<p>
Will you agree not to be considered legally an adult for longer? If I’m legally responsible, then I want some legally sanctioned control. Either you’re an adult, in which case I am no longer legally required to support you, or I am legally required to support you, in which case you are not an adult.</p>
<p>As I said before, you can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>Of course, the custom of parents paying for a child’s college education developed when the age of majority was twenty-one. The change in age of majority in the United States happened in my childhood, and a lot of parents immediately wondered, “Does that mean I don’t have to pay for my children’s college?” Well, they never did have to pay, and yet many still do pay, and the financial aid system is based on the idea that family assets are available for a young person’s undergraduate studies.</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t someone with means NOT want their kid to have the best education they could afford? I thought parenting was about putting your kids first. I guess not.</p>
<p>Thanks for that insight Calreader! Maybe you can post on the mills forum and share some thoughts about Mills???</p>
<p>MLLEVINE; I don’t know how old you are, but if the internet is still around when you have kids, you may eat your words…Responsible until 24 years old and for private tuition for college for all your kids? THAT will reduce your sex drive!!! BTW, I know me and H go WAY back, but my H is STILL paying off his 100k school loans and it’s been almost 20 years. His life DID go on.</p>
<p>Tokenadult would you say the parents response reflected generations of family tradition? My parents were the first to go to college, my husband was the first to go in his family, and in our “world”, few would dream of expecting parents to pay. It was about sending money home from college.</p>
<p>Does anybody know what percentage of college students go to private school, and what percent go to community college?</p>
<p>MLevine, how are you able to take out $20,000 a year in private loans? (I’m assuming you’re 19 and don’t have a long credit history) Is that like credit cards?</p>
<p>Yes, I’m 19. I forget which loan it was, but it’s pretty high interest. My parents didn’t want to get screwed if I couldn’t pay it, so I had to settle with it.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap, how did your husband accumulated $100,000? I’m guess he went to grad school, which is obviously a whole different story than paying $100,000 for an undergrad. When my aunt and uncle went to BU, it was like $5000 a year. My uncle has loans from law school, but that alot different because his law degree helps him earn more money.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but is just doesn’t make sense that I have to pay for my own college tution BUT I can NOT buy myself a beer. Not all age restraints have to do with responsiblity, some are maturity. There should be a different age for financial responibility then when the law considers you an adult (so you may be tried as such). Young adults, while adults, are not going to have the same finanical situation as older adults. It takes a while to get to that point, and you shouldn’t have to worry about debt before you even can set out for a career.</p>
<p>This is all interesting info! Appreciate the encouragement re: the SAT (after son missing NMF cutoff). Son’s good at tests generally, so he’s planning on doing a few SAT IIs in spring, plus a few APs and at the rate things are going (w/all this financial bad news) we’ll see if he can crank out the ACT as well…</p>
<p>Muffy: " I have to explain that if they get good grades they can go to a private school that has GOOD financial aid but we are not paying forty plus thousand dollars for some school no one has ever heard of (we’ll pay for any in-state public college)."</p>
<p>I thought the prevailing wisdom was (various people have told me this) – if you apply at a private school, you might just get enough aid to make the final ticket price at an in-state public U comparable? For instance, an alum of Colgate told me they have this giant endowment & we should check it out.</p>
<p>Now not sure if this is accurate? That in-state-U-is-cheaper was the initial assumption—but had hoped the additional-private-aid scenerio was possible…(maybe this was addressed above & I’m just holding out hope…?)</p>
<p>MLevine, on the other hand, you can go to war and can’t drink a beer either. I happen to think that an 18 y/o should not be allowed to take on these huge college loans. I do think that it should be limited to Perkins and Staffords (or that equivalent amount if parents refuse to fill out forms and help, but unsubsidized because they could be millionaires trying to get away with something. The taxpayer should not need to subsidize a scam). This is just my own opinion and when so many of our young adults are saddled with these huge loans that they cannot pay back, maybe more people will focus on this issue, but it really will be too late for the person who has trouble paying off the debt.</p>
<p>So if I couldn’t take out the loans, and was limited to the small Perkins and Stafford loans, how would I attend any college other than community college?</p>
<p>Maybe that is where you would be. I would rather see my kids at a community college for 2 years, than have a 100k in debt for an undergraduate degree. That is just how I feel about it, but this is my opinion. I think some posters on here will agree with me, and others will definitely disagree. Two of my husband’s siblings started at a community college. Both have 4 year degrees (one from a private college and the other went to a SUNY). The sibling who graduated from the SUNY college has a job that many people would love to have and he earns a very nice living. The other sibling is currently working in her home as a mother and wife. I guess one reason that she can do that is that she is not saddled with 100k in loans. She is really need more at home than as a bread winner at this time.</p>
<p>Jolynne-that’s correct about privates with aid possibly being less than state, but usually the more desirable privates have the kind of aid that will meet full need with minimal loan/work study.</p>
<p>You can also attend 4 year state flagships in some states and not community colleges for a bit more. No they will not cover the cost of private schools.</p>
