<p>As one who was “ridded” I am inclined to agree – but I do respect the fact that this is not uniformly the case. I am also not a fan of mountains of debt (at all.) And I don’t believe that “doing it my way” is the only way at all. But while I am inclined to agree, my point was more that the poster to admitted to his/her take on the skin-in-game phenom, which shows that for some it has some merit. I was also trying to describe a situation in which I personally observed benefit to the skin-in-game phenom. But I would not go so far as to say that’s the only way, or not the only way. This just isn’t an “either/or” debate (at least not for me.) Different strokes for different folks, is all.</p>
<p>I hear ya. My older brother and my older sister were both “ridded” because they didn’t do well in their first year at college. One strike, they were out. My brother never really recovered and began a long downward spiral. My sister funded her own education many years later, and became an RN. I kept my grades up and got some help all the way through to graduation, but my dad loved that I had a *ton *of skin in the game.</p>
<p>Although I want them to have some skin in the game, it’s not what I expect of my kids. I take into consideration–as I would when hearing of any particular parenting style–my own parents’ values and background. My father was a product of the depression, and the necessity, if not cultural value, of his day was something like this: “Everyone the hell out of the house at 18: You’re on your own now.” He was grateful that he was able to go to B.U. on the GI bill–the first and only one in his family to attend college–and he was willing to help with college expenses to a degree, but with big stipulations, including “one strike, you’re out.”</p>
<p>I am happy to report that my own “snowflakes,” despite being raised in a middle-class bubble of sorts, have a strong work ethic, appreciation for what they have, and a sense of obligation to make the most of the advantages they’ve received. They realize they were lucky, and I hope someday when they have the means they will find good ways to “pay it forward.”</p>
<p>I was confused so I did a search of this whole thread, and the first time anyone used the word “rid” or “ridding” was qdogpa’s post #240. </p>
<p>Raising up young people with the ability to take on responsibility when they reach adulthood is not a matter of getting “rid” of kids. MOST – not some, not a few, but MOST Americans probably do not have the financial ability to fully finance their kids to go away to college for 4 years on the parent’s dime, much less grad school. </p>
<p>Only people who are extremely privileged financially can talk about “skin in the game” as if it is a choice. The vast majority of working parents (not to mention nonworking, unemployed or disabled parents) simply are not in a financial position to provide such a prolonged childhood for their offspring. At the lower and the economic scale, there are kids who have to start working and contributing to the household in their teens – that is, teenagers whose earnings don’t go into their personal college savings but help put food on their parents’ table. </p>
<p>I think for the vast majority in the middle, it is a shifting that starts with shared responsibility in the late teens, with the kids becoming fully independent in their 20’s. The most common situation is probably kids who continue to live at home, without being charged rent by their parents, but who commute to local colleges and who have part time jobs to pay for the expenses associated with attending school (books, transportation) – and may rely mostly on loans or grants to cover the tuition. </p>
<p>That is not getting “rid” of offspring - to the contrary, a kid who is still living at home with their parents into their 20’s, even if contributing rent by that age, is physically much closer to the parents and probably has parents more involved in their day-to-day lives than the parents who are paying full freight for their kid’s college half a continent away, including a period of study abroad. </p>
<p>To me, one big part of the equation is that I respect and have faith in my offspring. I believed that they were capable of holding down part time jobs at 16 or 17, I believed that they were capable of shouldering some of the burden of their own college, and I believed that both would be fully capable of supporting themselves and making reasonable payments on loans after college.</p>
<p>^ Calmom, I couldn’t agree more - the ultimate goal is to launch them into successful competent adulthood, one step at a time. I’m the person who introduced the “skin in the game” conversation in this thread, but actually it was a glib throwaway line. The only loans we take out are the maximum Staffords, but with two in college and an EFC close to that of the OP that $10k or so per year isn’t just skin in the game for our kids, it’s a major part of our affordability calculations. Just as I suggested that the OP split the balance into “10 easy payments” - we do that as well, for two kids (and btw it’s not a bad way to go as the colleges don’t charge interest on the outstanding balance) but I can assure you those 10 (actually 20) payments are anything but “easy”. </p>
<p>Both my kids are responsible for their own spending money and books, and I have been pleased to see they take it seriously, budget well, search out the cheapest online options for book buying and haven’t had to come to us for additional spending money (although I toss a little their way every once in a while when I hear a note of quiet desperation). They have summer jobs, and on-campus jobs, although only the second was offered work study. Funny thing is, almost all of my friends, some of whom are very very rich, make their kids do the same thing. And they all call it skin in the game.</p>
<p>To the OP, it seems you are shifting from freakout mode to quiet acceptance of the situation. Truth is, with your income and college savings, you actually CAN afford this if you choose to. And if you don’t choose to, that’s ok too. My kids, husband, and I discussed ad nauseum the decision between the “dream” LAC and the state flagship, and even though we ultimately decided on the LACs none of us are 100% sure we made the right choice. Life’s like that, full of decisions and uncertainty and shades of gray - yet another lesson that our kids learn from this process.</p>
<p>Calmom, very wise post. Thanks for the calm perspective.</p>
<p>Carmen, Thanks for clarifying what you meant by “skin in the game.” For all the argument of choice vs. necessity, my takeaway was that all parents do see to it that–one way or another, to varying degees–their kids have responsibility and accountability in their college funding. </p>
<p>And yes, you’re right, with the help of this thread and some added research, I’ve gotten past the freak-out stage and into acceptance (Stage 7 of **notrichenough **'s hilarious but accurate list in Post #63, a must-read). We do have choices, and if we decide to become “full payers” at the dream LAC we will do it with eyes wide open but also, as you put it, never knowing with certainty if we made “the right choice.” We are blessed to have such choices.</p>