Why pay all of kids' college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We plan pay between 80-100% of an in state public undergraduate degree. The way that loan companies go after young adults who have zero experience is shameful and can impact them for the rest of their lives.

For grad school, we’ll work with them on choices and financial pros/cons but it will be their money at that point.

Usually parents do 50/50 split on grad school. Your money is more their money. You will be dead soon anyhow

I don't think this is true at all.

They can use their inheritance to pay off what remains of their grad school loans.

[Anonymous]

Middle class people can't pay for their kids' college. UMC people can.

I think it's a bit unfair to your kids if you refuse to pay anything and they also can't get any tuition discounts because of your high salary.

[Anonymous]

I actually wished I had some loans when I graduated. My work had a loan tuition repayment program and would give 5-10k towards loans every year for 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

I think people either not knowing anyone who had an undergrad loan vs. only knowing people who had loans exemplifies the bubbles in which we live. In theory, college should mix us up, but it seems we end up finding people from similar SES backgrounds regardless.

Not only do I know very few people who didn't have loans, I also knew very few people who had parents who had attended college. There was a PP in this thread who posted about paying for tuition because their parents had done it for them and their parents (so grandparents) before them. It was established "tradition." I can think of one girl I met in grad school who had a grandmother who had a college degree (which was a cool story in its own right considering that was more rare for women so many years ago).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

DP to add, even becoming unrealistic for UMC. UMC can perhaps cover state tuition if they plan very well, but private tuition for more than one kid? It's like fully owning 3 houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I get your point but the world has become far more competitive than it was 20 years ago. Things have become far more expensive, students debt amounts are far bigger than they used to be, while the gap between the rich and poor getting wider too. There are more students going in for college education than they used to in the past. Parents want to do and help their kids as much as they possibly can so their kids can live as normal lives as possible. Getting jobs has become harder, so minimizing students debts is a wise thing to do.

There is a lot to unpack in your statement. There are actually 1MM fewer kids enrolled in college vs. 2013. I think this past year the %age of HS kids finally moved up just a tiny bit (like maybe .01%?) after sliding for 10 years.

Also, the job market cares far more about specific skills vs. just college or no college. The trades are desperate for workers and the WSJ just ran an article about HS kids finally starting to consider the trades more seriously vs. going to college. Demand for welders, sheet metal workers, pipe fitters, electricians, etc. is high. Many of these jobs are for F500 companies, so they pay well and it is steady hours. Various manufacturers have apprentice programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some are some aren't. I was told they only paid off specific loans in the field I was in and my parents decided against it.

the PP is wrong. Very few have been "forgiven". It was a campaign stunt to get votes by Biden. a few were forgiven but there were highly prescribed. My kids received NO forgiveness on any student loans.

Your kids had to have been in a program for loan forgivenes---working in a job for 10+ years that offers it. All Biden did was ensure what had previously been promised actually came to fruition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family is different and that is OK. We have catholic friends with 12 children - to them the gift is life and they have told the kids that they are on their own at age 18, meaning no college or community college or whatever they can hardscrabble together. And they will do fine. In my family, getting a four-year degree for women was paramount (everyone had been depression era children and women unfavored). It is what it is.

My husband did the military as his parents couldn't afford college and it wasn't an option. Given he didn't get his degree till his early 40's and then the second career too another 10-15 years to earn anything, I don't get why you'd do that to your kids if you can afford to pay. People make it sound easy and its not.

You missed the point entirely in your rush to judge. If you have twelve kids you cannot send them all to college at now $93K a year for private

With 12 kids, you probably can send them to a private as you'd get tons of financial aid.

If you choose to have 12 kids, you likely wont be provide most things for them that most in DCUMland provide for their kids, such as travel sports, competition cheer/dance, intensive tutoring, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family is different and that is OK. We have catholic friends with 12 children - to them the gift is life and they have told the kids that they are on their own at age 18, meaning no college or community college or whatever they can hardscrabble together. And they will do fine. In my family, getting a four-year degree for women was paramount (everyone had been depression era children and women unfavored). It is what it is.

I come from a similarly large family with similar attitude and 1/2 my siblings have struggled mightily and still do. The others were lucky enough to get decent FA and graduate with some loans, but manageable. It was almost a subsistence upbringing.

Needless to say, none of us have more than two kids ourselves because we don’t want our own kids to have crap lives.

This^^^. Don't have more kids than you can afford. IMO, afford means providing at least in-state school (or a good portion of it), a bedroom that isn't shared with more than 1 other sibling, not having to be a mini-parent from age 8+ to all your other siblings, ability to do 1 sport or more and music and activities that cost more than $10 entry fee, etc.

I'd like my kids to have more than a subsistence upbrining

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

DP to add, even becoming unrealistic for UMC. UMC can perhaps cover state tuition if they plan very well, but private tuition for more than one kid? It's like fully owning 3 houses.

Umc can afford college. It’s about lifestyle choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family is different and that is OK. We have catholic friends with 12 children - to them the gift is life and they have told the kids that they are on their own at age 18, meaning no college or community college or whatever they can hardscrabble together. And they will do fine. In my family, getting a four-year degree for women was paramount (everyone had been depression era children and women unfavored). It is what it is.

My husband did the military as his parents couldn't afford college and it wasn't an option. Given he didn't get his degree till his early 40's and then the second career too another 10-15 years to earn anything, I don't get why you'd do that to your kids if you can afford to pay. People make it sound easy and its not.

You missed the point entirely in your rush to judge. If you have twelve kids you cannot send them all to college at now $93K a year for private

With 12 kids, you probably can send them to a private as you'd get tons of financial aid.

If you choose to have 12 kids, you likely wont be provide most things for them that most in DCUMland provide for their kids, such as travel sports, competition cheer/dance, intensive tutoring, etc.

Some places have financial aid for those things too.

[Anonymous]

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?

Kids go to where the jobs are. Also, while my kid might work 2-5 years in a LCOL area, most LCOL areas are not places they would want to settle down. They like living 30-45 mins from top hospitals (should you need them) and near a major airport, etc. They also dont want to live somewhere that is a red state/red region

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people I know didn't have loans.

Are most of the people you know from very upper class families?

No, it was just cheaper back then. But now that I think about it, I know people who had grad school loans.

I don't know a single person who didn't have undergrad loans who wasn't very wealthy. (class of '89)

Considering college was cheaper back then, this exemplifies why the pressure for middle class to pay all of it is becoming unrealistic. There was a separate thread about saving $1M(!!!!).

Only the very wealthy can do that, or perhaps middle class who essentially live poorly and/or have some form of generational wealth (like didn't have loans, unexpected inheritance, etc.) to help them in that pursuit.

College was not that much cheaper given incomes and inflation. A private was still $40-50k 30 years ago.