<p>atomom - I mean no offense, but your example seems to me a textbook case of not fair. (Stemming from allowing the expensive schools for #1 and 2, since they should be able to understand the number of kids following.) If you promise to pay for 90% of college costs but then limit only some kids to near-full rides, that’s hardly a “fair” promise. A best-case-now promise after the fact, perhaps.</p>
<p>I am a student and my only sister is 11 years younger, so my parents will get a decent break to recoup. 21 years of college education payments is an unimaginable feat.</p>
<p>dstark: To not “value education above all” (to the point of financial imprudence) is not equivalent to not valuing a good education. I think the distinction is important. I didn’t understand, in my own application process, why my parents were willing to pay more for prestige versus lesser-known LACs that I genuinely liked (e.g. Knox, Earlham). But my dad got his education at mid-tier universities abroad and his PHD at a no-name Canadian university–that educational pattern HAS affected his career, though he’s done extraordinarily well from his childhood in Third-World poverty.</p>
<p>My parents do expect me to “worry” about them when they’re older, if they can’t afford retirement. And I agree, though I disagree with them when it comes to financial duty to my sister.</p>
<p>I think atomom’s point is that “fairness” isn’t really the operative concept. They do what they think best at each step of the way with no knowledge of what unforeseen events tomorrow may bring. Circumstances change, sh*^ happens, life goes on. Each and every one of her 7 children is unique and different and faces a different family condition. </p>
<p>They just have to deal with it as it comes and hope that in the end the children will realize and appreciate all their parents did for them and that they tried to do their best. If that’s the case, then they should not be resentful or feel like there is something “unfair” about it. Life isn’t fair. It is what it is, and any time we get hung up on these relatively minor things we should remind ourselves how good we have it compared to most of the world.</p>
<p>"(This poor kid is also the only one who didn’t have braces, glasses, older bro had accutane, etc.–life isn’t fair. "</p>
<p>Braces and glasses are hardly luxuries like fancy private schools - they are pretty much medical necessities as far as I’m concerned. Sorry, barring some really unforeseen financial tragedy that wiped the family out, I WOULD be pretty annoyed if I were kid #3, and kids #1 / 2 got expensive private schools, and oopsie, there isn’t even money for me to get braces and glasses. (Glasses? How can you expect a kid to do well in school without appropriate vision correction?) That’s SPECTACULARLY unfair, IMO.</p>
<p>Maybe we should move on from fair and take a look at “just” for a second. Let’s say you have two kids. One is a genius, the other is a dunce. The dunce is older. The dunce goes to Clown College, which only costs you 10,000. The fair thing to do would be to say to the genius child, I spent 10,000 on your dunce sibling, I’m not going to spend more on you because I want to be even. The just thing to do would be to send the genius child to Harvard. </p>
<p>In the case of atomom’s 7 kids, I don’t think things were very fair, but they were pretty just. Each kid got to go to the best school that the family could afford, but due to the way life works out, how much the family could afford fluctuated over time. They did the best they could, they were honest with their kids, and they let them make choices within those restrictions. </p>
<p>I think in the case of the OP, the just thing to do would be to let his son go to the dream school that the family can afford, just like they did with his sisters. It seems like the unjust part of this is that the family can actually afford certain dream schools, but they don’t want to pay for it because they want to allocate the inheiritance money towards other things. Which is 100% their perogative, and again, and we probably can’t judge without knowing their exact circumstances. It’s less about “every one of my children must have the exact same opportunity” and more about “every one of my children must have the best educational opportunity I can give them.” </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl, I thin atomom was saying that the kid that has to go to a less expensive school also did not need braces or glasses, unlike his older sibs who needed those things and also went to expensive schools.</p>
<p>Does any of us expect our parents to die at a particular time. It is possible that the OP has always known he would inherit some portion of assets when his parent died and had planned for that as part of his retirement. Perhaps he just did not expect the person to die at a time that affected financial aid. I know many couples who talk about the assets they will get some day- primarily families where the grandparent of the person my age had bought and paid off and kept real estate in a place where the market has gone up like crazy, like people who are now 90-105 (yes!) and have owned in the Bay area forever. These friends “know” they will get $ someday. Just another way of looking at it.</p>
