Different strokes for different folks I guess. I find this post very sad. I am a SAHM and wouldn't have it any other way. My life and time are of way more value to me than money. I have a DD10 and I have told her that she can do whatever she would like in life but I would be very disappointed if she choose to work instead of raising her children. I've told DS the same about whatever woman he would marry. I've always felt incredibly sad for children raised in daycares or by nannys while mom and dad are out fulfilling their dreams of having more and living better. Years ago, before having kids, I was a nanny. I took care of a 9 and 6 year old. One day the 6 year old said that she wished her mom was home with her everyday. The 9 year old quickly said that if she was they wouldn't have as much "stuff". Already at 9 he valued material possessions over family time
I would MUCH rather live in a small house and drive an older car and spend my days leisurely with my children than live in a giant house and drive a fancy car and be so busy with work that I had to hire people to clean my house, make my food, and raise my kids.
Go right ahead and feel sorry for my children, if you like. They've turned out to be absolutely wonderful young women, and if I could go back in time I would do a few things differently -- but altering the choices I made about my career wouldn't be one of them.
I personally would feel sorry for children being raised by a mom who has worked as a nanny, yet cannot form the correct plural for nannies. Nor would I really put much stock in the idea that one comment from a 9-year old gives a real indication of the priorities and values he will hold as an adult.
I like disneykat's phrase about the ridiculousness of people thinking scholarships would be "spread out like diamonds" for the top students. My kids also found that not to be the case. The free rides were at schools that, quite frankly, aren't on the level of the ones they chose.
Yeah, my daughter who graduated last year is a top student, and she received two scholarships that will cover about 50% of her four-year education; however, the vast majority of her classmates -- even the top students -- weren't as fortunate. To tell the truth, in her entire graduating class, only one boy received a full ride, and it was a military scholarship (they're one of the few groups still doing full rides; most schools are opting these days to give tuition-only scholarships to three students instead of a full-ride to one).
My daughter did receive a generous offer (not a free ride) from a small private school, BUT that school began with such a large price tag that it still would've cost more than the state school she really wanted to attend -- and it was, as you said, not on the level of the state schools she was considering. That choice didn't require much thought.
Anyone who's convinced that his or her high school senior will
certainly walk away with big scholarships is likely to be disappointed. I'm seeing more and more excellent students receive . . . nothing, or next to nothing.
We are not saving, but plan to use DH's Montgomery G.I. Bill for the children when the time comes. Split three ways, it should be enough to get each an associates. That is if all three choose to go to college. My 9 year old has already decided he doesn't want to go to college. He is very bright, but school just isn't his thing. lol.
I would call the GI Bill a different type of savings, but savings nonetheless. This isn't pie-in-the-sky, maybe my child will win this scholarship. Being able to fund an associate's degree for each child is a big step towards his or her future.
Also, I wouldn't be 100% sure about a 9-year old's academic potential. That's still very young.
So let me ask, if your daughter was passionate about a field of study such as medicine, law, accounting, architecture, which require intense study, post- under grad work ( and the costs that come with it), licensing, etc, would you discourage her? Because if she's just going to have to quit when she has kids and not work for 20 plus years (assuming she'll have more than one kid), then it's really not worth it. Schooling until 24-25, only to work maybe 3-5 years and then quit for 20 doesn't seem to make sense then, right? Actually, why send her to college at all? Unless its just to get the classic MRS degree....
Yikes.
I wouldn't worry about it. Little girls who are told that they SHOULD be stay-at-home-moms, that anything else would be a waste of their lives, that this is their proper place in the world . . . don't tend to develop passions for career paths. When girls are told from a young age that careers are for boys, they don't put their mental energies in those directions. In contrast, girls who are exposed to a wide variety of interests and who develop a strong interest in a career CAN ALSO be very passionate about their families.
If college costs hadn't gotten so high then this wouldn't be an issue. Parents could either pay, or it would be a feasible option for students to work and pay for themselves.
There is going to have to be a major reform on the cost of further education. There is going to be an economic crash when all of these students with huge amounts of students loans enter the workplace, but have to use all of their wages to pay the loans instead of putting that money in to the economy. Not putting money in to the economy means companies won't be hiring, which means less jobs for people who are trying to pay loans. It's a viscous circle. And there aren't many students graduating without loans these days. Yes, there are some who had generous parents or had the stars align where they were able to generate enough money by working or scholarships, but most take out loans. I am the only one of my friends who had no loans. And I graduated 10 years ago. It's worse now.
There is no reason for tuition to outpace inflation. Someone has to be making money off of it.
I agree, and I see two over-riding reasons we've reached this point:
1. We as a society gave up the concept of financial stability and being debt free; instead, we decided that it's okay to borrow for . . . well, pretty much anything, and certainly big ticket items like college.
Once borrowing became acceptable, all too many families stopped looking for less-expensive alternatives. Students searching for "the college experience" instead of a way to get a degree. Suddenly going out-of-state (for the same degree that could've been earned at any number of places in state) became an acceptable alternative, even if the family couldn't pay. Going away to college became a choice, even for the poorest students. Just a few years ago this board was solidly of a mindset that a parent who put any financial limits on a college student was "stiffling his or her dream, refusing to allow the student to live his or her own life" -- that has changed. Can't pay for what you want? Just borrow, and pay for it once your education is done!
When I was in college, practically everyone worked at a part-time job. Only about half the students had a car. People shared books with dormmates, when possible. We ate 95% of our meals in the school cafeteria. In short, we actively searched for ways to save money! Today it's quite different, and it's largely because borrowing is an acceptable option.
2. As people have become more willing to borrow, schools have raised their prices. After all, if you're filling your classrooms at $$$, why shouldn't you raise the price to $$$$? And once people are willing to pay $$$$, it's just another step to $$$$$.