<p>Are your parents millionaires? Didn’t sound like it from what I read. Sounds like they worked hard to put you through private HS so that you would have an opportunity at going to a good college. Were they able to save anything during that time? If not, why must they take a second job to support your education further or above their means. Am I missing something, or did they make a judgment call based on facts that weren’t accurate or worse the ever shrinking financial aid.</p>
<p>My parents didn’t save up money because they didn’t want to. I didn’t have the option of attending public highschool, nor do I have the option of attending community college. They have the money to help out, but they choose new cars, repainted walls, redone floors, and vacations instead.</p>
<p>I am loathe to say anything about anyone else’s choices, but this is the just about the opposite of what my family chose. Two vehicles, one over 120K miles, the other 95K and we will keep them on the road as long as possible. And what’s a vacation (if it doesn’t involve camping or staying at someone’s house)?</p>
<p>My mom goes to Newport with “her girls” for a weekend and spends about 1K. That’s a vacation.</p>
<p>100k=undergrad and medical school with no help ( probably sent money home) and somewhat expensive loans. I did the same and had such a little loan I don’t remember how much it was, PLUS some time in the Air Force. I didn’t send any money home but usually had at least one job since high school; sometimes two. No car for a very long time…and I’m supposed to feel guilty about having a new one now…Don’t get me wrong, I am more than ready to pay 25k+; 50k? I just don’t know.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap: Know how you feel. I put myself through school, paid my husbands $80,000 loan for years, took few expensive vacations (usually went to visit parents-his or mine - hardly a vacation, but expensive nevertheless), drive my cars for 10 years and really need a new one before D1 goes to school. Did redo the floors and paint the house (first time in 15years), had to replace the roof 3 times over the last 15 years (Texas hail is really dangerous) insurance deductibles are a killer, air-conditioners are not a luxury item here either and I had two go this year. That is just not on FAFSA.</p>
<p>Didn’t realize when I gave birth that I would be enslaved by the government until they turned 24. When do I get to have the luxury car or vacation to Europe? I agree, the full state monty is enough. 50K will defer my retirement until I am 80, if I live that long.</p>
<p>People who live in California ought to realize that community colleges in other states can be a very different proposition. In my state, they have just very recently been renamed from “technical” schools, and the emphasis is on vocational training. Their vocational training can be good, but the regular academics cater to kids who could barely scrape through high school. It is great that they are available. I think that the great strength of the American educational system is that, unlike many others, there are second–and even thrid and fourth–chances, but our state’s CCs are not places where good students would go for the first two years of college. For them, it would be like repeating high school, but on a lower level. Nor do most other states have the extensive state school structure available in California. You have a great state college system. Many of us don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The catch here is the term “best education”. That is not defined the same by everyone. First, many people think very little of standard ranking methods. Second, what is best for one student may not be best for another. Pricey schools may not be the best option for a student who is immature, undirected and unready to put academics first; attending the wrong school could, in fact, be a bad longterm choice for such a student–even though the student himself may not recognize that.</p>
<p>Treetopleaf and Stickershock, that is exactly what I meant. It is important to find a balance. Parents who don’t truly want what is best for the child (a not spoiled, but secure child who knows that mom and dad will help WHEN they truly have the means because they WANT the best for the child). I’m not talking about parents who would need to sacrifice their retirement options. That gets into a completely different level of things (so much so that I don’t know why so many posters keep bringing up those sorts of circumstances to attempt to refute the point I and others have made). How anyone could even try to deny the difference between choosing a quality retirement home and a quality plastic surgeon, I don’t know. </p>
<p>Bulletandpima:</p>
<p>I’m not sure you read the “SOMETIMES” in the “sometimes parents are detached…”</p>
<p>Based on your statements, you do not fit into the group that chose trivialities over her children, or who experienced a parent choose those silly things over you. Your daughter, as you said, “has plenty.” If she gets manicures or whatever on a regular basis, would you deny her if she offered to trade the cost of the manicures/car/etc. for a college fund of comparable amount? I doubt that. If so, I question your intelligence (really, how much more self-sufficient is your D with a closet full of $50+ shoes vs. an education?), but you would still be giving, most likely, some sign that you make her happiness a priority. This is not the case within many families. I don’t know what you are trying to prove with your personal example, because it doesn’t fit.</p>
<p>Also, your “including waking up every 3 hours for many years to feed and change them” makes me sad. I don’t have a child, so you could argue that I don’t “get it” (though I do have a puppy that I have lost much sleep for); however, feeding and changing your kids are your responsibilities as a parent. You are not entitled to bragging rights for doing so, in my opinion. If you didn’t do so, it would be neglect, and I’d hope that your kids would be taken from you.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon:</p>
