My daughter does not want to pay back her college loans

<p>Aren't there elite music schools with free tuition? I can think of two off of the top of my head. Just throwing that out there randomly.</p>

<p>Yes, but one does not offer one of his his instruments/genre (what else are you referring to, besides Curtis)?</p>

<p>A dear childhood friend of mine went to CC for two years, then on to state public university for her bachelors, then to Yale for a Masters degree. She plays just about any band instrument, is a virtuoso pianist, and sang with the Met. Incredibly talented; somehow she did OK in spite of the "subpar" beginnings.</p>

<p>Secondly, a performing musician does not need a degree, if they're good they will be in demand with or without that piece of paper.</p>

<p>I'm comfortable with the list we have generated. Sure, there are performing musicians without degrees, but I don't want my son to be one of them (and nor does he). Other people's mileage may vary.</p>

<p>mythmom said--
The cost of living on LI ...</p>

<p>what does LI mean?</p>

<p>Long Island</p>

<p>quote from previous post--</p>

<p>State flagships and CCs might be good options for some students, but they are clearly not the right choice for a good number of kids. And this brings us right back to the reason that people are facing debt for the "right" place for their kids.</p>

<p>I contend that even state schools can be significantly challenging to afford for many people. It is more than mere 'fit'. Carlton was 3,000 more dollars (estimated net cost using collegedata.com) than state schools.</p>

<p>for us, it is all 'about the same', State public or LAC.</p>

<p>our net cost that we still have to pay each yr after our need is 'met' (really deferring the need, like an indentured servant) via a bunch of loans ....</p>

<p>UIC (local commuter 4 yr state school)........ 15.7 k
UIUC (flagship; which we cannot get into).... 16.3 k</p>

<p>Beloit......................................................17.3 k
Carleton..................................................18.7 k
Olaf........................................................19.1 k</p>

<p>this is but our first child with two more on the way in 3 and 6 yrs. I know, I know, we should have thought about this when we conceived them!</p>

<p>Did they get rid of the poison from Alpo? Is Alpo still the pet food of choice for impoverished seniors, or seniors who decided to assist funding their ill conceived offspring's education? Rising seniors? Hah! descending seniors!</p>

<p>doubleplay: No one can dispute your points. There are options, and clearly borrowing money and then defaulting on loans is a poor solution. Your solutions ARE better.</p>

<p>However, LAC's are a much better option for some kids. Education just feels different than most consumer items, and it is painful to feel that one cannot provide what your children need. (Not talking about myself.)</p>

<p>I am happy your sons are doing well. I understand some parents' feelings that the cost of higher education is out of bounds.</p>

<p>*State flagships and CCs might be good options for some students, but they are clearly not the right choice for a good number of kids. And this brings us right back to the reason that people are facing debt for the "right" place for their kids.
*</p>

<p>what does "right" mean?</p>

<p>Is there only one, "right" house?
Only one,"right" spouse?
A "right" way to raise children?
Only one," right" career?</p>

<p>No- there is not.</p>

<p>What ever happened to "Happiness is not getting what you want, but wanting what you get"?</p>

<p>making the best of things.</p>

<p>What about all those students, many on the CC boards, who felt like there was a "right " place for them, but found that not only weren't they not offered any financial support, they weren't even offered admission!
Still they learned to make do with what they had & many are thriving.</p>

<p>Yes it can be frustrating when you learn you can't control every aspect of your child's future. But if they have strong preparation and are hard workers, they will do well, where ever they go. That doesn't mean they won't have setbacks,even if they were admitted to a competitive, prestigious program, doesn't mean that they have it made for ever after.But you can teach resilency & you can learn that there are many "right" paths.</p>

<p>Thinking that there is only one way- is a dead end & restrictive.
When you think that only one choice will do- what happens when your criteria changes?
I feel teaching our kids that there is one right fit and only the best is good enough is dangerous.
It teaches them that the "environment" has to be "right", because they do not have the power to adapt and to make it work.</p>

