What percentage of your children's education will you pay?

[Ann]

...I also disagree with the "50% max so they have skin in the game" argument.  Do you make your kid pay for half of their braces?  What about a family vacation?  I would hope not.  As parents we provide all sorts of "non-essentials" above and beyond food / clothing / shelter in the hopes that our children appreciate them and it adds to the quality of their lives.  Why is college some magical line in the sand?  ...

I think college is the line the sand for many because that is past the age of majority.  To me, it makes sense to pay for most everything when a child is a minor, then much much less as they get older.

At what age do you stop paying for your children's family vacations?  18?  25?  35?  45?  Never?  I know parents who pay for their children, their children's significant others and grandchildren's vacations every year.  And when I think of braces, I think of middle school and early high school.  At that age, there are legal restrictions for getting employment.  If you live in an isolated area like I did, there aren't a lot of outside opportunities to earn money to pay for those things yourself.  I've known several people who got adult braces, but their parents didn't pay for them.  I think you are making a false equivalency.  I'm not saying it is wrong to help your children with college expenses, but I don't think it is the same as paying for things when your child is a minor.

I hope I don't sound antagonistic!  It intrigued me that you equated vacations with college.

[englishteacheralex]

There's enabling, and then there's generosity. It all depends on the circumstances.

Neither my husband nor I have asked our parents for a dime since we graduated from college. We've gone through lean times and worked hard, and we pay our own way. We live on Oahu and both of our families are on the east coast, and for the first five years out here (I hadn't met my husband yet) I didn't see my family a single time, because I was living in an extremely HCOL area on a beginning teacher's salary. At one point I had five roommates and a second job, and I didn't complain about it...it was actually a lot of fun.

For the past two years (since we had our son), both of our parents have come to visit us and paid 100% of the expenses to put us up in a vacation rental with them and fly us out to a neighbor island with our son. My mom did it once and his parents did it twice. We could have afforded to pay our own way and would have been happy to do so, but they insisted. And we appreciated it enormously and had a wonderful time! They are proud of us and tell us so constantly. It seemed like it gave them a lot of joy to provide such a lovely treat for us and our son.

If an adult (or 19+ year old child) is self-sufficient and making good choices, and the parent has the money to contribute, I don't see inter-generational gifts as problematic or "spoiling". I also don't think it's necessarily depriving children of gumption and ingenuity. It CAN do those things, but it all depends on the people involved.

[MsPeacock]

As much as possible up the amount I have saved for them. I have advised them of this. I show them the account balances. I don't know if their dad is going to contribute anything or not. I have emphasized not going into debt for school and that likely means attending an in state public university.

I paid 100% of my undergrad tuition by working full time. I paid my grad school tuition with a combination of loans and scholarship.

It is actually really important to me that my kids start their adult lives without being saddled with huge educational debt. When I attended college in the 80s it was possible to pay tuition by working as a waitress probably making 10-12 per hour. Waitresses don't make much more now (I think) but tuition is many times higher now. It just isn't possible, with the current system, for a regular type kid to pay their own way through school.

[nobody123]

I hope I don't sound antagonistic!  It intrigued me that you equated vacations with college.

Not at all.  I like debating big-picture type of things.  Hearing the opinions and thought processes of others forces me to think through my own points and adjust.  A few years ago I was firmly in the "skin in the game" camp and worried about making sure both of my kids had exactly the same dollars available to them.  After all, my parents couldn't give me any money towards college and I found a way to graduate debt-free, so dammit my kids should be able to as well.  I've moved off of those points based on my personal experiences, research, and some of the arguments presented on this forum.

As I pointed out, the FAFSA determines an EFC, expected FAMILY contribution.  The government calculates and public schools factor my parental contributions into the aid package they will present to my child.  While I am not legally bound to provide the amount that the government expects me to provide, my kid can't just demand that the school revise their offer to include more grant money because daddy won't pay what is expected of him.  Like it or not, until your kid can be treated as an independent adult in terms of financial aid, you're tied together.  Maybe that's a better argument for why 0% parental contribution when >0% is feasible is not OK, in my opinion.

I have no beef with those who decide to essentially cut their kids off financially after high school graduation (assuming the child is 18), or set some max contribution level for college to help wean them off parental support.  I don't know them or their kids, and I am not going to tell them how to raise their kids or spend their money.  If my financial situation was different, I might still think that is appropriate.  If my kids are total screw-offs, they aren't getting any of my money for college, even if I'm a billionaire.  However, barring some very bad luck, my wife and I will be in the position to help my kids with their college tuition expenses without sacrificing our retirement plans or financial security.  Selfishly, knowing that I gave them that gift, whether they ultimately appreciate it or not, will bring me a sense of accomplishment and pride.

