E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSParents who are footing more of the college tuition bill for their children give them a better chance of graduating. But a surprising new study finds they may not be doing them any favors in another area — generous financial support appears to lead to lower grades.
The study, published in this month's American Sociological Review, suggests students with some of their own "skin in the game" may work harder, and that students with parents picking up more of the tab are free to take on a more active social and extracurricular life. That may be fun and even worthwhile, but comes at a cost to GPA.
"It allows for a lot of other activities in college that aren't academic," said author Laura Hamilton of the University of California, Merced. "Participation in the social scene is expensive — money to hang out, drink." But "the more you have all these extras, the more you can get dragged into the party scene, and that will drag down your GPA."
The study is based on figures from three large federal data sets that allow parental contributions and grades to be compared. Hamilton controlled for family socio-economic status, allowing a comparison of similar students whose families make different choices about how much of the cost of college to pick up.
The effect on GPA is relatively small, Hamilton said. "The reason it was so shocking, however, is that all the research on parental investments from pre-school through (college) assumes you give something to your kids, particularly money, it leads to good things. This is one case where it not only doesn't have the expected good effect, it has a small negative effect."
When parents pick up greater absolute amounts and shares of college costs, it affects GPA across the income distribution, though the effect is steepest at families earning over $90,000. At that level, and controlling for other factors, parents not giving their children any aid predicts a GPA of 3.15. At $16,000 in aid, GPA drops under 3.0. At $40,000, it hits 2.95.
While rich families obviously find it easier to contribute, poorer families help as well, at greater sacrifice. But Hamilton says the damage may be greater for those families, because lower GPAs don't hurt better-off students as much in the job market. Wealthier students can rely on connections and further help from parents.
Students without those connections "have to have the 3.0 in order to pass the initial resume glance," she said.
Hamilton found grants, scholarships, work-study, student employment and veterans benefits don't have similar negative effects on GPA, though loans do, along with direct parental aid. She suggests that's because loans and unconditional parental grants have no immediate strings attached, whereas scholarships and grants often carry GPA requirements. There may also be a psychological effect. With grants, "students feel like they've earned them in some way" and want to justify them.
Hamilton said the findings don't suggest parents should stop supporting students financially, especially considering there is a larger positive effect on graduation rates than the negative effect on GPA. But they should lay out standards and expectations. And even if parents can afford the whole bill, it may be worthwhile to make students put up some of their own funds, or work part-time, so they feel invested.
In her broader research on the topic, Hamilton says she's found some parents signal it's OK to take advantage of their support for a more social experience.
"Some parents were 100 percent complicit in this," she said. "They absolutely wanted their children to go to school and party hard. They told me explicitly it's not about grades, it's about having fun, the best years of your life."
"Now for some families it all works out OK," she said. "The 'best years of your life' idea has trickled down to what everybody thinks college should be. But not everybody can afford for college to be like that. And they pay for that for a long time."
Leave a Comment:
This generalization is absolutely ridiculous. I am footing 100% of my daughter's college tuition/expenses. Certainly she is enjoying the social life of college (just as, but no more than, her peers who are financially contributing to their education) but she is also taking full advantage of the educational opportunities. She's a double major, is in the Honors program, averages 19-20 credits per semester and maintains a GPA over 3.7. The benefit to my footing her bill...she can focus on her studies rather than work, her stress level is manageable and she won't exit college with a student loan that she will spend a good deal of her adult life paying off. She is NOT the exception to the rule; she is in good company among her peers. This study is most definitely skewed.
As a college professor with close to 20 years teaching experience and 7 years experience running an honors program, I'd argue that your daughter is an exception to the rule. There are a lot of exceptions--thankfully--but I've seen a definite downward trend in my time teaching, as have my colleagues. The overall work ethic of students has declined, and many are honest about not having been asked to bear much responsibility (housework, part-time jobs, saving money, accountability for grades) growing up and heading into college. The nature of education (moving towards a business model, etc) has changed as well, so I believe financial support is only one aspect of the downward trend, but the trend is definitely there.
I, too, am a college professor and, like you, have seen a downward trend but I believe there are way too many variables at play here to pin this on who is footing the tuition bills. The decline is apparent at the middle/high school level and has nothing to do with student employment, affluence, etc. We need to be very careful where we point fingers and place blame which would prove to be counterproductive to identifying what is truly occurring.
