Should parents keep university students on tight budgets..

[Laura Corin]

..even if the parents can afford to give them more?

 

We were having dinner with friends recently and they were talking about supporting their sons through university. They don't have to pay university fees (university education is government supported at present in Scotland) but the parents do pay for accommodation and three meals a day in the canteen. In addition they give their sons 400 pounds a month each in spending money (over USD 600). This covers books, clothes, laundry, mobile phone and entertainment - neither son runs a car as both can walk/use buses to get around.

 

This is a lot of money, even in the UK - a pub lunch might cost twelve to fifteen pounds, seeing a film costs six pounds, and you can get a basic phone contract for around ten pounds a month. I know that text books are expensive, but even if they needed to spend one hundred pounds a month on books, this still seems like a lot to me. Both boys work during the holidays/vacations, but that doesn't reduce the allowance given by their parents.

 

The parents can afford it - the father just bought a beautifully renovated vintage Rolls Royce - but I don't think it's a good start in life for the boys. When I was at university, everyone was living on very little and we looked forward to getting jobs and improving our lot. Almost any job that these boys get will initially mean a less luxurious lifestyle than in their student heyday.

 

What do you think? Is this harmless indulgence or a poor example?

 

Laura

[GaHadley]

I, personally, wouldn't do it. I think they need to learn that everything is not handed to them in life, and I believe that kids who don't have to work for some of their college will more likely take it for granted. I've seen way more kids drop out of college here when their daddy pays for everything. The ones who have to put themselves through seem to appreciate it more and don't play around as much.

 

That said, all families and all kids are different. If they are pulling their weight, making good grades, staying out of trouble and truly appreciate what their parents are providing for them it might be okay.

[Dobela]

The families I know here that can afford to give that to their children in college also continued to help after college getting them set up. For example, the dd of a very wealthy family I know decided to become a special education teacher. They find her caree choice 'noble' and recently helped her buy a new condo to live in that no other new teacher would be able to afford on a first or second year salary.

[jld]

It probably isn't the best, but if they have the money, and can continue paying for them after college, it's probably hard not to indulge the kids.

 

My brother is a millionaire and his kids are not in touch with financial reality. My niece is so sheltered and judgmental. My sil isn't even in touch with middle class realities anymore. Their own reality is just very different from the rest of the family. It makes it hard to relate.

[Carrie12345]

In my mind (and as a parent of still-littles, lol) it isn't so much about the amount of money, but about the management of it.

 

There's a difference between an allowance that can maintain a certain lifestyle but must be budgeted well to do so, and an allowance that will be replenished whenever it's burned through.

 

Personally, I expect my kids to get a handle on that well before going off to college, but it's still the same lesson.

 

I went off to college with about $1500 for the semester (in 1995) and felt rich beyond belief... until I paid for my books and discovered how gross our cafeteria was. I was very broke by the end of the semester, despite the fact that I've always been a pretty cheap person. I managed to muddle through and gained a better understanding of my costs, but I sure could have used some more wiggle room!

[Laura Corin]

.. and discovered how gross our cafeteria was.

 

By chance, I happen to have eaten at the hall of residence of one of the boys. The food is fine, so eating elsewhere would be a choice, rather than a necessity.

 

Laura

[Laura Corin]

It probably isn't the best, but if they have the money, and can continue paying for them after college, it's probably hard not to indulge the kids.

 

 

I had assumed that the parents would stop paying at the end of university, or perhaps the end of a masters, but maybe not.

 

Laura

[Laurie4b]

I think the issue begins before the university. Being given a lot of "stuff" seems inversely correlated with character development in my life experience.

[creekland]

My boys will be living off their own work study earnings while in college. I suppose I've chosen that route because it's what I did. However, I also think it's better than providing unlimited spending money (or a limited large amount).

[Lisa R.]

If a family has the means, I do think it's best to give them just enough where it's necessary to have a budget. Giving extra spending money could set up an patterns of overspending or being careless with money. After all, it's not a guarantee that the student will earn a generous salary upon graduation. That could be a rude awakening.

 

Also, it's been my experience that when kids are given too much, they become more self-centered rather than more grateful.

