Not to jump down on you or anything, but your logic that "parents who don't help their kids out the best they can are putting their kids at a disadvantage" is a complete inaccurate. IMPO.

I come from a middle to upper class family, but my parents IN NO WAY could afford to pay for my college expenses (now if they had had the money they would have paid for it, that was their dream to pay for my college but they couldn't).

So there are these wonderful things called student loans that I had to get. In my eyes, I worked harder than some of my sisters who had mommy and daddy paying for everything. All they had to do was pick up the phone say "I need more money" and they would get it. Some of them never held jobs in high school, let alone college. They really didn't know how to "earn" their own money. I worked through high school and college to pay for the things I needed. I learned TONS about saving money and whatnot.

As for the sorority, again it was all on me. I CHOSE to join a sorority. It wasn't a NECESSITY. Plus, my parents didn't even want me to join, they were completely anti-Greek then.

So am I at a disadvantage because my parents didn't pay for my college? No, I'm not. In fact I think I'm at an advantage compared to some (not all) who have mommy and daddy paying for everything. IMPO it gives the child a disadvantage having their parents pay for everything, how will anyone really "learn" anything when everything is handed to you on a silver platter. (Now this is just my opinion and I am speaking strictly from personal experience with some of my sisters and friends from college, this is not to say that EVERYONE whose parents pay for stuff behaves this way).


As for the topic at hand I personally don't feel it is for a state to "order" a parent to pay for their child's GLO dues and fees. That child CHOSE to join so in essense the parents SHOULD CHOOSE whether they want to pay or not. They should pay for tuition and living expenses. Forcing parents to pay for their childs "extracurricular" activities is a whole other issue.

I definitely agree ASUADPi.

I honestly feel the same way. For many of my sisters or outside greek friends that never worked or payed anything, they had a big "oh no, what will I do after I graduate?" feeing. Not to be rude, but I have work experience and I know that will work in my advantage :p I also have budgeting skills because I'm used to living off my own paychecks as opposed to just picking up the phone to call the parents to tell them I ran out of money and need more. My parents are well-off, and they will chip in if I really need it (i.e. didn't make enough hours during the previous week for school or my cell phone bill was WAY higher than I thought it would be) but I'm glad that I chose to pay my own way b/c I definitely feel like I've learned a lot through it.

I don't feel that GLO dues should be forced upon parents who pay child support. However, I don't understand the backlash against those people who do not pay their own dues. Does it really matter to you who pays? I admire those who work very hard to be able to afford fraternity or sorority membership. BUT if parents are willing to pay, what is the problem?

I have a job, and I work. I pay lots of bills for myself. My parents pay for my dues because they know that it's a large expense and they have seen the benefits of membership. I think it's ridiculous that those who don't pay their own dues are painted as moochers or lazy kids.

Also, keep in mind the wide variation between dues across the country. If my dues were $100 or less, I would be able to pay for them myself... but I'm sure that many more girls on GC pay much more money than I do.

Well, I'm not going to feel bad about myself because I had parents who wanted to pay for my expenses while I concentrated on getting an education and experiencing college for what it is - a chance in a lifetime. You do not get another chance to experience all that college has to offer except in those few short 4-5 years.

I understand better now why the Iowa court ruled the way it did. In this case it was because the Father agreed for one child and then did not want to do it for the other 2 (there's that precedence thing). I also agree that divorce should not have any inpact on the child and they should be afforded the same opportunities that would have been there if the parents were still married. In my case the courts did not rule that my father would have to do this, he just did because he is a good guy. But what about all those other non-custodial parents who are bitter about the whole child support thing and choose to drop their kids like a hot potato on their 18th birthday - and don't deny it doesn't happen. Obviously there has to be some method (formula) in place here to help decide how this would be applied as far as who can or cannot afford to pay for these expenses.

I don't think it's so much a "backlash"... but more of a topic that is related to the original one.

1. There was an article saying that some parents may be forced to pay their children's GLO dues

2. Some people said that parents should be forced to do it.

3. Some also gave the arguement that they shouldn't be forced to it because it is the child's choice whether or not to go greek. Some people go greek knowing their parents are going to foot the bill. Others go greek knowing they will be paying the bill either because their parents don't support them to that extent (i.e. paying for GLO membership) or because they choose to be financially responsible for the decisions they are making in college.

