How can I decide whether do a masters even if I have go into debt after doing it?
What should I do? Weigh your options and decide which education investment lines up better with your goals. Some of the costs from pursuing a degree at the more reputable university may include: However there are probably some benefits to pursuing a degree at this university: You will know best which of these apply to you in addition to any pros or cons not mentioned. You need to evaluate each one in order to make a decision. Strictly from an ROI perspective, this is likely very dependent on your field.  Some masters degrees (quant finance, business, engineering) will be well worth the debt, since a degree from the right university will yield a respectable ROI, whereas other degrees/fields (philosophy, fine arts, etc) will be basically a waste of money. Regardless of the field you can input your information into an ROI calculator and see what you get.  I typically err on the side of using the lowest average reported salary for the degree programs you're considering (self reported salary data is notoriously inflated). I did some research and I found a very interesting article that had exactly my case as an example ( person has an undergrad from a nice University in the relative field and wants to do a masters to get a job in a high tech company). Here is the source. Consider “Susan:” She has an undergraduate degree from the University   of Washington in Computer Science, and is considering applying to a   master’s program at UW or an equivalent program. She’s hoping   afterwards to land a job at a top tech company. So far, she’s only   been able to get jobs with startups and smaller-name companies. A master’s degree probably wouldn’t make sense for Susan. It might   help her to land a job at a top tech company, but she could also do   that by working at a startup for a year or two and spending some time   developing her skill set through personal projects. If she did it that   way, she’d probably be a lot richer in the end.
"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart.  But let's take it further.  Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves.  These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability.  Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream.  They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price.  Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs.  Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates.  A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my   question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that   they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a   percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact   that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the ""Bobs"". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors.  The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket.  A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares.  Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying ""book value"" per share." Personal finance is a fairly broad area.  Which part might you be starting with? From the very basics, make sure you understand your current cashflow: are you bank balances going up or down?  Next, make a budget.  There's plenty of information to get started here, and it doesn't require a fancy piece of software.  This will make sure you have a deeper understanding of where your money is going, and what is it being saved for.  Is it just piling up, or is it allocated for specific purchases (i.e. that new car, house, college tuition, retirement, or even a vacation or a rainy day)? As part of the budgeting/cashflow exercise, make sure you have any outstanding debts covered.  Are your credit card balances under control?  Do you have other outstanding loans (education, auto, mortgage, other)?  Normally, you'd address these in order from highest to lowest interest rate. Your budget should address any immediate mandatory expenses (rent, utilities, food) and long term existing debts.  Then comes discretionary spending and savings (especially until you have a decent emergency fund).  How much can you afford to spend on discretionary purchases?  How much do you want to be able to spend?  If the want is greater than the can, what steps can you take to rememdy that? With savings you can have a whole new set of planning to consider.  How much do you leave in the bank?  Do you keep some amount in a CD ladder?  How much goes into retirement savings accounts (401k, Roth vs. Traditional IRA), college savings accounts, or a plain brokerage account?  How do you balance your overall portfolio (there is a wealth of information on portfolio management)?  What level of risk are you comfortable with?  What level of risk should you consider, given your age and goals?  How involved do you want to be with your portfolio, or do you want someone else to manage it? Silver Dragon's answer contains some good starting points for portfolio management and investing.  Definitely spend some time learning the basics of investing and portfolio management even if you decide to solicit professional expertise; understanding what they're doing can help to determine earlier whether your interests are being treated as a priority. I would go to the bank and just express the concern that the check sent to you might not fully clear. You don't want to spend it until you're sure it cleared. I'd ask for a manager to tell you when it will clear, then confirm after that date that it's cleared, with the same guy.  