Should my children be self-sufficient and not rely on my assets to fund their lifestyle as soon as they graduate college?  Absolutely!  Am I worried that by providing the opportunity to finish their Bachelor's degree debt-free will somehow derail that and they will be doomed to poor financial decisions for the remainder of their adult life?  Absolutely not.  My point about vacations, braces, etc. is that you're taking that same leap of faith from the day your child is born until the day they leave the nest -- you are spending money that you are technically not required to in the hopes of improving their quality of life.  You did so without any expectation that they'd appreciate it or contribute financially toward it.  If you've done your job they will appreciate college assistance at whatever level you are able to provide, and that switch isn't magically flipped the day the calendar turns to their 18th birthday.  Knowing that a college degree is essentially a requirement to get any sort of good paying job nowadays, you've been spending money beyond the bare minimum to help the child out for the last 18 years, by not contributing at least the EFC you are effectively harming your child's financial future, and you have the financial means to do so, I find it completely illogical to pick funding college as the point you decide to cut the kid off or use it as a learning opportunity about loans and debt by essentially forcing them to take out a loan.

As far as your question on how long to pay for vacations / whatnot for your adult children, I think the answer is 'it depends'.  Assuming I have the means and I enjoy spending time with them, I will probably help subsidize family vacations.  If I want to take the grandkids to Disney (I know, I hear the groans already), and one son can & wants to pay for himself and his wife but the other one can't afford it, I'll probably just pay for the 4 adults as well.  The instant one of them demands that I pay for something, the free ride ends.  I am happy to be generous, but it stops being generosity when it's a requirement.  My mom likes buying my kids outfits and small toys all year long 'just because'.  She and my dad are on a very limited income and I would much rather they save their money or at least spend it on themselves, but they choose to buy for my kids.  I'll probably want to spoil my grandkids as well.

[historienne]

I'll pay 100%, not because I don't want my kids to struggle like I did, but precisely because my parents paid for mine.  It seems fair to pay that generosity forward to the next generation.  Having my education paid for in no way caused me to take it less seriously (I graduated in the top 10% at an Ivy League school).  It did give me much more freedom when choosing my career, because I didn't have to worry about paying off thousands of dollars in student loans, and I am tremendously grateful for that freedom.

[formerlydivorcedmom]

I got scholarships that paid for the bulk of my tuition, and internships and part-time on-campus jobs paid for housing, food, and spending money (except my parents each gave me $800 for travel/spending money so I could study abroad). I was flat broke when I graduated - but I had zero debt.  That set me up for success.

My parents paid 100% of my sister's expenses, and she partied her way through the first few years.  Dad cut her off financially but mom paid all expenses no matter what,  which honestly did sister no favors.  It took her a decade to learn to live within her means.

I don't want my kids to graduate with debt, or be otherwise unable to afford to attend college...but I don't want to teach them that we'll always bail them out either.

For the purposes of the poll, I chose 50%, and by that I mean my husband and I will pay for tuition, fees, and books at an in-state public university (or other cheaper learning institution that provides some form of certification) for 4 years. They can either live at home (and pay some rent), ask their other parents for room and board money (we're a blended family), or work for housing/food.

If their grades are bad (under a 3.0 average), the money spigot turns off.  If they get scholarships, they get the rest of "their" college money when they graduate and have a job.

[GhostSaver]

I think I will be in a position to pick up the tab for kiddo at the state U, and I'm grateful for that and will be happy to do so.

If her grades are good enough to get into my alma mater, most of her BA will be paid for with grants from the endowment, given our current household income and the current policies of the school. Otherwise, busting her ass and keeping her grades up at the U will be more than adequate.

[MrsPete]

This question isn't hypothetical for me.  We're IN the college years right now -- our oldest just graduated in May, and our youngest is a college sophomore. 

We paid 100% of necessities; that is, tuition and books, dorm and meal plan.  The kids are responsible for working in the summer and part time during the school year to provide their own spending money.  They've also both helped by earning scholarships -- not something every kid can do. 

I feel very good about having done this because it's allowed them to focus on school (instead of working excessive hours, as I did).  I can say more about my oldest because she's finished with college, whereas my youngest is still slogging her way through core classes.  My oldest graduated on time and left having completed internships and having made some professional connections (she has great references).  Because she wasn't worried about paying her tuition, she was free to take jobs that best boosted her resume.  She had a job lined up in her field before she graduated, and she's doing great.  My youngest is on track to do the same, but -- only being a sophomore -- I can't say as much about her.

