Why pay all of kids' college?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the "skin in the game" arguments.

A college student's skin in the game is the time and effort they put into studying and learning and obtaining their degree.

Most 18 yr olds could not feasibly contribute more than a few thousand dollars and a work study job toward their college education anyway, which even for an in-state college would be nothing close to the total cost.

So when parents talk about forcing their kids to self-fund all or a portion of college, even if the parents can afford to pay for it, generally what they are talking about is having their kid take out large loans. This is incredibly irresponsible if you actually have the means to pay for it -- you're just sign your kid up for a usurious student loan system.

It's one thing to say "we can only afford to send you to XYZ public colleges, if you want to go somewhere else you will need to take out loans for the balance." That's reasonable. It's something else entirely to insist that an 18 year old be responsible for the high price of a college education simply on principle.


Parents should pay if they can afford it.

However, in dcumland a kid can contribute $10k per year easily. Work during breaks
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the "skin in the game" arguments.

A college student's skin in the game is the time and effort they put into studying and learning and obtaining their degree.

Most 18 yr olds could not feasibly contribute more than a few thousand dollars and a work study job toward their college education anyway, which even for an in-state college would be nothing close to the total cost.


If a kid is heading to college, you as a parent should be able to explain the concept of debt and loans and interest. Show them how much the loans will be and for how long, create a budget for living in a 1 bedroom apartment in your area, and all costs associated with being and adult. All 18yo should be capable of understanding that
So when parents talk about forcing their kids to self-fund all or a portion of college, even if the parents can afford to pay for it, generally what they are talking about is having their kid take out large loans. This is incredibly irresponsible if you actually have the means to pay for it -- you're just sign your kid up for a usurious student loan system.

It's one thing to say "we can only afford to send you to XYZ public colleges, if you want to go somewhere else you will need to take out loans for the balance." That's reasonable. It's something else entirely to insist that an 18 year old be responsible for the high price of a college education simply on principle.


Not to mention it’s impossible for a teenager to even comprehend $10,000-30,000 in loans plus interest. For ‘skin in the game’ to work a person would have to have the life experience to realize how hard it is to earn the principal, plus pay all of their bills, and how usury interest can take over your life. Kids have none of that life experience to truly grasp the debt.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have zero problems if people don't pay for their kids college and tell them to take loans.

I will continue to pay for my kids and give them all advantages that I can. Others not paying for their kids makes my kids more competitive in the long run.


DP. +1. And I see this touched a nerve. But, it is true. Paying for your kid's college gives them a huge leg up in life. Having your education funded doesn't mean you'll have less grit and determination - it means you can come out of school ready to conquer the world, free of the noose of debt around your neck. Less debt can mean more income to do things that can contribute to your success - like...living in a nicer place. Driving a nicer car. Joining a club and networking there. And on and on. Do not fool yourself. Those who fully fund their children's education are giving them a tremendous advantage.


I am paying for my kids education because I can…but I don’t think it gives them any real advantages on its own. Nobody cares what car you drive as a 21 year old…and honestly, if your kid is actually getting a decent first job they are likely in a metro where you wouldn’t even have a car. I also am not aware of any “clubs” to which you refer…curious as an example.

Being wealthy and connected will give your kids advantages…but let’s say you are just a mid level govt employee or worker bee that inherited $500k and can pay for college…just paying for college doesn’t much confer many advantages.

I think you are conflating wealth and connections (which always help) with the act of paying for college.

The noose of loans may strangle some…but it also drives others to rip your kid’s head off…so I tell my kid to stay sharp.


Not having loans or a car payment is HUGE right out of college!

My kid is maxing their Roth and 401k at 22+ and saving. Those with loans and car payments are paying $800+ towards that instead. My kid will have he equivalent of $2m for retirement by time they are 30. Their friends won’t have saved much at all as they pay off $20-30k in loans and pay for their first cars


How is your kids getting to $2m by 30? I had all those advantages, a very good job, and a high savings rate, and I didn't come close to $2m by 30.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have zero problems if people don't pay for their kids college and tell them to take loans.

I will continue to pay for my kids and give them all advantages that I can. Others not paying for their kids makes my kids more competitive in the long run.


DP. +1. And I see this touched a nerve. But, it is true. Paying for your kid's college gives them a huge leg up in life. Having your education funded doesn't mean you'll have less grit and determination - it means you can come out of school ready to conquer the world, free of the noose of debt around your neck. Less debt can mean more income to do things that can contribute to your success - like...living in a nicer place. Driving a nicer car. Joining a club and networking there. And on and on. Do not fool yourself. Those who fully fund their children's education are giving them a tremendous advantage.


