A Room of One's Own

In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...

Anne Rogers wrote:

But my opinion is that it's the parents' home, they've
fulfilled their obligation to the child, having gotten him or
her to adulthood, and further housing is a *favor* to the child,
not a right.

So if your child turns 18 before the end of senior year, are you doing
them a favour by letting them finish high school? Lots of things aren't
obligations, but favour is the wrong word to substitute, if you
contribute college fees, is that a favour? No, it's a love gift, you do
it because you love your child and you want the best for them and you
support there desire to go to college.

I didn't say that it wasn't a desirable thing to do.
I simply said that it was a favor, not an obligation. In my
opinion, a polite young adult realizes this and doesn't
take it for granted, just as a caring and thoughtful parent
is happy to support a child's education by providing housing
during college breaks. Just because it's kind and thoughtful
to do something does not mean that it is okay to take it for
granted as something one is entitled to.

But I don't think we're talking about entitlement here, are we.

Like any relationship, how close it is depends on what happens other than the
obligations. If the household switches right quick to fill the space one uses,
without clear good reason, there's a message about the relationship there, which
cools it. Or signals a distancing. And I *do* think the adult-adult
relationship a parent-child relationship evolves to is best served by starting
with a supportive adult-youth relationship, not a "you're 18 you could be out on
your ass" relationship!

I wasn't affected by any of this because I *was* very anxious to get out of the
house for good at 17, plus my parents moved in the middle of my college years
anyway.

But the idea of taking my son's space right over as soon as he goes to college?
I *could* use it as an office, but to me possibly his needing it over the
summer(s) and other breaks clearly takes precedence. And is a heck of a lot
more use than the average use a guest room gets. I have no fear of the empty
nest and even look forward to it (being one of those folks who like a lot of
alone space) but the idea of it still strikes me as - cold. I can use the
kitchen table (as I'm doing now) just fine and dandy for four extra years or
probably less until when it's clear he's struck out on his own pretty much. And
that has nothing to do with keeping it as a 'shrine'.

Also just knowing how a lot of my fellow students were when I was in college.
For many young people especially the early years really is only a start of a
transition.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer
says...
Anne Rogers wrote:
But my opinion is that it's the parents' home, they've
fulfilled their obligation to the child, having gotten him or
her to adulthood, and further housing is a *favor* to the child,
not a right.
So if your child turns 18 before the end of senior year, are you doing
them a favour by letting them finish high school? Lots of things aren't
obligations, but favour is the wrong word to substitute, if you
contribute college fees, is that a favour? No, it's a love gift, you do
it because you love your child and you want the best for them and you
support there desire to go to college.
I didn't say that it wasn't a desirable thing to do.
I simply said that it was a favor, not an obligation. In my
opinion, a polite young adult realizes this and doesn't
take it for granted, just as a caring and thoughtful parent
is happy to support a child's education by providing housing
during college breaks. Just because it's kind and thoughtful
to do something does not mean that it is okay to take it for
granted as something one is entitled to.

But I don't think we're talking about entitlement here, are we.

I think the notion that one must preserve the room
to avoid devastating the child is tending in that direction.
A normal, healthy young adult shouldn't be devastated at the
notion that a room he or she isn't going to be using most
of the year is going to have some alternate uses and perhaps
not be preserved in every detail.

Like any relationship, how close it is depends on what happens other than the
obligations. If the household switches right quick to fill the space one uses,
without clear good reason, there's a message about the relationship there, which
cools it. Or signals a distancing. And I *do* think the adult-adult
relationship a parent-child relationship evolves to is best served by starting
with a supportive adult-youth relationship, not a "you're 18 you could be out on
your ass" relationship!

I wasn't advocating the latter, but there's a long way
between that and believing that any use of the room is an
abrogation of the child's rights.

I wasn't affected by any of this because I *was* very anxious to get out of the
house for good at 17, plus my parents moved in the middle of my college years
anyway.

But the idea of taking my son's space right over as soon as he goes to college?
I *could* use it as an office, but to me possibly his needing it over the
summer(s) and other breaks clearly takes precedence.

Well, the two need not be in opposition as long as both
are willing to compromise somewhat.

And is a heck of a lot
more use than the average use a guest room gets.

Which can vary from family to family, of course.

