Father of Eight Won't Pay for College - Hero or Villain?

[myteafix]

There's a lot of room between "parents pay everything" and "student pays everything." Most people I know use a combination, depending on the parents' means.
There's nothing wrong with expecting your child to pay their own way, but there's also nothing wrong with paying for your child's education. It does not automatically produce lazy kids with useless degrees. My parents paid for all four of us (their choice), but we all worked summers and p/t. And all four of us are employed, productive citizens with savings. 
Personally, I don't see why a parents *wouldn't* contribute (to the extent they can) to a college education, but I understand that others see it differently.
Not paying doesn't make a parent a hero (or a villain).

^ Probably one of the most balanced responses to this thread.

As a parent, you are obligated to support your kid through infancy and childhood. Once they hit adulthood, you shouldn't still be coddling them, BUT there isn't anything wrong with contributing a little - they're still your kid!

Pitching in - partially or completely - won't automatically turn them into lazy individuals. Just like not pitching in at all doesn't make you a jerk.

[galliver]

I think you have to look at the whole landscape...in this guy's case, he was able to offer his kids some very unique learning experiences, and that's great. Although I do question the legality of the girl selling enchiladas (from a child labor and food safety standpoint). He was able to offer them opportunities and encourage them making money and being maximally self-sufficient and it sounds like they'll be able to figure out a way to do college within a few years of graduation, if they choose. That's great. I was a little put off by his claims that at 17 he was "craving independence" because he "wanted to make money" I don't think that was independence, I think that was a desire for instant gratification (earn money now, rather than more money after college). Basically it doesn't sound like he considered the pros and cons and had a plan; he was just 17 and didn't want to sit in a lecture hall. Which is fine, but it's not exactly an admirable sentiment, I'm sure millions of guys his age felt the same way and weren't nearly as successful later. I was also put off by his "we don't worry much about the savings account, we live in the moment" later on in the article. Basically I don't think he's a "Mustachian Hero" but his unconventional approach to childrearing is interesting.

In a general sense, I find that few kids will have the same opportunities as this guy's kids did, in a safe environment. We just don't live in close-knit communities anymore, where kids can go out door to door and offer to do neighbors' chores for pocket money, or start such businesses to save for college from the age of 8 or whatever it would take. Also we have child labor laws for a reason: we want kids to be in school learning their basics ("3Rs", teamwork, research skills, manners...compound interest, health/anatomy, etc etc). Home/Alternative/Un-schooling are all legitimate for those who don't think the system works (for their kids or in general) but the focus always needs to be on *learning* for kids, not earning money. I think switching that focus can go wrong in a hurry.

Finally, I don't think a college education is a handout...it's a "pay it forward" system. Those who can graduate debt-free can get a head start on saving a gift for their children...whether it's college, trade school, or an investment in a small business. It's not about being reliant or entitled, but about families supporting the youngest members, who have had the shortest time to work and save, in carrying out their career goals and other dreams.

**note: my parents helped me through college by loaning me whatever I couldn't earn part-time or summers. The deal is the same for my two sisters. **

[DollarBill]

My step sister dropped out of High school, had a kid at 17, did drugs, multiple arrest, jail time, can't drive. But now I find out the State of Maryland is paying for her College. They send her a check for $2600 (I can't remember if that's per month or semester), she said it costs $2K for classes and books and she can pocket the rest. She goes to class 2 days a week for just a couple of hrs and has no urge to try to get a job or take more classes. Who needs to save with programs like this?

It's wasted money...She'll piss this opportunity away!

Ya, with $600 extra bucks each semester your freeloading step sister ought to be well on her way to early retirement by milking the system!! Give me a break!Who cares about early retirement for these people. They chose their path and it should suck if they don't work for their outcome.

I'll gladly support a system that allows for wastefulness like this if it means that one of the 8 kids in this example has the opportunity to go to school despite his father's unwillingness to foot the bill.  Not to mention the millions of kids whose parents don't even have the luxury of making the decision not to pay. My Dad always told me that they need ditch diggers and burger flippers...so I guess we tax payers should pay until the slackers have a good job and not do manual labor.  

I'm one of those commies who believe that educational and economic opportunity should be afforded equally to all young citizens.  It should be provided by all of us collectively, not just their parents. What would you do for those people that still fail? Maybe we should give them a living wage on the tax payers money? Most of these entitlements add up to be more than what I worked for the last 22 yrs of Military service.

We are paying to give your step sister the opportunity to obtain an education, not to guarantee her success during or after the process!! And if she fucks it up, that doesn't mean the system is broken or that she didn't deserve the opportunity! Yes, it does mean the system is broken! And no she doesn't deserve the opportunity!

[biscuitwhomper]

So in addition to selling his book, he also sells an entrepreneurial program for teens as well as a pricey summer camp.  So instead of paying for college, one is supposed to buy his magazine, teen business plans, and contract for PR for your kid?  On the surface from his website it appears that he is selling a whole lot more than a "parenting" philosophy.

I'm glad someone else caught this.    I read his blog and a few of his affiliate sites and certainly have some strong opinions about his M.O.

[EricL]

Neither.  With the world population growing as it is and resources dwindling, why is this guy breeding like a rabbit?  And honestly, as much as college costs these days he wouldn't be middle class for long if he even footed a quarter of the cost for each kid.  But if forced to I have to say it's he didn't pay.  It's better to get your kids acclimated to a life of struggle and angst early on. It builds character and undermines any future entitlement issues.  It's a gift that keeps on giving. 

[so.mpls]

"Mark Twain had a famous quote, 'I have never let schooling interfere with my education.' And I just love that quote because it’s so true. There’s just so many things that can’t be done in the classroom. There’s so many things about the school system that are broken. "

So how is this guy qualified to make this statement?  He dropped out of high school 20-30 years ago and "did a little bit of college later on".  Now he's a marketing executive.  Does not sound well informed at all, just pushing a personal agenda ('in fact, Fagan says he would prefer it if his children didn't go to college at all').

I'm sorry, but this guy is an idiot.  Steering your kids away from education is a great way to set them up for failure.  Gone are the days of H.S. dropouts getting sales jobs and working their way up the company ladder (like Fagan seems to have done). If he bothered to do any research, he would see that college grads earn 40% more than HS grads, and 60% more than HS dropouts.

If my parents had told me not to go to college, I wouldn't have gone, because I trust them, and I'd probably be making $12/hr in a factory like most of my buddies who never went to college or didn't graduate.  I'm very thankful that my dad isn't this guy. 

[MrsPete]

The subtitle of his book is "Raising an Entrepreneur".  Big problem:  Not everyone has the entrepreneur gene.  I don't have it, nor does my oldest child:  Neither of us are at all business-minded, and operating a business is not something that appeals to us.  On the other hand, my youngest does have that personality.  It's not something that can be taught. 

Try substituting other terms and see if it sounds acceptable: 

How to raise your daughter to be a stay-at-home-mom. 
Prepare your child to become a doctor. 
Mold any child into a star athlete. 

None of those sound reasonable, do they?  Yet the idea that EVERYONE can be a business owner ( and should want to be a business owner) is somehow acceptable? 

