Should Parents Be Expected To Pay For College?

Quid

So in both my immediate and extended family you're considered an adult when you graduate high school. At that point you're expected to have some sort of plan. Be it to work or continue schooling doesn't really matter either way. However, should you wish to attend college it's the opinion of no one in my family that the parents should pay for it. Now, this doesn't mean they don't help. Interest free loans, cheap rent or even trading housework for rent, etc are the norm. Family members have gone straight into college, saved up for it first then attending, joined the military to go, studied hard to get scholarships, or any combination of those. Others decided to forgo it entirely instead preferring to advance through the work place and obtain steady, well paying jobs through that method. A couple are outright hippies of sorts. So having seen the way their lives turned out, I can't say I see the issue with our/their parents not flat out paying for college. They provided help and a safety net certainly, but had no intention of providing a free ride to grown adults.

Yet when it brought up a couple posters were shocked that there are people wouldn't outright pay for college for their children and considered the decision out and out wrong. That it was setting them back and hurting them.

What's your opinion on the matter? Should parents be expected to pay for college tuition? Is it their responsibility to continue to provide full support after they should be considered adults?

Azio

My parents don't directly pay for my tuition but I would be up shit's creek if they weren't feeding me and letting me live in their house for free.

Strictly speaking, parents are not (and frankly shouldn't have to be) responsible for any aspect of their child's life after they turn 18. However, in today's economic climate, you are a pretty shitty person if you are just turfing your kids out onto the street the moment you can legally wash your hands of them.

VishNub

Expected in all cases, no.

Is it a nice thing to do? Yes. I think of it like reverse FAFSA, (if FAFSA didn't grossly underestimate the disposable income of most families) in that if you can afford to help with college, you probably ought to. Bear in mind that this is an entirely separate question to whether or not every kid should be going to college at all.

MalaysianShrew

If you can pay for it, great. If you can't, oh well for the kid. The action by the parents is neither reprehensible nor laudable. It's mostly how the kid reacts to it. I've known people who talk about how great their parents are to them because they allow them to live in their house in exchange for chores, much like in high school. Then I've known some people who talk about how awful their parents are for "making them" come home to visit during winter break when the parents are paying for their tuition and rent. Then there is everyone in between. Being fortunate isn't a morally bad thing. It's more how you use it or how you act about it.

Mendrian

I think in a lot of cases, parents can't really afford to help much.

However, I do think that the attitude of, "You're 18, get out the door" is needlessly antagonistic towards your child. I've been living on my own for a while now, so this isn't some kind of fresh wound or anything. I don't really understand why we feel the need to cut all ties at the magical age of 18. I mean, yeah, if your kid is some kind of hopeless layabout, but chances are, if that's the case, you two don't really have a super relationship to begin with.

I think a parent should do whatever they are able to help a child through college (or whatever, for that matter.) The idea should be trying to help your child set themselves up for life, not trying to empty the nest as vigorously as possible.

Daedalus

Should? Parents are expected to help pay for college to whatever extend they can by the U.S. financial aid system, and if you try getting government grants and subsidized loans and your parents can but won't help pay for college, you're fucked; you're far worse off than some kid whose parents make no money.

Fencingsax

VishNub wrote: »

Expected in all cases, no.

Is it a nice thing to do? Yes.

Also, agreeing to pay for college and then not is a hugely dick move.

Yall

My mom paid for my books on the provision that I didn't flunk out, and I slept for free in the summer. That was nice, but they didn't have to do it. I could have paid rent in the summer time, and for two summers I rented an apartment with a buddy.

I guess that doesn't answer the question though, so: No. Parents shouldn't be expected to pay for college. But it makes life a fuckload easier if they give you a roof over your head when school isn't in session

Dog

Absolutely. If you have children and don't expect to pay for either intense vocational training or a college education then you are just engaged in a form of unrecoginized child abuse.

ElJeffe

What Vish said. I think parents should be expected to help to limited extent in situations where they reasonably can. I don't think there's anything wrong with even super-wealthy parents allowing their kids to rack up a certain amount of debt in the process, though. The children should take ownership of their own education to an extent, and that means taking responsibility for some of the costs.

ElJeffe

Rygar wrote: »

Absolutely. If you have children and don't expect to pay for either intense vocational training or a college education then you are just engaged in a form of unrecoginized child abuse.

