<p>I went on a trip with my youth group yesterday and I was asking a senior where he planned to go to college next year. He told me that he applied to 29 schools and was planning on attending Massachusetts College Of Health Sciences & Pharmacy. However, he did say that he wanted to study business or sports management at NYU or Brandeis (where he was accepted also) but his parents want him to be a pharmacist. Since, he cannot afford to pay for his college himself, he will have to follow his parents wishes. He didn't appear to have a problem with this (maybe a bit sheltered by his parents?) which I thought was very sad.</p>
<p>The point is that I understand if parents have the right to pick a school for their child if it is for financial reasons (can only afford local state school for example) but in my opinion they have NO right to pick a career for you or for some other people tell you to go to a school simply for their prestige. I think that it's pure torture for a student to have to abandon his dreams in order to go to a school that his parents want him to go to as well as have to study something that he frankly doesn't want to study (and MCHSP only has life sciences majors, no business majors). The student should have the final say in the college decision except if the parent's have a legitimate issue such as financial problems or concerns that the child is not capable of being by himself far from home.</p>
<p>He doesn’t have to abandon his dreams. As an adult, he is perfectly free to pursue whatever dreams he has and study whatever he wishes to study. His parents are also perfectly free to spend their money on whatever they feel is valuable. If the student does not want to attend the school his parents are willing to pay for, he is free to pay for college himself.</p>
<p>Any money a parent contributes to an adult child’s education is completely their choice, and each parent gets to choose if and how much they will contribute.
It appears the young man you spoke with understands this much better than you do and has freely chosen to take his parent’s generous offer to pay for college. He also does not seem to have your sense of entitlement.</p>
<p>alamemom, I think you two are talking about different types of ‘ought’.</p>
<p>On a distant, legalistic level, the parents are free to do as they please with their money. The student can only accept this, true.</p>
<p>But I can also understand where pierre is coming from. Barring financial restrictions or extreme circumstances, I can see a deeper obligation for the parents to support the student’s dreams and wishes in this pivotal decision.</p>
<p>I can’t understand where pierre is coming from at all. Why “ought” the parents support something with which they disagree? Why “ought” the parent’s support the “student’s dreams” when they are fronting the bill for the entire endeavor? </p>
<p>I see no obligation on the part of the parents at all, least of all to support a volatile eighteen-year-old’s “dreams and wishes.”</p>
<p>ee33ee,
Actually, I am trying to point out that there isn’t any one “ought” than can - or should - be applied accross the board. In our family, we have made the decision to contribute finacially to our children’s education and to allow them to chose their school and major, but we in no way feel that we “have” to hand them money to do whatever they choose.</p>
<p>An example: Our daughter is planning to study abroad. Her school has approved dozens of study abroad programs for major/minor credit that she can apply her scholarships and grants to. She preferred another (unapproved) program, and presented several reasons it would be a beneficial program, though it would cost significantly more than an approved program. We agreed it would be beneficial, but pointed out that there were several approved programs that were as - or nearly as - beneficial, so if she wanted to do the other one she would have to pay for it herself. She chose one we approved of. I in no way feel I have thwarted her dreams.</p>
<p>My own parents valued education and encouraged me to attend college, but chose to provide no financial support for it at all. So I paid for it myself. (It can be done.) In many ways, I learned more by doing so than my daughter is learning with us supporting her. </p>
<p>I am in no way saying parents “ought” not pay for college. (I rarely use the word “ought,” and did not in my post.) Nor am I saying parents “ought” to pay for college. I am pointing out that every family is different, the young man described in the “sad story” seems to be very mature and content with HIS decision to accept the generous offer his parents have made, and the OP himself is very lucky to have parents willing to support him financially as an adult.</p>
<p>I can top that one. From a different angle. I know of a student who won two prestigious scholarships, making it essentially a full ride, and this person is so unworthy on a personal level its nauseating. Just not a nice person at all. But fooled the admissions committees and scolarship committees (and probably the guidance counselors too.) On paper this person looks fabulous with top scores and stats. But being a neighbor we know “the truth.” Its pretty ugly. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, a very bright but middle class student with really good scores, but not prestigious scholarship level, got admitted to the same school, but must either take out massive student loans or the parents have to go deep into debt, to finance it. </p>
<p>The point is that I wish there was a way for “justice” to prevail where a really deserving and hard working student who really needs the money would get the full ride and the little vixen who is truly a nasty person would be left to fend for herself. </p>
<p>It is what it is. It happens all the time. The principal told me a couple of years ago that the people she admires most are often NOT at the top of the class, because they are frequently not very nice people who take competition to a level that is unhealthy and sometimes even cheat to get ahead even further (as if they need it?), but the students who are working amazingly hard, doing all sorts of activities that give back to the community quietly, not engaged in “me, me, me, me and me” activities.</p>
