My 17-year-old will probably skip college and attend flight school instead. I think that's a smart plan.
My wife and I both went to college and graduated with bachelor's degrees. On the whole, I think we'd both agree that college was worth it for us. We got to have the careers we wanted. College degrees helped us to build a stable, prosperous, and interesting life.
But college isn't for everyone. And our oldest child is on a very different path — a flight path.
That's right: our 17-years-old son wants to be an airline pilot. And airline pilots don't have to go to college. Instead of a four-year degree, we're considering a different plan for him where he would stay at home for a year after high school and complete his pilot training at a private flight school near our home.
Here are a few reasons why I'm totally fine with my son skipping college.
College doesn't feel "worth it" for many Americans
Several decades of rising tuition, high levels of student loan debt, and widespread economic uncertainty in the job market, have led many Americans to no longer believe that college is always worth the cost. A Pew Research survey in 2024 found that only 22% of Americans believe that college is worth taking out loans to pay for.
My wife and I are lucky. Our student loans were manageable, and have been paid off for many years. But not every college graduate feels like their degree was a great investment and not every degree leads to a guaranteed six-figure salary. And if you run into financial trouble, student loans can be hard to get rid of. It can be difficult to get them discharged through bankruptcy, and the government can garnish your wages if you fall behind on student loan payments.
The American college experience isn't always a carefree time of football games, fraternity parties, and Frisbee on the quad. It can be a big financial risk. Not every family wants to take that risk.
We don't. We'd rather support our son in getting exactly the right training that he wants to have for his career, without spending a bunch of money on extra classes that he's not as interested in.
College isn't for everyone
Not everyone is cut out for full-time academic coursework — and that's okay. If a kid has already spent the first 18 years of their life going to school and following rules and doing homework and sitting indoors under fluorescent lights, they might not be excited for another four years of that experience.
Many young people go off to college — and rack up a few semesters' worth of student loans — only to find that they don't want to sit in a classroom anymore, so they drop out. The financial stakes of making the wrong decisions about college can be high.
People who don't finish their degree are twice as likely to default on their student loans. If you're not 100% sure that college is right for you, you might be better off not going.
My son is in this category. He's good at high school, and he takes AP math and science classes, but he's highly motivated and focused on being an airline pilot. He doesn't want to be in a classroom, he wants to be in a cockpit. I don't want to hold him back from doing what he's most interested in and passionate about.
We're focused on our child's needs
If our son wanted to go to college and be an airline pilot, we would support him in that. There are great four-year universities and two-year community colleges that offer pilot training combined with academic degree programs. But we think a private flight school (with no college attached) might be a better fit for what he needs. He can live at home, save money on rent and car payments, and get flight training at our local airport — everything he needs to launch straight into his flying career.
And most importantly, even aside from the money, fast-tracking his future with a private flight school just feels like what our son needs. He's passionate and highly motivated about aviation. He's taken aviation classes and private flight lessons while in high school. He's exceptionally level-headed and responsible. He's learning all the Federal Aviation Administration rules, airplane mechanics, and aviation lingo. He's already spent hundreds of hours training with flight simulation software. This is what he wants to be when he grows up, and he's ready to go after it, full throttle. And we're ready to watch him fly.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Plan to sell off public land in the West nixed from ‘big, beautiful bill' amid GOP backlash
A controversial plan to sell hundreds of thousands of acres of public land across Western states — including California — was axed from the Republican tax and spending bill amid bipartisan backlash, prompting celebration from conservationists. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who spearheaded the proposal, announced he was pulling the provision on Saturday night on the social media platform X. Lee had said the land sale was intended to ease the financial burden of housing, pointing to a lack of affordability afflicting families in many communities. 'Because of the strict constraints of the budget reconciliation process, I was unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock and not to any foreign interests,' he wrote in the post. For that reason, he said, he was withdrawing the measure from the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that Trump has said he wants passed by July 4. Lee's failed measure would have mandated the sale of between roughly 600,000 and 1.2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land in 11 Western states, including California. The areas available for auction were supposed to be located within a five-mile radius of population centers. The effort represented a scaled-back version of a plan that was nixed from the reconciliation bill on Monday for violating Senate rules. The initial plan would have allowed for the sale of up to 3.3 million acres of land managed by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service. Lee's decision to scrap the proposal arrived after at least four Republican senators from Western states vowed to vote for an amendment to strike the proposal from the bill. At lease five House Republicans also voiced their opposition to the plan, including Reps. David Valadao of California and Ryan Zinke of Montana, who served as the Interior secretary during Trump's first term. The death of the provision was celebrated by conservationists as well as recreation advocates, including hunters and anglers, even as they steeled themselves for an ongoing fight over federal lands. The Trump administration has taken steps to open public lands for energy and resource extraction, including recently announcing it would rescind a rule that protects 58.5 million acres of national forestland from road construction and timber harvesting. Some critics saw the now-scrapped proposed land sale as means to offset tax cuts in the reconciliation bill. 'This is a victory for everyone who hikes, hunts, explores and cherishes these places, but it's not the end of the threats to our public lands,' said Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, in a statement. 'Donald Trump and his allies in Congress have made it clear they will use every tool at their disposal to give away our public lands to billionaires and corporate polluters.' Chris Wood, president and chief executive of Trout Unlimited — a nonprofit dedicated to conserving rivers and streams to support trout and salmon — described protecting public lands as 'the most nonpartisan issue in the country.' 'This is certainly not the first attempt to privatize or transfer our public lands, and it won't be the last,' Wood said in a statement. 'We must stay vigilant and defend the places we love to fish, hike, hunt and explore.' Lee, in the Saturday X post, suggested the issue remained in play. He said he believed the federal government owns too much land — and that it is mismanaging it. Locked-away land in his state of Utah, he claimed, drives up taxes and limits the ability to build homes. 'President Trump promised to put underutilized federal land to work for American families, and I look forward to helping him achieve that in a way that respects the legacy of our public lands and reflects the values of the people who use them most.'
