thinking about the money causes me confusion

Parents Forum
81

<p>This is in response to calmom's question above:</p>

<p>"why does it seem like the families who are most able to shoulder debt are the least willing to take on debt to finance a college education?"</p>

<p>"It seems like the upper middle class families who complain the most about the financial aid system not only do not want to cut into their retirement assets or cut back on their lifestyle, but they also don't want to take on debt. To me, a person who has substantial assets is the one who SHOULD borrow."</p>

<p>Perhaps you intended to type "income" instead of "assets?" If one has substantial assets one does not need to borrow. Generally speaking the "upper middle class" that you refer to here do not have substantial assets. They have high incomes, but that is not the same thing. I do not know anybody who earns a high income that does not wonder what would happen if that income were interrupted, either due to a job loss or to the 3 d's: death, divorce, or disability.</p>

<p>I think some of the unwillingness to shoulder substantial debt for a child's education comes from a pretty rational fear that if the income were ever to go away, the debt would become an unmanageable burden.</p>

<p>Yes, some families may have overspent on things like cars and houses and maybe even lifestyle enhancements like travel...or on forgoing a second income that would have provided college savings. </p>

<p>It is up to each individual family to decide what is important. I am a bit judgemental about people who don't save, won't borrow and yet expect the taxpayers to subsidize their child's private education, but I don't think it's right to judge others for having different priorities and not being willing to go into debt for a child's education. </p>

<p>We have managed to save some money, enough to give the kids a few choices, but we told the kids what we can give them out of savings and what we can finance out of current cash flow. If they want to spend more on education than what is available without us borrowing, then they have to borrow. At this stage in my life I can't take on more debt for a benefit that will accrue to somebody else--it's too risky. I am more than willing to forego things like cars and vacations, and I have opted to stay in my highly compensated but extremely stressful job in order to provide an income stream that is saved for education. I'd rather teach, but I can't afford to with three kids to educate. I feel like I'm stretched to the limit as it is--if the expectation is that I shoudl borrow on top of that then my response is "H*** no!"</p>

82

<p>
[quote]
Generally speaking the "upper middle class" that you refer to here do not have substantial assets.

[/quote]
I don't think that's true. I think they own houses with equity, they have money in retirement accounts, etc. They may not have much in the way of liquid assets, but they do have assets.

[quote]
If one has substantial assets one does not need to borrow.

[/quote]
On the contrary, an owner of assets which are invested and earning a higher rate of return that the rate of interest on the loan is better off to borrow rather than liquidate or reduce the assets. The PLUS loan system lets a parent borrow up to the full COA while preserving their other investments.
[quote]
I think some of the unwillingness to shoulder substantial debt for a child's education comes from a pretty rational fear that if the income were ever to go away, the debt would become an unmanageable burden.

[/quote]
Not if the person has the assets to cover the debt, because the assets can always be liquidated to cover the debt if needed. It is the person who has nothing to sell who needs to worry about debt -- a financially well off person would do better to take on some debt but manage it to ensure maximum return on the money. It's why many investors buy on margin - it's possible to use borrowed funds to generate more income than would be possible without borrowing.
[quote]
I don't think it's right to judge others for having different priorities and not being willing to go into debt for a child's education.

[/quote]
That's not my point: my point is that those who are unwilling to go into debt have no right to complain about the costs of higher education. Everybody, regardless of need, is entitled to borrow up to the full cost of attendance via the PLUS system, which is the government's way of providing even the most well off with an alternative means of financing the education.

[quote]
At this stage in my life I can't take on more debt for a benefit that will accrue to somebody else--it's too risky.

[/quote]
Well, that's where we differ personally -- I don't quite see my kids as being "somebody else". And my point is that it sems like those of us with less income and less assets are more willing to borrow. No matter how you cut it, it is more "risky" for someone who earns less and owns less to borrow than it is for someone who earns more and owns more - but it seems like the upper income people are the ones complaining the loudest on these boards. I'm not passing judgment as to what anyone should do with their money, but I don't anyone should be complaining about being priced out of the education market if they are not willing to borrow for a commodity that others are expected to finance over time.</p>

83

<p>I listen to Clark Howard's radio program fairly regularly and I wanted to copy something he has from his website that I thought was good food for thought in this discussion :</p>