That's why you make them pay for college themselves and make them realize that the longer they take to graduate and the worst they do, the more they'll pay.
Then if you have a kid that shows that they actually 'get it' you pay off their loans for them AFTER they graduate as a gift to them showing they are not only responsible but understand the value of education and money.
Thanks for telling me the obvious article...this isn't any different then people who get handouts from the government...most lack the effort to actually succeed if things are paid for them & given to them.
I agree with you for the most part, but I also think it depends on the student.
I graduated college in 2010 and my parents also paid 100% tuition and expenses. I graduated in 4 years with a 3.6 GPA, completed a study abroad program and certainly enjoyed my social life. I found a full time, salaried job with benefits straight out of college (without help from my parents and their connections). I can appreciate what my parents did for me and the fact that now I am not paying off a bunch of debt from an undergrad degree.
However, my 21 year old brother who is currently in college is also being funded 100% by my parents - same as they did for me. He has completed 2 years and has been asked by the university to "take a year off" from school because of his poor grades.
the hire ups at my work are college educated and they are some of the stupidest people ive ever met.why is common sense not taught?
I was just going to post the same thing! We are paying for both my kids in graduate school, both have straight A's in a top ranked programs and are doing graduate assistant work as well. They do balance their social life with school and do it well. My kids grew up appreciating what we as parents provide them...opportunity, they have to take advantage of it and work hard to maintain it...I'm proud of them for having that understanding.
This article doesn't surprise me at all. It matches what I saw in college, and what I see with 18 to 22 year-olds every day today. It's the same as welfare payments - if people have no skin in the game, they are less likely to be motivated by what they are receiving.
Yes, there are exceptions (carrie60 and ews824 - grats to you and it sounds like you have done an excellent job as a parent!)...but those are the exceptions, not the rule.
I have twins in College. I am paying the tuition. They on the other hand are working 20-plus hours a week while carrying a 15 credit load. They pay for their transportation, insurance, fuel, maintenance , etc... What we are doing here is giving them an adult life now (at 19) as opposed to paying for everything and them being shocked at 21 that life has some serious bills attached. They both have a 4.0 GPA as of now, but I agree with the professor above that the parenting side when they are younger has more bearing than who might be paying their tuition. The study is rather narrow and missed many alternate influencial elements that can cause a student to have a lower GPA.
ews - Apparently statistics and research are not part of your teaching load. Why bring up anecdotal evidence to refute a statistical correlation? A student's GPA is the result of many factors and parental financial support has been shown to be one of those factors. The authors don't suggest its the only factor and you, as a supposed college educator, shouldn't reject it as a factor just because there are others.
What a great discovery... kids from rich families have extra money to party harder and have worse grades... that how it has always been. Been there and seen that...
I am curious to see if today's generation will be able to foot the college tuition bill for their offspring.
Well I can tell you what I saw when I went to college. I saw that those of us who had to pay our way through college studied harder and did better than those that had someone else pay their way through. When we had to pay for them, we did everything we could not to have to take them again because they cost us money and was expensive. It seemed like a lot of those who had someone else pay for their college just didn't care much.
Of course there are certainly exceptions to the rule. Your child sounds like one. The other exceptions I saw were students who parents were not only paying the bill but requiring reports and results to keep up the funds.
Also it seemed to me at the time that the worst of all were those that used student loans. It seemed like a lot of them didn't have to worry about their parents cutting them off and because the were spending loans, it didn't feel like they were spending their own money either.
No way!!!!
I was helping my kids through college but they also worked part time and took some student loans. When they had good grades I gave them a bit more spending money as a reward. Tying financial help to grades is a way to go. These days not helping kids financially in college (when you can, of course) leaves them with few good options. And large student loans can be a handicap for life.
When my kids went to college, we paid for their tuition, books, room and board. They paid for all other expenses with money they earned and saved from summer jobs. I told them that college was their job now, we were "paying" them to go to school. They both graduated in 4 years with substantial degrees. One was a Summa Cum Laude, Fulbright Scholar and is a year away from a PhD in Integrative Biology. The other, a mechanical engineer, graduated with a 3.0, swam on their college swim team all 4 years and is employed at a major aerospace firm. The job we parents have is to care for our children enough to nurture, protect and defend them. To teach them self respect. My kids always knew they were loved and they belonged, they didn't have to go out looking for it. It's not about the money, it's about how children are raised.