[NoraLenderbee]

So in addition to selling his book, he also sells an entrepreneurial program for teens as well as a pricey summer camp.  So instead of paying for college, one is supposed to buy his magazine, teen business plans, and contract for PR for your kid?  On the surface from his website it appears that he is selling a whole lot more than a "parenting" philosophy.

I totally missed that. So the whole thing is just to sell his program.

[Worsted Skeins]

So in addition to selling his book, he also sells an entrepreneurial program for teens as well as a pricey summer camp.  So instead of paying for college, one is supposed to buy his magazine, teen business plans, and contract for PR for your kid?  On the surface from his website it appears that he is selling a whole lot more than a "parenting" philosophy.

I totally missed that. So the whole thing is just to sell his program.

Yup. Snake Oil Salesman. 

And I agree with Mrs. Pete--not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur (engineer, nurse, polyglot, welder--fill in the blank).  As parents, I feel that we can help guide our kids to find their future paths and determine goals, while educating them on financial matters, hands on skills, etc. But we cannot expect them to be "Little Me"s. 

[galliver]

The subtitle of his book is "Raising an Entrepreneur".  Big problem:  Not everyone has the entrepreneur gene.  I don't have it, nor does my oldest child:  Neither of us are at all business-minded, and operating a business is not something that appeals to us.  On the other hand, my youngest does have that personality.  It's not something that can be taught. 

Try substituting other terms and see if it sounds acceptable: 

How to raise your daughter to be a stay-at-home-mom. 
Prepare your child to become a doctor. 
Mold any child into a star athlete. 

None of those sound reasonable, do they?  Yet the idea that EVERYONE can be a business owner ( and should want to be a business owner) is somehow acceptable?

YES. I had this same thought a few months ago while reading about Jack Ma (http://vulcanpost.com/7702/jack-ma-youre-still-poor-35-deserve/). While he was talking specifically about becoming rich (for some definition of rich), it reads more like "to be successful, you need to do exactly what I did, and just try really hard." And while commitment, ambition, and hard work plays into it, so does luck, so do the efforts of people who work for you, so do all the other people who support your life (nurses and teachers and police etc etc) who can't all be entrepreneurs.

[lifejoy]

I skipped pages 2-4, sorry! But I wanted to add that I don't know any engineers or doctors that worked while going to school. My guess is that some programs are so demanding, it would be very difficult to work part-time while concentrating on studies, no? And the summer is only so long. So if your parents make enough $$ that you're not eligible for government loans... Could you get bank loans? I dunno.

[GizmoTX]

Engineering is very demanding, not only because the courses are so technical but that more total hours of them are required each semester & to graduate than other majors. It's now becoming difficult to graduate in 4 years, increasing the cost. Most community colleges don't have transferable courses, although this is starting to change in some places. AP course credit may only work for non-STEM courses because the beginning courses need to be done at the engineering school.

On the other hand, companies that hire engineering graduates far prefer those who have worked good internships during the summer, usually starting after the sophomore year. It provides valuable experience & contacts, not to mention earnings; DS earned $12K last summer & has already been hired for next summer with a raise. There's also some class or research assistant part time work for superior students during the junior or senior years. The university that DS attends offers an optional co-op program with local companies which alternates semesters of coursework with semesters of paid internships; this delays the graduation date but allows a student to help pay his or her way.

[mm1970]

I think he's an asshole on many levels.

Paying for college was the single best thing my parents did for their kids, hands down.  If I didn't plan to help my kids with college, I wouldn't have had kids.

I think you missed the "father of eight" part and maybe because your parents paid for college you don't have a good sense for how freaking expensive it is.

It's good to see the old "if you can't pay for....  then you shouldn't have kids" judgmental bullshit from people who have lived privileged lives is still alive and well.  You know, because the kids of the millions of parents who can't afford it would simply rather not be alive or something; because a college education is somehow more precious than life itself.

Excuse my anger, I came from the other side of the tracks.

Yeah, I get that.  My parents had 9 kids, I was the first and only (I'm #8) to go to college out of HS.  Which I did on scholarships, loans, and US Navy.  My dad refused to fill out the FAFSA, so they just "assumed" $1800 a year from him (he was 62 and retired when I started, making a few hundred bucks a month in SS, no savings).

Two of my sisters went to college later in life.

[mm1970]

What I'm noticing is that people whose parents didn't pay for them don't plan to pay for their kids, and those whose parents DID pay for them also plan to pay for their kids.

I am guilty of the same thinking, I had a full academic scholarship and worked on campus for spending money, so I really hope that if I have kids they will be able to do the same. I will make it clear to them that if they can't get an academic scholarship they will have to figure out how to pay for it. I will probably pay half the tuition at the in-state school, which currently would come to 5,000$/year for the local university (they would have to come up with the other half plus room and board) , but what I won't do is pay 30,000$ to 50,000$ per year - even if I can afford it.

Anyway, I think the main point most of us agree on is that children should not feel entitled to have their parents pay for all their higher education.

One thing I would like to do is start setting money aside each month as soon as they're born and give them the accumulated proceeds to start off their lives when they are old enough. My parents did give me a small sum when I finished high school (less than $10K) and that was pretty nice.

I paid my own way!  My parents were poor.

Both my boys have 529 plans.

I've filled out FAFSA online for fun.  Assuming we are both fully employed till they go and not.  Either way, they aren't getting need-based aid.

So unless they go ROTC like we did...we are paying. But maybe not all, depends on where they go.

[eyePod]

I skipped pages 2-4, sorry! But I wanted to add that I don't know any engineers or doctors that worked while going to school. My guess is that some programs are so demanding, it would be very difficult to work part-time while concentrating on studies, no?

Ignoring the year and a half of internships, I also worked in a call center during one of my years, a library for another few terms, and back home at Dunkin Donuts when visiting my parents.

I got a masters in Chemical Engineering through a BS/MS program, taking 18+ credits each term, in the planned 5 years with a GPA in the ~3.6 range.

Honestly, it wasn't even that bad. I went to plenty of parties with friends, played volleyball for fun, played lots of video games, watched sports all of the time, worked out a lot too.

And I'm really not that motivated. I just figured that I had the MS for free, why not take it.

[cacaoheart]

Following the early retirement path, I think the most parents could do for their kids is to retire early with a low official income so their kids can get maximum scholarships/grants, while also showing their kids how to be resourceful/thrifty. My parents told my brother and I from elementary school on that we were expected to go to college but that they couldn't afford it so we needed to do well in school, and they did what they could to encourage our learning.

I was class valedictorian and did well on the SAT so I ended up with more scholarships than I could use, and my brother did fairly well himself. My parents' calculated expected financial contribution according to FAFSA: $42. Had I been more mustachian throughout undergrad I could have come out with quite a bit of savings.

One thing I wish I'd done (aside from being thrifty sooner) was to take a year or two off between high school and college to work/explore and figure out what I really wanted to be doing. I later found out my scholarships and admission could have been deferred, and then when I came back I could have made much better use of my time in school. Now I'm back and paying my way through nursing school. There are minimal undergrad scholarships for someone that already has an undergrad degree.

[tardis]

IF YOU RAISE YOUR CHILDREN WELL, PAYING FOR COLLEGE WILL NOT MAKE THEM IRRESPONSIBLE OR UNGRATEFUL OR SLACKERS.  Seriously -- if you raise a responsible, thoughtful individual - your children will be incredibly grateful and appreciative of what you do for them.

