<p>What on earth are you talking about? who has a vested right? Show me where it is written that anyone has a “vested right” to a tertiary education whether at a lousy college or a world-class one.</p>
<p>As for separating education from parental income, no, they have not. The French pay way more in taxes and charges sociales than Americans. And the top rate is far higher. That’s how they can finance their health coverage, free (but often inferior) education, and other social services. We have university libraries that are open everyday of the week. My SIL was TOLD to take all of her allotted 10 weeks vacation, even though she wanted to be back at work. So her section of the library was closed for 10 weeks. My brother had to walk past a gauntlet of drug dealers on his way to overcrowded classes while I was enjoying small seminars in this country. Go to a research library in France and most of the titles are American. A lot of academic books by first authors in this country are revised Ph.D. dissertations. In Germany, you have to pay to get your dissertation published (a requirement) and no one will help you with the copy editing.</p>
<p>Marite, we mustn’t respond to random phrases from people’s posts without regard to the context. Take a deep breath and then re-read the post you just quoted. You’ll see that the poster was expressing disagreement with that viewpoint that you find so upsetting.</p>
<p>If my resume says that I graduated XYZ University, I can see keeping a GPA (and perhaps mention of PBK or cum laude status) with that to show what I accomplished when I was there, but high school SAT’s that got me there in the first place? That’s really bizarre to me. I’ve never seen that in 20+ years of reviewing resumes for both a major company and now a small one, and I really think I’d have a hard time not laughing if a college grad put high school SAT’s on a resume.</p>
<p>Many would, if it weren’t for the fact that they’d lose their health insurance. As sewhappy points out, that’s another system we’d better improve if we’re going to stay first-world.</p>
<p>I must be a real barbarian if I’m not offended that parents are asked (not mandated, asked) to pay for their kids college education. If they refuse, kid can join the military and go to college afterwards on the GI bill. Or join ROTC and have their tuition subsidized. Or go to the Naval Academy for free. Or live at home, go to community college while working, and then head off to State U for the last two years and graduate with loans. Or move to Europe, establish residency, and go to a European university where apparently the state of affairs is more to everyone’s liking. </p>
<p>Fact remains that parents who refuse to pay for lots of things end up giving their kid the short end of the stick. But we don’t mandate that a parent provide orthodontia if a kid has an overbite, or that a parent buy a kid skates or provide music lessons, or even feed the kid protein at breakfast if the parent is happier having the kid buy a donut on the way to school.</p>
<p>And who the heck is “required to die for the country”??? We gave up the draft a long time ago if memory serves.</p>
<p>So I’m not sure what the whinging is all about. If your income is above a certain level, all things being equal, you’re not going to get financial aid from a private need-only school. So there are lots and lots of options for you and your kid. Nobody takes a vaccum cleaner and sucks the dollars out of your pocket to pay for a private education- you don’t want to pay for it, so your kid can get educated some other way (like tens of thousands of kids out there in the real world where arguing over $200K in income would strike everyone as absurd.)</p>
<p>This is the post I responded to, and I stand by my response. There is no VESTED RIGHT to either child of the <$200k family or to the child of the >$200k family. The Harvard admission rate this year was around 7-8%. If it had two applicants with exactly the same profile, but one had a family willing to pay full fare, guess which would be admitted?</p>
<p>Absolutely. The current system plays double standards on the young adults. The law allows parents to have no responsibility for children of 18 years old or older, but the colleges require the students to be dependent on parents. I was one of these students.</p>
<p>Here is my take. When the child reaches the 18th birthday:</p>
<ol>
<li>He/she has to go to work to supprt him/herself.</li>
<li>He/she can go to college or vocational school paid by the government.</li>
<li>He/she can join the Army, Nany, Air Forces, Marines.</li>
<li>He/she can go to apply for welfare if cannot find a job.</li>
<li>He/she cannot sue parents for not providing child support.</li>
</ol>
<p>I’m assuming that “by the government” you mean “by the taxpayers.” So, okay, how much more in taxes would you be willing to pay? Many areas have lousy schools because too many residents are childless and therefore unwilling to pay high enough property taxes to fund decent schools. Why should it be any different for higher education?</p>
<p>Just because you haven’t seen it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It shows you are in a different field. It’s VERY common in the high finance field like Wall Street and management consulting firms.</p>
<p>If the position is a post MBA level, then they ask for your GMAT. I’ve interviewed a lot of MBA grads and we always ask, even though this is not their first post MBA job.</p>
<p>“how much more in taxes would you be willing to pay?”</p>
<p>That’s I don’t know but I know for sure that I will not pay 25K or 55K a year at the time my children go to college. I never refused to pay taxes for local school bonds.</p>
<p>By the same token, why should I pay taxes for universal health care, bank, and mortgage bailout?</p>
<p>“Why should it be any different for higher education?”</p>
<p>Do you want to make a difference? If yes, then we have to do something about it.</p>
<p>Nobody HAS to pay 55k per year for their child to go to college.
UMass-Amherst COA (in-state): $20k
Middlesex Community College: $150 per credit per quarter.</p>
<p>coolweather, your solution wouldn’t change the unfairness of having parents of means who don’t want to help pay for college education. You’d have students able to afford college via loans and working, but you’d STILL have other students whose parents wrote checks so there was no need to work or take out loans. Those students could theoretically do interesting (but unpaid) internships, study more, sleep more, or otherwise make use of the 20 hours a week freed up by not needing to work during the school year. And those same fortunate students would be able to look at post-college jobs or grad school unencumbered by loans.</p>
<p>The alternative to not paying for the bailout is catastrophe as opposed to crisis; I’m neutral on the health care plan that I’ve seen so far, though we’re all paying one way or the other for the 47 millions uninsured–it’s just not itemized on your hospital bill or your insurance plan. So far as I know, the higher education system in the US continues to be the envy of the world.</p>
<p>As for the $25k, it may be applicable to the UC system, but poring over some of the Calstate websites, it does not appear that COA would amount to $25k, unless I’m interpreting wrong.</p>