Part of it that people are leaving out is that college used to be much harder to get into and stay there. Now, it's turning into a money grab with the government supplementing the loans. The result is weaker students are getting in, therefore, grades and performance are dropping.
In addition, middle school & high schools are dumbing down the material and "teaching to the tests" instead of actually educating kids. This is the result of them protecting their funding and performance. The results are that dumber kids are given higher grades undeservingly....therefore, they fool college admissions and get into colleges they can't handle.
Not everyone is worthy of a big college. Sorry....some people are not there. Tech schools offer excellent secondary degrees. As the middle & high schools continue to fail and fall further behind the rest of the world, the colleges will be happy to cash those checks.
RBattle"
"the hire ups"
It is "higher ups" but you would know that if you had one of those useless college degrees.
Because you cannot teach common sense.
Many book smart individuals are some of the dumbest people I've ever met when it comes to street smarts, common sense, financial responsibility.
Yep. Get rid of the subsidizing and guaranteed loans from the FED and college costs will not only plummet, but the amount of students attending will plummet also.
Right now anyone can get in...
You, james, represent what is really wrong with this country. Verbally wagging your finger at people for getting an education. And then, I would bet, you are wondering why all these jobs are going overseas? It's not just cheaper labor, it's the lack of qualified labor....that's where the post secondary education comes in, in case you can't make that connection. There are WAY too many uneducated people in this country like you, when all it could take is just a little effort and the DESIRE to know more, to do more and to be more. But no, you just hold your hand out and say "Where's my slice of american pie?"
Unlike you, there are people who actually want more education. Since it's too much trouble for you, why shouldn't the government subsidize loans? If they didn't, we would have to import doctors, lawyers, accountants from other countries. Is that what you want?
My parents paid my full tuition and expenses and I pulled well over 3.6GPA back in 1989.
Bradley University - Manufacturing Engineering
Interesting - a parent who pays for everything thinking that their kid is no worse off for not paying their way through college.
Well - as someone who scrapped and scraped all her life - I probably learned more lessons while I got up on a Saturday morning to go to work and my wealthy friends all got to sleep in. However, when it came time to get a job I thought my experience and the fact I had worked hard and paid my way mattered. The sorry fact that it doesn't. Those rich kids got great jobs right out of school with their well connected parents. They never had to worry about getting laid off because their Dad was friends with the boss. They never started at the bottom as an admin, customer service rep, or mail room helper. They went right into the Management seats.
So even though most of them screwed off - didn't have part time jobs and had no debt after college, because they were connected their families got them jobs.
Life is unfair. But then again those of us on the other side knew that going in because we have been living with it all our lives. Going through the above just confirmed it.
If an accurate study could be written, I have no doubt there would be a strong corollary between these findings and the kids' history.
They would be the ones who could do no wrong . . . even if caught red-handed. They would have had the car of their choice bought for them. The P's would have hosted parties for them and their friends and bought the booze or, at the very least, would have turned a blind eye. The daughters would have considered abortion a form of birth control [note : I am pro-choice but stand squarely against multiple abortions as birth control].
We have few parents these days. Just sperm donors and incubators.
If you have a good GPA in anything except CSET courses then it doesn't mean more than you went to class and finished what the teacher asked of you. That's what my college experience taught me.
I took multiple senior level psych/sociology/health related courses because of "Diversity" and ALL OF THEM were a joke compared to my engineering courses. (You show up and get 10% of your grade?! wtf is that?!)
For me, it was about scheduling my time. I was responsible for all my spending money. Freshman year, I probably went through everything I had saved up. Then once I started working during the school year, my grades got better because I had to schedule my study time, no more procrastinating. The support from my parents didn't change, but my grades did.
Hardly. Perhaps you've rationalized paying 100% of your daughter's education to you satisfaction, but I'm not sold. Maybe your daughter is actually doing as well as you think she is. At any rate, she has yet to learn to pull her own weight without mommy & daddy being around. Are you going to by her a house too? Will you be there at her first job interview?