Agree.

[87tweetybirds]

I can't really say that my parents didn't help a bit with my college education, I grew up on a farm, and the year we turned 8 it became a responsibility to feed the baby calves once a day if we were in school, but weekends, holidays, and summer twice a day, and at the end of the year we had earned one of the calves we had been feeding. When they reached the age to go to auction, the money was used to buy stock, which became ours to do as we wanted when we turned 18. Some of us have used it to supplement our education, other spent it in a more frivolous manner, others have been able to hang onto it and use it as down payment on a house. There are 7 of us, and all of us are smart. I was able to have my education mostly payed for by scholarships, yes it took hard work to keep my grades up, and to apply to scholarships, but in the end I payed for my education with my parents support in other ways (they lent me a car while I was doing my clinicals 45 min from the university, and always were willing to keep me in milk, eggs, cheese, and beef, products that came off said farm)
On the other hand one of my brothers decided university wasn't for him after wasting his own money by paying tuition but not going to class for two semesters. Had daddy been paying, he may have continued wasting time, and money.
I think it's good for kids to be invested in their education. It makes it worth more. And when it takes so much effort they are less likely to spend all that money and wind up working for minimum wage. I think it makes them take a look at earning potential, and opportunities with their degree they are working towards.
On another note, some people make good money in non-degreed jobs, with on the job or technical training. I understood that to be the general idea of the father of 8, that a degree may not always be the best path for every kid.

[MoneyCat]

My parents didn't pay for my college, but they were nice enough to steal my Hope Lifetime Learning tax credit while I paid for it.  Parents that don't want to pay for their child's education should probably rethink the entire idea of becoming a parent.  Nothing says "I love you" more than refusing to help your child.

[RootofGood]

Are we still on the MMM forums, where me make fun of adults well into their twenties who still have their cell phone bills and netflix accounts paid for by their parents?

Hey, wait a sec, I'm 34 and my mom pays for my netflix account! ;)   Only because my kids started using Grandma's account and I haven't gotten around to asking her if she wants the $4/month for half the plan's cost. 


As for the father of 8, I don't think he's doing anything wrong.  It sounds like he's setting his kids up for a successful life of independence and self reliance. 

I'm not planning on paying for a gold-plated college education for my kids, but hopefully we'll have enough to pay the tuition for 4 years at an in state school of their choosing.  The oldest 2 kids already know they will be partially responsible for college costs (mainly room and board) and we can economize from there.  We don't spend an excessive amount of money in other areas of life, so we'll be figuring out how to economize college costs as well. 

[Guizmo]

I guess Bill Gates and Warren Buffet better start working on helping their kids become demi-gods because there's no where else to go on the socioeconomic ladder.

How about President Jennifer Katharine Gates along with Attorney General Phoebe Adele Gates and Senator Rory John Gates help implement the philanthropy mission of Bill Gates III bringing the country and developing world into a new age of prosperity?

As for Warren Buffet.. he's got one less grand daughter to worry about since she spoke against him in that Johnson kid rich people movie.

What if your kid just wants to be a plumber, have a small house and a simple life? Why would that be wrong?

[Kepler]

My biological mother opposed my going to university at all (I was under 18, and forged her signature on the form).  I saved all through high school, and got full tuition scholarships to a good university - but then ended up unable to pay for room and board when she called up the university and convinced them to "refund" to her the money I had on account with them to pay my future living expenses.  /That/ is being an asshole to your kids...

But the concept of parents not paying: I don't come from a background where many families could, so I don't presuppose it's something that is a normal part of good parenting. 

I don't know what I would do if I were still in the US.  In Australia, my current plan is to let the kids use the normal loan system plus work to cover it themselves - although this may change depending on currently-proposed higher education funding policies, which might lead me to offer to cover some of the costs for successful course completions. 

For my son specifically, I'm encouraging him to plan on taking some time to work between high school and university - to save up some money, and to figure out what sort of study, if any, he wants to do.  The university system here asks students to make vocational decisions when first applying, and I think that's quite hard to do when you haven't had a chance to explore more independently how the world works - it leads to a lot of false starts and inappropriate degree choices.  I don't care what he studies - or even whether he studies, although he's shown no interest in the trades in spite of encouragement, and at the moment is just starting to explore coding in a sustained way. But I'd like him to have a better basis for deciding on a degree program than just whatever strikes him as "interesting" before he gets a sense of what is practically involved in navigating the world as an adult.  I'm also planning on encouraging him to take at least a couple of one-off university level courses in his high school years, which I am willing to pay for, so that he can ease in to what is expected from students at that level.

My daughter is much younger, so it's harder to say.  At the moment, though, she seems temperamentally very similar to me - which leaves me with no idea whether she'd want to go to university (my favourite career personally was in a trade, but I had to abandon that for medical reasons), but much less worried whether she'll be independent in meeting her goals.  My son seems instinctively to look for a heavy support structure, and parenting him requires quite active steps to scaffold him into greater independence.  My daughter wants to fend for herself, whether quite ready to do that or not.  The different temperaments require different approaches...

There's some possibility that the grandparents are surreptitiously planning to pay for university (my husband's grandparents set up a fund to do this for their grandkids, and his parents occasionally say things obliquely that suggest they may be doing the same).  We don't assume this will happen, and will be telling the kids they need to make their own way - but keeping our eye on what is happening with local higher education policy, in case it ends up being financially unrealistic for the kids to cover the entirety of their own costs.

[Icecreamarsenal]

It's hard to escape the solipsistic riff raff.  They're entitled...to their opinions, and to articulating (barely) their viewpoint.  You're under no obligation to listen.

I plan on paying for college if my children are accepted to schools that I deem cost-effective.  Ivy league, or almost Ivy league.  If not, they can pay, as I did, or choose not to go, or delay it.

Are you saying that Ivy League or "almost Ivy League" are the only cost-effective options - that schools with lower ratings (and usually lower costs) wouldn't be worth it? Did I read that right?

I think you did not!
If you did, you may have typed something to this effect:
"Are you saying that Ivy League or "almost Ivy League" are the only cost-effective options in your opinion?"  Because god is in the details.  It's right there in your quote: "that I deem..."

One size fits all is a little bit totalitarian for my tastes.  You may have a different opinion of what is cost-effective, or acceptable.  Better start crunching those numbers.

If not cost-effective, then they can pay themselves, as I did.  There's no obligation.

[TomTX]

My wife's mother systematically looted all cash gifts and work pay from her in high school and refused to fill out a FAFSA or let her see the income tax returns. THAT is being an asshole to your kids.

[Jeremy]

By now I've discussed this topic with hundreds of people.  It seems to generate passionate opinions, as if we were talking about abortion, euthanasia, or vaccination policy with Jenny Mccarthy

As a financial minded individual, I ask the question, "Does college have real value?"

