The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: thepokercab on March 04, 2014, 08:30:26 AM
-
I suppose this is one way to avoid student loan debt:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-new-jersey-student-sues-tuition-20140303,0,7788313.story#axzz2v0YwnhCK
-
It says there's an outstanding balance on her high school tuition. It's reasonable that the parents need to pay that part according to my hand-waving knowledge of contract law. Other than that, holy crap is this child a brat.
-
It sounds as if she's emancipated now!
This experience should make a great college-application essay. Maybe she'll be inspired to apply to law school, too.
-
She was emancipated the second she turned 18 in the USA. I don't get how she can say she must still depend on her folks; 18 = adult = go get a job.
-
I suspect there is far more to this story. What I am curious about is how her best friend's family is thinking that it would be wise to front her legal expenses. Other than that I can't think of any reason that the family should be obligated to pay a dime in any college or post-18 living expenses. High school tuition likely is on the family, but I don't know.
-
In the article I read it said her PRIVATE high school wasn't going to ding her for the remainder of the year. That said, she could always go to PUBLIC high school to finish off.
Oh....and what's with the continued infantalization of what used to be considered adults in this country? She's 18 - her parents are perfectly within their rights to put a boot to her ass for what ever reason they choose....or no reason at all. And there is zero obligation of parents to fund a child's education once they hit 18. Just like there is zero obligation for a child to care for a parent in their dotage.
I'll add that with her piss poor entitled attitude - she DESERVED to get a boot to her ass.
-
In the article I read it said her PRIVATE high school wasn't going to ding her for the remainder of the year. That said, she could always go to PUBLIC high school to finish off.
Oh....and what's with the continued infantalization of what used to be considered adults in this country? She's 18 - her parents are perfectly within their rights to put a boot to her ass for what ever reason they choose....or no reason at all. And there is zero obligation of parents to fund a child's education once they hit 18. Just like there is zero obligation for a child to care for a parent in their dotage.
I'll add that with her piss poor entitled attitude - she DESERVED to get a boot to her ass.
The parents signed a contract with the private school for that year and they owe the school over five thousand dollars.
-
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ABC_nj_teen_sues_parents_jtm_140304_16x9_992.jpg)
Someone, start a kickstarter for this poor girl to get back into a Catholic schoolgirls uniform!
-
Don't know enough to venture specifics on this particular he-said-she-said, but for those of you who haven't had kids reach 18: colleges very much expect "parental support" in financial aid decisions. Simultaneously, however, the same college will say "the student is an adult so you as parents have no right to any of their information unless the student allows it."
Part of the situation may not be the college's fault (e.g. HIPAA rules for medical issues - another topic) but as a parent the dichotomy between "you need to pay" vs. "you have no right to information" is striking.
Fortunately our kids have always been pragmatic enough to keep us informed while they were still legally our dependents, so it hasn't been an issue for us. Doesn't take much imagination though to see how it could be.
-
She was emancipated the second she turned 18 in the USA. I don't get how she can say she must still depend on her folks; 18 = adult = go get a job.
Not in all states. Some are 18 AND high school degree/GED. NJ very well may be among them. I know there is one state in the south where it is 19, even though, yes you can vote at 18.
-
http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/parentsrefuse.phtml
Wow! The attitude on this page is really eye-opening.
I particularly like the part about how you should do everything possible to be on good terms with your parents in order to get them to pay for college because deep down you love each other, unless they're tax evaders in which case you should turn them in for the reward.
More info on the independence/dependence qualification:
Independent Student Status
The Federal requirements for independent student status changed in 1992. Since then, the student must satisfy at least one of the following criteria to be considered independent:
The student is 24 year of age or older by December 31 of the award year.
The student is an orphan or ward of the court or was a ward of the court until the student reached the age of 18.
The student is a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States.
The student is a graduate or professional student.
The student is married.
The student has legal dependents other than a spouse. (Dependent means receiving more than half the individual's support from the student.)
If the student doesn't satisfy any of these requirements, then the student is automatically a dependent student.
I mean, I kind of get it? Like, the difference between how much you're expected to contribute with and without parents is enormous. Why should families willing to contribute get so much less aid than another family that simply refuses to fill out the fafsa, possibly purely for financial gain? Most schools have needs-blind admissions and if a lot of people took this option, the schools would have to radically change something. I mean, I think that would be a good thing in the long run, I'm just saying I see in the short term why the rules against declaring someone independent would be so narrow. But, again, wow, I had not realized how much this was considered a "right." How odd that the government considers parents obligated to "children" to enormous lengths if they are college-bound but not otherwise.
Ha ha, this reminds me of an acquaintance who learned in college that her parents were divorced. They still lived together and everything, they had just figured out that being legally divorced would make college cheaper, so it was purely a matter of paperwork.
-
http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/parentsrefuse.phtml
Wow! The attitude on this page is really eye-opening.
Holy cow. That's depressing. A few of my favorite quotes:
"Sometimes the parents refuse to complete the financial aid application because they don't pay their income taxes or are a tax protester."
"Remind them that even if they hate you, your future is at stake, and not graduating from college will have serious consequences for you. Remind them that one day you hope to get married and have children, and that by refusing to pay for your education, they are not only hurting you, but their future grandchildren."
"If your parents are religious, quote scripture at them."
"Then lay out all your finances in front of them. Show them how much money you have and can earn, demonstrating that you're doing what you can to cover the costs, show them how much it will cost and the size of the gap. Make it clear to them that if they don't help fill that gap, you won't be able to complete your education, no matter how hard you try."
Regarding that last point, I have another idea -- maybe schools can reduce their tuition to rates that students can actually afford.
-
http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/parentsrefuse.phtml
Wow! The attitude on this page is really eye-opening.
Holy cow. That's depressing. A few of my favorite quotes:
"Sometimes the parents refuse to complete the financial aid application because they don't pay their income taxes or are a tax protester."
"Remind them that even if they hate you, your future is at stake, and not graduating from college will have serious consequences for you. Remind them that one day you hope to get married and have children, and that by refusing to pay for your education, they are not only hurting you, but their future grandchildren."
"If your parents are religious, quote scripture at them."
"Then lay out all your finances in front of them. Show them how much money you have and can earn, demonstrating that you're doing what you can to cover the costs, show them how much it will cost and the size of the gap. Make it clear to them that if they don't help fill that gap, you won't be able to complete your education, no matter how hard you try."
Regarding that last point, I have another idea -- maybe schools can reduce their tuition to rates that students can actually afford.
It used to be that you could not even get merit award, or unsubsidized loans without your parent's signature on the FAFSA. Oh, unless you could prove abuse. Do you know how hard it is to prove abuse to financial aid people, you know, people who have no training in it what so ever?
I lost a full ride because my mother decided that she would not sign the FAFSA if I went away to college (I was 17 at that time), but then the next year she got mad because I "bothered" her too much about it (so I could make the deadline for certain merit awards) and decided not to fill it out that. Said she would fill it out the next year if I only told her once. I followed her rules, and guess what she "forgot".
We don't know what is going on in that house. Personally, in my state, I was not able to sign up for public high school without a parent's signature. And, deciding not to pay a contracted bill because your HONOR student is rebelling seems a bit over the top, especially if that means the child losing the AP classes she is in and possibly even the possibility of graduating on time (the schools have different requirements, even if they would let her in without parental consent). That kind of reaction often comes with other behaviors in the home.
Keep in mind, this kid has just turned 18, still in high school. We were all young and dumb once.
-
Regarding that last point, I have another idea -- maybe schools can reduce their tuition to rates that students can actually afford.
As someone who works for a U, don't blame the schools please. It's the state governments who are refusing to fund education. I know in my state they're blaming falling oil tax revenues. But the oil taxes are falling because the governor pushed through billions of dollars in tax breaks for the oil companies. So the U is having to cut costs in every way possible, because the governor is an ass who used to lobby for the oil companies. Our chancellor is trying really, really hard to raise tuition as little as possible, and our school is still a better deal than most (even for out-of-state students sometimes) but it's sort of inevitable when the state legislature won't fucking pay for education.
This is driving me crazy right now, sorry.
-
It used to be that you could not even get merit award, or unsubsidized loans without your parent's signature on the FAFSA.
Been there. One of the reasons I did time in the military.
We don't know what is going on in that house.
Yeah. From the article, they certainly appear to be rather over-controlling parents at best. Trying to tell your kid who they can't date, for instance. All else aside, psychologically it's pretty near certain that trying to forbid a relationship will actually make a teenager hold on to it.
-
She was emancipated the second she turned 18 in the USA. I don't get how she can say she must still depend on her folks; 18 = adult = go get a job.
Not in all states. Some are 18 AND high school degree/GED. NJ very well may be among them. I know there is one state in the south where it is 19, even though, yes you can vote at 18.
No kidding! Didn't realize it, thanks. Perhaps that's part of why the kid's friend's family feels comfortable backing her.
-
This item really troubles me for a number of reasons.
I did a quick google for NJ child emancipation age, and found this link.
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_jersey/emancipation_of_a_minor_child_in_nj
Are Children Automatically Emancipated When They Turn 18?
No. Many people assume that turning 18 results in automatic emancipation. This is not so. There’s no set age that will trigger automatic emancipation in New Jersey.
Reaching the age of 18 provides the court with prima facie (Latin for “at first sight”) or presumptive proof of emancipation; but this presumption can be defeated with evidence that the 18-year-old child has not yet reached a truly independent status. For example, a court may not emancipate a child over the age of 18 if he or she is in still in college and relies on parental support, or if there is proof of a pre-existing disability that prevents a child over the age of 18 from gaining complete independence.
This seems to be why several of the articles suggest the case hinges on whether or not the girl left the house on her own, or was "thrown out". If she was thrown out, then she can claim she is still dependent on her parents and not emancipated. If she left on her own (stormed out after a big fight), it sounds like it will be easy for her parents to say that shows she demonstrated independent status.
I really, really hope her suit gets thrown out and she has to come to terms with the idea that her parents are not required to support her through university in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed. Unfortunately it looks like the law might be such that it won't happen that way.
Are we really setting up our society (or New Jersey's society, anyways) where children can sue their parents to support them through college, well past 18? That's a scary thought. I'm a parent and my kids are still quite young, but naturally I want to support them and help them with university when they get to that age. That's something quite different from being legally required to, however!
-
This item really troubles me for a number of reasons.
I did a quick google for NJ child emancipation age, and found this link.
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_jersey/emancipation_of_a_minor_child_in_nj
Are Children Automatically Emancipated When They Turn 18?
No. Many people assume that turning 18 results in automatic emancipation. This is not so. There’s no set age that will trigger automatic emancipation in New Jersey.
Reaching the age of 18 provides the court with prima facie (Latin for “at first sight”) or presumptive proof of emancipation; but this presumption can be defeated with evidence that the 18-year-old child has not yet reached a truly independent status. For example, a court may not emancipate a child over the age of 18 if he or she is in still in college and relies on parental support, or if there is proof of a pre-existing disability that prevents a child over the age of 18 from gaining complete independence.
This seems to be why several of the articles suggest the case hinges on whether or not the girl left the house on her own, or was "thrown out". If she was thrown out, then she can claim she is still dependent on her parents and not emancipated. If she left on her own (stormed out after a big fight), it sounds like it will be easy for her parents to say that shows she demonstrated independent status.
I really, really hope her suit gets thrown out and she has to come to terms with the idea that her parents are not required to support her through university in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed. Unfortunately it looks like the law might be such that it won't happen that way.
Are we really setting up our society (or New Jersey's society, anyways) where children can sue their parents to support them through college, well past 18? That's a scary thought. I'm a parent and my kids are still quite young, but naturally I want to support them and help them with university when they get to that age. That's something quite different from being legally required to, however!
