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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Same here. Parents paid all tuition for all 3 kids. Was a given. Also did not know anyone who had loans until I met a couple of coworkers who did at first job. I was surprised and yes naive.

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.

what’s your point? most people don’t go to law school and most people don’t buy a home at 25 with huge college loans.

you’re an idiot. good thing you got an Mrs degree and improved your lackluster gene pool.

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.

We bought our first house at 25 when DH finished law school (with loans) and I had undergrad loans. 5 years later we upgraded homes and the first one as a rental. We also have a high income and high net worth (and still have the loans because the interest is so cheap.)

What’s your point?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.