I put myself through school on my own, and I can tell you that paying my own way (having some ski i the game), certainly motivated me to take my studies seriously. And how do you know that your daughter is not the exception? Have you checked her friend's transcripts? Or are you simply taking your daughter's word?
Whatever the case may be, generally speaking, footing the entire bill is not the prudent thing to do. Yes, there are exceptions. But in most cases, parents are jeopardizing their financial future funding their offsprings' higher education.
Wrong.
I should have added that over 50% of her tuition/room/board is covered by MERIT based scholarships (earned over $20,000/year) and she continues to amass additional awards each year. No I haven't checked her friends' transcripts but I see their names, alongside hers, on the Dean's List every semester. She works her butt off in the summers to cover spending money for the school year (and to put aside money for after graduation). Doesn't work over Christmas break, however, as she takes a "J" term class every year. She definitely pulls her own weight and thoroughly understands the value of money, hard work and responsibility.
Ignore Gumps. Bitter old man. Remember, envy is one of the seven deadly sins, Gumpy.
Generally speaking, kids who earn scholarships will have parents who contribute less toward education and these kids tend to do far better on average. You also have the squeaky wheel scenario - ie. My brother and I graduated HS with about a 3.4 GPA (So A - B students), my parents knew we were going to college but had nothing saved...so we enlisted and paid for our own college. My dead-beat, drug addicted sister barely passed HS with about a 2.5 GPA in the easier courses. She was going to join the military, but kept pushing it off and getting arrested for various drug offenses. Finally my parents offered to pay for a trade school for her to get her to do something. So my parents paid more for my sister, who did worse than I did. Would I have partied and used drugs like that if my parents had paid for me? Probably not. I think this is too simplistic a conclusion, that plays into a generational bias, without proving causality.
ews824, if you read the entire article you'll see that grants and scholarships do NOT have the same negative effect as full parental financing (and what is your situation - first you say you're funding 100%, then you say she's earned over 50% in merit aid, which means you're funding less than 50% of the total bill). And it makes sense that merit aid wouldn't have the same impact, as typically those awards come with strings attached - the student must maintain a certain minimum GPA to keep the award. Therefore, these students DO have skin in the game. They may not be working a job for that merit aid, but as I've explained to my kids, making themselves attractive students (ie, high grades, activities, service), IS their job, and it's paying off in the significant merit scholarships my daughter is being offered.
Ignore Gumps. Bitter old man.
Oh, so what from my post lead you to assume that I'm bitter? And I'm certainly not envious - I am proud of the fact that I paid my way through college.
I didn't see anything in Grumps comment that indicated he was envious.
I guess you will want to point something out about me now so here let me make it easy.
I did not go to college, I went to Viet Nam instead, When I came home I went to work as a laborer, I worked hard and improved my lot in life,Currently I own my home my vehicles, A farm 2 tractors and a small construction business, Between my wife and myself we have done quite well.
So there You have it...Flame away
Um, I'm going to call B.S. on this article. My parents paid for my college, and made sure I had ample spending money so as to enjoy the carefree lifestyle of college, and all I did was graduate magna cum laude, go to medical school and become a surgical subspecialist. Come to think of it, it's their fault that I am in the highest tax bracket. If only they wouldn't have given me that beer money. Damn them!
Thanks for helping support my argument. I can only speak for a child that is still in the middle of her schooling. You (and I'm sure many others) are proof of this study's flaws and sweeping generalizations. Congrats on all of your success!
Have either of you looked at the study to determine the flaw you claim? If the survey was statistically valid and the findings were based on the survey, it is plausable that those who do not "have skin in the game" will do worse than those who do.
My personal attestations is that I failed miserably when I didn't have to pay for anything. But, when I was older and more responsible, I went back to school and graduated Summa Cum Laude.
joe, I would suggest you see my post at #1.9. What would you say to one of your patient's that disagreed with your diagnosis and proposed plan of care just because that plan didn't work for their sister's cousin's next door neighbor?
And I'm at the other end of the spectrum- I had scholarships/grants/loans to cover tuition, but still had to work close to full time to cover textbooks, supplies, and living expenses. My parents could only offer occasional limited help. I did graduate, but I barely passed some of my higher level classes (didn't help when Walmart wouldn't let me take a couple personal days -which I had hours available for- during finals week to give me extra time to study).