<p>You can’t understand at all? I find that hard to believe. Spoken broadly and simply, some people believe it’s a filial obligation, given availability of resources and a sane+clear plan, to support the dreams and happiness of one’s children. It’s not written down in law, it’s not a biological imperative. It’s just a deep sentiment that I believe is shared widely.</p>
<p>alamemom:</p>
<p>Well first you say that no ‘ought’ can be applied across the board.</p>
<p>But you actually do imply a universal ‘ought’: parents ought to be able to decide how to spend their money…
</p>
<p>You are right that examples abound in which parents decide to support their children’s ambitions, just as there are many parents who decide the opposite. Nonetheless, it all boils down to adults’ sovereignty over their own property. Again, I completely agree from a distant, legalistic standpoint. There is certainly nothing to compel adults to spend their money in one way or another, even if it does run counter to others’ wishes.</p>
<p>But what I’m saying is that this simple rule loosens if you hone in on a more contextual, nuanced understanding. If the family has a lot of money, this precludes financial aid, making it difficult to pay one’s own way. If the family funded 29 applications (assumption here, but I think well-founded because that’s not small change), it’s obvious the child has been groomed, prepared, and expects a college education. The type of institution the child was accepted at indicates he/she has much potential to succeed in any endeavor endeavor. Then the family decides they are fully willing to fund pharmacy school but not NYU business. To me, that’s the clincher. Had the family expressed an inability to pay for any college at all, that would have been different (as pierre said as well). But here it seems like the family is dangling the cash over the difference between pharmacy school and business school. Of course there could be extenuating circumstances we’re not privy to, in which case I would point to pierre’s caveat in his first post. But in general, if the difference to the parents of pharmacy vs. business is as trivial as it seems in this case, I would think it unreasonable to manage the child like that. Whatever marginal gain in prestige or whatever that the pharmacy school is conferring, I think the personal ownership of a life-changing decision, the well-being of the parent-child relationship, etc., etc. would be more important. And I would feel that the parents ‘ought’ to reconsider by taking their child’s ambitions into account EVEN THOUGH they are spending their own money. Again, it’s an ‘ought’ that is not meant like a legal code or a moral principle, just a feeling I have (and which I think pierre was referring to when he made this thread).</p>
Nope. I am not implying an “ought.” I am coming right out and saying that parents have every right to decide if they will spend their own money, and how it is to be spent.</p>
<p>What I do not understand is the following statement:</p>
<p>“Whatever marginal gain in prestige or whatever that the pharmacy school is conferring, I think the personal ownership of a life-changing decision, the well-being of the parent-child relationship, etc., etc.”</p>
<p>1) It sounds like the kid doesn’t mind at all</p>
<p>2) There is only ownership inasmuch he was accepted, which means there was none at all. It’s an odd word to use to describe someone who is not paying for his education – how can he “own” a decision that is being funded entirely by someone else?</p>
<p>“Spoken broadly and simply, some people believe it’s a filial obligation, given availability of resources and a sane+clear plan, to support the dreams and happiness of one’s children. It’s not written down in law, it’s not a biological imperative. It’s just a deep sentiment that I believe is shared widely.”</p>
<p>I know that; clearly, on these forums most of the students who have not had to pay for their education believe the same thing. I’m not saying I don’t understand that people believe that. I’m saying that that particular viewpoint makes no sense to me at all.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: My education is being paid for by my parents. However, I had a choice between two schools, and my parents said that I could choose. After I picked, they said that had I not made the choice that I did, they would have talked to me before I had sent in their deposit.</p>
<p>The legal right is the only relevant factor here. It is legally (and morally, say) their money. They are then allowed to do with it whatever they wish. </p>
<p>You have to show that there is an obligation, which you have not done at all. You simply state your viewpoint. So your vacuous, unjustified statement certainly still stands.</p>
<p>I typed up a long paragraph explaining my opinion, and you still think it’s unjustified. What do you want, an essay or a poem?</p>
<p>Or is it just that you require legal references for anything to be justified, for an obligation to exist, for a statement to not be vacuous? In that case, have a good life.</p>
<p>I’m on alamemom’s side. I would feel no obligation to pay for my child’s education in a major I disagreed with. What I see here is the unwarranted sense of entitlement that this current high school generation feels about everything.</p>
<p>1) People have different reactions to failure in their lives. Although it is very probable that the person in question didn’t care, it is also equally probable that he is merely acting that way as a defense mechanism or as a way to respond to the predicament he just underwent. </p>