<p>Aug 03, 2005 -- Save for retirement 1st, then college
Parents are saving for their kids’ college education in very large numbers these days. That’s a great thing, except if you’re doing it in place of saving for your own retirement. According to AllState insurance, half of parents are saving equally for retirement and college. And one in seven are saving only for their children’s college and not at all for their own retirement. This is not a good idea. If you’re putting off saving for yourself, you have not had enough time to build up what you’ll need. There are no scholarships or financial aid in retirement, and you need your money to compound over time. So, as long as you’re putting the max you can into your retirement account, feel free to save for college. If you could be putting more into your retirement plan, put off the 529 plan until you get a good nest egg going. Don’t be scared by the statistics about how much college will cost. You’ll make it happen. </p>

<p>Here is his website:
<a href="http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/category/1/34/281/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/category/1/34/281/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

84

<p>Calmom, you are misinformed if you think the group we are discussing has substantial assets. The average 401K plan is around $50K; I don't know average home equity off the top of my head, but with the explosion in home equity loans and the volatility of the real estate market I don't believe that it is enough. Besides, the whole point of buying a house is to pay it off before you retire, and borrowing a bunch of equity out of your house at the age of 50 or so may mean you have a mortgage well into retirement--remember most of our parents paid off their mortgages before retiring, so they didn't have the overhead of a house payment to manage on a reduced income.</p>

<p>And as much as I love my kids, they are in fact "somebody else." Their income is not my income; their spouses and children will come first, as it should be.</p>

85

<p>Mombot, the median income for families in the 80-90th% percentile is $104.7K. The median net worth is $311K. (The average is even higher: $485K)</p>

<p>At the 40th-60th percentile, the median income is $43K; the median net worth is $71.6K. (average $193.8K)</p>

<p>So basically what the statistics tell us is that the upper income middle class family has approximately quadruple the net worth as the median income family. This obviously gives them much more borrowing power.</p>

<p>My source of information is the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances, looking at 2004 data. See: <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/oss/oss2/2004/bull0206.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/oss/oss2/2004/bull0206.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

86

<p>on home equity
assuming that the house has appreciated- our home is now assessed at more than 6x what we paid for it 23 years ago-not to mention that houses next door, which are inferior are selling for $200,000 * more* than our assessment.
so we have quite a bit of assessed value.
Of course to take equity out means that paying it back does raise those house payments- but I am not expecting to live in this house forever- after all who needs the same size of house and yard that they needed while they were raising their kids,when they are living by themselves or with a spouse?
So if it is not paid off in a few years when we move- that wont matter because we will have more than enough to buy something that isn't right in the city- i.e. cheaper.</p>

87

<p>calmom--so the median net worth is just $311K for the bottom half of the top 10% of the families in the US? And you honestly think it's advisable for those families to borrow about 20% of that total net worth (assume $15K in borrowings per year for a total of $80K) PER KID?</p>

<p>Surely you understand that "net worth" means the whole enchilada? Home equity, life savings, retirement savings? </p>

<p>You googled those numbers--can you google up a retirement calculator and figure out the amount that a couple would need to have saved at age 65 to replace 50% of their income (assume they get some social security as well so they do not need to replace the entire 70-80% of preretirement income that most financial professionals advise). Hint: It's more than $300K.</p>

<p>With those numbers it's no wonder the "upper middle" is squawking as loud as they are. </p>

<p>It is a good bet that as housing costs drop due to downsizing, etc., health care costs will rise, so the net cost of living will remain the same. </p>

<p>Do whatever you want, but please don't think it's prudent for 50-somethings with an "average" net worth to borrow on the scale you are talking about. Some may choose to do it, but in my mind it's like figuring you'll win the lottery or something--sure it could work out fine, but there are at least 50 scenarios that it won't compared to one or two that it will.</p>

88

<p>"With those numbers it's no wonder the "upper middle" is squawking as loud as they are. "</p>

<p>Well, that's us, pretty much - but I won't squawk too loudly since if we had lived more modestly we probably wouldn't have to borrow at all.</p>

<p>One of our expense that we added this year was long term care insurance for my H - we will tag on mine next year or the year after.</p>

89

<p>I read through ALL these posts just so I could say to the OP that thinking about money causes me confusion, too. Always has.</p>

