<p>daughters had to put themselves through school. We could not afford even the cost of the public colleges (our vacations are tent camping and our economy cars are old). The oldest took out loans for the full cost of her education and we are now helping a little bit with that (the fed loans will soon be forgiven thanks to teaching in a poverty area). </p>
<p>Our younger daughter earned some generous private scholarships and merit awards at her private school, along with loans that we did not have to cosign. We aren’t helping her because her income is double our combined income.</p>
<p>I think that part of a parent’s responsibility is to help to ensure that children become independent adults. That said, we are paying for both our children’s educations (private school). They will have some student loans (about 25K) each, which is really not bad. We both earn well now, but during our savings years we never went on a vacation, drove cars that had 200K miles on them etc., etc., - we sacrificed and started saving when our children were young - even without a high income. My husband was laid off 5 times in 5 years. We just felt so strongly that we put our retirement savings on hold. People say that is a bad idea, pay yourself first…but I think just the opposite. If you help your kids to be as independent as possible by giving them the tools they need to be successful (either a marketable college degree or a trade), then barring something unexpected, they will become independent adults. Now that we are over the hump (oldest son has 1 more year, second son has 3 years to go), I feel a tremendous relief, Once those college bills are out of the way, then we will need much less $ to live on and it would not be a tragedy if one of us lost our jobs. Not that we could quit our jobs right now, but we will certainly need a lot less $ once the college bills are gone and the kids are on their own. Read an article yesterday about boomerang kids. Many of these kids have graduated from great colleges, with marketable degrees, but staggering loans - not all but some. </p>
<p>OP said he feels “guilty I cannot do more to help but I can’t afford everything that my student wants.” We can help him deal with the guilt or we can focus on tempering her “wants.” But I don’t see how this gets to be about moral obligations. Especially when a person doesn’t have gobs of money.</p>
<p>In short, imo, there is a greater moral obligation to build a good family that gives them a sense of love, team effort, confidence, savvy and a desire to go forth and make something of their lives, than to hock the house or the retirement for some “name brand” college. I wouldn’t replace my kids’ grounding for the vague hope the name on the diploma will guarantee them something. There is no magic.</p>
<p>In countries where taxpayers fund college, access to free/ nearly-free higher education is rationed to only those students who make the academic cut-- the logic being that the large taxpayer investment should not be wasted on less academically capable students. ** It is a de facto merit aid system.**</p>
<p>In the US, there is general hostility towards college funding according to academic ability regardless of financial need. The predominant “accepted” aid model is on the basis of financial need.</p>
<p>A big downside to the publicly paid/ rationed model is that kids in secondary school are streamed early. Late bloomers who don’t make it into the college-preparatory stream are shut out. And when something is free, the sense of urgency to graduate is not there. I have German friends who are “professional students”.</p>
<p>To expand on my prior post, I realize that selling my house to finance my D’s education may sound extreme. I place a great value on higher education. My S was a “bloom where planted” type of kid, but my D is not. I truly believe that I am giving her the best shot at success in this instance. And she isn’t attending a big-name prestigious school. I don’t even expect that this will yield a large ROI - but then again I am the dying breed that believes there is an intrinsic value in higher education apart from finding a job. I have equity in my house, but really can’t afford to tap it and then make the additional payments. I refuse to raid or stop contributing to my retirement funds or incur massive debt. I won’t let my D borrow more than the Stafford limits (and hope to keep her total debt at 20k). Selling the house seems like the best option. My H and I have a rental house (his former bachelor pad before we married). Is it great? No. Do I much prefer my house? Yes. But my D upheld her end of the bargain. She has worked (with exception of times she has been ill) throughout HS. She limited her choices to schools at which she received merit. She didn’t get FA partly because of her step-father’s income/assets. He isn’t paying. It was my choice to remarry. Why should she be penalized? I made a promise. What am I teaching her if I break that promise now because keeping it entails a bigger sacrifice on my part than I had anticipated? </p>
<p>Many of us believe in the intrinsic value of education apart from a job.<br>
Edge, I was speaking in general and have to believe you tackled the affordability issues as best you could. </p>
<p>I think each set of parents should decide how paying for college fits into their lives and financial picture and decide what they can afford. I try not to be judgemental about the decisions other families make however there a couple situations that I can’t help thinking that the parents are messing with their kids futures.</p>
<p>First, when parents won’t fill out the FAFSA or CSS profile forms. If the parents know no aid is forthcoming that is one thing but a lot of the CSS profile situations seem to be residual divorce issues where a non-custodial parent will not even fill out the forms … which tons worse than just not paying.</p>
