That's 50% increase in gross income, not net income.

Isn't that a feature, not a problem? The education institution has a strong incentive to actually improve the earning potential of its graduates. This is in contrast to institutions that get paid upfront, which have no such incentive. Once you've forked over the tuition they're getting paid regardless of how well its graduates do in the workplace.

I think the learning here is that institutions offering ISAs need to be more selective with enrollment.

For reference, my wife worked at a restaurant during undergrad, stayed with her parents, and didn't have much scholarship money. She paid about $40K ($30K in loans, $10K in money from her restaurant and tutoring gigs. We paid off the loans with signing bonuses before they accrued any interest). Again, for FOUR YEARS of education at a full university. Why does that matter? Well, she had three majors in three very different subjects, any one of which enables a lucrative career and the combination of which makes her extraordinarily valuable.

Sorry if this comes off as rude, but I can't even begin to imagine thinking that $40K for 6 months of instruction in white collar commodity labor is a good deal.

And yeah, bragging about how cool your triple-major wife is while sneering at those of us from a lower class background where making it to "white collar commodity" is a big step up is pretty damn rude.

She wasn't in suspended animation for four years. She received four years of a valuable service.

> us from a lower class background

She grew up in a single parent household, was the first person in her family to receive a college degree, and paid rent (actually, started helping with household expenses in high school).

So if the same degree had taken eight years, would that make it more valuable? You're still talking about delaying her life for those years.

I don't know enough to comment about how much different course providers are teaching, but if they really were managing to teach you the same things as a four-year degree in six months, that would surely make it more valuable, not less.

The time value of money is powerful, but specialization in unique intersections of skills entails earning power. The place where that intersection lies on a graph will be different for each person and some of it comes down to luck.

Do PhDs generally have positive expected value? Not really. Deep learning PhDs 10 years ago? Ask a retired 30 something.

In her case, 8 years would probably still have been worth it, from a purely monetary perspective, even assuming disciplined saving and excellent returns on savings during those first 7.5 years.

You're still talking about delaying her life for those years.

In what sense? She worked. She played. She loved. She got progressively better paying and opportunity-creating part-time jobs (aka internships). She learned. Etc.

There's a lot of negative things you can say about college, but "delaying life" definitely isn't one of them if you're doing things right.

I don't know enough to comment about how much different course providers are teaching, but if they really were managing to teach you the same things as a four-year degree in six months, that would surely make it more valuable, not less.

If you only get out of 4 years of education what you could have learned in 6 months, then yes. And I have no doubt that happens.

But if I could choose between e.g. $30K for a high quality CS+Bio+Finance BS or $30K for a high quality 6 month program in one of those, the choice is sort of obvious for me. The opportunity cost of the 3 years is more than worth the amortized increase in specialization (== earning potential) and risk mitigation over a 30+ year career.

I'm proud if what my daughter achieved in so little time.

Time will tell how things work out for both.

So, seems like she kept around $12.5K of the $20K (less if she’s in a state that taxes income), which is an improvement to her life, but is less than +50% increase in her pocket.

Yes.