Well, the federal government requires you to get your parent's signature for financial aid and bases that aid off your parent's income, even if you are financially independent and can prove no aid from your parents as well as complete supporting yourself (as opposed to getting aid from some other source), until you are 24. Many divorce documents require that the parents pay for college and often child support from 18-22 goes to the college student not the custodial parent during the school year (in many states). We already have set our society this way.
-
Someone, start a kickstarter for this poor girl to get back into a Catholic schoolgirls uniform!
nothing says classy like sexual innuendo regarding a random 18 year old girl on the internet ...
-
Are we really setting up our society (or New Jersey's society, anyways) where children can sue their parents to support them through college, well past 18? That's a scary thought. I'm a parent and my kids are still quite young, but naturally I want to support them and help them with university when they get to that age. That's something quite different from being legally required to, however!
Well, the federal government requires you to get your parent's signature for financial aid and bases that aid off your parent's income, even if you are financially independent and can prove no aid from your parents as well as complete supporting yourself (as opposed to getting aid from some other source), until you are 24. Many divorce documents require that the parents pay for college and often child support from 18-22 goes to the college student not the custodial parent during the school year (in many states). We already have set our society this way.
Well, when I was reading the link I posted I realized the distinction is this: Your parents aren't obligated to support you through college, but if you are going to college, they have to use their resources to help you before the government will help you. The second thing is what you're saying, but the first thing is what the case is about, I think.
-
We don't know what is going on in that house.
Yeah. From the article, they certainly appear to be rather over-controlling parents at best. Trying to tell your kid who they can't date, for instance. All else aside, psychologically it's pretty near certain that trying to forbid a relationship will actually make a teenager hold on to it.
+100 It worked out for me in the end, but my parents going through vast efforts to keep me apart from my boyfriend (we were 19), enforced a super strong bond that resulted in marriage. My parents cut me off financially, bribed me w/a car, bribed him w/$10K, moved further away. None of it worked. Almost 20 years later, I sometimes wonder if we would have gone our separate ways had they not been so controlling!
-
Are we really setting up our society (or New Jersey's society, anyways) where children can sue their parents to support them through college, well past 18? That's a scary thought. I'm a parent and my kids are still quite young, but naturally I want to support them and help them with university when they get to that age. That's something quite different from being legally required to, however!
Well, the federal government requires you to get your parent's signature for financial aid and bases that aid off your parent's income, even if you are financially independent and can prove no aid from your parents as well as complete supporting yourself (as opposed to getting aid from some other source), until you are 24. Many divorce documents require that the parents pay for college and often child support from 18-22 goes to the college student not the custodial parent during the school year (in many states). We already have set our society this way.
Well, when I was reading the link I posted I realized the distinction is this: Your parents aren't obligated to support you through college, but if you are going to college, they have to use their resources to help you before the government will help you. The second thing is what you're saying, but the first thing is what the case is about, I think.
Unless, of course, they are divorced (in some states) or (in fewer states) you can prove physical abuse.
-
There's a distinction between supporting an 18 yo and supporting her in the manner she wants. In my state, divorced parents are obligated to pay child support through age 23 if they are in higher education. That doesn't mean they need to foot the bill for it, but they do need to keep paying to shelter/feed/clothe the kid.
-
On the page I read, step-parents are also obligated.
But, yeah, this seems weird that going to college turns you legally into a child. Because parents, divorced parents, step-parents, etc., aren't expected to give support to a kid who wants to learn a trade or work or start a business right out of high school. Of course, that might mean a direct transfer of wealth to an individual and not to an institution, so I can see why the government wouldn't be all over that.
And while I get the reasoning, it seems weird that a divorced parent could be forced to support a kid up to 23, but not a still-married one.
-
I read another article on this - this woman wanted ~$625....a WEEK from her parents right away. Ok...doing the math.....625 * 4 1/3 weeks in the average month = holy shit Batman, $2706 a month, or 32,500 / year. More than what MMM spends on his whole family.
Oh....as to those that imply that somehow 18 isn't an adult, I'll observe:
1) At 18, one signs up to vote without a parent being needed.
2) At 18, one can buy a rifle or shotgun (and the ammo to go with it) without a parent. One can also get a huntin' license as well.
3) At 18, one can sign enlistment papers for the military without notice or permission of the parent and those papers can put said person on the front lines, machine gun in hand in under a year.
4) At 18, one can get their own passport and travel the world without notice or permission of the parent.
5) At 18, one can sign a will, power of attorney or other binding contracts or papers without permission of or notice to a parent or guardian.
6) At 18 (yes, this is a sick one, but I mention it to show one is an adult on their 18th birthday and can do what is, IMO, stupid shit that has enormous, damaging consequences) one can go to "work" in the...ahem, adult entertainment business.
7) At 18 one can permanently scar their body (tattoo or cosmetic surgery) without permission of or notice to their parent.
She's an adult. Her parents obligations are done. I'll say it again - at 18, it's every parents right to put a boot to their kids asses.
I was smart...nay...I'll rephrase..... I wasn't so foolish as to piss off my parents when I turned 18 and was still living at home getting ready to go to college. Their home, their money, their rules. If I didn't like things, I could either suck it up and abide by them or pay my own way and set my own rules. I chose to suck it up for the things I didn't care too much for (which wasn't all that much since my folks were quite reasonable) since it was, in the calculus, well worth it.
-
Part of the situation may not be the college's fault (e.g. HIPAA rules for medical issues - another topic) but as a parent the dichotomy between "you need to pay" vs. "you have no right to information" is striking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act)
-
On the page I read, step-parents are also obligated.
But, yeah, this seems weird that going to college turns you legally into a child. Because parents, divorced parents, step-parents, etc., aren't expected to give support to a kid who wants to learn a trade or work or start a business right out of high school. Of course, that might mean a direct transfer of wealth to an individual and not to an institution, so I can see why the government wouldn't be all over that.
And while I get the reasoning, it seems weird that a divorced parent could be forced to support a kid up to 23, but not a still-married one.
At least in some states, the 'goal' is to keep the living situation similar to pre-divorce. If there's legitimate reason to believe the parents would have paid for college before divorce, this is basically in place to prevent one parent from deciding college isn't something they want to pay for.
-
She was emancipated the second she turned 18 in the USA. I don't get how she can say she must still depend on her folks; 18 = adult = go get a job.
This is not true. It differs by state, but there's a LOT more to it than that.
-
I read another article on this - this woman wanted ~$625....a WEEK from her parents right away. Ok...doing the math.....625 * 4 1/3 weeks in the average month = holy shit Batman, $2706 a month, or 32,500 / year. More than what MMM spends on his whole family.
Oh....as to those that imply that somehow 18 isn't an adult, I'll observe:
1) At 18, one signs up to vote without a parent being needed.
2) At 18, one can buy a rifle or shotgun (and the ammo to go with it) without a parent. One can also get a huntin' license as well.
3) At 18, one can sign enlistment papers for the military without notice or permission of the parent and those papers can put said person on the front lines, machine gun in hand in under a year.
4) At 18, one can get their own passport and travel the world without notice or permission of the parent.
5) At 18, one can sign a will, power of attorney or other binding contracts or papers without permission of or notice to a parent or guardian.
6) At 18 (yes, this is a sick one, but I mention it to show one is an adult on their 18th birthday and can do what is, IMO, stupid shit that has enormous, damaging consequences) one can go to "work" in the...ahem, adult entertainment business.
7) At 18 one can permanently scar their body (tattoo or cosmetic surgery) without permission of or notice to their parent.
She's an adult. Her parents obligations are done. I'll say it again - at 18, it's every parents right to put a boot to their kids asses.
I was smart...nay...I'll rephrase..... I wasn't so foolish as to piss off my parents when I turned 18 and was still living at home getting ready to go to college. Their home, their money, their rules. If I didn't like things, I could either suck it up and abide by them or pay my own way and set my own rules. I chose to suck it up for the things I didn't care too much for (which wasn't all that much since my folks were quite reasonable) since it was, in the calculus, well worth it.
You can actually do that at 17, as long as you are graduated prior to leaving for boot camp. And other than #1 and #4, they are not always true, depending on which state you are in.
-
Part of the situation may not be the college's fault (e.g. HIPAA rules for medical issues - another topic) but as a parent the dichotomy between "you need to pay" vs. "you have no right to information" is striking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Educational_Rights_and_Privacy_Act)
Good add galliver. Another discussion that addresses aspects of both HIPAA and FERPA and how they can affect colleges (and students) is http://ispub.com/IJLHE/6/2/3751 (http://ispub.com/IJLHE/6/2/3751).
-
Someone, start a kickstarter for this poor girl to get back into a Catholic schoolgirls uniform!
nothing says classy like sexual innuendo regarding a random 18 year old girl on the internet ...
Consider me schooled.
-
Initial ruling: Parents don't have to pay.
http://gawker.com/parents-wont-have-to-give-allowance-to-the-daughter-wh-1536906243
They're due back in court in April to figure out if she's emancapated or not.
-
It used to be that you could not even get merit award, or unsubsidized loans without your parent's signature on the FAFSA.
Been there. One of the reasons I did time in the military.
We don't know what is going on in that house.
Yeah. From the article, they certainly appear to be rather over-controlling parents at best. Trying to tell your kid who they can't date, for instance. All else aside, psychologically it's pretty near certain that trying to forbid a relationship will actually make a teenager hold on to it.
I don't see them as over controlling. They are great parents in my view. That's why you are a parent; to keep your stupid teenager from making mistakes that could ruin her life. Any parent that does not monitor and attempt to change their children's bad/destructive decisions, particularly a teenage, does not deserve to be a parent. I am not suggesting that a parent becomes intrusive; I am, however, suggesting that if an otherwise good parent thinks that a child is going down the wrong part by hanging out with the wrong people, picking an abusive mate, taking drugs, etc, they should take drastic actions if the child refuses to listen to reason. With the little information we know, I don't think anyone of us knows all the details. Who knows; the daughter may have been dating an abusive drug addict.
-
We don't know what is going on in that house.
Yeah. From the article, they certainly appear to be rather over-controlling parents at best. Trying to tell your kid who they can't date, for instance. All else aside, psychologically it's pretty near certain that trying to forbid a relationship will actually make a teenager hold on to it.
+100 It worked out for me in the end, but my parents going through vast efforts to keep me apart from my boyfriend (we were 19), enforced a super strong bond that resulted in marriage. My parents cut me off financially, bribed me w/a car, bribed him w/$10K, moved further away. None of it worked. Almost 20 years later, I sometimes wonder if we would have gone our separate ways had they not been so controlling!
Pretty much would happen.
-
And while I get the reasoning, it seems weird that a divorced parent could be forced to support a kid up to 23, but not a still-married one.
At least in some states, the 'goal' is to keep the living situation similar to pre-divorce. If there's legitimate reason to believe the parents would have paid for college before divorce, this is basically in place to prevent one parent from deciding college isn't something they want to pay for.
Right, like I said, I get the reasoning. But if the parents are still married, they can suddenly choose not to pay for whatever reason. So it just seems like an odd result, that the parents have greater liability after divorce than before.
Maybe I'm assuming it's over-simplified. Maybe if the parent loses their job or their health or something the court decides that's a legitimate reason that might cause them to decide not to pay even without the divorce and let them off the hook. Or some other chaotic, financially-draining event in their life. Like, say, divorce.
-
I wonder how much she is being influenced by her friend's father. She is staying with a friend whose father happens to be a lawyer. Who better to know the legalities of emancipation in NJ but a NJ lawyer? This family is helping fund her case as well.
I just hope she isn't being manipulated here.
-
Initial ruling: Parents don't have to pay.
http://gawker.com/parents-wont-have-to-give-allowance-to-the-daughter-wh-1536906243
They're due back in court in April to figure out if she's emancapated or not.
