S/O What is our obligation as parents regarding college $$$?

[Anonymous]

We stopped at one child in order to be able to fully fund the undergraduate program of his choice. I was a kid who got into Ivy League schools and then was told parents couldn’t/wouldn’t pay for it because state schools were fine. I turned out okay, but I will always wonder “what if” with sadness and don’t want my son to have to make that choice.

The goal is to have enough to pay for 4 years of Harvard. If he chooses uva instead, the money will be ear marked for grad school, a down payment, or a hell of a vacation for ourselves!

We make $200k fwiw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what are you looking for? Pay for college. Or, don't. Simple.

OP is looking for someone to tell him that despite making $450k/year and being a 1%er, that it's totally fine that he doesn't want to pay for anything more than a state school for his kids. I think OP is stingy, and would ask what he plans to spend his huge income on, if not for a better future for his children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what are you looking for? Pay for college. Or, don't. Simple.

OP is looking for someone to tell him that despite making $450k/year and being a 1%er, that it's totally fine that he doesn't want to pay for anything more than a state school for his kids. I think OP is stingy, and would ask what he plans to spend his huge income on, if not for a better future for his children.

Its perfectly fine a state school or not to pay at all. Hope they have their nursing home picked out. With all the money they save they will be very comfortable there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would someone with an income of 450k even start this conversation?

It sounds like this is fairly recent income, so that for one.
I have no idea what Ops financial situation is but we are similar. Started making a lot right before the kids went to college because husband was now earning as a surgeon. we had years of retirement savings and med school debt to catch up on. It goes much faster than you’d think.
To the poster who said just pay it out of pocket - haha. Take out your taxes, mortgage, and living expenses and most people couldn’t write a check for $80K which did what many privates cost, especially if you have more than one kid.

Life is about choices. Your husband being a doctor and you screaming poverty is sad. We make far less than OP and I just wrote a check for a $50K car paying cash.

Never did I complain about “poverty”. No where. You are making that up.
I still can’t send my kid to an Ivy League with no aid. My kid will go to state school because I believe it’s smarter to graduate without debt. Kids are not owed $320k undergrad educations despite what this board tries to push.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what are you looking for? Pay for college. Or, don't. Simple.

OP is looking for someone to tell him that despite making $450k/year and being a 1%er, that it's totally fine that he doesn't want to pay for anything more than a state school for his kids. I think OP is stingy, and would ask what he plans to spend his huge income on, if not for a better future for his children[b].

OP here. (I am a woman BTW.)

I have read through this whole thread and find all of the responses illuminating. Just to recap, what I feel obligated to fund is the complete cost of four years at my in state flagship (or equivalent contribution to the cost if my children choose to go somewhere else).

What I have noticed is that there appears to be a strong consensus in this group that the sole or primary way to make a "better future" for children is to spend the absolute most amount of money possible on both undergrad AND graduate degrees.
There is some agreement that what the "best" school is depends on the child, but that is a judgment independent of cost.

Where I believe I disagree with many is what a "better future" means. My hope for my children is that they are happy, healthy, and fulfilled. Yes, that requires the means to make enough money to not struggle. It does not mean getting a job in big law, as a surgeon, or on Wall Street. And it seems to me that the difference between UMD and Vassar simply equates to a *slightly* stronger likelihood of that happening. Look around, would any of you say that the partner in Big Law is somehow fundamentally happier or leading a better life than the person you know teaching or working in communications or a GS-15 somewhere? There seems to be a logical inconsistency between judging me for spending money on something other than "education" when the point of that "education" is to get my kids to the place where they can earn money to spend on things other than education...

Would any of you agree that there are other ways to spend money that would increase the likelihood that my children become happy and healthy adults? Whether it be donating to create changes for a better future for the world, providing them life experiences along the way, helping make sure they have a path to homeownership, etc...?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what are you looking for? Pay for college. Or, don't. Simple.