[snickelfritz]

My guess is that the parents will continue to help them. I have had a few friends where the parents help with a down payment on a house ( one family bought each of their children VERY nice houses as part of an early inheritance), using connections to get a job, buying all the baby furniture for the nursery, putting the grandkids in private school, etc.....

 

I was somewhat sheltered growing up and while I didn't suffer terribly in college (never donated plasma for money), I did get a job and had to budget money and, sometimes juggle paying bills. It's as good a time as any to learn to do that. My hunch is that's something that many wealthy would not put their kids through. If so, hopefully they are at least teaching them to budget, even if their budget is more generous.

[AHASRADA]

As with anything, I believe there should be a balance in regard to helping/financing dc.

 

If the parents can afford to, I think it's appropriate for them to provide their dc with a comfortable lifestyle, but not meet their every whim or desire, and make an effort to instill humility and gratitude, in childhood as well as young adulthood.

 

Giving them an obscenely large allowance teaches them nothing about the value of money or personal responsibility. However, forcing them into a strained financial situation while having the resources to make their lives a bit easier has the potential to negatively affect their grades, study habits, career choice, etc. There are enough people struggling, who cannot afford to go into "noble" careers because they couldn't afford to live on the salary it would provide, and it certainly makes more sense to watch one's children and grandchildren thrive and live comfortable, rewarding lives than for them to receive it upon one's passing (and perhaps even tear the family apart fighting over assets).

 

I see nothing wrong with these parents providing enough financial support for their children to focus on their studies without worrying about their basic needs, to help them purchase their first homes, pay their car payment on a reasonable fuel-efficient car, and even provide them a stipend to continue living an approximately similar lifestyle to the one they grew up with in order for them to pursue a career they love.

 

They should not, however, be given unlimited funds, or an exorbitant allowance that permits them live with no regard for the value of money and have no concept of what it means to live within a budget. An extravagant lifestyle can do as much, if not more damage to a student's grades and study habits than a lack of money (ie: too much fun/partying, not enough studying).

 

I agree that the amount mentioned by the OP is probably a bit too much, but could be reasonable if broken down into a budget, and if the students are expected to save from that monthly allowance for additional trips/vacations, gifts for friends, and any other large purchases. The attitude/approach of both parents are children are more important than the amount of money provided, IMO.

 

\

[Mommyof4ks]

If the parents want to provide that then go for it, but you are right unless they intend to keep that up once college is done then the kids are being set up for disappointment.

[Joker]

My dh's parents dropped him off at Berkeley with $20 and left. He had no car or job. He took out loans for school and worked his butt off. He handles money very well today but does wish he had a little more help - especially with food money.

[Lolly]

Harmless indulgence. The boys are getting X amount a month. They must live within that amount. They are most likely used to their luxuries already. Giving them up after high school or after college doesn't really make any difference. Of course, I'm of the opinion that the parents will most likely continue to supplement the boys' incomes after graduation. Most ultra rich that I know give their children and grandchildren a regular check throughout their lives. (Maximum allowed by law without taxation.) At least in the USA, it is a far better way to manage an inheritance than waiting until after death. If you don't do it this way, the government takes an unbelievable amount in taxes.

[EmilyK]

I think about this issue a lot, since I work with or know a lot of well-to-do families. I actually think it is great if the parents have the means to send the kids to college and pay for basic room and board with out the kids getting into debt. I hope to do that.

 

That said -- and I'm probably projecting the way it was when I was a kid -- I prefer kids to be on a modest budget when in school. If you don't live that way then, then when will you ever? And I think it is good to know you can get by on very little.

 

Many well-to-do families in the US nowadays don't restrict money the way I would. Schools are now mostly unbelievably posh, and kids have never had the experience of living how everyone I know lived in college and grad school. I think it is too bad and contributes to materialism. Many of these grads now can't conceive of a life with a roommate, or with no health club, etc. And then when they make peanuts in the real world it is very depressing.

 

I think it is a separate issue from whether you support your kids after school. I probably won't be able, but I'd love to have enough money to have my kids make career choices based on the passions as opposed to what they would earn. I've seen some friends in that situation and they were able to do some saving of the world instead of worrying about housing. But to me that's separate from living an expensive lifestyle while in school.