I have no fear of the empty
nest and even look forward to it (being one of those folks who like a lot of
alone space) but the idea of it still strikes me as - cold. I can use the
kitchen table (as I'm doing now) just fine and dandy for four extra years or
probably less until when it's clear he's struck out on his own pretty much. And
that has nothing to do with keeping it as a 'shrine'.

But it's just the two of you in your home, and you have
an office at work. Other families have different situations and
different needs. Again, I wasn't advocating a down-to-the-studs
renovation the second the kid leaves for college just to make
sure the kid gets the message that it's time to move on. I'm
saying that when the family has a legitimate use for the space,
it's rather selfish of the child to get miffed at the room
serving other needs while he or she is away. Someone mature
enough to be going off to college should be mature enough to
cope with some room multitasking.

Also just knowing how a lot of my fellow students were when I was in college.
For many young people especially the early years really is only a start of a
transition.

Again, no arguments that it's a transition and should be
handled gradually. Just arguing that this notion that the room
must not be touched because it's somehow inherently aggressive
or cold is a bit over the top, in my opinion.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article ,
toto wrote:

I don't know about boys. I shared a bedroom with my sister for most
of my childhood and it was fine until the teenage years really. At
that point we both wanted privacy and the room was too small for two
of us in terms of our clothing and makeup as well.

So which of you moved, and to where?

I grew up in a 3-bedroom unit. Problem was that there were four people: Mum,
Grandma, my sister and me. Our room was too small before the teenage years,
but there was nowhere for us to go.

I must admit I'm fascinated by kids in books who suddenly graduate to a Room
of their Own, without any obvious reason like the disappearance of an older
sibling, or building work. I always wonder why they weren't given the room to
start with.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:51:09 +1100, Chookie wrote:

I must admit I'm fascinated by kids in books who suddenly graduate to a Room
of their Own, without any obvious reason like the disappearance of an older
sibling, or building work. I always wonder why they weren't given the room to
start with.

Mabe they slept better as toddlers when there was a sibling in the room
(kept the imaginary monsters away)? Sleeping with sibling was a transition
from sleeping with parent?

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
toto wrote:

I don't know about boys. I shared a bedroom with my sister for most
of my childhood and it was fine until the teenage years really. At
that point we both wanted privacy and the room was too small for two
of us in terms of our clothing and makeup as well.

So which of you moved, and to where?

I grew up in a 3-bedroom unit. Problem was that there were four people: Mum,
Grandma, my sister and me. Our room was too small before the teenage years,
but there was nowhere for us to go.

Similar situation when I was around 13. We had
three bedrooms, but we had my parents, my grandparents,
myself and my sister (who were obviously sharing a room).
It wasn't going well at that point, so my father actually
put in a wall in the family room to create a small bedroom
for me. It was tiny, and didn't have a door (we were renting
at the time, so he was limited in the modifications he could
make--the wall was removable), but it was mine and I was
thrilled. We moved about a year later and always had four
bedrooms after that.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Feb 15, 11:48 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Beliavsky wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:08 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Sure, there could have been
circumstances that would have forced me back there longer term,
and they would have been happy to accommodate (in fact I did live
there for a year between undergrad and grad school because I knew
it was only going to be a one year break and they offered), but
I always felt a little like a guest in the home after leaving
for college because in my opinion, I *was* a guest. They'd
fulfilled their obligation to keep a roof over my head, and
the rest was just gravy.

Legally, the parental obligation to house the child may end at age 18,
but I think when the children should leave home should depend on their
career and educational needs and on when they get married. If my kids
wanted to live at home during college or graduate school to save money
or while they worked after high school, that ought to be fine.

I think that all depends. Yes, if my kids wanted to
save money by living at home and going to college locally,
then we could work something out, but we'd have to have some
clear ground rules about how that was going to work out.
If my kids decided not to go to college and wanted to live at
home and work, they'd be paying rent and there'd be a limited
amount of time that option would be open to them (under normal
circumstances). If they think they can make it in the world
with only a high school education, then they're going to need
to get on that, not have their parents subsidize that choice
for an unlimited period of time.

I've always thought it somewhat of an American oddity to have children
pay their parents "rent". I have no quibbles at all with the idea
that grown children contributing to the economic (and logistic)
functioning of the household. I'd rather have them do some of the
grocery shopping, or cover the utility bills, or some such -- it's
just semantic, but charging your my own child rent would seem strange
to me. But then, when I was in my mid-20s and living at home for two
years my parents hardly let me pay for a gallon of milk, so clearly
different families are different.

