In Tennessee, qualifying students (ACT of 21 or above or SAT of 980 or above or HS GPA of 3.0) are eligible for $4000/yr for 4-year in-state college. The local state university charges $4300/year (a year ago) for tuition. So if a student worked summers and part-time, they should be able to afford to pay for it themselves. If they didn’t work part-time and got student loans, they’d still graduate without too much debt, as long as they are living frugally and keeping their grades at eligibility levels.
The Italian government now makes parents support their adult children even after degrees have been earned, until the “child” finds a job to their liking (they can refuse job offers) that affords them the same standard of living they enjoy living at home.
At some point children become adults and must be made to accept the responsibility that adult life entails. Yes, it’s nice if parents choose to help their kids out with expenses, but I think it’s in no way an obligation.
My sister and her husband are sending their daughter to a $50K/year college. They agreed to pay for college, but expect her to pay for one year of it herself. She’s a good, responsible kid who, in HS earned at least $100/wk babysitting and paid cash for her car. She gets good grades and is excelling at school. but if her parents weren’t willing to pay for school, she would’ve set her sights a little lower, gone to a state school instead of Rose-Hulman and she would’ve excelled there, too.
My other sister is well on her way to making her child dependant on her for the rest of her life. She will reap what she sows, and the child will be in a world of hurt when her parents are dead and she doesn’t know how to support herself.
Where exactly does it follow that ‘‘parents are not ethically obligated to pay for their childrens’ education’’ is equal to ‘‘anyone who can’t be self-sufficient at age 18 is weak and worthless’’? I’m not seeing that argument being made here at all, even though I’ve been accused of making it.
Parents shape who their children become, and they shape what their child will or will not be ‘‘ready for’’ by the time they turn 18. For a parent to coddle a child and then throw them out on their ass at 18 is, I agree, a very unfortunate situation. But that’s not what we’re really talking about here. A lot of kids whose parents do not pay for their college education were raised with that expectation. They can handle ‘‘all those burdens’’ because they were raised to handle them.
Because I’ve been self-sufficient since age 17 I’m one extreme, but there is an opposite extreme, which is what happened to my 30 year old uncle. He lived with Mom and Dad with no job and two children nursing his heroine habit. One day he got so depressed he committed suicide by OD, leaving behind a mother who spent her entire life living for his comfort and two young children who never really got anything close to the parenting they deserved. Somewhere in the middle, there are a range of less-extreme situations, and every parent gets to decide what they do and do not prepare their children for by age 18.
My point, and my only point, is that it is a parent’s prerogative how they choose to prepare their children for economic self-sufficiency. There is no obligation for a parent to pay for a child’s education. Doesn’t mean anything bad about parents who do, just means it’s entirely a personal choice of the parents involved, absent of moral implications.
And I do think class may be a dividing line in this conversation. A LOT of working class families cannot afford to pay for their children’s education. To imply that the parents are being cruel by not giving something they can’t afford is kind of lame. Those of us raised that way knew what was expected of us from the beginning and it had nothing to do with how much our parents did or didn’t love us.
FTR, this is the number one ‘‘child-rearing’’ disagreement my husband and I have. He thinks we have an ethical obligation to help out, I don’t. He also came from a more privileged background and I absolutely believe that is at play in the viewpoints expressed in this thread.
Well I, for one, wouldn’t expect parents who can’t afford it to help their children with college expenses. It’s all about where one draws the line about whether the parents can afford it. I thought it was ludicrous that my mother, whose annual gross salary was almost exactly what tuition, room, and board cost at “rack rate” at my university, should have been expected to contribute anything at all. For sure, it’s kept her from being able to save much for retirement, and I’ll probably end up having to help her with her expenses. Which is fine - she deserves it.
But my father, who made six figures, not even counting my stepmother’s six-figure income? And who cried broke at the U. of C.'s estimate of his abililty to contribute? After his own parents had put him through Princeton on what pittance they made at their 4-table luncheonette, because they were so proud that their son had gotten that far, given that my grandmother had only finished high school and my grandfather had dropped out after 8th grade? And who continued helping him after he ended up on academic probation and had to spend a semester elsewhere to get his grades up before he could go back to Princeton and graduate? Yeah, if I were in Dad’s shoes, I’d have been ashamed of myself.