I am paying for my kids education because I can…but I don’t think it gives them any real advantages on its own. Nobody cares what car you drive as a 21 year old…and honestly, if your kid is actually getting a decent first job they are likely in a metro where you wouldn’t even have a car. I also am not aware of any “clubs” to which you refer…curious as an example.

Being wealthy and connected will give your kids advantages…but let’s say you are just a mid level govt employee or worker bee that inherited $500k and can pay for college…just paying for college doesn’t much confer many advantages.

I think you are conflating wealth and connections (which always help) with the act of paying for college.

The noose of loans may strangle some…but it also drives others to rip your kid’s head off…so I tell my kid to stay sharp.


Not having loans or a car payment is HUGE right out of college!

My kid is maxing their Roth and 401k at 22+ and saving. Those with loans and car payments are paying $800+ towards that instead. My kid will have he equivalent of $2m for retirement by time they are 30. Their friends won’t have saved much at all as they pay off $20-30k in loans and pay for their first cars


How is your kids getting to $2m by 30? I had all those advantages, a very good job, and a high savings rate, and I didn't come close to $2m by 30.


They will have enough at 30 so that it will grow to $2m by age 65.

Meaning that as they get married, start a family they don’t have to massively save for retirement and can focus on their family in the 30s. Huge advantage
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Paying 100% of your kids’ college is a DMV thing. I’m from PA and it’s not the expectation. None of my siblings gs helped their kids through college.

For me, I agree on skin in the game. And I think that a lot of college is a waste of money. If your kid needs a specialized program then expensive might be necessary. But most are fine with community college and a state university. So that’s what I’m willing to pay. Beyond that, they are on their own.


I did not grow up in the DMV and my parents (who never went to college) paid for my in state college tuition and like 75% of grad school.

They had 1 kid and really wanted me to have more opportunities than them so they pinched pennies and saved from the time I was born, and my dad worked longer than he would have otherwise I’m sure. Because of education, my parents who grew up working class were able to have a child who is now UMC in the DC area signing their kids up for bougie camps and travel sports.

Don’t pay for college for your kids if you don’t want to/can’t, but I am so grateful my parents did this for me. And I don’t think the idea of paying is just a DC area thing.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have zero problems if people don't pay for their kids college and tell them to take loans.

I will continue to pay for my kids and give them all advantages that I can. Others not paying for their kids makes my kids more competitive in the long run.


DP. +1. And I see this touched a nerve. But, it is true. Paying for your kid's college gives them a huge leg up in life. Having your education funded doesn't mean you'll have less grit and determination - it means you can come out of school ready to conquer the world, free of the noose of debt around your neck. Less debt can mean more income to do things that can contribute to your success - like...living in a nicer place. Driving a nicer car. Joining a club and networking there. And on and on. Do not fool yourself. Those who fully fund their children's education are giving them a tremendous advantage.


I am paying for my kids education because I can…but I don’t think it gives them any real advantages on its own. Nobody cares what car you drive as a 21 year old…and honestly, if your kid is actually getting a decent first job they are likely in a metro where you wouldn’t even have a car. I also am not aware of any “clubs” to which you refer…curious as an example.

Being wealthy and connected will give your kids advantages…but let’s say you are just a mid level govt employee or worker bee that inherited $500k and can pay for college…just paying for college doesn’t much confer many advantages.

I think you are conflating wealth and connections (which always help) with the act of paying for college.

The noose of loans may strangle some…but it also drives others to rip your kid’s head off…so I tell my kid to stay sharp.

I had loans (state school) and my husband (private) did not since he was lucky enough to have a college fund that covered all of (state) law school. It was life changing not to have loans on his end.

-he could choose where to work (government)
- when we got serious, he could take on the rent while I paid down my debt
- we bought a house in our late 20s since we could save (and hit the market in 2009)
- we could save for retirement and college for the kid aggressively
- I felt comfortable taking out loans for my own grad school — knowing that between my salary increase and lack of other loans they wouldn’t crush us

So for those saying “it doesn’t give a leg up…” living proof it certainly does.


I don’t consider working for the government any mark of great success.

I had loans and worked on Wall Street and was worth millions by 30. Paid the loans back by 23.

I am not giving my story as some proof that loans are good since I am paying for my kids.

However, your example isn’t really knocking it out of the park, and I don’t want my kids settling for some government job.


DP, but I absolutely think being able to choose a job you want vs slaving to a job you need to pay back loans is a leg up.

