<p>I do know people who are reasonably weathly, live in posh zip code. Change BMW, Lexus every 4 years. Al their kids drive BMV, Lexus. Vacation in Europe and Asia a month every year. Own vacation home. In another word weathy to CC standard.
Their kids, both valedictorians, got UC Regent scholarships and are happy, greateful as can be. They are not in the business of blaming their parents. I know the second kid is very talented in piano, tennis, and vault.
What do they have to hate their parents for? They have everything to thank for. Their parents are alive,healthy, and still married. Their parents are not abusive. They live in a brand new house that is very posh. Their parents love and care them. So here is another cliche, education is what you make of it and I have no doubt they will be living upper class lifestyle. And I'm so sure they never said their parents should plan for college before giving birth to them. They are so glad they were born to this family. They are both smart and healthy and not to say good looking. What's not to be greateful?</p>
<p>well if i was that kid, 99cents, i'd rather have the education than the car!!!</p>
<p>also, people in california have it made because uc's are such fantastic schools. others are not so lucky.</p>
<p>And a kid is actually a dependent until they are 24. And as for the attitude, what, you don't have the attitude I like so I'm going to punish you by not sending you to college? Give me a break. </p>
<p>Of course we want our kids to be grateful, but don't make such a malicious decision as to not send them to college to teach them a lesson. Find another way.</p>
<p>Well, I know a very bright, completely unscrupulous kid who made false abuse claims against the parents, became emancipated, snowed a bunch of credulous enabling adults, and walked into a full ride at an elite school, which was the goal. (This kid's parents were willing to pay for college, but the kid might have had to take out some modest loans.) </p>
<p>(And yes, I know the abuse claims were false, because a) the kid later admitted it, and b) the kid had been in the habit of making such claims against various people--family and non family-- for years, then changing the story when called on it. And no, it wasn't my kid.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course we want our kids to be grateful, but don't make such a malicious decision as to not send them to college to teach them a lesson.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They do go to college. One just graduated from a college. But college does not always mean it has to cost $50K. UCs are not chop livers.</p>
<p>Sigh.... when did not "sending your kid to college" become punishment? (And I guess I especially mean paying 50K far private college). No really... it does seem to have happened, at least in certain communities, I just want to know when. Clearly that was not the expectation in 1978. Clearly it is not true in all communities. Is it related to how many generations before you went to college?</p>
<p>Also, when did kids become "dependants" until age 24? ( Maybe this is tax rather than legal language? )I didn't get the memo and my D turns 18 in three weeks. She doesn't seem to have gotten the memo either.</p>
<p>Whoa! There seems to be a tremendous amount of rock throwing between the addled (oops adults) and what appears to be a bunch of spoiled, pampered teenagers .</p>
<p>From time to time my D gets on the entitlement soap box; and this would be about the time I would sit her down and tell her that while I am happy to send her to college, that she has to help in the process by finding and writing as many scholarship essays as required to get the Merit aid. Yes, she worked hard for her grades and she has participated in many good ECs from which she has gotten a lot of pleasure. Why and how? Because she did not have to get a job to pay for anything, including but not limited to, her designer clothes, manicures, her car or gas for that matter (after all, isnāt it our responsibility to allow her to participate with her friends if we chose to live in this kind of neighborhood [sarcasm]). She has been told early on that if we cannot equalize the economic burden to the in-state level, she might have to go to one of the many institutions who have made a generous offer, so long as she has been accepted to the program in her major. We picked out all the colleges for application all of which she would be happy to attend and played financial what-ifs.</p>
<p>She has a sisterā¦we have to consider what her expenses will be as wellā¦ retirement age (but it looks like I will be working until 80+) is around the corner, ok it is really imminent (I have been getting all that AARP stuff for years ;))</p>
<p>I grew up with a lot less, parents bought a house in a neighborhood they could not afford to live in to ensure that my brother and I were able to get a good education in a suburban school. We had no furniture in the house (basic cots and a kitchen table that had belonged to my gmother), I babysat 7 days a week for all but my basic four outfits by the time I was 12 and had a full time job in both HS and college. I put myself through school. I worked full time, yes two jobs (work-study was restricted to 20 hrs per week), while enrolled at U of Mich., and still graduated with both a BA and MA in 5 years. Not easy at $1.25 -$1.65 per hour.</p>
<p>As an adult, I am in the UMC. Worked my tail off to get here and hope to be able to retire by 70. If, I shoulder the entire burden at $50,000 per year plus for both kids, I will not have the capital to invest for my future. From the attitude I am hearing, I doubt whether ****inpants, clay or any of the other youngsters would reciprocate the āmoral obligationā to help support their parents during their retirement if they should run short. Would they be willing to sign such a contract? It is this attitude that makes many parents who waited to have children until they were financially secure, wonder whether they just made a big mistake! </p>
<p>To the teenagers, if you have lemons make lemonade. Go to the best school that you can afford if your parents will not or cannot help you. Stop whining and look for real options, you may have to take a gap year. I would never ever suggest having someone elseās child join the military or ROTC to pay for college. That could be a tragic mistake.</p>
<p>Re: the age 24 thing. I think I was the person who stated that I had attended a financial aid seminar at a college my D was visiting last weekend, and the financial aid officer who was presenting info said that, according to the FAFSA, parents are assumed/expected to be supporting a child with tuition assistance of some type up to the age of 24. The financial aid guy said that he is not saying parents <em>have</em> to do this, and many parents obviously have different ideas and means. It just means that this is what the federal government (via the FAFSA) is assuming.