Someone else commented that kids need guidance in choosing colleges and majors -- definitely.  I see so many of my high school students choosing colleges for ridiculous reasons (they have great pool tables in the student union or granite counter tops in the dorm kitchens -- yeah, I wish I were making those up).  We told our kids that we'd pay for 4 years at a state school.  We said we'd pay the cost of a dorm and meal plan, and IF they opted for a more expensive living situation, we'd give them that money, and they'd be responsible for the rest. 

We think the skin-in-the-game idea during college is a load of bunk.  If you wait 'til then to make the kids responsible for their own choices, it's way too late.  We started working with our kids on understanding money about the time they started school -- meaning, kindergarten.  By the time they were teens, they were ninja-level frugal, and they've behaved just as we expected:  they've understood that we scrimped and saved to provide them with this opportunity, and they've worked hard to make the most of what we've provided. 

Finally, college was easier to pay for than we expected.  The numbers that the media tosses around are greatly inflated.  In fact, we only dipped into savings once, and that even includes last year when we had TWO in college at the same time.

[Metric Mouse]

I assume this is for 'college' education.

We are of course paying 100% for grade school education. Twice; since we homeschool.

We will pay 0% towards secondary education. It would be enormously irresponsible to deprive my own offspring of the invaluable experience of working & paying for their collegiate education.

Don't you mean 'post-secondary' education?

[FIRE_at_45]

We paid 100% of necessities; that is, tuition and books, dorm and meal plan.  The kids are responsible for working in the summer and part time during the school year to provide their own spending money.  They've also both helped by earning scholarships -- not something every kid can do. 

I feel very good about having done this because it's allowed them to focus on school (instead of working excessive hours, as I did).  I can say more about my oldest because she's finished with college, whereas my youngest is still slogging her way through core classes.  My oldest graduated on time and left having completed internships and having made some professional connections (she has great references).  Because she wasn't worried about paying her tuition, she was free to take jobs that best boosted her resume.  She had a job lined up in her field before she graduated, and she's doing great.  My youngest is on track to do the same, but -- only being a sophomore -- I can't say as much about her.

Someone else commented that kids need guidance in choosing colleges and majors -- definitely.  I see so many of my high school students choosing colleges for ridiculous reasons (they have great pool tables in the student union or granite counter tops in the dorm kitchens -- yeah, I wish I were making those up).  We told our kids that we'd pay for 4 years at a state school.  We said we'd pay the cost of a dorm and meal plan, and IF they opted for a more expensive living situation, we'd give them that money, and they'd be responsible for the rest. 

We think the skin-in-the-game idea during college is a load of bunk.  If you wait 'til then to make the kids responsible for their own choices, it's way too late.  We started working with our kids on understanding money about the time they started school -- meaning, kindergarten.  By the time they were teens, they were ninja-level frugal, and they've behaved just as we expected:  they've understood that we scrimped and saved to provide them with this opportunity, and they've worked hard to make the most of what we've provided. 

Finally, college was easier to pay for than we expected.  The numbers that the media tosses around are greatly inflated.  In fact, we only dipped into savings once, and that even includes last year when we had TWO in college at the same time.

You make a lot of great points.  A kid can choose a degree that's completely useless when they get to the work world.  And yes saving is a lesson they can learn without help from their parent's although you see so many kids whose parent's do everything for them.  I just me a woman at work who is about 24 and has a broken wrist.  We were talking about her injury and she says 'ya, I need to get my mom to phone the doctor because this cast just isn't working for me'.  If her mom still phones the doctor for her when she's working FT what else do they do for her. 

I also agree the money numbers are inflated and if they work in the summers they should have a lot more than spending money to show for it.

[FIRE_at_45]

We paid 100% of necessities; that is, tuition and books, dorm and meal plan.  The kids are responsible for working in the summer and part time during the school year to provide their own spending money.  They've also both helped by earning scholarships -- not something every kid can do. 

I feel very good about having done this because it's allowed them to focus on school (instead of working excessive hours, as I did).  I can say more about my oldest because she's finished with college, whereas my youngest is still slogging her way through core classes.  My oldest graduated on time and left having completed internships and having made some professional connections (she has great references).  Because she wasn't worried about paying her tuition, she was free to take jobs that best boosted her resume.  She had a job lined up in her field before she graduated, and she's doing great.  My youngest is on track to do the same, but -- only being a sophomore -- I can't say as much about her.

Someone else commented that kids need guidance in choosing colleges and majors -- definitely.  I see so many of my high school students choosing colleges for ridiculous reasons (they have great pool tables in the student union or granite counter tops in the dorm kitchens -- yeah, I wish I were making those up).  We told our kids that we'd pay for 4 years at a state school.  We said we'd pay the cost of a dorm and meal plan, and IF they opted for a more expensive living situation, we'd give them that money, and they'd be responsible for the rest. 

