<p>Rocket6louise, I appreciate your point, but as far as “I sincerely doubt any kid would ask for such a thing”…many humans of all ages are happy to try to get their own way at the expense (financial or otherwise) of others. College age kids may be especially prone to this expectation because they’re at a tipping point; at borderline adulthood but have always been supported (the lucky ones, anyway).</p>
<p>Yes you did, rocket, when you said 'I really , really , REALLY think it should almost always be the kid’s choice. Unless money is a limiting factor(and in this case, it isn’t),"
You certainly didn’t say- Kid can go anywhere that he can pay for!
Your statement indicates the parents must give the kid 10k or 50k if the parents have 50k to give, or as you put it… “Unless money is a limiting factor(and in this case, it isn’t),”.
You didn’t mention the idea that the 2 are similarly priced until now. You only said if money wasn’t a factor.
I agree if they have 10k to contribute, then that is what they should contribute, whether it goes to school A or to school B.<br>
But I cannot agree a kid can choose school B(example 50k oop) rather than A(example(10k oop) and then require parents to pay 50k, even if they have 50k available.<br>
He can choose for himself(what school) but he cannot choose for parent what they must pay. There was your contradiction- the idea that student is grown up enough to make his own choices but that parent must fund it. At 50, I can buy any car I can afford, but I cannot choose a car for me that my parents have to fund. I would welcome their gift, to be sure, but I cannot compel them to fund my choice.</p>
<p>No kid would ask for mommy and daddy to pay for his college? Really? I want to live in your world!</p>
<p>Nice of bigtrees to reiterate my point(post 6).</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone disagrees that if you pay your own way, you can go anywhere you want. But not all agree that student can pick anywhere he wants and someone else must pick up the tab.</p>
<p>Though we may disagree, I am happy to read Rocketlouise who is an adult, andhas made all her own choices, and her parents are not involved(post 19).
It is uncommon for a student to be paying 100% of their own way in college. My compliments to you!</p>
<p>I don’t think that was what rocket6louise was saying at all.</p>
<p>When she said money available, I think she meant the parents had allocated that money to the kid for college. Say the parents are prepared to pay for any school up to 50k. Kid says I want to go to Caltech which costs 50k. Parents say, we don’t like Caltech so we won’t pay but you can go Stanford. </p>
<p>Unless the parents have a good reason (like the kid wants to go to hairstyling school), I don’t think parents should use the money factor as a way to force their kids to go one school over another.</p>
<p>When we look at qualifying statements added after her post 15, that sheds new light. Rocketlouise added “similarly priced schools” in post 19, and you added - money already allocated- in post 23. With the addition of those ideas, we are all in agreement. That is what I said in post 6, and again (in post 22): “I agree if they have 10k to contribute, then that is what they should contribute, whether it goes to school A or to school B.” </p>
<p>So, I still disagree with what she said in post 15. That post only indicated the kid can choose any school, and the parent must pay unless money is a limiting factor. To me that means if the parents have 10k they must do it. If they have 40k they must do it. The <em>must do it</em> is in effect until the money reaches a point they cannot afford whatever that number is for them; thereby money becomes a limiting factor. </p>
<p>If I say what Rocket meant wasn’t really what she said(in 15) then I can agree with Bigtrees. I can certainly see that while I objected to what she said, that maybe what she said wasn’t what she meant. And with the way Bigtrees now explains it I would not disagree. It is consistent with my post 6.
With all due respect to Rocket, though, I am not sure she meant something other than what she said in her post 15</p>
<p>I think that the “my checkbook, my choice” idea sets up a very negative paradigm for future relationships. If and when the student marries, is the decision-making power always going to belong to the spouse with the bigger paycheck (or bigger inheritance)? If one spouse is not working, or is not maximizing $$ in order to take care of children or someone who is ill, has that person surrendered decision-making power?</p>
<p>There has to be some degree of mutuality, based on mutual respect and love and communication. The parents are, IMHO, unwise to simply brandish the power of the purse to force a child into compliance, and the child is unwise to stamp his tiny foot like Rumplestiltskin and expect the parents to fall into line.</p>
<p>I can understand some of the above point, but marriage partners are equals, while children and parents are not.</p>
<p>A parent has to use the “my checkbook, my choice” with discretion - otherwise the long term implications will be horrible. The “my checkbook, my choice” should only be used to set a budget (like a wedding budget) and then the child makes choices that fit the budget. </p>
<p>Of course the budget needs to realistic. If you’re a millionaire, you’ll regret it for the rest of your life if you’re too cheap with your kids’ college educations. Kids have a way of never forgetting (and sometimes never forgiving) such cheapness.</p>
<p>This whole “we won’t pay for a party school” is just silly. First of all, virtually all largish schools are party schools…simply because large schools have some kids in easy majors (more conducive to excessive partying) and some kids in very hard majors (less conducive to partying). My kids go to a party school - yet they don’t often have time to go to parties, they get straight A’s in difficult majors - math and chemical engineering. </p>
<p>When you send your kids to a big school with a party element (which often means big sports teams and/or greek systems) then you have to set GPA parameters. (reasonable, of course)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. I’ll pay whatever it takes for a good school (good being defined broadly, of course). But to send my kid to, for example, a mediocre state school in another state when I have an excellent state flagship here in my state? Not going to happen in the absence of something truly compelling (e.g., a specialized program offered nowhere else). And there are plenty of mediocre private universities that I just don’t see any point to sending them too, either.</p>
