Is it? I graduated two years ago, and this is of course anecdotal, but the only kids I knew that actually got their tuition paid for had trust funds, didn't pay for anything themselves, and had never held any kind of job.
How do you imagine you're going to be able to even as a likely relatively well-paid individual, if tuition rates keep climbing?
I'm in Canada. When I went to University 1991-1996, tuition + books + etc., but not board at a top Canadian engineering school was $2500 per year. These days it's about $14500.
My wife and I currently pay about $25000 / year for daycare for two kids. Can't save too long for daycare, but can for Uni. We have minimal debt, and the house will be paid off by the time the kids go to University.
EDIT> Daycare is as expensive as University. I did not anticipate this.
This seems rather steep and definitely not the norm at Canadian universities. Take a look for example at UBC [1]. It's about 2-3 more than the actual number for most programs for domestic students. And also rather low for international students. It's similar for U of T [2] and McGill [3].
> $25000/year for daycare for two kids
Wow more than a 1000 dollars per kid? That's quite a bit. Is that typical?
I was referring to top engineering programs that are competitive with top US engineering and CS schools.
EDIT2> I doubt that the daycare rate is typical, in general, but it's typical for the area of Toronto that we live in. Overall, though, daycare is very expensive.
I'm pretty sure UBC is pretty competitive, at least from a rankings perspective. It's just one of the few schools that has a cheap engineering program.
Wow. Is the subsidy available to all or is it salary-based? The government here removed the subsidy here for higher incomes (~$100k+ year combined). What they didn't remove was the extra tax that both employer and employee have to pay to "cover" childcare for the first child. The second/third children are heavily subsidized (90%).
So in my situation, I'm just above the threshold and have 1 child; so am lucky enough to have almost no subsidy whilst still paying extra tax for the privilege. Double dipping.
Luckily for the government here I can't vote (British citizen), and I'm a compassionate capitalist so generally agree with the idea of spreading wealth around (we just do a horrible job at taxing capital gains and inheritance; I'd happily pay progressive 70-99% on the top of my net-worth if the tax was applied consistently, fairly and accounted for income over time in a fair way (so taxes are normalized over years; for sports people and the like))........
$200/month for 5 days/week daycare for one child... Here in South Africa.
I'd chalk it up to "cost of living" differences, but I'd say there is a whole lot more to it. Certifications, licenses, insurance, minimum wages. All these things affect the price, so we can't entirely compare the prices as apples to apples.
I think it's just a difference in culture. The majority of people I went to high school with had their tuition paid for by parents as well. I'm from southern California if you're curious
"How do you imagine you're going to be able to even as a likely relatively well-paid individual, if tuition rates keep climbing?" (proud) Parent here - We just put two kids through top-tier state schools paying almost all expenses. Expenses worked out to about $20K per year, per kid. Luckily for us, there was little overlap in their college years. Each had well-paid summer internships for at least the last summer so that helped as we really never specifically saved for college expenses. Now they've both graduated and are gainfully employed with Google and Lockheed respectively, starting their adult-life with no debt.
"Absolutely" the norm? Maybe in your neighborhood, but some parts of the country actually expect their kids to show some work ethic and gumption rather than expecting parents to pay for everything. A kid ought to have some skin in the game or else they end up majoring in women's studies or some such nonsense.
You seem to be engaging in black-and-white thinking. The numbers don't add up any more. This might have made sense in an era where graduates were basically guaranteed jobs and a house cost 3x a graduate's yearly salary (and mortgages were frowned upon).
In the era of massive student debt it makes no sense to cripple your children (and therefore your family) financially, if you can afford not to. Especially not to prove a point that can be learned any number of other ways.
In this era, I believe that "don't go into debt (unless you can afford to service it)" is a much more useful lesson.
As far as I'm concerned, my children's job is to learn, and to figure out how to excel. That requires time and breathing room. If they look like they're turning into dilettantes, then of course I can decide not to pay for things. I just wouldn't prematurely handicap them (and myself) financially if I didn't have to.
EDIT> Basically, I object to your casting this in moralistic terms. Of course, we all know people who don't know the value of money. You'd be surprised at how often these are poor or uneducated people, though. If anything, having wealthy parents gives you more chances to learn how to deploy money intelligently.
I just assume that I will pay for my kids' undergrad. It's the norm where I live.