Okay, that's a little extreme.

And by "a little" I mean "what's wrong with you?"

Mendrian

Fencingsax wrote: »

VishNub wrote: »

Expected in all cases, no.

Is it a nice thing to do? Yes.

Also, agreeing to pay for college and then not is a hugely dick move.

Haha, oh man, that takes me back.

My dad told me all throughout highschool my job was to get the grades, and his job was to find the money. I asked him over and over to help me with financial aid paperwork, to help me find loans, whatever. I graduated in the top ten of my class, and there was some strong competition that year, let me tell you. Then we sat down at the table, and I said, "Alright dad, my applications are sent in, I'm accepted. Now what?"

And he just looked at me and said, "Well, I can get about a thousand dollars." This was about a week before tuition was due.

Oh man, that was a hilarious move on his part.

Dog

I respectfully disagree, you shouldn't have children if you aren't going to ensure they have an opportunity for a strong future. Part of ensuring that opportunity is ensuring they are gainfully employable. Now if your kid wants to be a bagger a grocery store, or work in a Gamestop, or thinks that being a register monkey at best buy is an acceptable long-term career, fine. One could argue that is another matter with parenting in general. But if you don't provide the resources for your children to get an education then you don't deserve to have children.

Mendrian

Rygar wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, you shouldn't have children if you aren't going to ensure they have an opportunity for a strong future. Part of ensuring that opportunity is ensuring they are gainfully employable. Now if your kid wants to be a bagger a grocery store, or work in a Gamestop, or thinks that being a register monkey at best buy is an acceptable long-term career, fine. One could argue that is another matter with parenting in general. But if you don't provide the resources for your children to get an education then you don't deserve to have children.

Someone should really get that memo to the poor and uneducated.

Dog

Mendrian wrote: »

Rygar wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, you shouldn't have children if you aren't going to ensure they have an opportunity for a strong future. Part of ensuring that opportunity is ensuring they are gainfully employable. Now if your kid wants to be a bagger a grocery store, or work in a Gamestop, or thinks that being a register monkey at best buy is an acceptable long-term career, fine. One could argue that is another matter with parenting in general. But if you don't provide the resources for your children to get an education then you don't deserve to have children.

Someone should really get that memo to the poor and uneducated.

Indeed, my state has a program that gives out $10,000 for college educations to high school graduates. We have taken the responsibility out of the parents hand, and I, among others, have introduced legislation to expand that vocational training, with the realization that not everyone is cut out for college. If you happen to live in Nevada, your kid has the resources to do whatever they want.

ANTVGM64

This is what I hate about federal loans, to get the Federal Plus loan thing, you almost have to put all the burden on your parents, making the student feel like a mega-dick.

Mendrian

Rygar wrote: »

Mendrian wrote: »

Rygar wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, you shouldn't have children if you aren't going to ensure they have an opportunity for a strong future. Part of ensuring that opportunity is ensuring they are gainfully employable. Now if your kid wants to be a bagger a grocery store, or work in a Gamestop, or thinks that being a register monkey at best buy is an acceptable long-term career, fine. One could argue that is another matter with parenting in general. But if you don't provide the resources for your children to get an education then you don't deserve to have children.

Someone should really get that memo to the poor and uneducated.

Indeed, my state has a program that gives out $10,000 for college educations to high school graduates. We have taken the responsibility out of the parents hand, and I, among others, have introduced legislation to expand that vocational training, with the realization that not everyone is cut out for college. If you happen to live in Nevada, your kid has the resources to do whatever they want.

The problem is, those people on the bottom rung of society are the least likely have to the soft-skills required to find and fill out the required paperwork, even though they need it the most. Furthermore, while many have managed to shine despite their upbringing, coming from a poor, uneducated home increases the likelihood of you being uneducated yourself - or in other words, more than likely failing to qualify for the programs. Unless your programs don't depend on academic status?

Azio

I love the argument that just because we have a few scholarships that we give out to a lucky handful each year, our glorious meritocracy is now complete and no individual could possibly have a reason for not being able to pay for college.

Feral

ElJeffe wrote: »

What Vish said. I think parents should be expected to help to limited extent in situations where they reasonably can. I don't think there's anything wrong with even super-wealthy parents allowing their kids to rack up a certain amount of debt in the process, though. The children should take ownership of their own education to an extent, and that means taking responsibility for some of the costs.