OP is looking for someone to tell him that despite making $450k/year and being a 1%er, that it's totally fine that he doesn't want to pay for anything more than a state school for his kids. I think OP is stingy, and would ask what he plans to spend his huge income on, if not for a better future for his children[b].

OP here. (I am a woman BTW.)

I have read through this whole thread and find all of the responses illuminating. Just to recap, what I feel obligated to fund is the complete cost of four years at my in state flagship (or equivalent contribution to the cost if my children choose to go somewhere else).

What I have noticed is that there appears to be a strong consensus in this group that the sole or primary way to make a "better future" for children is to spend the absolute most amount of money possible on both undergrad AND graduate degrees.
There is some agreement that what the "best" school is depends on the child, but that is a judgment independent of cost.

Where I believe I disagree with many is what a "better future" means. My hope for my children is that they are happy, healthy, and fulfilled. Yes, that requires the means to make enough money to not struggle. It does not mean getting a job in big law, as a surgeon, or on Wall Street. And it seems to me that the difference between UMD and Vassar simply equates to a *slightly* stronger likelihood of that happening. Look around, would any of you say that the partner in Big Law is somehow fundamentally happier or leading a better life than the person you know teaching or working in communications or a GS-15 somewhere? There seems to be a logical inconsistency between judging me for spending money on something other than "education" when the point of that "education" is to get my kids to the place where they can earn money to spend on things other than education...

Would any of you agree that there are other ways to spend money that would increase the likelihood that my children become happy and healthy adults? Whether it be donating to create changes for a better future for the world, providing them life experiences along the way, helping make sure they have a path to homeownership, etc...?

As someone in a double biglaw marriage with kids, part of the reason I would pay for eg Vassar is to avoid that outcome, actually. DH and I each went to law school because we weren’t making all that much with our state flagship degrees and it was hard to get the right entry level job to turn that around without more education. It’s very common for biglaw partners to have gone to State U for undergrad and a better UG doesn’t help at all.

[Anonymous]

I retired seven years ago, at 53, after my youngest of four finished college. My income during the last ten years that I was working averaged about $650,000 a year, and for the last several years was closer to $800,000.

We sent our kids to public schools, and when it came time for college they all included private schools on their lists but ultimately all but one went to a state school (two to UVA and one to another VA school) -- and the one that went private turned down William & Mary after getting substantial merit aid.

We would have considered paying for private college if the case for attending were compelling. But it clearly wasn't, it rarely is, and our kids were smart and reasonable enough to recognize that without us having to persuade them. If you're talking about Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, maybe, but why would a Virginia resident choose Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Boston College, University of Richmond, etc. over UVA, especially for a non-STEM degree? And why would a Virginia resident choose a private liberal arts college over William & Mary at double the price?

You're picking a college, not a husband or wife or a life partner. There's more than one perfect fit.

Because we made the decisions that we did, paying for college was a completely stress-free experience; all of the kids graduated debt free and were able to choose whatever job they wanted without regard to finances; and we were able to retire super early and enjoy life while still being in a position to assist the kids with housing down payments, nice weddings, and many other non-educational but very important milestones in their lives.

I applaud OP for her common sense realization that, just because you CAN pay more money for college, it doesn't mean that you should.

[Anonymous]

We will be able to cover tuition for two years of community college for each of our children. One of them has special needs and all the $ is going to therapies.

[Anonymous]

I realize this is a DC forum, but I live in the midwest. This conversation is so odd to me.
People here don't care where the potential employee went to school, they wouldn't even look at that. In fact, we would consider it funny if someone attended Ivy league. We all need somewhere to go Saturday in the fall to drink beer to cheer on our alma mater- hence our respective state school football games.
That said, our income is probably $330,000. The public schools where we live are outstanding. We did not pay for all of our children's secondary education in entirety, and no one went to grad school. No one makes 100k right out of college here so it wouldn't have mattered where they attended.
Just a different perspective. I'm not sure what we would have done had we lived on the East coast. I get the part about controlling the outcome. I have never thought of that.

[Anonymous]

I don't feel like we have an "obligation" but we payed for the Maryland prepaid college fund and will cover room and board. So, 4 years in state tuition and room and board.