Personally, I don't think it's great to have kids at
home for long periods of time after high school. Most kids
need to spread their wings in a way they won't really do at
home. I think it's *possible* to make a good transition, but
it's very difficult. I think it's better for kids to get out
unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise.

Though of course that depends a lot on the kid and the family. I
moved cross-country for college because I couldn't wait to go
somewhere as new as possible. But then between that, a semester
abroad, and Peace Corps in Africa I also moved back in for a total of
3 years after college (in addition to coming home over college
breaks). My brother, on the other hand, just wasn't ready to be out
on his own at 18 and so lived at home while going to junior college
for three years. Those three years were quite important for him and
he probably wouldn't have done nearly as well in college if he left
the house and started a four-year right at 18. I loved the time
living with my parents as an adult -- I felt like that was when our
adult relationship really formed and flourished. And though I'm not
sure if I felt "entitled" to live there, I don't remember if I ever
really even had to ask. I think it was just taken for granted by all
of us that if I didn't have reason to be elsewhere, that's where I'd
be. Perhaps it would have been different if we didn't live in one of
the most expensive housing markets in the country.

I forget the recent statistic, but it's becoming quite common for the
transition from living at home to independence to become a back-and-
forth process for many young adults. Some see that as a step
backward, but the American pattern of this sharp cutoff between being
a part of one's parents' home and then suddenly not is something of a
cultural outlier (and I suspect also something relatively recent in
history). I don't think there's an inherent superiority in one way or
the other, but the more fluid transition of parent/child obligations
appeals to me more. There isn't really a switch that gets flipped
between "dependent" and "independent". And eventually, the parents
may well become gradually more dependent on the children. It makes
sense to me for both of these transitions to evolve naturally rather
than on some preconceived timeline.

Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel
and the Bug, 4 and a half
and something brewing, 4/08

Akuvikate wrote:

On Feb 15, 11:48 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Beliavsky wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:08 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Sure, there could have been
circumstances that would have forced me back there longer term,
and they would have been happy to accommodate (in fact I did live
there for a year between undergrad and grad school because I knew
it was only going to be a one year break and they offered), but
I always felt a little like a guest in the home after leaving
for college because in my opinion, I *was* a guest. They'd
fulfilled their obligation to keep a roof over my head, and
the rest was just gravy.

Legally, the parental obligation to house the child may end at age 18,
but I think when the children should leave home should depend on their
career and educational needs and on when they get married. If my kids
wanted to live at home during college or graduate school to save money
or while they worked after high school, that ought to be fine.

I think that all depends. Yes, if my kids wanted to
save money by living at home and going to college locally,
then we could work something out, but we'd have to have some
clear ground rules about how that was going to work out.

Most of us are talking about generally responsible kids and not
deadbeats. We all seem eager to be independent at an appropriate time
in our lives - some more eager than others, or sooner than others but
at some point we knew we would be out on our own.

If you have (or are) a deadbeat kid who just wants to hang in the
house playing computer games and doesn't have any goals or ambition
except to get someone else to do everything for him/her, then -yes you
do need rules. If you have such a kid you might want to figure out a
way to push him/her out of the nest. Although there is always the
possibility that the deadbeat is that way because of physical or
mental problems.

But I don't think that's what we are talking about here.

If my kids decided not to go to college and wanted to live at
home and work, they'd be paying rent and there'd be a limited
amount of time that option would be open to them (under normal
circumstances). If they think they can make it in the world
with only a high school education, then they're going to need
to get on that, not have their parents subsidize that choice
for an unlimited period of time.

I've always thought it somewhat of an American oddity to have children
pay their parents "rent".

Yes - when my kids were in college they didn't pay me rent. That
would be silly - why waste their time earning money to pay their
parents RENT when they could be studying or earning money to pay their
college expenses. Unless you are going to kick the kid to the curb
and say that they have to pay their own tuition room and board
immediately they turn 18 and/or graduate HS.

Of my 4 kids:

I paid tuition, room and board for #1 until she got married (halfway
through her freshman year) and had a baby (the following fall). I
helped where I could after that (we gave her a car, and she and her
husband moved back with us for the summer, but I didn't charge them
rent. They did pay for their own phone line). She had to work and
get loans to finish school, but she did it (although it took her 7
years)

DD#2 went to the USAFA, and I didn't have tuition to pay, but we did
help out with transportation to and from school, bought her a truck to
drive out there, and took care of her horse for her. When she
graduated, her dad helped her drive to her next duty station(s).

