<p>^^ “I’m not married to someone who would over-react to such an absurd degree.”</p>
<p>PMK - The CC crowd can’t seem to come to consensus as to what an appropriate reaction should be. What do you think?</p>
<p>It’s each person’ own business as to what stipulations they place on sending their child away to college, entrusting their behavior away from home to the tune of $50K a year. There are those who could do it who won’t do it under any circumstances. This man made a stipulation to an adult. That adult agreed. $50K might be at issue here, and this young adult lets it go, just like that and wants to hide the evidence and have the man’s wife hide it from him. That is so wrong. </p>
<p>It’s not the end of the world to take a year off on reflection of such things. It could be a positive thing.</p>
<p>I think the punishment should fit the crime. </p>
<p>The very idea of yanking an entire college education over a one-time mistake is just so odd to me that I truly cannot comprehend it. Nor can I relate to parents so inflexible. </p>
<p>It’s all just very strange.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, A year to reflect on what? That she’s a human being who made a mistake?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since parents have no legal obligation to pay for their children’s college educations, it follows that they may require whatever restrictions they would like if they choose to do so. I’m just trying to understand how “no tattoos or piercings” comes up in an agreement that’s made before an ED deadline. “No tattoos” doesn’t even make my top 10 list of things I worry about my kids doing in college. Is there a religious reason for this restriction (which would make it easier for me, at least, to understand)? I’m guessing this agreement included other forbidden activities. Or did the parents say “Here’s $200K for college, no questions asked, just no tattoos or piercings”? That seems unlikely. I guess I just don’t understand these folks. And the dread both mom and daughter seemed to feel at the thought of telling Dad did give me a creepy feeling. </p>
<p>While the parents have the perfect right to choose how and under what circumstances they’ll spend their own money, in the interest of having adult relationships with my own children, I would NEVER tie my support of their educations to anything other than their strong, sincere efforts at school. Don’t waste my money, that’s all I’m asking.
Excellent point, UCDAlum. Perhaps, being mature adults, they have already fully accepted this possibility. Not a great bargain for them either, is it?</p>
<p>Ages ago, someone asked if this gal could still go to local U. Is that a viable outcome?</p>
<p>I’m not going to go back and look through the thread to find the quote but the OP shared that the family had a family member that had gotten several tattoos and were in the process of getting them removed. It was obviously something that had come up, they had talked with their daughter about, and didn’t just float out of the blue. </p>
<p>note: I found the quote, post #68
</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t make sense to some of use here, however that’s not the point. It was important enough for the parents to make it a stipulation of funding the education and was talked about prior to the application and agreement to fund this school. I may not agree with it, but I can’t fault them for it.</p>
<p>I am of the mindset that even with the agreement they should revisit their original stance. If they do and come up with a compromise it is a gift to the daughter and an act of grace because it serves the long term goal of her education, not because she deserves it. We do this as parents because we are expected to see the bigger picture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s my understanding that she was accepted ED at the private university. Therefore, I believe that if she reneges on her commitment to attend that university, she is not permitted to attend any other college for a year. So local U is out of the question even if it would accept her.</p>
<p>A year to reflect on the ramifications of keeping ones word on things. Also maybe this kid needs another year to grow up if s/he is running around getting drunk and doing things like this. </p>
<p>Regardless, it is up to the parents. Their child, their money, their rules. Under most circumstances, I would give the kid a year to think it out. A gap year is not such a terrible thing.</p>
<p>Wow, this is a first for me. Destroying a persons education based on a small tattoo you can’t even see with your clothes on. That sounds…crazy. And I’ve actually never been a big fan of tattoos. If the parents don’t like it, the simply solution is for the parents to tell the daughter to get it removed (Also, BF’s initials? lol You couldn’t get more 18 y/o cliche if you tried tbh)</p>
<p>
This is not true. ED is not indentured servitude.</p>
<p>However, she was required to withdraw all other applications to all other schools once accepted, so I don’t see how she could be sitting on another admission (with at this point. </p>
<p>She may still be able to apply over the summer for a fall acceptance at a state U if they have space left. Whether she can still get a full tuition scholarship at this point might be questionable.</p>