I think at least having to work for spending money is good for students, but if parents are able to help out so they don't have to work more than 20 hours a week during the school year, they should.
When my kids get to that point, I'll be equally encouraging of trade school, part time college with a full time job, or full time college.
Obviously they didn't pay for you to become a statistician. Because then you might realize that the results of the study are not a guarantee that EVERY student who has parents footing the bill WILL do poorly. The study shows that OVERALL, there is a disparity in GPA between certain sets of students. Based on your methodology, there would be no surgical treatments for you to perform, because there's bound to be one person the treatment was not a success for, therefore proving the treatment to be a complete and utter failure. Maybe colleges should make Malcolm Gladwell required reading?
Oh, so just because your mommy and daddy footed your expenses and you turned out okay completely invalidates the study? One wonders how you did graduate with reasoning like that....
Let's see - you mentioned 7 deadly sins.... Wasn't pride among them?
Pot: "Kettle, you're black!"
When I was in college, there was definitely a big difference in achievement/performance between those who had to pay some or all of their own way compared to those who did not. In my experience, the ones who had to pay themselves definitely took it more seriously and tried harder than the ones who did not have to pay at all; they didn't really care since they were not the ones paying for it, and typically ended up on the 5 (or even 6) Year Plan rather than finishing up on time.
I saw this in action myself and have been waiting for confirmation! I paid for most of my college myself (the rest was scholarships and grants) I earned a 4.0 first semester. Several friends in my circle had mommy & daddy pay for everything and had terrible grades. Some were even conniving enough to use daddy's credit card to buy a bunch of textbooks they didn't need, then return them for cash which they would use for clothes, alcohol, and weed. Spoiled Bastards!
"Two things in life are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein
I think the problem starts before the kid even gets to college. The kids I knew in college whose parents could pay for their entire education were kids whose intelligence wasn't really high enough to be there in the first place. I believe colleges/universities accept kids whose parents can easily pay the full bill more readily than kids whose finances are on the edge. "If mommy and daddy are rich, we don't care if you're barely average on an SAT, we'll take you."
College application/acceptance occurs before the FAFSA is completed so rarely does the college/university know the parents' financial situation when determining acceptance.
This very much depends on the college/university as to whether it's "need blind". Most aren't and do balance the need for aid with admissions out of necessity, so someone who's got less than stellar SAT scores but can pay completely and needs no aid is a safer bet than someone who might only be slightly above average but then needs aid.
And you know what the sad part is? In today's economy, the "partiers" have a greater chance of becoming employed. Why? Well, who is more likely to know someone who will give them a job, the people who have the time to be social, or the people who do not?
Very true, but I don't think this is a new phenomenon...my guess is "networking" has always been more important than qualifications for getting hired. Now, keeping the job and getting promotions may be a different story (although I've seen times where it wasn't).
Duhh,, college is an industry toooooo,, just like any other money business,,,,
I worked 1-3 jobs during college. Skipping a class was like throwing money away -
I seriously doubt that any of this starts with college. If kids are raised with a sense of personal responsibility, that's going to carry over, no matter where the tuition money comes from. If the parents are chronically indulgent and kids never have to deal with the consequences of their actions while they're growing up, guess what. This study is more about parents' behavior than about college students. Spoil your kids when they're young, keep spoiling them while they're in college, and they're not going to care about grades. Why should they? They can have a good time and let Mom and Dad worry about their future.
I agree with you. Much of what our kids do is based on the parents. I told both of my boys that I would pay for college as long as academics came first. They could join various activities because that is part of the learning process, but their grades must be good to do that. My oldest graduated last year with a 3.6 and works for an international corporation. My youngest, now a college freshmen has a 3.5 and is active in many organizations. He wants to become a leader and is doing so through various clubs. And yes he tried partying but decided that this was not fun or necessary to have fun in college. Both of my kids have thanked me for stressing that academics come first. They know the importance of knowledge and learning. I believe that those lessons begin at home.
rkaralius - you have nailed the issue. It starts with us, the parents, teaching our children from infancy that the world does NOT owe them a living. Our oldest (son) is a NROTC (Marine option) senior, and has taken responsibility for his education from day one. Our daughter is a freshman and we are paying her tuition. Just the tuition - she has loans for room/board and she has to earn her spending money. They both have GPAs above 3.5. Accepting personal responsibility is a big factor in a college student's success.