4. Some people said their parents pay their bills because they don't want their kids to work. I think when that whole "parents who don't support their children while in college puts them at a disadvantage" thing came up is when it became more of the dominant topic in the thread.... people (myself included) are just responding to that particular comment.

AOIIBrandi- please don't take this in a rude way, but no one asked you to feel bad because your parents paid for your college stuff? :confused: So I'm a little confused why that is even there? :confused:

I understand all of those things, and I even agree with you that having work experience is a distinct advantage. Actually, I pretty much agree with everything you've said in this thread. I also do not think that parents should be REQUIRED to pay dues.

However I do have an objection to other posters in this thread looking down on those who don't pay their own dues... particularly those who do not have to pay ANY national obligations.

I totally agree.

On a similar note- I have an objection to other posters looking down on people who are paying their own way either because they want to or there is no other way. For someone to say that parents are bad and putting their children at a disadvantage because they aren't supporting their children is pretty mean.

Not everyone *can* support their children the way they want to, and not every college student wants their parents to pay everything for them, because they might want to get a few extra life skills out of the whole college experience.

texas*princess: I think this was the point I was trying to make. I believe someone else said earlier in a post - and I'm paraphrasing - that those of us who did not pay our own way were "sad". I don't know about you, but when people make vitriolic comments like that it does have the ability to try and make some people feel bad about something they were lucky/blessed enough to have.

BTW, I do understand that there are plenty of people out there whose parents could not afford to do this for them, or they wanted to pay their own way. I do not in any way want to take anything away from people who do work hard for what they have.

Thanks for the clarification - I was confused where that 'sad' comment was coming from, but reading back I get it.

I think that's really what this is about. This is to assure the kids don't get screwed by whatever dispute the parents might be having. Anyone who's read Prozac Nation will remember her talking about her father refusing to fill out insurance forms that would have gotten her therapy paid for through his insurance - and he was doing it to hold it over her head and her mother's.

Everybody is getting hung up on whether PARENTS in general should pay their kids' Greek expenses, and that's not at all what the article was concerning.

I think this needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

I have an older friend who put her husband through college & grad school, and worked until he became CEO of a Fortune 500 company, while raising their sons. In that age-old midlife crisis, husband took up with his secretary, and divorced my friend. She got a nice settlement, but everything she put into his getting where he got was ignored.

The sons turned 18, and the now ex-husband went to court to weasel out of paying ANYTHING towards their tuition! Both of these young men are wonderfully polite, athletic, and successful attorneys now - who want absolutely nothing to do with "that man who was married to Mom".

Obviously, this man could afford to put both sons through school, and law school - let alone GLO dues. Their mother helped them, and they worked. But the animosity is terrific!

As for me, my parents both had their own businesses. I worked for them, I worked in many other jobs (frankly, I think anyone who ever wants to eat in a restaurant should have to work in one!). I earned my scholarships, because my parents were in that middle-class/upper middle-class Catch 22 where they made too much money for a scholarship based on need, but not enough to make paying for tuition a drop in the bucket. Yet, they were very much in favor of me joining a sorority, so... We struck a bargain. I earned my scholarships, they paid the rest of my tuiton/board, and I paid my sorority dues in one lump sum at the beginning of the term. I was able to ask them to help me when I needed help, but I also knew how hard they worked, so only asked when I really needed it. While I never had a fine in sorority, I can guarantee that they would NEVER had paid for something like that!

Each family has to do what they think works for them. Oh, when a child loses his/her parent to death prior to their turning 21 or graduating from college, SSI kicks in for their tuition and upkeep. If my taxes have to pay for someone to go to college, darn straight that a well-off non-custodial parent should!!

I think that Social Security for dependents of deceased workers ends at 18 or high school graduation unless they changed it in the last few years. It used to go until 21, but that changed the early or mid 1980s.

I know plenty of people who had fathers and mothers like you described. In fact I have friends whose father paid nothing even before they turned 18. No alimony and no child support. He was a dead beat dad with three houses. :rolleyes:

there are parents out there that are together that cant afford their kids college, why should divorced parents be forced to pay if they cant afford it either? i can see having to help pay tuition and room and board, but not GLO dues. its a choice to join one, and parents should not be forced to pay through child support.

that's not who it's about. It's about the parents who have the money (and then some) but are being a-holes about it. I doubt any court is going to force a father who's been good about making his payments and is living on a minimum wage salary to pay for sorority dues.