For many, the answer is yes.  For others, the answer is no.  It really depends on if a college graduate will truly have a better quality of life and earn a higher level of income, neither of which are guarantees and are subject to all sorts of assumptions

One interesting thing is that college of today (or in the case of our child, 18 years from now) bears little resemblance to when I went to college or my parents' generation went to college.  The cost is far higher, the debt burden far greater, and job prospects far fewer.  People with no student loan debt and great job prospects don't occupy wall street

And (assuming a car is considered important), just as we might rightfully teach our children that an used Honda Civic has better value than a new Ferrari, a parent should probably also discuss risk vs reward and ROI of a college investment, as well as alternatives

In 1979, a median income family would pay about 10.5 months of income to fund 4 years of tuition at a state university.  In 2014, that same degree would require 24 months of median income.  If median income and tuition inflate as per the last few decades, in 2034 a family would need to pay 20 YEARS of median income to fund the same degree (ironically about the same amount of funds required to retire early)

There isn't one right answer, no hero or villain, but if we can raise a child able to understand and engage in such a conversation, I'm sure they will find success in life regardless of what level of post-secondary education they ultimately pursue
More thoughts here:  http://www.gocurrycracker.com/is-college-worth-it-with-future-tuition-predictions/

Cheers

Jeremy

[mxt0133]

I am not going to argue that the sticker price of cost of college is getting out of hand especially when you take into account room and board.  But the sticker price and what is actually paid is very different.  I got a scholarship and most of friends got some combination of aid, grant, or scholarship.  There are tax breaks that are available to most families that can give a tax credit of about 2.5k year*, credit not deduction, which adds up to 10k for 4 years.  There are even employer provided education assistance programs that lowered the cost of my Masters and MBA from 70k to about 35K with employer assistance and tax deductions.

What I am saying is yes the sticker price has exceeded wage or even general inflation, but the actual amount paid is actually much lower like 20-30% lower with all the aid, grants, scholarships, and tax credits combined.**  For people in the higher income levels, yes, if you get in and don't get any scholarships you will more than likely pay full price, but for the majority of people they will not be pay full sticker price.

Are there people graduating with 100s of thousands of student loan debt, yes, the growth of for-profit colleges contributed to that significantly with a much larger portion of people dropping out and loan delinquency rates.  But I think most families can still afford public universities that do not pay for room and board.

"We estimate that in 2013-14, while the average published in-state tuition and fee price at public four-year institutions is $8,893, the average net price is about $3,120. Grants and tax credits and deductions cover the remainder for the average full-time student."  ***

So save if you want to and don't throw in the towel it's not as bad for most people.  Especially for those here that plan to FIRE or have lower incomes in the future.

*http://www.irs.gov/uac/American-Opportunity-Tax-Credit
**http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/education/despite-rising-sticker-prices-actual-college-costs-stable-over-decade-study-says.html?_r=0 and https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-search?navid=gh-cs
***https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2013-full-report-140108.pdf

[Icecreamarsenal]

In the first 2 years of medical school, I worked in the library. Many had odd jobs here and there: tutoring, research assistant, etc. The last 2 years of medical school demand more time, usually, and it's difficult to juggle a job and the clinical years.

I would have worked as a janitor, delivery person, burger flipper, had my situation demanded it; I had skills that afforded me higher pay.  In fact I stocked groceries, mostly watermelons, during undergrad some summers for spending money.  And I'm one of the laziest people I know.

Has someone brought up daughters stripping or sons selling drugs yet? There's bound to be somebody...

[Gin1984]

I am not going to argue that the sticker price of cost of college is getting out of hand especially when you take into account room and board.  But the sticker price and what is actually paid is very different.  I got a scholarship and most of friends got some combination of aid, grant, or scholarship.  There are tax breaks that are available to most families that can give a tax credit of about 2.5k year*, credit not deduction, which adds up to 10k for 4 years.  There are even employer provided education assistance programs that lowered the cost of my Masters and MBA from 70k to about 35K with employer assistance and tax deductions.

What I am saying is yes the sticker price has exceeded wage or even general inflation, but the actual amount paid is actually much lower like 20-30% lower with all the aid, grants, scholarships, and tax credits combined.**  For people in the higher income levels, yes, if you get in and don't get any scholarships you will more than likely pay full price, but for the majority of people they will not be pay full sticker price.

Are there people graduating with 100s of thousands of student loan debt, yes, the growth of for-profit colleges contributed to that significantly with a much larger portion of people dropping out and loan delinquency rates.  But I think most families can still afford public universities that do not pay for room and board.

"We estimate that in 2013-14, while the average published in-state tuition and fee price at public four-year institutions is $8,893, the average net price is about $3,120. Grants and tax credits and deductions cover the remainder for the average full-time student."  ***

So save if you want to and don't throw in the towel it's not as bad for most people.  Especially for those here that plan to FIRE or have lower incomes in the future.

*http://www.irs.gov/uac/American-Opportunity-Tax-Credit
**http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/education/despite-rising-sticker-prices-actual-college-costs-stable-over-decade-study-says.html?_r=0 and https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-search?navid=gh-cs
***https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2013-full-report-140108.pdf

Except if you have a middle class parent who won't pay (not can't but won't) you don't get those tax credits, or aid of any sort, so the kid is pretty much screwed and pays the whole amount.

[NumberCruncher]

It's hard to escape the solipsistic riff raff.  They're entitled...to their opinions, and to articulating (barely) their viewpoint.  You're under no obligation to listen.

I plan on paying for college if my children are accepted to schools that I deem cost-effective.  Ivy league, or almost Ivy league.  If not, they can pay, as I did, or choose not to go, or delay it.

Are you saying that Ivy League or "almost Ivy League" are the only cost-effective options - that schools with lower ratings (and usually lower costs) wouldn't be worth it? Did I read that right?

I think you did not!
If you did, you may have typed something to this effect:
"Are you saying that Ivy League or "almost Ivy League" are the only cost-effective options in your opinion?"  Because god is in the details.  It's right there in your quote: "that I deem..."

One size fits all is a little bit totalitarian for my tastes.  You may have a different opinion of what is cost-effective, or acceptable.  Better start crunching those numbers.

If not cost-effective, then they can pay themselves, as I did.  There's no obligation.

Haha, I see. It just caught me off guard a bit, as it's not a common opinion in this community. "Almost Ivy League" does increase the number of colleges quite a bit, depending on definitions. This site is one of the few that came up for ROI calculations: http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-2013 Looks like the type of focus/available majors matters most, with the college deemed most cost-effective being labeled "engineering-minded." The typical early career salary there is very similar to what I received after graduating from my state school not particularly known for engineering.

I am surprised by the high number of Ivy League or similarly highly regarded institutions on the list, though I'd like to dig deeper into their assumptions. For example, if you're interested in early retirement, I'd imagine an engineering degree from a state school beats out an engineering degree at MIT, assuming average aid from both. If the number of working years is 10 as opposed to 30, that changes a lot. There's also an inevitable sampling bias - Ivy Leagues are incredibly competitive, meaning just getting into an Ivy League probably means you're the type of person to succeed.  I know there was a study...ah! Here it is: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/03/01/the-ivy-league-earnings-myth It's not even about getting accepted - if you're the type of person who even applies to an Ivy League, you're likely to do as well as those who attend an Ivy League school.

