What do you pay for?

<p>Hbsurfer- I think you keep on alluding to kids who feel entitled, and those are the kids who never never had a job and were given everything. Again I am going to disagree with you on that because it is not always the case. </p>

<p>D1 was given a car when she could drive, she didn’t flip burgers in high school, and she had a generous allowance. As I said before, she had an intense EC, with very rigorous courses, which meant she had to forego a lot of partying in high school. Everything she got she did it on her own, no one handed to her on a silver plater. Her achievement included in getting into a good college, having a very successful college experience, a job upon graduation and able to afford a nice apartment in a major city with no help from us.</p>

<p>The reason we want our kids to work is to have good work ethic and have appreciation for value of money, but it is not the only way to teach those values to our kids. In our case, giving a car to our D1 was easier on us, so she could get herself and her sister to school and ballet classes. We got her a new car because it was safer and required less maintenance. She didn’t attach anything more to it other than it was a form of transportation for her. Now she is on her own, she doesn’t expect to have a car if she couldn’t afford it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There is no better gift than providing children with a debt free education. You need to understand that “such children are not spoiled just well taken care of”.</p>

<p>POIH, I think people do what they can for their children. My child isn’t better taken care of then my sister’s kids because we can afford more, my nieces are well loved and have been well guided academically. They have some debt and some merit scholarships. They have a roof over their heads and good food to eat. Sacrifices are being made for them and by them to receive a good education. It seems foolish for our S to have student loan debt when it is no sacrifice to pay for our only child’s education, but if we needed him to help out with loans that is what he would do.</p>

<p>POIH. ^^couldn’t agree more^^^^…we pay for all school expenses,bought them new car,pay gas/insurance…etc…they do purchase most of their own clothes,and pay for their ‘fun’…we also pay for blackberry/Iphones…</p>

<p>My children do not take it for granted,are appreciative of what we give them…i don’t get the view of having ‘skin in the game’…not sure having skin in the game means anything</p>

<p>anothercrazymom: #63: Intention was to just refute the point made indicating justification for an education debt because other children have it.</p>

<p>Everyone sacrifies when it come to decision making about finances. We can use the $60K or part of it but we realize the importance of the debt free education.</p>

<p>Debt is a tool, no more, no less. Seems like some folks have assigned it magical or demonic qualities which I find weird.</p>

<p>I don’t assign any importance to a debt free education, but POIH, I’m pretty willing to bet I value education just as much (if not more) than you do.</p>

<p>People- it’s a tool. There are advantages to traveling by subway vs. car, or plane vs. train. Life is filled with trade-offs. For some families, college loans are the best vehicle to get the kid where s/he wants to go. For others, loans are not required. </p>

<p>There are kids in dorms all over the country majoring in beer pong and minoring in random hookups they met at frat parties. Full pay, merit award, heavy loans, no loans. If anyone knew the secret of how to make a kid who does not value his or her education suddenly wake up and get with the program- well, you’d be wealthy and your fellow parents would be grateful.</p>

<p>Some kids need financial skin in the game. Others don’t. Still others will never fully appreciate or take advantage of the gift of an education- and making them take out loans isn’t going to change that fact.</p>

<p>blossom: Agree with you on

</p>

<p>That doesn’t make this following statement wrong</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As you stated that

</p>

<p>There are always going to be benefit of debt free education even if the children won’t appreciate or take advantage because they don’t have to bear the burden of the debt.</p>

<p>Problem comes when children don’t realize and use debt to party or hookup at colleges. In the end they are under debt struggling to cope up with making payments. On the other hand a debt free students don’t have the burden and may get back on track once realized that the party is over.</p>

<p>So that’s why a debt free education is the best gift one can make to the children. A child can use the debt to be ahead in housing, car, investment for life and their next generation. </p>

<p>A child will be ahead with a debt free education than without one in all cases (because the child remain same and removing the debt can only make the life better for the child).</p>

<p>I agree that it is not possible for every one to get educated debt free but saying that it doesn’t make a difference is just plain WRONG.</p>

<p>blossom: I’m not sure where you look but a loan at 8% is the worst kind of loan anyone can take on in this economy. So please justify taking student loan at 8% over a debt free education.</p>

