The user, the father (OP), is currently discussing college plans with his 17-year-old son. The son desires to attend a university with an annual cost exceeding $60,000. OP informed his son that while he supports his choice, the son would need to contribute financially to cover the high cost.
The core conflict arises because the son already possesses a college fund of approximately $95,000. OP’s wife is advocating for the parents to either co-sign loans or take out loans themselves to cover the remaining tuition gap. OP has firmly refused to take on new debt, leading to disagreement with his wife. The central question is whether OP is wrong for refusing to incur personal debt for his son’s expensive schooling.
My son wants to go to a 60k a year school, am I the asshole for telling my wife I will not take out loans in my name for him to attend?
According to Dr. Morgan Coleman, a specialist in family financial planning, “The transition to adulthood requires young adults to understand the true cost of their choices, and parental financial insulation often delays this crucial lesson.”
OP’s stance aligns with a strategy of teaching financial literacy through consequence. By refusing to take on debt, he is forcing his son to confront the reality of the $60k tuition price tag, encouraging him to either accept a lower-cost alternative or commit to earning the difference, potentially through work-study or scholarships. This approach respects the existing $95k fund as the defined parental contribution.
Conversely, the wife’s position often stems from a desire to remove barriers for the child, which can be driven by love but may inadvertently enable dependency or a lack of appreciation for the financial sacrifice. The path forward involves a collaborative discussion between the parents to define a non-debt financial limit, perhaps agreeing to use only the existing savings, and then presenting this unified boundary to the son, emphasizing that the gap must be funded by external means (like scholarships or part-time work) rather than parental liability.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The situation centers on a disagreement between the OP and his wife regarding financial responsibility and the use of parental credit to secure higher education for their son. OP is prioritizing avoiding personal debt based on his belief that such debt is unwise, while his wife favors providing maximum financial support, even if it means taking on loans.
The debate boils down to a difference in financial philosophy: should parents prioritize their own debt-free security or leverage their financial standing to facilitate their child’s ambitious educational goals? Is the father correct in setting a firm boundary against taking out loans, or should he support his wife’s desire to bridge the funding gap through new debt?