We think the skin-in-the-game idea during college is a load of bunk.  If you wait 'til then to make the kids responsible for their own choices, it's way too late.  We started working with our kids on understanding money about the time they started school -- meaning, kindergarten.  By the time they were teens, they were ninja-level frugal, and they've behaved just as we expected:  they've understood that we scrimped and saved to provide them with this opportunity, and they've worked hard to make the most of what we've provided. 

Finally, college was easier to pay for than we expected.  The numbers that the media tosses around are greatly inflated.  In fact, we only dipped into savings once, and that even includes last year when we had TWO in college at the same time.

You make a lot of great points.  A kid can choose a degree that's completely useless when they get to the work world.  And yes saving is a lesson they can learn without help from their parent's although you see so many kids whose parent's do everything for them.  I just me a woman at work who is about 24 and has a broken wrist.  We were talking about her injury and she says 'ya, I need to get my mom to phone the doctor because this cast just isn't working for me'.  If her mom still phones the doctor for her when she's working FT what else do they do for her. 

I also agree the costs are inflated similar to any other mainstream stuff you read.  If they work in the summers they should have a lot more than spending money to show for it.

[jerseyboy]

This might sound crazy but I'd love to be able to tell my 17/18 year old future children that I'll pay for all of their school or a large percent if they get a useful degree or one that has at least a decent amount of job opportunities in.  And then tell them ill also pay 0 percent if they want a degree in art history or dancing.  Not sure if the whole "do what you want with your life, follow your dreams" idea is big on this forum, but I believe in the get a useful degree/good paying job that you can somewhat tolerate/enjoy so you can comfortably afford to enjoy your habits/dreams in your free time/weekends. (probably won't have enough cajones to go through with the zero percent, if my kid calls my bluff or gets the art degree im probably still paying :D)

[LuxuryIsADrug]

Why put "I don't want them to struggle like I did?" on the 100% option?

My parents paid my school in full and I will always be grateful for it. There was always a requirement attached to it though; I needed to maintain honour roll.

If I ever decide to get married and have kids I would do the same. However, I do live in Canada so paying for school isn't the headache it is in the USA.

So I'd pay 100% as long as grades are maintained.

[FIRE_at_45]

Why put "I don't want them to struggle like I did?" on the 100% option?

My parents paid my school in full and I will always be grateful for it. There was always a requirement attached to it though; I needed to maintain honour roll.

If I ever decide to get married and have kids I would do the same. However, I do live in Canada so paying for school isn't the headache it is in the USA.

So I'd pay 100% as long as grades are maintained.

Because most people graduate with significant debt.  See this Canadian story that references the average student debt is $25,000. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/average-student-debt-difficult-to-pay-off-delays-life-milestones-1.2534974

[Shane]

Just voted 100%, but it'll totally depend upon circumstances at the time. In our case, the beginning of our daughter's college is still about 8 years away, so our plans are tentative.

We're planning to encourage our daughter to skip HS and go straight to college, taking CC courses from ages ~15-17, and then do her undergrad at a U.S. public university from ages ~17-19, graduating at 20 years old, at the latest. If she works hard, studies and gets good grades in CC, we'll pay 100% of her in state tuition at a public university. She'll also be able to live at home with us until she gets her BA/BS, if she chooses.

If our daughter chooses to go to a private school, live on her own, or wants to do something totally different like start her own business or get some sort of vocational training or whatever, we plan on being open to helping her to fund other non traditional paths to a career that are within our means, but we'll also encourage her to work to earn some of the money on her own if it ends up being more expensive than the regular public university route.

We want to encourage our daughter to study something "practical" that will lead to a viable career path, but we're not going to be inflexible about it. If she wants to study engineering or to become an RN or teacher or whatever, that'll be fine. We'll encourage her. If she's not sure what she wants to do, we'll encourage her to seek out internships with people who are doing things she thinks look interesting, and hopefully that will help her to make informed career decisions. If she doesn't seem ready for school, we'll encourage her to intern or work, either at a job or her own business, for a couple of years before starting school.

[KCM5]

This might sound crazy but I'd love to be able to tell my 17/18 year old future children that I'll pay for all of their school or a large percent if they get a useful degree or one that has at least a decent amount of job opportunities in.  And then tell them ill also pay 0 percent if they want a degree in art history or dancing.  Not sure if the whole "do what you want with your life, follow your dreams" idea is big on this forum, but I believe in the get a useful degree/good paying job that you can somewhat tolerate/enjoy so you can comfortably afford to enjoy your habits/dreams in your free time/weekends. (probably won't have enough cajones to go through with the zero percent, if my kid calls my bluff or gets the art degree im probably still paying :D)

I believe in the useful degree, too. But I'm also of the opinion that if you raised your child with your values, you shouldn't be controlling their choices to that degree. I'd like to think (my kid is 4, so this is all conjecture, and we are all better parents before we have kids, right?) that if I spend enough time talking about values, living within society, time and efficiency, that my child will make the choice that is best for them. And hopefully it'll be a degree with a practical career path, but if its not, then they will have a damn good reason for choosing it.