<p>I am not a parent and am in fact not much older than this daughter, but I do like to hang around the parents’ forums from time to time.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but I just want to say I find this ridiculous. I hate tattoos for several reasons. The daughter knew full well the rules and the consequences. Yet she got one anyway. She hid it the whole time because she knew she was directly disobeying her parents by doing this. Then, when her mother found out, she pled not to have it disclosed further, in hopes that the situation would magically be covered up before dad got home. She disobeyed her parents (what, she couldn’t have waited four years? it was that urgent?) and now continues to disobey them. She is hoping that all this will go away; heck no, little girl; it’s not.</p>
<p>For the parents who set the rules, it is their right because it is their money. It is a privilege to attend a nice private college, or even to go to college at all. It is a privilege that she has a roof over her head, clothes on her back, and a warm meal every night, as she is not contributing much during the time that she is dependent on them. Therefore, it is the parents who can set whatever rules they want within reasonable limits. And no tattoos for four years - that is very reasonable. Allowing her to get a tattoo at all after she has graduated is generous.</p>
<p>I think a very sincere apology to the mother is in order, as well as prompt removal of the tattoo and a promise that she will wait four measly years if she wants another. My problem is that the daughter to this point has not seemed to have felt any remorse for what she has done. If she continues to act this way, then no college, unless she pays for it herself.</p>
<p>Yes, lets pull funding based on a tattoo.</p>
<p>Is it just me, or have a lot of parents in here lost their minds?</p>
<p>It’s just a tattoo. She is not doing drugs, she is not an alcoholic, she is not getting bad grades due to excessive partying. (All reasons to consider pulling funding)</p>
<p>If you don’t like it, then just have it removed. If you want to punish her, chose something more rational than not letting her go to school (Which IMHO is just crazy)</p>
<p>^
Thank you for what I was thinking, but couldn’t put into words because the whole thing is rediculous! What happened to unconditional love for your child? A small tattoo negates that?</p>
<p>A question was asked about the daughter attending a state school, and yes, this is still a viable option. There are schools she can still get into with rolling admissions. The scholarship is a state sponsored program and still available. Hopefully, they will be able to come up with some sort of compromise. Her dad is home, so I expect to hear more tomorrow.</p>
<p>
Actually, food, shelter, and clothing are not privileges - parents are obligated to provide these for their children, and stand to lose custody of their chidren to the state if they cannot. The child’s contiribution, if any, has nothing to do with parental obligations.</p>
<p>Parents are not legally obligated to provide a college education for their children. I personally feel a moral obligation to do so, in large part because it’s the best way for a child to assume full independence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The young woman is 18, isn’t she? </p>
<p>If she is, that means that her parents are no longer obligated to provide these things for her.</p>
<p>It’s not the tattoo so much as the underlying attitude problem that this girl evidently has. She is taking things for granted and continues to demand that her parents act the way she wants them to. If that means pulling funding (as extreme as it sounds), so be it. If my mother told me that she’d stop paying for my college if I did something I wanted to do, I’d be terrified enough not to do it. A tattoo should not be so important as to outweigh that. The fact that the daughter got one anyway means that, though she knew the rules, she didn’t care or at least hoped that she could hide it from them.</p>
<p>I agree. I find this whole agreement between the father and the daughter ridiculous. In order to attend this specific college, she has to agree not to get a tattoo. If she goes to the State school, she can get a tattoo. Where is the sense in this train of thought? Why not stipulate a GPA requirement to remain in the school rather than a ban on a tattoo?<br>
Since when does getting a tattoo change one’s ability to succeed at a specific college?</p>
<p>I think there’s an obvious disconnect between what you experienced as a teenager and what teenagers these days experience. And you’re making the mistake of thinking that what happened to you when you were younger can be applied to teenagers today.
Tattoo’s were pretty fringe when I was in HS. If you had one you were pretty much labeled a freak. Fast-forward to today. They have become much more mainstream, and while I still don’t like them, you have to accept that kids today accept them.</p>
<p>So no, getting a tattoo is not a massive slap in the face of your parents if you’re a teenager. Get a DUI, getting caught for drugs? Those are worthy of you pulling your kids funding because they represent a rather serious problem.</p>
<p>You’re right, Marian - once the kid is 18, parents are no longer required to provide even the necessities of life, let alone a college education. For some reason I didn’t read CrystalWolf’s post as applying to an 18 y/o, though I can see now that I mis-read - sorry bout that. I’m not one who thinks of the food, shelter, clothing, or even education I gave my kids as their “privileges.” Probably one reason I’m having trouble understanding the viewpoints on this thread.</p>