[Tap]

In addition they give their sons 400 pounds a month each in spending money (over USD 600). This covers books, clothes, laundry, mobile phone and entertainment -

 

That doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. After books/fees/supplies (apx$100/mth US) clothes ($150-they aren't going to be buying used), laundry ($25), phone ($75)....that leaves $250. I assume that also covers hygiene supplies, hair cuts, bus passes, home needs, etc. To me having $250 is more than some kids have for spending money, definitely more than my kids have, but not an obscene amount for spending money.

 

 

Why should the family make them live a poverty-like-lifestyle, if they don't have to? Why make college harder than if they lived at home and didn't go to school? Why encourage the kids to get credit cards to build up debt, while they try to keep up with their friends? I don't think forcing a fake hardship on a kid, makes them appreciate money more. I know a lot of parents who cover tuition, books/fees/supplies, phone, car incl gas, laundry if done at home, clothes, hygiene....and they give their kids much more than $250 on top of it. The kids aren't spoiled, don't have a air of frivolity, nor are they out of touch of reality, they are just living like they always did when they lived at home.

 

I think that the attitude of entitlement has more to do with the attitude of the parents and how they taught the kids to manage money long before college. There will always be the random child who comes out of the womb expecting a diamond tiara, but most people, even with wealth, can be taught to respect money without living in poverty standards. The kids who don't know how to manage money will thing that $250 is nothing, and will blow through it in a week, thus leaving them broke for the money. I would expect this kid to just pick up a credit card and keep spending.

 

If there is a time in their lives when they are broke, then they will learn it then...real quick. Just like these same kids would in college if they weren't given a penny.

[Miss Marple]

I think it's more about the individual student's personality/character. In our case we do more for our kids than our friends - because we can afford it. My oldest (the only one in college) has earned scholarships and had an internship this summer which will pay for the rest of his college experience (room, board, tuition, books, etc). He has informed us that he expects to be monetarily independent now. He doesn't want us to "support" him. There are a few things he doesn't realize that we do and we will keep doing those things (cell phone, car insurance), but he developed a good sense of money management and independence as he was growing up. In contrast, his friends had parents with far fewer resources, the boys were expected to work, and now that they are on their own, they still cannot manage money. They weren't given as much as my son(s), but that didn't seem to make them better money managers.

 

We expect our boys to have jobs and we have worked to develop a good work ethic in them (no calling in sick when they weren't really sick, etc.). We expect them to begin paying for certain things themselves once they get a job. While we can afford to pay for those things, we prefer to let our boys experience the fruits of their labor. Earning that $10 by working in the blazing hot sun mowing lawns is hard - and they think twice before spending it on a movie they aren't really anxious to see.

 

I think it's possible to give a lot to our kids and still come out with monetarily responsible kids. But it comes by educating the kids rather than just throwing the money at them whenever they want it.

[3littlekeets]

I teach at a U. with many wealthy children. Those who are from Old Southern Money -- real money -- generally have to work during their college days.

 

One young woman, whose family name adorns the building I work in, works the campus call center (alumni telemarketing) a few nights a week, and serves at a restaurant/bar on weekends. During the summers since her freshman year, she gets great internships in fun places (marketing in National Park Offices, Nike tech Rep, etc.). She also maintains a high GPA, is active on campus, and on and on. When she leaves the U., her parents won't be afraid to use their contacts to help her -- but I doubt she'll need them! Her story is NOT atypical.

 

Many of the children who have money, but whose parents more recently acquired it, don't work, and spend their time frittering it away and running up their parents' bills. When they leave, they are begging for letter of rec from profs who hardly know them, and their resumes are bare!

 

I'm sure there are some in between stories, too. But I'm disgusted by the latter...and I see it far too often.

[Laura Corin]

That doesn't seem like a lot of money to me. After books/fees/supplies (apx$100/mth US) clothes ($150-they aren't going to be buying used), laundry ($25), phone ($75)....that leaves $250. I assume that also covers hygiene supplies, hair cuts, bus passes, home needs, etc. To me having $250 is more than some kids have for spending money, definitely more than my kids have, but not an obscene amount for spending money.