<p>2) I categorically reject your view of the ownership of such a “life-changing” decision. The student “owns” the choice on a more philosophical basis than mere financial considerations. Are you correct in stating that financially the person had no “ownership” of the choice? Of course, but to preclude all other considerations is essentially dangerous and objectifies the person in question. As Jefferson once eloquently stated, we all have a inalienable right “to the pursuit of happiness”, he does indeed have ownership (in another sense) to the question of what to do with his life. To subject him to choose a different career would be essentially placing him in a modern equivalent of slavery. In principle, is not the situation described here similar to what slavery is? The forcible taking away of one’s freedom, and in this case, the freedom to decide what one wants to do with his or her life, with consequences for the rest of his life? If you are against slavery (and its modern equivalents), then you must reject this situation and its inherent absurdities. It is not merely his vocation at stake here, but the fundamental question of personal freedom that is at stake. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can one justify anything to anyone? Everything in this world is essentially based in relativism, yet we must pick certain ideals and values to uphold in our lives and in society (i.e do not kill, “do unto others as you would do unto yourself”, ect ect). To reject any of these ideals is essentially your choice, but only upon these axioms can we base any theorems and proofs upon. One axiom that I believe in is a person’s right to decide what he or she wants to do in his or her life (to a realistic extent), or more simply put, I value an individual’s freedom and his or her ability to choose. If you do not value this, then we have irreconcilable differences that can never be mended and you are certainly correct to hold your viewpoint of this situation. Yet, as people living in a democratic society, I believe we each hold an “obligation” to uphold certain values of society, for the sake of conformity and for our own survival, and one of those values is just what Jefferson stated.</p>
In no way was the person’s “freedom” taken away. He is perfectly free to pursue his dreams. He can choose his career. He can choose his school. He simply has to pay for it himself. </p>
<p>It is much like applicants offered “full rides” to their safety, and no scholarships at their “dream school.” This applicant CHOSE a parental full-ride. He was FREE to do so.</p>
<p>Pretty lucky, because NYU’s sports management program is terrible and Brandeis doesnt have an undergraduate business major or a sports management program.</p>
<p>No. I want a convincing argument that it is the parents’ burden to pay for any education (or whatever education) their children want if they are able.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did the OP indicate this anywhere? He said that he didn’t appear to have a problem with what happened. Why should we suddenly assume that he does? There is nothing to suggest anything but what the OP saw.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely reject any notion of philosophical ownership with financial ownership in the context in which I previously used the term “ownership.” It does not objectify the student – they have certainly (I would hope) earned their way to an acceptance. But unless they are paying for their education, I would hardly say that a senior owns the college choice. I am not speaking philosophically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course I value choice. I value the parents’ choice to do with their money whatever they wish. I value the choices made by students to pursue whatever education they wish. You can go to whatever school that has accepted you. You may have to pay for it yourself, but that’s a CHOICE that you make, not an inescapable doom reminiscent of slavery.</p>
<p>Anyone who has got to their HS graduation and has not yet figured out that the person who holds the purse strings has the ultimate decision in financial matters simply has not been paying attention!</p>
<p>The parents will pay for school A.</p>
<p>Kid would have preferred school B if it had been affordable. (Please note that we don’t know details about the difference in attending A and B from the parent’s perspective, but they have decided that they can afford A.)</p>
<p>Kid is happy with school A.</p>
<p>What on earth is wrong with this picture?</p>
<p>And if this young person does want to go into the business side of pharmacy one day, there will be plenty of organizations that will be delighted to hire a Pharm.D. who has also completed an MBA. The doors are not locked tight against this young person’s original dreams.</p>
<p>I think (and I hope) that the parents who insist on choosing a major and career for their child are few and far between. However, it’s hard to judge this situation without knowing the whole story. Pharmacy could be this kid’s next choice, and perfectly acceptable to him. His “dreams” are business or sports management. Who knows how long they’ve been his dreams, or which one is his real dream, or how well suited he is to either? I don’t know enough about the schools he wanted to go to to know if they even have good programs in those areas. This could be a kid who has gone back and forth so many times that his parents’ heads are spinning. There are a whole lot of 17 and 18 year olds who don’t know what they want and don’t always make the best choices. Parents may see this and be reluctant to shell out what at many schools will ultimately be $200,000 for a “dream” that isn’t realistic or that will change in the next few months. If this boy is dead set on a career in business or sports management, there’s no reason he can’t attend the school he’s headed for, fulfill his general requirements, mature, try to convince his parents that he doesn’t like what he’s studying and is really interested in something else, and ultimately transfer, either with his parents’ blessing (and money) or on his own dime. His dream schools are pricy, and he may find that to achieve his dream major, he has to pick a much less expensive state school, and I see nothing wrong with that. Or he can fulfill his dream after he finishes with pharmacy school, assuming it hasn’t changed (a big assumption).</p>