<p>POIH, I have trouble with putting debt free that high on the list of things we can do for these now 21 year old college graduates. Making sure they are good, productive, independent adults are what we are striving for. I have 2 kids currently at fairly prestigious universities and I have spent some time interfacing with their friends. It is by no means a scientific survey, but there is a added level of seriousness I see in those who are making there own financial contributions. I would have to say the party life ends faster as they understand there own financial obligations and commitments. This is not so much the entitlement issue people allude to, but a growing up issue. </p>

<p>Taking off my parent hat and putting my work one on, I look at 100’s of resumes a week for clients for everything from entry level to CFO’s. I for one do look at work history, and do ask what % of a candidate’s college expense they paid for themselves. As some others have said in this thread, hiring is a difficult and challenging “crap shoot” and any number of things can go wrong. When I am hiring high level undergraduate candidates, one of my big fears is after they are hired, they decide they do not like the work or the job and tell their parents they want to go to law school or business school. We use personality tests to protect against this, but I also look at the skin in the game and does this person understand work already what it takes to have a job. Every employer is different, but we all want the most “hungry” employee.</p>

<p>Using that metric, a person who got a scholarship would fall behind a person who paid for his/her own education.</p>

<p>@hbsurfer - How do you know which of your children’s friends are receiving FA? If you are asking anyone (including your child), I think most people would consider it the height of rudeness.</p>

<p>Same as an employer. Thanks for letting me know to tell my kids some employer may ask that, and they are to refuse to answer.</p>

<p>I never ask about financial aid, I do know which of their friends work during the school year and inquire about what they do in the summer. </p>

<p>Refusing to answer questions in interviews; not exactly a positive life skill. Most everyone always feels comfortable talking about financial aid and scholarships especially merit. My specific question is did you personally contribute to your college expenses and approximately what %.</p>

<p>As i have said a million times before, i doubt BIGTIME that skin in the game means anything…and if your child NEEDS skin in the game, perhaps they don’t value YOUR investment or potential investment in them…</p>

<p>When hiring recent college grads, I usually ask if they worked during college, doing what, etc. I am always impressed with the kids that hold down multiple jobs in order to help pay for their college education. Paying jobs while in college are much more impressive to me than vacations disguised as “mission trips” or pay-to-play camps, or even unpaid internships. My own kids are expected to pay for at least 1/3 of college expenses and fully support themselves over the summer.</p>

<p>Blossom’s post should become a sticky.</p>

<p>hpsurfer; curious what psych tests you rely on. I recall another poster mentioning how her son failed a test for Targets. How do you predict what job wants a social person vs someone who can work independently, sensitive to details?</p>

<p>PS–I NEVER asked about financial aid. A mutual friend told me that son’s close friend went to “HYP” on full merit award. Any CC poster knows that is FA, not merit. I would never embarass anyone. Some parents discuss with me if its worth X amount for one school vs. Y amount for another.
i also know that in STEM fields, one expects/hopes that kids earn at least $8-11,ooo for a summer internship. In other fields, it’s terrific if they get a good experience with no pay.</p>

<p>@hbsurfer - Got it. I can skip the kid whose parents have a private jet, and the Arabian prince.</p>

<p>jsnache32 am most impressed by the candidate who showed the initiative and sought out scholarships. But I have to say as an employer everything else equal, if you put right next to each other the kid on scholarship vs. the kid who was driven to pay himself, the latter is a less risky hire.</p>

<p>Meg, what about kids who work but do 't use te money to pay for college? Are u still impressed? Because many kids work,but parents still pay for everything…kinda shoots a BIG hole in your hiring process</p>

<p>Hb, how in the world would u know who paid their own way and who didn’t?? I seriously doubt that question would be asked, and even if yoi did, what does it prove??? Absolutely nothing</p>

<p>I’m trying to think of some kind of risk rationalization (I’m studying Actuarial Science right now) that would support your rationale, and I just can’t get there.</p>

<p>Working while attending University is largely irrelevant in the LT if the person in question does not work in his/her field. It is simply a job that pays for school. Most kids that pay for school usually work in the retail/sales sector (Only jobs most students can get as they have no education and very limited experience). These are jobs that have no real relevance to future employers unless the person is going into that sector.</p>

