Thursday's Most Active Threads

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, will start today with the third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Why pay all of kids' college?" and posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. The original poster says that she does not understand the expectation that the average middle class person should save to pay for 100 percent of their kid's college. She says that everyone she knew growing up had college loans and they were fine. She has decided that she will pay for two years at a public university for her kids and the rest is up to them. Reading the responses, it is clear that posters approach this topic from very personal angles. Those for whom college loan debt was a burden tend to believe very strongly in paying for their children's college. One poster compared this to passing on generational wealth. These posters often stress the significant impact of large debt that forces young people to delay many other aspects of their lives. As one poster put it, "If they are saddled with loans, they will never own a home". In contrast, those like the original poster who didn't have personal experience with significant debt see less importance in saving for college and are more likely to expect their children to take out loans. Some posters contend that kids should have "skin in the game", meaning that they be responsible for paying for at least part of their education so that they will value it. Otherwise, these posters suggest, the kids might see college as a four-year long party at their parent's expense. Many posters see attitudes about paying for college as having regional or social class divisions. One suggests that DC-area families are more likely to pay for college than those in her home state of Pennsylvania. Others argue that upper middle class families are more likely than middle class to save for college, though this may simply be an issue of means. Some posters think that unless saving for college would cause significant financial problems, it is selfish not to save for your kids' college. A number of posters point out that young people just starting college often are naive and uninformed about the ramifications of debt. They don't have a proper understanding of how much a burden paying off loans can be or they wrongly believe that loans are easily forgiven. Therefore, many posters feel they have an obligation to pay for college to prevent these kids from making mistakes. There was quite a bit of discussion of the Public Service Loan forgiveness (PSLF) program that forgives loans of those who choose specific professions. However, this forgiveness only occurs after 10 years of making payments. For some posters, struggling with debt for even that long is unreasonable if parents could prevent it. For many, this is a question of priorities. Whereas some posters see giving a debt-free education to their children as way to give them a leg up and a good start to their lives, others have different priorities. As one poster put it, "I want to retire and enjoy what is left of my life. I can afford to retire while I'm young and do the things on my bucket [list]". This poster was specifically discussing paying for graduate school, but the sentiment was representative of some posters' attitudes about paying for college in general.

The next most active thread was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum and titled, "Do I just let my kid quit and fail?". The original poster describes her 13-year-old 7th grade son who has always been good at everything. He has easily made friends, enjoyed and excelled at sports, and done great in school. However, over the past six months he has stopped being the happy boy he had been and become irritable and defiant. He no longer wants to participate in family activities or his formerly favorite sports. As far as the original poster knows, he has no disciplinary issues at school and continues to do well academically, but everything else is a struggle. The original poster attended a drug prevention parent meeting and says that her son has every red flag. However, she has not discovered any indications of drug use. The original poster asks if others would allow her son to drop everything that he used to love and to skip their summer vacation as he desires. Many of the posters see this as normal 13-year-old behavior, arguing that boys change at that age and it is not unusual for their interests to change. These posters are open to allowing him to drop sports, though they warn against allowing him to fill that time using his phone or playing games. However, these posters are uniformly against allowing him to skip the family vacation. Other posters are concerned that this change in behavior might be indicative of something abnormal, for instance the onset of mental health issues. They urge discussing this with his pediatrician or a therapist. Because the original poster said that her son went through a sudden and drastic change while on vacation over Spring Break, several posters suspect that he may had suffered some type of trauma at that time which he is not disclosing. They urge getting him help for that possibility. Other posters wonder if the original poster's son is being bullied at school. The original poster feels fairly strongly that her son has not been traumatized but seems to consider school bullying to be a possibility. A number of posters reported having had children that went through exactly the same sort of personality changes at roughly the same age. In many cases, the posters supported their children's new interests, allowing them to drop activities that they no longer enjoyed. These posters said that their children eventually returned to being the happy kids they had previously been. In some cases, the kids were also diagnosed with ADHD so several posters advised the original poster to have her son evaluated. Throughout the thread posters suggest that the original poster's son is trying to tell her things that she is not hearing. They argue that she is not listening or simply having converstations that allow her son to explain how he is feeling. They also suggest that he might be exhausted from being over-scheduled. For the most part, the original poster ignores this line of discussion, causing some frustration among those who are responding. This provokes accusations that the original poster might be responsible for her son's struggles.