90

<p>Mombot, my question is why it is that those of us who earn less seem to be much more willing to take on debt.... not whether the debt is adviseable. Obviously the financial aid system is built around the assumption that parents will take on debt -- the numbers don't make sense otherwise. I'm willing to accept that the school expects me to borrow -- you don't seem to be. I don't respond to my kid's financial aid awards by throwing up my hands in despair: instead I'm looking at loan calculators to see how much I can borrow based on how much I can afford to pay per month. So I am now sending off my 2nd kid to a private college, and I've become an expert at navigating the Sallie Mae web site. I am happy to see that if I throw borrowing into the picture, it all becomes very affordable. Sure, I'm in debt in the end, but I've always been in debt. If I wanted to buy an expensive car, I'd borrow - so I choose to drive an old, cheap car and borrow for my kids' education.</p>

<p>You haven't challenged my assumption - that median-range income parents seem more comfortable with debt than upper-range income parents - although I admit that this is an assumption based on flimsy evidence: parents in my income range come on the boards asking questions about borrowing, such as "which lender is best for PLUS loans"; and it seems like parents who earn twice as much post complaints about how they have been priced out of the market for the elite schools, as well as providing rationalizations as to why they won't borrow. But maybe that is simply because the ones who don't fit that pattern aren't posting on the board, because they have no reason to. I don't know. </p>

<p>I'm not disputing that you have good reasons for not borrowing. My question was why this discrepency in attitude, if in fact it exists? You've only strenghtened the perception that the attitude does in fact exist. Are those who are financially better off more risk-averse? Is it just harder to let go of money you have than to take risks with money you don't have? (Actually the answer to the second question is yes -- this has been studied so it is known pyschologically to be generally true).</p>

<p>The bottom line is that whether or not borrowing is adviseable, it is much safer for you to borrow than it is for me to borrow. Yet you are unwilling to do it, and it doesn't really occur to me NOT to do it -- that is, I will structure my finances in a way that minimizes borrowing, but it is inconceivable to me to not include borrowing as part of the overall financial strategy I will use to get what it is important to me-- in this case, my kid's education. To me, borrowing is the logical way to increase the buying power of a lmited number of dollars.</p>

91

<p>Calmom, although generalizations do not always fit, I think you are correct that there are increased financial concerns for families who have upper middle class incomes. Some factors which cause these concerns are clear. Progressive incomes taxes are a big factor. Many of us have worked hard and been able to raise our incomes only to find a very large percentage going to medicare, social security, and federal, State and local income taxes. Secondly, the FAFSA and CSS formulae are very progressive. The EFC increases rapidly in the upper middle class range. Third, I think job security can be an issue. No one working for private companies has much job security. I think the risks are higher at higher incomes and in addition it can take a lot longer to find a higher paying job. Many of us who have worked our way up the economic ladder are getting older and future job prospects, if we need them, are decreasing. Some of us are also facing retirement concerns. If we have not been at a higher income level for very long, we have not been able to grow our retirement funds. Paying high taxes, tuition costs and loans can make it impossible to save for retirement. These concerns hit everyone, but there seems to be many of us with low 6 figure incomes who are all but priced out of the private college market. Some of us have been getting by without luxury items, nice new cars, or expensive vacations. There is not much room to save more. Some of us are working and commuting 50, 60 or 70 hours/week and there is no time (or energy) left for a second job.</p>

92

<br>


<br>

<p>suddenly the car analogy has 'clicked' and I can think of the coming college debt as an imaginary car. It really isn't any different. you want something, they give it to you on credit and you begin to pay for a number of years.-I'm always fantasizing about the new car I'll never have- I might construct a paper-mache fancy car to symbolize the arrangement and allow myself to plaster it with college stickers (which I won't do with the ancient afFORDable in the crumbling driveway)..</p>

<p>Many thanks, because it does seem easier to grasp,..until someone saunters by and challenges the analogy. As in, if you default, can they sneak up one dark night and repossess your daughter's brain?</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
I think the risks are higher at higher incomes and in addition it can take a lot longer to find a higher paying job....Paying high taxes, tuition costs and loans can make it impossible to save for retirement.

