Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion college plan

Wow only $450 for the rent of a one bedroom. I've always lived in places where housing is really expensive. You can't get a 1 bedroom for 4x that cost in my area, nor where my daughter goes to school. I assume you are going by today's pricing and who knows what will happen with housing costs in the next 10-15 years.

Sorry about the allergies, that can be very scary. Good luck with that. I do know a kid that had a severe egg allergy that did get better as he got older, perhaps that will happen with your son.

I sure hope the allergies ease up a bit in the future! Would be nice!

Yes, I was going by a small midwest town University current costs (I went to grad school there). While the tuition costs and foods costs have gone up in the 13 years I've been gone, the rental prices have gone up only by a bit! It's good to know there are still low cost options

You're really looking at this the wrong way. Typically any given cause will give rise to many effects. And typically any given effect will arise from many causes. You don't just look at one cause-effect pairing in isolation. Life is complicated and it is prudent to be well informed.


You should be careful not to over-moralize about the choices other people are almost forced to make. In college years, the FAFSA formula can effectively add up to 47% to the marginal tax rate the parents are paying on top of other taxes, and maybe other costs of working. Someone can find themselves in a situation where they are working for practically nothing so that it's just not worth it. There may be nothing they can do to avoid that scenario. All they can do is anticipate the possibility and plan accordingly.

I agree that people should not be condemned for playing by the rules. If the rules encourage behavior that is bad for society, they should be changed. Need-based financial aid effectively raises marginal tax rates, and earlier in life, the cost of child care may result in a working mother not keeping much after taxes and expenses. However, many careers cannot easily be turned on and off, and even a partial downshifting ("mommy track") tends to lower the career trajectory. So decisions about how much to work should account for not just current but future after-tax-and-expense earnings.

Although people who look at the rules and decide that working less is optimal should not be condemned, I think there should be more appreciation (instead of demonization as 1-percenters) of high-earning dual income couples who pay a lot of taxes and full freight for their children at college.

While no one is “condemning those who play by the rules” or “demonizing the 1-percenters”, and one is “careful not to over-moralize about the choices other people are almost forced to make”…
some may say that a planned early retirement with the specific intent to game the system for need-based financial aid for college costs may be unethical, and an example of what some people may resent about a system which seems to help the wealthy and affluent become more so, while syphoning dollars out of the system which were originally intended to help those with "need", not those with "game".

The original post was not about "1-percenters", those on a "mommy track", or "choices other people are almost forced to make". It was about "specific intent to game the system".

"Demonizing", "condemning", and "over-moralizing" are strong words. Some may say that accusations using these words may be seen as bullying or intimidation rather than respectful discussion of a difference of viewpoint.

Colleges look at assets.

IMO, the insanely high costs of our tertiary education system are immoral. We tell kids that they MUST go to college. Then the colleges and the banks soak them and/or their parents and yoke most of them to debt that can't even be discharged upon death.

As far as I'm concerned, finding a way to beat being fleeced isn't immoral, and claiming that people who find a way to do so is the wrong way to look at the problem. People who beat an immoral system aren't the problem. The system is the problem. The solution is to change the system.

In this country, that would mean going back to heavily subsidized public universities, as we used to have in California and in other states.

("Heavily subsidized" means "affordable without loans.")

Please share the ways in which you believe "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap" has been looked at wrongly.

Please share alternate ways you see for looking at "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap", which are more accurate.

Regardless of truisms about cause-and-effect, please realize the article created this "pairing" of "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap"; I did not create that pairing.

Regardless of the truisms that "life is complicated" and "it is prudent to be well informed", is there anything specifically in this post which either presumed life was not complicated or one was not well-informed: << "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap"... does not seem a compelling or academically sound reason for whole-grade acceleration. >>

Do you believe that "having the younger child skip a year in school, to increase the overlap"... IS a compelling or academically sound reason for whole-grade acceleration?

I do not believe the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS) considers this a factor.

I partially agree:
1) College/University Tuition costs are rising faster than many other living expenses, as can be read in several articles and reports readily found online.
2) One solution to consider may be to examine tuition costs and see what can be done to bring them in line with the economy. Governmental transparency is needed to accomplish this. Examining and controlling costs may provide greater long-term sustainability than transferring the growing costs to other branches of government to be funded/subsidized.

However I do not agree with a philosophy which might endorse "gaming the system", to help the wealthy and affluent become more so, while syphoning dollars out of the system which were originally intended to help those with "need", not those with "game".

It's probably worth noting at this point that the willingness to game the system is highly correlated with wealth: study.