Our goal is to raise a competent, and self sufficient adult (among other things). I think letting go and letting them prove that they are competent and self sufficient is important, and college is a great time for that.

[Mmm_Donuts]

This might sound crazy but I'd love to be able to tell my 17/18 year old future children that I'll pay for all of their school or a large percent if they get a useful degree or one that has at least a decent amount of job opportunities in.  And then tell them ill also pay 0 percent if they want a degree in art history or dancing.  Not sure if the whole "do what you want with your life, follow your dreams" idea is big on this forum, but I believe in the get a useful degree/good paying job that you can somewhat tolerate/enjoy so you can comfortably afford to enjoy your habits/dreams in your free time/weekends. (probably won't have enough cajones to go through with the zero percent, if my kid calls my bluff or gets the art degree im probably still paying :D)

Had a laugh at this one. My parents told me the exact same thing, and I wanted to go to art school. I went, received zero financial support (aside from scholarships that I earned myself), and am now FI in my early 40s. I made 6 figures for the better part of my 30s, and learned how to be frugal by working through college and paying my own way. If my parents' "threat" had worked and I'd gone to law school or something I would have been spoiled AND miserable. No thanks.

If I had kids (I don't) I would encourage them to choose whatever path they want. But law school or the arts, they would be paying 100% their own way, like I did.

[Guesl982374]

I'm not voting in your poll because it's not that straightforward.

We will pay for 4 years room, board and tuition at one of our state's excellent public colleges/universities.  If the kids choose to go to a more expensive institution or take longer than four years, we are not paying for the excess cost, although they could live home and finish up locally or online and just pay tuition.

It's not "100% because I don't want them to suffer like I did."  My parents paid for all six of their kids to go to a moderately priced college.  Dh's parents paid for all five of their kids to go anywhere they wanted (and paid for med school and grad school for most).  It was the greatest gift they could have given us, and we are grateful to them every single day for it.

We had summer jobs and our kids have summer jobs and that goes toward spending money and books.

+1 DW and I are in the same boat. Didn't vote.

[sol]

Even if I wanted to pay 100% of college expenses for my kids, I would still have them take out loans and work study and THEN pay everything off for them after they graduated.  I just don't see any advantages to fronting the full cost.

[LuxuryIsADrug]

Why put "I don't want them to struggle like I did?" on the 100% option?

My parents paid my school in full and I will always be grateful for it. There was always a requirement attached to it though; I needed to maintain honour roll.

If I ever decide to get married and have kids I would do the same. However, I do live in Canada so paying for school isn't the headache it is in the USA.

So I'd pay 100% as long as grades are maintained.

Because most people graduate with significant debt.  See this Canadian story that references the average student debt is $25,000. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/average-student-debt-difficult-to-pay-off-delays-life-milestones-1.2534974

I'm not surprised. Both her and her husband have spent a 5 digit sum on career paths that barely pay above minimum wage. (Photojournalism and History). They're also bleeding money by owning a 100-year old home that needs significant work.

I was earning more per year as an assistant manager at McDonalds in my early 20s than their chosen career path.

[Metric Mouse]

Even if I wanted to pay 100% of college expenses for my kids, I would still have them take out loans and work study and THEN pay everything off for them after they graduated.  I just don't see any advantages to fronting the full cost.

While I like this plan, for me it would very much depend upon the loan costs. Perhaps taking out loans and having the child pay the interest while it accrues (to get the 'benefit' of the lessons of paying off debt) and then fronting the principle upon completion of school.  That way the 'stache would grow, kids would grow, and debt would be reduced. 

Just a thought.

[sol]

While I like this plan, for me it would very much depend upon the loan costs. Perhaps taking out loans and having the child pay the interest while it accrues

In the US, student loans don't accrue interest until you leave school, so the loan costs would be zero.  Even if you had the money in the bank on day 1 of freshman year, you could put it in savings bonds for four years and come out ahead by paying it off at the end instead of the beginning.

[Jschange]

100% of a first degree or diploma, but really a top up from the savings I cruelly force them to keep for school. And some of it might be by covering repayment or matching.

I also don't have kids and am in my thirties, so I might spend this money on cat training  (like circus tricks, or meme worthy faces) or helping my nieces with their educations.