<p>We are a family living in an expensive area of the country.
Neither I or my husband have attended a 4-year college- our income is very modest. Our kids both have learning disabilities, as do we, thankfully however, we have found that LDs don't eliminate the opportunity to pursue higher education, not like they did 30 years ago.
It does make it challenging of course, and a lot of work to find a good enough fit- we don't have the hubris or the luxury to look for the "right" fit.
But it is a matter of priorities.
If you want to make it work- you will.
If you want to blame the situation/others, you can do that too.</p>

<p>I think most people realize, in the competitive and expensive world of higher education, that setting ones sights on only one potential "fit" is ludicrous. It is too easy to be disappointed, either by rejection, or by impossibly high costs.</p>

<p>However, there are clearly settings which are "more" right...both from the standpoints of student, cost, needs, etc. Clearly if there is not enough money for a state university, even with financial aid, the cost will become the overriding factor, and the "fit" will be based on cost. This isn't true for everyone, and then other aspects of fit can take a more prominent position in the planning.</p>

<p>Cost aside, I don't think that their state U is the right setting for every student, which is no different than those who do not think the public high school is/was the right setting for their son or daughter. For those people whose kids are happily situated that their state Us, I think that is great. It doesn't make me snobby or elitist to say that it wouldn't be the right place for my particular child, and we are fortunate to have the options to look beyond that. It might be right for another child of mine. We shall see. </p>

<p>There are multiple options, and people have to determine what is right for their family, and what elements of "fit" take precedent.</p>

<p>Applause to those who can fit into any shoe.
I don't feel that the fit of someone who wants to go to a private expensive school takes precedence over paying back the loan; and if they can't they shouldn't go.</p>

<p>I am personally aware of the private high school scenario. For six years I listened to rationalization of how much better off our students were than the public school students. Yes, there were advantages, but in the end the same students who were destined for certain colleges got in (many with great scholarships), and the ones who weren't- well they either paid out of the nose to go private once again, or they went to publics. (BTW, my kids were on scholarship in hs so I didn't have the investment to rationalize.)</p>

<p>By the same token, friends who sent their kids to the local public had the same experience- there were the kids who went on the elite colleges and those that didn't. In my experience, it didn't really make much of a difference in the long run. Those that rise to the top, rise.</p>

<p>There will be kids who go to public U's who become fantastic. There will also be kids who go to private U's who become fantastic. There will be kids who go private and end up unemployed, defaulting on their loans, after ? years. Same with public.</p>

<p>In the end, there are so many other factors that make one a success that "where I went to Ugrad college" is just a drop in the bucket.</p>

<p>If the parents want to take out the loan, it's their call, their precedence.</p>

<p>That's the American way! :D</p>

<p>doubleplay: I definitely agree with you as I've said; nothing excuses welching on loans. And as to the value of public education, I agree. I attended public institutions and have devoted my life to teaching at one. But why ignore all other points? Not all state schools are equal, and not all state schools are affordable, and not all state schools can provide the education or opportunities that every student needs. Why the anger?</p>

<p>My post was shrill. I realized that as I took my walk tonight. I'm sensitive to the private-is-better argument (and I know no one is saying that here, it's just a touchy subject) because I have been in that environment. And I know that $ doesn't make something better, although some people want to believe that. As I said, my kids were part of that world for quite some time, and it opened my eyes somewhat. The lesson I took from it was that there were opportunities (music, for one) where public school would have been better, and others where the private school was better (for example, nurturing). </p>

<p>My experience at the high school level is: I see a lot of people who automatically assume that the more an education costs, the better it is. That's not true across the board. And for every horror story I've heard/read about public schools (especially at the high school level) I could give you hair raising tales match for match at the private school level. It's just that people don't talk about it- obviously the schools themselves don't talk about it, and the parents who send their kids there don't because they've already paid so much, they don't want to feel the fool.</p>

<p>So when I hear so many people say they can't get a decent education at public universities, it sends little spidey chills down my spine.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't feel that the fit of someone who wants to go to a private expensive school takes precedence over paying back the loan; and if they can't they shouldn't go.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me toss in a variation, which might seem unrelated but maybe isn't:</p>

<p>If your child needed expensive surgery and/or treatment to survive, would you take out loans to save your child? Even if you feared you'd never be able to pay back those loans?</p>