This seems good so far.
I wonder if the parties involved will sort something out before April 22 (I think it was). Since it seems unlikely the daughter is going to get her allowance/expenses/legal fees, there's really just the question of the college fund, which I believe the parents have said they're not going to try to keep from her.
The daughter's lawyer is probably not going to be too keen to push this much more if his fees aren't going to be covered. And the daughter is probably finding out that she's not coming across in the NATION-WIDE MEDIA COVERAGE as well as she was thinking she would.
I read in one article that the daughter's school is waiving her tuition fees for the rest of the school year, since she's an honor student, cheerleader, etc. They probably figure it's in their PR interest to stay as far away from this trainwreck as possible.
-
I wonder how much she is being influenced by her friend's father. She is staying with a friend whose father happens to be a lawyer. Who better to know the legalities of emancipation in NJ but a NJ lawyer? This family is helping fund her case as well.
I just hope she isn't being manipulated here.
It's possible. It's also possible there's some manipulation the other way as well. The lawyer may see her as the pretty, popular, honor student friend of her daughter who showed up with a story of abuse from her parents and getting kicked out. If he had any poor dealings or parenting disagreements with her parents to begin with, it might not take much to convince him to take her case.
-
Oh....as to those that imply that somehow 18 isn't an adult, I'll observe:
I think you're kinda missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be considered an adult, merely that she may not be considered an adult by NJ law. From a legal standpoint you are an adult when the law says you're an adult, not when some random person on the internet thinks your rights / responsibilities add up to adult status.
-
Oh....as to those that imply that somehow 18 isn't an adult, I'll observe:
I think you're kinda missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be considered an adult, merely that she may not be considered an adult by NJ law. From a legal standpoint you are an adult when the law says you're an adult, not when some random person on the internet thinks your rights / responsibilities add up to adult status.
That does make sense...
Still, I'll wait to decide until a random person on the internet agrees with you.
-
I saw the OP's article on my GF's FB and knew it would find its way here!
http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/parentsrefuse.phtml
Wow! The attitude on this page is really eye-opening.
That page is chock full of emotionally charged and loaded words and is a little quite over the top. While there is some helpful information, it is surrounded by entitling and guilt inducing language that drowns out the message.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in quite a while on these forums.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
That is not true. On average the MALE brain stops developing at 25, the female at 21. However, that is an average and they have seen male brains that have finished as late as 30.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in quite a while on these forums.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but are you disputing the biological assertion, or the legal conclusions? Or are you just a knee-jerk reactionary who thinks calling something a "crock of shit" is convincing?
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
What level of college degree are you suggesting someone must have in order to 'get ahead' and where is this elusive ahead? There are many jobs that don't require a 4 year degree or even a college degree at all in order to be successful. I have an associates degree but am among a small percentage of persons in my field that formally went beyond a high school education.
Also, I don't see the correlation between having children and the requirement to fund their post secondary education. If and when I have children, I owe them many things and intend to give them many more. However, the idea that a child is entitled to a college education is one I can't get on board with.
-
Also, I don't see the correlation between having children and the requirement to fund their post secondary education. If and when I have children, I owe them many things and intend to give them many more. However, the idea that a child is entitled to a college education is one I can't get on board with.
At what point, though, do personal beliefs on such issues cease to be relevant if "society" disagrees? We haven't reached this point regarding post-secondary education in the US, but we do set aside parental beliefs for societal beliefs in other matters (e.g., well being and healthcare). I wonder if we'll get there for university education.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in quite a while on these forums.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but are you disputing the biological assertion, or the legal conclusions? Or are you just a knee-jerk reactionary who thinks calling something a "crock of shit" is convincing?
Even assuming the assertions about brain development are true, that post is full of shit.
it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree
Seriously? There are plenty of examples, most likely even on these forums, of people who are successful without one.
And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place
Right, because having kids is a totally worthless endeavor unless they go to college...
Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life
Entitlement much?
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in quite a while on these forums.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but are you disputing the biological assertion, or the legal conclusions? Or are you just a knee-jerk reactionary who thinks calling something a "crock of shit" is convincing?
Even assuming the assertions about brain development are true, that post is full of shit.
But why? Articulate a little.
I mean, I agree with you (based on philosophical implications relating to agency), but what are your reasons for saying it's "a crock of shit"? Rather than just posting that multiple times, can you try to add to the quality of the conversation, instead of subtracting from it?
-
Oh....as to those that imply that somehow 18 isn't an adult, I'll observe:
I think you're kinda missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be considered an adult, merely that she may not be considered an adult by NJ law. From a legal standpoint you are an adult when the law says you're an adult, not when some random person on the internet thinks your rights / responsibilities add up to adult status.
Actually Sherr, those aren't "random" items - those are all examples of things (some with potentially grave consequences) that a fully independent, ADULT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW person are legally entitled to do and that a child is forbidden from doing (or only doing in certain circumstances with parental / guardian permission). The collective knowledge of this forum could certainly come up with countless other things* that one can do at 18 years and zero days on their own that is forbidden at 17 years, 364 days without parental permission or just outright forbidden.
She is, in fact, and in law, an adult.
I'll also point out the 26th Amendment as further proof of legal adulthood at 18, period.
* - other things I can come up with without thinking too hard on the subject. Sign liability waiver for risky activities such as skydiving and bungee jumping. Use heavy or power equipment on the job (OHSA forbids use of power tools by minors - this one I know from my volunteer experience where juveniles are forbidden from using brush saws on the trail crew). At 18, juvenile hour restrictions on work end.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in quite a while on these forums.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but are you disputing the biological assertion, or the legal conclusions? Or are you just a knee-jerk reactionary who thinks calling something a "crock of shit" is convincing?
Even assuming the assertions about brain development are true, that post is full of shit.
But why? Articulate a little.
I mean, I agree with you (based on philosophical implications relating to agency), but what are your reasons for saying it's "a crock of shit"? Rather than just posting that multiple times, can you try to add to the quality of the conversation, instead of subtracting from it?
I'll chime in.....the originally quoted post is a crock of shit. Regardless of what science says of brain development, the law says 18 = adult, period. We're nominally a nation of laws. The law is reality when defining adulthood until an individual is deemed pursuant to the law to not be (e.g. insane, for example, for one who is older than 18).
Now, if there is to be a discussion of changing that BASED on science, hey great....then CHANGE THE LAW, which will include repealing or amending the 26th Amendment and defining adulthood at 25.
Also change the draft age, drinking age, change the age at which people may enter the military, run for office (yes...there's another one - an 18 year old can run for office), etc, etc, etc.
I'll further call bullshit on the assertion in the original quoted post that a 21 y/o can't get ahead without a college degree. Cough, cough....Electrical lineman. Plumber. Longshoreman...ok, any of the trades that one apprentices. Independent business person (buddy did his own landscaping business - I could see doing ones own coffee shop, etc). Assembly line worker at major Seattle aerospace company. Enlistment in the military (for those, like Nords, although I believe he was an "O" not an "E", who are smart enough to do things right). This is just what I can come up with off the top of the head.
None of those require college and all can (if you're good and work hard) pay very well and / or set you up well.
-
Yes, I believe changing the law is what they were implying.
Not just flout laws.
-
Are we really setting up our society (or New Jersey's society, anyways) where children can sue their parents to support them through college, well past 18? That's a scary thought. I'm a parent and my kids are still quite young, but naturally I want to support them and help them with university when they get to that age. That's something quite different from being legally required to, however!
No, I don't think we as a society are heading in this direction. I think it's one example of a screwed-up family. It'd be unconstitutional to require parents to pay for college /support their adult children.
I am currently paying for my oldest's college education, and I have every intention of paying for my younger child too; however, I didn't just open up my bank account and say, "Take whatever you want." I would not be so willing to pay if my child wasn't working very hard towards a degree, or if she had insisted upon an expensive private school, or if she was just taking random classes and wasn't progressing towards a solid degree that'll get her a job.
Good add galliver. Another discussion that addresses aspects of both HIPAA and FERPA and how they can affect colleges (and students) is http://ispub.com/IJLHE/6/2/3751 (http://ispub.com/IJLHE/6/2/3751).
Yeah, I think all of us who are paying college tuition are a bit perturbed that on one hand the college wants our money, whereas on the other hand, they're not allowed to give us any information about what our babies are doing . . . unless the kids choose to give us information.
When my oldest was signing up for "all things college", we talked about that for about 30 seconds. I explained that we are happy-happy-happy to pay for her degree, but she WOULD give us access to her college records (which we can see online anytime), or we would reconsider our generosity. Either we're in this thing, or we're out -- it can't go both ways. She agreed that was reasonable, and we've had no conflict about it within our house.
The parents certainly are obligated to her high school to finish out the contract for the school year.
The parents have a right to establish household rules for children to follow. I didn't see in that article that they didn't want her to date a particular guy, so I am thinking you all saw it elsewhere. But, I think it is acceptable for parents to not allow their kid (person not out of high school) to date a particular person. If my child, while still in high school, tried to date someone committing illegal activity, I would forbid it.
I agree that the parents are going to have to pay for the current high school year.
They might be overly controlling parents who are trying to micromanage the girls' life . . . or they might have legitimate reasons to be concerned about a no-good or dangerous boyfriend whom she really should kick to the curb. We don't know.
I'm thinking a lot of this has to do with the boyfriend. In my years teaching high school, I've known a number of senior girls who wanted to move out of their parents' house so they could live with an older boyfriend (way too young for such a choice), and those girls tended to "invent" problems so they'd have an excuse to move out. These kids tend not to come from "white picket fence" families, but they're also not families who ought to be in court for the way they're treating their kids. Is this such a situation? I don't know, but experience makes me suspect it might be so.
Occasionally I've known about a friend's parents taking in "a poor abused or neglected child", only to find out that the real story was quite different. Again, I could easily believe that's the situation here.
Having said that, something I've heard of many times over the years: Parents with problem kids really get the bad end of things when their kids are 16 and 17 years old. If the kid leaves the house voluntarily and the parents report them to the police as "runaways", the police won't force the kids to come home. However, if the parents put the kid out of the house (even for good reasons; say, bringing drugs into the house), the parents can be brought to court for child abandonment. The real answer: You'd better teach your children well so they don't get into situations like this!
-
I don't really think we have enough/correct information to make an informed arguement, but i'll do it anyways ;)
It reads/implies that they already have "college funds" for her..this could mean a 529 plan or similar and i believe the judge ordered them not to "keep status quo" on her college savings account.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/05/new-jersey-teen-sues-parents-for-support-claiming-was-kicked-out-home/?intcmp=latestnews
I think, not a lawyer here, but i think the legal argument could be that there was some form of agreement/contract by parents and daughter that they would pay for her college, so then the teen could argue that she didn't make any efforts to save because they already promised to pay for and the proof is the said college fund account.
So, not necessarily that all parents must always pay for their kids college, but if you promised you would and then didn't, than that's the real issue. What do you guys think???
-
Oh....as to those that imply that somehow 18 isn't an adult, I'll observe:
I think you're kinda missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be considered an adult, merely that she may not be considered an adult by NJ law. From a legal standpoint you are an adult when the law says you're an adult, not when some random person on the internet thinks your rights / responsibilities add up to adult status.
Actually Sherr, those aren't "random" items - those are all examples of things (some with potentially grave consequences) that a fully independent, ADULT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW person are legally entitled to do and that a child is forbidden from doing (or only doing in certain circumstances with parental / guardian permission). The collective knowledge of this forum could certainly come up with countless other things* that one can do at 18 years and zero days on their own that is forbidden at 17 years, 364 days without parental permission or just outright forbidden.
She is, in fact, and in law, an adult.
I'll also point out the 26th Amendment as further proof of legal adulthood at 18, period.