[/quote]
So basically as I understand it, the difference is that as a high income person you need to save for retirement and those of us with lower incomes don't. Are we expected to simply drop dead before we reach age 70, or is the idea that we should work our whole lives... or maybe since we don't have enough saved for retirement anyway, we just shouldn't bother, an instead simply look forward to trying to make it on our meager social security checks???</p>

<p>From where I sit, it looks like there is a certain segment of society which has accumulated considerable wealth and simply relabeled that wealth "retirement"-- thereby treating it as untouchable. Which I think would be fine if those folks had also socked away money for their kids' education in 529 accounts... or if they were willing to take on an appropriate level of debt to make up for the deficit in college savings. But it looks like many are not. (I assume that many in fact are willing to do so, and those are the ones who are sending their kids to the Ivies or other expensive colleges despite the fact that their EFC's require them to pay the bulk of the expenses on their own).</p>

<p>I still don't understand why a family that makes twice as much as I do and has 3 or 4 times the accumulated wealth (whether in savings, home equity, or retirement funds), refuses to go into debt while I am willing to take on debt. The problem is the same -- I am willing to take a risk or make a potential sacrifice for the sake of educating my kids that more well-to-do families are unwilling to take. The answer I am getting sounds a lot like: "we can't borrow because we have more money and we need to preserve what we've got". </p>

<p>I don't think the financial aid system is that progressive in any case: I've done the math over and over again, and it looks like a straight linear increase. That is, the EFC goes up by the same percentage for every dollar I make (at least for me, its 44%-- if I make $10K more, my EFC goes up by $4400; if I make $20K more, it goes up by $8800). The "progressive" appearance is because assets are also assessed for EFC -but because parental assets are only assessed at a 5.6% rate, the wealthier family can afford to sock away a lot. Rather than being progressive, the financial aid system is set up to be harder on wage earners -- it punishes earning and rewards saving. That is, I earn $10K more this year than last, my EFC will go up by $4400 -- but if somehow I earn the same but manage to accumulate $10K more in my savings account, my EFC will go up by only $560.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that the higher earners ought to borrow -- I'm just saying that they should quit complaining about the financial aid system. Whatever barriers they face, those barriers are less than the families with more moderate incomes -- and when it comes down to it, a choice is being made. If the income has been high for many years, then one choice apparently is that some families have elected to fully fund the retirement accounts while neglecting college savings. One other form of "financial aid" for the wealthy is the favorable treatment given to 529 accounts. Although earmarked specifically for education, the funds are only assessed as a parental asset at the 5.6% rate - so a family with $100K in a 529 account could easily fund a year's tuition from the account, but their EFC has only gone up by $5600.</p>

94

<p>Calmom, I never said retirement was not important for those with lower incomes. In fact I said that these concerns hit everyone. You imply that everyone with a higher income than yours could sock away a large amount of money in retirement funds and should have instead elected to save for college. That is just not always the case and I listed some reasons starting with progressive taxes. </p>

<p>At least I think we agree on one point: our financial systems are hard on everyone who depends on a salary and has not been able to inherit or accumulate wealth.</p>

95

<p>Holy cow - you guys are really getting into deep discussions regarding financial aid - do you or don't you? </p>

<p>Bottom line - if you need to borrow thru the federal education loan programs use it - there are all kinds of provisions build into these programs to make them more consumer friendly or at least as friendly as you can get with a loan!</p>

96

<p>Edad is dead on--anybody who depends on a salary has precious little real security. If borrowing has been the only way to make major purchases, as seems to be the case for truly middle income households, they may be more willing to borrow for education because they DON'T have the means to pay the loan back. The problem with borrowing is that it sets up a treadmill of repayment, which prevents savings, which necessitates further borrowing.</p>

<p>Everybody has different levels of comfort with debt. I doubt there are many upper income people who squawk about student loans yet are maxed out with consumer, auto loans and home equity loans.</p>

97

<p>Calmom,
You've raised a good question. Why do the upper-middles (which is where our family falls) whine so much about the financial aid situation? For us, we will whine about the cost and how much it's gone up, but we aren't whining that the govt. should be paying for our kids' education. I think that's an important distinction. We are just saying that some colleges aren't an option for us, since we aren't willing to take on that kind of debt. We whine because we know that someone with a much lower income will not be expected to take out loans but will receive grants instead.</p>

<p>We have 1 in college (tuition & fees covered by scholarship), 1 still in high school, and 1 in the working world who could yet decide to go to college. If our net worth is average (I think someone said about 300k?), then we'd have to borrow well more than that to send any 2 of our kids to a private university. Then what about the 3rd? Since we're only paying room & board for the 1st, should we gamble and let the 2nd go private, hoping the 3rd won't decide she wants to go to college, too? It's just not possible. So, lower income families (the ones who receive grants) have choices for their kids that we don't have for ours. Maybe I'm completely wrong about this, but it seems that way when I see how much need-based aid is out there. </p>

<p>Also, my kids are smart, but they aren't that smart, and they aren't likely to get enough in the area of merit-based aid to fund a significant chunk of a private school education (S#1 got 3 merit-based scholarships totaling $3750).</p>

