Planned to spend equally on each kid, but first took a large scholarship...

[thumper1]

[quote]We thought we'd be spending equally on college, to be fair. [/qopte]

Agreed...Fair is NOT always equal....or the same. If one of your kids need braces or glasses...did you feel the need to get that for BOTH kids?

The most important thing for you to do is to set the financial limits for your second child so that he knows what they are. His college situation has absolutely nothing to do with his older brother's...other than your family decisions regarding your ability to pay whatever amount your family determines.

Think of it this way...your older son was quite fortunate. Your younger son may not be as fortunate, and you may need to give more money towards college for him. Also, college costs have increased annually...so the amount for son one and son two would have been different even if you chose a %age of cost.

[jyber209]

^ good example above about the braces and glasses. (Both my kids needed both though )

I never really thought about it, but my D spent many years in dance classes and I am sure the expense for that, plus costumes, pointe shoes, summer dance programs, etc. added up to a substantial amount. (Although we did offer S the opportunity to take dance classes, and he was one season in a Nutcracker performance!)

Anyhow, we never really thought about keeping the expenses for both equal. They each were fortunate that we did support them in pursuing their interests and we were willing to pay as long as they were working at it. D worked pretty hard on flute so at one point we upgraded her from a student flute to a good silver flute. S played trumpet and enjoyed it but rarely practiced, so he still has his original student trumpet -- at college! (He would have liked a better instrument, but we said he had to demonstrate his commitment with practice on the one he had, which he never did, so we never upgraded for him.) We paid for their lessons provided they practiced a certain amount during the week. So again, D's instrumental lessons were paid for by us and S paid for his own at a certain point. It was a matter of meeting their different goals and needs more than of money. Plus we did let them know that our resources were not unlimited and that we monitor our investments! We were not willing to waste our money on music lessons for a kid who does not practice -- but S was free to spend his own money from his part-time job that way if he wished! (Unfortunately, the desired goal of his changing his behavior did not happen, but at least we were not enabling his lack of dedication.)

We were in a financial position to support their interests -- although we did not provide other things, such as buy them cars, which some families do. It can be an individual thing and different families may have different values and goals.

[fireandrain]

I have one kid, so I don't have to worry about this. But the proposal to spend the exact same amount on each kid for college is complicated due to inflation. If your kids are several years apart in age, the cost of even the same institution will go up significantly since colleges typically raise costs at a rate of 5%/year (and sometimes much more than that). I just quickly ran the numbers -- if kid one's first year cost $46,000, and each year went up 5%, and kid two starts the year after kid one graduates: that's a difference of about $43,000. So you would be penalizing kid two just for being born later.

[somemom]

We told our kids they could each graduate from the state school with no debt or apply that equal amount elsewhere.

One DD did the state school and we paid. One DD did a state school and had many merit awards and we paid the difference. Another DD did CC + a small private with merit aid. The CC/private combo worked out to about the state budget x 4; we felt no need to rebate the amount of the merit awards to D2, we promised state school with no debt.

[oldfort]

I could see how this could be hard. We have two kids. One is at a full pay top tier school. She turned down a full ride merit money at a lower tier school to go to her current school. Our plan was not to pay for our kids' graduate school. D2 is thinking about going to law school someday. If she were able to get a similar merit money from an undergrad school(lower tier school), I am wondering if it would be reasonable for us to pay for her law school. We also do not believe it is necessary to be equal -equal. But in D2's case, if she were to come to us with School A (full pay) and School B (full merit), and propose to take School B, but ask us to pay for graduate school, would that be fair? We are not there, but am just thinking about it.

[HImom]

We paid for both kids to go to private HS & they are both attending same private college. S got significant merit award. D went to CC for 3 semesters + summer school & is now a transfer there. Neither has made any comments about funds or fairness; both are working hard and we are proud of both. S really wants a car & we have an older car that we don't need, so we will be shipping it to him (D has only a learner's permit & no license). He will pay for insurance, maintenance, & shipping. We plan to allow S to keep the funds he has saved over the years (from birthdays & gifts) tho it is significantly higher than D's savings--maybe because he was the 1st child? We also used some of his funds to buy a state bond that matured.

To the extent it matters, I do think it makes sense to allow students to choose a lower cost undergrad school to get help for anticipated grad school. That is a very reasonable and mature thing to do. If the kid opts not to go to grad school, the funds could also be available to help start a business or buy a place or whatever the student and family feel is appropriate. We did want S to consider schools where he was offered a free ride but he didn't find them as attractive as the school he chose where he got 1/2 tuition (still substantial but more than it could have been). We do feel fortunate that we are able to help our kids and allow them attractive choices.

[jyber209]

^^ In the case mentioned in post #20 above, I could see "cutting such a deal" as oldfort mentions - agreeing to help with law school if the student chooses a significantly less expensive undergrad. If my kid were aiming for law school, the expense of a professional school would have been an issue to be discussed when deciding on an undergrad school. I do believe in making kids do a cost/benefit analysis with family resources.

The reality is that most of us do not have unlimited resources. We also do not want to be dependent on our own kids at a later date, so my top priority is to fund retirement to the max.

