Speaking of having 3 kids...

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Speaking of having 3 kids...
87
Mon, 04-07-2008 - 3:21pm

Any comments on this editorial that ran yesterday?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403217.html


I really object to the line that says that a family with just two kids is minimalist and "even a little sad."


Any other comments?


<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Wed, 04-16-2008 - 9:03pm

Exactly.

You're not going to waste money sending an unmotivated child to college if that child has to financially contribute to their education, because that child would not be willing to take it on.

MAJOR, MAJOR EDIT! In the original post that I was responding to, I thought she was asking if there would be a difference in motivation if the parents were paying versus if the CHILD was paying. Looking back, it says parents paying versus scholarship. MY BAD!





Edited 4/16/2008 9:05 pm ET by finally.me




iVillage Member
Registered: 08-08-2006
Wed, 04-16-2008 - 9:04pm

I'm a little curious too.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2005
Wed, 04-16-2008 - 9:05pm

Perhaps it's because of the school I attended, but I knew a lot of people who were at school on loans and summer earnings who were not very serious about school. They did it because it was expected of them, and because they could. They took every loan available to them, they maxed out every credit card someone would give them. They spent their evenings working or at the bars, and attended classes for exams and review sessions. In some ways, where I was, this was worse than the people whose parents were paying. The ones who were not receiving money from parents felt that their parents had no say in anything they did, whereas the people whose parents were paying felt that if they wanted to stay and enjoy the fun aspects of college, they had to meet their parents' expectations.

Granted, they are all successful now, but so are the ones who worked their butts off on their parents' dimes, the ones who behaved just like the above-mentioned students, but on their parents' dimes, and the ones who worked their butts off on student loans and summer earnings and part-time jobs.

The only difference I ever saw was in the years right after we graduated. Those who had no loans to pay back were able to buy condos instead of renting apartments (or living with parents). A few years ago, those with no loans were buying vacation homes or huge houses or boats while the ones who were paying off loans were buying their first houses. Now, things have pretty much equalized, so I do not think the difference is that huge in the grand scheme of things. But I have not seen the difference so many others have, with people who are on their parents' tabs taking it for granted.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2005
Wed, 04-16-2008 - 9:17pm

I was asking specifically about the scholarship vs. parents paying. I've seen many people say that in their experience, students value their education more if they work for it. While that has not been evident among the people I went to college with, it is logical.

On the other hand, the poster I was asking (I can't remember who) talked about scholarships, but also about the lack of work ethic when parents pay, and it made me wonder if there was an equally logical argument that kids on scholarship are more similar in motivation than kids who work for it themselves than kids whose parents pay for it.

I personally think how a kid acts in college has more to do with the character they have built before they get there than the source of funding. I would imagine most kids who have academic scholarships have a pretty decent work ethic and would work hard regardless of how school was paid for. But I also think that is true of many kids who did not receive scholarships but whose parents are paying the bill instead. Because in a lot of cases, that kid who would be on scholarship at a state school could have gone to an Ivy League without a scholarship. If the parent steps in and pays, I do not see that it would change the kid's work ethic.

But I do concede that it would be logical for someone to argue that if parents are paying for education, the kid may be less motivated to avoid repeating classes, extending the number of semesters needed by taking low credit loads or changing majors. However, I still believe that the very fact of parents paying balances that out by providing some system of accountability from the child to someone else.

I'm rambling. Sorry.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2006
Wed, 04-16-2008 - 9:19pm

"But I have not seen the difference so many others have, with people who are on their parents' tabs taking it for granted."


I agree, I did not attend college so do not have personal experience

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-17-2007
Wed, 04-16-2008 - 9:45pm

Just curious, but who is saying you " have to finance some expensive private school or and IVY"?

What I have seen is people saying why they have made the choices they have made for *their* family. I haven't seen anyone tell anyone what anyone else should do.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-30-2007
Thu, 04-17-2008 - 9:37am

What dh and I are planning on doing (and Ive seen it work) is we will prepay for the first term.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-02-2004
Thu, 04-17-2008 - 10:28am

I've seen it go both ways..

When my husband was in pharmacy school there was a pathetic amount of students who failed out who were being 100% financed by mommy and daddy.

There were also a few on scholarship who failed out...though not as many.

Of the ones who were working their way through school and taking out student loans...hardly any of them failed out at all. (Who wants to fail out and then still owe over a hundred thousand dollars in student loans?)

Pharmacy is unique because graduates are earning more than six figures their first year out of school...so student loans are not as much as a burden.

I don't know...I think it behooves a student to be responsible for at least a portion of their own education.

That's just my experience. My parents paid for mine and I wasn't NEARLY as good of a student as my husband who worked his entire way through pharmacy school.

Arabella

Photobucket

Meez 3D avatar avatars games

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2005
Thu, 04-17-2008 - 10:44am

But do you think the difference in the way you worked had to do with the funding? or could it have been due to differences in your ambitions, your general work ethic, your maturity level? I think it is more likely something internal in the person than something external, like funding.

In my law school class, several of the people who were top of our class were people whose parents paid for their entire education (anything not covered by scholarships). If I could identify any difference among students whose educations were paid for by parents vs. student loans vs. scholarships, I would say that I saw a number of really, really bright students who achieved under their potential because they let the pressure get to them (seeing the loans mount up, wondering if they could ever get a job to pay for them all).

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2006
Thu, 04-17-2008 - 11:55am

i admit to going through the motions wrt my college education.

 

Pages