Do you agree or disagree with this: Parents should pay for undergrad tuition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a friend who is brilliant and was accepted full academic scholarship to top schools. This is NOT the norm. She chose the best, and her parents (who were more than able and paid for the other siblings college) had the audacity to have him pay them back - with interest! She did, but if I were his parents I would have been thrilled and paid every penny FOR her! It was on the siblings to get into better schools, period.

Your pronouns are confusing here. Who paid what back? If she got a full scholarship, what was she paying back?

I agree. This is gibberish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope. If you want it, you'll earn it. My financial responsibility to my children stops at 18 and is limited to the basics. They can earn what they want. It is good for them.

This will definitely be the difference between your child choosing college or a dead-end job.

I think higher education should be a parental responsibility---at least undergrad.

The loans your kid will have to take out if they choose college will be crippling to them in the future.

The problem is if you make a middle to upper middle class living, need based financial aid/grants will NOT be offered. The formula will assume a certain amount of parent contribution. There is a cap to how much an undergrad can take out in subsidized Stafford Loans and even the unsubsidized Stafford loan. So let's say freshman year, the cap is $3500 for subsidized and even with unsubsidized it is $5500 total, where is the rest of the money coming from? You would have to end up co-signing on a loan or taking out a parent loan and expecting your child to pay you back. Otherwise, looking at ROTC/military, having the child live at home and commute to community college, or possibly go to the local university and live at home, maybe they can work 40 hours a week and go to state school but that is a really rough road. The issue becomes to get the top jobs not only to you need the grades (which if you are working full-time could be tough) but the leadership experiences, the internships, the independent, innovative projects ...these help you land that first job out of school in your field.

So anyway, my plan is to save enough to atleast cover tuition at a local university. I would also like to save for room and board at the local university. Books, spending money, semester abroad (covering not working during that time) etc. would be covered by my child. If my child decides to go to a private school, she will have to find a way to cover the difference. I also don't have any requirements around the major. My child can study whatever she wants but is responsible for supporting herself after 4 years of tuition support.

[Anonymous]

Well....I think that the experience my children will get in earning what they need will stand them in far better stead lifelong than a few years of living off my bounty. After a bit of independence no need to consider my income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well....I think that the experience my children will get in earning what they need will stand them in far better stead lifelong than a few years of living off my bounty. After a bit of independence no need to consider my income.

I'll acknowledge upfront that it isn't written that you must pay for college. But I agree with the PP that said if you can afford it and you aren't paying a dime towards it because you want your kid to understand the value of a dollar and how to work hard ...that lesson should start at 6, 8 etc., not 18. When your kid asks for things that are luxury, not necessities, do you have them use their own money or part of it? When there is a trip somewhere, say NYC, do you write the check or expect your child to work to earn the money. Does your child have a part-time job during highschool? I remember my mom was good about offering to pay half for something I really wanted (say an expensive summer camp), but didn't need. It actually inspired me to work hard to earn the money because it wasn't as overwhelming as paying the full amount, not as discouraging as a flat out no, and felt like I was leaving money on the table because here my parents were offering to help. My mom made sure it was something I was willing to work for, not one of those things that I wanted if someone else was paying but not enough if I had to use my own money. I also had to prioritorize how to use my money because I had a finite supply. I would think of things as how many hours did I have to work as a cashier to afford X. Oh and she didn't allow me to use my money for something frivolous like a leather coat or in brand sneakers because everyone else had them.

Anyway, a lot of people I know are hard working and do not have their parents financially supporting them post 4 years of college even if parents helped out some for college. We all had jobs before college, work study at college, jobs during the summer, and yes some loans. Our first car was purchased with our own money post college. The people I knew that had to do everything for themselves in college, knew the value of a dollar before they even got to college. The only difference was their road in life was that much harder when it didn't necessarily have to be that way. In one case it took the person years to get into her field because ironically the money was so good from the job she had virtually full-time to pay for college that it would have been a step down in money to start entry level and without work experience in her field, it was hard to get that first job in related to her major. There are some people that do need the hard road because there is no telling them anything and they have to learn for themselves, there are other people that don't need to go to the school of hard knocks, they are already prepared to work and support themselves and that little bit of financial support for college ensures they stay on point and don't get overwhelmed and can better support themselves at 22. If you are flat out raising a pampered pooch and then expect them to fend for themselves at 18, you are making the road that much harder because you didn't prepare him for life then put him out in the cold. It's like declawing a cat and having it live indoors for the equivalent of 18 human years, feeding him expensive cat food, the kicking said cat outside and expecting him to hunt for food and fend for himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@18:05 I think from my experiences in the DMV that kids that get a free ride party at bars in their 20's - while my friends that paid their way worked hard though their 20's to pay loans or pay as they went. So, in my experience, all their parents did was pay their bar bills in their 20's not their actual education.

So that is my argument. Of course maybe it does not apply to your sister and nephew who may have spent these years teaching for America or something that gave back. But very few do that.

I don't disagree with the ex that the nephew should pay his way and if you sister disagrees that is her prerogative.

You said "she was not getting alimony" which is living off the dole because that is no longer a family decision. I am not against a women staying at home but I am against whining about not making the same money as somebody that did not SAH. I am not a SAH person hater. I am a hater of whiners that complain about "not having it all" either you work and you have money or you dont work and you don't have money. It's not that confusing.

Sorry your 20s sucked, hope you are enjoying paying that bitterness forward.

I have many friends that paid their own way through college and managed to enjoy their 20s plenty.

"Alimony" after a long term marriage where a parent was out of the workforce long term to attempt in small part to account for the differences in earning power that resulted from family decisions is not "living off the dole." My understanding is that courts these days generally attempt to create a "glide path" for reentering the workforce when coming out of a long term marriage (and even short term marriages). You seem to be of the opinion that the parent that worked while the other stayed home did not benefit from the parent staying home and the SAHM was a freeloader and thus divorce means the end of the gravy train for that SAHM. When you pool your resources to make family decisions there are many long term costs and benefits, not all of them shared equally on an individual basis. Leaving the marriage does not mean it is unreasonable for the court to attempt to address this lack of equity however imperfectly. Again, this is not "the dole," this is a court trying to break up a messy partnership equitably.

All that said, as I stated above there was no alimony because she never asked for it so even under your scenario as I explained initially she was never took any of "the dole". She took minimal assistance to help with the child expenses, which was again not the "dole" because he was contributing to supporting his children. Her ex has no idea how lucky he has it that she did not want to be reliant on him.

My 20's did not suck - they don't charge you to volunteer with children. It's free. I had an amazing 20's without the need to drink the night away, but sports cars and find myself in Africa. yawn

Yes alimony is to help the SAH person or the lesser earner get on their feet. But to bemone that your feet can't ever hold you as high as you want is lame. Luckily she found another husband to pay for his step son's education.