College Tuition Inflation.

Do parents not create college funds for their kids anymore? My dad had every cent of my college education saved up by the time I was 15 years old. I didn't need to use any of it as I went on a full scholarship, but it was there.

 

Seems a bit irresponsible to me. That said, maybe these kids that are fresh out of high school should enter the work force for awhile and save up some dough rather than taking on a $100k loan.

 

I think it's irresponsible to raise your child with the expectation that college is where he/she should go after high school if you're unable to pay for that child's education. Basically the parent is encouraging their child to take on a huge loan, and that is irresponsible, imo. My dad taught me to never purchase anything that I don't have the means to pay for. Everything I own is mine, paid in full.

Parents who encourage their children to go off and assume a huge debt for college are doing nothing more than further compounding the massive issue of credit default that is dragging this country down. Parents teaching their children that it's ok to take on immense debt because, ya know, eventually it'll get paid off...probably. And that's where we start our children off early with that ugly sense of entitlement...resulting in poverty and frustration.

 

I don't get it. The kids who have to pay for their own college are the entitled ones? Not the ones whose parents pay for their college?

I don't mean for this to sound like I'm complaining, because I'm not, but my parents couldn't afford to pay for my college. So I financed it myself via working and loans, and I am continuing to finance my education in grad school by working three part time jobs in addition to taking out loans to pick up the difference while co-parenting two small kids. And I'm the entitled one?

Whereas your parents were going to pay your way, except they didn't have to because you were good at sports and you aren't the entitled one? I think that that's funny.

This what I'm talking about. Assign blame and move on. Is that the only solution you have, Eddie? "Why can't their parents just pay for their college" is the new "Let them eat cake."

 

If I didn't have money to pay for my child's education I would encourage them to try for scholarships. However if they didn't receive enough scholarship money to pay for college I would encourage them to work until they are able to pay, in full, for their tuition and expenses.

To expect something that you can't pay for or haven't earned perfectly exemplifies a sense of entitlement.

 

Glad I'm not your kid. Your kids are going to be saving for college until they're 40 and when they finally finish school, they'll be way behind their peers with respect to expected lifetime earnings. If I were your kids, I'd forget about college and get a library card.

Entitlement is also thinking you earned your tuition because you were good at playing sports.

 

Nor do I, If I pay for it. I find nothing wrong with expecting to be served a good meal, if I pay for it.

 

No they won't.

Because having a college degree ensures higher lifetime earnings? No.

As long as the method of payment is agreed upon by both the one receiving the service and the one providing it, there is no undo sense of entitlement.
--- merged: Oct 29, 2011 6:24 PM ---

I suppose as long as you understand your full obligation to pay for received services it's fine. Although I really don't like the idea of receiving something on credit because it's gotten this world in to a huge mess.

 

Ok?

No, but it does increase expected lifetime earnings, which is what I was talking about.

Entitlement has nothing to do with agreements about compensation. It has to do with expecting something for reasons other than having "earned" it.

 

Expected earnings? Ah, the great expanse between reality and the expected...and ever growing realization as we mature.

I suppose the only definition of "earned" that matters is the one agreed upon by the two individual doing business.

 

Expected in this context is essentially an average. It's a way of talking about what generally happens and is often a useful guideline when making decisions in light of uncertainty. It's also common sense in this context: all other things being equal, someone who gets done with college at 21 and afterwards makes $10,000 - $40,000 more than someone else for ~20 years is going to earn a lot more over their lifetime than the person who waits ~20 years to start making $10,000 - $40,000 more. These are generalities, I know they don't always apply. I think it would be funny if all of a sudden you were concerned about the inaccuracies of generalities, though, since you seem to rely on them so much.

So the if the government decides that people below the poverty line have earned their welfare checks every month, then its not an entitlement, but a fair agreement between two consenting parties? I don't think you're making a lot of sense here. Is it really that difficult to admit that you got it a lot easier than the people who actually had to pay for college? Clearly you did. Admitting it won't make anyone think less of you.

 

Life is uncertain.

Well, there's good businesses and there's bad businesses. The good ones will flourish and the bad ones won't. I think it's safe to say that a business that's $14 trillion in debt(our government) is not a good business.

Nice threadjack. Do you really want to take the discussion down this path and make it about me? I mean, I will, but I'm not sure the mods will like it.

 

So you agree with me? As long as the government thinks the impoverished deserve their welfare checks, then there is no entitlement occurring?

You made it about you as soon as you used the fact that you got a scholarship as evidence that people who paid their own way are entitled.

 

Well, in the case of welfare it's not really a business transaction because both parties aren't exchanging something. It's a handout which, as you can see leads to massive debt and a sense of entitlement.