I am a fed (parents paid for college and law school). I graduated in 2009 when there was a recession. Some of my top of the class classmates had their big law offers deferred and ended up underemployed for a while. Some eventually bounced back onto track, but they *had* to stay on the big law treadmill to get out of their debt. Then when kids came along or they didn’t make partner, they had to suddenly downshift into something like government work.

So they may end up at the same place as me, but I pay a lot less toward my pension and have more years toward retirement.

Some stayed on the big law track and are successful by financial measures, but there’s an element of golden handcuffs they feel they can’t walk away from, and it causes a lot of internal stress.

I think freedom to make life choices without having to run on a treadmill to keep up with debt is a blessing.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have zero problems if people don't pay for their kids college and tell them to take loans.

I will continue to pay for my kids and give them all advantages that I can. Others not paying for their kids makes my kids more competitive in the long run.


DP. +1. And I see this touched a nerve. But, it is true. Paying for your kid's college gives them a huge leg up in life. Having your education funded doesn't mean you'll have less grit and determination - it means you can come out of school ready to conquer the world, free of the noose of debt around your neck. Less debt can mean more income to do things that can contribute to your success - like...living in a nicer place. Driving a nicer car. Joining a club and networking there. And on and on. Do not fool yourself. Those who fully fund their children's education are giving them a tremendous advantage.


I am paying for my kids education because I can…but I don’t think it gives them any real advantages on its own. Nobody cares what car you drive as a 21 year old…and honestly, if your kid is actually getting a decent first job they are likely in a metro where you wouldn’t even have a car. I also am not aware of any “clubs” to which you refer…curious as an example.

Being wealthy and connected will give your kids advantages…but let’s say you are just a mid level govt employee or worker bee that inherited $500k and can pay for college…just paying for college doesn’t much confer many advantages.

I think you are conflating wealth and connections (which always help) with the act of paying for college.

The noose of loans may strangle some…but it also drives others to rip your kid’s head off…so I tell my kid to stay sharp.


Girrrrl, you are really not thinking. Both my DH and I graduated without debt thanks to our parents. We met in college and lived together our 4th year. We bought our first home in Vienna Woods when we were 23 years old. We purchased our 2nd home at age 28. Not having debt, which allowed us to buy a home, has had a significant impact on our lives now that we are 46. We still own that same home as a rental. It brings us 42K/yr in rent and is valued at 1M and we have no mortgage on it.


I don’t understand the connection. I worked in NYC out of college and was given a promotion to London…last thing I would want is some crappy little house in Vienna Woods, so it is irrelevant if loans were involved or not.

Tell me that no loans gave you the freedom to start the next Tesla…which was founded by someone with $100k of student loans (of course those were paid off two startups prior by Elon Musk).



Tell me that having student loans is going to give you the freedom to start the next Tesla.

I mean come on, most people regardless of loan status aren’t starting multi million dollar companies and that is a stupid measure of success because most people don’t even want to do that.

And the reason Elon Musk’s student loan story is notable is because for everyone one of him there are many more company founders who were given family money.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have zero problems if people don't pay for their kids college and tell them to take loans.

I will continue to pay for my kids and give them all advantages that I can. Others not paying for their kids makes my kids more competitive in the long run.


DP. +1. And I see this touched a nerve. But, it is true. Paying for your kid's college gives them a huge leg up in life. Having your education funded doesn't mean you'll have less grit and determination - it means you can come out of school ready to conquer the world, free of the noose of debt around your neck. Less debt can mean more income to do things that can contribute to your success - like...living in a nicer place. Driving a nicer car. Joining a club and networking there. And on and on. Do not fool yourself. Those who fully fund their children's education are giving them a tremendous advantage.


I am paying for my kids education because I can…but I don’t think it gives them any real advantages on its own. Nobody cares what car you drive as a 21 year old…and honestly, if your kid is actually getting a decent first job they are likely in a metro where you wouldn’t even have a car. I also am not aware of any “clubs” to which you refer…curious as an example.

Being wealthy and connected will give your kids advantages…but let’s say you are just a mid level govt employee or worker bee that inherited $500k and can pay for college…just paying for college doesn’t much confer many advantages.

I think you are conflating wealth and connections (which always help) with the act of paying for college.

The noose of loans may strangle some…but it also drives others to rip your kid’s head off…so I tell my kid to stay sharp.


Not having loans or a car payment is HUGE right out of college!