Too many beer parties for some who can afford it?
but if the kid has to work too many hours to put themselves through then they can't do as well
perhaps better if the kid has some help but not quite to the point of not having to pay part of it him/her self
good for the kid if he can get a good living quarters away from the constant partyers and with others also interested in the business of getting an education even if it costs a bit more than a dorm
I am paying for my kids education because I can, and because I feel it's my best investment as a father. Does that make them a little less focused? Maybe, maybe not, that's really up to the kid. But they will get a degree, they will make plenty of good contact, they will study abroad and gain a ton or experience, and they will have no debt when they graduate.
Life is short anyway and after that first job, nobody will even care what your GPA is. Having a degree in a worthwhile field with no debt is the gift that keeps on giving.
If you don't pay for it you won't appreciate it "as much" if at all.
I went to college on a ROTC scholarship. If I didn't meet GPA standards and finish in 4 years I would be off to boot camp instead of becoming an officer, very motivating! My roommate paid his own way without any help from his parents, but pushed extra hard and finished in 3 years. His courses were so limited by doing this that he was unable to get a decent job in his field and has spent the last 40 years mired in dead end jobs. I've paid all expenses for my daughter and she's spent the last 4 years flirting with flunking out. She spends all her time working at two bit jobs to buy toys and party instead of studying. I guess many kids don't focus on the future, so you need to have the hammer where they can see it.
Similar to; Money from working class= Less people work.
Try being a working parent, sacrificing to send a child to college, and then hearing about kids who have learned to work the system - they get all tuition, books, room and board, and an additional $3000 in spending money. They are living the good life, while my kid works, scrimps on food, and watches these kids with drug-addicted, loser parents throw beer parties on my tax money, Bitter? You betcha!
Crap, you mean even in Obama's america, life is unfair? I'm shocked.
Joemike, your comment is related to the article...uh, how? ;-)
I know rkaralius but I was overcome by annoyance at the whining above.
I've been saying this for years. People don't truly appreciate the cost of things they don't have to pay for themselves, especially something as astonishingly precious as a college education. They emerge from high school with the mentality that school is something they're obligated to go to. Then they're sent off to school again at their parents insistence, with their parents money, and act just like they did in high school.
People should pay for their own higher education. Saving up money and spending it on your adult children to give them a "leg up in life" isn't doing them any favors. It just delays their growing up a bit longer, letting them act like children for a few more years.
I'm sure there are a lot of exceptions, hard-working young men and women who treat their parents money with respect and go on to get a valuable education and a good career. Maybe some of them even take it on themselves to pay them back. But I'm willing to wager my scenario is much more common.
Government education is a farce...the employees are focused on their pay, vacation time, health benefits, retirement pay and rules that prevent any teacher from being fired for incompetence...in return for attending the government educational institutions, students receive a diploma...the process does not require a student to achieve an "education"...the focus is on the teacher's pay and benefit package and the student's diploma...
And this is related to the article, how?
I'm not teaching school...you got questions...you get the answers...
The results of this study are not surprising to me. I am a senior at University of Iowa and have been active in a fraternity and other extra-curricular clubs over the last few years. My parents are footing a large majority of my college expenses but I will still graduate with some debt. I disagree with the proud parents in comments above who claim their children are shining examples of why the study is skewed. However, I think the context of the article is skewed. Should we focus on the negative aspects of parents helping pay for school? or the fact that it provides more graduates?
In addition to this saying students today have a poor work ethic is like saying politicians used to be noble - It's doomsday hypothesizing: times change. College students today have never had the opportunity to look upon a positive future. We have been bombarded with messages about the financial collapse of the country, record-high unemployment, and so on. The college=career=success equation we have been taught our entire lives has been thrown under the bus because we've been constantly told there's no jobs out there for us. Many people no longer see college as a means to a career, rather, they see it as a way to meet the expectations of a credential-based society at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars with no real expected payback period - only to be living with the parents again 4 years later.
Maybe there are some more important things in college than GPA alone. This study seems to disagree but that has been true for me.
The cost of 4 year colleges is a sham and the universiteis know it. 2 year technical colleges have a higher placment in the work force and pay more. Be smart and send your kids to get a 2 year technical degree in a skills postion, let them work and make $75,000 a year then they can pay their own way for a 4 year dgree.