 

 

I certainly don't spend nearly that much per month on clothes - do boys really spend so much? Thirty pounds for a pair of jeans, thirty for a shirt, forty for shoes, ten pounds each for multi-packets of socks and underwear. Assuming that the boy doesn't go off to university naked, so might not need a new coat/sweaters for a year or two, I can't see needing to spend more than USD 400 a year on clothes (two of each of the things I listed). If they want to buy more then that's where jobs in the holidays come in. As I mentioned before, a basic phone contract (with lots of minutes) costs about ten pounds.

 

I guess I'm not recognising this kind of spending regime as 'reasonably frugal', which is how I had assumed that students would live. We are solidly middle class with one good income, but we just don't spend like that, so I find it amazing that students are set up for that level. I just spent USD 150 at Lands End Overstocks, buying everything that the boys and I need extra for this winter. Their coats still fit and I did buy shoes separately, but if we were carrying on home educating (and not needing uniform) then this would be our clothes bill for six months. We eat out about once a month, if that.

 

I'm not arguing with you - just shaking my head about different expectations. It may well be that I'm just behind the times. I remember, as a student, going out for pizza once a year and buying one new outfit in the year. This was not an unusual spending level and my parents were not poor.

 

Laura

Edited August 7, 2010 by Laura Corin

[Audrey]

..even if the parents can afford to give them more?

 

We were having dinner with friends recently and they were talking about supporting their sons through university. They don't have to pay university fees (university education is government supported at present in Scotland) but the parents do pay for accommodation and three meals a day in the canteen. In addition they give their sons 400 pounds a month each in spending money (over USD 600). This covers books, clothes, laundry, mobile phone and entertainment - neither son runs a car as both can walk/use buses to get around.

 

This is a lot of money, even in the UK - a pub lunch might cost twelve to fifteen pounds, seeing a film costs six pounds, and you can get a basic phone contract for around ten pounds a month. I know that text books are expensive, but even if they needed to spend one hundred pounds a month on books, this still seems like a lot to me. Both boys work during the holidays/vacations, but that doesn't reduce the allowance given by their parents.

 

The parents can afford it - the father just bought a beautifully renovated vintage Rolls Royce - but I don't think it's a good start in life for the boys. When I was at university, everyone was living on very little and we looked forward to getting jobs and improving our lot. Almost any job that these boys get will initially mean a less luxurious lifestyle than in their student heyday.

 

What do you think? Is this harmless indulgence or a poor example?

 

Laura

 

 

I think it is indulgence, but not harmless. A couple hundred pounds a month and the encouragement to get a part-time job would be a good example.

[Tap]

I certainly don't spend nearly that much per month on clothes - do boys really spend so much? Thirty pounds for a pair of jeans, thirty for a shirt, forty for shoes, ten pounds each for multi-packets of socks and underwear. Assuming that the boy doesn't go off to university naked, so might not need a new coat/sweaters for a year or two, I can't see needing to spend more than USD 400 a year on clothes (two of each of the things I listed). If they want to buy more then that's where jobs in the holidays come in. As I mentioned before, a basic phone contract (with lots of minutes) costs about ten pounds.

 

I guess I'm not recognising this kind of spending regime as 'reasonably frugal', which is how I had assumed that students would live. We are solidly middle class with one good income, but we just don't spend like that, so I find it amazing that students are set up for that level. I just spent USD 150 at Lands End Overstocks, buying everything that the boys and I need extra for this winter. Their coats still fit and I did buy shoes separately, but if we were carrying on home educating (and not needing uniform) then this would be our clothes bill for six months.

 

I'm not arguing with you - just shaking my head about different expectations. It may well be that I'm just behind the times. I remember, as a student, going out for pizza once a year and buying one new outfit in the year. This was not an unusual spending level and my parents were not poor.

 

Laura

 

 

I absolutely agree with you that as experience shoppers, living in frugal households, we can and do spend way less than that. I guess my point is that, they most likely haven't been taught to shop sales, used or discounted if they live in a wealthy family. I would expect the kid to buy brand name, in regular stores if they come from a family of means. It isn't hard to spend $150 on one pair of shoes and a pair of jeans here. If that is the entire clothing budget, $1350 ($150x9mths) for shoes, coats (assuming several weights of both if they are at bus stops) jeans, undergarments, shirts isn't unheard of for a year.