<p>The financial aid formula does not count future hoped for proceeds, so if the same inheritance came after college years, it would never be considered. It’s one of those “not fair” things, but this stuff is formulaic and can never be fair. It’s"not fair" that my kids who attended public schools could have qualified for way better aid under the new middle class aid rules, but they hit college before those new programs existed, but we did the best we could with what we had to work with…not sure how I would have felt if we’d taken big loans.</p>
<p>We told each of our kids we would cover the full cost of the flagship public and they could apply it however they wanted. That meant that as the public tuition went up we were on the hook for more so that took care of college costs changing between kids.</p>
<p>One kid got many more scholarship awards than another due to both my CC awareness and different offerings, we did not give her the difference in cash, we made sure both graduated with no loans.</p>
<p>Another kid chose private, but had to do two years at a CC to make it work with the numbers, she wished she could have been at that private for 4 years or even a third year, but the money was not available.</p>
<p>We try to help based on that kind of rule of similar, keeping the premise the same, not the actual outlay of cash.</p>
<p>I would not do a full pay of $240K on $100k salary, just not smart, in most circumstances, though I have paid a ton for education over the years, I would have to really see the justification for the more expensive option being that much better. One thing you can say for education, it is an investment that is not lost in a down market, not talking jobs, but the knowledge and the person you become through the experiences.</p>
<p>K–I agree–I do think it is unfair, in some ways, too. At least financially.
In hindsight, I would make different decisions. (H overrode my veto of kid #1’s expensive school, so I didn’t control that original decision.) In any family, Kid #1 is often the victim or beneficiary of parents’ mistakes!
It is my nature to say “Each kid gets 3 Christmas presents.” Older kids might get some expensive gadget, computer game or nice clothes. A toddler might get cheap toys from the dollar store. And they’ll all be happy. I tend to think of the number of presents, not the cost of them. (My sister is an accountant and insists on giving the kids gifts of equal value–if one gift costs more, she’ll give the other kid cash to even it up. Then I have kids bickering and wondering why sis got a present AND cash, and he didn’t get any cash, just a present—Hmm–maybe it was because he didn’t write his thank-you note last year?! Anyway, to me it would be simpler if they each got ONE thing from Auntie, regardless of price.)
Each kid will get the same “gift”–advantages (which H and I didn’t have) of #1 Having parents pay for most of college, #2 Not having to work during the school year #3 graduating debt-free. Those are big advantages! Third kid has a school in mind where his yearly cost would be less than $1,500. (yes, one thousand, five hundred.) Given our “10% rule,” he’d personally have to pay only $150/year from his summer job–unlike his brother who paid 2500-4000/year. He might think he’s getting a better deal. And he wouldn’t think this school is inferior, only “different” from his siblings’ schools. Still, I do think of how much we’ll be saving on this particular kid, and I think about “rewarding” him somehow for earning/taking a big scholarship (and having straight teeth and good eyesight, too!) A decent used car may be in his future.</p>
<p>LOL on selling real estate to pay for college. We owned a church rectory (2 bedroom house) --which we asked the church to buy from us (at a very low price) to pay for kid #1’s senior year. We also asked that kid to pay more than 10% during his last two years, because of our change in finances–and he did. Now that he is out of college and working, I’ve suggested that he pay us back another $10K–that we could put toward his younger sibs’ expenses. I don’t think he likes that idea. However, in the future, if there is any financial help to be offered in our family, kid #1 will be the last to get it.</p>
<p>Atom, if it’s any comfort, in most of the large families I know, the older ones end up taking on the lion’s share of the younger one’s college “extras” just because of the reality. If you or H are retired by then, your older son will end up being the one to pay for the airline tickets home at Thanksgiving, the unreimbursed job hunting expenses senior year, the med school application fees. Believe me, it comes out to a lot more than 10K-- but it gets paid when your S is more financially secure, and it will feel like a gift or something noble to him then, not like he’s being dunned by his parents which is probably how it feels to him now.</p>
<p>I also think you may want to revisit the idea of loans and work for the kids. In moderation, they’re both a great way to keep skin in the game for your children, and to eliminate some of the tensions which are probably going to crop up as more of your kids enter the college years.</p>
<p>I completely disagree that that would be “fair.”
