<p>Thanks everyone. That is very interesting and I agree that its very unfair how its handled in California. Of course, TV4caster won’t be happy but yes I agree that the NCP should be made to fork up his/her portion of money for college. Whether they like it or not!!! Shouldn’t fall on the taxpayers to educate a child that has parents more than able to do so themselves.</p>
<p>TV, if your reasoning is consistent, then I suspect you also believe that 18 year olds should not now be allowed to remain on their parents health insurance plans because they are adults?
Just curious. I think defining adulthood is an interesting legal challenge that today is fraught with inconsistencies.</p>
<p>In my case, I actually did have language in my divorce that specified post-secondary education costs would be shared equally, and that child support would continue “either” until the child was 18, or completed and undergrad degree in the customary amount of time, and I do agree that such language should be there. (it does not seem common here; my divorce was in another country.) I also did not collect alimony, so that did not play in.</p>
<p>So in actual fact, I could have won a court order. I did not pusue it because I did not need to and my general feeling is not unlike yours in that my preference is not to legally compel someone to do something that they are choosing to believe they cannot do, particularly where others are free to choose not to ;)</p>
<p>That scenario notwithstanding, there are two very practical ways this country could prevent the common exploitation of at least the aid that comes from public money, and the known tendency of divorced parents to abdicate the responsibility of reasonable assistance for undergrad.</p>
<p>The first would be a simple change to FAFSA that required the NCP to co-submit – defined by whether or not there existed a prior legal custody agreement. The second would be a contribution scale with a baseline of state universities that includes the variable of student accomplishment (eg hs gpa of 3.2 or some such). The third would be a legal mechanism to collect said contribution not unlike child support.</p>
<p>It would be pretty simple to devise the regulatory part of it – eg. Only in play with continuing to post-secondary school within one year, and to end after four. Enforcement of the regulations might pose more of a challenge.</p>
<p>I have a second dog in this race in that like Starbucks, I was once a child from a second middle class family with “new” children where none would pay for school even though I
was a gifted kid who got into a prestigious talent-based program. I could not get aid due to my family’s income. I saved a lot, and worked a lot. At one point I dropped out, but
“returned” as an adult. I have no regrets, and am evidence that it’s possible to be unstoppable. I was in my 30s when my aggregated student loans were finally retired (and only then through the proceeds of the sale of a house.)</p>
<p>But college costs today are of an order quite different than in 1984 
and I think it would be reasonable to protect public dollars for the most-needy by cleaning up a few legal definitions around age.
If a kid can drink at 21, then in theory FAFSAs definition on indpendent should likely be 21, not 24. If a kid can be legally an adult but not drink at 18, then maybe their status as a dependent for education purposes should rightly extend to 21. It might be a truer reflection of how things actually are.</p>
<p>None of the foregoing, however, is meant to suggest that I think it’s ok to compel families to pay for private education except by negotiated agreement according to their means. </p>
<p>But I do think clarifying parental responsibility by law with respect to continued education would benefit both bright children and taxpayers and net more efficient use of public funds – the same way child support laws were meant to reduce the burden of assistive social services.</p>
<p>But I do think clarifying parental responsibility by law with respect to continued education would benefit both bright children and taxpayers and net more efficient use of public funds – the same way child support laws were meant to reduce the burden of assistive social services. </p>
<hr>
<p>Exactly!</p>
<p>KMC said " I suspect you also believe that 18 year olds should not now be allowed to remain on their parents health insurance plans because they are adults?
Just curious."</p>
<p>That’s a great question, and at first I was stumped because I do think 18 year olds should be allowed to stay on the parents policy. Then I realized the difference. They should be allowed to stay on, not have the parents forced to keep them on. If a parent wants to pay the extra premium then great, just like it’s ok if they want to pay for college. If they don’t want to keep them on, then they shouldn’t have to. </p>
<p>“I think defining adulthood is an interesting legal challenge that today is fraught with inconsistencies.”</p>
<p>I totally agree with that. I also see the inequities that can arise from divorce situations and wish there was an easy answer, but I still feel that having laws on the books that allow a judge to dictate how much money a parent spends on college is a short step (or no step at all) to having them be able to make a parent pay for another necessity like an apartment etc (actually it’s not even ‘another’ necessity since a shelter is one but a college education is not)</p>
<p>Update on WSU scholarship awards:</p>
<p>Starbucks, double check your scholarship letter. My D had received the initial “automatic” WSU 4k notification with her sdmissions letter. Based on the web site calculator and the letter I was thinking that it was 4k per year. The updated letter arrived and it’s 8k total specified as 4k per year over the first 2 years. Double check your letter, as you also mentioned 8k. According to my D’s letter who has similar testing stats with a bit higher GPA the award is not a total of 32k over 4 years but ONLY 8k over 2 years.</p>
<p>There still may be more money out there based on the scholarship with a separate application, but the “automatic” award seems to get less impressive with each letter.</p>