<p>I tend to agree with Muffy–because the older one made frugal choices, he should fund the younger? Doesn’t seem fair to even ask, to me. Did he pick the state school with the assumption that the funds would then be available for other use? Do we know that he won’t want to further his education later on in ways that the money left might make possible? Absent more specific facts, the situation seems to suggest a favoring attitude toward the younger son (and let’s look at the numbers; if the older one will have 100K available after his education, and if the younger is equally funded, then there would seem to be adequate funds available, or close to it without even going into present income. So, we seem to be talking about paying for the youngin’s grad, not undergrad, school–making a lot of assumptions about what the older one might want to do, despite “only” having gone to a state school.)</p>