<p>How naive are you to give a “prescription” for changing his circumstance? Do you really believe that he hasn’t tried many different things, even as a child? I don’t know him, but I know enough people in similar situations. I’m willing to bet that the talk you suggested isn’t a real option. When screwed up parents neglect their kids, a “poisonous attitude” often comes from, hey, being poisoned by a crap situation. It is RATIONAL to be frustrated and angry when someone is consistently a jerk to you (or straight-out ignores you), especially when that person is a parent. Again, some people don’t have nice families. Stop reading so many Hallmark cards and watching Christmas specials and wake up. </p>
<p>Univmom:</p>
<p>I’d like to point out that my, claysoul, and peeinthesink’s arguments seem to center on the fact that our (and many other) parents may neglect all around in favor of trivial, superficial “benefits” for the parent. The definitions of “spoiled” and “pampered” don’t fit. These parents don’t want the best for their kids if their hard-working kids aren’t helped in favor of something that will only slightly benefit the parent. </p>
<p>Also Univmom, I’d like to present you with the same challenge as presented to Curmudgeon. If your dear, sweet daughter asked you to stop paying for her Fendi bags and french tip nails for a period of time, in exchange for investing that money in a college fund, would you refuse? </p>
<p>Also, since you stated, *“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,” *you already made it clear that you (in part due to the frivolous gifts to your D) are UNABLE to provide her education. Therefore, if you keep things as such, you DON’T have the means to pay. So why are you arguing against people that are talking about parents who DO have the means to pay? I guess technically you do have the means to pay, but it is also irrelevant since I’m assuming that your daughter didn’t want to give up her shoes and purses. So, really, if that is the case then your point doesn’t apply.</p>
<p>Chedva:</p>
<p>You have made some huge assumptions. Good job for piling all teenagers into one stupid and irresponsible pile. I know people who need to send their parents their grades before the 'rents will pay for the following year. I know girls forced to attend single-sex schools or live in single-sex dorms in exchance for help with college tuition. I even know someone who decided to make a deal with her parents so she could get them to pay for her education. Essentially the deal was: We’ll pay, but upon graduation, we’ll choose your husband (yes, really!!). She took the deal because she really wanted to be a doctor. Some people aren’t even permitted to bargain, believe it or not. Claysoul said that he would give up a car for the education. I doubt that he had the space to make that agreement.</p>
<p>“and when only the child’s side of the story is told”</p>
<p>Really? So children are not credible, ever? My parents are WAY, WAY less ethical than I am. My best friend’s parents are less ethical than she. And I can say the same for many others. Clearly you don’t know how many parents are, hmm, PEOPLE. People, irrespective of age, can be liars. Why is the child more likely to lie? And you may say that, while the kid wasn’t lying, she wasn’t aware of the situation. Some kids know more than parents want to believe. Smart kids figure stuff out. And the situations we are discussing, where the parent obviously has the means to pay $100,000-$200,000 for the kid, are not easy to fake. Unless, of course, the many face lifts and cars and new homes are bought out of debt (lots and lots!). In that case, the parents shouldn’t be purchasing those things either. </p>
<p>Opie ofMaybery2:</p>
<p>I love debates with people who believe that “tough sh1t” is an adequate answer. </p>
<p>“that’s how some people are sunshine.”
What does that mean? That some people are offensive? Good job, keep aspiring to that then. Seriously? That is your rationalization?</p>
<p>“It means I see the situation from adult eyes”</p>
<p>Sooo, why exactly is your opinion magically so superior? I see the situation from adult eyes also. I am in my twenties (Voila! Adult eyes!). </p>
<p>“stuf happens, you either sit and whine about it or you get up dust yourself off and make the best of it.”</p>
<p>Who said that we weren’t doing that? My life has been pretty tough. Maybe not kid in Somalia tough, but tough enough that how I turned out surprises and inspires people who know my story. I’ve dusted myself off. I’ve worked hard. Does that mean that my experiences were any less disturbing? Does that mean that my parents weren’t wrong? I certainly hope that you aren’t a teacher or counsellor. I can imagine it now: “Yeah, well, your parents were crazy and neglectful, but don’t be annoyed about it. Stop your whining and make some frickin lemonade.” Awesome. You assume that someone like peeinthesink is a bratty kid who feels entitled to everything. You don’t know whether he works his butt off at school or at a job. You are just assuming that because he is angry, he is a brat. When, in reality, he could be a hard-working kid who has parents who would rather see him sick from working 40+ hours a week plus trying to excel in school and make his way into a competitive field than give up shiny new boat #3. While life sucks in different ways for everyone, as I mentioned, it is especially painful when the people who, in this culture, are “supposed to” love you most would rather choose small pleasures for themselves than a long-term investment that could positively change the rest of your life. </p>
<p>Also, shrinkrap mentioned how awful the responsibility would be for kids up to 24 years old, including costs for private tuition for “all your kids.” So, in this scenario, a person had sex, but didn’t want to think about the idea that she could get pregnant. Or thought about it, but didn’t want to think about how expensive kids are. An extra 6 years would drain the pocketbook, of course, but if the laws were changed and all babies conceived from that date forth were to be cared for until age 24, would it not be the responsibility of the parents to then take that into consideration before shacking up? I know that I take it into consideration now (why I am not having children until later in life!). </p>
<p>Just to add, I’m arguing this because I believe it. My parents are paying for my education, for which I am thankful. They neglected many important things beyond that, but, in the end, I too would choose my education over almost anything (definitely over anything material). It is just disturbing how many people on here don’t consider the complicated situations many have.</p>