Lumpen Prof is right: the relationship of teacher to student parallels the relationship between boss to worker. Teacher demands student to produce papers, exams, quizzes, and reports. Teacher then evaluates the products of student’s labor. The relatio…

A working mom who splits her time between school, work, and child care might or might not be splitting that time appropriately. KC’s post seems to imply that these mythical working mothers shouldn’t be forced to “defer their education” for financial reasons. If a certain individual cannot be “super-mom” or “super-dad” or “super-student” then some choice must be made and priorities set. The choice to become a parent was the option not chosen for deferment. If the juggle is resulting in balls being dropped, I for one would prefer that the baby be held while school falls by the way-side…at least for awhile.

After all, we do live in a time when having a child is, for the most part, a choice [barring unforeseen surprises...which usually result from choices].

Now, as to the issues with “financial aid” [which really just means loans for many students], I think that’s a whole other can of worms because some schools say 9 credits is full-time, others 12, and yet others 15. This is where a student doing his/her own homework to determine the best fit for individual educational needs.

It’s interesting to hear that you think one’s major (in addition to one’s peer group, though perhaps they’re interrelated) is a big determinant of the degree of luxury in one’s college “lifestyle.” Is it just simply that finance and accounting majors expect to have a bigger payday after school, and so they don’t mind borrowing against that future to finance a fat lifestyle while in college? Is it that people who major in “money” majors come from wealthier families who subsidize their children’s educations more than most other families? Or is is that Liberal Arts majors are naturally more studious and cautious about money because they value other things in life? (I’m sure it’s probably not as simple as choosing A, B, or C.)

In my experience, some institutions foster the college lifestyle more than others. Competitive liberal arts colleges and elite public universities seem to do so more than your average state U. And I think that this is more a result of student demographics than university policy. These types of institutions seem to attract students from solidly bourgeois families who are used to (and often expect) a certain standard of living.

I think that your circle of friends can also greatly influence your spending habits. If you get involved with a crowd that values the college lifestyle than you are much more likely to value it yourself. I consider myself fortunate to been party of a fairly academic group of friends. I think only one of my friends purchased an iPod with her own money and that was during a summer splurge—the rest either received them as birthday/Christmas gifts from parents or don’t have them (including me).

The other thing I’ve noticed and I really am not trying to stereotype here is that student’s personal ambitions seem to greatly impact spending habits as well. Students who may have grown up lower-middle class or middle class hoping to score big finance or advertising jobs seem to outspend us liberal arts people.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that this “college lifestyle” certainly doesn’t exist for everyone. Some of us have been able to keep down debt by going to state schools and not going out. And college certainly isn’t the “party” it is for some of our peers. The 11,000 dollars estimated for living expense is steep though historiann—I was able to do it for about 5,000 and I don’t feel like I went without. Alright, I need to limit my blogging historiann, I have final papers to finish.

(Exaggerated–only slightly–for humorous effect.)

Good point about the inflated expectations of dorm life. That university in Oxford, OH was a leader in that particular movement, I believe. Universities *do* provide a lot more for students than in the old days of un-wired dorms, bad food, and when your “laptop” was a spiral notebook.

Two quick points: you hit it about some universities that raise tuition to keep up with the Joneses. I used to work for a university that will remain nameless in Oxford, Ohio that raised it’s in-state tuition from $6,000 or so to $15,000 (with a big grant — let’s say $9,000 — for all in-state residents) so it would look like students were getting more aid. The idea here was to compete in price and aid with privates.

As far as work, has anyone figured out how much of the student working life is devoted to buy iPods? I know that some are working for food and rent — but we have also gone from dorms and bad cafeteria food (in the old days) to the country-club university. Rec centers. Food courts. Apartment-style living. And I think we as faculty need to reiterate point that h. makes — studies should come first.

I agree too with ej’s and DV’s points about students being disconnected with the costs of their education. Sadly, many of them are in school on loans, and will be paying for whatever opportunities they take advantage of (or squander) until they’re well into their 30s (or even 40s).

And dance, thanks for the correction. Good news is that this year, I might price myself out of getting a free Harvard education for any theoretical children I might have!

I’m never going to hit $100K either—but if I were married to another professor, I could expect gross salary to be $100K, reasonably. As family income, it doesn’t seem that elitist a number to me.

As to the problem of too many courses — at my university, going part-time costs more per credit than going fulltime (a minimum of 12 credits). Getting a full financial aid package usually means taking a minimum of 12 credits. Until recently, we had the problem of students signing up for 12 credits to get financial aid, and sticking with those 12 credits despite having full-time jobs, families and so forth, which usually meant failing at least one course. Now they are able to withdraw from 3 credits while still being considered fulltime. This has significantly improved retention and graduation rates.

In short, I’m really disappointed with the underlying elitism of this discussion.