<p>A quick google search shows that the original article has been picked up and run in a lot of places. <a href=“How I made sure all 12 of my kids could pay for college themselves - Google Search”>How I made sure all 12 of my kids could pay for college themselves - Google Search;
<p>Are the kids (well they aren’t kids) reading and responding to comments in other forums as well? Just curious.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t all butterflies and rose petals growing up. There was a hell of a lot of tyranny, and lots (and I mean LOTS) of rules. That article just begins to scratch the surface. I think the point of the article though was that the parents (ya thats what we call them, lol) weren’t our friends, they were our parents. Even to this day, I love them, but don’t consider them my friend. </p>
<p>My siblings on the other hand are a different story, we’ve really banded together, and do have a friendship with one another. The parents are included in our fun and games, and the militaristic environment has pretty much gone by the way-side now that we are older, and adults. To this day we get together every other week and play D&D on Google hangout (dad included).</p>
<p>Btw, the parents were ~43 when they had their last child.</p>
<p>I’m not from a small family and my parents weren’t my friends either. But they respected us and we weren’t subject to “tyranny” while still having rules. The kids who wanted to play sports, played. The artist drew, the baker baked, the seamstress sewed. The mechanical ones figured out how things worked, the writer and dreamer wrote and dreamed. We were all different and didn’t have to live in a lock-step world.</p>
<p>And when we were grown, while were weren’t friends the way one is with peers kids and parents sure enjoyed being together. And I miss them terribly. We didn’t get enough time with them. But I’m damn glad I’m not remembering “tyranny”. Parents can be good parents without tyranny. Kid# whatever you are, thanks for clearing up that it WAS, in fact pretty one-sided for quite awhile.</p>
<p>My primary reaction to this is that Mr. Thompson has had a lot more control over his world than 99.99999% of the people. And perhaps his wife and children had less than many. If they’re happy with it, that’s their business. I can’t imagine living in a world where I can MAKE everyone bend to my will, including my employers who let me miss meetings, never work evenings, never work weekends. Maybe that works better if you get to be the boss and tell everyone else when to show up and what to do. Most of us don’t live that way.</p>
<p>Just generally, the article he has written obviously tells the story the best possible from his perspective. NO family has perfection all the time. I don’t believe it. But I believe that he and his children and wife are presenting a good front, and perhaps have had a good outcome – for them.</p>
<p>Well, he states very clearly in the article that he did things wrong. Everyone does things wrong. And, yeah, in the end it is all about outcome.</p>
<p>Oh, he says it, but he doesn’t sound like he means it.</p>
<p>And what about the journey? I’m not sure life is really all about the outcome.</p>
<p>The kids who have commented seem to be okay with their journey.</p>
<p>In many families kids don’t have the same number of kids as their parents did. Some have more, some have less. It isn’t necessarily a reflection of how they feel about their large family as individual circumstances and choices.
I don’t expect each child to have 12 kids, but they are still young enough for more grandchildren if they choose.</p>
<p>I saw another Thompson kid post on another place on the web that he took 21 hours and worked 40 hours a week in college and that his sister worked 35 while a full time student on rowing team.</p>
<p>He said some people just use their time well.</p>
<p>There’s just nothing else to say other than that these kids and this family are exceptional.</p>
<p>I would agree that working 40 hrs a week in college takes a very focused student.
My dad did that, but we made sure our kids didn’t have to.
( although they did work)</p>
<p>
I think one of the reasons many of us are opposed to the idea of a huge family is that we realize that the only way to avoid chaos would be to run an extremely tight ship with a very powerful captain, and that’s not that kind of home environment we prize. </p>
<p>
It’s not just a matter of using one’s time well. Some students can’t keep that kind of work schedule and succeed at their academics. Some have classes or internships that don’t mesh with the hours required for a full-time job. Some parents–that would be me-- don’t want their kids’ college experience to be one of unremitting drudgery and are happy to provide the financial support that permits their kids to work only part-time.</p>
<p>It might also depend on the rigor of the college.
Oldest had an on campus job of 10 hrs a week or so. Her school is also very demanding, so demanding that even though she is a strong writer/ voracious reader & very bright, she could not even read a magazine on the 4hr train ride back to school after the holidays, because she had so much reading for her classes.
( every graduate must also write, publish & defend a senior thesis)</p>
<p>The editor of the article added a note indicating
So, according to the dad, a few worked part time in college and/or in the summer, but a lot had scholarships or loans. He doesn’t say that ANY of them worked 40 hours while in college. This seems inconsistent with the report of some of the children, per moneymom’s post above. I guess too we have to assume that the people claiming to be Thompson children really are.</p>
<p>If I had a busy career and was the father of 12 kids, I doubt I could remember all the details of their college jobs and activities.
I get the general gist that he did not fully finance college for 12 kids and expected them to take on that responsibility. It would be a stretch for many parents to finance 12 college educations. My initial concern was that I have seen a few parents coldly cut off college age kids, but this isn’t the case here.
Parents can have different parenting styles and still be loving parents. If people were criticizing my dad, I would be defending him, because, regardless of his parenting style, I think my dad is great. It looks like the Thompson kids feel that way about their dad too.</p>
<p>While it is understandable that a parent of a large family would not know all the details of each kids life (that’s true for small families as well) this dad sounds like he ran the roost with an iron fist, and it was not all that long ago that the offspring were/are in college. I think he likely knew plenty about how his kids paid for college and don’t understand why one must make apologies for him.</p>
<p>While I get that people would have many opinions about this father’s parenting style, I’m considering that we don’t really know everything about this family, and that his kids are on this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. And part of that “there are so many of them I can’t possibly know the details” is unappealing to us. I’d rather focus my energy than dilute it.</p>
<p>The one thing I notice about these large, well-organized families is that both parents seem to be fully-on-board with the entire agenda. Considering how in some families, one parent is too lenient, or one parent is much less budget-conscious, or one parent just isn’t too “into” parenting, many families couldn’t do this well even if they wanted to. My own in-laws are prime examples. MIL wanted a large family and got it. She was horrible with money and WAY TOO indulging and permissive. FIL was better with money, but couldn’t control MIL. He ended up being far too strict - maybe an over-reaction to MIL’s extreme leniency (or vice versa) and he was very selfish. Although all the kids did graduate from college, there is a seemingly high % who have anxiety issues, depression issues, confidence issues, spending issues, dependency issues, and self-esteem issues.</p>
<p>I have to say the “dinner rules” reminded me of a series of children’s books I read a very long time ago about a poor Jewish family at the turn of the century living on NYC’s lower east side called “All of a Kind Family.” The children in that family also had meal rules. It was something like "no soup, no vegetables. No vegetables, no meat. No meat, no fruit … " or at least something along those lines. It somehow all ended up with their not getting their penny allowance if they didn’t eat all their dinner.</p>
<p>I was also reminded of another family whose mom had a blog I used to read. I think they also had 12 kids, all adopted and many special needs, in a very religious household with very limited resources. The chores and rules in that house were also pretty rigid, and by necessity. There was no room for extras, it took every spare moment and effort to cooperate to keep that ship afloat. I remember stories of kids taking apart and reorganizing the entire pantry, with the reward for their job well done being the choice between a pack of sugarless gum or a pair of socks. And you kept track of those socks and washed them yourself. Kind of reminded me of the special “bowl” one of the kids in this family remembers fondly.</p>
<p>I give the kids the most credit. By any stretch they were also raised with limited resources that were spread thinly. I commend the kids for their own success, though. Not the dad.</p>