I like the idea, but man that is some serious military parenting.
By contrast, my father came from a much laxer 5 child family, and was the only one who went to university. I can't imagine how anyone would manage with 12.
12 is a lot. Like a lot.
[1]: https://qz.com/296701/how-to-keep-your-wealth-from-ruining-y...
> My wife and I are religious and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [...]
> With no religious upbringing, [children] have no way to measure the goodness of other organizations, as they have no foundation.
> They participated in the religious activities: we were the parents, they did not have a choice.
[1]: https://qz.com/296701/how-to-keep-your-wealth-from-ruining-y...
Such a way to raise children does not seem to leave much room to flexibility and creativity. Children should learn to adapt in a moving and not completely defined environment anyway.
Also, are they able to cope with someone who sees things as (unspoken) agreements instead of (strict) rules?
And I feel if parents can pay for their children's studies, this is an opportunity to take. Life is easy when you can! At the beggining of your life it's difficult to get good money, so you struggle, but at the time your children goes to college, you may have a good income. So instead of paying your studies, you pay for your children's and they will do the same for theirs. Same amounts, a lot easier. Life is not meant to be hard (Granted it works best with fewer children). (Maybe it is not meant at all anyway but this is another question)
Anyway, it seems the children are doing well so if it works for them, great (we only have the point of view of the father - why "I" and not "we" in the title by the way?)
How they did it is more of a mystery even if I saw it first hand. And today I feel I really struggle to let my children experience the fantastic childhood I had, even though I have less than half as many kids as my parents had - and a way better job.
Think about the lives of people growing up in those < $10k homes. Their parents are going to be disproportionately poorly educated and highly religious. And on the scale between completely irresponsible and completely responsible, where do you expect a person who chooses to have children when they have income of less than $10k to fall on average? And outside the home it's not going to be much better. They're likely to live disproportionately in high crime urban areas which tend to be viral. Dysgenic fertility also ties directly in to this all. The generation of tomorrow is determined in large part by the generation of today. What values will they be raised with? What will they think of education? What will be their views towards other people? Will their hereditary factors be favorable or unfavorable? These questions are largely answered by whom their parents are.
And so this leads to the great paradox. Those that would engage in 'responsible fertility' are the exact people that should be doing the exact opposite. If somebody has the willpower and social consideration to voluntarily cede the strongest urge available to a human, they need to pass their genes and views onto the next generation. Yet by engaging in responsible fertility, they are doing the exact opposite and effectively removing themselves from the gene pool or, at best, minimizing their effect upon it. If you look at any given baby we can view it as a lottery in determining who their parents are and consequently what life they will live. By engaging in 'responsibility fertility' we're all collectively rigging the game against these babies. Ultimately responsible fertility is paradoxically anything but.
[1] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
[2] - https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/income-di...