I'm in an Ivy League school, and I've been through all of the financial aid stuff, and just be warned that if you have enough money to cover 4 or more years of it, the school will take as much as they can, and you probably won't get any kind of financial aid outside of merit based scholarships which Ivy League doesn't give out anyway. My family makes about $50,000 a year and my parents didn't save any money at all for my college and I'm paying $1,200 a year to go (the price is $37,000 a year)with grants. I don't know anything about this plan and I think it's wonderful that you want to save up a lot of money for college but you will spend a good chunk if you do. Maybe that's what you want to do, in which case, ignore what i'm saying. At the very least, put it in the parent's name solely. Ivy League and other schools take 35% of child's money and property (savings bonds, stock, even cd's) and 5% of parents. I've just seen so many friends who are paying huge price tags for school because grandparents or parents have saved up for years and years. Since this is a toddler's forum, you still have a while yet =) My recommendation would be once the child is old enough to go to college, put all of the money into a bank account under an aunt, uncle or grandparent's name so it can't be claimed as parent or child property ($150,000 makes a HUGE difference in finacial aid) and then file for financial aid and see what kind of loans and grants and scholarships you can get. Loans don't start gathering interest until 6 months after graduation, at which point you can pay off the loans and still have a pretty little chunk of money for the parents retirement or a new house or something. Just my two cents. I would hate to see people who mean well lose all their hard earned money when these schools are so well endowed themselves. Again, I really don't know anything about the topic of this discussion but I just cringed seeing the amounts people might put away a month.

I guess the key factors here are: -what the kid expresses aptitude and desire to do -what the kid has worked very hard to do his/her part for -the financial ability on the parents' part to contribute to their kids future goals It's one thing to say "college isn't a necessity" when the kid hasn't expressed an interest or aptitude for it and you want to postively affirm the kid and encourage him that he still has options. But it's a totally different statement when the kid has expressed clear desire, aptitude and ability to work and save for college. ***When the parents can afford to help***, in the 2nd scenario, then to say "college is not a necessity" as a rationale for not helping is just plain unsupportive. Simply put, it would be like saying: "You've wasted time and energy the last 4 years of h.s. busting your butt trying to get good grades and save for your part of college expenses because you don't need college and I'm not going to chip in for it. Now, why don't you go ahead and consider all that college prep a waste and just go figure out something else to do with your future. Or, if you still insist on going to silly ol' college, go ahead and waste some more years working full-time and going to class part-time so you can pay for it all yourself." I totally agree with the statement that "college isn't for everyone" (or, more specifically, as in my case, "not everyone's ready for college at 18"), but that can't always be a blanket statement or excuse, and it needs to be said to a child for the right reasons. It has to take into account what the kid has demonstrated (or not) as their life path. At the evry least, if you're going to tell the kid "college isn't a necessity; ergo I'm not chipping in", than at least make sure the kid knows this well in advance so s/he can figure out some other life paths or how the hell s/he's going to pay for it all alone. Again, if it REALLY is the case (and I mean REALLY) that the parents have zero dollars to put towards the kid's college, then yeah, I guess he'll have to find a way to pay it all himself if he wants to go. And to this hypothetical scenario, many parents (bio or step) might say: "so if it CAN be done when the parents have no money to contribute, then why should WE have to pay, just because we can afford to? If he wants it bad enough, he'll find a way to pay the whole thing himself!" But this isn't usually said in families where there has been no divorce. Sometimes, maybe, but not usually. I think it really does become an issue when there's a divorce, and this is how it happens that there is a much more rigid standard and set of expectations for a child of divorce who wants to go to college vs. a child in an 'intact' family ***where the parents can afford to chip in***. (btw, I know all this because I have known countless friends and their college payment situations as well as having worked in a University for the last 12 years. My boyfriend, in addition, works in Admissions and deals with financial aid as aprt of his job.) BELIEVE YOU ME, the VAST MAJORITY of these kids at my University are getting most if not all expenses paid by their (married, never divorced) parents. There are plenty, too, that have part-time jobs to chip in. There are plenty, like me, who are older than college age who work full-time for the university in order to get the free tuition. But there is no student of ***typical college age (18-22)***, to MY knowledge, that is covering it all themselves. At least not here. Other schools/condtions may be different... not claiming to know all the stats in all cases, just what I have observed in relation to the upper-middle-tier state University I work at as well as various others that friends have gone to, more or less comparable. I'm not saying ALL expenses should be covered by parents (I don't believe they should), but just that in my experience, they often are. For whatever reason, a very large number of parents are willing to chip in to (if not cover totally) the bills... So perhaps the more interesting question is why aren't more of them insisting the kids pay for it all themselves? Is it because that isn't very realistic? Or is it because these parents are so excessively indulgent? Or what?

kkny - I agree that these things should be discussed beforehand. Too many people jump into remarriage without sorting out the details, and expensive tuition payments are one HUGE detail. Before I married DH, we talked about tuition and all expenses associated with his children. I do not mind contributing to his daughter's braces, education or enhanced lifestyle, and I know that my feelings stem from the fact that I had a choice in the matter. Not sure about CS... I think it varies depending on location, but where I am, the lifestyle of the children (and thus support) is based only on the income of the paying parent and not on household income. But there again, I knew how much CS he was paying before I married him; I knew he was planning to increase CS on a yearly basis (he is now paying much more than the order stipulates, there is no way his ex would want to involve the law -- she'll end up oweing him a lot), and again, because we discussed it beforehand, I felt like I had a choice.

Local shelter for abused women ... for which building program my daughter helped raise money several years ago. Several agencies which help the disadvantaged, homeless. etc., locally, including Food Bank and Salvation Army, which provides services in distant places in Canada and internationally, as well. Agencies which work for national and international relief, medical, justice and various human rights issues, including Amnesty, Doctors Without Borders, CUSO (Canadian University Service Overseas), which began as an agency supporting univ. under/grads. doing educational, relief and justice issues abroad, mainly Africa, and which recently gets other, mainly gov't., support to multiply my contribution by about nine, as is true of Farm Radio International, working almost entirely in Africa. Mainly the gov't. support multiplies my one buck contribution to the Canadian Food Grins (keyboard error: that's "Grains") Bank to four, to further their service providing food aid in many countries. Some, mainly rural, congregations provide the production from one or a few acres of land to them each year: the local church which my grandfather attended prior to moving away in 1910 is one, which has a sign beside a local road indicating that service. The seminary and university from which I graduated, and some local libraries. For the non-church ones, I used to write a cheque to them individually, but in recent years have transferred some stocks which have appreciated in value to the local United Way, which transmits funds as I designate (for a modest fee: $12.00 each, in addition to the contribution to them) which allows me to avoid paying income tax on the capital gain. When one makes substantial levels of contribution, that tax saving can be substantial, making major reductions in income tax liability. Churches with current or earlier connection, and our national church's relief, development, justice, human rights and other services. These have been made, thus far, with tax-deductible contributions, but not part of the avoidance of capital gain tax regimen. It was experience and training gained there that had a great deal to do with the spirit behind supporting the other justice and humanitarian systems. ole joyfuelled