Here is a site with more info on the topic we are discussing:
FinAid</a> | Other Aid | What If No Help from Parents?</p>
<p>"Parents don't have to pay for college even if they can. Parent's obligation is up till the age of 18."</p>
<p>Are you talking about your legal obligation? If so, you may be right. But I don't primarily look to the law when thinking about familial obligations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you talking about your legal obligation? If so, you may be right. But I don't primarily look to the law when thinking about familial obligations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I mean both.</p>
<p>Right, age 24 is dependent for FAFSA purposes; it has nothing to do with legal emancipation.</p>
<p>And for all those teenagers who are saying that their parents are obligated to send them to college: Do you also say that you are obligated to listen to your parents while you're in college? Do you give them access to your grades? To your health information? Do you give your schools blanket permission to talk to your parents? Or do you turn around and say, "I don't have to tell you anything; I'm an adult!"?</p>
<p>It sounds like you want all the benefits of "childhood" with all the freedoms of legal adulthood. Sorry, guys, you generally can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>(And yes, I am paying for my d's expensive college. However, that is a choice we made. I don't count anyone else's money, and barring something that rises to the level of child abuse, I don't interfere in anyone else's choices. Particularly not those of strangers whose family economics and dynamics I don't know, and when only the child's side of the story is told.)</p>
<p>WEE WEE IN THE SINK... all you are doing is telling me and others why you can't do something.. do you really think that's a new concept? 30 plus years ago I knew kids like you, it's somebody else responsibility, yada yada yada... </p>
<p>If you really want it, it's yours to pursue... If you're always going to find ways to fail, you will. You don't get your way? welcome to life for 99% of the population... </p>
<p>If you actually read my posts, I don't approve or disapprove of what a parent does or doesn't do for their kids. It's their business and their relationship. I have seen in the real world absolutely no guarantee that if everything is handed to a person that they will reciprocate in kind when folks are in need.</p>
<p>You've burned several pages of telling the world why you can't, maybe take a second and tell us how you CAN? </p>
<p>I actually have a kid in medical school and another on her way to vet school, they've never taken the time to feel as sorry for themselves as you have... Good luck on your medical school interviews ....;) me thinks you're gonna be a bit surprized.... </p>
<p>To frazzel... sorry you're offended. But also too bad, deal with it, that's how some people are sunshine. It doesn't mean I am, it means I see the situation from adult eyes... stuf happens, you either sit and whine about it or you get up dust yourself off and make the best of it. Again that's life for 99% of the population.... </p>
<p>I mean I could sit and whine about the fact the spider that bit me wasn't radioactive, when I really wanted superpowers. I mean isn't that what is supposed to happen? ;)</p>
<p>But what I don't get is parents who encourage their kids to apply to expensive, out of state LACs and at the same time say "Just so you know, we won't be helping you with any money." (And in the case of the kids I know for whom this is the situation, these kids have very good, cordial relationships with their parents. There hasn't been any "falling out" or discord.) There seems to me to be a disconnect between the two things -- encouraging the kids to apply to expensive LACS (and paying the application fees, too) and then saying "But we won't give you any money." It just doesn't make sense to me! I honestly am not judging parents who say that they won't pay a cent, though I personally don't feel that way. (My husband and I believe it is part of our responsibility as parents to help our children get the very best education possible and in our household, we have always valued experiences (such as education) way, way more than things. You would believe me if you could see our cars and so forth! :)) But I <em>do</em> admit that I find the whole thing unsettling because I cannot help but forsee that these kids (encouraged to apply to very expensive schools) are going to very quickly come smack up against the reality, which is that they likely won't be able to accept any acceptances they get to these expensive places. It seems to me if a parent refuses to help pay (again, his or her right, of course), then the parent ought not to be encouraging applications to schools that will never be in reach.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn't know anybody was making that argument, but you are right. That shouldn't happen. Public floggings will commence.</p>
<p>I'm actually in the "My parents helped me as much as they could through UG and Law School. I will do the same." Camp. I just think it's ridiculous to assume we know what is happening in all these families enough to have a litmus test - help with college? barely human. Expensive college because Little Johnny likes it better? - adequate parent. No help? Parents that eat their young. It ain't usually that simple IMO. ;)</p>
