that are simply shut to those without one - and eventually it pays for itself.

I think that far, far too much emphasis has been placed on everyone going to college. I think many students go to college because they don't know what else to do, and everyone always says that college is a good thing. Don't me wrong, I'm a huge supporter of education. BUT, not everyone needs a four year degree...especially in a system as unbalanced as our current higher ed system that leaves you with huge debts. And frankly, I'd like to know how the government comes up with those statistics, Roger. I know plenty of people with Bachelor's and Master's degrees who hardly make over $23,000...it all depends on where the Lord places you to serve.

I think there is much that can be changed all the way through the system. For example, I think it's fairly ridiculous for the majority of jobs to require a college degree. The intelligence and teachability and passion of an applicant is worth far more than whether or not he sat in a desk for four years. As far as from the student's perspective, I would have to echo Jake. Working through the summers through high school and college is a great way to help alleviate the future debt. Apply for every grant and scholarship you can. And taking a year off between high school and college to work is never a bad idea.

Frankly, it's appalling that a college education costs so much. But that's a discussion for another post.

Dramaturge puts it well; most of the difference, as far as I can tell, is in the "skilled trades" that have been absorbed by the universities; law, medicine, engineering, and such. What passes for liberal arts today, not so much.

It turns out that truck drivers, machinists, and other skilled tradesmen can earn very good livings without going to college.

Little more complex than the "go to college or be poor" that I was taught, though Roger is certainly correct that lots of HR departments are setting rules that you can't get to any decent job without a degree.

Yup, Mr. Gates, Mr. Jobs, and Mr. Wozniak, you really have nothing to contribute in technology until you get your degree. Get out of here, Mr. Edison!

Sigh.

Jake,

So happy to see another Canadian posting on this blog! I would also throw Redeemer University in Ancaster, Ontario out there as another excellent Christian school in Canada - though tuition there is high. It's actually kind of acting as a feeder school for Covenant here in St. Louis right now.

Yeah, I know. I'm a graduate of Redeemer. :)

Interesting article. Your point about the high wages in secular vs. ministry work is interesting, because it extends not just to debt, but just more generally to the differences in the two labor markets. Since the 1960s, the real wages of college educated workers has risen substantially. The real wages of high school educated workers has been flat or even fallen. This is what we mean by the divergence in incomes - the growing inequality has been on the dimension of skill for many decades. Within pastoral ministry, which requires extensive education (M.Div. usually requires B.A/B.S.), though, the wage returns have not probably kept up with pastor's next best alternatives. So these higher wages in the "real world" as you call it means it's gotten more expensive to be a pastor. THat's independent, mind you, of taking out loans. I'm talking just about the opportunity costs.

So I wonder who ends up leaving ministry for the real world because of the financial reward. Does the average pastor improve or get worse as those people leave for higher wages? That's an empirical question, but maybe we end up with a higher quality stock of pastors. Maybe the worst pastors are the ones who leave. By definition, a person who would abandon their life's calling for cheese doesn't seem like he was really in the right job to begin with. So if the worst pastors do get poached out of the market by those higher wages, the real question is whether our denominations can do with fewer pastors. The only group I know who has a true shortage of pulpit supply is the Catholic church. Protestants, though, seem to be doing okay, empirically (not anecdotally).

I would take exception to your insinuation that you shouldn't borrow to pay for school. I think you lack the objectivity to analyze this correctly because of your own situation, which is understandable. But you should always borrow if the benefits from borrowing are greater than the costs. If the marginal increase in your expected annual wage from schooling is higher relative to what you owe per year in interest, then you should do it. Otherwise, you shouldn't do it. Some investments are probably going to be a nobrainer. Majors like petroleum engineering, for instance, is getting paid wads of cash these days with the price of oil rising as much as it is. Finance is also still paying well. Theology and graduate training in the humanities, though - to make those work is a true gamble. Theology and the humanities is dominated by a few schools that do well, and even there only a few people in the few schools. Those schools fill in every position in academia all the way down, and if you didn't graduate from one of those top schools, you're going to have trouble finding a job. So for theology or humanities graduate training, I think there you have to do everything you can to get the training paid for you, since you most likely will not see any return in terms of a much higher wage.

Of course, maybe our denomination (PCA) is also to blame. Why do we make young men get 3 years of schooling on top of the 4-5 years of schooling they got in undergrad? From my understanding, that is uncommon in other Protestant denominations. For instance, pentecostal or charismatic denominations. Maybe we should think about relaxing these educational requirements. Of course, doing that would also mean reducing the demand for theologians, since about the only way a theologian can support himself is by getting a post at a seminary.

An option that I haven't heard mentioned yet (and that I wish I'd taken advantage of) is entering the military after high school. This allows an 18-year-old 3-4 years to mature, travel, learn a pliable trade, and/or fund a college education via the G.I. Bill. Or, if you decided to stay in the military, you can retire after 20 years with 50% of your salary guaranteed for the rest of your life or after 30 years with 75% of your salary. Either option (staying in the military or using it to fund college) is more financially sound than incurring loads of debt on a degree that may more may not prove useful.

Sorry, that last sentence should read, "may or may not prove useful."