* - other things I can come up with without thinking too hard on the subject. Sign liability waiver for risky activities such as skydiving and bungee jumping. Use heavy or power equipment on the job (OHSA forbids use of power tools by minors - this one I know from my volunteer experience where juveniles are forbidden from using brush saws on the trail crew). At 18, juvenile hour restrictions on work end.
AGAIN, it depends on the STATE! There are a certain list a federal rights that you get at 18, but it is up to the states to determine the age of majority.
-
Oh....as to those that imply that somehow 18 isn't an adult, I'll observe:
I think you're kinda missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be considered an adult, merely that she may not be considered an adult by NJ law. From a legal standpoint you are an adult when the law says you're an adult, not when some random person on the internet thinks your rights / responsibilities add up to adult status.
Actually Sherr, those aren't "random" items - those are all examples of things (some with potentially grave consequences) that a fully independent, ADULT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW person are legally entitled to do and that a child is forbidden from doing (or only doing in certain circumstances with parental / guardian permission). The collective knowledge of this forum could certainly come up with countless other things* that one can do at 18 years and zero days on their own that is forbidden at 17 years, 364 days without parental permission or just outright forbidden.
She is, in fact, and in law, an adult.
I'll also point out the 26th Amendment as further proof of legal adulthood at 18, period.
* - other things I can come up with without thinking too hard on the subject. Sign liability waiver for risky activities such as skydiving and bungee jumping. Use heavy or power equipment on the job (OHSA forbids use of power tools by minors - this one I know from my volunteer experience where juveniles are forbidden from using brush saws on the trail crew). At 18, juvenile hour restrictions on work end.
AGAIN, it depends on the STATE! There are a certain list a federal rights that you get at 18, but it is up to the states to determine the age of majority.
Also, as I've seen NJ law presented here, it's not obvious that a person becoming an adult (for any specific purpose previously discussed, even if being discussed under state law) is relevant to the point at which that person's parents cease to have any support obligations.
-
I saw the OP's article on my GF's FB and knew it would find its way here!
http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/parentsrefuse.phtml
Wow! The attitude on this page is really eye-opening.
That page is chock full of emotionally charged and loaded words and is a little quite over the top. While there is some helpful information, it is surrounded by entitling and guilt inducing language that drowns out the message.
Agreed, it was really weird. I found this part especially disturbing:
What to do if your parents don't want to take out loans to pay for your education.
Make a deal with your parents, where you agree to assume responsibility for the payments on the PLUS loan after you graduate and get a job. You'll graduate heavily in debt, and will have to struggle, but at least you'll be able to graduate.
Like, what?!? I thought that was the default "deal." People seriously expect their parents, who obviously can't afford to pay for college outright and that's why they have to take out loans, to pay for their kids' student loans?!?!??! My parents took out a shit ton of PLUS loans for me but fucking of course I'm paying them back. I'm 25 and they're 55. The education paid for by the loans increased my earning power immensely. Who does it make more sense to have take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt? God that makes me sick. "You'll graduate heavily in debt, and will have to struggle..." OMG life is so hard. Maybe get a degree that'll make you good money and then you won't have to struggle.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing.
The brain actually does not stop developing, at least not unless you get Alzheimer's or something. (Of course you can choose to let it get flabby, just as some people let their muscles get flabby, but that's another matter.) The real problem here is that western culture tries to keep young people in a state of artificially-prolonged childhood - AKA adolescence - by denying them responsibility.
You don't have to look far back in history to discover people who were doing quite responsible jobs at ages where they'd be legally considered children today.
-
Oh, and I know that some of you consider her parents too controlling, so I'm throwing this out there for you:
http://daddclub.com/
I really don't want to get too far into this, but I've always suspected that fathers like that have psychological issues that have nothing to do with being overcontrolling parents. I mean, do they react the same way when their sons date?
-
Oh, and I know that some of you consider her parents too controlling, so I'm throwing this out there for you:
http://daddclub.com/
I really don't want to get too far into this, but I've always suspected that fathers like that have psychological issues that have nothing to do with being overcontrolling parents. I mean, do they react the same way when their sons date?
It has to do with teenage boys making their hormones/sex drive a bigger priority than respecting the young lady they are dating. :) That would be what dads/parents have an issue with. I was a teenager, and I would say that they are right about being protective of their daughters.
And, with sons there is some guidance involved as well.
It will be all in good humor, but I do plan to play around with this if my daughters deem some dude worthy of dating while they are still minors. It will make for good stories later on. Really, we have fun times together, and this will just be the next level of it.
(http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/e0/d4/d1/e0d4d16c5d7472891089748d259cdd53.jpg)
-
Oh....as to those that imply that somehow 18 isn't an adult, I'll observe:
I think you're kinda missing the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that she shouldn't be considered an adult, merely that she may not be considered an adult by NJ law. From a legal standpoint you are an adult when the law says you're an adult, not when some random person on the internet thinks your rights / responsibilities add up to adult status.
Actually Sherr, those aren't "random" items - those are all examples of things (some with potentially grave consequences) that a fully independent, ADULT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW person are legally entitled to do and that a child is forbidden from doing (or only doing in certain circumstances with parental / guardian permission). The collective knowledge of this forum could certainly come up with countless other things* that one can do at 18 years and zero days on their own that is forbidden at 17 years, 364 days without parental permission or just outright forbidden.
[sigh]
First of all, I never said those were random items, I said that you were a random person on the internet (and therefore not an authority on when someone is legally considered an "adult"). What I said about the items is that they were a list of rights / responsibilities, which they are.
She is, in fact, and in law, an adult.
Incorrect. She is an adult when the law says she is an adult and that's the entire point of the lawsuit; that in NJ she may not in fact be considered an adult depending on the circumstances of how she left her parents house.
I'll also point out the 26th Amendment as further proof of legal adulthood at 18, period.
You'd also be wrong to point it out. The 26th amendment says that you have the right to vote when you're 18, not that you're an adult when you're 18.
We all get that you think she should be considered an adult because she's 18. The point that you originally missed and continue to miss is that that's not necessarily true in NJ under current law, she may not be an adult by their definition.
You should take a little more time to understand what people are saying before charging in to argue with them.
-
Initial ruling: Parents don't have to pay.
http://gawker.com/parents-wont-have-to-give-allowance-to-the-daughter-wh-1536906243
They're due back in court in April to figure out if she's emancapated or not.
This seems good so far.
I wonder if the parties involved will sort something out before April 22 (I think it was). Since it seems unlikely the daughter is going to get her allowance/expenses/legal fees, there's really just the question of the college fund, which I believe the parents have said they're not going to try to keep from her.
The daughter's lawyer is probably not going to be too keen to push this much more if his fees aren't going to be covered. And the daughter is probably finding out that she's not coming across in the NATION-WIDE MEDIA COVERAGE as well as she was thinking she would.
I read in one article that the daughter's school is waiving her tuition fees for the rest of the school year, since she's an honor student, cheerleader, etc. They probably figure it's in their PR interest to stay as far away from this trainwreck as possible.
I seem to think that she is being manipulated as well. I think her friend's father is looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing.
The brain actually does not stop developing, at least not unless you get Alzheimer's or something. (Of course you can choose to let it get flabby, just as some people let their muscles get flabby, but that's another matter.) The real problem here is that western culture tries to keep young people in a state of artificially-prolonged childhood - AKA adolescence - by denying them responsibility.
You don't have to look far back in history to discover people who were doing quite responsible jobs at ages where they'd be legally considered children today.
+1000. That's because they have the financial means to do so but that can backfire big time. Western children are over coddled and handicapped by their helicopter parents. That may in part explain the divorce rates.
-
Oh, and I know that some of you consider her parents too controlling, so I'm throwing this out there for you:
http://daddclub.com/
I really don't want to get too far into this, but I've always suspected that fathers like that have psychological issues that have nothing to do with being overcontrolling parents. I mean, do they react the same way when their sons date?
That's because their daughters are the ones usually saddled with the result of the raging hormones. Parents have been protecting their girls this way forever. Blame evolution.
-
Here is an article that discusses the brain continuing to develop until 25: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708). I don't know how this should affect our laws if true, but it is interesting.
-
It has to do with teenage boys making their hormones/sex drive a bigger priority than respecting the young lady they are dating. :) That would be what dads/parents have an issue with. I was a teenager, and I would say that they are right about being protective of their daughters.
And teenage girls don't have hormones? (Even if they're often expressed in a different way.) If a parent really wanted to be protective, they'd ensure that their kids - and especially daughters - had the best birth control they could find, and the knowledge to use it. But no, we see too many of these parents (and usually fathers) trying to keep their kids away from all that.
That's because their daughters are the ones usually saddled with the result of the raging hormones. Parents have been protecting their girls this way forever. Blame evolution.
Humans have been doing all sorts of things 'forever'. Doesn't make them right, or mean that intelligent people shouldn't try to understand the reasons, or come up with better ways. After all, people had been dying of smallpox, polio, and all sorts of other diseases 'forever'; does that mean we should keep on doing so, when simple vaccinations & other public health measures can prevent them?
Likewise, we now have effective birth control &c, so why is there any point in 'protecting' daughters, other than the obvious psycholical reason?
-
It has to do with teenage boys making their hormones/sex drive a bigger priority than respecting the young lady they are dating.
I don't understand how any part of this view is consistent with a society with any measure of gender equality.
ETA: I've never agreed with Jamesqf so much in my life.
-
It has to do with teenage boys making their hormones/sex drive a bigger priority than respecting the young lady they are dating. :) That would be what dads/parents have an issue with. I was a teenager, and I would say that they are right about being protective of their daughters.
And teenage girls don't have hormones? (Even if they're often expressed in a different way.) If a parent really wanted to be protective, they'd ensure that their kids - and especially daughters - and the best birth control they could find, and the knowledge to use it. But no, we see too many of these parents (and usually fathers) trying to keep their kids away from all that.
That's because their daughters are the ones usually saddled with the result of the raging hormones. Parents have been protecting their girls this way forever. Blame evolution.
Humans have been doing all sorts of things 'forever'. Doesn't make them right, or mean that intelligent people shouldn't try to understand the reasons, or come up with better ways. After all, people had been dying of smallpox, polio, and all soerts of other diseases 'forever'; does that mean we should keep on doing so, when simple vaccinations & other public health measures can prevent them?
Likewise, we now have effective birth control &c, so why is there any point in 'protecting' daughters, other than the obvious psycholical reason?
Thank you for stating this better than I could! I still can't believe there are people out there who defend the double-standard. I'm sure that my husband will mess with her future boyfriends (or girlfriends, if that's her gender preference) but only because it's hilarious to do so.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in quite a while on these forums.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but are you disputing the biological assertion, or the legal conclusions? Or are you just a knee-jerk reactionary who thinks calling something a "crock of shit" is convincing?
Even assuming the assertions about brain development are true, that post is full of shit.
But why? Articulate a little.
I mean, I agree with you (based on philosophical implications relating to agency), but what are your reasons for saying it's "a crock of shit"? Rather than just posting that multiple times, can you try to add to the quality of the conversation, instead of subtracting from it?
I'll chime in.....the originally quoted post is a crock of shit. Regardless of what science says of brain development, the law says 18 = adult, period. We're nominally a nation of laws. The law is reality when defining adulthood until an individual is deemed pursuant to the law to not be (e.g. insane, for example, for one who is older than 18).
Now, if there is to be a discussion of changing that BASED on science, hey great....then CHANGE THE LAW, which will include repealing or amending the 26th Amendment and defining adulthood at 25.
Also change the draft age, drinking age, change the age at which people may enter the military, run for office (yes...there's another one - an 18 year old can run for office), etc, etc, etc.