H is one of 3 kids. Two went to elite U’s, one went to a state U that costs appreciably less. H was the only one who went to grad school (paid for by parents). The sibling who went to the state u who costs less, who had no ambition to get to a “better” school and no desire to go to grad school, doesn’t get to complain that she’s owed the difference between her state school and H’s elite-school+med+school. It doesn’t work that way.</p>
<p>I agree with oldfort. For some the “equitable” way to handle this is the same amount of input for the 3 kids. I disagree. I think the equitable way to handle this is the same value of opportunity for each of the 3 kids. I think that given the opportunities that you will have given the 3 kids, they should bear the majority of the responsibility of funding graduate school or their first home purchase. For most people these items are self-funded, and they would be affordable if they made good use of the opportunities that you gave them for undergrad. Actually, I think you can view it has having delivered a $240K education for each of your other Ds. With that point of view, you could make a deal with your son that if he goes to a less expensive school, you’d be willing to use a portion (saving some for the other Ds) of what remains of the $240K for HIS grad school should he be headed to a professional school. The ultimate choice should be his though. I would still let them each buy their own house. I think that exceeds your obligation to launch them unless you have spare cash lying around.</p>
<p>“…you can view it has having delivered a $240K education for each of your other Ds.”</p>
<p>Dad didn’t exactly deliver it on his own. Not on a 100k income. The girls were accepted at a school that offered substantial aid. Then, they chose to attend that school. Dad and the girls got the deal of a lifetime.</p>
<p>The thread has swung off the issue of whether or not the OP can now afford to use 240k of the inheritance for his son; let’s assume he can. </p>
<p>Not everyone is in his position. What about folks who can’t be so generous? Would they be wrong to say, despite the fact that your siblings went to [Great School with great aid and had great experiences,] we can only afford to give each of you 60k? Or, is it all supposed to be matchy-matchy? </p>
<p>Of course, each of our kids deserves the right school, but there are realities to consider. Many folks, if they are putting kids through college on 100k (plus financial aid,) have stretched the budget thin, turned down the heat, put the car repairs on a charge card, stopped all discretionary spending, etc. If they inherited that much, they might first fund retirement, pay debts, maybe fix the roof, turn up the heat, etc. And, still qualify as great parents who love their kids equally.</p>
<p>The OP can afford it. That’s the point. His question is whether it’s more equitable to spend more money on S vs to spend it to help all 3 on grad school and buying their first home. Of course he can’t afford it you can’t afford it. If he paid full price for D1 and D2 and now has lost his job and can’t pay for S such is life. That is not the case here. The OP is trying to decide for himself what is equitable among two very generous options. I merely provided a different viewpoint on on the subject. One that’s defensible should the two older Ds feel that they didn’t get their fair share of dad’s help.</p>
<p>if OP wants to level out the education opportunities for his kids</p>
<p>Also means that the family as a whole contributed to the 1st child before the 2nd and 3rd received their due. Thus the 1st child and the subsequent 2nd child, need to contribute to the 3rd child’s cost of education.</p>
<p>I have a lot of respect for the OP in the extent that he wants to use his limited resources for his kids’ benefit, maximizing it’s utility but also being fair. In that limited context (assuming that the roof of the house and his retirement are fine), I think it’s a tough call which way to go. I gave my opinion in that context.</p>
<p>I read what the OP said. And in my opinion, he can’t afford it.</p>
<p>“A year ago, my wife and I came into an inheritance that now places our EFC in the upper $50Ks / low $60Ks. Some of that is tied up in real estate; with some we hope to help our kids in young adulthood and ourselves through retirement. We’ll no longer qualify for need-based aid, but while we could come up with the funds to pay full fare at a top private university, it would use up much of that cushion for the future. Our regular annual family income remains around $100K. D2, a junior at Harvard, pays more in tuition than she used to but still gets significant aid due to Harvard’s uniquely generous aid policies.”</p>
<p>“We’ll no longer qualify for need-based aid, but while we could come up with the funds to pay full fare at a top private university, it would use up much of that cushion for the future.”</p>
<p>With all due respect, I defer to the OP’s judgement of what he can and can’t afford. He didn’t ask for financial planning advice, he asked for an opinion on the equity of several different approaches for him to contribute to his kids “launching”. I’m interested because I ask myself the same questions. </p>
<p>The daughters should not begrudge their brother if dad decided to give him the same opportunities. That’s the difference between looking at input (the price) vs output (the value) to determine equity.</p>