Next was a thread titled, "Would you retire with a NW of $10m?" which was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum. As the title says, the original poster asks if others would retire with a $10 million net worth. In addition, the original poster expects a government pension that includes health insurance. She has three children who are tweens/teens and no additional family support for college and such. While some posters immediately come down on one side or another with some saying that would retire and others saying they wouldn't most posters want more information in order to make a better informed response. In reaction to these queries, the original poster adds that she has about $800,000 left on her mortgage and the kids' 529 college savings plans are funded sufficiently to pay for in-state colleges. She also clarifies that the 529 plans are not included in her net worth. I want to take a second and comment generally on recent trends that I've noticed in the money forum. This forum has often been a bit of a joke with everyone appearing to be extremely wealthy and, frequently out of touch with normal socio-economic standards. There was still some of that in this thread because a number of posters could not imagine having a $10 million net worth and, if they did, would have retired long ago. On the other hand, some posters couldn't imagine retiring with a net worth of "only" $10 million and would require considerably more. I think it has been a rule of thumb to treat everything in the forum with a great deal of salt because it appears that the anonymous posters are often exaggerating if not outright lying. While I wouldn't say that the forum has completely shed its traditional spots, it seems to have significantly improved over time. Many of the responses in this thread were top notch and worthy of any advice that you might pay to receive from a financial advisor. Anyone looking for a definitive answer would be disappointed because posters had a range of opinions and often disagreed with one another. But, many of the posts were quite solid and provided serious food for thought. Ultimately, the orignal poster decided to continue working for two more years and then leave her current job and take a less stressful more enjoyable position for considerably less money.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "How ‘preppy’ is UVA", the original poster says her daughter does not want to consider the University of Virginia because she thinks it is "too preppy". The original poster wants to know if this is really the case and whether or not it is full of "Lululemon wearing suburban kids". She also asks whether the school is as cut throat as it would seem. This forum has made it through all of the college admissions rounds and even past the final decision day of most colleges. So, we are on to future planning such as in this case. This poster, who likely is new to the forum, will soon learn a few hard truths. First, UVA is a hot topic that attracts both fanatical supporters and dedicated trolls. Second, UVA admissions are quite difficult so the preppyness of the students may not be something with which the original poster's daughter will actually have to concern herself. As could be expected, many posters are close to, if not actually, offended by the question. As they point out, UVA is a large university with people of all sorts. Some are preppy, many aren't. Some posters agree that it can be cut throat, but isn't always. Posters with first-hand experience offer their observations, frequently disagreeing with one another. As one poster says, "You see what you’re looking for." Some posters report that their kids did indeed pass on UVA because they thought it was too preppy. This surprised posters who have kids there now who are definitely not preppy. In one case the poster's son dresses in almost nothing but sweats. Another reason for which some kids shunned UVA was their perception that it feels like a large suburban high school. This notion was also rejected by UVA boosters who argued that it is far larger than a high school and has a significant out-of-state and foreign student population. It also has a polo team which most high schools lack, though I am not sure bringing that up in the context of a discussion of preppyness  was a good idea. Back to the issue of being "preppy", some posters wondered if the real issue is the definition of "preppy" and what some might refer to simply as "polished" might be considered by some as "preppy". The original poster later clarified on her daughter's behalf that what she meant was that everyone dressed pretty much the same in basic but stylish clothing, all carrying the same type of water bottle. Another poster summed this up by saying, "You mean conformist and materialistic." Eventually this thread became repetitive with posters simply repeating the same things. It's a big school, there are lots of different types of kids, some of them are preppy. But, ultimately, "Come back once she gets in. Not a slam dunk."