I'll further call bullshit on the assertion in the original quoted post that a 21 y/o can't get ahead without a college degree. Cough, cough....Electrical lineman. Plumber. Longshoreman...ok, any of the trades that one apprentices. Independent business person (buddy did his own landscaping business - I could see doing ones own coffee shop, etc). Assembly line worker at major Seattle aerospace company. Enlistment in the military (for those, like Nords, although I believe he was an "O" not an "E", who are smart enough to do things right). This is just what I can come up with off the top of the head.
None of those require college and all can (if you're good and work hard) pay very well and / or set you up well.
Yes, we're a nation of laws. However, I think the law should be changed to say the age of adulthood is 21. I and everyone I knew, was essentially brain dead at 18. I might have been an adult in the eyes of the law, but I was far from it emotionally, financially and in every other way one could be considered an adult. I think it would be wise to change the driving age to at least 18 (along with a robust public transportation/bike path system). Along with raising the minimum age of enlistment to 21. At least at that point people might have a better understanding of the various Geo-political motivations behind their possible/probable death, disability, ptsd, suicide.
Yes, there are several well paying jobs one can have as a person without a college degree. I worked on construction sites during my college years, and was later employed as a regional airline pilot. Neither of which required my degree. I'm an outlier though. Just take a look at this graph. http://www.businessinsider.com/college-vs-no-college-unemployment-rates-2013-6
There isn't a point during the great recession when college graduates go beyond a 5% unemployment rate. While high school grads peak at more than twice that rate. There really isn't much of an economy for high school grads anymore, thus we should encourage our off spring to pursue higher education. Unless they've done some massive research and have chosen a field that would allow them to work for a decent salary even at the point that their bodies don't respond to physical labor anymore.
I obviously have personal feelings about this issue. I've encountered lots of people, maybe even my own mother, that love having small children they can show off and tell what to do. But they start to get bored with them once they begin to grow. All the sudden they're not so cute and malleable anymore. I personally feel that in the later adolescent years children are just as susceptible to danger as toddlers and infants are. Thus they require a parents guidance and finances as much as a younger child does. I simply don't understand what the point of having children is, if you're going to cut them off at 18 which is well before most people can begin to establish a life for themselves.
As long as my 2 children are advancing in their lives, they'll always have my emotional support and financial to a certain extent. I should hope that they'll also take care of me when I reach a point that I'm not longer able to care or make decisions for myself.
-
Sorry you find my views sexist...that daughters should be protected from being mistreated sexually. I guess I have seen plenty of statistics that prove that they do need to be protected from offenders.
I think the problem here may stem from differing definitions of 'mistreatment' and 'offender'. I happen to think that consensual (IOW I'm not talking aboout rape here) sex is basically a pretty good thing. If two teens decide they want to have sex, and they have birth control &c, then I think that's just fine. Nobody's being mistreated, and there's no offense.
I'd even go further, and suggest that the world would be a much nicer place if certain people weren't so sexually repressive. To take an extreme case, would all those Islamic jihadist types be so interested in blowing themselves up to get to Paradise and their 72 virgins, if they were getting laid regularly in the real world?
-
I'll further call bullshit on the assertion in the original quoted post that a 21 y/o can't get ahead without a college degree. Cough, cough....Electrical lineman. Plumber. Longshoreman...ok, any of the trades that one apprentices. Independent business person (buddy did his own landscaping business - I could see doing ones own coffee shop, etc). Assembly line worker at major Seattle aerospace company. Enlistment in the military (for those, like Nords, although I believe he was an "O" not an "E", who are smart enough to do things right). This is just what I can come up with off the top of the head.
None of those require college and all can (if you're good and work hard) pay very well and / or set you up well.
I signed up for the U.S. Naval Academy at 17, with just as much idea what would happen there as most recruits have about boot camp. I gave up a chance to attend Carnegie-Mellon University (my "safety" school) so the term "smart" probably isn't applicable to my logic. It was just the irresistible challenge.
Many students finish high school without feeling ready for college. In my opinion, the #1 way to make them feel ready for college is a military enlistment. The military culture strongly encourages getting a college degree (whether you're officer or enlisted) and frankly the college degree is a great incentive to get out of the military (especially with state's veterans scholarships or the GI Bill). Once you've seen a few places in the third world, you keenly undertand the value of any education. Regardless of how it happens, the military experience makes servicemembers appreciate everything that college offers.
Despite decades of academic accreditation, many would claim that a service academy is not the equivalent of a "real" college degree. Some people feel the same way about the service schools which award graduate degrees, like the Naval Postgraduate School. About the only difference that I can see between my USNA experience and my daughter's NROTC experience is that I can shrug off a flamesprayed shotgun blast to the face. That's a nice skill to have in the fleet, but I sure hope it's less necessary today than it was during my millennium.
-
I'd even go further, and suggest that the world would be a much nicer place if certain people weren't so sexually repressive. To take an extreme case, would all those Islamic jihadist types be so interested in blowing themselves up to get to Paradise and their 72 virgins, if they were getting laid regularly in the real world?
Ahh yes, the Cpl. Persons argument!
Look at this shit. How come we can't ever invade a cool country, with like chicks in bikinis, you know? How come countries like that don't ever need Marines? I'll tell you why. It's lack of pussy that fucks countries up. Lack of pussy is the root fucking cause of all global instability. If more hajis were getting quality pussy, there'd be no reason for us to come over here and fuck 'em up like this! Cause a nut-bustin' haji is a happy haji.
-
Um, K. When she is still in high school and a minor, though, we as the parents will be the ones making rules. That's how it will be done in my house. When she is 18 and going off to college, it will be her decision. Same rules will apply for my boys and girls on dating, but there will be rules implemented for minors living in my house.
No, it doesn't really have anything to do with whatever the rules are in the family. As you said:
It has to do with teenage boys making their hormones/sex drive a bigger priority than respecting the young lady they are dating. :)
If the problem is that the boy doesn't respect her control over her own body, it is not solved by saying that someone else has control over her body.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in quite a while on these forums.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but are you disputing the biological assertion, or the legal conclusions? Or are you just a knee-jerk reactionary who thinks calling something a "crock of shit" is convincing?
Even assuming the assertions about brain development are true, that post is full of shit.
But why? Articulate a little.
I mean, I agree with you (based on philosophical implications relating to agency), but what are your reasons for saying it's "a crock of shit"? Rather than just posting that multiple times, can you try to add to the quality of the conversation, instead of subtracting from it?
Argh....I will take the bait and sink into this absolute insanity of a debate. Today is 3/8/2014, my 401k is maxed, IRA, and HSA fully funded. My net worth is growing at extreme rates. Mine is 6.43x what it was this time last last year. My income is solidly into the 6 figure range and has realized at least 20% increases year over year for 5 years now vs my equivalent coworkers who make approximately 30-60k per year.
I dropped out of college.
Does this illustrate the bullshit that has been propagated a million times by media and now here on this forum and thread? Yes the studies show that most dropouts don't succeed but how many successes where not degreed? Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Ralph Lauren...
-
It says there's an outstanding balance on her high school tuition. It's reasonable that the parents need to pay that part according to my hand-waving knowledge of contract law. Other than that, holy crap is this child a brat.
My thoughts exactly. Not only are parents generally supposed to see their kids through high school, they signed a contract with the school before their daughter took off; the fact that she's now living with a friend doesn't get them out of that contract.
Other than that, all I can think is that she's seriously shooting herself in the foot as far as college applications go. I don't think universities generally go for obvious brats.
-
If the problem is that the boy doesn't respect her control over her own body, it is not solved by saying that someone else has control over her body.
If the boy doesn't respect her control over her own body, that's rape. But what we seem to be discussing is parents - mainly fathers - who don't want to respect their daughters' control over their own bodies. So why is that not equally reprehensible?
-
If the problem is that the boy doesn't respect her control over her own body, it is not solved by saying that someone else has control over her body.
If the boy doesn't respect her control over her own body, that's rape. But what we seem to be discussing is parents - mainly fathers - who don't want to respect their daughters' control over their own bodies. So why is that not equally reprehensible?
I'm not sure if I wasn't clear or if you're chiming in with agreement. Because what you're saying is what I mean.
Momto5, again, it's not about whatever boundaries you want to set. We tell kids they can't do lots of things with their bodies, I don't see that sexuality should necessarily be a special exception. Not being a parent, that's about as far I can think about it for now.
However, if you and your daughters understand the rules, then they become her rules. (And if she refuses to accept them, I'd expect you to deny permission to date all together, just like with any other activity.) If a guy goes too far without her permission on a date, I would certainly expect you as her parents to bear down on him with the anger and violence of a thousand hells. What all the "rules for dating my daughter" jokes imply instead is a an adversarial and infantilizing relationship. If your daughter has sex with a guy of her own free will, then you can get angry as you like with her, but not the guy.
-
I'll further call bullshit on the assertion in the original quoted post that a 21 y/o can't get ahead without a college degree. Cough, cough....Electrical lineman. Plumber. Longshoreman...ok, any of the trades that one apprentices. Independent business person (buddy did his own landscaping business - I could see doing ones own coffee shop, etc). Assembly line worker at major Seattle aerospace company. Enlistment in the military (for those, like Nords, although I believe he was an "O" not an "E", who are smart enough to do things right). This is just what I can come up with off the top of the head.
None of those require college and all can (if you're good and work hard) pay very well and / or set you up well.
I signed up for the U.S. Naval Academy at 17, with just as much idea what would happen there as most recruits have about boot camp. I gave up a chance to attend Carnegie-Mellon University (my "safety" school) so the term "smart" probably isn't applicable to my logic. It was just the irresistible challenge.
Many students finish high school without feeling ready for college. In my opinion, the #1 way to make them feel ready for college is a military enlistment. The military culture strongly encourages getting a college degree (whether you're officer or enlisted) and frankly the college degree is a great incentive to get out of the military (especially with state's veterans scholarships or the GI Bill). Once you've seen a few places in the third world, you keenly undertand the value of any education. Regardless of how it happens, the military experience makes servicemembers appreciate everything that college offers.
Despite decades of academic accreditation, many would claim that a service academy is not the equivalent of a "real" college degree. Some people feel the same way about the service schools which award graduate degrees, like the Naval Postgraduate School. About the only difference that I can see between my USNA experience and my daughter's NROTC experience is that I can shrug off a flamesprayed shotgun blast to the face. That's a nice skill to have in the fleet, but I sure hope it's less necessary today than it was during my millennium.
Given the stats about rape/sexual assault, I would NEVER recommend that my daughter go into the military. Granted, I won't pay for her to stay in the dorms for the same reasons (though the stats are better 25% vs 33%). 71% of PTSD filed by female veterans is because of the assault and inability to get away from their attacker(s). There is no reward worth that risk.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in quite a while on these forums.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but are you disputing the biological assertion, or the legal conclusions? Or are you just a knee-jerk reactionary who thinks calling something a "crock of shit" is convincing?
Even assuming the assertions about brain development are true, that post is full of shit.
But why? Articulate a little.
I mean, I agree with you (based on philosophical implications relating to agency), but what are your reasons for saying it's "a crock of shit"? Rather than just posting that multiple times, can you try to add to the quality of the conversation, instead of subtracting from it?
Argh....I will take the bait and sink into this absolute insanity of a debate. Today is 3/8/2014, my 401k is maxed, IRA, and HSA fully funded. My net worth is growing at extreme rates. Mine is 6.43x what it was this time last last year. My income is solidly into the 6 figure range and has realized at least 20% increases year over year for 5 years now vs my equivalent coworkers who make approximately 30-60k per year.
I dropped out of college.
Does this illustrate the bullshit that has been propagated a million times by media and now here on this forum and thread? Yes the studies show that most dropouts don't succeed but how many successes where not degreed? Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Ralph Lauren...