<p>What if your child wasn't going to die, but was going to lose his/her eyesight? Or hearing? Or a limb? Or cognitive function? Would you take out the loan?</p>

<p>Do you think we all, in wealthy countries like the U.S. and Canada, have the right to medical care?</p>

<p>Do you think we all have the right to an education?</p>

<p>Is it "immoral" (as somebody posted) to fail to pay back a loan?</p>

<p>I differ in my opinion in that I don't believe that getting a public, or a lesser tier private, instead of a top tier private is the same as a life and death situation. Although I do see the gravity of educational choice vs., say, a car choice.</p>

<p>People, have a heart. This wasn't a situation of a kid insisting on a Mercedes when a used Civic would have done the trick. This is a family dealing with a troubled 18 year old who had a bad HS experience and was on track to a bad college experience if she went off seething and resentful that her parents were forcing her into a bad fit at the State U with the free ride.</p>

<p>How many of us would have ignored the warning signs and insisted that the kid "take it or leave it" at State U? How many of us would have realistically looked down the road and predicted that the current mess? Top schools have top 6 year grad rates. I know a kid who dropped out of Harvard due to mental illness.... but he's a drop in the bucket of an otherwise pretty good bet to make... most kids admitted to Harvard end up graduating from Harvard. </p>

<p>If this were my kid I would have made the same bet the OP's parents made... expensive school, happy, functioning kid, major she's passionate about in a good environment. Illness abated? Probably not but under control in the right environment.... so I would have taken the bet that after graduating, my kid who had a good college experience would get out there, pound the pavement, and end up with a job... maybe not making 6 figures 6 months out, but enough to start paying off the loan so I could start to worry about paying for the next child.</p>

<p>Many of you are being unnecessarily cruel. This doesn't sound like the garden variety "I'm defaulting on my loans 'cause I'd rather go skiiling in Aspen than get a job". This is a smart kid who under the right circumstances can thrive and do well, but has a complex illness which has created a lot of family grief in addition to hampering her ability to get out there and get on with life.</p>

<p>How many of us would insist on Big State U with all the kids from HS who tormented our kid throughout the last 12 years? (I don't know the facts... I'm being illustrative) How many of us would have "forced" a kid to major in Accounting so she'd be self supporting if she loved Anthropology and was thriving and doing well? How many of us always know what's going to happen four years out? How many of us have NEVER been disappointed by our kids????</p>

<p>Try to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, especially if that person has been dealing with a most unusual CC circumstance- a child who is not perfect; a child who does not exist to validate mom and dad's perfection as people and parents, a child who has her own demons not related to getting a 780 instead of an 800 on the SAT's.</p>

<p>DP, I think I understand where you are coming from. Private absolutely does not mean better, either at the high school, or at the college level. </p>

<p>Here's a little ditty that was in the Boston papers yesterday, regarding a very elite private school (would make my hair curl, if I were paying the $28K tuition): </p>

<p><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/08/21/notes_on_a_scandal/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/08/21/notes_on_a_scandal/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>But I still contend that some children will do better in a private setting than a public one, in K-12 (or at some point), because they do need a smaller and/or more nurturing setting. Some kids get lost in the shuffle in a big public middle or high school, and some get lost in a big public university. </p>

<p>Not every setting is right for every student, and I think it is important to acknowledge that sometimes private is better than public, depending on the child. It isn't a slam on public education (which has served my children very nicely, incidentally) to note that one size doesn't fit all. Certainly not my intent to offend anyone either.</p>

<p>On edit: to swing back to the OP's question, after reading Blossom's excellent post, I will say that I agree completely....forcing the big public U could have been a much greater disaster for the young lady in question. This is just the type of situation I was describing (leaving out the debt issues, and just looking at the social/emotional fit for the child).</p>

<p>"How many of us would insist on Big State U with all the kids from HS who tormented our kid throughout the last 12 years? (I don't know the facts... I'm being illustrative) "</p>

<p>See, this is the kind of stuff that makes me take offense...my kids go to Big State U! Is that where all the tormentors go? Apparently. </p>

<p>Wonder where all the anger comes from?</p>