(Of course, now he and my stepmom are now covering the whole tab for my half-brother, who is about to start his senior year of undergrad, and I’ll be shocked if they don’t also cover his tab for law school. Not that my brother doesn’t deserve it, but yes, the favoritism does sting.)
I disagree - and I am from a working class background. I think for some reason “help” is being defined as " write large checks to help cover tuition and room and board ". That’s not the only definition of help. I worked full-time all through college , paid my own tuition, books and transportation and personal expenses. My parents still helped- they let me live at home without charging me a significant amount for room and board. Two of my nieces didn’t get that- they were expected to pay their own tuition, books, personal expenses and contribute $200-$300 dollars a week toward household expenses. Neither household suffered a job loss, huge medical bills or anything like that. Their expenses were the same in September as they were in June, when my nieces finished high school.They just decided they wanted to spent the money differently- a bigger house, flat screen TVs , vacations, etc. It’s no surprise that neither niece finished out the year. I believe that parents have an moral obligation to help to the extent that they can , and if that consists of providing a place to live or buying a few supplies, well , that’s still help.
I said “not legal or moral” since the thread title says “adult”. To me “adult” is beyond college age, no matter that an 18 year old can vote and serve in the military (but can’t have a drink the night before s/he shows up at boot camp, but that’s another thread).
Anyway: If you’re 19, and you’re trying to pay for college, all the financial aid plans in the US will insist on know your parents’ income. Aid will be based on the parents’ income, regardless of whether the parents can or will pay a dime. I think you have to be 25 before your own ability to pay is the only factor. I’m not certain but I think if your parent refuses to fill out the paperwork, you’re automatically denied any significant aid.
So with all that, I think parents of college-age “adults” do have a moral obligation to help out as much as possible. Failing to do so makes it far more difficult for the student to afford an education.
The problem is, they don’t. In fact, they think of themselves as damn fine human beings.
Reminds me of an old-job EVP who was up for some sort of ‘mentoring of the young’ award. Supposedly, he was some sort of big-deal with helping young people - taking them under his wing and helping them. He was so happy/proud of being nominated and he so wanted to win it.
Unfortunately for him, someone from the committee contacted me about him and wanted to know some information. Since the EVP (of a company of about 20 people and I was one of the youngest employees of) did fuckin jack shit for me for years…the meeting didn’t go well for his chances.
Somehow he found out I was interviewed and he confronted me. Didn’t I know all the good stuff he did…how godlike he was? Well…I told him that the only thing I had to go on was how he mentored me and that I didn’t really feel ‘mentored’ by him. How was I supposed to answer 'What is the act that most stands apart in your mind that Mr. X. did to help you further your career (or however it was worded)?" Mr. X…how would YOU answer that one if you were me?
Was he ashamed? Hell no. In fact, I was the bad guy. Stopping a worthy guy from getting his just recognition.
I think the government should pay for college for the top 25% of high school graduates. After that, it doesn’t matter to me.
Under the current system, we have far too many people going to college, which creates a bunch of pointless consumer debt and jacks up tuition rates for the people who actually should be going.
That is not to say that I won’t pay for my kids to go to college. My parents paid for me, after all.
I think your differences can be eliminated when you state the proposition as, “if a parent CAN help, then they SHOULD help.”
Your husband assumes that you will be in a financial position to assist. (We will be able to, so we will). Apparently, somewhere in your head you think this is unlikely, or at least not certain. (We are not obligated to, if we can’t).
From a purely utilitarian standpoint, there will be way fewer people doing necessary but financially unrewarding careers like yours, olives (ie., social work) if all of them have to pay their own way- even though you did.
Medicine and Education are two of those things like roads, police forces, mail delivery and firefighters: It’s better for everyone when everyone has access to them, even when only some pay for that access.
It’s not just better for the individual when the individual has access to it–it’s better for everyone the individual will interact with, and everyone who will interact with those interactees, and so on, when the individual has access to it.
Hence, like roads, police forces, mail delivery and firefighters, I think that it is a state responsibility to provide access to medicine and education, to everyone.
Well, that’s a bit vague. How much education is the state responsible for? It provides free education up to age 18 in most places, which is enough to perform at least 50% of all jobs.
Big Picture Answer: It should pay for as much degree-oriented education as each person can handle.
ETA: I think that even your friendly neighborhood career garbage collector ought to be enabled to grab a bachelor’s degree if he wants–and that this is in the national interest. Big discussion there, though, which I’ll admit from the outset I’m not really prepared to engage in.