[Shane]

Even if I wanted to pay 100% of college expenses for my kids, I would still have them take out loans and work study and THEN pay everything off for them after they graduated.  I just don't see any advantages to fronting the full cost.

I've thought of doing the same thing: letting our daughter pay for school through savings, work and loans, and then if she does a good job, pay everything off for her afterwards.

Every kid is different. It always makes me cringe a little bit when I see people post something like, "Well, if parents do their job correctly while their kids are growing up, then by the time they get to college, they shouldn't have much to worry about. The kids should be responsible and able to take care of themselves by then." Partly this is true, but I've seen several examples of families that have one or two really well adjusted kids who are super responsible and good students, but then they've got another kid who is off the charts irresponsible. I know one family with a pair of fraternal twins, where one twin is an honor student and got tons of scholarship offers for college, but the other twin, raised in the same house, same parents, same food, same water, everything, but he has always been in trouble and is now, literally, in jail. Sometimes, no matter how good parents are, kids end up with problems.

For some kids I've known, if I were their parent, I'd be fine just paying 100% of the costs for their tuition and books, and maybe letting the kid work during breaks to earn spending money.

For other kids I've known, If I were their parent, I don't think I'd pay anything for their college. I'd let them pay 100% of the cost of school, themselves, and then, maybe, pay off some loans for them afterwards if they did a really good job.

How our kid, who is only 7 now, will turn out is yet to be seen.

It's cool to read everyone's theories, now, about how we're planning on doing it. In 5 or 10 or 15 years, when our kids are actually in college, it'll be interesting to check back in and see how many of us end up actually doing what we said we would...

[Metric Mouse]

While I like this plan, for me it would very much depend upon the loan costs. Perhaps taking out loans and having the child pay the interest while it accrues

In the US, student loans don't accrue interest until you leave school, so the loan costs would be zero.  Even if you had the money in the bank on day 1 of freshman year, you could put it in savings bonds for four years and come out ahead by paying it off at the end instead of the beginning.

I believe unsubsidized loans begin accruing interest as soon as they are disbursed.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/033115/how-does-accrued-interest-work-student-loans.asp

http://www.loan.com/student-loans/student-loans-how-interest-accrues.html

[KCM5]

While I like this plan, for me it would very much depend upon the loan costs. Perhaps taking out loans and having the child pay the interest while it accrues

In the US, student loans don't accrue interest until you leave school, so the loan costs would be zero.  Even if you had the money in the bank on day 1 of freshman year, you could put it in savings bonds for four years and come out ahead by paying it off at the end instead of the beginning.

I believe unsubsidized loans begin accruing interest as soon as they are disbursed.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/033115/how-does-accrued-interest-work-student-loans.asp

http://www.loan.com/student-loans/student-loans-how-interest-accrues.html

And the ability to get subsidized loans is dependent on income. In 2003-2007 when I went to school I took out about $25,000 in loans. $2k were subsidized. That was about 30% of the loans for the one year that myself and two of my siblings were in school - upper? middle class family income.

[ender]

We don't have any mini-enders yet, but I've considered the idea of having a "match" for any money my kids earn for college purposes.

Maybe 2:1 or higher.

[asauer]

We're not aiming for a certain percentage.  We're going to save 65k for each child.  They already know this (at 9yo) and can later use that information to shop for colleges.  The 65k will get them through 4 years of a state school, living at home.  It will be up to them to get scholarships, jobs etc if they want to go to a fancy school or live on campus.

[FIRE_at_45]

Root of Good has an interesting article on how to pay for College when you are early retired.

http://rootofgood.com/pay-for-college-while-retired-early/

[nobody123]

Every kid is different. It always makes me cringe a little bit when I see people post something like, "Well, if parents do their job correctly while their kids are growing up, then by the time they get to college, they shouldn't have much to worry about. The kids should be responsible and able to take care of themselves by then." ... Sometimes, no matter how good parents are, kids end up with problems.

I don't think any parent will ever stop worrying about their children, no matter how old & responsible they are.  Even the most responsible kids will make bad choices every now and then.  Heck, I still make a bad choice occasionally.  When it comes to college funding, I don't think anyone is going to just hand their kid a pile of money and tell them "good luck, figure it all out".  I may be planning to fund my kids college 100% and will do my best to make sure they they could figure it out on their own, but if one of them is just going to spend the money on booze and pot and flunk out in a semester, I'm not going to fork over the cash to enable them to do so.

[Pigeon]

I agree with the PP.  While we are paying 100% for four years at a state university or the equivalent, if we had a kid we thought was irresponsible, the offer would be on hold until they demonstrated they were ready and willing to do the work.

[thecrazydoglady]

I'm planning on paying 100% like my parents did. I'm so grateful to have no student loans. It's really allowed me to get ahead of the game and focus on my work and the lifestyle I want to live.