For DD#3, we paid all her room, board and tuition until graduation.
She worked summers and put that money toward incidental expenses. One
summer she worked at Fort Meade and she lived with my mom at that time
- didn't pay any rent. Her DH did have to work his way through school
- his parents didn't pay anything for him.

DS has mostly had to pay his own tuition because he moved away and got
married before he was 21. I would have paid it for him if he was able
to go on a regular basis, but after he had a family, things have often
interfered with college, and I can't afford to pay him a salary that
would support his family to go to school and I don't think he would
want that. He was one that moved out really early, and I wish he had
not done so. If he had stayed at home I think it would have worked
out better.

I have no quibbles at all with the idea
that grown children contributing to the economic (and logistic)
functioning of the household. I'd rather have them do some of the
grocery shopping, or cover the utility bills, or some such -- it's
just semantic, but charging your my own child rent would seem strange
to me. But then, when I was in my mid-20s and living at home for two
years my parents hardly let me pay for a gallon of milk, so clearly
different families are different.

When I moved home with my folks and my 3 kids (pg with #4), I did the
grocery shopping, paid for my own car expenses, and the kids lessons.
My mom said that the house would be there anyway, and it didn't cost
them any more to live in it with us there. My mom did most of the
cooking because she didn't like anyone else messing around in her
kitchen, and she had a cleaning lady. I did our own wash. We
discussed this beforehand, and I think that is the way it should be
done - not a unilateral decision unless the parents don't really like
their kids very much. Erika's attitude strikes me as being really
cold.

Personally, I don't think it's great to have kids at
home for long periods of time after high school. Most kids
need to spread their wings in a way they won't really do at
home. I think it's *possible* to make a good transition, but
it's very difficult. I think it's better for kids to get out
unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise.

Though of course that depends a lot on the kid and the family. I
moved cross-country for college because I couldn't wait to go
somewhere as new as possible. But then between that, a semester
abroad, and Peace Corps in Africa I also moved back in for a total of
3 years after college (in addition to coming home over college
breaks). My brother, on the other hand, just wasn't ready to be out
on his own at 18 and so lived at home while going to junior college
for three years. Those three years were quite important for him and
he probably wouldn't have done nearly as well in college if he left
the house and started a four-year right at 18. I loved the time
living with my parents as an adult -- I felt like that was when our
adult relationship really formed and flourished. And though I'm not
sure if I felt "entitled" to live there, I don't remember if I ever
really even had to ask. I think it was just taken for granted by all
of us that if I didn't have reason to be elsewhere, that's where I'd
be. Perhaps it would have been different if we didn't live in one of
the most expensive housing markets in the country.

I always asked before I came to stay, and I think mom would have said
if it didn't suit her. After she was widowed, she was quite happy to
have company. Her requirement was that we had to tell her things like
were we going to be out late, and that's just polite.

I forget the recent statistic, but it's becoming quite common for the
transition from living at home to independence to become a back-and-
forth process for many young adults. Some see that as a step
backward, but the American pattern of this sharp cutoff between being
a part of one's parents' home and then suddenly not is something of a
cultural outlier (and I suspect also something relatively recent in
history). I don't think there's an inherent superiority in one way or
the other, but the more fluid transition of parent/child obligations
appeals to me more. There isn't really a switch that gets flipped
between "dependent" and "independent". And eventually, the parents
may well become gradually more dependent on the children. It makes
sense to me for both of these transitions to evolve naturally rather
than on some preconceived timeline.

Right - I'm on that end of things now, since dd#1 is 46, and my baby
is 37 years old. My mom died in 2006, and I think if I had been able
to go and live with her, or have her to live with me that she might
have lived longer. Although maybe not.

In any case, the fact that the upstairs bedroom was set up for
visitors (it had been my room and had some of my furniture in it)
meant that she could have live-in help without too much difficulty and
that meant she could stay in her home almost until the end. There
was a bathroom up there so the only thing missing to make an apartment
out of it was a kitchen.

Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel
and the Bug, 4 and a half
and something brewing, 4/08

Akuvikate wrote:
On Feb 15, 11:48 am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I think that all depends. Yes, if my kids wanted to
save money by living at home and going to college locally,
then we could work something out, but we'd have to have some
clear ground rules about how that was going to work out.
If my kids decided not to go to college and wanted to live at
home and work, they'd be paying rent and there'd be a limited
amount of time that option would be open to them (under normal
circumstances). If they think they can make it in the world
with only a high school education, then they're going to need
to get on that, not have their parents subsidize that choice
for an unlimited period of time.

I've always thought it somewhat of an American oddity to have children
pay their parents "rent". I have no quibbles at all with the idea
that grown children contributing to the economic (and logistic)
functioning of the household. I'd rather have them do some of the
grocery shopping, or cover the utility bills, or some such -- it's
just semantic, but charging your my own child rent would seem strange
to me. But then, when I was in my mid-20s and living at home for two
years my parents hardly let me pay for a gallon of milk, so clearly
different families are different.

To me, the situation to avoid is the one where grown
children are permanently ensconced at home sponging off their
parents with little movement toward independence. So, I wouldn't
charge rent to the child home while pursuing his or her education,
or the child who had to move back home due to an emergency or
some such situation. However, if I had a child who was basically
goofing off and using living at home simply as a way to avoid
taking full responsibility for becoming a self-sufficient
adult, then I'd be looking to remove the subsidies at home.
Hence the statement that I wouldn't be looking for rent from
the child who was living at home and attending college, but
would be looking for rent from the child who had no intention
of attending college (or forming some other concrete plan for
getting on the road to self-sufficiency).

Personally, I don't think it's great to have kids at
home for long periods of time after high school. Most kids
need to spread their wings in a way they won't really do at
home. I think it's *possible* to make a good transition, but
it's very difficult. I think it's better for kids to get out
unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise.

Though of course that depends a lot on the kid and the family. I
moved cross-country for college because I couldn't wait to go
somewhere as new as possible. But then between that, a semester
abroad, and Peace Corps in Africa I also moved back in for a total of
3 years after college (in addition to coming home over college
breaks). My brother, on the other hand, just wasn't ready to be out
on his own at 18 and so lived at home while going to junior college
for three years. Those three years were quite important for him and
he probably wouldn't have done nearly as well in college if he left
the house and started a four-year right at 18.

But in both cases, you had a plan and were making progress
toward the future of becoming a self-supporting adult. That, I
think, is quite a contrast from the person who graduates high
school, doesn't feel like going to college, gets a dead end job
to buy stuff now, and wants to subsidize his or her artificially
inflated lifestyle by living at home rent-free. If your plan is
that you can make a go of things without further education and
without some kind of career plan, then it's time for you to start
learning how to live on the income you've set yourself up to
produce.

I loved the time
living with my parents as an adult -- I felt like that was when our
adult relationship really formed and flourished. And though I'm not
sure if I felt "entitled" to live there, I don't remember if I ever
really even had to ask. I think it was just taken for granted by all
of us that if I didn't have reason to be elsewhere, that's where I'd
be. Perhaps it would have been different if we didn't live in one of
the most expensive housing markets in the country.

Housing is very expensive around here, and I did live
with my parents during breaks from college, but it was always
a matter of filling a gap between steps along the way in a
path that was heading towards independence.

I forget the recent statistic, but it's becoming quite common for the
transition from living at home to independence to become a back-and-
forth process for many young adults. Some see that as a step
backward, but the American pattern of this sharp cutoff between being
a part of one's parents' home and then suddenly not is something of a
cultural outlier (and I suspect also something relatively recent in
history). I don't think there's an inherent superiority in one way or
the other, but the more fluid transition of parent/child obligations
appeals to me more. There isn't really a switch that gets flipped
between "dependent" and "independent". And eventually, the parents
may well become gradually more dependent on the children. It makes
sense to me for both of these transitions to evolve naturally rather
than on some preconceived timeline.

The question to me is less about whether people live
with family or not, but whether they are taking responsibility
for themselves and their choices. I know too many parents whose
children take shameless advantage of them. The children make
choices to get themselves into a lifestyle they can't afford
to support on their own, and then the parents have to step in
to provide housing, child care, or whatever other support is
required. I think the parents are owed something by their
children, and that includes children making their absolute best
effort not to be a burden on their parents once they're capable
of standing on their own two feet.