I think there's a good medium somewhere.

My plan is to sit with my kids and talk to them about loan options, what it means to take out debt, etc. Then I'll help them a little but I expect them to shoulder a certain amount of the responsibility. I just want to make sure that said shouldering is done with a little guidance.

I also plan on having a little bit of money saved up to help them with rent and living expenses for the first several months or first year after college. Not their entire rent, mind you - just part of it. A living stipend, so to speak, tapering off over time. I'd want to give them guidance during that period as well - help them balance a budget, make a resume, practice job interview questions, etc.

I just think the transition to adulthood should be one where parental support is tapered off over a predictable and reasonable timeframe, not one that happens abruptly at age 18.

As for FencingSax, yep that's a dick move and it makes me sad how many of my friends it has happened to. Especially now that you can't declare financial independence for FAFSA until age 24.

Quid

Rygar wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, you shouldn't have children if you aren't going to ensure they have an opportunity for a strong future. Part of ensuring that opportunity is ensuring they are gainfully employable. Now if your kid wants to be a bagger a grocery store, or work in a Gamestop, or thinks that being a register monkey at best buy is an acceptable long-term career, fine. One could argue that is another matter with parenting in general. But if you don't provide the resources for your children to get an education then you don't deserve to have children.

But those aren't the only jobs available. You don't need a college degree to get a decent job. You only need one to get a job with better prestige. But the fact of the matter a person supervising three McDonalds or the regional manager of Costco is making a good amount more of money than a school teacher, they just aren't as respected based solely on their jobs. They certainly aren't making as much as, say, a junior executive of some corporation, but they aren't living in the slums either.

Mendrian

Feral wrote: »

ElJeffe wrote: »

What Vish said. I think parents should be expected to help to limited extent in situations where they reasonably can. I don't think there's anything wrong with even super-wealthy parents allowing their kids to rack up a certain amount of debt in the process, though. The children should take ownership of their own education to an extent, and that means taking responsibility for some of the costs.

I think there's a good medium somewhere.

My plan is to sit with my kids and talk to them about loan options, what it means to take out debt, etc. Then I'll help them a little but I expect them to shoulder a certain amount of the responsibility. I just want to make sure that said shouldering is done with a little guidance.

I also plan on having a little bit of money saved up to help them with rent and living expenses for the first several months or first year after college. Not their entire rent, mind you - just part of it. A living stipend, so to speak, tapering off over time. I'd want to give them guidance during that period as well - help them balance a budget, make a resume, practice job interview questions, etc.

I just think the transition to adulthood should be one where parental support is tapered off over a predictable and reasonable timeframe, not one that happens abruptly at age 18.

As for FencingSax, yep that's a dick move and it makes me sad how many of my friends it has happened to. Especially now that you can't declare financial independence for FAFSA until age 24.

Fortunately, being married makes you independant.

I think its great that the move that helped estrange my family made it possible to go to college. The cosmos, it is wonderful.

Feral

Quid wrote: »

Rygar wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, you shouldn't have children if you aren't going to ensure they have an opportunity for a strong future. Part of ensuring that opportunity is ensuring they are gainfully employable. Now if your kid wants to be a bagger a grocery store, or work in a Gamestop, or thinks that being a register monkey at best buy is an acceptable long-term career, fine. One could argue that is another matter with parenting in general. But if you don't provide the resources for your children to get an education then you don't deserve to have children.

But those aren't the only jobs available. You don't need a college degree to get a decent job. You only need one to get a job with better prestige. But the fact of the matter a person supervising three McDonalds or the regional manager of Costco is making a good amount more of money than a school teacher, they just aren't as respected based solely on their jobs. They certainly aren't making as much as, say, a junior executive of some corporation, but they aren't living in the slums either.

Yeah. It's true that not everybody needs a college degree to get a good job. There are plenty of stable well-paying jobs out there that don't need college degrees.

Of course, most of those require either trade school or a few years of experience, meaning that many kids might need financial support in their late teens or early 20s anyway.

TrueHereticX

Using an example of a conversation my parents and I had a few days ago:

Me: Mum, Dad, in a year i want to see if i can apply for mature age student at university

Mum: Okay, what would you study?