Not trying to debate or argue - just sharing thoughts. Of course where to go to college is a personal/family matter, so there will always be factors outside of numbers to consider. :)

EDIT: Just found this - some updated information from Payscale: http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/bachelors  And some analysis by Wonkblog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/18/applying-to-college-where-to-go-if-you-want-the-highest-starting-salary/  If looking at starting salaries only, the Ivies do worse, but gain steam mid-career and later. Highest starting salaries are for technical degrees like engineering, but liberal arts educations from Ivies start to pick up $$ mid career and later. It's unclear whether students are pursuing graduate degrees as well, or some other factors. I'd still wager that the drive of the people going to the schools has the biggest impact on salary.

[prof61820]

I don't believe that paying for your children's college education is an obligation of being a parent.

The US Government feels that it is a parent's duty to pay for a child's higher education until they turn 24 or do something that makes them independent (like serving in the military)...it even trumps retirement savings.  The US government does not require a parent to fund ACA healthcare insurance for an 18 year old.

This is pulled from simpletuition.com's website (http://www.simpletuition.com/fafsa/the-calculations-behind-the-fafsa/)

"The first step in the EFC calculation is to determine what portion of the parents’ income is available to contribute to the costs of college. It includes total income but then subtracts taxes paid, child support and basic living expenses, and an employment allowance (basically a percentage of the income of the parent who earns less, or of the single parent’s income). This number is the available income.  Then, parental assets are analyzed. The value of cash, savings, checking accounts, the net worth of a business or farm, and investment and real estate net worth (excluding the family’s primary residence) are added together. From that total, specific savings for education and an asset protection allowance (a portion of assets dependent on structure of the family and the value of assets) are subtracted. A part of this total is used to determine the available contribution from assets.

"The needs analysis is based on a few principles. First, the parents have the primary responsibility for the cost of higher education. Second, the student is responsible for some contribution to educational costs. Third, families should only be evaluated in their present financial situation. And lastly, the family’s contribution should be determined consistently and equally for all families with children attending institutions of higher education."

Here's an interesting .pdf on the need calculation process: http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVxPA1FNU8yoAz1xXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByZDBpbXI5BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1414808897/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.fafsaonline.com%2fprintable-fafsa-form%2fFAFSA-Help-Guide-ebook.pdf/RK=0/RS=zEF0X7S4Oxt.4eQYonWz5ucKlYw-

P. 94:  "Certain types of untaxed income are counted by the federal need-analysis formula
despite not being included in adjusted gross income.
These types of untaxed income include:
• Pre-tax contributions made by the taxpayer to qualified retirement plans,
including deductions for pension plans, 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, SEP,
SIMPLE and deductible contributions to tax-deferred IRAs and Keogh plans
• Tax-free contributions to a Health Savings Account (HSA)23"

Here's a doozy on p. 96 "Contributions to a 401(k), 403(b) or IRA, on the other hand, are
voluntary and must be reported as untaxed income on the FAFSA....Note that employer contributions to retirement
plans, health benefits and pension plans are not counted in untaxed income."

pp 102-103: "Reportable and Non-Reportable Assets
Assets include any property that is owned and which can be bought and sold (i.e., an
asset has exchange value).
Examples of assets that are reported on the FAFSA include:
• Cash29
• Bank accounts, such as checking and savings accounts
• Certificates of Deposit (CDs)
• Brokerage accounts
• Stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money market accounts, stock options, restricted
stock units (vested portion only), ETFs, hedge funds, REITs, private equity and
other investments
• Commodities and precious metals
• Businesses and investment farms (including the value of land, buildings,
machinery, equipment and inventory)
• Real estate
_ Filing the FAFSA 104
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• Installment and land sale contracts (including mortgages held)
• Custodial accounts, including Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) and
Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (UTMA) accounts (if owner, not custodian)
• Trust funds
• College savings plans, including 529 College Savings Plans, Prepaid Tuition
Plans (value is the refund value of the plan) and Coverdell Education Savings
Accounts
The following assets are not reported on the FAFSA:
• The family’s principal place of residence (the family home)
• A family farm, if it is the family’s principal place of residence and the student
and/or parents materially participate in the farming operation
• Any small businesses owned and controlled by the family. Small business have
less than 100 full-time or full-time equivalent employees. To be controlled by
the family, the family must own more than 50 percent of the business. Note that
family members are not limited to just those counted in household size on the
FAFSA, but may include relatives by birth or marriage.
• Qualified retirement plans, such as 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, pension plans,
annuities, traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, Keogh, SEP and SIMPLE plans
• Life insurance policies, including cash value and whole life insurance policies
• Personal possessions, such as clothing, furniture, a car, computer equipment
and software, television and stereo equipment
• Property received by Native American students under the Per Capita Act, the
Distribution of Judgment Funds Act, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
or the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act
Note that while qualified retirement plans do not count as assets, distributions
from a retirement plan (including tax-free distributions) do count as income to
the beneficiary on the FAFSA. (The only exception is for amounts rolled over into
another retirement plan in the same tax year.) Tax-free contributions to a retirement
plan by the taxpayer (not the employer) also count as income. Note that retirement
plan contributions from the employer, such as an employer match of 401(k)
contributions, do not count as income. Likewise, insurance settlements from a life
insurance policy do count as income."

More fun on p. 103: "If retirement money is not held in a qualified retirement plan, it must be reported
as an asset on the FAFSA, even if the asset owner has already reached the normal
retirement age. The intent to use the money to pay for retirement is irrelevant, since
there are no legal restrictions on the use of the money.
If the parents sell their principal place of residence, the net proceeds of the sale
must be reported as an asset even if the parents intend to use the money to buy a
new home."

It seems as if the system is skewed to steer a 401K family's income away from retirement saving (and possibly deplete taxable investment assets that could be used for retirement security ) by forcing parents to pay for college tuition, fees, room and board, etc. while their ADULT children attend college without regard to the total amount they have saved for retirement and their (and their children's) "need" for parental retirement security.

[prof61820]

Interesting article on one of the big reasons why college costs are skyrocketing: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article3975073.html

"UC officials say the system also needs the money to help rescue its pension fund – neglected for two decades and facing $7.2 billion in unfunded liabilities – and to cover the growing cost of retiree health benefits."

[Icecreamarsenal]

It's hard to escape the solipsistic riff raff.  They're entitled...to their opinions, and to articulating (barely) their viewpoint.  You're under no obligation to listen.

I plan on paying for college if my children are accepted to schools that I deem cost-effective.  Ivy league, or almost Ivy league.  If not, they can pay, as I did, or choose not to go, or delay it.

Are you saying that Ivy League or "almost Ivy League" are the only cost-effective options - that schools with lower ratings (and usually lower costs) wouldn't be worth it? Did I read that right?

I think you did not!
If you did, you may have typed something to this effect:
"Are you saying that Ivy League or "almost Ivy League" are the only cost-effective options in your opinion?"  Because god is in the details.  It's right there in your quote: "that I deem..."

One size fits all is a little bit totalitarian for my tastes.  You may have a different opinion of what is cost-effective, or acceptable.  Better start crunching those numbers.

If not cost-effective, then they can pay themselves, as I did.  There's no obligation.

Haha, I see. It just caught me off guard a bit, as it's not a common opinion in this community. "Almost Ivy League" does increase the number of colleges quite a bit, depending on definitions. This site is one of the few that came up for ROI calculations: http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-2013 Looks like the type of focus/available majors matters most, with the college deemed most cost-effective being labeled "engineering-minded." The typical early career salary there is very similar to what I received after graduating from my state school not particularly known for engineering.

