Why pay all of kids' college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most kids are responsible citizens. Even if you were to assume that 100% of the campus protestors were actual students, it is still only like 100-200 kids at each campus. Even at Columbia, that is max only 2% of the students (and that assumes all are undergraduates...which they are not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most kids are responsible citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wall Street bro with inflated ego and no class lol. I hope your kids do better.

Sorry…I’m not paying for my kids for college so they can aspire to mediocrity…guess that’s the best you can hope for yours.

IB sucks in terms of work/life balance, so you're not exactly impressing anyone with what you have going on. I will admit that IB is great for strivers who are able to come to their senses and get out early enough to enjoy the $$$.

Will be interesting to see where your exceptional kids end up lmao

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wall Street bro with inflated ego and no class lol. I hope your kids do better.

Sorry…I’m not paying for my kids for college so they can aspire to mediocrity…guess that’s the best you can hope for yours.

IB sucks in terms of work/life balance, so you're not exactly impressing anyone with what you have going on. I will admit that IB is great for strivers who are able to come to their senses and get out early enough to enjoy the $$$.

Will be interesting to see where your exceptional kids end up lmao

I guess you have to live vicariously through other people's kids because you and yours turned out to be failures. You do realize every successful person in this world was and is a striver, right? Nobody creates a successful company, becomes a BigLaw partner, becomes a CEO, etc. that is not a striver.

But hey...brag to all your friends about your kid working as a GS whatever for the DOE or your local county government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Lots of us got "useless" degrees and are in the 1%. You're clueless

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get this new expectation that the average middle class person is supposed to save to pay for 100 percent of their kid's college. Growing up, everyone had loans, I knew of almost no one who didn't have loans to pay off. Some incurred additional debt from grad school. They've all done just fine.

I do get that college tuition is substantially more than it used to be, has risen much faster than the cost of inflation. But still, that doesn't mean you have to cut corners so tightly as to possibly cut back on retirement, or constantly live on a very tight budget. And it doesn't mean that you must work even harder to cover 100 percent of your kids' tuition.

I expect to cover at least two years of state school tuition, maybe 3 for my kids. They can make their own choices from there.

Discuss.

You seem bossy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wall Street bro with inflated ego and no class lol. I hope your kids do better.

Sorry…I’m not paying for my kids for college so they can aspire to mediocrity…guess that’s the best you can hope for yours.

Personally, I'm paying for my kids to go to college partly so they can do whatever job they want to do and can excel at -- not just the one that pays best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wall Street bro with inflated ego and no class lol. I hope your kids do better.

Sorry…I’m not paying for my kids for college so they can aspire to mediocrity…guess that’s the best you can hope for yours.

Personally, I'm paying for my kids to go to college partly so they can do whatever job they want to do and can excel at -- not just the one that pays best.

That’s great. PP is a loser. No one is impressed by his investment banking career, and he sounds like a sociopath.

[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.

Most of the protesters probably are not college students. It's interesting many of them are masking and wearing head scarfs to conceal who they are.

[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.

I disagree with many of the protesters' goals and find some of the slogans they're chanting to be offensive to me personally, as a Jew, but I also think this argument is stupid. I should load my kids up with student debt so they aren't tempted to protest against wars?

[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.

I disagree with many of the protesters' goals and find some of the slogans they're chanting to be offensive to me personally, as a Jew, but I also think this argument is stupid. I should load my kids up with student debt so they aren't tempted to protest against wars?

There is no true skin in the game if you are taking out loans as they are not causing an issue while in school/now and its debt for the future. Many don't think the cost of the future vs. now. Skin in the game would be working during college to pay for college.

If you raise your kids right and to value education it shouldn't be an issue. The grades are the skin in the game and if they fail out its on them and you will only pay for community or a cheaper college after that.

[Anonymous]

I believe in cutting corners and working harder to fund my childrens' full college educations. The difference to me is that my kids are paying all of their own way in graduate school. The bar raises with each generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because what am I going to do with my $$ if I don’t spend it on my kids? We save for retirement, spend $ on vacations, and donate time & money to causes we care about but we don’t want more things. We don’t want to hoard our $. Plus, both of our kids are very anxious so if we can make things a little less stressful for them, we will.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I know is by the time my kids are old enough to buy a house, the average price is north of $1 million around here. If they are saddled with loans, they will never own a home.

Why can't they just move to a low cost of living area? It's how my MD brother in law paid his full med loans off. Why do you expect your kids to buy in a million dollar house area?

Why should they? Imagine the shame when for the parents when their friends learn that their kids fled the area because they were too poor to afford living there.

I'm trying to figure out if you're trolling on this one. Or I hope you are because otherwise you're absurd.

Do you think Cleveland has the same numbers of UMC people who have well rounded educations as the DMV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I don't know how anyone can watch the news footage of children and babies being killed by American made bombs and not want to get out there and protest. Protest is a healthy thing in a democracy, it looks like Biden is finally getting the message and pressuring Israel not to launch it's next attack, by letting them know that it won't be done with American weapons. Without the protests I doubt that he would be taking that position.