<p>Whoever is paying can and should make the decision if they are well-informed.</p>
<p>My feeling is that it should ideally be our son’s call, but finances may dictate that we play a larger role than I’d like to. Chances are that all the bottom lines we will be looking at will be higher than we can afford–so we will be taking on additional debt. Given that, a difference in cost of even as little as 3 or 4K a year could look quite significant after four years. So we might end up in a situation where the message is, “pick whichever school you like, son, as long as it’s the cheapest one.” I’m hoping it doesn’t come to that–my dream scenario is that he winds up with three or four choices that are all within a couple thousand dollars of each other, and then we can leave that decision entirely up to him.</p>
<p>younghoss…my original post was not clear enough. I did mean that more of what post 23 says…that if your parents are willing to pay X a year for College A but not for College B, then that doesn’t make sense…</p>
<p>Basically, if the money is being withheld to dictate a choice, I take issue…(like bigtrees said…i’ll pay 50k for Stanford, but not MIT)…sorry if I wasn’t clear…</p>
<p>OR, if a parent says, we can afford 20k/year for school. The kid decides they want to go to a school and take out loans to make up the difference, and the parent says I don’t like that school, no money for you…that I don’t like either</p>
<p>Also, to add, where I live EVERYONE puts themselves through school…i don’t know anyone who’s getting supported by their parents…
The money should be a consideration, but not a way to control your kids…does that make sense?</p>
<p>
At the very least, if this is true, then it needs to be made crystal clear before the applications go out. As the person paying the bill, I think I have the right to say “I don’t think College B is good enough to spend that kind of money on.” I can’t imagine that I would say it about any college my son would want to go to, but I would have the right to. But it needs to be said early in the process, not in the endgame.</p>
<p>I agree completely, nightchef. </p>
<p>Rocket6Louise - I live in a state with a good state flagship (UIUC). I’d pay OOS to send my kids to (say) Michigan, UVA, UNC, etc. Maybe Indiana or Wisconsin. But why would I pay to send them to University of Idaho or Arizona State, in the absence of something compelling such as a unique program offered there that was available no place else? I don’t see the point. And I’ll send them to first-tier private colleges across the nation, but I’m not going to pay for them to go to a mediocre school halfway across the nation. If it’s only mediocre, well, then you can go to mediocre more close to home.</p>
<p>it does make absolutely perfect sense. Thank you rocket.</p>
<p>Why is it perceived that the parents are seeking to control the kids? That implies an underlying mindset that the latter can make the right decisions for themselves, with the risk falling on the parents. The family works together, but deference to the parents (especially if they are paying) seems to be the philosophy I would support.</p>
<p>Some feel offering the gift of 10k(for example) if a kid goes to school A, but 20k if he chooses school B is trying to control. Personally, I’d agree it is trying to influence, but I wouldn’t call it control. In my example the parent is able to contribute a 20k gift, but would only choose to give a 10k gift if student chose school A. His method encourages the choice of school B. Not control as I see it. Kid isn’t forced into either of those schools, parent isn’t forced into what gift he may give. Kid can still go to school A, or school B, or any other school kid can pay for. Student has complete freedom to choose.
Control would be parent telling student where he must attend; or student telling parent what he must pay.</p>
<p>
Everyone still has the right to do what you are doing. Their parents may choose to pay for anything they want.</p>
<p>I think the OP is rightfully concerned about the social environment at UC Santa Cruz. I have never been there, but suggest that the OPs friend find out more about the party-drug atmosphere. I don’t know if just a few kids are involved in activities which the OP is worried about, or if the pervasive atmosphere is party-pot oriented. I heard UC Santa Cruz is very liberal. Does anyone know if the party-pot atmosphere is just a small subset of the school or is this a real concern?</p>
<p>I have been to UC Santa Cruz, have a close friend attending there now, and know lots of kids that go there. I haven’t seen, or smelled, any pot in his dorm, or anywhere when we wander around campus with him. I’ve asked my friend about the party scene, and he says you have to go looking for it, you don’t trip over it in his dorm. The party scene he is familiar with is alcohol only, He wasn’t sure where one would find pot if that is what you were looking for. </p>
<p>Santa Cruz was very liberal about 20 years ago.</p>
<p>Some feel offering the gift of 10k(for example) if a kid goes to school A, but 20k if he chooses school B is trying to control. Personally, I’d agree it is trying to influence, but I wouldn’t call it control.</p>
<p>Actually it is a form of control…Imagine this scenario…</p>
<p>A woman has 2 marriage offers. Parents say…if you marry Man A, we’ll give you a lavish wedding and dowry. If you marry Man B, we’ll give you a modest wedding and a small dowry. Who could argue that that the parents aren’t trying to control who she marries???</p>
<p>Are parents obligated, however, to spend their money on schools that they have good reason to believe aren’t a good value for the money?</p>
<p>And no, I’m not talking about stupid, idiotic “I will pay for a top 10 school but not schools 11-20.” I’m talking about schools that are objectively not very good when the student has the option to go to a better school.</p>
<p>Here’s a perfect example. There is a local college in my neck of the woods, called North Central College. Nothing to write home about. Now, if my kid wasn’t terribly motivated, and wound up there, ok, fine. But every city has its own version of North Central College. Why on earth would I pay to send them to whatever version of North Central College exists in Seattle or Los Angeles or New York or Atlanta – and pay for transportation and travel and so forth? An “eh” college can be found close to home.</p>