When you called a post that made multiple and distinct claims (some factual, some opinions) "a crock of shit," we had no idea what you meant, what piece was a problem, or why. It turns out that you were focused on one of the opinions, not the factual claim about brain development. How were we supposed to know that?
-
If the problem is that the boy doesn't respect her control over her own body, it is not solved by saying that someone else has control over her body.
If the boy doesn't respect her control over her own body, that's rape. But what we seem to be discussing is parents - mainly fathers - who don't want to respect their daughters' control over their own bodies. So why is that not equally reprehensible?
I'm not sure if I wasn't clear or if you're chiming in with agreement. Because what you're saying is what I mean.
Definitely agreeing.
What all the "rules for dating my daughter" jokes imply instead is a an adversarial and infantilizing relationship.
I don't see it as infantilizing at all. Rather - since it is almost invariably fathers doing it - I see it as repressed sexual jealousy/possessiveness.
-
When you called a post that made multiple and distinct claims (some factual, some opinions) "a crock of shit," we had no idea what you meant, what piece was a problem, or why. It turns out that you were focused on one of the opinions, not the factual claim about brain development. How were we supposed to know that?
+1. I didn't even consider you were talking about the part of the post relating to needing college to get ahead. Naturally that's bullshit and I think the vast majority would agree, so no need to go to the mattresses on that one.
Thanks for clarifying though.
-
It says there's an outstanding balance on her high school tuition. It's reasonable that the parents need to pay that part according to my hand-waving knowledge of contract law. Other than that, holy crap is this child a brat.
My thoughts exactly. Not only are parents generally supposed to see their kids through high school, they signed a contract with the school before their daughter took off; the fact that she's now living with a friend doesn't get them out of that contract.
Other than that, all I can think is that she's seriously shooting herself in the foot as far as college applications go. I don't think universities generally go for obvious brats.
Actually according to several articles, the parents notified the school in the fall (ie before the withdrawal deadline) they would not be paying for the spring semester so I'm not sure they need to be on the hook for that. I'm guessing she is in an area with decent to excellent public high schools so she could have transferred. Every child should get a high school education NOT necessarily an expensive private school education.
On that note, I think it's horrible this school is enabling (what seems to me at least) this girl's epic tantrum. If were a parent paying tuition there*, I would be so pissed that she's getting a free ride for the semester (so far) while I'm selling out big bucks for my kid to get the same education.
I'm in my 30s so in btwn this girl and her parents' generation and it's making me feel old that I'm siding with the parents. By all accounts they provided her with a very cushy life. She wants the benefits without any boundaries. If you read of any the emails she sent them, you'll see what I mean.
If I were an admissions counselor at any of the colleges she applied to, I'd immediately put her in the reject pile/rescind any acceptance.
*1) I was a proud public school kid k-12. Lucky for me my parents bought a house in one of the state's top school districts before I was born. 2) No kids myself but if I ever have any I will make sure to do the same. It always baffled me how people pay so much $$$ to send their kids to fancy pants private schools. I'd rather deal with a mortgage that is tax deductible (or at least pay rent in the school district) than paying five figures for school with no tax benefits. But that's a discussion for another thread.
-
It says there's an outstanding balance on her high school tuition. It's reasonable that the parents need to pay that part according to my hand-waving knowledge of contract law. Other than that, holy crap is this child a brat.
My thoughts exactly. Not only are parents generally supposed to see their kids through high school, they signed a contract with the school before their daughter took off; the fact that she's now living with a friend doesn't get them out of that contract.
Other than that, all I can think is that she's seriously shooting herself in the foot as far as college applications go. I don't think universities generally go for obvious brats.
Actually according to several articles, the parents notified the school in the fall (ie before the withdrawal deadline) they would not be paying for the spring semester so I'm not sure they need to be on the hook for that. I'm guessing she is in an area with decent to excellent public high schools so she could have transferred. Every child should get a high school education NOT necessarily an expensive private school education.
On that note, I think it's horrible this school is enabling (what seems to me at least) this girl's epic tantrum. If were a parent paying tuition there*, I would be so pissed that she's getting a free ride for the semester (so far) while I'm selling out big bucks for my kid to get the same education.
I'm in my 30s so in btwn this girl and her parents' generation and it's making me feel old that I'm siding with the parents. By all accounts they provided her with a very cushy life. She wants the benefits without any boundaries. If you read of any the emails she sent them, you'll see what I mean.
*1) I was a proud public school kid k-12. Lucky for me my parents bought a house in one of the state's top school districts before I was born. 2) No kids myself but if I ever have any I will make sure to do the same. It always baffled me how people pay so much $$$ to send their kids to fancy pants private schools. I'd rather deal with a mortgage that is tax deductible (or at least pay rent in the school district) than paying five figures for school with no tax benefits. But that's a discussion for another thread.
I think that is why you don't understand. I was a private school kid. Parents sign up for the year, not a semester. And if they don't remove you prior to a deadline prior to the beginning of the year (which depends on the school and in all the schools in my experience was prior to the first day of school), they are on the hook for the whole year.
ETA: You could not transfer in my area without parental signature, just FYI.
-
While that was the case for your school Gin1984, these documents show it was on a semester basis for her school.
http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03/court_papers_detail_family_history_of_nj_teen_suing_parents.html
-
While that was the case for your school Gin1984, these documents show it was on a semester basis for her school.
http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/03/court_papers_detail_family_history_of_nj_teen_suing_parents.html
You can pay by semester, but the signed agreement when you start school is per year. Your contract with the school says that you agree to the year of tuition paid in monthly or semester increments. It is like leases where they say the lease is X amount broken up into 12 equal payments of Y. It is the same as my Catholic school.
-
Further, as the Contract (attached to-the Certification of Rachel Canning as part of
I Exhibit permits a student to withdraw voluntarily, requiring only the semester
they attend to be paid, there is no contractual violation in any event. The school was
given notice of the withdrawal for the second semester and tuition was paid in full
for the first semester of the school year, thus the defendants complied. with their
obligation.
Ok so I read that as they didn't violate any year long agreement. My bad for not understanding - I'll blame it on being from a public school background. :)
-
So, not necessarily that all parents must always pay for their kids college, but if you promised you would and then didn't, than that's the real issue. What do you guys think???
Wouldn't this type of promise also imply, "Assuming things continue as is"? I mean, the promise to pay for college would assume that the student continues to study in high school, etc. A huge change in lifestyle could potentially negate such a promise.
Plus, it's a verbal promise. How binding is that?
We all get that you think she should be considered an adult because she's 18. The point that you originally missed and continue to miss is that that's not necessarily true in NJ under current law, she may not be an adult by their definition.
You should take a little more time to understand what people are saying before charging in to argue with them.
Hmmm, we all consider 18 to be an adult, but WHY? Where is it written? Upon what is that age based?
-
Given the stats about rape/sexual assault, I would NEVER recommend that my daughter go into the military. Granted, I won't pay for her to stay in the dorms for the same reasons (though the stats are better 25% vs 33%). 71% of PTSD filed by female veterans is because of the assault and inability to get away from their attacker(s). There is no reward worth that risk.
I agree that the military has a problem with sexual assault.
I'm not so sure whether the military's problem is worse than the civilian world, or just more visible. I'm also not sure which culture equips their personnel with better tools to handle the issue-- can women in the civilian world file a PTSD claim for assault and inability to get away from their attackers?
I can report that my NROTC daughter's had far fewer problems with the military than she's had with college, and far fewer problems than her civilian classmates have had with their internships and jobs.
-
Given the stats about rape/sexual assault, I would NEVER recommend that my daughter go into the military. Granted, I won't pay for her to stay in the dorms for the same reasons (though the stats are better 25% vs 33%). 71% of PTSD filed by female veterans is because of the assault and inability to get away from their attacker(s). There is no reward worth that risk.
I agree that the military has a problem with sexual assault.
I'm not so sure whether the military's problem is worse than the civilian world, or just more visible. I'm also not sure which culture equips their personnel with better tools to handle the issue-- can women in the civilian world file a PTSD claim for assault and inability to get away from their attackers?
I can report that my NROTC daughter's had far fewer problems with the military than she's had with college, and far fewer problems than her civilian classmates have had with their internships and jobs.
There is a research from a researcher who is considered the top research in his field, David Lasik, who has done research starting within the college environment then moved to the military. Based on his research (which the military seems to agree with because they have contracted him multiple times), the rate of assault is higher in the military. A major part of that is that rapists reoffend. In his research they found that most men did not assault but the ones that did in college (18-25) had an average of 6 rapes at that time (it really was 5. something but it was rounded up).
In the military, these kids stay in and have a career and gain power vs college where they leave (one possible reason) and in college you can get away (even if it means you drop out), whereas the research shows that PTSD happens because the military does not remove the assaulter nor allow the victim to be moved (in many cases). The majority of women do not have PTSD in civilian life but when 71% off all female veterans have PTSD based on being assault and the INABILITY to remove themselves that does show a difference between civilian life and military. You can get away in the military unless command believes you.
I am not saying that civilian "culture" is good, it is still a rape culture and damn unsafe but based on the research done by Lasik and other foremost psychological researchers, it is significantly (this was determined via stats) more unsafe for a female within the military (excluding outside effects like war etc, so day to day living) than for females within most US civilian populations. And based on that, I would not have my daughter go through that, for ANY reward.
I am not trying to convince anyone, the only one I had to convince was my husband and he is a researcher so I just gave him the studies. But, when someone says "oh just go in the military", I will say that I have good reasons for not encouraging my daughter or any young female.
-
I am not trying to convince anyone, the only one I had to convince was my husband and he is a researcher so I just gave him the studies.
Can you share the links to those studies?
-
...when someone says "oh just go in the military", I will say that I have good reasons for not encouraging my daughter or any young female.
Really, I would say that the choice to go in the military or not is a very personal one and it should never be the only way available for students without the liquid assets to fund college. Oddly, I have no problem working on research projects, etc funded by the military as long as they aren't on actual weapons, but I would feel extremely uncomfortable working for the military directly (even if it was in a non-combat capacity).
-
Initial ruling: Parents don't have to pay.
http://gawker.com/parents-wont-have-to-give-allowance-to-the-daughter-wh-1536906243
They're due back in court in April to figure out if she's emancapated or not.
Is anyone else wondering if this is really just some elaborate plot to get her defined as emancipated for financial aide purposes?
-
I am not trying to convince anyone, the only one I had to convince was my husband and he is a researcher so I just gave him the studies.
Can you share the links to those studies?
Here is Dr Lisak's PDF: http://www.terrywilliamsclemency.com/Lisak_CV_Feb2012.pdf
Publications start on page 5. Legally I can't share the whole articles, but I can share PDFs or links if you want.
-
Honestly, kids shouldn't be considered an adult until 21 at this point. 25 would be best because that's when your brain actually stops developing. At least 21 though, because it's essentially impossible to get ahead at this point without a college degree. And if you don't want to pay for your kids to go to college, there's no reason to have them in the first place. Just like with a divorce, you owe your children or your spouse that made less money a leg up on their single life. It's just fair.
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read in quite a while on these forums.
Not saying I necessarily agree, but are you disputing the biological assertion, or the legal conclusions? Or are you just a knee-jerk reactionary who thinks calling something a "crock of shit" is convincing?
Even assuming the assertions about brain development are true, that post is full of shit.
But why? Articulate a little.
I mean, I agree with you (based on philosophical implications relating to agency), but what are your reasons for saying it's "a crock of shit"? Rather than just posting that multiple times, can you try to add to the quality of the conversation, instead of subtracting from it?