I don't want my child to start out with debt and there are very few reasons that I think he would be better off going to an out of state school or private college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what are you looking for? Pay for college. Or, don't. Simple.

OP is looking for someone to tell him that despite making $450k/year and being a 1%er, that it's totally fine that he doesn't want to pay for anything more than a state school for his kids. I think OP is stingy, and would ask what he plans to spend his huge income on, if not for a better future for his children[b].

OP here. (I am a woman BTW.)

I have read through this whole thread and find all of the responses illuminating. Just to recap, what I feel obligated to fund is the complete cost of four years at my in state flagship (or equivalent contribution to the cost if my children choose to go somewhere else).

What I have noticed is that there appears to be a strong consensus in this group that the sole or primary way to make a "better future" for children is to spend the absolute most amount of money possible on both undergrad AND graduate degrees.
There is some agreement that what the "best" school is depends on the child, but that is a judgment independent of cost.

Where I believe I disagree with many is what a "better future" means. My hope for my children is that they are happy, healthy, and fulfilled. Yes, that requires the means to make enough money to not struggle. It does not mean getting a job in big law, as a surgeon, or on Wall Street. And it seems to me that the difference between UMD and Vassar simply equates to a *slightly* stronger likelihood of that happening. Look around, would any of you say that the partner in Big Law is somehow fundamentally happier or leading a better life than the person you know teaching or working in communications or a GS-15 somewhere? There seems to be a logical inconsistency between judging me for spending money on something other than "education" when the point of that "education" is to get my kids to the place where they can earn money to spend on things other than education...

Would any of you agree that there are other ways to spend money that would increase the likelihood that my children become happy and healthy adults? Whether it be donating to create changes for a better future for the world, providing them life experiences along the way, helping make sure they have a path to homeownership, etc...?

Maybe I missed it earlier in the thread, and sorry if I did, but I'm still wondering why your example is Vassar. Did you just pick it out of thin air as an example of an expensive private college, I'm guessing? Not that it matters much, since you aren't here to make specific comparisons between Vassar and, say, UMD. I guess you could as easily have typed "Bard" or "Harvey Mudd"....--Signed, parent of a Vassar student

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I retired seven years ago, at 53, after my youngest of four finished college. My income during the last ten years that I was working averaged about $650,000 a year, and for the last several years was closer to $800,000.

We sent our kids to public schools, and when it came time for college they all included private schools on their lists but ultimately all but one went to a state school (two to UVA and one to another VA school) -- and the one that went private turned down William & Mary after getting substantial merit aid.

We would have considered paying for private college if the case for attending were compelling. But it clearly wasn't, it rarely is, and our kids were smart and reasonable enough to recognize that without us having to persuade them. If you're talking about Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, maybe, but why would a Virginia resident choose Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Boston College, University of Richmond, etc. over UVA, especially for a non-STEM degree? And why would a Virginia resident choose a private liberal arts college over William & Mary at double the price?

You're picking a college, not a husband or wife or a life partner. There's more than one perfect fit.

Because we made the decisions that we did, paying for college was a completely stress-free experience; all of the kids graduated debt free and were able to choose whatever job they wanted without regard to finances; and we were able to retire super early and enjoy life while still being in a position to assist the kids with housing down payments, nice weddings, and many other non-educational but very important milestones in their lives.

I applaud OP for her common sense realization that, just because you CAN pay more money for college, it doesn't mean that you should.

This is a different scenario than OP describes, though. Sounds like you were perfectly willing to pay for a private college, and would have gladly done so if it were a HYPMS type. In-state UVA is a fantastic option, and I’m guessing rivaled or bested the other schools your kids were accepted to on the prestige front. OP is only willing to pay the cost of their in-state flagship, which is not UVA. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable and generous position to take if that’s all you can afford while saving for retirement, but that does not seem to be the case for OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what are you looking for? Pay for college. Or, don't. Simple.