I am surprised by the high number of Ivy League or similarly highly regarded institutions on the list, though I'd like to dig deeper into their assumptions. For example, if you're interested in early retirement, I'd imagine an engineering degree from a state school beats out an engineering degree at MIT, assuming average aid from both. If the number of working years is 10 as opposed to 30, that changes a lot. There's also an inevitable sampling bias - Ivy Leagues are incredibly competitive, meaning just getting into an Ivy League probably means you're the type of person to succeed.  I know there was a study...ah! Here it is: http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/03/01/the-ivy-league-earnings-myth It's not even about getting accepted - if you're the type of person who even applies to an Ivy League, you're likely to do as well as those who attend an Ivy League school.

Not trying to debate or argue - just sharing thoughts. Of course where to go to college is a personal/family matter, so there will always be factors outside of numbers to consider. :)

Well put.  The link to the college/roi was very helpful; I may steer my daughter to one of those colleges, if she's not Ivy League (or equivalent) material.  She's not 1 yet so we have some time to see where her path will likely take her.  Stevens Institute, #9, is about 15 minutes from me...

I am interested in early retirement, but not interested in it for my children.  I'd like for them to have the option of early retirement if they so choose, but also to figure out what excites them, what makes them passionate.  Hopefully it would be in a high income producing field, but if not, so be it.  As long as they were financially independent.

The second article was also interesting, but the 2 cohorts that they mentioned were from the 70s.  It makes me wonder whether it's applicable today.  Also, the take-home message seems to be as long as their SAT scores were similar to the SAT scores of people that were accepted into ivy league schools, they would be as successful as the people that were admitted into the ivy league schools. 
As long as they were white, not poor, and had parents that went to college...

Anyway, very educational for a Monday morning!  In the 2 decades that I have before college, I'll be sure to steer them to Ivy league equivalents if they expect me to pay, or to high ROI schools if they don't.  I think I have a decade before the conversations about the subject begins, though...I hope 3,650 days are enough to prep!

[AllezAllezAllez]

Young-ish college prof here. My personal history: parents paid about half of in-state undergrad tuition, but they always told me their limit was four years. I had won a half-scholarship, and I worked part-time and summers to pay for room/board/extras. My graduate degrees from one private and one Ivy League school were 100% funded by fellowships, stipends, and teaching. 12 years at university, 3 degrees, 0 debt. I certainly did not go to college thinking about ROI.  I was there to learn about EVERYTHING, not just about how to make money. I was able to do this because no debt = no fear. And that's point #1.

Point #2: From my current perspective as a Big State U faculty member, only about 20% of undergrads here are going to benefit from their experience. These few arrived with some basic skills, so they're not paying thousands in tuition (or worse, taking out loans!) for remedial stuff that's taught in middle school; and they also have a fundamental academic work ethic, in that they seek out challenges, they show up for classes, they keep up with the work, and they don't whine.

The rest? Most kids are here for the 4, 5, or 6-year party. But because the money being spent and borrowed on their behalf makes most of them fearful when they stop to think about it, they aim for a "business" degree that gives them a little accounting, a little jargon, and a little spreadsheet-skill. At least this is what the freshmen say (6300 out of our 7000 freshmen have officially informed their advisors that they want a business school degree. Not happenin', y'all.) . Most won't do well enough to be accepted by the oversubscribed business-school programs, so the B- and C-students end up with degrees in "communication" or "psychology" or other stuff that, at the American undergraduate level, is mostly drivel. None of this is a good return on $60k. It's certainly not debt-worthy, and not at all worth the anxiety wasted on it.

Which leads to Point #3. Only kids who have real academic chops -- they're great at calculus! at chemistry! at obscure languages! or something similar --  belong at university. For everyone else, community-college tech or nursing or trade or business programs, etc., will result in them being happier, less indebted, and more productive in the long run. And here's the key: those kids who are truly ready and able to benefit from university are clever enough to win at least a partial academic scholarship somewhere -- for undergrad, grad, and even law school. It won't be an Ivy League BA unless you are not-rich, since Ivies don't "do" merit scholarships for undergrads; but there are lots of great-but-less-famous schools that will happily pay for your smart kid.

Overall, then, I think heavy indebtedness for higher ed can and should be avoided.

(Med school is the obvious exception, I guess -- a deeply flawed debt-based system, and one that needs reform!)

As for parents who refuse to pay for any post-secondary education or training, I think that might be a little harsh, especially given the content-free curricula of most high schools. A little boost up for the kids, in terms of training or tuition fees after high school, is probably in order for parents who can afford it. But certainly not the $60-$200k 4-yr-cruise that college admissions staff are selling you.

[galliver]

Which leads to Point #3. Only kids who have real academic chops -- they're great at calculus! at chemistry! at obscure languages! or something similar --  belong at university. For everyone else, community-college tech or nursing or trade or business programs, etc., will result in them being happier, less indebted, and more productive in the long run. And here's the key: those kids who are truly ready and able to benefit from university are clever enough to win at least a partial academic scholarship somewhere -- for undergrad, grad, and even law school. It won't be an Ivy League BA unless you are not-rich, since Ivies don't "do" merit scholarships for undergrads; but there are lots of great-but-less-famous schools that will happily pay for your smart kid.

My parents' country had the higher education set up in such a way that all universities were government-funded and students got dorm housing (if they were from out of town) and a small stipend. However, admissions were MUCH harsher than the US. If you didn't get in, you went to work or a trade school. You could study up and try again, but you *had* to come in with prerequisite skills. While the government-run aspect of this was pretty undesirable, I have often wondered, if the motivating factors in the US higher ed system were changed (right now they are motivated to accept & graduate as many as possible, quantity over quality for the system as a whole), so that colleges voluntarily tightened their merit-based admission standards, whether that would improve the quality and financial feasibility of the system. One possible change (and I'm not an economist, just a ponderer): making schools responsible for paying back student loans if graduate isn't making a certain amount ($50+? median?) within 5 years of graduating higher ed. Because clearly, if this happens frequently then they are choosing the wrong students!

[AllezAllezAllez]

making schools responsible for paying back student loans if graduate isn't making a certain amount ($50+? median?) within 5 years of graduating higher ed

An interesting notion; however, we have MANY alumni, some with advanced degrees, who are successful in their fields and who are making important contributions to society, but who do not make anywhere near the median income. Social workers, many K-12 teachers, farmers (from the various state ag schools), public defenders, and many, many people who work for non-profits or arts organizations, are just a few who come to mind.

Creating a disincentive for universities to train such people is not, I think, a good idea.

What I do think is that higher ed is far too expensive, because you're paying for scads of 6-figure deans and deanlets who do no teaching (not to mention all their secretaries, assistants, and gatekeepers), tons of IT and other infrastructure (hello! that free Photoshop and MSOffice are not really free...), and "student services", many of which are remediation services for the students who aren't really ready for college work. And I know many non-faculty U. employees, advisors, special-interest counselors and such, who sit around in their offices making $25/hr surfing the web and hoping that a student will come by and ask them for help. Seems like a waste. Finally, we have a huge staff devoted to compliance with federal regulations. You've probably heard of the Title IX charges brought against a bunch of universities this summer? We're spending several million dollars just this year, in addressing compliance with this one regulation. New offices are being formed, new (non-teaching) staff are being hired, new, fancy, four-color signs are being printed and put up all over campus, all in response to this one issue. Aargh.

