<p>sin is a religious concept, one I happen to reject, and in my opinion has no place in this discussion. However, I do believe from a “moral” perspective, parents do indeed owe their children their best to assist them in getting a college education, rather than sentencing them to a life of limited education and therefore, potentially limited prospects.</p>
<p>Let me start by saying that I also think the OP to this thread has misplaced priorities. HOWEVER, regarding post 242, there are many successful folks out there who did NOT go to $50,000 plus per year schools. As I put in my response to the OP, there are many options between NOT supporting your child at all, and paying full freight at the country’s most expensive colleges.</p>
<p>I do NOT believe the OP is “sentencing her child to a life of limited education and potentially limited prospects”. </p>
<p>I think the OP came across as selfish and self serving. There is a difference.</p>
<p>^To be fair, I think guyonadmission was responding to a different notion that was put forth, rather than speaking specifically about OP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, YOU asked the question, so I’ll answer.</p>
<p>Yeah, you are. But you already knew that, didn’t you? ;)</p>
<p>
Yes, I agree with this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also agree. I view morality in this particular thread’s context as:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The OP has been reading along every day. Would be interesting to hear her thoughts on these comments.</p>
<p>"I doubt that very much since I’ve devoted every day of the past 18 years to readying my children for a productive adulthood.</p>
<p>We’ve saved for college since their infancy and have taken total ownership of their education by homeschooling. Nobody has ever accused me of taking a laissez-faire approach to childrearing."</p>
<p>Let’s say, if your children were in the care of some other hypothetical parents, and they are well fed and well taken cared of physically but in terms of education, they are left to do what ever they please with very little thoughts on how they could get to or through college, in fact, they say to the children, you are on your own after high school. Is the parent doing the right and good thing for their kids. Is that just mildly offensive and wrong or is that just completely not right and unacceptable? Sinful aside, what does your notion of not morally obligated entail?</p>
<p>I think we’re going to see more and more parenting exhaustion, especially amongst those “sandwich generation”-types with responsibilities caring for parents and children simultaneously.</p>
<p>Even without that added stress, today’s parents don’t have it as easy as the parents of a generation ago did. The cost of grooming a child for top-tier college admittance (paying for lessons, tutors, etc,) can grind down even the most devoted guardian. More than a few, I suspect, will find themselves “bonking” by the time their child finishes high school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly! It’s like saying, “I won’t buy shoes for my children because top of the line sports shoes cost hundreds of dollars.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The OP seems to think that selfishness is limited to the financial realm.</p>
<p>Oh, I like your analogy, Naturally!</p>
<p>1) Stop all ECs outside of what is free in HS and funnel the money into a 529. </p>
<p>2) Work <em>one</em> extra year and put every penny into the college fund or paying off college loans.</p>
<p>That should easily be $100K or more, and give the kid a world of options.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice one, Naturally.</p>