Would you have had kids if you couldn't
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 09-03-2003 - 3:31pm |
I guess I'm still astounded at the attitude that surfaced at another thread implying that if they couldn't pay for college, they wouldn't have had children. Of course, I'm a lazy, selfish mom at home who isn't working while some of my kids are in school so maybe my opinion doesn't count. Maybe I SHOULD take up scrapbooking to make my existence more worthwhile! lol
In any case, it is an interesting question considering that, under that reasoning, Oprah Winfrey shouldn't have been born. Give me time and I can come up with a whole list of highly successful and respected people who have impacted us in positive ways that wouldn't have been born had their parents decided that because they couldn't pay for college, they wouldn't have children.
How has the college issue influenced your decision to have children, if at all? Do you think it is an important criteria in the decision?
Cindy

Pages
No it wasn't. Not according to that website, which compares 2001 data to 1996 data. According to that website, in 1996 only 94% of the graduating class planned to continue on to college, compared to 96% in 2001.
In which universe is 96% "worse" than 94.1%?
And, btw, mathematically? It's now impossible for your school system to have a 10 year average of BETWEEN 99% and 100% going on to college. The absolute best case scenario you could manage now is exactly 99%, based on the facts we know (96% in 2001 and 94% in 1996), it would be mandatory for 100% of EVERY SINGLE OTHER GRADUATING CLASS between 1992 and 2001 to anticipate going to college out of high school. (800 + 96 + 94 = 990, divided by 10, equals 99 exactly).
Now...given your misrepresentation of 2001 as the "worst year" in the average, when it clearly was not, what are the odds anyone will believe you if you try to "best case" the remaining 8 years?
I hope you don't substitute for any math teachers.
And you can sing and dance that tune all you want, but since you've clearly misrepresented 2001 as being the "worst year" when, in fact, 1996 was worse, your credibility on this is completely shot.
1994 - 88%
1995 - 96%
1996 - 94%
1997 - 91%
1999 - 98&
2000 - 99%
2001 - 96%
The two most curent years are not available, as well as 1998. I'm just curious how you can sauy that over the last 10 years, the percentage of students going on to college is 99-100%. The ONLY year that is true for is 2000. Actually, in the last ten years, the worst year is 1994, but none of the years, except the one I already noted have a 99-100% rate of students going on to college.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Susan
**Not really. In my household, we give money unconditionally. We don't use it to buy affection or compliance. I think that may be the difference here.
<>
**Different again, it wouldn't phase me one bit if I offered to pay for their educatoin and they wanted to work to buy a sports car, fancy house or even the latest dress. Just wouldn't bother me any at all. Again, unconditional on both fronts....I offered it....they didn't ask for it...it isn't a loan, they don't have to pay me back....it's what my family calls a gift.
<>
**Yup, I would have learned that my father thought he could control me via a bank account. Sorry, I don't work that way, nor does my immediate family work that way. In my mind, when a parent offers to pay a little, alot or even the whole college education...it is a gift. Gifts shouldn't have strings attaching themselves back to the parent.
<>
**Who says the child is going to fail a year by working a 40 hour work week? Others have done it, why would your child be any less of a multi-tasker then the thousands of other people (young and old) who do it every year?
Also, I think the GPA needed to get into some of these more competitive schools are higher now. I don't think I could've gotten into my college if I applied today. lol.
Susan
Hollie
Pages