 

I guess cell phones are cheaper over there, here it would be $50-75 for a solo plan with decent minutes.

 

Eating in cheaper restaurants, drinking water to keep the bill down and looking for places that don't require a tip....makes sense to me. But, this isn't the norm for a family with wealth. My favorite Mexican restaurant charges $15 avg, for a lunch entree, drinks are $3, tax/tip a lunch is about $25. I know I can eat a meal across town at Baja Fresh (high quality fast food) for $10. My wealthy friends would go to their favorite restaurant and get served wayyyyy before eating fast food that they have to get their own drinks. It wouldn't take much for a kid who is used to eating out to blow through $100 on just meal out a week.

 

I guess my point is that this college student, probably, has never had to budget so they aren't really going to school with the skills needed to do that. Your friend's may not be this way, I guess this is where I get my perspective.... My BFF, when we were 17-18 got an AUDI for her first car (expensive in the US) and bought her cigarettes, imported from an elite smoke shop. Her clothes came from boutiques, not the mall, and she had single clothing items that cost as much as my entire wardrobe. Her mother Expected her to get her nails done and to wear nice makeup at all times (she wasn't expected to walk around the home w/o makeup on) To her, 600mth would be a budget! To her, buying clothes in a mall, eating in a regular restaurant, and riding the bus....would be close to poverty.

 

She liked to hang out at my home because it felt more comfortable (her's was ultra modern and Huge), eat with me (at home instead of out) and hang out in my world (not poor, but very close). She could have lived with much, much less and been comfortable, but she had to live up to her mother's expectations, so still had to appear to be her mothers little dress up doll when around her. I remember one time at her house, we just woke up and she was going to get something from the kitchen, so she stopped and put on lipstick before going to the kitchen, less her mother comment on her 'naked face'. I spent a lot of time in her world and with the ubber rich in my teens. It is a different world there, one that is hard to imagine unless you are in it.

 

I also remember being 13-14 and my friend's parents (diff friend) letting us take their $40,000+ SUV to the store .....with the 14yo driving...just the two of us. She was a good driver, but that just wouldn't happen in most people's worlds. They let her drive everywhere in it, no worries about the consequences. I had another friend who could order alcohol and get served at 14yo at the country club, because of her parents money. LOL They wouldn't dare tell her no, to anything she wanted.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Tap, tap, tap

[Hockey Mom]

I didn't read all of the responses.

 

Shouldn't parents be teaching budgeting, finances, and work ethic before they send their kids off to college? I know we started with our kids as soon as we gave them an allowance (around 5 years old). When DD hit 15, we told her she had to get a job to pay for luxury items like cell phones, extra clothing, posters, and what-not. We also made her buy her own car, pay for her own gas and insurance, and maintain the vehicle.

 

I just can't wrap my head around giving a college kid an allowance. But then, I'm one of those mean moms who won't pay for college either.

[Laura Corin]

I absolutely agree with you that as experience shoppers, living in frugal households, we can and do spend way less than that. I guess my point is that, they most likely haven't been taught to shop sales, used or discounted if they live in a wealthy family.

 

When I went to university, there was a government grant to support students. If you were poor you got a full grant, if you were rich you got no grant and the parents paid. In between, there was a graduated payment. That set an expected income level for all students, which meant that flashing money around (if you got extra from parents) was considered boastful and rude. So we were all pretty much on the same (low) income, and if people had more, they kept quiet about it.

 

Things aren't the same now.

 

Laura

[Tokyomarie]

It really depends on the student's personality & character development as to how much is "too much." I personally prefer that when possible, students receive a reasonable amount of support, overall, from parents, so they can more easily concentrate on the task at hand- their studies. OTOH, young people also need to be building job skills- especially the "soft skills" of securing & maintaining employment, such has how to conduct a job search, fill out applications, interview, follow the direction of a boss, show up on time, not make excuses for mistakes, etc. They also need to taste the freedom that comes from earning their own money, so they are prepared to take steps toward financial independence.