I agree, it's a vicious cycle.
That makes me cry, every time I read it. I have never been able to bear seeing my children struggle, while I enjoy luxury. They are all grown now, and I have lost one, but I still feel the same; I just love them too much.
I think there's a fine line here.
When my husband and I married, we had $200, two college degrees, two jobs, and a brand-new mortgage between us. We did struggle back then, but we had some awfully good times too. Now that we're older and have some money, we can see retirement from where we're standing, and we anticipate traveling and a number of other things -- things that're a reward for all those struggles.
We are paying for our children to go through college, but once that's done we expect them
to be able to support themselves financially. We don't expect them to have as many luxuries as we do after decades of work. I won't feel badly for them when they move into a small starter house, when they drive a used car, when they can't afford to go out to dinner because they're saving for their own children's college education. These are the things one does in youth.
After they're finished with college, I will always be on hand to serve as granny-babysitter and to help them in small ways . . . but once they're launched out into the world, I do expect them to be capable of taking care of themselves. I won't feel guilty enjoying a vacation, knowing they're at home going to work in a professional job made possible by the degree I helped them earn.
If one of my girls has a real emergency -- fire, job loss, medical emergency -- I will always run to her side with my checkbook in hand, but I won't feel guilty about enjoying trips and driving a new car while my girls "make do" with what can be bought on an entry-level paycheck.
You are missing my point. I said people who work in order to fulfill their need for STUFF.
Ah, but here's the real point: Those who wish to put down working mothers begin with the assumption that ALL working mothers are abandoning their children without a backward glance for the sole purpose of buying more, more, more "stuff".
I think the point she makes is a good one--many parents WANT to stay home with their kids but THINK they can't. BUT, they also think they need a BIG house, fancy cars, big screen TVs, expensive purses, new wardrobes, 300 pairs of shows, jewelry for every outfit, fancy phones, latest technology, and everything for their kids to boot. But really, if they had wanted to stay home not have all the "stuff", they most likely could have stayed home. It seems that's all she is saying.
Now, I do agree with this sentiment, though I think you've taken it to the extreme.
When I was a kid, our society was in a transition period: When I started elementary school, essentially ALL moms stayed home. As the years went on, more and more of my friends had working moms. How could pretty much ALL the moms afford to stay home back then? Well, we lived in small houses (in my house, 3 bedrooms/2 baths, 5 kids + 2 parents). Many of them without air conditioning. No one had playrooms, mud rooms, or media rooms. Families had one 13" TV (with rabbit ears and 3 channels) in the living room and a phone with a long cord in the kitchen. I didn't know anyone who took an airplane vacation, and a Disney trip was something that a lucky few kids did once in their lifetimes (even though we were driving distance). I knew no one who'd been on a cruise. Women passed around bags of hand-me-down clothes for the kids; moms mended clothes that were damaged, and if something "almost fit", you had to wear it anyway. Most families had one car; the church bus'd pick you up and take you to Wednesday night and Sunday services. We ate out about three times a year. We drank soda less than once a week. Birthday parties meant your grandparents came over, and you had a nice meal (of your choice) and a cake. We got new jeans for school in the fall, and in the spring mom cut them off into shorts. We got one pair of new tennis shoes each year, and they were always bought one size too big so you could grow into them. Dads carried their lunches to work in a bag. Moms hung clothes out on the line, then ironed everything. The list could go on, but the bottom line was that we lived a very different lifestyle.
Most married moms today
could stay home IF they chose to live that way again. Or course, it'd be more difficult today because society as a whole has turned in a different direction, whereas back then when "everyone" shared that same lifestyle, it had great social support. Today a person who tried to live that lifestyle would be different from the neighbors; it's not as easy as saying, "Just give up the 300 pairs of shoes, and you can stay home." It's a whole different lifestyle.
Also, if you want this lifestyle, you have to start it BEFORE KIDS. If you and your husband each bring student loans into the marriage, you're already setting yourself up for the need for two incomes. My parents neither one had a degree when they married (though my mom went back to school when I started high school and had a career later in life), and they bought a two-bedroom house for $5000. Today such a house would still be less than $50,000 -- it wasn't a nice house at all. My mom's engagement ring was TINY, perhaps 1/10th of a diamond. People today would definitely look down upon it. She had a lovely dress, but they had only a punch-and-cake reception. Again, this was the lifestyle back when "all moms" stayed home. It's not just a matter of giving up the latest luxuries; rather, it's a whole different, more frugal mindset.
The real irony: When I was small and my mom was at home with us, she spent LESS TIME with us than I spend with my kids today. Why?
Because she saw herself as a housewife first. Her job was to keep the house clean, and -- in the summer -- to fill the pantry with canned goods so we could eat over the winter. We worked with her in the garden, but only grudgingly. She was constantly busy with all sorts of household drugery (i.e., cloth diapers), and when she had a little downtime she sent us outside to play -- she took her rest time in the middle of the day, and she watched her soaps. Don't get me wrong: She wasn't unloving. She was just doing what women back then; she was caring for her family in what was at that point an appropriate way. If someone got hurt (say jumping out of the barn loft) she always stopped what she was doing and fixed it up with a bandaid, but she didn't then hover over us for the rest of the day -- she sent us back outside. She took us to the library every single week, and she attended our school plays, etc. She volunteered to work with kids' groups at church and scouts, and she sometimes read us bedtime stories, but I have no memories of her helping me with homework or school projects, few memories of shared craft projects at home, etc.
She had her world, and we kids had ours. Again, this was absolutely typical for the timeperiod, but she has commented to me that I am a better mother to my girls than she was to us. I'm not putting her down, but she's right.
