[qrendel]

I mean to say that I don't think there's a universal standard for when parents are or aren't obligated to pay for their kid's college. Some might have alternatively chosen to invest the money in their children another way, like using it to start a business or starting a stock/bonds portfolio. In that sort of scenario, tuition inflation would mostly mean paying a lower portion of the costs than would have happened 8 years prior.

In the case described, I somewhat question the motives, since (s)he described "screaming and yelling" over the choice of a different career, which seems to imply they sought a degree of control over his/her future. Keep in mind both were Ivy League PhD's. So perhaps they didn't see it as money set aside as an investment, but more as something they'd donate with conditions. Not wanting to pay could also be a way of punishing their children for not pursuing the career paths they'd wanted.

The problem in this case, imo, is that there wasn't an understanding between them about whether paying for college would still be an option in the future. Since that's an attitude that will differ from family to family, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think a given family would need to work it out for themselves ahead of time.

[epalmer]

My comments we not meant to defend the parents. I should have been clearer on that matter. And yes there should be conversations about funds for college and any conditions that apply.

>Some might have alternatively chosen to invest the money in their children another way, like using it to start a business or starting a stock/bonds portfolio.

I strongly support this for families where this works out. There is never one model fits all.