My kid is maxing their Roth and 401k at 22+ and saving. Those with loans and car payments are paying $800+ towards that instead. My kid will have he equivalent of $2m for retirement by time they are 30. Their friends won’t have saved much at all as they pay off $20-30k in loans and pay for their first cars


The job your kid gets out of college is way more important than having loans or not. Also, where did the car payments come from? This is DCUM where many kids are living in an urban environment and nobody owns a car. Now you also have to give your kid a car? I mean...this is now the equivalent of saying not having any expenses and a trust fund is HUGE...no s**t it's HUGE.

I still don't get your math. So, I gather you are saying if you are able to save $9600 per year starting at 22, that will grow to $2MM at 60? How do you know your kid is saving that $800/month vs. taking nice vacations or eating at nice places several times per week?

It's hard to have conversations where your ambitions for your kids are so modest. I am paying 100% for my kids, but it's really not difficult for a 22 year old that works a professional job at any number of companies to repay $20k-$30k in loans fairly quickly. For many kids, the first-year bonus can nearly wipe that out.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have zero problems if people don't pay for their kids college and tell them to take loans.

I will continue to pay for my kids and give them all advantages that I can. Others not paying for their kids makes my kids more competitive in the long run.


DP. +1. And I see this touched a nerve. But, it is true. Paying for your kid's college gives them a huge leg up in life. Having your education funded doesn't mean you'll have less grit and determination - it means you can come out of school ready to conquer the world, free of the noose of debt around your neck. Less debt can mean more income to do things that can contribute to your success - like...living in a nicer place. Driving a nicer car. Joining a club and networking there. And on and on. Do not fool yourself. Those who fully fund their children's education are giving them a tremendous advantage.


I am paying for my kids education because I can…but I don’t think it gives them any real advantages on its own. Nobody cares what car you drive as a 21 year old…and honestly, if your kid is actually getting a decent first job they are likely in a metro where you wouldn’t even have a car. I also am not aware of any “clubs” to which you refer…curious as an example.

Being wealthy and connected will give your kids advantages…but let’s say you are just a mid level govt employee or worker bee that inherited $500k and can pay for college…just paying for college doesn’t much confer many advantages.

I think you are conflating wealth and connections (which always help) with the act of paying for college.

The noose of loans may strangle some…but it also drives others to rip your kid’s head off…so I tell my kid to stay sharp.


Not having loans or a car payment is HUGE right out of college!

My kid is maxing their Roth and 401k at 22+ and saving. Those with loans and car payments are paying $800+ towards that instead. My kid will have he equivalent of $2m for retirement by time they are 30. Their friends won’t have saved much at all as they pay off $20-30k in loans and pay for their first cars


The job your kid gets out of college is way more important than having loans or not. Also, where did the car payments come from? This is DCUM where many kids are living in an urban environment and nobody owns a car. Now you also have to give your kid a car? I mean...this is now the equivalent of saying not having any expenses and a trust fund is HUGE...no s**t it's HUGE.

I still don't get your math. So, I gather you are saying if you are able to save $9600 per year starting at 22, that will grow to $2MM at 60? How do you know your kid is saving that $800/month vs. taking nice vacations or eating at nice places several times per week?

It's hard to have conversations where your ambitions for your kids are so modest. I am paying 100% for my kids, but it's really not difficult for a 22 year old that works a professional job at any number of companies to repay $20k-$30k in loans fairly quickly. For many kids, the first-year bonus can nearly wipe that out.



My kid is not chasing IB jobs. Most kids are not getting a $20K signup bonus. They have a good job in a MCOL area, however a vehicle is required. They earn a good salary and get a 10%+ raise yearly (good for the industry especially now when many companies are laying off and not hiring).

Here's the math. They have been contributing max yearly to Roth since they had a job at 18. Continue that along with 8-10K yearly to their 401K. So by all estimates by age 30 they will have enough in "retirement accounts" to grow to over $2M by age 65, even if they stop contributing at age 30. Obviously they won't stop, but it's a huge leg up to have that. Versus their friends who have $30K+ in student/parent loans and who need a car but have to purchase one themselves.

How do I know? Because we still talk weekly and they discuss finances with us. They are a saver and don't waste money. And who would take those fancy trips with them???? majority of their friends are broke and paying off loans
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the "skin in the game" arguments.

A college student's skin in the game is the time and effort they put into studying and learning and obtaining their degree.

Most 18 yr olds could not feasibly contribute more than a few thousand dollars and a work study job toward their college education anyway, which even for an in-state college would be nothing close to the total cost.

So when parents talk about forcing their kids to self-fund all or a portion of college, even if the parents can afford to pay for it, generally what they are talking about is having their kid take out large loans. This is incredibly irresponsible if you actually have the means to pay for it -- you're just sign your kid up for a usurious student loan system.