Had to laugh at some of these comments and it reminded of something a local bar owner told me. I live in a college town and he and his wife run one of the local hangouts.
If I see them in here more than 3 nights a week then I hardly ever see them for a second semester.
If I see them in here 2 nights a week they generally are here for the duration but always on the edge of not being here
If I see them in here one night a week I generally also see them for their graduation party.
I think it all comes out in the wash. The slackers will always be the ones whining about how they deserve more and the ones who work hard will triumph in the end.. The only exception to that rule is the exception we are now trying to create by "leveling the playing field" and making it fair for everyone. I think some have forgotten that living in America does not guarantee us a living wage, a nice home and a healthy, happy life. It only guarantees us the right to pursue those things. In the end hopefully the slackers are rewarded with a hind tit to suck on as they so deserve and the rest of the people will get what they are willing to work for. I wonder sometimes when we will see the GPA become a thing of the past and we start grading with an S or a U. I have to chuckle at one of the TV ads airing now.. In 2025 we will have over 25 million jobs with no qualified people to fill them. We will have a shortage of college graduates... lol.... Really ???
Steve, your comment concerning the future lack of qualified employees relates mostly to companies' attitude and their unwillingness to train employees. They only want to hire people with the exact education and experience necessary to be able to start a challenging job with just a couple of days of orientation. So the issue won't be a shortage of college graduates. It will be a glut of college graduates with no experience yet that companies aren't willing to invest any time and money training.
Not a big surprise. Kids who don't really have to work for college and get extra money, take it for granted and don't have any skin in the game. As far as their concerned, Mommy and Daddy will always be there to support them.
The ones who have to earn and scrape their way through college have a greater appreciation for being there. They have much more to lose or gain and they recognize the value of what they are getting.
Nothing really new.
David9000 - their = possessive noun, something that is possessed by them or they
they're = a contraction of they are, as in "as far as they are concerned"
I don't want to disrespect your idea, here, but a little scraping and earning might help you, too! Otherwise, grammatically excellent! :)
yeah... I've got a case of keyboard dyslexia today.
They'll have to re-examine their priorities when they're ready to leave there...
there, feel better? ;)
Sorry David...I struggle with my inner grammar-Nazi when I'm two lazy to say anything worthwhile. :) Gave ya one, their. :)
It really isn't so much about paying for a child's tuition or not, but about responsibility. If a child has always had everything done for them, then they aren't going to work hard at college no matter who pays for it, but if they have been responsible people going into college, then they will benefit from having the extra time to devote to their studies that they otherwise would have to spend on a job.
The "small difference" shown here is possibly a correlate with young people who don't especially want to be in college, don't know what to do after college, but are there simply because it looks like as good a place to be as any and it isn't costing them anything. These people wouldn't be expected to work very hard, but they might still succeed in maintaining high GPA's simply because it isn't terribly hard to do that with the current grade inflation.
Statistics can't be expected to sort out personality and family-history variables since they are too hard to quantify.
OK so we have a weak statistical correlation between level of financial support and GPA. so what. Give me a day or two and I'll find you all kinds of stronger correlations between GPA and just about anything you wish. Number of pizzas consumed in a week, how well you get along with your roommate, etc.
This story does not say anything about type of university attended or academic major. Could it be that when mom and dad are dropping 50K a year at an elite institution junior doesn't have to work as hard because he knows that the road to the boardroom is already laid out for him?
All you parents bragging about your kid's 3.7 or 4.0 GPA, what's the major? English? Social work? Criminal justice? Or, forbid, Sociology?
My younger kid graduated from a Big 10 university with a major in engineering. 9 semesters even though the 9th was only 1 class. 2.8 GPA and 2 solid engineering internships. Immediately hired by the firm where he had his 2nd internship. The company paid 2./3 of the cost of his MS in engineering (3.9 GPA). His mom and I covered room board, tuition and books for undergrad school. He covered his own graduate costs over and above what his employer paid.
Every kid is different, every case is different. Correlations is not causality. Seems that the good professor has a nice article in a well respected journal (if you are a Sociologist) that ought to help her case come tenure and/or promotion time. Useless for much of anything else