Argh....I will take the bait and sink into this absolute insanity of a debate. Today is 3/8/2014, my 401k is maxed, IRA, and HSA fully funded. My net worth is growing at extreme rates. Mine is 6.43x what it was this time last last year. My income is solidly into the 6 figure range and has realized at least 20% increases year over year for 5 years now vs my equivalent coworkers who make approximately 30-60k per year.
I dropped out of college.
Does this illustrate the bullshit that has been propagated a million times by media and now here on this forum and thread? Yes the studies show that most dropouts don't succeed but how many successes where not degreed? Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Ralph Lauren...
First, it's fantastic that you've been able to achieve what you have without a degree. That takes lots of work and a fair amount of intelligence, so good for you.
Now, you, along with everyone you mentioned above is an outlier. Most people don't have the raw talent, motivation, life experiences necessary to create giant organizations or even salaries beyond $40,000 a year without some sort of formal education. The data simply doesn't agree with your claims that most people without a formal degree are able to make as much as someone with a degree.
Take a look at the link I posted above. For college grads, there essentially wasn't a great recession. Their unemployment numbers never topped 5% IIRC, while high school grads were topping close to 12% nationwide and nearly double that in other areas of the country. Take a look at the average lifetime earnings differential between high school and college grads. There simply isn't a large infrastructure that can accommodate low education workers in this country anymore.
I'm not sure why you're projecting your personal, myopic view on society as a whole. Feelings of inadequacy, obliviousness? I'm not sure, you'll have to answer that. The fact is that your argument simply doesn't line up with the widespread reality.
-
Take a look at the link I posted above. For college grads, there essentially wasn't a great recession. Their unemployment numbers never topped 5% IIRC, while high school grads were topping close to 12% nationwide and nearly double that in other areas of the country. Take a look at the average lifetime earnings differential between high school and college grads. There simply isn't a large infrastructure that can accommodate low education workers in this country anymore.
The problem here is that you are confusing "low education workers" with non-college grads. The unemployment numbers lump everyone into the same pot, even though there's vast difference between a kid who dropped out of school at 16 to do/deal drugs, and one who (like my neighbors' kid) chose an electric lineman apprenticeship. Likewise, you can find certain college degrees - often those for which 'unpaid internships' are the norm - which don't offer great employment prospects, either.
-
Hmmm, we all consider 18 to be an adult, but WHY? Where is it written? Upon what is that age based?
To my knowledge all the courts of the nation state and federal will prosecute you as an adult at 18 years of age. That is why citizen consider it the legal age. There are some exceptions to the 18 years old adult criminal charge.
-
I am not trying to convince anyone, the only one I had to convince was my husband and he is a researcher so I just gave him the studies.
Can you share the links to those studies?
Here is Dr Lisak's PDF: http://www.terrywilliamsclemency.com/Lisak_CV_Feb2012.pdf
Publications start on page 5. Legally I can't share the whole articles, but I can share PDFs or links if you want.
Whatever you can share, here on the thread or via PM/e-mail, I'd appreciate it.
-
Given the stats about rape/sexual assault, I would NEVER recommend that my daughter go into the military. Granted, I won't pay for her to stay in the dorms for the same reasons (though the stats are better 25% vs 33%). 71% of PTSD filed by female veterans is because of the assault and inability to get away from their attacker(s). There is no reward worth that risk.
I would be very careful when deciding which stats to believe about college sexual assault. There was at least one study that said someone had been sexually assaulted if they answered yes to "Have you ever regretted having sex the day after?" type questions. Gimme a break.
Also, wouldn't living in a dorm make someone less likely to be raped compared to an off campus apartment or house? You have at least one roommate in a dorm, help is much closer, and entry/exit is somewhat more controlled.
-
Given the stats about rape/sexual assault, I would NEVER recommend that my daughter go into the military. Granted, I won't pay for her to stay in the dorms for the same reasons (though the stats are better 25% vs 33%). 71% of PTSD filed by female veterans is because of the assault and inability to get away from their attacker(s). There is no reward worth that risk.
I would be very careful when deciding which stats to believe about college sexual assault. There was at least one study that said someone had been sexually assaulted if they answered yes to "Have you ever regretted having sex the day after?" type questions. Gimme a break.
Also, wouldn't living in a dorm make someone less likely to be raped compared to an off campus apartment or house? You have at least one roommate in a dorm, help is much closer, and entry/exit is somewhat more controlled.
The studies done by Dr. Lisak and his colleagues were done on the rapists themselves. They were asked such things "have you ever held someone down so you could have sex with them, when he or she did not want to", "have you ever given someone alcoholic drinks, so he or she could not say no"? Things like that, I can get the full list of questions tomorrow at work. I did my undergrad in psychology, and do clinical and translation research for a living, I am quite capable of determining the validity of a research article.
I would love to know which peer reviewed journal article you think has that kind of question that does not have additional variables. I know of none, and I worked in this field for over ten years.
And in the dorm setting many people have access to the dorm room (RAs, roommates leaving doors unlocked, showers being unable to be locked). At most universities, the dorms are one of the main epicenters of rape/sexual assault. I don't know why you think entry/exit being controlled matters, the rapists are other college students.
-
I am not trying to convince anyone, the only one I had to convince was my husband and he is a researcher so I just gave him the studies.
Can you share the links to those studies?
Here is Dr Lisak's PDF: http://www.terrywilliamsclemency.com/Lisak_CV_Feb2012.pdf
Publications start on page 5. Legally I can't share the whole articles, but I can share PDFs or links if you want.
Whatever you can share, here on the thread or via PM/e-mail, I'd appreciate it.
I founded one open sourced article.
http://www.wcsap.org/sites/www.wcsap.org/files/uploads/webinars/SV%20on%20Campus/Repeat%20Rape.pdf
If you have any questions about methodology or terminology, feel free to ask. And on that note, I am going to start posting this on a different thread (I'll start it when I find another open sourced article) so we stop derailing this thread.
-
The studies done by Dr. Lisak and his colleagues were done on the rapists themselves. They were asked such things "have you ever held someone down so you could have sex with them, when he or she did not want to", "have you ever given someone alcoholic drinks, so he or she could not say no"?
Studying actual rapists seems like a very strange way to determine the prevalence of rape.
As for the alcoholic drink question, where do you draw the line between "would not" and "could not"?
-
The studies done by Dr. Lisak and his colleagues were done on the rapists themselves. They were asked such things "have you ever held someone down so you could have sex with them, when he or she did not want to", "have you ever given someone alcoholic drinks, so he or she could not say no"?
Studying actual rapists seems like a very strange way to determine the prevalence of rape.
As for the alcoholic drink question, where do you draw the line between "would not" and "could not"?
It actually was very smart. He was able to show that the majority of men were not rapists because the prevalent hypothesis had assumed that it was 1:1. He also was able to disprove the "accidental" rape idea, that two people just got drunk together and then one woke up regretting it. When the average college rapist rapes about 6 times, that is not an accident.
There has been much research on the victims, but to truly understand the act, you have to look at the attacker. Just as we look at the attacker in any other crime to understand the crime.
-
The studies done by Dr. Lisak and his colleagues were done on the rapists themselves. They were asked such things "have you ever held someone down so you could have sex with them, when he or she did not want to", "have you ever given someone alcoholic drinks, so he or she could not say no"?
Studying actual rapists seems like a very strange way to determine the prevalence of rape.
As for the alcoholic drink question, where do you draw the line between "would not" and "could not"?
It actually was very smart. He was able to show that the majority of men were not rapists because the prevalent hypothesis had assumed that it was 1:1. He also was able to disprove the "accidental" rape idea, that two people just got drunk together and then one woke up regretting it. When the average college rapist rapes about 6 times, that is not an accident.
There has been much research on the victims, but to truly understand the act, you have to look at the attacker. Just as we look at the attacker in any other crime to understand the crime.
If you only look at the victim, that's a perpetuation of rape culture because it puts the onus on the victim. "What did he/she do that brought this on?" rather than "Why the hell would someone do such a despicable thing?" It's perfectly valid and necessary to look at both sides. By looking to see what victims have in common, safety advocates have been able to make recommendations about what people should do to not become victims. By speaking with and studying rapists, we can determine which personality type is likely to become a rapist, what circumstances make someone think it's ok, what they look for in a victim, and hundreds of other factors which are equally important for preventing rape. I don't understand, Jamesqf, how you can argue that studying rapists wouldn't have any value to determining the prevalence of rape. This is a very bizarre crime in that the victim usually feels shame and tries to hide what happened, while the perpetrator generally doesn't feel any such remorse. That's why so many high school and college rapists will even go so far as to post videos of their crime online. In the same way, they're often more willing to open up to a researcher (in effect, bragging about their crime) than victims are.
-
I don't understand, Jamesqf, how you can argue that studying rapists wouldn't have any value to determining the prevalence of rape.
Because you are, by definition, only studying those rapists who have been caught. Now that may be somewhere close to 100% of all rapists, or it could be only 1% of them, and we have no real way of knowing which it is. Since we don't know that, looking at just the caught rapists gives us no way of knowing how how many weren't caught, so we can't use that to figure out the prevalence of rape.
(Are you possibly confusing 'prevalence' - how frequently it occurs - with the psychology - why rapists rape? Certainly studying rapists is valuable to learn about the psychology.)
There's also another 'gotcha' that applies to all sorts of crime studies. If you study those who've been arrested/convicted, you are (again by definition, and leaving out false convictions) only looking at the unsuccessful criminals, because successful criminals don't get caught. So we might reasonably speculate about what successful rapists (or thieves, killers, etc) do differently.
-
I don't understand, Jamesqf, how you can argue that studying rapists wouldn't have any value to determining the prevalence of rape.
Because you are, by definition, only studying those rapists who have been caught. Now that may be somewhere close to 100% of all rapists, or it could be only 1% of them, and we have no real way of knowing which it is. Since we don't know that, looking at just the caught rapists gives us no way of knowing how how many weren't caught, so we can't use that to figure out the prevalence of rape.
(Are you possibly confusing 'prevalence' - how frequently it occurs - with the psychology - why rapists rape? Certainly studying rapists is valuable to learn about the psychology.)
There's also another 'gotcha' that applies to all sorts of crime studies. If you study those who've been arrested/convicted, you are (again by definition, and leaving out false convictions) only looking at the unsuccessful criminals, because successful criminals don't get caught. So we might reasonably speculate about what successful rapists (or thieves, killers, etc) do differently.
If you read the link, they were studying non-caught rapists.
-
Did you even bother reading the study which was linked? It's right there in the title: Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists. Not "rapists who have been caught". The sample was 1,882 randomly selected male college students.
If your point is that some of them didn't admit to their rapes (though the researchers are, unsurprisingly, smart enough to be aware of that, and design their surveys to avoid legal terms which might induce denial), how much more likely do you think women are to admit to being raped? I'd have thought the men would be a lot more cavalier about it, seeing as it likely never ruined their life, but y'know. I wasn't able to find data comparing rape prevalence as reported by women vs. as reported by men, but I have no reason to suppose men are less likely to admit it in confidence.
If you want to measure the prevalence of rape, why wouldn't talking to men be something that you would do? And what makes you think you know how to do it better than the experts in the field?
-
This thread has an interesting dichotomy. Multiple posters piled on to Mom of 5 for wanting to protect her daughter from sexual behavior/advances that might be detrimental to her well being, and then it turned into a debate about the prevalance of rape in college and the military, which would seem to imply that maybe young women/teenage girls need more support and (dare I say it?) protection than they are currently getting.
-
This thread has an interesting dichotomy. Multiple posters piled on to Mom of 5 for wanting to protect her daughter from sexual behavior/advances that might be detrimental to her well being, and then it turned into a debate about the prevalance of rape in college and the military, which would seem to imply that maybe young women/teenage girls need more support and (dare I say it?) protection than they are currently getting.