Me: Bachelor of Arts - Photography, Bachelor of Arts - Communication (Journalism) or Bachelor of Visual Arts and Design

Dad: You do realise that'll cost us a bit

Me: No it'll cost me a bit, I'm not asking you for money, just telling you what i'm doing

The moral of the story -
I'm paying my way, i'll be in HECS debt for possibly the rest of my life but i'll be fine

Mendrian

Feral wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

Rygar wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, you shouldn't have children if you aren't going to ensure they have an opportunity for a strong future. Part of ensuring that opportunity is ensuring they are gainfully employable. Now if your kid wants to be a bagger a grocery store, or work in a Gamestop, or thinks that being a register monkey at best buy is an acceptable long-term career, fine. One could argue that is another matter with parenting in general. But if you don't provide the resources for your children to get an education then you don't deserve to have children.

But those aren't the only jobs available. You don't need a college degree to get a decent job. You only need one to get a job with better prestige. But the fact of the matter a person supervising three McDonalds or the regional manager of Costco is making a good amount more of money than a school teacher, they just aren't as respected based solely on their jobs. They certainly aren't making as much as, say, a junior executive of some corporation, but they aren't living in the slums either.

Yeah. It's true that not everybody needs a college degree to get a good job. There are plenty of stable well-paying jobs out there that don't need college degrees.

Of course, most of those require either trade school or a few years of experience, meaning that many kids might need financial support in their late teens or early 20s anyway.

More and more jobs require pointless degrees.

Did you know you can't be a department manager at Target (that is, an "Executive", though all that really means is, "one of several keyholders") without a degree? They don't even care what it's a degree in. The up-front manager had a degree in History.

taliosfalcon

A two year associates degree from a community college is really turning into the new high school diploma for low end jobs, if you don't at least have that your pretty much fucked.

Quid

Feral wrote: »

Of course, most of those require either trade school or a few years of experience, meaning that many kids might need financial support in their late teens or early 20s anyway.

Which those in my family who went straight into the workforce got. Often in the form of hand me down furniture, kitchen stuff, and family inviting them to their place for stuff like movies, parties, etc so they didn't spend as much of their money on entertainment.

And my brother was helped with trade school though he was, overall, a crappy student.

Azio

Quid wrote: »

But the fact of the matter a person supervising three McDonalds or the regional manager of Costco is making a good amount more of money than a school teacher, they just aren't as respected based solely on their jobs.

You forgot how the teacher gets insurance, a retirement plan, paid vacation, and job security while the McDonald's manager gets fuck-all except for a bunch of stupid teenagers below him and an endless totem pole of frustrated middle managers above him. There's a lot more to educated, professional sorts of jobs than just "prestige" or "respeck" and there's a lot more to determine whether a job is worth having than how much you're getting paid per hour.

deadonthestreet

With the rapidly increasing cost and the evolution of many schools into what are essentially for profit institutions, I don't see how it is possible to expect parents to pay for college.

FyreWulff

I'd say no.

This has nothing to do with how all our college money was whittled away by a certain relative.

But college isn't the end all be all anymore, and yeah, parents shouldn't be expected to have to pay for college. I didn't even attempt to get into college before I turned 24 just so I could stop having to put them on the expected contributions.

Toxic Toys

I'm not paying for my kids college. I won't let her be homeless or starve.

Mendrian

Toxic Toys wrote: »

I'm not paying for my kids college. I won't let her be homeless or starve.

Won't, or can't?

deadonthestreet

Legally, in Massachusetts, you are required to pay child support up through a bachelor's degree if you get a divorce.

Feral

Quid wrote: »

Feral wrote: »

Of course, most of those require either trade school or a few years of experience, meaning that many kids might need financial support in their late teens or early 20s anyway.

Which those in my family who went straight into the workforce got. Often in the form of hand me down furniture, kitchen stuff, and family inviting them to their place for stuff like movies, parties, etc so they didn't spend as much of their money on entertainment.

And my brother was helped with trade school though he was, overall, a crappy student.

As I said in the other thread, I think you and I agree primarily on principle, we just differ on what constitutes appropriate support.

