Doesn't it seem horribly inconsistent to be unwilling to pay for your MINOR child to attend private school, but be willing to pay for your ADULT child's undergrad degree, and then be unwilling to pay for their graduate degree?
Nope. Why does he minor child need private school? And won't that child at some point then want the parent to pay for college too, and then be asking for even more money?
You could pay for all or none and be consistent, but the "this not that" is where the inconsistency arises.
If a person can't figure out their own financial plan for grad school, they shouldn't go to grad school.
The fear of being completely fucked if you fail out is part of the fun!
At some point the adult needs to start acting like one, no? Sure if the parents can help, they may and probably do, but it shouldn't be expected.
Yeah. At what point do you say enough, you're an adult and it's time to support yourself? I'm a little shocked at the number who would be willing to pay for their child to be in school until they're 30.
Not necessarily. The kid doesn't have to go into tens of thousands of dollars in debt to pay for a K-12 education, s/he can just go to public school basically free of charge. That's not an option for college.
But you already said you would pay for undergrad but not graduate school. They're an adult while attending both... Neither is, strictly speaking, required. I don't see the consistency.
Basic cost/benefit analysis. These days it's much harder to be successful without a bachelor's degree than it used to be; it's also much more expensive. Paying, or at least helping to pay for that gives them a good, last boost before they're
completely off on their own. Grad school is less necessary and if they choose to do it anyway, they will have less debt because I already paid the undergrad expense.
While that's fine, it's not precisely consistent.
It's consistent with a core goal: to give one's kids as much opportunity as possible without creating too much dependence.
Wouldn't focusing more on their pre-college education so they could fund their own college education make more sense?
That's another valid strategy, depends on the quality of the public schools and if your kid can find a good part-time job. Wouldn't that also be inconsistent by your definition though?
My interpretation of your argument is that the consistent thing to do would be to pay for all or none.
Correct. I'm still confused by what you meant, though.
I would pay for all of it if I have the financial resources.
I would pay for none of it, so at least we're both consistent.