As far as what universities I'll pay for...I don't know if state vs private will matter to me when I have kids. If they choose a state school that would be great on my budget. A private school would need to be ivy league or providing a good amount of merit based scholarships to convince me.

[Pigeon]

The private/public issue can be complicated.  Our decision was to pay for up to the cost of 4 years of a public.  In some cases, the child may receive financial aid from a private institution that brings the cost down to the same as a public or even lower.  In that case, I wouldn't have a problem if they pick the private, but we aren't paying more than that.  In our state there is almost no merit aid at all for most of the public universities in the system.  A great deal of it is going to depend on the kid, the state, and the financial situation of the parents.

[sol]

In our state there is almost no merit aid at all for most of the public universities in the system.

Just to be clear on this point, the widespread perception that merit aid is rare, while true for a majority of people, is 100% false at the upper levels.  Just being in the top 80% of students doesn't usually qualify you for merit aid, because you're not meritorious enough.  But if you win a Westinghouse or a Fulbright, or you're a national merit scholar or a famous teenage inventor, you absolutely can go to school for free.  Thousands of kids every year get full ride merit scholarships.

But they're not available to just any kid who gets decent grades, the way they used to be when the federal government invested more heavily in training our best and brightest.  Since then, they've decided it's more cost effective to train just the top 1% of kids who generated most of the advancements anyway, and let the rest fight it out on the free market.

[Pigeon]

In our state there is almost no merit aid at all for most of the public universities in the system.

Just to be clear on this point, the widespread perception that merit aid is rare, while true for a majority of people, is 100% false at the upper levels.  Just being in the top 80% of students doesn't usually qualify you for merit aid, because you're not meritorious enough.  But if you win a Westinghouse or a Fulbright, or you're a national merit scholar or a famous teenage inventor, you absolutely can go to school for free.  Thousands of kids every year get full ride merit scholarships.

But they're not available to just any kid who gets decent grades, the way they used to be when the federal government invested more heavily in training our best and brightest.  Since then, they've decided it's more cost effective to train just the top 1% of kids who generated most of the advancements anyway, and let the rest fight it out on the free market.

In my case, the state universities and colleges themselves have almost no money dedicated to merit aid.  I work in the state university system and my kids are/will be attending these schools.  I'm good friends with people in the financial aid office.  Students can get private scholarships or National Merit scholarships, but the institutions themselves do not generally provide scholarships based on merit, only on financial need.  A handful of schools in the system will have a few small specific scholarships, usually the result of a very modest endowment for the purpose.

In my older daughter's case, she received merit aid from the privates she applied to, but not enough to bring the costs down to the level of the publics without loans.  She received, as we expected, no merit aid from the publics.

Financial aid is very much a YMMV.

[MDM]

...you're a national merit scholar...you absolutely can go to school for free.

Note that sol did not say "any" school.

But, for example, see http://www.ou.edu/content/admissions/nationalmerit/nmscholarship.html which pretty well supports sol's general point here.

[Pigeon]

I wasn't disagreeing with Sol.

When we went to tour many of the campuses in our system though, it was inevitable that the admissions people would give their spiel about costs and would state that their institution doesn't give out merit aid. There would be a stunned gasp from the assembled group of parents, who would then pose the same question repeatedly to the admissions people.

What my kid saw with her fairly high achieving group of cohorts (top 20% or so) was that most of them got some merit aid from privates, but not nearly as large an amount as what the families had hoped or expected.

[MDM]

What my kid saw with her fairly high achieving group of cohorts (top 20% or so) was that most of them got some merit aid from privates, but not nearly as large an amount as what the families had hoped or expected.

No trouble whatsoever believing that. ;)

[Bee21]

I will pay for their Bachelor's if it is in a sensible field. If they want to do a double degree in philosophy and aesthetics, they can fund that themselves. My eldest is 6 and i already have the money for a basic degree, based on current prices. The little one is next, i think hers will be saved up by next year.

I had scholarships all the way, my parents paid for my accomodation and food. My husband's degree was paid for by his grandparents.

[marion10]

We put both ours through their bachelors with no debt. They are grateful. We insisted they manage their own college application process and get decent grades. They both got merit scholarships at private colleges and it cost us about the same as a state school.

[dividendman]

I'm curious: how many people here generally want lower taxes/fewer government services, etc. but are paying for or plan to pay for a large part of their children's education?

How do you reconcile the belief that people should be able to work hard make it on their own, but not your kids?

I get that it's private money in this case and you can do with it what you want but that's not the point I'm making. Maybe it's a good topic for another thread.

[davisgang90]

I answered 100%, but there are a couple of caveats. 