I got nothing because my family had nothing to give. My mom was poor, so she couldn't give me money. All our stuff was destroyed in a flood right before I left for college so there was no hand-me-down furniture. She was never very good with money or business skills so she had no knowledge to impart, and my dad died unexpectedly right after college. (My mom was able to give me money years later, after she inherited a bit from a distant relative, but those first couple of years were pretty rough.) When I was done with college, the entirety of my belongings literally fit in the back of my Ford Bronco.

I don't begrudge my family anything, but I'd rather give my own kids more of a safety net when they're starting out than I got.

My main beef is with people who offer their kids zero support after age 18 and justify it with some tough-love rhetoric... or worse, offer support and then arbitrarily withdraw it. You're not defending either behavior, so I don't think we're really at odds here.

Feral

Azio wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

But the fact of the matter a person supervising three McDonalds or the regional manager of Costco is making a good amount more of money than a school teacher, they just aren't as respected based solely on their jobs.

You forgot how the teacher gets insurance, a retirement plan, paid vacation, and job security while the McDonald's manager gets fuck-all except for a bunch of stupid teenagers below him and an endless totem pole of frustrated middle managers above him. There's a lot more to educated, professional sorts of jobs than just "prestige" or "respeck" and there's a lot more to determine whether a job is worth having than how much you're getting paid per hour.

A regional manager for a retail chain (I don't know about McDs, but let's say a mall clothing store like The Gap) isn't necessarily going to need a college degree, and they get retirement and medical and vacation just like any office worker. They just need to be a cash register monkey for a few years and work their way up through attrition.

Dog

Well paperwork wise, you are automatically enrolled if you qualify. I am trying to reduce the merit-based requirements, but it is my philosophy if you graduate you deserve the resources to go to college or get vocational education (trade school.)

It is extraordinarily hard to get enough money to have children and see them through college or vocational training if you don't get a college education or vocational education yourself.

Mendrian

I agree with Feral completely.

Obviously you cannot provide support beyond your own means, and obviously you should not support your child until he's in his 40s. Still, that doesn't mean its valid to simply push the kid out the door. "Should" parents pay for college? No, but that's hyper-specific. I think parents should offer whatever support they can in helping their children start their own life, if that's at 18 or 25.

MikeMcSomething

My parents literally couldn't afford to pay me anything at all, even though the FAFSA's magic wizard box said that they should be able to dedicate like 8,000 to my education. As a result I have been supporting myself all the way through college, and it has not been bun, but it also hasn't been impossible, and I think I have learned quite a bit more about how to manage my own personal finances and fiscal responsibility in general then my friend that has had every concievable cost paid for by his parents.

Would I like someone to swoop in and hand me a shit ton of money? Hell yes, but I think I would make much much better use of it after paying for everything on my own for a couple years, then if it was just handed to me straight out of high school.

Toxic Toys

Mendrian wrote: »

Toxic Toys wrote: »

I'm not paying for my kids college. I won't let her be homeless or starve.

Won't, or can't?

More won't then can't. I rather her work hard and pay for it herself. I'm a saftey net if any thing goes wrong.

And the fact that she only 5 helps right now. She wants to grow up to be a princess - I'm not paying for that.

Quid

Azio wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

But the fact of the matter a person supervising three McDonalds or the regional manager of Costco is making a good amount more of money than a school teacher, they just aren't as respected based solely on their jobs.

You forgot how the teacher gets insurance, a retirement plan, paid vacation, and job security while the McDonald's manager gets fuck-all. There's a lot more to educated, professional sorts of jobs than "prestige" or "respeck"

My sister and her husband are on what they call the "teach til you die" retirement plan. They're both of the opinion that their benefits are rather lackluster for the job they do, though they enjoy the job so it doesn't matter to them. And McDonald's workers don't get fuck all. Full time workers at McDonald's receive medical coverage, paid vacation, and are eligible for a 401k. And someone who actually saves and invests their money won't need a pension. As if getting half of most teacher's wages is a lot to compete with.

FyreWulff

I think there's a difference in refusing your kid entrance into your home after 18 and not paying for an optional college education that they can get themselves with enough effort if they desire it so much.

Quid

Feral wrote: »

My main beef is with people who offer their kids zero support after age 18 and justify it with some tough-love rhetoric... or worse, offer support and then arbitrarily withdraw it. You're not defending either behavior, so I don't think we're really at odds here.

Oh yeah. Those people are definitely screwing up their kid's lives.