<p>Curmudgeon has it kids, not everybody who says they love you actually will and not everybody who makes you angry is your ememy..</p>
<p>As far as encouraging applications, even when saying they won't pay.. why not? </p>
<p>Often times we found the expensive schools gave the most and in 95% of the cases, came out actually cheaper than state school. So look, especially if you've got the numbers to back it up.</p>
<p>Yes, I help, our choice. </p>
<p>another thing many need to learn, never make a single top school choice, you'll always be dissappointed.. find a top 5 schools you see yourself attending. If you'll only be happy at one place... well, good luck.. life may be a bit hard for you...</p>
<p>NotMama, perhaps the disconect is in failure to research the likelihood of scholarship $. Because so many people throw around stories of "full rides" awarded to their kid, or relative, or the kid down the block, I assumed there was more $$ to be had than there actually is. It wasn't long ago that I thought all top schools, including the ivy league, would give merit $$ to top students. Rude awakening! These financially comfortable parents may assume that some financial aid is coming their way because they consider themselves solidly middle class, not in the wealthy stratosphere. Are these kids being prepared for disappointment? Maybe the families are actually being clear that attendance is totally dependant on the kid's ability to rase the cash or qualify for aid. Sometimes the real scenario gets twisted & lost in translation when kids are retelling it. </p>
<p>And there seems to be a big focus on cars here. In some professions it is important to drive a late model luxury car, partucularly if clients are involved. Wouldn't it seem odd if your financial advisor showed up at your home in a junker? Or a minivan with cheerioes ground into the carpet? I remember an early sales position where a colleague & her H, sick of driving junkers, finally splurged on a Mercedes. The next week she won a sales contest -- the prize was a year long lease of a Jaguar. She said there was much whispereing in her neighborhood about mafia ties, etc!</p>
<p>StickerShock is correct that many parents really do not know what the situation is with regard to scholarships that are not need-based. Quite recently a friend of mine (Harvard PhD, not some uneducated guy) told me his son is dreaming about MIT in a couple of years. I said, "hope you have been saving some big money, friend, because you are definitely a full-pay family"; he said they were hoping for some scholarship money! Completely unaware that no such thing exists.</p>
<p>
[quote]
perhaps the disconect is in failure to research the likelihood of scholarship $. Because so many people throw around stories of "full rides" awarded to their kid, or relative, or the kid down the block, I assumed there was more $$ to be had than there actually is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
he said they were hoping for some scholarship money! Completely unaware that no such thing exists.
[/quote]
Hallelujah!!!! Converts! Would one of y'all like to take over my job of quizzing every mention of a free-ride, or full-scholarship? Huh? Pretty , please? It is dangerous to let folks think that a great student (great in terms of their high school) has big scholarship options from "name" , or even "lesser named" schools. Some scholarships, sure but many folks think 4.0 /1500, they'll be throwing me money at Vandy and Emory and Flagship State Schools. That just gets you competitive at the selective places. Very little is automatic. It's tough to budget when merit is an essential yet unknown variable. (That's why D had a state school auto-admit, auto-scholarship ultimate safety, and a private LAC safety with a guaranteed Val scholarship that made the school barely affordable. Made the wait much easier.)</p>
<p>Cur - Lets not get into Texas school financing here or I will get violently ill. The folks that vote on this stuff in TX do not listen to NPR.</p>
<p>Correct, your D and mine, while receiving the auto-in, ultimately safety, perhaps some auto scholarship $ (often only NMFs) though pittiful amounts, to the state Flags will still owe the bulk. Other state's Flagships (perhaps not as good as UT & A&M) have indeed already offered D a full-ride scholarship or at least one that covers 80-90% of her tuition). On the other hand, to qualify for this type of Merit $, the kid has to be top 1-5% across the board on what Ivy calls AI stats. These scholarships are offered to boost the school's standing and are few and far between, these are not name brand schools. Many universities have a vested interest in trying to attract these kids away from the League and other top private LACs.</p>
<p>IVY, Stanford and MIT make it clear NO MERIT SCHOLARSHIPS. Top stats (whatever their benchmark might be) are just the bright line test to keep their interest in reading the rest of the application. There are NO ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS either. This is only one of many hooks. Scholarships are for the poor or URM only. </p>
<p>If you have a top student and want / need scholarship $ to maintain your lifestyle or to have $ available for Grad/Prof. school, they will have to find schools a notch or two lower.</p>
<p>UnivMom. I was so naive when I came here. You should have heard the wailing when I found out if you received FA you couldn't pay your EFC with scholarship money. It was not a good day.</p>