You never know what can happen.
You definitely never know what can happen, but I think you have to play the odds in life. If you are going to be an artist, an actor, a teacher, you need to work on the theory that you will not be making much money. And if that's okay with you, great! And if you take a career turn like this one, also great.
The ROI calculation is very different for an engineering major vs. a humanities major.
I never quite get this one. The return on investment doesn't benefit you, you are spending x amount of money regardless of whether the student goes on to earn lots of money or not. Future engineers can go to many excellent schools that cost a lot less but still result in excellent pay and an excellent career. From what I have seen, getting into a tippy-top school is actually even more important to the drama major, for the very practical reason that, at schools like Carnegie Mellon, professional agents from New York, Los Angeles, and other performing arts cities attend the senior showcase and make actual job offers.
I have two dds: the one double-majoring in business fields with emphasis on foreign languages and math, and the one likely majoring in art, lol. In my other post, I talked about how the art major knows we expect at least a contrasting minor, we are making her aware of the practical aspects, and so on. But I just can't see refusing to fund her education at a similar level to dd1, simply because she isn't likely to make as much money.
If we had the kind of money that would pay for Stanford (we don't, lol), we would still try to be equitable about distributing funds. We have less of a 'college fund' and more of a 'getting established' fund. So we might send one kid to an expensive school, while another kid goes to a cheaper school but gets a 'fifth year' partially funded so they can work as a full-time artist or actor or whatever. It's not a dollar-for-dollar type thing - if they are at the same school, we aren't going to give the kid with more scholarships additional cash, because that's not completely in their control (a student can improve scores with prep, but can't push themselves into the top percentile by hard work alone).
I am really rambling here, but I'm going to leave it in case it makes sense to anyone. The gist of it is, I would never spend $500,000 on one kid because they are going to be an engineer, and $50,000 on another kid because they are going to be an artist or a teacher. My kids will get roughly the same amount of help getting launched, whether that be via expensive college, cheap college and fifth year, no college and help starting a business, whatever. The specifics are discussed along the way.
Of course, I also don't understand requiring a very young adult to pay rent because they choose to work instead of going to college. That means you are taking money from one kid, while giving a great deal of money to another kid (the college student). That doesn't seem quite fair, lol.
One more random thought: it could easily be argued that funding a future teacher or social worker does more for the greater good than funding a future engineer or business executive.
Edited by katilac, 11 December 2017 - 10:45 AM.