I paid for school for my oldest son, but on a sliding scale based on grades.  I paid 100% of As and Bs.  I paid 50% for Cs and he was responsible for Ds and Fs.  This was for him to try community college.  He paid for most of the classes....

My middle son has autism and most likely will not attend school.

My youngest son has my GI bill available for his school if he chooses to attend.

[Mrs. S]

I think 100% if we can and if the now nonexistent kid manages to go in an exceptional college we cannot afford it will be partly funded. I was blessed with a great college with highly subsidized fee ( if I remember correctly tuition was waved). Mr. S the same without tuition waiver.
Our parents paid for everything though we both held part time jobs as much as we could, to pay for our overheads.
I expect my kids to hold part time jobs (preferably from before college) to pay for their expenses which do not qualify under tuition, room, board and necessary academic expenses.
This assistance however extends only to bachelors and I expect them to pull their weight with or without finance for masters and beyond.

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm curious: how many people here generally want lower taxes/fewer government services, etc. but are paying for or plan to pay for a large part of their children's education?

How do you reconcile the belief that people should be able to work hard make it on their own, but not your kids?

I get that it's private money in this case and you can do with it what you want but that's not the point I'm making. Maybe it's a good topic for another thread.

FWIW, there's a strong argument that an abundance of governmenttaxpayer-subsidized student loans has been the primary cause for the skyrocketing cost of education.

[Metric Mouse]

I'm curious: how many people here generally want lower taxes/fewer government services, etc. but are paying for or plan to pay for a large part of their children's education?

How do you reconcile the belief that people should be able to work hard make it on their own, but not your kids?

I get that it's private money in this case and you can do with it what you want but that's not the point I'm making. Maybe it's a good topic for another thread.

Probably best for another thread, but to take a whack at your question without lighting too much of a flame:  I think those seemingly contridictory views are held because the person who argues for lower taxes may believe that some part of their tax money is being wasted on services and overhead that do not benefit anyone, and that this tax money is taken against their will.  They may believe that people should be allowed to spend their own money on frivolous things such as a fully-funded education for their children, but they don't believe their money should be taken to spend on such frivolous things for others.

Mostly the argument then devolves into cost/benefit of the services one side disagrees with, like most money discussions.

[onlykelsey]

I am tentatively planning on saving enough for tuition at an in-state school (which would currently be ~60% of tuition at a private school where I am).  If I never FIRE and am still earning enough to mess with their aid, I would probably consider paying more.  My kid is negative nine weeks old, though, so this is definitely up in the air as I see what its interests and capabilities are.

What would you do with money you saved for a kid who ended up not going to college? 

[Metric Mouse]

.

What would you do with money you saved for a kid who ended up not going to college?

Leave it invested to compound with the rest of the 'stache.

[onlykelsey]

.

What would you do with money you saved for a kid who ended up not going to college?

Leave it invested to compound with the rest of the 'stache.

So it reverts back to the parents' pot?  I guess that's workable if you were just flagging money for the tuition, but would be a bit more complex if you set up a trust or 529 or tuition plan.

If you have two kids it seems like a recipe for fighting if one gets 150K and the other gets 0K, assuming the kid that didn't go to college was truly not cut out for it/capable of it (rather than lazy, etc).  I don't think I have a strong opinion one way or the other, but it's something I think about.

[Metric Mouse]

.

What would you do with money you saved for a kid who ended up not going to college?

Leave it invested to compound with the rest of the 'stache.

So it reverts back to the parents' pot?  I guess that's workable if you were just flagging money for the tuition, but would be a bit more complex if you set up a trust or 529 or tuition plan.

If you have two kids it seems like a recipe for fighting if one gets 150K and the other gets 0K, assuming the kid that didn't go to college was truly not cut out for it/capable of it (rather than lazy, etc).  I don't think I have a strong opinion one way or the other, but it's something I think about.

If there were multiple kids to juggle, it would change the math. If the child didn't go to school because they were not cut out for it, and needed an income to keep their head above water while they found their place, the money could be used for that.  It could be used to fund their business, if they needed it. Or to pay for their lawyer because they were an asshat and got in trouble.  I guess to me money is fungible; just because it was earmarked for education, I wouldn't be afraid to use it to support my child in whatever they decided to do.  Education is just one of the expenses that is easiest to plan for.

[dogboyslim]

...) and hoping this free make other people pay for my kids' tuition for families making under $125K/year by 2021 will be a reality.

IFYP, but we should probably leave it alone lest we go political.

I voted 90% because I'm not sure how much tuition will be.  I have an upper limit of 100k for each of our kids, but I will only pay tuition/room & board.  They are on their own for books, activities and fun money etc.