Perhaps someone in the industry can explain how long the bank has before deciding the check is bad. 10 days? 2 weeks? Really, it should either clear or bounce by the second night.  I'd not risk doing this for anyone. Anyone I know personally can cash their own check, and I'd not get involved with anyone I don't know on a financial matter like this. EDIT - See Littleadv comment below. Good checks clear fast, a forged check has time for the victim to go to the bank and challenge the signature and cashing of the check. The victim can have 60 days to do this. That's the issue, I am wrong, the bank manager couldn't confirm the check was good so soon. Sorry for your loss. I am not a lawyer and this isn;t legal advice -- which I am not licensed to give. But I've had to deal with some debt situations of my own. I think the worst case scenario is the creditor can get a judgment, but that won't be against you unless you were a co-signor. The collectors are going to prey on your decency to make you feel like you should pay it, but you are under no legal obligation to do so.  If they file in court and then win a judgment, they may be able to collect on the assets of the estate. You mention no money but you mention a house. That is an asset with value, and putting it in your name isn't going to do much. You should see a lawyer on this, because it seems logical that they could collect on the value of the house at the time of the death, and even if it was willed to you it can still be attacked to pay the debt.  Here is a good write-up on NJ death and debt and whether it can be inherited by the adult children: https://www.atrbklaw.com/bankruptcy-resources/83-articles/103-can-you-inherit-your-dead-parent-s-debts Depending on how marketable your degree is, in the long run you may be better aquiring some student debt rather than slowing down your studies. For example finishing finance, medicine, or engineering a year later would mean one less year of your life that you are earning substantial income.  The only situation where slowing down your studies is of benefit is if your savings plus interest would be greater than the income you are giving up by taking longer. Live frugally, take whatever work you can without hurting your studies, don't stress if you can't get this to balance perfectly. I speak from experience on this.  Screwing around with working through school cost me 2.5 years of earning potential ($120,000+). well you are applying your own personal experience and saying it isn't worth it... at 40k debt that's an amount I believe most could swallow vs going to Europe AND to a specific degree that isn't recognized in the US. Yeah I agree... not really worth it... TO YOU.  I'm talking about the people out there with 100/200k in debt that could go for degrees that you can bring back to the US. Business, maths, even medicine. I'm not going to waste my time doing research for you but education in Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark (?) and Finland is free. All else being equal, you could probably go abroad and save yourself 40k to invest in whatever you want. But of course, owing thousands of dollars out of school is so ingrained in the US culture that it became the status quo. One big factor that no one has mentioned yet is whether you believe in a deflationary or inflationary future. Right now, we are leaning towards a deflationary environment so it makes sense to pay off more of the debt. (If you make just one extra payment a year, you will have paid off your house 7 years early). However, should this change (depending on government and central bank policy) you may be better off putting down the very minimum.  In a year or three from now, you should have a clearer picture. In the meanwhile, here is a recent Business Week article discussing both sides of the argument. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_28/b4186004424615.htm "This does not seem, to me, to be a very good indication regarding the   risk of the person not paying their balances off. If you do not have a source of income then how are you going to repay your debt.  Not to mention there is recource for creditors to garnish wages.  That is not possible if you have no income.  The risk assessment is about the ability of the creditor to recover any moneys loaned and costs and still make a profit. For example, students have their parents pay them some pocket money to   cover for expenses, or a person might be working sporadically on   consulting gigs that do not have a fixed monthly or yearly component. Most credit card companies that are willing to issue to college students will allow you to include money from your parents in your income.  Credit card companies are looking for customers that will carry a balance and incur fees but be able to pay them.  These companies do not make money off of fees and interest that they do not collect.  As such, sporatic work increases risk. Is it possible for people to get approved for unsecured credit cards   if they don't hold (or have not held for some time) a job at the time   of application? I was able to while I was in college.  Though I did have a part time job.  If you can show that you have the ability to pay you can usually get a credit card if you do not have bad credit.  It will probably be high interest and have alot of fees some of them you will have to pay upfront.  But what you probably mean to ask is ""Is it possible to get a no cost unsecured credit card with out a reliable source of income?""  The answer to that is: probably not.  Even the ones that look like they are free probably have hidden fees."