 

We have two girls who are of very different personalities regarding their willingness to work and motivation for financial independence. We have been generous with both of them as regards their college expenses. One has a strong internal motivation to not depend on others for her financial well being. She was strongly motivated to figure out the job scene in college, and earn money for things we didn't cover. The other seems to have little motivation, and seems to be having difficulty overcoming her hesitation in persevering with the job hunt. Any motivation to get moving in becoming financially independent isn't visibly apparent; she's 22yo & has never held a job. Because of our experience with her, the game plan has changed for our son. He will be required to get a job well before he finishes high school. That way we can be assured that he gains at least the most basic job "soft skills" of securing & maintaining employment while we are there to help him through the process.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Tokyomarie

[Stacy in NJ]

Almost any job that these boys get will initially mean a less luxurious lifestyle than in their student heyday.[/b]

What do you think? Is this harmless indulgence or a poor example?

 

Laura

 

You're assuming that a more luxurious lifestyle will be more meaningful than the satisfaction of a career. There is tremendous satisfaction in working and paying your own way even if your lifestyle is more restrained. Most kids experience a diminished lifestyle once they're no longer dependent on their parents. Whether that happens when they leave for college or when they complete college doesn't necessarily seem that relevant.

 

I probably wouldn't be as generous.

[Tap]

When I went to university, there was a government grant to support students. If you were poor you got a full grant, if you were rich you got no grant and the parents paid. In between, there was a graduated payment. That set an expected income level for all students, which meant that flashing money around (if you got extra from parents) was considered boastful and rude. So we were all pretty much on the same (low) income, and if people had more, they kept quiet about it.

 

Things aren't the same now.

 

Laura

 

Wow, what a different world than what I came from. The only ones who got aid from the government, would be the poor, in the form of Pell Grants (gov't loans that didn't get repaid) or financial aid that did have to be repaid for the middle class (the student takes out unsecured student loans that have to be paid back), or no loans/grants for the rich. There was no accounting for students personal budgets as those varied widely.

 

The middle class students often had less $$ than the poor, due to the 'free money' the poor recieved vs. every dollar being paid back by the middle class.

[Rosie_0801]

I think the issue begins before the university. Being given a lot of "stuff" seems inversely correlated with character development in my life experience.

 

In my experience it is not how much stuff you receive that matters, but how much you are expected to give. My siblings and I were expected to give Christmas presents to all the rellies, extended family, not just nuclear family, from age 3. My cousins, on the other hand, have never been expected to give anything to anyone using their own money.

 

Rosie

[Tokyomarie]

In my experience it is not how much stuff you receive that matters, but how much you are expected to give. My siblings and I were expected to give Christmas presents to all the rellies, extended family, not just nuclear family, from age 3. My cousins, on the other hand, have never been expected to give anything to anyone using their own money.

 

Rosie

 

That's an interesting thought, Rosie. I think you have hit on a big part of the equation. It is good to receive, but learning to give is even better.

 

I grew up with the tradition of giving something at Christmas to each member of the extended family. Back then,when we were kids, it was often something we made or just a little dollar item. Before we had any income of our own, my parents used to give each of us a set dollar amount from which to purchase gifts or supplies to make gifts. We learned a lot about budgeting from that little exercise!

[duckens]

It is such a difficult situation as parents:

 

We want our children to have the (material) things that we did not have growing up, but we want them also to be raised with the values and integrity that we have earned from our struggles.

 

------------------------

I'm not sure when the op went to college, but not everyone was poverty stricken during my age group.

 

My sister's best friend earned a full scholarship to Baylor University Honors Program for her major (1986). Her peers in the program had brand-new leased sportscars, a condo to themselves, and an expense account. They knew that when they graduated, the condo and car would be put in their name, and they would get a cushy job at Daddy's firm. It would be hard to compete with that while working two jobs for housing and board.

 

A college administrator of mine became a friend. She was only a few years older than me. She went to a private college on scholarships/loans/workstudy. Coming back from Christmas break, everyone was comparing what they had gotten for Christmas. One peer came back to campus with a new car!!!!!