But I'm just faculty: I may have tenure, but I don't have any say in how the place is run. I do know that only a small part of the budget pays the relatively inexpensive people who actually design and teach the courses. The vast majority of my 800 professorial colleagues  -- who all teach AND publish, because that's the whole point -- make between 40 and 85k (business and law school divas excepted). We have hundreds of lower-level courses taught by graduate students who are paid about $1500 a month. By this measure, higher ed should be cheap, but "The College Experience" -- a combination of cruise-ship amenity expectations on the part of students, and 6-figure salary expectations on the part of administrators -- makes it expensive.

Editing to add one more calculation: Tuition here, excluding fees, is approx. $300/credit hour. I teach about 200 students a year, in 3- or 4-credit courses. This brings in at a minimum $180,000 to the university. Locate my salary in the low-to-mid part of the range; and you'll see that by far the greater chunk of what students pay for my courses goes....somewhere else. Yes, infrastructure costs, etc.; but still.

[Kyle Schuant]

I think you missed the "father of eight" part and maybe because your parents paid for college you don't have a good sense for how freaking expensive it is.

The guy had eight kids. If he wanted to be frugal my suggestion would have been,



For the rest, since he has decided to spend the minimum on his children, and turn their lives into a money-making scheme (his book), I am sure his children will remember this when he's old. A song by Harry Chapin comes to mind. Perhaps they'll tell him to fund his own medical care, and write a book about how to look after your elderly infirm relatives.

[Lyssa]

For the rest, since he has decided to spend the minimum on his children, and turn their lives into a money-making scheme (his book), I am sure his children will remember this when he's old.

This. As wrong as deciding that you want to raise entrepreneurs no matter the individual character and talents of your children is, trying to get rich by publicly not financially supporting your children is way, way off. A bit like cults forcing their adolescents young adults to work in the leaders companies for free. You know, because it builds "character". That and the leader's bank account.

[P1]

I'm an only child who had my dad pay for all my college and I probably would have taken it a lot more seriously if it was my money  shelled out instead of someone else's. Though I'm at least grateful I don't have a mountain of student loan debt as I start down the path of Mustachianism

[mcluvin]

Except if you have a middle class parent who won't pay (not can't but won't) you don't get those tax credits, or aid of any sort, so the kid is pretty much screwed and pays the whole amount.

The answer to that is becoming an emancipated minor.

A parent with 8 kids shouldn't have to worry too much unless they are wealthy.  Those kids should qualify for all kinds of financial aid.

We started prepaid college plans for both our kids soon after they were born.  Money was very tight when we started them, but we knew how important it was for our children to have that opportunity.  Honestly I would feel like I had failed them if I didn't ensure they could go to college.  My wife and I are college graduates in families that haven't had a lot of college graduates.  Yes, you can be successful without a degree and you can also be a failure with one.  You are far likelier to be successful with a degree.  My own personal experience, I had a little financial help from my parents the first couple years.  What I really missed out on was guidance.  It just wasn't there.  I made so many mistakes.  Some will be better for it, but many do not recover from those sorts of mistakes.  Maybe my kids will be softer than me, but I tell them their education is their job and I expect them to make their best effort.  I remember choosing between working more hours or studying and making the wrong choice.  My oldest is about to graduate with honors in a field that should ensure a meaningful and successful career.  I don't regret anything we've done to help her make that happen.  Would she have done that if we had tossed her to the world at 18 sink or swim?  I don't think so.....

[Gin1984]

Except if you have a middle class parent who won't pay (not can't but won't) you don't get those tax credits, or aid of any sort, so the kid is pretty much screwed and pays the whole amount.

The answer to that is becoming an emancipated minor.

A parent with 8 kids shouldn't have to worry too much unless they are wealthy.  Those kids should qualify for all kinds of financial aid.

We started prepaid college plans for both our kids soon after they were born.  Money was very tight when we started them, but we knew how important it was for our children to have that opportunity.  Honestly I would feel like I had failed them if I didn't ensure they could go to college.  My wife and I are college graduates in families that haven't had a lot of college graduates.  Yes, you can be successful without a degree and you can also be a failure with one.  You are far likelier to be successful with a degree.  My own personal experience, I had a little financial help from my parents the first couple years.  What I really missed out on was guidance.  It just wasn't there.  I made so many mistakes.  Some will be better for it, but many do not recover from those sorts of mistakes.  Maybe my kids will be softer than me, but I tell them their education is their job and I expect them to make their best effort.  I remember choosing between working more hours or studying and making the wrong choice.  My oldest is about to graduate with honors in a field that should ensure a meaningful and successful career.  I don't regret anything we've done to help her make that happen.  Would she have done that if we had tossed her to the world at 18 sink or swim?  I don't think so.....

You can't do that as someone 18 or over.  When I tried to get legally declared independent for the FAFSA, my options were to get married or go into the military.  Even with all the proof that I had no support from my mother, including that she refused to fill out the FAFSA, nothing.  Even with abuse you need proof and with many colleges, whose financial aid office is not staffed with people knowledgable to determined these things (even though they are the ones determining it), will decide that the proper hoop was not jump through and throw it out.   

[Spondulix]

AllezAllezAllez your perspective is really interesting - especially the number of students interested in business. I have a Masters Degree (from an international Ivy League school) and did a certificate in business at a local community college after being in the field for a couple years. Those have easily been some of the best classes I've ever taken, but by no means did I need a full degree for what I was using them for. A four year degree just isn't appropriate for every skill - nor has it ever been.

As for paying for college - my parents said they'd pay as much for me as they did for my siblings, who went to public in-state Universities. I went for free one year, tested out of a lot of credits with CLEP tests, then transferred to a private school where I basically spent $60k on some vocational classes that really shouldn't be a college major in the first place. I could do advanced calculus, but had zero sense what my debt would cost post-college. Had I needed to pay back some loans while I was still in school, I probably would have learned quickly that it's a terrible idea to live only on SL money, or to only do internships vs jobs (especially when my classload was not very demanding). I had a great college experience, but I didn't need to completely put life on hold for 6 years to have that.

[ChrisLansing]

So if one of the 8 kids wants to open a restaurant and dad refuses to put up the money for it, does that also make him an asshole?   

[tracylayton]

My parents couldn't afford to help me, but I made it thru in 4 years at a private university. We were so poor that I qualified for every grant available and a few scholarships. Some semesters I worked 30 hours a week, but I wouldn't have even had to do that if I lived at home. I did save for all 3 of my kids' college, because I didn't want them to struggle as hard as I did. I don't think he's a jerk...college for 8 kids would wipe anyone out.

[DoubleDown]

Except if you have a middle class parent who won't pay (not can't but won't) you don't get those tax credits, or aid of any sort, so the kid is pretty much screwed and pays the whole amount.

The answer to that is becoming an emancipated minor.