I think the everybody goes to college mentality is a huge problem; a lot of students simply cannot handle what college should be about. Schools have found themselves having to extend remedial services, create low level classes, etc. that should not be considered college course work. That being said, if you can help your kids go to college, you should help. Does that mean that parents should be on the hook for Princeton, Harvard or Yale just because they can be? No. Sometimes that’s not a smart allocation of family resources.
What parents should do is budget to help the kids out, as best they can. If that means that help is letting the kid live home rent free while the kid attends a local university, great. If that means footing the bill, great. That being said, kids should feel responsible for helping their parents out and helping their kids. Pay it back and pay it forward.
I agree, but for five years at an In-state Public School. My Father paid for me to attend for five years, as did his father. My sister went to a private school, and had to figure out how to make up the difference. I think that’s fair.
However, I will not pay for my sons to earn shitty grades.
I know two off the top of my head. I’m in insurance sales (we just hired someone new, she’s getting her license as I type this) and my SO works collections at a major bank where they hire all the time. We make well over a living wage and neither of us has a degree.
With regards to the devaluation of college educations, I did not know until this week that the military requires college credits from new recruits in some cases, namelythose who have a GED instead of a high school diploma. I’ve always thought of the military as the great window for kids from really bad backgrounds (many of whom have legitimate reasons for dropping out of school) to get a college education, but they have to take the equivalent of a quarter before they can go through basic training, yet illegal aliens can enter and gays and GEDs can’t. Weird.
More to the OP, I’ll amend my previous statement to say that I believe a parent should have a legal obligation to support their child until high school graduation or the end of the school year after their 18th birthday, whichever comes first. An 18 year old high school senior cannot reasonably be expected to be self supporting and graduate. On the other hand a 20 year old high school senior doesn’t need to be there.
There are many, many jobs that pay a very nice wage and will keep you in job security for the rest of your life that don’t require college/university degrees. Most jobs beyond grunt work require some form of post-secondary education, usually in the form of some courses from a technical school, but not a full bachelor’s degree.
In fact, I think it would be a better idea for high school graduates to go to a technical school and get a one year or two year diploma, find a job in that field, then go on to complete a degree at night if they decide they really want to take a degree in that field, so they can work and make decent money and not go deeply in debt. In my experience, technical schools are in constant touch with the industries they are training students for and gear their courses (and enrollments - they add and drop classes as the market expands or contracts) towards creating highly-employable graduates in a relatively short time.
Obligation? No. But if the parents are able to help (help, not cover everything), then I think they should.
My parents have helped me out with tuition when they’ve been able to, but under the following circumstances: 1. That I’m employed and 2. That I maintain a B or higher average. I’ve been employed and supporting myself since I was 18, and I’ve never had an issue with my GPA, so I’ve been lucky enough to have my parents help with tuition. Without it, though, I would have to borrow about $5000 a year.
And when I have kids, as soon as I’m able I’ll start a savings account specifically for school costs. As expensive as college is getting, I’d want to be able to at least start them out or help them along the way.
I am not on board with the idea that parents “owe” their adult children a university education.
My children were told: If you are going to school and earning decent grades - say in the C+ range with some As and Bs - you may live at home rent free, board thrown in.
If you cannot keep the grades up, you either take fewer courses and/or work longer hours at your job (or get a new, or a second, job) OR you move out on your own, and grow up on your own time. I well remember going to school with subsidized children who partied til dawn, switched majors as their ideas of their futures shifted, and generally
stayed in the high school mentally while they figured out what to do with their lives.
In short, they had no plans to chart their course/s - making life up as they went along.
I don’t make enough money to play into your extended childhood, my kiddies.
Let’s turn this equasion around. Do you figure that, if parents owe their children an education, then children owe their parents financial support when said parents are, say, on pensions which cannot support the lifestyle to which they’ve been accustomed? How about if I move in with you and you pay my room and board and other expenses? Does THAT seem fair?
When I was ‘of age’, I had no respect for authority and was very vocal about it.
I didn’t grow up because I wanted to, or thought it was a good idea. Whatever maturity I cling to today, was forced upon me by my previous bad choices.
Work part time, attend school part time. You may need more than 3 or 4 years but you can do it. You are not owed anything just because your parental figures can afford to indulge you.