<p>Second, when parents in a private school full-pay situation will not pay a cent for their kid’s college because of some form of the “I worked and paid my own way through college so my kids can also” argument. I’m all for students having “skin in the game” however taking this approach to the extreme by a full-pay family severely limits their children’s options. While I believe students can succeed coming out of any school I do not believe all schools provide equal education experiences. Winning a philosophical point while possibly lessening a student’s education seems pretty counter productive to me. What about the state flagship with the student taking out full federal loans, working 10 hours a week during school, and working all summer? … wouldn’t that provide the same lesson while likely improving the education outcome?</p>
<p>PS - in both these situations I bet the students learn a lesson … but often not the one the parents thought they were teaching.</p>
<p>My parents paid for my education and I feel responsible for paying for my kids. That said it was a good thing we inherited a large chunk of change right before the eldest went to college because the inflation of college tuition was a lot more than we anticipated. I remember going to an program in elementary school and estimating that the selective private schools would cost about $30,000 a year when my kids would be attending - instead they were more than $50,000. I can’t blame any parent for not realizing what colleges would cost. </p>
<p>I like Hunt’s rules - I think the biggest mistake parents make is not being upfront with their kids about what they can afford.</p>
<p>Hmm, so your argument is against the giving of fin aid to people attending diploma mills and the like. I can understand that. The Germans also have a strong apprenticeship system though, through which the majority of the working population can gain useful skills through vocational education that let them stay in the middle class (and go above) without attending college.</p>
<p>@lookingforward:
Many of us believe that the intrinsic value of education can be gained without sacrificing an arm and a leg (and that it is lifelong, not just during 4 years when you’re around 20; and that education is ultimately up to the individual anyway).</p>
<p>If you look around the world, a lot of aspects of American higher education just seem crazy. If you look at a first-world country like Japan where living costs are just as high as in the US, even their elite privates of Keio and Waseda (which have been called the Harvard and Yale of Japan; though the US doesn’t have the equivalent of a public UoTokyo that tops all others) charge tuitions that are a small fraction of our privates. And they give out a decent amount of scholarships as well. And they can also afford to hire some pretty famous (Japanese) faculty. And their grads do just as well in Japan as our Ivy League grads do here.</p>
<p>I’m not disagreeing with you, PT. It was posed that some appreciate the intrinsic value and thus are willing to suffer some extraordinary challenges to meet the costs. I meant many of us appreciate, but are still very conscious of what we can truly afford. Not just out of our pockets, but in cost to our whole families.</p>
<p>The colleges and the government do. It is their opinion that matters, since that determines their pricing and financial aid policies.</p>
<p>Most colleges are too expensive for a typical new high school graduate to self-fund without any parental assistance these days (and parental assistance includes allowing the student continue living in the parents’ house). A generation ago, a high school graduate could get a job that s/he can live on, with some left over to pay the trivial tuition at a nearby public university (and, if not enough, a small student loan would likely bridge the gap). With high school graduate job opportunities and pay declining over the years, while even in-state public tuitions rising due to budget cuts, that is a less realistic possibility now.</p>
<p>There is considerable variation by college here. For example, the University of Alabama is the opposite of what you describe. Its net price calculator indicates that the only need-based aid available is federal aid – it gives no need-based aid of its own. On the other hand, it has many well known merit scholarships, some of which are quite large.</p>
<p>Of course, state universities also have an in-state discount available to all admitted state residents, regardless of merit (beyond that needed to get admitted) and family finances.</p>
<p>Yes. One of the few realistic opportunities for paying your own way now is joining the NJ National Guard (and going to a NJ public). Or joining the IL National Guard for a year and then going to an IL public.</p>
<p>However, with all the wars that certain people in this country love to engage in recently, deployment is a real possibility.</p>
<p>I think it may be a cultural thing, but have posted before that we value education and considered it our responsibility to pay to educate our children. If they plan to attend grad school, that will be on their nickel, but undergrad was our promise to them.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus I am in full agreement with your statement. The federal government is a huge part of the problem here. The government, of course, is us. It is easy to say the government should pay or subsidize education but all that does is drive up the costs and hide them behind loans.</p>
<p>There are a great many ways for kids to pay for school that have little or nothing to do with the parents. Merit Scholarships, Military service, tuition assistance from the student’s employer, pay as you go and save.</p>
<p>One of the sad side notes is that that government’s warp idea of who is responsible can lead to things like 18 year old students getting married young so they will both be independent in the eyes of the feds and can then get needs based aid. Bold prediction, this will become one of the next big scandals in higher education.</p>
<p>This raises a big issue: not all kids are cut out for college. The present lemming-like mantra in the US that everyone should go to college is not without harm. We end up w academically disinclined kids dropping out of college, deeply in debt, and financially worse off than if they had never gone to college at all. Many would have been better off pursing a trade. </p>