Which graduate student loans are preferable?
Of course, the situation for each student will vary widely so you'll have to dig deep on your own to know what is the best choice for your situation. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, the best choice would be to use the Unsubsidized Stafford loan to finance graduate school if you need to resort to loans. The major benefits to the Unsubsidized Stafford are the following: You'll be forced to consider other loan types due to the Unsubsidized Stafford loan's established limits on how much you can borrow per year and in aggregate. The borrowing limits are also adjustable down by your institution. The PLUS loan is a fallback loan program designed to be your last resort. The program was created as a way for parents to borrow money for their college attending children when all other forms of financing have been exhausted. As a result you have the following major disadvantages to using the PLUS loan: You do have the bonus of being able to borrow up to 100% of your educational costs without any limits per year or in aggregate. The major benefit of keeping your loans in the Direct Loan program is predictability. Many private student loans are variable interest rate loans which can result in higher payments during the course of the loan. Private loans are also not eligible for government loan forgiveness programs, such as for working in a non-profit for 10 years. All new loans must be originated from the direct loan program. In most cases, the Stafford loan is better, as the rate is lower (6.8% vs. 7.9% for the PLUS loan). There aren't many viable alternatives for most people.  Private student loans exist, but carry significantly higher rates and worse payment terms. The exceptions are programs that exist for professions like medicine and dentistry. Credit cards usually carry higher rates and limited credit lines, but you have the option of negotiating the balance down or declaring bankruptcy to discharge the debt if you are unable to repay.
&gt; I'm not so sure that performance measurement of students is all that difficult  You assume that student performance is a good proxy for teacher performance. One of the bigger influences on student performance is parent engagement (particularly the parent engagement that happens prior to school age, but also the engagement once they're in school). Often these differences run along socioeconomic lines, and schools are generally divided on neighborhood lines with students attending the school closest to their home.  If you judge based on student performance, you'll likely assume that the teachers in the richer neighborhoods are better (students perform better on standardized tests, students are more likely to graduate high school and even go on to college, etc). The fact is, there's a lot of good teachers who take the hard jobs because even a little improvement can go a long way. Put those same teachers in the richer neighborhoods and you might judge things differently. maybe everyone who has responded needs to look closer at the income base repayment plan for student loans. What this means is he payment does not even cover his interest rate so each month he makes his payment the loan grows, does not decrease. This is not a simple interest loan which is irritating because car dealerships do not even use a non-simple interest loan any longer. So, well your suggestions are well intended what is your suggestion now knowing that his monthly payments is not reducing his loan but actually his loan is growing exponentially each month. I also like the comment where the average student loan is $30,000, I would like to know in what state that is. That may work for a community college or a student who is reliant on parents to supplement their income so they can go to classes, however for someone who is working and going to school that person must opt out for night classes and online classes which definitely increases the cost of your classes. Right now the cost per credit hour is in the $550- 585 range. We don't have all the relevant numbers to give you the perfect answer. Knowing your income is pretty important for this question, but, since you have 200K in student loans, I'm going to guess (and hope) you probably make more than 80K/yr which is the cutoff for deducting student loan interest. (It starts phasing out once you make over 65K and fully phases out at 80K, or 160K if you're married.) Even if you make less than 65K, you can only deduct a max of 2500/yr in student loan interest and you'll be maxing that out for at least the next 4 years. So, my take is: Throw it at the student loan. Your mortgage interest is (probably) fully deductible, which means your mortgage interest rate is effectively reduced by your tax bracket. E.g. if you are in the 28% tax bracket a 4% mortgage rate would effectively become 2.88%. Outside of that, if you were to make minimum payments on your mortgage and student loans starting now, as soon as your student loan is paid off I would start making that same student loan payment amount towards your mortgage. This way you won't have any change in cash flow, but it will significantly lower the term of your mortgage. (Which is what would happen if you choose to pay down the mortgage now, but then you don't get the tax advantage on the difference.) Yep!  The education industry has finally run into the brick wall.  They have been selling snake oil for years.  Get at Bachelors Degree and you will instantly get a great paying job.  Uh, so we crank out 5,000% more communication degrees than are needed in the real world.  The university administrators get their big fat bonuses and the port college graduate gets to find a way to payback their enormous debt.   A study came out in the 80's which identified that approximately 10% of high school graduates should go onto college with about 40% graduation rate.  The education industry has cranked the acceptance to around 75% of high school graduates with a graduation rate under 30% and over 50% of those graduating can't find jobs in their field.  I met mechanical engineer, a mathematician and a social work in the past week.  They all work at Target and trying to pay off their loans. "Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan.  Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that ""which loan to pay first?"" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the ""best"" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen." "I think you're right that from a pure ""expected future value"" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate." Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments...  EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest)  for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage: Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) have different end of term dates but by less than a month.  Both have summer sessions, but most students do not stay over the summer.  You can rent over the summer, but prices fall by a lot.  Thirty to forty thousand students leave over the summer between the two.  Only ten to twenty thousand remain throughout the year and not all of those are in Oakland (the neighborhood in Pittsburgh where the universities are located).  So many of the landlords in Oakland have the same problem.  Your competitors will cut their rates to try to get some rent for the summer months.   This also means that you have to handle eight, nine, and three month leases rather than year long and certainly not multiyear leases.  You're right that you don't have to buy the latest appliances or the best finishes, but you still have to replace broken windows and doors.  Also, the appliances and plumbing need to mostly work.  The furnace needs to produce heat and distribute it.  If there is mold or mildew, you will have to take care of it.  You can't rely on the students doing so.  So you have to thoroughly clean the premises between tenants.   Students may leave over winter break.  If there are problems, the pipes may freeze and burst, etc.  Since they're not there, they won't let you know when things break.   Students drop out during the term and move out.  You probably won't be able to replace them when that happens.  If you have three people in two bedrooms, two of them may be in a romantic relationship.  Romantic relationships among twenty-year olds end frequently.  Your three people drops back to two.  Your recourse in that case is to evict the remaining tenants and sue for breach of contract.  But if you do that, you may not replace the tenants until a new term starts.  Better might be to sue the one who left and accept the lower rent from the other two.  But you likely won't get the entire rent amount for the remainder of the lease.  Suing an impoverished student is not the road to riches.   Pittsburgh is expected to have a 6.1% increase in house prices which almost all of it is going to be pure profit. I don't know specifically about Pittsburgh, but in the national market, housing prices are about where they were in 2004.  Prices were flat to increasing from 2004 to 2007 and then fell sharply from 2007 to 2009, were flat to decreasing from 2009 to 2012, and have increased the last few years.  Price to rent ratios are as high now as in 2003 and higher than they were the twenty years before that.  Maybe prices do increase.  Or maybe we hit a new 20% decrease.  I would not rely on this for profit.  It's great if you get it, but unreliable.   I wouldn't rely on estimates for middle class homes to apply to what are essentially slum apartments.  A 6% average may be a 15% increase in one place and a 3% decrease in another.  The nice homes with the new appliances and the fancy finishes may get the 15% increase.  The rundown houses in a block where students party past 2 AM may get no increase.   Both the city of Pittsburgh and the county of Allegheny charge property taxes.  Schools and libraries charge separate taxes.  The city provides a worksheet that estimates $2860 in taxes on a $125,000 property.  It doesn't sound like you would be eligible for homestead or senior tax relief.  Realtors should be able to tell you the current assessment and taxes on the properties that they are selling you.   You should be able to call a local insurance agent to find out what kinds of insurance are available to landlords.  There is also renter's insurance which is paid by the tenant.  Some landlords require that tenants show proof of insurance before renting.  Not sure how common that is in student housing.