<p>The amount we have saved for retirement would probably last for about 4 years since the house would be paid off by then. That's if we lived <em>very</em> frugally. Speaking of living frugally, dh and I are both driving cars with over 200K on them and we do not have any consumer debt. We don't have cable t.v. or high speed Internet (can't get it here in the country!), though we do have cell phones :-) .</p>

<p>So, why would an upper middle income family be struggling financially just like someone making half as much? For us, there are several reasons. We give to our church (our choice). We homeschool (our choice, we didn't have to do it) and are paying about 3K per year for various classes for h.s. son. It would be very possible to homeschool him for much less without the outside classes, but he would not be as prepared for college. </p>

<p>Additionally, we homeschooled the other 2, and while we didn't spend as much on them, it has still been a significant amount for all 3 of them. We bought a farm 7 years ago with the plan that the income from the farm would pay for college. (dh has a "real" job, too.) This is not a wise plan for city people who decide to become farmers. The learning curve was steep and income-wise, the farm is about 3 years behind where we thought it would be. We are still spending more money on it than we are bringing in (though we came very close to breaking even last year and hope to go ahead this year). Even if we break even for this year, we've been spending thousands of dollars every year for the past 7 years trying to get it going. </p>

<p>We live in a coastal county where we pay $1k for windstorm insurance in addition to our regular homeowner's premiums (not our choice). Our property taxes are quite high here at 4.5K per year (not our choice). We are paying 7k per year for S#1's room & board (not <em>really</em> a choice). We are trying to help D get on her feet and bought her a 6k car last year and are partially covering her auto insurance (our choice...we could have just kicked her out and told her to sink or swim). We live in a rural area and have to drive a lot to get anywhere, so gas is running 7K per year (I know we are all feeling the pain in that area!). We spent 5K for braces last year (actually we're paying it out over 2 years); maybe a lower income family would just skip the braces. </p>

<p>We certainly don't have to live where we live (rural area, coastal county, farm), but we did not foresee some of the expenses when we moved here. In hindsight, if we had built a less expensive house, our mortgage would be less and our insurance would be less (and maybe our utility bills, too!). Still, our home price is around the median for our city, so it's not excessive.</p>

<p>There are lots of reasons to want your kids to graduate from college debt-free, but they mostly boil down to freedom to have choices. We want them to have choices, and we want to have choices, too....not choices on what kind of exotic vacation to take, but choices to stay in our home if we want to and things like that. I hope we will be able to recover enough financially after the kids are gone to save and help with our grandchildren's educations. That may be unrealistic, too, but I can dream! If we took out loans, we would be unable to do that, since we'd be repaying them until retirement.</p>

<p>I'm sorry for the rambling! I haven't done much to answer your question (though I had really good intentions when I started typing!), but I hope by giving one example, it will help you see where an upper-middle is coming from.</p>

98

<p>all I can say is that I am glad my boys are twins and will be going to college at the same time. 4 - 5 years of pain is way better than 8 - 10 years and it also helps on the FAFSA to have more than one in school at a time.</p>

<p>whew.. could this be the only time having twins is a cost saver LOL</p>

99

<p>Timely, I appreciate your response, but I still see it as a choice. Mid-range income families (say, $45-$75K annual income) generally qualify for more financial aid, but certainly it is not all grants -- there are always loans. Harvard, Stanford, Princeton might be exceptions -- but you said your kids aren't "that" smart, meaning I assume that neither your kids nor mine were ever in the running for those unusually generous schools. It really is extremely difficult for kids from truly needy circumstances to qualify for admission to the elites in any case -- of course a few do, but obviously most kids in the lower income brackets lack access to the sort of educational resources that would get them into the top schools. And the less prestigious schools are simply not as generous with financial aid -- most do not meet 100% need for all their students, and financial aid packages include a large component of loans. </p>

<p>I think what those who decide NOT to borrow miss is this: for a typical family in the ~$50K bracket, the parents will have to borrow to send their kids to any residential college, no matter where the kids go. I am lucky that my income means that the more generous private colleges will give me enough grant money to bring the cost of the private college down to the same level as public -- but the fact is that I can't pay for $20K in combined tuition, housing & costs without either borrowing or liquidating assets (such as selling my home, which of course I don't intend to do), whether that $20K is going to a private or public college. </p>

