Parents being forced to pay kids' college tuition

[Cookie]

Want to know how fucked Alberta (Canada) is? If you apply for student loans, it must be signed by a parent unless you have lived on your own for a minimum of 2 years. What does that mean? It means you can't get a student loan if you live with your parents and they refuse to cosign the loan. It also means you can't file independently until 2 years after you move out. Suppose the parents kick you out at age 18. You can't apply for student loans until you are 20. You'll work at a Starbucks cashier for those 2 years.

Are you in Alberta?

IIRC that's only applicable for 4 years after graduation (yes, I realize this is probably the only time it's impotant). But the parents are not 'co-signing' the loan. They only sign the form to verify their income from the previous year. If their income is too high, you don't get a loan.

 

[Patranus]

The kid is 18.
Not sure why the parent has any financial obligation to the adult.

Than again, 18 is the new 4 if OWS has shown us anything.

 

[sygyzy]

I am in California and when I went to college the UC system broke down the loans/grants so it would perfectly match up with what expected tuition, meal, books, and housing costs were. Anything that was needed after grants were accounted for were filled in with loans. Since I was a student, they would only let me borrow a small amount. The largest loan was for my parents.

I knew my parents didn't have money and I intended to pay for my education, so I called up the financial aid office and asked them to put loans in my name. They refused saying that parents had an obligation to pay for their child's education. I argued that I would end up paying back the loan anyway even if it's in my parents name so just put it in mine and avoid the trouble. They refused. I asked what if I hated my parents and they disowned me. I obviously was not the first person to suggest this and the lady said that in that case I would need a motorized note from the court proving this was the case.

I think that's good that parents help pay for their kid's education but I also see many reasons why it shouldn't be required.

 

[WackyDan]

If this was all filed under child care it doesn't matter if you were married or not. Also most people planning on living the married life but not married will still fall under common law marriages.

Which is still easier to defend against versus actually being married.

 

[Via]

Many of these threads seem to relate to my real-life experiences. That's one of the reasons I like this site: to hear how others dealt with the same issues.

One of my best friends in high school got a girl pregnant. To make a long story short: the girl and her mom (no dad in the picture) told him they wanted to meet with a lawyer to "go over some initial things"; he could either come alone or they would call his parents to accomany him. Of course - he hadn't told his parents yet (something they knew) and he consented to go.

After arriving at the office he immediatly found himself with a document in front of him and a pen in his hand. I don't remember all of the details, but I do remember that it required him to pay 100% of college expenses. Of coures he said "no way I'm going to sign this", but the lawyer threatened him and his future repeatedly. He was told that if he walked out the door without signing the document the deal would get worse for him. My friend did eventually leave (he claims the lawyer had some big guys in the room seemed poised to prevent him from leaving, but I don't know if I believe that).

After he told me the story it didn't take me long to convince him that it was time to tell his parents, and eventually both parties sat down with counsel and came to an agreement. They couldn't come to an agreement, so it went to court and he had to play child support, but no college.

 

[Paladin3]

That's the best she can do, so I see your point.
But who knows what she could have done if she started her career out 30 years ago, instead of 10 years ago after being out of the workforce for 30 years.

So the courts penalize your father for working hard and making it possible for your mother to be a stay at home parent? That's bullshit.

I spent the first 12 years of my marriage working full-time, but for the last 10 years I've been working part-time and staying home with the kids, while my wife has taken on the pressure of being the primary wage earner. Being the stay at home parent is the much easier and more rewarding lifestyle of the two, IMHO.

No, being a stay at home parent doesn't prepare you to knock down a 100k salary if you get divorced, but maybe that's why people should think a bit before they get married and start a family. I'm almost 22 years into my first and only marriage. It's been tough at times, but I'm damn happy we stuck it out.

 

[vshah]

18 states have this.

which ones?

 

[ShawnD1]

My mom got screwed in her divorce. She was making 30k/year working as a teacher's aid and my dad was making 80k+. They split everything 50/50. Now she is damn near poverty and my dad is still fine.
She had to cash out most of her share of the 401k to pay down a condo, so she could afford payments on it (lower than renting).
Now she has little retirement and is saving on a 30k salary while my dad is rebuilding on an 80k salary.

?????
So she gets half of his stuff (fair) and keeps her old job (fair) and somehow this is unfair. What?

Alright suppose I get married. Let's say my current income is 50k. Now suppose my wife earns 100k per year. On my own, in 10 years, I would have or consumed 500k worth of stuff (50 x 10). With a wife, I would earn 750k worth of stuff ((50+100)*10/2). Now we split off and go our own ways. I come out ahead with 750k instead of 500k and I keep my 50k/year job. Are you saying I should be able to sue her for money that she makes AFTER WE HAVE STOPPED DATING?

Seriously, this is what is wrong with America. Yeah I don't work at my previous jobs but I should still be able to collect a salary from all of them. I can also take things from people I no longer date and I can keep the keys to the house that my parents had when I was a little kid. Yep, I deserve all of this.

 

[FDF12389]

Believe it or not parents are legally required to contribute to your secondary eduction expenses "to the extend they are able" until you are 23-24(Depending on DOB).

It's really fucked up.

 

[GT1999]

Well, I'm glad that almost everybody here agrees with me that it's bullshit. Thankfully the gf told her mom not to do it but she did it anyway (go figure).

Then again, almost all of us here are guys. If we had more women here the results of this thread would probably be very different.

 

[ShawnD1]

Are you in Alberta?

Yes. Girlfriend is in this situation. She's forced to take out bank loans at 7% interest because she's doing her school too soon. Honest to god, the system rewards people who disappear for a few years and go on a big heroin bender. If your head is in the game and you're working real hard for that degree, you must get interest loans from a bank. If you are a meth addict for a couple years and decide to start university at age 25, you qualify for interest-free loans.

This is government logic in action. Smoke meth for a couple years = free loans.

 

[hanoverphist]

I might also argue that if the couple had made plans to pay for college before splitting, perhaps they should still be legally compelled to do so. That is obviously much more dubious, but so many financial decisions as a couple involve future plans. My wife and I began cutting back on certain things in order to ready ourselves for paying off her student loans in the future. If we divorced today, I think it makes sense that I'd have to contribute towards her loans since we made active plans to do so.

it may have been declared in the divorce decree.

my oldest will be in college in a couple years, and pretty much her whole college fund has been sucked dry from divorce stuff. hate to say it, but i wont be in any position to plop down a hefty tuition for her. her mom wont either. ill help as much as i can because i want to, but i dont have the cash sitting aside like a lot of people do. hell, one of the guys here at my work has 3 kids, all with about 40k each in accounts the parents, grandparents and general family have been contributing to since the kids were born. wish i had thought of that way back then, even tho i did have a stash at one point.

my parents didnt fund my degree at all either, and both were in a position to afford it with a lump sum payment if they had wanted to. i dont begrudge them for it, college was my responsibility.

 

[Rudee]

From what I witnessed when I was in College and University, Paying for a child's tuition is quite often a waste of money, as many kids who go to College right after high school use it as a social experience instead of a learning experience. Many kids will just take the same courses as their friends are taking so they can socialize and have fun with their friends instead of taking what they are interested in and making it about individual learning. I was in my late 20's when I went to University, and I did it on my own dime. Far too many people in school were wasting their parents money and not taking their education seriously. The more mature students (late 20's and higher) did far better, because they didn't have mommy and daddy flipping the bill.

 

[boomhower]

My dad paid half of mine, but he agreed to it when they got divorced.