Of course there are situations that come up despite
everyone's best planning, and you deal with those as they happen,
but I think the parents should be able to do the things
that they've put off for all those years as part and parcel
of raising children. If they want to travel, they should
travel. If they want a guest room/office/library/whatever,
they should have it--it's their house, after all. They should
be able to play with the grandchildren when they *want* to,
not on a schedule determined by their children's needs or wants.

Obviously, I would step up to the plate to help out if my
children needed it (as my parents would do for me), but I hope
to bring up children with the skills and work ethic they need
to make good choices so that they *can* stand on their own
two feet and so that I'll be able to do for them because I
*want* to, not because they'll be in trouble if I don't.

So, I hope to goodness that my children will become
adults who want to live nearby so I can spoil my grandchildren
rotten, but I also hope that they will be thoughtful and
industrious so that they will be able to care for themselves
and their families. My parents were caught in the so-called
sandwich where they were dealing with kids in college and
elderly parents with rapidly failing health at the same
time. I'm used to living in an extended family situation,
and I would gladly care for my parents should that need
ever arise. At the same time, the fact is that having been
through that, my parents are highly motivated to make plans
so that their children won't have to provide elder care for
them. I think the situation works best that way--they don't
want to impose, but we'd be more than happy to help (and
have the wherewithal to do so because we've learned to take
care of ourselves and then some). Similarly, we work to
be able to stand on our own feet and plan for our retirement
so that we won't impose on our children, but would be more
than happy to help our children in a pinch. I hope our children
will work hard to be able to care well for themselves and
their families. If we all work hard to do what we can to
take care of ourselves, others will be that much more willing
to help when there really is a need (not to mention their
resources won't be tapped out and they won't be burned out
when and if that need arises).

Ultimately, therefore, I want the incentives I
provide to my children to line up with what I hope for
their futures. We'll gladly provide a home (or whatever
is needed) to support them in case of emergency or
to help them get an education or work a career path that
will get them somewhere. If they become adults who want
a home (or whatever else) without having a plan for the
future, there may well be some strings attached.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Rosalie B. wrote:

Erika's attitude strikes me as being really
cold.

There's a lot about parenting that seems cold.
I tell my kids that they can't have some things, even though
I can afford them and even though perhaps their friends
have them, because I don't think it's good for kids to have
too much "stuff." No matter how much they kick and scream,
if they need the shot at the doctor's, they need the shot--
even if it rips my heart to hear them crying. If they
blow off the assignment until the bitter end and then don't
do well on it, well, they're going to turn in what they've
got and they're going to get a bad grade on it no matter
how much I want to rush in and rescue them. And if they
think they have a roof and maid service for their whole
life regardless of whether they choose to get an education
or a decent job, then they're going to have a bit of a painful
awakening there as well. It may be cold, but I think there
are some things that are too important not to learn in life.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote:

Erika's attitude strikes me as being really
cold.

There's a lot about parenting that seems cold.
I tell my kids that they can't have some things, even though
I can afford them and even though perhaps their friends
have them, because I don't think it's good for kids to have
too much "stuff." No matter how much they kick and scream,
if they need the shot at the doctor's, they need the shot--
even if it rips my heart to hear them crying. If they
blow off the assignment until the bitter end and then don't
do well on it, well, they're going to turn in what they've
got and they're going to get a bad grade on it no matter
how much I want to rush in and rescue them. And if they
think they have a roof and maid service for their whole
life regardless of whether they choose to get an education
or a decent job, then they're going to have a bit of a painful
awakening there as well. It may be cold, but I think there
are some things that are too important not to learn in life.

I'm not talking about THAT kind of thing being cold - this is not
about putting limits on 'stuff' when they are children, or getting
proper medical care even though it may hurt or doing their schoolwork.

That is not cold - that is parenting and you have their best interests
at heart - not your own.

Turning their room into a guest room as soon as they are out the door
to college, or charging rent if they go locally and commute is having
your own interests in the center and not theirs, especially if they
are otherwise good kids. It seems aimed at deliberately hurting them.
Because who needs a permanent guest room? Do you have that many
guests who couldn't stay in a hotel? (Which we do when we visit our
children because dh doesn't want to impose on them)

Perhaps you have indications now that your child/children will think
they have a roof and maid services for their whole lives, but I would
tend to doubt it from the way you write here. My children certainly
were not that way, nor was I, even though my mom welcomed me back for
extended visit and even though occasionally my children have come back
home for short period. Without paying rent.