<p>If the parents are not willing to borrow, the next-best option is often for the kids to live at home and commute to a local college, thereby eliminating living expenses, which are the bulk of costs for in-state universities. That is, I probably could afford to pay $6000 a year for a UC out of pocket, it's that extra $14K for room and board that is the real killer. </p>

<p>So what we have are 4 basic categories of familes:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Low income (under $40K, qualifying for simple needs test) - kids qualify for substantial financial aid, IF they can get into a good private college</p></li>
<li><p>Median-income ($40-$75K) -- family qualifies for need based aid that will generally equalize costs of private vs pubic college, but aid packages will require loans </p></li>
<li><p>Upper middle income ($75K-$120K) - family qualifies for diminishing amount of need-based aid, as income goes up, differential in cost between public/private colleges rises.</p></li>
<li><p>Upper income (over $120K) - family qualifies for no financial aid, bears full cost of differential between public/private</p></li>
</ol>

<p>*** Note: I'm just giving rough guesses at numbers for purposes of examples -- so no need for anyone to debate me on the precise values I've given - I'm just trying to define the 4 levels ****</p>

<p>I can see where it really feels a lot worse in categories #3 & #4 when the price differential kicks in. It may be hard for for the #2 family to come up with the $15-$20K needed to send their kid to a private college, but at least the cost does not seem out of line when compared with a public. </p>

<p>But the fact still remains that in order for my EFC to increase from category #2 to category #3, someone in my family would need to earn or accumulate a lot more money, and more money would make things easier, not harder, for us. </p>

<p>So it is rather hard for me when I see my 18 year old daughter signing off on the Stafford loan, or see my 23 year old son making monthly payments on his loan, to have a whole lot of sympathy for parents who say that they can't afford colleges because they want their children to graduate debt-free. I don't dispute the value of staying out of debt -- I just don't like to hear people whining when they can't have what my family has because they aren't willing to go into debt and we are. </p>

<p>Higher education in the US happens to be an expensive commodity. I don't expect that I am going to be able to live in a mansion on my income, and I don't expect that I will be able to own even a small cottage without borrowing to purchase it. I understand that if I can only afford a modest monthly payment that I will have to settle for a small house in a less desireable neighborhood. I assume that the people living in the big houses on the hill are paying more each month for their mortgages, and I don't hear them complaining about it. In fact, my experience seems to be that most people who earn more also seem to be willing to pay more for the bigger houses in the better neighborhoods.</p>

100

<p>This question is always kicked around on CC, in various guises - what considerations to apply when deciding between the first choice college which is expensive (requiring some degree of financial hardship) versus another choice. I think that the underlying perspective that informs this decision on the part of the parents is that some posters believe that parents should sacrifice proportionally more for their students, and some posters believe that the parents should sacrifice less.</p>

<p>I respect both points of view. I considered this issue (deeply, biting my nails and doing spreadsheets) from both perspectives - should I sacrifice more for a great situtation for S, or sacrifice less (nothing) for a good situation. At this point, one year out, I could still put on either hat and argue convincingly (with myself, at least) for the merits of each approach. </p>

<p>If I ultimately ended up on the 'sacrificing less' side, I would have urged my son to take the free ride in the very good program at the state U. This would have saved me $50K and S about $44K (our share of the family's contribution, including a + of $9K in his pocket at graduation from the state U package) and would have resulted in: not having to budget as carefully; socking away more for retirement; his having money left for graduate school; more cash for the emergency fund; fewer financial considerations applying to my life. </p>

<p>Where I ended up was on the 'sacrificing more' side, and he is in his first choice college, which has already more than demonstrated its value to S in wonderful life-expanding opportunities. For me, it has been a great excuse to travel (add another $10K to my costs for that). However, if Murphy's Law pertains - let's say the economy goes further south, the dollar plunges (we are exposed to currency exchange rates for tuition and expenses), the stock market continues to drop, real estate prices go way down, and IT takes a hit (layoffs), the sacrifice on my part would become a much bigger one. And if he doesn't succeed in getting full funding for graduate/professional school, he could end up with debt. Would I then feel buyer's remorse? Don't know, ask me in two years. </p>

<p>Whenever money is a factor in college choice, parents will face a similar decision, having to finally land somewhere on the 180 degree dial. I think we should all assume that every parent poster is good-hearted and wants the best for their child. We make the best decisions we can at the time, based on our love, our knowledge and speculation about payoffs, our evaluation of our family's financial situation, and our faith (or lack of it) in the future.</p>