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
CBO: $1 trillion cut from Medicaid in Senate's budget bill
U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, D-OR, uses a diagram to explain tax cuts at a press conference following the weekly Senate policy luncheon in the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on Tuesday. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo June 29 (UPI) -- A version of the budget reconciliation bill being considered by the Senate would make deeper cuts to social service programs and lead to fewer people having insurance than previous versions, the Congressional Budget Office has reported. According to the Congressional Budget office report, nearly 12 million Americans would lose coverage by 2034. Federal spending on Medicaid, SNAP and marketplace insurance benefits would drop by $1.1 trillion. $1 trillion would come from Medicaid. With its changes, he Senate version of the bill would add nearly $3.3 trillion to the national debt over a decade, the CBO report said, while the House version would add $2.4 to the debt. These estimates are based on including the costs of extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts. Republicans in the House and Senate have asked CBO, as well as the Joint Committee on Taxation, to score the bill using a method called "current policy baseline," which would not include the the cost of extending the cuts. When the cost of extending the tax cuts is excluded from estimates, both the House and Senate versions of the bill have been estimated to add between $400 billion and $600 billion to the debt over the next decade, according to the New York Times and Politico. Medicaid cuts have been at the center of a high profile debate as social service agencies and rural hospitals have planned for spending reductions that could come at the expense of the nation's hungry children and force some hospitals, especially in rural areas, to reduce services or close their doors. The Senate voted Saturday to open debate on the bill and began a full reading of the measure on the floor. The Trump administration has said it is reducing waste and fraud in social service programs, and that some of those responsibilities would be shifted to the states. President Donald Trump has said he wants the budget bill passed by July 4th. The cuts being considered to Medicaid would be the largest since it was launched in 1965.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
GOP tax bill would mean 11.8 million people uninsured, $1.1 trillion in health cuts
The Senate Republicans' tax and spending bill, which is speeding through the chamber, would result in deeper health care cuts and more people without insurance than the version that passed the House, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. The legislation would result in 11.8 million Americans without insurance by 2034, CBO found: nearly 1 million more people without insurance than the House version. That amount includes an estimated 1.4 million people without 'verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status' who would lose their state-funded coverage. The legislation would also cut federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare by $1.1 trillion, with more than $1 trillion coming from Medicaid. The CBO's analysis confirms that despite President Trump's repeated pledges he was only cutting waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. The bill would achieve its savings in various ways, but the bulk of the cuts come from a strict national work requirement and new restrictions on state-levied taxes on health providers. Under the bill, for the first time in the history of the Medicaid program, beneficiaries would need to prove they are working or in school at least 80 hours a month to keep their health insurance. The Senate version extends the requirement to low-income parents of children older than 14, in addition to childless adults without disabilities. The work requirements are projected to save about $325 billion over a decade. The provider taxes were the second-largest Medicaid cut in the House bill, after the work requirements. The cuts are even larger under the Senate design. Those changes would reduce spending by nearly $191 billion over a decade, according to the CBO estimate. The provider tax provisions have been among the most controversial in the Senate. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then redirect to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Limiting provider taxes is a long-held conservative goal, as they argue states are gaming the current system and driving up federal Medicaid spending. But senators representing states with poor, rural populations have objected to the scale of the cuts, including Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). The House bill would freeze the tax rate for most states, but the Senate version would require many states to lower their existing rates. As an incentive for senators uncomfortable with the provider tax cuts, the bill includes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals. But that amount wasn't enough to sway Tillis, who voted with Democrats against a procedural motion late Saturday night. Hawley voted for the motion and said he would support the bill despite his misgivings over the Medicaid cuts. Additional details of the bill are in flux as negotiations between Republicans continue and the Senate parliamentarian reviews key pieces of the bill to determine if they follow the legislative rules. Lawmakers are facing down a White House-pushed July 4th deadline to pass the bill in the Senate, and then again in the House, and put it on President Trump's desk.