 

"Wow! That's a pretty great Christmas gift!"

 

"Oh, it's not a Christmas gift. I lost 10 pounds, and Daddy was pleased!":banghead:

 

--------------------------------

As for our family, I tear up whenever I think of the money we have saved so far for dd3.5's college education. I don't want her to struggle as I did:

working 2-3 jobs while going to school full time; choosing between getting my car fixed or paying for another semester of tuition. (Tuition won; I rode my bike; that was part of the reason I chose the nanny job I did: it was 5mi from campus).

 

At the same time, we have already started teaching dd3.5 fiscal responsibility. So far, so good. :D

[StephanieZ]

Almost any job that these boys get will initially mean a less luxurious lifestyle than in their student heyday.

 

 

To me, that is the clincher. My folks were very generous with my brother and I. We went to expensive summer camps. . . I owned a horse. . . We took fancy vacations. . . etc etc.

 

Nonetheless, in college I had the same 2 bath towels from Day 1 to graduation (and years after!) When I got an apt with friends in Year 3, I slept on a futon mattress on the floor and we had no other furniture until we got some extremely cheap 2nd hand stuff from a neighbor who was moving suddenly. . . etc etc. Mom made sure I had enough food $$ to eat cheaply, and paid for my books, rent, and all direct school costs. . . But, it simply never occured to me that I should have nice furniture, or a car, or anything luxurious, while in school. It just wasn't done!

 

(Mom still spoils/spoiled us after we "left home" but it was on her terms. It might be a nice gift at the holiday. . . or a vacation she took us on. . . and has even lent us $$ and/or cosigned for various big life events (houses, etc) but it was not anything we could budget on. . . and the $$ amounts were small relative to our own earnings.

 

Contrast to my cousins, who were spoiled beyond belief. . . All 5 are hopeless adults. Even at 30+, they are ALL still dependent on their mom despite high IQs and paid-for college educations. They have this crazy sense of entitlement. . . They never want to grow up and take care of themselves! I really think it boils down to the thought I quoted above. . . in that they would ig have to take a big step DOWN in lifestyle when/if they had ever become financially independent! Noone could live like that with a 20something job! You'd need 50k/yr+ to live like that! Not many entry level jobs that pay that! How discouraging and unmotivating! So, decades later and they are all pretty much hopeless adults. I've seen it in other families as well. Just so sad!

[Ester Maria]

There's a difference between an allowance that can maintain a certain lifestyle but must be budgeted well to do so, and an allowance that will be replenished whenever it's burned through.

This.

 

If we want our children to learn how to handle money, we need to put them in realistic situations with regards to their socioeconomic background. Those who know how to live well with little money do not necessarily know how to live well with a lot of money (the nouveau riche syndrome, I've seen it on tens of examples) - how to manage larger sums of money equally well as they can manage small sums of money, how do "necessities" and "luxuries" transfer to a higher standard of living, and once you have the money, what to invest into and how to do it.

 

The bottomline is, if you have money, and if your children will inherit money or great values, LIVE WITH IT from the beginning till the end, don't hide the fact from your children or deliberately make their life harder to "teach them a lesson". I strongly believe that one must live with the life they HAVE, not with the idealistic notion, in any direction - not above your financial abilities, but also not considerably below it. I see absolutely no reason to artificially force a low-budget living on kids whose objective life circumstances far from require it.

 

That being said, it is quite bad if your children don't "want" anything, because they have everything and they can always buy everything. Their budget should be such that it often forces them to choose - to learn to give up on a thing A in order to get a thing B, because their budget cannot always include A and B. When our kids were small, it was something like, you can either buy a chocolate or an icecream, you cannot both. Now, realistically, they usually had enough money to buy three cheap chocolates and two cheap icecreams... but that's exactly the point: from the beginning you're raising your children with a certain standard of luxury (something like, you're not necessarily buying MORE - you're buying BETTER), so they will most likely not even consider that option, and will STILL have to choose... but between two luxurious options as opposed to two basic options.

As they grow up, the dilemma between a chocolate and an icecream turns into a dilemma between more precious things, clothes, travels, etc. They still have to choose, they're just choosing amongst more expensive options. And even if somebody with the same sum of money could do both travels, they will do only one, because they won't consider staying in hostels and taking a second-class two-day trains... instead, they'll fly and stay in a decent hotel. And they'll still learn the value of giving up on something in order to get something else - but in a realistic context of THEIR life, not somebody else's life.

 

Most of the old rich people that I know are raising their children exactly this way. Children are given what seems like plenty of money, but they're also accustomed to a certain standard from young age and still forced to choose, thus making it impossible to "have it all"... they're only making more expensive choices and learn to manage realistic, adequate and more background-appropriate sums of money. That way you're preparing your children for what's realistically likely to be their life, step by step, while still making sure you build up their character and teach them adequate self-constrait... because self-constraint in their life context is fundamentally different than self-constraint on a lower budget.

 

Most of the nouveau riches that I met fall into one of two traps: they either go to an extreme spoiling of children, without instilling humility, gratitude, work ethics, self-constraint and a healthy relationship with money and "things", either to an opposite extreme of "I learned it the hard way, so they will too". Both of those are wrong, in the first case it produces an entitled ungrateful brat, and in the second case it produces a bitter resentful child.

 

And yet, it's so easy to fall into any extreme, on most budgets - it's just that on a high one the extremes are far more drastic in any way and thus more harmful.

I believe that a lot of people who aren't well-to-do often truly don't understand how incredibly hard it can be to raise your children the way that they ARE what they should be, children from a well-to-do family that are taking proper advantage of their life circumstances, but that are not entitled whim-led brats. Emotionally, it can be really tough.

Because when you're poor or average, you subconsciously raise your child into sympathy with the situation. When you say "we can't afford this" or "we don't have money", kids understand it on some level, and it's a true statement. It may break your heart that you aren't able to provide your children with some opportunity due to financial distress, but you're probably more peaceful with yourself on the long run than looking at your child in the eyes and saying, "we won't finance it"... when both the child and you know that you could finance it without it presenting the least financial distress to you, even if it costs a fortune.

 

Raising a child in a well-to-do family comes with its own set of problems and is a lot more difficult and a lot more problematic than some people think. From what I've seen, it usually turns out well when the family takes a balanced approach, which tempers leading a certain lifestyle with forcing moderation and self-constraint within that lifestyle, then when they go to either of the two extremes.

As with anything, I believe there should be a balance in regard to helping/financing dc.

 

If the parents can afford to, I think it's appropriate for them to provide their dc with a comfortable lifestyle, but not meet their every whim or desire, and make an effort to instill humility and gratitude, in childhood as well as young adulthood.

 

Giving them an obscenely large allowance teaches them nothing about the value of money or personal responsibility. However, forcing them into a strained financial situation while having the resources to make their lives a bit easier has the potential to negatively affect their grades, study habits, career choice, etc. There are enough people struggling, who cannot afford to go into "noble" careers because they couldn't afford to live on the salary it would provide, and it certainly makes more sense to watch one's children and grandchildren thrive and live comfortable, rewarding lives than for them to receive it upon one's passing (and perhaps even tear the family apart fighting over assets).

 

I see nothing wrong with these parents providing enough financial support for their children to focus on their studies without worrying about their basic needs, to help them purchase their first homes, pay their car payment on a reasonable fuel-efficient car, and even provide them a stipend to continue living an approximately similar lifestyle to the one they grew up with in order for them to pursue a career they love.

 

They should not, however, be given unlimited funds, or an exorbitant allowance that permits them live with no regard for the value of money and have no concept of what it means to live within a budget. An extravagant lifestyle can do as much, if not more damage to a student's grades and study habits than a lack of money (ie: too much fun/partying, not enough studying).

 

I agree that the amount mentioned by the OP is probably a bit too much, but could be reasonable if broken down into a budget, and if the students are expected to save from that monthly allowance for additional trips/vacations, gifts for friends, and any other large purchases. The attitude/approach of both parents are children are more important than the amount of money provided, IMO.

 

\

An excellent post. It sums up what I clumsily tried to describe above. Parental attitude and example is way more important than the concrete sums in question.