OP is looking for someone to tell him that despite making $450k/year and being a 1%er, that it's totally fine that he doesn't want to pay for anything more than a state school for his kids. I think OP is stingy, and would ask what he plans to spend his huge income on, if not for a better future for his children[b].

OP here. (I am a woman BTW.)

I have read through this whole thread and find all of the responses illuminating. Just to recap, what I feel obligated to fund is the complete cost of four years at my in state flagship (or equivalent contribution to the cost if my children choose to go somewhere else).

What I have noticed is that there appears to be a strong consensus in this group that the sole or primary way to make a "better future" for children is to spend the absolute most amount of money possible on both undergrad AND graduate degrees.
There is some agreement that what the "best" school is depends on the child, but that is a judgment independent of cost.

Where I believe I disagree with many is what a "better future" means. My hope for my children is that they are happy, healthy, and fulfilled. Yes, that requires the means to make enough money to not struggle. It does not mean getting a job in big law, as a surgeon, or on Wall Street. And it seems to me that the difference between UMD and Vassar simply equates to a *slightly* stronger likelihood of that happening. Look around, would any of you say that the partner in Big Law is somehow fundamentally happier or leading a better life than the person you know teaching or working in communications or a GS-15 somewhere? There seems to be a logical inconsistency between judging me for spending money on something other than "education" when the point of that "education" is to get my kids to the place where they can earn money to spend on things other than education...

Would any of you agree that there are other ways to spend money that would increase the likelihood that my children become happy and healthy adults? Whether it be donating to create changes for a better future for the world, providing them life experiences along the way, helping make sure they have a path to homeownership, etc...?

Maybe I missed it earlier in the thread, and sorry if I did, but I'm still wondering why your example is Vassar. Did you just pick it out of thin air as an example of an expensive private college, I'm guessing? Not that it matters much, since you aren't here to make specific comparisons between Vassar and, say, UMD. I guess you could as easily have typed "Bard" or "Harvey Mudd"....--Signed, parent of a Vassar student

OP here. I use it because I think a different poster used it as an example first. Other than that, no particular reason at all. No offense to Vassar intended!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me ask this question that seems to be at a heart of a lot of this exchange:

Why do some people think that a state school is somehow inherently not as good as a more expensive school? What is the barometer that you are using?

I think some people think that more expensive is always better, or think that private is always more prestigious. I'd be totally fine with my kid attending a good state school, especially if it was because it was legit a better fit because of location, programs, etc.

I don't necessarily thin that state schools are somehow not as good as a private school, and don't know anyone that does, either. I will give you an example, however. My niece got into UChicago for Economics, and GMU for Economics, with a full, free ride. She chose UChicago - her parents paid something like 250K for 4 years? Out of school, she got a job paying 6 figures, and about 3 years later, she's making about what her parents spent on her entire education. So yeah, that was a good investment, and I don't think any reasonable person would think that she would be where she is, without that education.

I absolutely think she'd have the same salary or close to it if she had gone to GMU for free and graduated at the top of her class. Also, if she had these 2 options, she definitely had a few middle options too that were less money than Chicago but more prestige than GMU. That's likely where I would have sent my child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I realize this is a DC forum, but I live in the midwest. This conversation is so odd to me.
People here don't care where the potential employee went to school, they wouldn't even look at that. In fact, we would consider it funny if someone attended Ivy league. We all need somewhere to go Saturday in the fall to drink beer to cheer on our alma mater- hence our respective state school football games.
That said, our income is probably $330,000. The public schools where we live are outstanding. We did not pay for all of our children's secondary education in entirety, and no one went to grad school. No one makes 100k right out of college here so it wouldn't have mattered where they attended.
Just a different perspective. I'm not sure what we would have done had we lived on the East coast. I get the part about controlling the outcome. I have never thought of that.

Just FYI "secondary education" or "secondary school" means grades 6-12th or 9-12th. It means, the school that comes after "primary school" also called elementary. When people say they are paying for "secondary education" they mean private high school. Sounds like you were referring to college/undergrad.