We are not paying for or even helping with our kids' grad schools -- that is on them. We put them both through their top choice colleges, which happened to be private and we were/are full-pay. I realize that other familes may have other situations and other goals. D got full funding for grad school, fortunately. She also had the option to go part-time funded by her employer, but that both would have taken longer and obligated her to stay with her employer for a while after finishing. It was her choice to do as she is. D is an economist so understands about "opportunity cost" etc.
S has no idea about grad school at this point (engineering undergrad, just about to start his second year).

just one opinion, of course

['rentof2]

We are of the "one pot" model, too. How much goes to whom is not always equal, but the aim is that both get out of undergrad as debt-free as possible, and both work equally in the summer to earn their portion of the costs. That requires some odd reckoning. For example, we pay for my son's books but my daughter pays for her own. This is because he has a much higher summer earnings expectation than she does. He can't earn enough to pay it and also buy books. What she earns in her summer job is mostly available for her to do with what she wants. I don't reallocate their incomes, but I do allocate *ours* to balance things out somewhat. That's just one example, but we make those adjustments in lots of ways as we go along. Both should have equal opportunity to accomplish what they want, but that doesn't mean we divide our resources strictly in half for them.

[my-3-sons]

We're also in Soozie's camp. Three kids, one pot and we feel we treated them equal. Equal for us means each was given the opportunity for an education at a school he loved that would meet his needs. The fact that the schools came with different price tags didn't enter into it any more that the differing costs of their medical care. The feeling that the different dollar amounts spent was unfair would never even enter my kids' thoughts. They are each thrilled to be getting educations at schools they chose and love.

[mimk6]

I've never been a big believer in the whole "equal" thing. There is an excellent book on sibling issues that takes the approach that the "equal" mentality leads to a lot of problems. I told my kids that each kid gets what they need and what they need is not always what a sibling needs. This also carried over into talents, etc. If one kid worked hard at piano and was talented, that didn't mean every kid needed lessons or the money shelled out in some other way. One kid played sports a lot which cost less than the kid who was artistic and took art lessons. But I wasn't going to find some way to pay more to the kid who was athletic because his passion was cheaper. I know one family where one kid is in public school and the other in private - different kids, different needs. I don't think they owe the public school kid anything or that either kid has any reason to be jealous - both are in excellent programs suited to their own needs. Anyhow, we didn't pay the same amount for all of our kids re college and it was fine. Each ended up at a school they chose to be at and that's what matters. This is different than showering one kid consistently with gifts and not others, etc. Obviously, some parents do overtly favor kids -- that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about need-based parenting.

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

They're different kids in different situations with different decisions. I can't think of any reason why it s/b expected that they'd each have the exact same amount of dollars spent on their college education. It doesn't really make any sense any more than handing one of them an equal pile of dough if they chose not to go to college at all.

You're treating them equally and fairly by providing a college education for both of them and that's more than some parents do so they should both feel grateful for the opportunities you provided for them. I think you should consider placing any funds you anticipated would go to the college fund but are no longer needed for that purpose into your retirement fund or other investments or take a great vacation or something. You're already meeting your end of the deal regarding funding the kids' college educations.

[soozievt]

Also, unlike some here, it was not like we had all the funds saved up for college and then one kid didn't use it all and we then gave the difference. We did not have it all saved up and we are paying over time. There is no extra money sitting around to give to X kid whose total college cost may have differed a little from the other kid (nor would I hand them over the difference had it been saved up anyway).

Here is an example. D1 is in a 3.5 year grad school which we are funding. While she got scholarship offers at five excellent grad schools (these are professional schools that do not pay you to attend but may offer some money, not all, as scholarships toward tuition), she did not get such an offer at the sixth school but that was the school she preferred and we let her attend it. This summer, she learned she was awarded a substantial fellowship toward tuition there for her remaining 2.5 years. It is a wonderful surprise that will help us out a great deal (she applied for it but didn't think she would win it and never told us that she put in for it). Now, it is not like I am now giving her the difference of what I had thought I would have to pay out! Simply this is a nice help and she knows it helps us. But it is not like we promised a dollar amount. We promised an education.

[blossom]

I agree philosophically with everyone here who supports giving each child what they need.

But within limits. I've observed a family dynamic where the low maintenance kid (financially, not necessarily emotionally!) ends up as an adult with some big issues towards the other sibs and parents.

So make sure that you've role played how the conversation goes with each of your kids before you decide how to communicate your limitations and your generosity. Even the best intended parents sometimes convey (however subtle it may be) "you're the slug and he's the genius. So we don't think it matters how much we spend on you".

[vballmom]

I'm not of the "one pot" opinion although I do believe that siblings should be able to attend the school that best fits their interests/personalities, assuming that school is affordable to the family.

I've been saving money in my sons' names since they were infants with the intention of having equal amounts available for them to use on their college education. Anything left over in their UGMAs or 529s will be theirs, thus giving them an incentive to select a school we could all afford.

S1's account is worth almost exactly the 4-year cost of his in-state public school, so he's not likely to have anything left over. I think he's fine with that as he values his education that much. Unfortunately, the savings plan got a little derailed for S2 over the years, and his account is about three quarters of S1's. Regardless, any gap will be funded from my savings and current income with the goal of graduation with little to no debt. This assumes he goes to an in-state public school or gets the equivalent in scholarships at a private college (he's a senior in high school). There's a limit to how much I can contribute, and S2 knows this. I'm guessing his education might cost more than S1's, given inflation and the chance he'll go to a private college. I don't forsee any issues between the boys, or among them and me, about who got more money for college. Each boy is so different in personality, interests and abilities that it's obvious to all that they should go to completely different types of schools.

[Deja]

^^ In the case mentioned in post #20 above, I could see "cutting such a deal" as oldfort mentions - agreeing to help with law school if the student chooses a significantly less expensive undergrad. If my kid were aiming for law school, the expense of a professional school would have been an issue to be discussed when deciding on an undergrad school.

This is exactly what we did. While we paid for S to go to a state university, S2 accepted a full ride to a top 20 LAC with the stipulation that he will get help from us for law school (four years' worth of EFC).