Really...that entitled?

I would be shocked and disappointed if this goes in her favor.  That being said, I don't know anything about the situation other than what I read in a headline.

As a teacher, and someone who is saddled with a goodly amount of student loan debt, my sympathy is seriously lacking for this girl who already has a $20k scholarship, and last I heard a judge basically told her to go kick rocks. But it's in my nature to try to see the other sides of these issues.

Let's say her parents had divorced, and know many people who were able to force a parent to legally provide college assistance. It sounds like they cut her off when she was still 17 (or she moved out or whatever) and she might have some form of argument to make here.

When applying for federal loans, your parents income is considered, the feds make assumptions that your parents will contribute. Nothing says they are required to, but their income level can push you towards more restrictive and expensive private loans.

Same with insurance, you can now stay on a parents plan until you are 26, your parents can still drop you, leaving you to buy insurance through the school, and probably pay for it with a federal loan, and to qualify, you need to maintain full-time status. Kinda hard to do that and totally fend for yourself. I took the option of buying insurance through school since it was $800 a year and my loans could be applied towards it, while buying it outright through a state exchange was over $2.4K That option was the only feasible one for me, but I'm paying interest on being insured for those years, and took a bunch of unnecessary classes to maintain full-time status because classes I needed weren't always offered, and it cost me more than an extra year of schooling.

I'd recommend this girl suck it up and look into a community college with good transfer compacts with 4-year schools.

It still blows my mind that US students end up with so much debt compared to peers in the rest of the English-speaking world. It really does limit economic action. Recent grads could be putting that money back into the economy, buying a new entry-level car, using it to relocate to a place with decent jobs instead of ending up with a business degree, $90k in debt and tending bar. Instead the money goes back to write more loans. It was a lot easier for me to pick up a teaching job in Asia with benefits than to relocate within the US to areas that really could use teachers. If my bills weren't so high, I would have had many more options. Even had I still done the Asia thing, I could have gone to a few places with lower cost of living and a bit less pay, banked my cash and saved enough to buy a car or down payment on a starter home within a few years.

It's a dumb situation that lenders (including the gov't)are the ones getting so much of the economic action of this generation when we could instead by buying stuff that helps create the jobs we don't have.

Which is great, but a majority of the population isn't fit for military service, and our armed forces don't need to be that large. I'd be all for programs that involve public service of some type in exchange for a full ride, though if you're wiling to risk life and limb your kids should be able to get benefits as well.

You could make a strong argument that public subsidies for education would help our national security. Somebody needs to design and build the systems our soldiers use, I'd rather it be Americans, and eliminating the debt burden would also make selling state secrets a bit less appealing. Heck, I'd be fine if it expired if you went more than four years, or you had to repay in full if you dropped out or got kicked out of school. The arguments against public funding so often boil down to moral suppositions about personal responsibility and work ethic, which is a great thing to immediately dump on someone just entering society and an economy created by their predecessors.

I guess I've just run into too many people who found themselves with degrees in an over-saturated field that all of the publications, guidance counselors and teaches were pushing when they were in high school, found themselves taking on too much debt, and upon graduation sold plasma to make ends meet, before leaving the country.

This whole case is just odd from a legal standpoint. 

agentwhale007 wrote: It sounds a lot to me like a lawyer talked her into filing this civil case, which essentially is not able to be won. To an extent I almost feel bad for her, if that is the case.

From what I've read, the lawyer representing her is the father of the friend who she is staying with (ie. she is currently living under his roof).

Which makes me wonder if he's not doing it to get her out of his hair in a "Sure, I'll take your case pro bono (so that when you lose, you'll realize how stupid you've been and move back in with your folks)" scenario if you would.

But who knows. She doesn't have a leg to stand on. Parents are claiming that she willingly left home, that they didn't actually kick her out.

Jmac,

Are you serious?

Just because someone has a disability, doesnt mean they are incapable of physical activities. I have seen people play paintball in wheel chairs and a Marine double amputee play. Does that mean he doesnt deserve disability? Does his family have to suffer because while he may be physically capable of certain activities he may not be able to find a job that he can be successful at and provide for his family due to the same disability? Or prove to challenging for his potential employer to provide the tools for for their success. It also not just physical disabilities that affect our service members there are mental ones as well. PTSD has been over looked in conflicts in the past, but its a major issue today. Its not even PTSD necessarily that causes the issues its many of the symptoms associated with it that do.

You might be upset at OldSoldiers benefits of service but I'm willing to bet that it came at a great cost to him and his family. I would encourage you to think about the situation a little bit more before making your final judgement on the matter.

Kev

Both of my parents worked their entire lives and couldn't afford to send 3 kids to college, and they were big on saving.  Why should OS's kids be denied college because their dad was disabled from his military service?

jmac3 wrote: Yes I am serious. Why does OS's kids deserve free college because one parent is disabled? They have another parent to provide for the family. I never said OS doesn't deserve anything. I grew up with neither parent raised by just my grandmother and I'm not entitled to free college. She raised me and my sister. The worst part is I've seen OS on this very forum talk about entitlements, and even this very thread is about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't OS' kids entitled to free college regardless of disability or not?

I believe I would have had my tuition waived if my dad was still in or retired after 20.

Also, OS, weren't you NYC LEO post Vietnam?

Mack wrote: Eville wrote: Both of my parents worked their entire lives and couldn't afford to send 3 kids to college, and they were big on saving.  Why should OS's kids be denied college because their dad was disabled from his military service?  Part of the reason for the ability to use such military disability benefits to aid one's children's education is to compensate for the aid the parent in question would have provided, had that parent not been disabled and rendered less capable of providing that aid.