<p>It doesn’t make them less riskier employees because you really have no idea how they will fare in the job they are applying for. On the flip side, you have a person whose parents paid for school, who devoted his time to excelling in school as well as getting good internships in his chosen field. He was able to do this because he didn’t have to worry about working just to pay for school. He was able to concentrate on his chosen profession.</p>

<p>This is sort of a fun topic to tease apart. There are two assertions that people seem to be making that may be correct (and may not). </p>

<ol>
<li> People who have debt will be more loyal employees. Cynically,they won’t leave because their doing indentured servitude. People often think that of foreign employees on H-1 visas. On the other hand, they may be unexcited about the work as opposed to people who are there because they love it. These, like the people who are just waiting for retirement, who are trapped in their jobs. On the one hand, according to hbsurfer, you get a fraction who leave because their parents would pay for law school if they get bored. On the other hand, you probably get some people who go through the motions and are good enough not to be fired but are not excited about what they do. Not clear how to assess the magnitudes of each and suspect that the bias of the observer is likely to be huge in assessing the results if you even had the data, but maybe someone has actually looked at this very carefully.</li>
</ol>

<p>I guess you could look at how far new hires rose in the company over the course of their careers and longevity in the company relative to their HS/college work experience. It is complex, as the best people may leave because the market lures them away and the worst people may leave because they aren’t good at what they are doing. But, I suppose if you have performance data about employees that is comparable across parts of the company and years (strikes me as more likely to be a wish than a reality, but it’s not my field), you could get some insight into hbsurfer’s statements. hbsurfer, has you company looked at this data systematically? </p>

<ol>
<li> People who had to or, even better, chose to work during school are somehow inherently morally worthier. Otherwise, why would you possibly care, when looking at CFO candidates whether they worked in HS summers. By the time people have reached CFO level, you should have enough performance data to make judgments without knowing about HS work experience. (If you don’t, it is hard to believe that you can make the assessment hbsurfer appears to think he/she can make in paragraph 1 with any confidence at all). Again, unclear.</li>
</ol>

<p>However, the big statement that is being missed, is hbsurfer’s and mine: All else being equal. What POIH and others are reflecting is that all else is often not equal. The kid whose parents have the resources to invest in them, and often the connections to help them, will start in a different place than some other kids at each stage of the game. So, all else will frequently not be equal and the sons/daughters of those who have will begin at each phase at an advantage, on average, of those whose parents don’t. Example: a friend of mine is an eminent scholar and mentor of many others. He wanted one of his proteges to hire one of his kids. The protege said, learn Java programming. So, they hired a tutor and one summer, he learned Java programming. He’s reasonably bright and got a job the next summer (his HS freshman year), working for the protege who is also one of the world’s leading people in the field. That kid will have both work experience and no debt, but will have more impressive work experience than anybody else. After a few years, it will be very hard for anyone to have a resume comparable. I think he’s getting paid, but it is no way about working for money or hiring the highest skilled candidate from the outset. When hbsurfer tries to compare this kid to others, he’ll see legitimate work experience done without need [the highest level on the apparent scale of moral virtue] and extraordinary skills and experiences that no other candidate will have. He won’t necessarily see the helicoptering and connections behind the resume. This isn’t a knock on the kid, who is working hard and figuring stuff out. Brighter kids might have gotten the job, if the protege were looking for a HS freshman, but the protege wasn’t. All else just won’t be equal. That’s why POIH and others want to invest in building the resume and give short shrift to summer employment for the sake of summer employment.</p>

<p>Where hbsurfer is undoubtedly correct is if you have two candidates with the same GPA, test scores, leadership activities, etc. and one has worked throughout college and one has vacationed at the family houses, the former candidate is likely to more skill and talent or a better work ethic or both and be a better hire. The underlying capabilities and drive of the former candidate are likely to that much stronger because they had to be to get the same results as the person who didn’t also have to work. No issue there. </p>

<p>I think the question that is implicit here is whether all else is likely to be equal. Based upon my observation, all else is likely not to be equal as a general rule.</p>