It's one thing to say "we can only afford to send you to XYZ public colleges, if you want to go somewhere else you will need to take out loans for the balance." That's reasonable. It's something else entirely to insist that an 18 year old be responsible for the high price of a college education simply on principle.


When you have “skin in the game”, paying 65K in tuition fees, you don’t risk your education by engaging in violent protests on campus. When you have “skin in the game”, you focus on your education, you focus on graduating on time.
If these students had skin in the game, they would focus on their education instead of creating the chaos we see in campuses throughout the country.
No surprise that most protests are seen in Ivy League schools were most students have their tuitions funded by their parents.


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You can always loan your kid some portion of college tuition if you want them to have skin in the game but not subject to the public markets.

Make it official and have them sign a loan agreement…and then decide if you want to forgive it if the kid has turned out OK.


It's not skin in the game as most have no concept of debt or what it means till after they graduate. Skin in the game would be working through college.


plus most educational loans are forgiven, especially if you work in public service.


ub no. It's difficult and the rules are complicated. I have educational loans and of course they have not been forgiven. The only ones that biden have forgiven (a very stupid campaign promise IMHE) has not impacted ANYONE I know. Can you say differently?


Not OP but I know a lot of people who had their loans forgiven under the Biden promise.
Anonymous
My Black American parents one had help (my mom for undergrad, my dad paid for her grad degree), one didn't (dad worked his way through still graduated in four years with two degrees ), and they paid OOP for me and my siblings to go to undergrad. We are all aiming to do the same for the next generation.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the "skin in the game" arguments.

A college student's skin in the game is the time and effort they put into studying and learning and obtaining their degree.

Most 18 yr olds could not feasibly contribute more than a few thousand dollars and a work study job toward their college education anyway, which even for an in-state college would be nothing close to the total cost.

So when parents talk about forcing their kids to self-fund all or a portion of college, even if the parents can afford to pay for it, generally what they are talking about is having their kid take out large loans. This is incredibly irresponsible if you actually have the means to pay for it -- you're just sign your kid up for a usurious student loan system.

It's one thing to say "we can only afford to send you to XYZ public colleges, if you want to go somewhere else you will need to take out loans for the balance." That's reasonable. It's something else entirely to insist that an 18 year old be responsible for the high price of a college education simply on principle.


When you have “skin in the game”, paying 65K in tuition fees, you don’t risk your education by engaging in violent protests on campus. When you have “skin in the game”, you focus on your education, you focus on graduating on time.
If these students had skin in the game, they would focus on their education instead of creating the chaos we see in campuses throughout the country.
No surprise that most protests are seen in Ivy League schools were most students have their tuitions funded by their parents.




Plenty of kids value their education and give 110%, yet don't need to "have skin in the game". Our kid's jobs are to do well in school. We can afford it so they don't need to work 10+ hours per week as well as study. They can focus on studying.

Anonymous
My parents paid for 70% of my tuition, rest was loans. Paid the loans off in 2 years. $30k.

It helps when you didn’t study something useless like feminist studies.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the "skin in the game" arguments.

A college student's skin in the game is the time and effort they put into studying and learning and obtaining their degree.

Most 18 yr olds could not feasibly contribute more than a few thousand dollars and a work study job toward their college education anyway, which even for an in-state college would be nothing close to the total cost.

So when parents talk about forcing their kids to self-fund all or a portion of college, even if the parents can afford to pay for it, generally what they are talking about is having their kid take out large loans. This is incredibly irresponsible if you actually have the means to pay for it -- you're just sign your kid up for a usurious student loan system.

It's one thing to say "we can only afford to send you to XYZ public colleges, if you want to go somewhere else you will need to take out loans for the balance." That's reasonable. It's something else entirely to insist that an 18 year old be responsible for the high price of a college education simply on principle.


When you have “skin in the game”, paying 65K in tuition fees, you don’t risk your education by engaging in violent protests on campus. When you have “skin in the game”, you focus on your education, you focus on graduating on time.
If these students had skin in the game, they would focus on their education instead of creating the chaos we see in campuses throughout the country.
No surprise that most protests are seen in Ivy League schools were most students have their tuitions funded by their parents.




Plenty of kids value their education and give 110%, yet don't need to "have skin in the game". Our kid's jobs are to do well in school. We can afford it so they don't need to work 10+ hours per week as well as study. They can focus on studying.



Good. Your kids are responsible citizens. They don't protest. They focus on studying. Pay for them, they deserve it.
Most kids are not like yours. Just see what is happening on campuses.



post reply Forum Index » Money and Finances
Message Quick Reply
Go to: