I think a light is coming on.

You needed a degree, for your purposes. To get it, your situation required you borrow money. You did. And you are paying it back without (censored). You made a decision and are living with the consequences.

I offer that you are an anomaly. And, because you are, in your life, you have separated the two issues -- costs and free stuff. You opined that my heroic struggles in having to milk the mule (some will get it) have colored my beliefs; has your willingness to stand up and accept consequences colored yours?

Would you consider that many others, earlier in their lives, faced with the costs of college, borrowed money and now are responding to the siren song of a victimization that requires them to pay it back? Thus, they have not separated the two issues? Nor have many others -- say certain ideologues. Is not a free college education on some political platforms?

Pretty much what I was saying. The Green One stood up; other's haven't. Or, more accurately, would like to not have to.

Without drifting off, I'm appalled by what I've read of parents and grandparents who have co-signed for student loans, in sufficient, documented (in another thread) numbers. And now, since victims can't be expected to accept the consequences of using loans to make car payments, these elders are suffering significant financial problems. Because, I opine, they were stupid enough to get drawn into the issue we are bouncing around -- is it necessary to borrow to go to college? These ancestors seemed to have thought so.

As to the comment on about the only post I have not yet addressed, some who know me know what I think of culture as a limiting factor. Not to mention social norms, politeness, the greater good for the greater number, and "You have to cause I said so." The fish can see the water ... if they look. And they can look if they want to.

Now I have to get ready to go to a tea room. Honest. I like it. They have an alcove done as the sitting room of a certain British civil engineer ... all masculine and such.

More later.

Brunel?

Yes, but with some more stuff added on--specifically, I am thinking of the sentences that GKC said required unpacking. They certainly do require unpacking, because those sentences are probably the place where the real disagreement lies.

I said, "we've got to realize that we live in a certain culture and that culture imposes certain expectations on us. When we make cultural impositions on young people, it's at least partly on us to help them sort through the implications of those impositions."

And GKC replied, "Culture certainly reflects (and attempts to impose) certain expectations. You would not chose to acquiesce in all of them. But if "we" make cultural impositions on young people (Who we? What impositions are referenced?) sorting through the implications, before the event, seems what Highlander is proposing."

The things a culture imposes typically are precisely the things that the members of that culture don't have to reflect critically on. I think, to be frank, that your posts here (and elsewhere) tend to reflect enlightenment individualism. You think each sovereign individual needs to set out to invent himself and silly superstitions of his surroundings be damned. My earlier reference to Ayn Rand was not an accident. On the other hand, I'm not an individualist and I roundly reject the enlightenment and everything it stood for. I take much more seriously than I think you do our unchosen commitments, our cultural inheritances, our shared superstitions and other such unquestioned assumptions. It's true, of course, that we live in a deeply sick and destructive culture. So many of those commitments, etc, are destructive and sick. But the fact that we have them is fitting and proper. I don't think each student should--or should be expected to--heroically rise above the others in his midst and figure out his own solitary pathway. I think it's highly unrealistic to expect that. Instead, we as a culture hold up unattainable standards and all kinds of awful stuff to our young people. The young people follow the path that's laid out for them. And later, they find themselves in entirely untenable situations--having a useless degree and six figures of debt, for example, along with an addiction to video games and pornography. And then they complain and whine and ask for someone to step in and fix it for them. Which frankly makes sense.

That's a worst case outcome. The majority of the people out there are doing much more like what I'm doing. They got their degrees. They got debt. Now they're working to pay. Both spouses. Older when they married. Fewer children. But still working to try to pay for all that stuff they've been told they need. That's the majority, at least in my experience. They took out debt because they "needed" a college degree. And they're paying for it. They can't imagine life working any other way, so of course they're on board with their children doing the same thing.

The trouble is that as we go further and further into these new economic times, it is less and less likely that young people who are pushed down that road will wind up OK, like their parents did. And yeah, more and more of them will be ticked off about it as time goes on. Hopeless and defeated before they even start life, because they trusted the people they're supposed to be able to trust. Yes, personal responsibility, blah blah blah. But when the whole world, including, again, everyone you love and trust, is telling you the one way it needs to go, you're pretty darn likely to go that one way.

I won't have time or energy to make myself well understood on these ideas here in this thread. It's complicated, and I have only so many words to spend on trying to get this made clear here. All this is simply to say that I am much more sympathetic to the folks you perceive as terribly entitled and whiny and (censored) than you are, largely because I think your individualism is not flowing from your Catholicism, but rather from a kind of Americanist mythology. I would say, in closing, that the Aristotelian story that man is a social animal is the root of what I'm trying, ineffectually, to get at. We are, indeed, thoroughly social, for good or for bad. (That's part of why it's so important that the state defend the Church and allow her to do her work unimpeded.)

Oh, and I also wanted to add that it's not quite true that I found I needed a degree, for my purposes, as though I had a specific purpose in mind, and I found that in pursuit of that purpose, I needed a degree. For example, I might have decided to become a physician, and so of course, I would need a bachelor's degree. No. Rather, I worked for 9 (I think) years after high school in a variety of jobs. Because of my National Guard training in print journalism, I had hoped I could latch on to some newspaper somewhere and get into that field. I did do a couple of freelance jobs at $15/piece in a local weekly, but there was no real work available for me along that line--to do that job, you need a degree. So instead I worked in a nursing home kitchen, I worked as some kind of gopher/stock clerk/something or other in a bank, I worked in a textile factory, I worked as a pharmacy tech, etc...I did all kinds of stuff in the thought that maybe I'd land on something that would make sense for me. Nothing did. I hated all my jobs. Had a good work ethic, though, so I did well in them. I could have made a career in the pharmacy without a degree--hired off the street and trained by the hospital. Good benefits. Decent pay. (I was getting about $9.00/hour when I quit in 1998. They'd just instituted a pay scale bump so that if I'd gotten certified--easy enough to do--I think I would have been making closer to $11/hour. In time, I could have easily worked up to more like $15/hour, in 1998 money. I don't know what that would equate to today. Closer to $20?) It was a really good job by all accounts. And frankly, it was about the best I could have hoped for without a degree.

I was not too good to work such a job. I was grateful for it. I really liked my coworkers. (Bosses, not so much, but that's life.) I think I did a good job for them. It was not something that I saw myself being satisfied with for the next 40 years. I simply could not think of a better place to go. Yes, I could have tried to get into the trades, but frankly it never occurred to me. This was pre-internet (for me), I wasn't aware of needs in the trades, I wouldn't have found myself particularly drawn to them if I had been, and I would not have thought of myself as having much of an aptitude in those areas. I felt stuck. I knew that if I was going to make a move to something I liked better, I needed a degree.

It was not that I needed a degree for my purposes. It was that I needed a degree to be able to hope to find work that I didn't hate. That's about as specific as it got.

Isambard Kingdom, the same. At 18 Duke Street.

Oh, I knew that. I read THE GREAT IRON SHIP when I was 10.

First time, that is.

I was just astounding you with my detailed knowledge of the environs. Sort of.

I appreciate this post. I think it clarifies the issues we have been dancing with.

First, I don't know what an enlightenment individual is. And, like you, I can only go round the May pole so many times.

Let me say this. It is clear that you and I see the set of unconscious cultural determinants as having very different populations. As background, I often evaluate people, and even ask them, on whether they see the world as a very safe or very dangerous place. I hold that it is incredibly dangerous ... in many ways for many reasons. Therefore, I am suspicious of norms and conventions and consensus ... because, if these are miscalculated, they place me and mine in danger. In modernity, especially affluent Western societies, I hold that most think the world is safe. I shudder at that conclusion ... because requires blithely skating on very thin ice ... beautiful and fun until it cracks under you.

I'm not a lone rider; I understand that we swim the waters of our culture. But, with all of the cultural changes we are experiencing, I wonder how many have evolved based upon a common groundwork and how many have been imposed by various cultural and economic and secular dictators. I do hold that the student's family unit absolutely must examine the "cultural" imperatives that are being thrust upon them.

For example, I think that a Catholic family must discuss and affirm their beliefs with their children before placing them in the maw of the secular university ... or Notre Dame. Because that is what is important in a dangerous world. And you're right, I don't care what the cultural message is about religion. The culture is wrong and I won't place myself in a milieu that reinforces the heresies and blasphemies that the culture claims are religious, but are just insidious, evil manifestations of Satan attempting to destroy the Church. I don't have to stand as a lone sentry; I can stand with and within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That is why I am no longer an Episcopalian; that Church could no longer convince me that it was Christian. Culture be damned.

I don't doubt your observation that the majority has taken your general path. I'm a bit astounded and saddened because a larger majority -- without explicitly examining the pros and cons of their situations -- has not moved off that well-trodden way.

Well said and convincing. It sounds as if you played the hand you were dealt, which is the best that any of us can do.

After I left the military, I returned as a civilian to the same office I had left -- but at the bottom of the hierarchy, no longer at the top. I was good at my job, liked accomplishing things that were difficult, got respect at the working level. But things changed, the seven of us were reduced to three, I again became the honcho, and management decided that our office really had no value ... until it hit the fan and then management was incensed that we, with no real power and who they had ignored, had allowed their efforts to run into problems. I remember two conversations in which I told a senior manager that I had highlighted an issue for over two years, that the issue would be very disruptive and financially catastrophic, proposed multiple fixes, and had coordinated efforts to resolve things ... and then the senior manager turned my effort off. The promised crisis hit and bad things occurred. So, I was hauled in to be told that, if I had presented the impending disaster in a way that had been sufficiently convincing, then the manager would never have let it happen. In short, his failure to act, even after repeated warnings and dire predictions, was my fault.

I ate the proverbial sandwich to take care of my family and I don't regret it. But it warn't no fun. So I spent my energy, among other things, getting my kids through college. They both graduated with positive bank accounts.

Hey, I really appreciate this whole exchange. We aren't going to see eye to eye, but I appreciate your position. And, it is theoretically possible that you might, by happenstance, be right.

Of course, in one sense I agree with all this. For example, I cannot understand sending children to public school, or even most Catholic schools. It's never been something my wife and I have even considered. But I must, of course, refrain from harshly judging other Catholic parents who don't grasp the seriousness of the situation. After all, they themselves probably went to school, and think of school as the norm. Breaking out of that position sometimes requires an enormous evil, and even then it's often not fully rational. I've spoken to parents who, after school massacres, express a desire to take their kids out of school because they're worried about school massacres. My reaction is--aren't you worried about the disgusting pornography that your kids are viewing on their smartphones every day? (My kids don't have phones. They do not have the kind of inescapable social pressure--and, I understand, oftentimes school requirements--to have them that school kids have. School means smartphones these days. Homeschool gives a relatively easy way to resist that. This parenthetical is supposed to explain why I am, in the sentence prior to it, apparently equating going to school and having a smartphone. It's because I sort of am. Though I grant that, of course, many homeschooled kids have smartphones, too.) But if massacres are what wakes you up and gets you to take your kids out of school, so be it.

Anyway, yes, unfortunately we are in a situation where things are so bad that to save our souls we often must simply opt out of what is culturally normal. But that's not normal or desirable. And it's not how we're wired, IMHO.

Around 22 dollars in 2016.

Not too shabby.

Rule of thumb, about $44K a year.

At this point, I think the post-moribund horse has been pounded enough. (Yeah, I know I do that. But I like messing with clichés. The cliché can be so apropos, but so overused. And playing with words is fun. I need to use my English B.A. somehow. After all, I paid for it.) My real take from all of this is that I am appreciative that we, all included, could actually examine an issue in some depth, with candor and zeal and conviction but without rancor and incivility. I have, of late, missed doing that in DCF. And have wondered to what degree I have contributed to causing it to be missed. But, thank you all for what has been an exchange that has caused me to think and to modify my certainties, although not abandon them.

I am not attempting to have the last word, but my kids did have (the equivalent) of cell phones. Of course, they were programmed so that they could only call emergency numbers, their grandparents, and their Mom and Dad. They were not homeschooled. That requires a level of commitment that we did not have, so I salute you.

And a final anecdote, let me tell you about my kids' college funds. We began saving for our kids college by setting up a fund for each .... at birth. It accumulated nicely, but not nearly as much as the growing cost of college. So, when we were choosing schools, cost became a major issue. The kids had to work during high school and put the majority of their wages into their college funds. It still looked like it wasn't going to be enough, so the choice of which college to attend became even more critical. One ended up going out of country and the other found a way to have his college paid for.

We got lucky. My older went to school in British Columbia. The BC Parliament decided, oh joy, to freeze tuition in the Provincial universities ... so our costs did not increase over four years. Moreover, the exchange rate between the US and Canadian dollar changed enough that we actually paid a bit less each year of his schooling.

However, my older decided that he wanted to move off campus with other brain-dead, testosterone crazed males of his acquaintance. He explained how cost effective it would be. I, having been a brain-dead, testosterone crazed young male, immediately saw the financial pitfalls in such a choice. So, I gambled. Much to my wife's skepticism, I turned over my son's college fund to him. I explained that his college financing was up to him and that his college fund was his to use as he decided. I also said that, if any money was left in the fund after graduation, it was his. He asked what would happen if he ran out of money because, he earnestly explained, he might have to attend school for an additional semester due to various reasons purportedly out of his control. I replied that, in such a case, I hoped he had enough in his personal reserve to pay for that additional time. Or that he needed to consider what sort of a job he would get after he dropped out to earn enough to return to finish school.

Now, my son had made a major expenditure at the end of his sophomore year. He bought a new car. He had saved enough over the years to afford a basic, bottom of the line new car. And he desperately wanted to have a car at university, cause it was convenient and cool and status granting and stuff. Apparently, the trail bicycle, formerly mine, that I had given him to get around at university, was no longer satisfactory. In our family, as pater familias, I approved the major financial decisions, like buying a car, of my minor children. I agreed. But I pointed out that buying a new car would nearly exhaust his personal savings -- and the consequences would be his to bear. He bought the car. And, unbeknownst to him, I had decided that it was time for him to begin to drive back and forth to university ... to head out on solo road trips as part of growing up and being cast out into the real world.

At about this time, he fell in love with motorcycles. Hey, he had just bought a new car. And he had this hefty college fund, which certainly had enough to satisfy his college expenses and that shiny new bike -- who needs to do the math? Why not, he reasoned, also get a new motorcycle? For various brain-dead, testosterone crazed reasons. His Mom panicked. I nearly panicked. She said that we had to pull back his college fund, pointing out that he was brain-dead and testosterone crazed. I gritted my teeth and said we would stay the course. Because, whatever, the consequences, we would not intervene. He was going to have to live with his decisions. And then I prayed. A lot. Asking God to take the shine off any new, used, or wrecked motorcycle that happened to catch our son's eye.

So, there he is. Going into his senior year with maybe enough money to finish two semesters if he stayed in the dorm, but certainly not enough to make it through three semesters and, based upon experience, not enough to cover the unexpected and unplanned expenses attendant with moving off campus. Stuff like meals. With motorcycles dancing in what passed for his brain.

Later he told me what had caused him to decide to stay on campus and not get a bike. Was it the sterling role model that his father had presented him? Nope. Was it the detailed financial calculations he had finally made, combined with risk analysis, that convinced him that off campus and a motorcycle was likely to prevent his on-time graduation? Nope. Was it a growing sense of maturity and financial responsibility that tamped the testosterone and kicked in his brain cells? Nope.

Later, he told me that a light flashed on in his brain and he suddenly realized that the college fund was actually now his money -- and that any balance was going to be his. It wasn't his parents'. While he saw no problem spending our money, he certainly wasn't going to waste the money he was going to have upon graduation. It was his. Our boy had finally grown up. He graduated with a nice chunk of money that, combined with several part-time jobs, positioned him financially to support himself until he moved on to his current employment.

Thank you all. And to all, a good night.

(Highlander said a lot of stuff).

Prior planning, research on possible routes, rational thinking and assumptions, prudence, personal responsibility, close call, epiphany, happy ending.

Quaint and laudable.

Good night Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

And I thinks to myself,
What a wonderful world.



Oh, yeaaaaahhhhhhh......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWzrABouyeE

I played video games to relax me, to help me ease the stress that I have, but I don't ever forget to pray to God to worship HIM with all my heart and soul.