NJ teen loses first legal battle to make parents pay for education

[Barrister]

Well yeah, compared to the U of M.

The go-to. 

I only wish that my children could follow in my legacy at the esteemed University of Manitoba...

[garbon]

Well yeah, compared to the U of M.

The go-to. 

I only wish that my children could follow in my legacy at the esteemed University of Manitoba...

But you wouldn't help assist them.

[katmai]

I can't conceive.

For which the whole world is thankful.

[merithyn]

What I'm curious about is whether you can think of a scenario where you'd apply "if you live in my house according to my rules, I'll pay for education; if not, I won't". I'm particularly interested in scenarios where it's not related to cost, i.e. it's cheaper to fund their education if they live at home, and you can't afford the more expensive options.

As others have said, we don't really know what the situation is between the girl and her parents in the original story. So I'm wondering, for you personally (and for anyone else who's posting), what set of circumstances can you imagine where you'd pay for your child's education contingent on them moving home with you and following your rules, but not otherwise?

Like I've said, I can't imagine a situation where I would. If you can, I'd like to hear it - it may be a scenario I haven't considered, or it may be down to different parenting philosophies. But I think it'd be interesting to examine.

I don't tend to be the "my house/my rules" kind of person. Once my kids reached adulthood, they were given a wide berth to make their own decisions. At that point, I figure I either raised them right or I didn't. The only rules were a) do nothing illegal in my house and b) be respectful of your housemates. If they went to school, they could live rent-free. If not, they paid a reasonable rent.

That being said, I could see a situation where I would lay down the law. If my child were going wild - drugs, drinking dangerously, making very poor choices - and wanted to go straight, I could see saying, "Okay. Come home, live by the rules that I give you until you've proven that you can be trusted, and I will support you and pay for you to go to school. If you can't do that, then you're out on your own. I will support you every step of the way so long as you are making every effort to straighten your life out." If they walk away from that, I would withhold the majority of financial aid to them, aside from buying them groceries or paying the odd bill for them. I certainly wouldn't pay for an education that I wouldn't expect them to be able to actually follow through on.

Having grown up surrounded by addicts, I know what my limits are regarding what I can and will do for them. There is a time when you really do have to say, "I'm here for you when you're ready, but until then, I have to step back." Or at least, when I have to. It's a self-preservation thing. It won't stop my loving or caring for my child, but I have to make sure that I'm a whole enough person to be there when they're ready to come back.

[Jacob]

That sounds eminently reasonable too, Meri.

[garbon]

Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.

[merithyn]

Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.

There was a time when I wondered if one of my boys might not be gay, and I thought, "Okay, how do I support him as he navigates life?" Only to find out that no, he was just incredibly comfortable with his sexuality and had no need to prove he was manly.

Me: Um... son? Why do you have make-up on?
Son:
Me: Is, um, there something that you want to talk to me about?
Son: What do you mean?
Me: Well... the make-up... reading Twilight... I just... you know.... I'm here if you need to ... tell me anything....
Son:  Mom, if I read Twilight, I have something to talk to girls about. And if I let the girls put make-up on me, where is my face?
Me: Ah, okay. Well, cold cream is in the bathroom.
Son: Thanks, Mom!

[garbon]

Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.

There was a time when I wondered if one of my boys might not be gay

[merithyn]

Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.

There was a time when I wondered if one of my boys might not be gay

I'd have been thrilled to have a gay son. Instead, I got a gay nephew.

[garbon]

Going straight? Just a phase, hopefully.

There was a time when I wondered if one of my boys might not be gay

I'd have been thrilled to have a gay son. Instead, I got a gay nephew.

I was taking the sentence on its face and ignoring the day-to-day usage of such phrasing.

[Capetan Mihali]

Yeah, probably.  Get your undergrad at U of A, go to Harvard for grad school / law school / whatever.

It's not like U of Alberta is a bad school.

Not to knock your plan, which makes sense in many ways, but it would be very hard to get into Harvard law school with a U of A undergrad degree.  Or a University of Montana degree.  I think it's the same for a lot of elite post-graduate fields -- elite undergraduate colleges are heavily favored by admissions.  A class of Harvard law students includes a big group of people who went to Harvard undergrad, another large group who went to other Ivies, small but substantial groups who went to top liberal arts colleges or top public universities, and a tiny group who went to lower-ranked public or private schools. 

The undergrad GPAs are not treated equally by admissions.  One of the top law schools, I think Stanford, used to have a formal system for discounting or boosting by X decimal points the GPA an applicant had based on how rigorous/competitive they determined the undergrad to be.  They had to give it up officially after it became public, but it appears that the same thing is happening on a less formal basis at all of them.  So a 4.0 at a good but comparatively "unselective" school just will never be considered equivalent to a 4.0, or even a 3.8, at a "top" undergraduate school.

Of course, this is only something to worry about if you are actually faced with the situation where one of your sons seems likely to pursue these kind of post-college degrees.  College kids certainly screw themselves up all the time, and being close to home could be a lifesaver.

[Barrister]

Fair enough Mihali, and obviously my boys are a long way from worrying about university admission, with the oldest just starting pre-school this year.

But U of A is not equivalent to the U of Montana.  It's generally ranked top five in the country.  It is one of the top public schools in this country (not that we really have any private universities of note).  And *sigh*, yes, it's ranked higher than U of M.  It's actually very competitive to get into - there are other local universities that are easier.

[Admiral Yi]

I'll happily support Capetano on his claim about Ivy League graduate selectivity. 

[grumbler]

I am, as always, grateful when you or CC tell me what I think.

I suppose your next 'deep thought" is going to be that the kind of parent you assume those in the story to be are not being dicks just because of their deliberate harm and sacrifice of the child's education, amiright?

  You do know the difference between a question and a statement, correct?  <- look for that little symbol.

[grumbler]

I don't tend to be the "my house/my rules" kind of person. Once my kids reached adulthood, they were given a wide berth to make their own decisions. At that point, I figure I either raised them right or I didn't. The only rules were a) do nothing illegal in my house and b) be respectful of your housemates. If they went to school, they could live rent-free. If not, they paid a reasonable rent.

That being said, I could see a situation where I would lay down the law. If my child were going wild - drugs, drinking dangerously, making very poor choices - and wanted to go straight, I could see saying, "Okay. Come home, live by the rules that I give you until you've proven that you can be trusted, and I will support you and pay for you to go to school. If you can't do that, then you're out on your own. I will support you every step of the way so long as you are making every effort to straighten your life out." If they walk away from that, I would withhold the majority of financial aid to them, aside from buying them groceries or paying the odd bill for them. I certainly wouldn't pay for an education that I wouldn't expect them to be able to actually follow through on.

Having grown up surrounded by addicts, I know what my limits are regarding what I can and will do for them. There is a time when you really do have to say, "I'm here for you when you're ready, but until then, I have to step back." Or at least, when I have to. It's a self-preservation thing. It won't stop my loving or caring for my child, but I have to make sure that I'm a whole enough person to be there when they're ready to come back.

Exactly.  It is possible for the parents and child in this case to be in exactly that kind of circumstance.  it is possible that they had a "deal" where she had to meet certain standards to remain in private school, and she failed to live up to that.  There are many easily-imagined (by people with imaginations) scenarios in which the parents are in the right here.  We just don't know.  Personally, I doubt it; retired (or un-retired) cops aren't know for being reasonable and full of give-and-take, but I can certainly imagine it.