Yes, unfortunately it doesn't work that way as far as financial aid is concerned. Short of marrying or joining the military, it takes significantly special circumstances and long lengths of time to be declared financially independent as far as financial aid offices are concerned. You will have to support yourself completely and file your own tax returns for several years prior to applying, which means for most students they're already in their senior year before they'd even begin to qualify. Otherwise, you'll have to prove some extreme situation like complete estrangement or abuse. Parents cannot "opt out" of having a parental contribution assessed by the financial aid office, no matter their principles on the matter.

So if one of the 8 kids wants to open a restaurant and dad refuses to put up the money for it, does that also make him an asshole?   

I think that's a good point, but I'm also not certain the comparison is entirely apt. For example, many people feel education is more of an inherent or fundamental need/goal than strictly a financial (and considerably risky) investment plan like a restaurant. For example, if I tweaked your sentence to read, "So if one of the 8 kids faces a serious medical issue and dad refuses to put up the money for it, does that also make him an asshole?", then my answer would probably be "Yes." I'm not sure we can equate higher education and restaurants, but I do like the perspective of your point.

[Kyle Schuant]

So if one of the 8 kids wants to open a restaurant and dad refuses to put up the money for it, does that also make him an asshole?

For this guy, yes - I'll explain below. But speaking generally: a business may or may not succeed, it's a gamble. An education will always be useful, even if only indirectly.

This particular guy would be an arsehole for refusing to help his kids open a business, because he's already using them in his own business - his books, DVDs, etc. He's using his children to make money for him. No reason they shouldn't use him to make themselves money.

But generally speaking, education is always a good thing. I would say primary and secondary school are a minimum the parents should arrange somehow, tertiary is optional. It's plain that the kids just handed everything without effort won't value it, but on the other hand if they have to work a full-time job at the same time as going to uni, they're not going to be very successful at uni, on average. As usual, there is a sensible middle ground there somewhere...

My wife had an interesting experience growing up, in contrast to her cousins. Both her parents and the cousins' spent (say) $300 a semester on their kids' clothes. The cousins, the parents just gave them the clothes. My wife's parents said, "you have a $300 budget, what would you like to get?" So if they wanted the $180 Nikes, they could get them... but would have to be careful with the rest. So the cousins grew up to have a huge income and huge mortgage, while my wife grew up to (with me) save for 7 years, then pay off the first house in 3.5 years.

My son's 3yo, not sure what I'll do by the time he's ready for university. I already had the thought that once he's old enough for a part-time job, 14-15yo or so, I'll say, "We've just opened this bank account for you. Come show me the balance 3 months from now, if it's lower good luck to you, if it's higher, however many dollars it's higher than last time, we'll match it." All his clothing and food and all the rest we pay for, but if he wants something fancy or to take a girl on a date, he pays for that himself. So with his account, even if all he does is put $100 in it and not touch it for 3 months, then he gets another $100, taking it to $200 balance; if he doesn't touch that, another $100, and so on. This teaches him that savings are well rewarded, but if he wants to blow through his money he can.

You don't begin by throwing your kids in the deep end. But you don't give them a yacht to sail on, either. First you take them in the shallow pool, to develop their skills and confidence. Then gradually deeper and rougher water. Likewise, you begin by teaching your kids that they can't have everything and have to make choices. This makes them thoughtful about money. Over time as they get more money they continue being thoughtful.

This I think is a better alternative than simply having a bunch of kids you can't afford, and then exploiting them for fame and profit.

[MrFancypants]

I think you missed the "father of eight" part and maybe because your parents paid for college you don't have a good sense for how freaking expensive it is.

The guy had eight kids. If he wanted to be frugal my suggestion would have been,



For the rest, since he has decided to spend the minimum on his children, and turn their lives into a money-making scheme (his book), I am sure his children will remember this when he's old. A song by Harry Chapin comes to mind. Perhaps they'll tell him to fund his own medical care, and write a book about how to look after your elderly infirm relatives.

So the choice is....  either have children, or be frugal?  It can't be both?  You can't have children and be mindful of your expenditures at the same exact time?

As the grandchild of someone who was the last of nine children I don't look at my great grandparents through the same lens you insist this guy's children should view their parents.  What a ridiculous notion.  Thankfully it's irrelevant with Social Security and Medicare.

[Wolf_Stache]

Here is my take as the oldest of 9 children: At least he is being honest.

Growing up we heard nothing but 'Oh, don't worry about it. I'll pay for your eduction.' 'I've put money away for your college.' etc, countless times.

Guess what? He didn't pay a PENNY towards my education, or to any of my other siblings educations. AND because of his income (high is putting it lightly) none of us qualified for student loans. To date I'm the only one who has graduated from college (of course, my two youngest siblings are barely college age now (just turning 18 this year), but I doubt at this point he will ever pay a single dime towards any our educations.

The worst part is, he liked to string us along with promises of money. Here is how it played out with me (and from second-hand accounts, it worked the same way with my brothers):

Starting school: Oh, I won't pay for the first semester. I have to see your grades first

Second semester, after getting a 4.0 in the first semester: Oh, you're going to [community college]? That place is no better than a high school. It doesn't matter you got high grades there, that school is too easy.

After graduating from cheap community college that I paid for ENTIRELY on my own and about to start first semester at 4 year school father attended himself: I have to see how your grades are at [4 yr school.]

Second semester at 4 year school, got a 3.9 previous semester: You aren't majoring in [father's major].

At that point I gave up, and just worked my way through the rest of my bachelor's and graduate school on my own.

I know one brother, who dropped out for money issues, is now going back to school to major in my father's chosen major, even though he doesn't want that degree just so he can get school paid for. Honestly? I doubt even that will work but we'll see.

[Skyhigh]

I work with college kids and see the difference in those who are there on their own dime versus those who are essentially going to four years of camp funded by mom and dad. I also notice a pragmatic approach to college when you are spending your own money. I paid my own way through college and so will my kids with occasional help. I believe it produces a better result.

We have a local university. Our kids can go there and live at home. All the time I see kids demand an expensive university far from home for the "experience". I also see parents go deeply in debt sending their kids to fancy sounding universities for bragging rights. Not a good Idea. We owe our kids support through high school. The rest is voluntary. I believe that as parents our investment in our children s education is to buy their independence through securing a practical occupation and not to pay for a self indulgence.

Skyhigh

[Firefly]

Mama-bear here. To each their own, but I believe it is my duty to raise decent people and give them the best start in life. For me - it includes paying for their college. With that being said, I would encourage them to start by taking the classes in Community College that they can transfer later to a 4 year university and to take all the time they need before going to college to figure out what they want to study. I don't believe that everyone should go to college right after high school, as I am not paying for their "college experience" while they are changing majors every semester for years and years. I have no problem with them getting a job while taking a class or 2 at a community college, and when they decide what they want to do - I'll support them. We've been putting money away for their colleges since the day they were born.

[pbkmaine]

We were responsible for college for my husband's 3 daughters. We told them we would pay for 4 years of a state school or the equivalent anywhere. We used Rutgers as the benchmark, since we were in NJ. We also had a fund set aside for weddings that we allowed them to invade for education. The result? Three undergraduate degrees from state schools, two masters's degrees, very low debt for them and no fuss about the weddings. They were all gainfully employed at good pay until they became moms, then two decided to stay home with the kids. They are all pretty good with money.