Read the article, that was NOT the conclusion by the researchers. Actually most researchers found that the young people (men and women) that are "protected" and do not learn to handle themselves are the most targeted victims. And really what needs to happen is these rapists need to be charged, convicted and jailed for an extremely long period of time, not a couple years, if that.
-
And really what needs to happen is these rapists need to be charged, convicted and jailed for an extremely long period of time, not a couple years, if that.
Now we're getting into the perpetual debate over "recidivism vs rehab", and I doubt there are any credible studies on either side of that controversy.
-
Interesting debate but I thought the topic was a hs girl suing her parents...
-
This thread has an interesting dichotomy. Multiple posters piled on to Mom of 5 for wanting to protect her daughter from sexual behavior/advances that might be detrimental to her well being, and then it turned into a debate about the prevalance of rape in college and the military, which would seem to imply that maybe young women/teenage girls need more support and (dare I say it?) protection than they are currently getting.
I think the reason they "piled on" was because she presented a viewpoint that high school (and college?) girls are delicate snowflakes who need to be protected from all those aggressive boys with only one thing on their mind. That view was wrong in 1950 and it's wrong today. It suggests that women need to be babied and men need to be viewed with suspicion from puberty onwards because you never know which one of us is out looking to rape someone.
I'm probably one of the youngest posters on this board. I graduated HS in 2010. An equal number of boys and girls knew exactly what they were doing regarding sexual activity.
-
Did you even bother reading the study which was linked? It's right there in the title: Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists. Not "rapists who have been caught". The sample was 1,882 randomly selected male college students.
No, I didn't read the study. I merely commented that it seemed a strange way to measure the incidence of rape (or just about anything else, FTM). Still does, as it would IMHO be very unlikely that anyone would tell the truth in that sort of survey. Either they exaggerate, or they say nothing.
If you want to measure the prevalence of rape, why wouldn't talking to men be something that you would do? And what makes you think you know how to do it better than the experts in the field?
Talking to men (or women) is something I would do only if I had a reasonable expectation of hearing the truth. And I think I am perhaps better than academic 'experts' because I'm under no pressure to come up with publishable results :-)
-
And really what needs to happen is these rapists need to be charged, convicted and jailed for an extremely long period of time, not a couple years, if that.
Now we're getting into the perpetual debate over "recidivism vs rehab", and I doubt there are any credible studies on either side of that controversy.
Given the rate of reoffense, and yes there have been many studies on this within the field, it is unlikely that a rapist will not reoffend. They are closer in psychological status to pedophiles than murderers.
-
I think the reason they "piled on" was because she presented a viewpoint that high school (and college?) girls are delicate snowflakes who need to be protected from all those aggressive boys with only one thing on their mind. That view was wrong in 1950 and it's wrong today. It suggests that women need to be babied and men need to be viewed with suspicion from puberty onwards because you never know which one of us is out looking to rape someone.
I'm probably one of the youngest posters on this board. I graduated HS in 2010. An equal number of boys and girls knew exactly what they were doing regarding sexual activity.
I don't doubt the second part of what you are saying, and I had something long winded to say here but realized I don't know the statistics on this - does anyone know the rates / population sizes of female aggressors against male victims?
From a parent of a girl perspective, I'll input this but I may need to withdraw it completely if the rates are not what I expect for the above question- physiologically, a male is going to be stronger than a female in a general population sense once going through and past puberty (control for outliers, blah blah). Consequentially, a male is going to be able to overpower a female physically more readily than the reverse. So while I don't see my daughters as "delicate snowflakes", I'm definitely going to tell them something different than I would if I had boys.
-
Did you even bother reading the study which was linked? It's right there in the title: Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists. Not "rapists who have been caught". The sample was 1,882 randomly selected male college students.
No, I didn't read the study. I merely commented that it seemed a strange way to measure the incidence of rape (or just about anything else, FTM). Still does, as it would IMHO be very unlikely that anyone would tell the truth in that sort of survey. Either they exaggerate, or they say nothing.
If you want to measure the prevalence of rape, why wouldn't talking to men be something that you would do? And what makes you think you know how to do it better than the experts in the field?
Talking to men (or women) is something I would do only if I had a reasonable expectation of hearing the truth. And I think I am perhaps better than academic 'experts' because I'm under no pressure to come up with publishable results :-)
So, your complete ignorance is better than multiple educated researchers within the field. Got it. Yeah, that makes total sense. You ignore that this is peer reviewed, and replicated. We need an eye roll "smiley".
-
At some point, you don't need to argue against someone to show that they are wrong; their own words stand for themselves.
-
And really what needs to happen is these rapists need to be charged, convicted and jailed for an extremely long period of time, not a couple years, if that.
Now we're getting into the perpetual debate over "recidivism vs rehab", and I doubt there are any credible studies on either side of that controversy.
Given the rate of reoffense, and yes there have been many studies on this within the field, it is unlikely that a rapist will not reoffend. They are closer in psychological status to pedophiles than murderers.
I don't know if any of you caught the fairly recent CNN article about the horrible, stupefying amount of rape in Alaska, but it actually brought up a program which, as far as I (and, I believe, the journalist reporting on this) know is completely unique.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/02/opinion/sutter-change-alaska-rape/
TL;DR: Once someone is out of prison (if they even go to prison), there are people in the community who are appointed to watch out for them/watch out for the community against them. It basically creates circumstances which make it very, very hard for them to re-offend. (And even rapists themselves will generally say that it's not a one-off deal: they will keep raping.)
I realize that this thread took a wrong turn, but isn't that the nature of conversation?
-
This thread has an interesting dichotomy. Multiple posters piled on to Mom of 5 for wanting to protect her daughter from sexual behavior/advances that might be detrimental to her well being, and then it turned into a debate about the prevalance of rape in college and the military, which would seem to imply that maybe young women/teenage girls need more support and (dare I say it?) protection than they are currently getting.
Read the article, that was NOT the conclusion by the researchers. Actually most researchers found that the young people (men and women) that are "protected" and do not learn to handle themselves are the most targeted victims. And really what needs to happen is these rapists need to be charged, convicted and jailed for an extremely long period of time, not a couple years, if that.
Can you please direct me to the page and paragraph that talks about parenting? I searched for it and couldn't find it. I also did an automated search for the word "parent" and there was only one match and that was for how they controlled for sample size. Based on that, I think you are drawing your own unsupported conclusions.
Also, the concept of teaching your kids to handle themselves well and screening their romantic interests aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible to do both, or neither.
This thread has an interesting dichotomy. Multiple posters piled on to Mom of 5 for wanting to protect her daughter from sexual behavior/advances that might be detrimental to her well being, and then it turned into a debate about the prevalance of rape in college and the military, which would seem to imply that maybe young women/teenage girls need more support and (dare I say it?) protection than they are currently getting.
I think the reason they "piled on" was because she presented a viewpoint that high school (and college?) girls are delicate snowflakes who need to be protected from all those aggressive boys with only one thing on their mind. That view was wrong in 1950 and it's wrong today. It suggests that women need to be babied and men need to be viewed with suspicion from puberty onwards because you never know which one of us is out looking to rape someone.
I'm probably one of the youngest posters on this board. I graduated HS in 2010. An equal number of boys and girls knew exactly what they were doing regarding sexual activity.
I went to high school too and it wasn't in the 1950's. What I remember is the kids whose parents were involved made better decisions, on average, than those whose parents weren't. It's possible for parents to take things too far, of course, and be over controlling, but in general parents have more wisdom than their 16 year olds do. Therefore, they get a say in who their kids date, associate with, what activities they take part in, and what time they need to be home by.
The gender equality posters piled on because Mom to 5 isn't raising her kids the way THEY think she should. Does anybody see the double standard there? Maybe instead they could give her the benefit of the doubt, since she is a woman, and a mom, raising daughters, that maybe she isn't looking to repress herself or anybody else, and is instead truly looking out for her daughter's best interests in a balanced way.
-
This thread has an interesting dichotomy. Multiple posters piled on to Mom of 5 for wanting to protect her daughter from sexual behavior/advances that might be detrimental to her well being, and then it turned into a debate about the prevalance of rape in college and the military, which would seem to imply that maybe young women/teenage girls need more support and (dare I say it?) protection than they are currently getting.
Read the article, that was NOT the conclusion by the researchers. Actually most researchers found that the young people (men and women) that are "protected" and do not learn to handle themselves are the most targeted victims. And really what needs to happen is these rapists need to be charged, convicted and jailed for an extremely long period of time, not a couple years, if that.
Can you please direct me to the page and paragraph that talks about parenting? I searched for it and couldn't find it. I also did an automated search for the word "parent" and there was only one match and that was for how they controlled for sample size. Based on that, I think you are drawing your own unsupported conclusions.
Also, the concept of teaching your kids to handle themselves well and screening their romantic interests aren't mutually exclusive. It's possible to do both, or neither.
This thread has an interesting dichotomy. Multiple posters piled on to Mom of 5 for wanting to protect her daughter from sexual behavior/advances that might be detrimental to her well being, and then it turned into a debate about the prevalance of rape in college and the military, which would seem to imply that maybe young women/teenage girls need more support and (dare I say it?) protection than they are currently getting.
I think the reason they "piled on" was because she presented a viewpoint that high school (and college?) girls are delicate snowflakes who need to be protected from all those aggressive boys with only one thing on their mind. That view was wrong in 1950 and it's wrong today. It suggests that women need to be babied and men need to be viewed with suspicion from puberty onwards because you never know which one of us is out looking to rape someone.
I'm probably one of the youngest posters on this board. I graduated HS in 2010. An equal number of boys and girls knew exactly what they were doing regarding sexual activity.
I went to high school too and it wasn't in the 1950's. What I remember is the kids whose parents were involved made better decisions, on average, than those whose parents weren't. It's possible for parents to take things too far, of course, and be over controlling, but in general parents have more wisdom than their 16 year olds do. Therefore, they get a say in who their kids date, associate with, what activities they take part in, and what time they need to be home by.
The gender equality posters piled on because Mom to 5 isn't raising her kids the way THEY think she should. Does anybody see the double standard there? Maybe instead they could give her the benefit of the doubt, since she is a woman, and a mom, raising daughters, that maybe she isn't looking to repress herself or anybody else, and is instead truly looking out for her daughter's best interests in a balanced way.
I think you misread my post. I said that the research and the researcher did not support the person's conclusion and then said that MOST researchers, not this current article, disagree. I will see if I can find a bunch of those articles but I can leave you with Dr. Lisak's opinion: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/23/david-lisak-on-acquaintance-rapists-were-giving-a-free-pass-to-sexual-predators/
And, btw, I've been involved in this research off and on since 09, so I will respond with overarching statements that are not going to come from one article but thousands. You are welcome to go through Dr. Lisak's CV and start reading those (though for many you will have to visit a library if you are not affiliated with a university) and get a much broader overview.
-
Getting back on topic, I saw a small segment on the news that the High school student has moved back home. Her parents are considering this painful public chapter water under the bridge, and they would like to focus on improving their family dynamics now.
I hope they can resolve their issues and we never hear about them again...
-
Lawsuit dropped.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/18/justice/new-jersey-parents-lawsuit-dropped/
-
On the page I read, step-parents are also obligated.
But, yeah, this seems weird that going to college turns you legally into a child. Because parents, divorced parents, step-parents, etc., aren't expected to give support to a kid who wants to learn a trade or work or start a business right out of high school. Of course, that might mean a direct transfer of wealth to an individual and not to an institution, so I can see why the government wouldn't be all over that.
And while I get the reasoning, it seems weird that a divorced parent could be forced to support a kid up to 23, but not a still-married one.
Where I live it's 18 and finished high school or emancipated for divorced parents. Some divorce agreements include payments for college but they are typically written in a way that isn't enforceable or collectible by any state agencies who collect support.