Who should pay for kids to go to Uni? Kids or parents?

brokeparent

Parents - kids need to focus on studying

toniq wrote: »

Mines at maple bank,you never know they could be roomies lol.

x

Ha Ha, I thought so - Maple Bank here as well and today he finally discovered the launderette! x

System

I've always been grateful to my parents for helping me out when i got myself in dire straights at uni out of 4 of us i was the first to go. I know that if my sister had needed help, or my other sister and brother who have just gone need help they will give what they can. But the onus was on us to support ourselves with student loans/saving/wages. I worked through my first 2 years of uni, for my third i didnt work but lived off savings that matured when i turned 21.

I don't resent my parents for not giving me an allowence or something, as i knew they couldn't afford it and still had 3 kids at home, plus in their view they treat us al equaly so if i had had an allowence my brother and sisters would have to had one too.

I had friends with parents on a low income who got extra burserys and grants and friends who had well of parents who paid them a pretty big allowance so they didn't have to work, but i never resented them for their circumstances being different.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Kids - going to Uni is about learning to look after yourself

Interesting results so far.. 68% think it's up to the kids

silvercar

toniq wrote: »

What this debate has made me realise is my children are considered adults as they are both over the age of 18, so why are the parents liable for another adult?

In what other situation is this the case? For real why can't all students full stop be responsible for their own tuition.

Why can't they have a grant/loan etc on their own etc to payback.

Yes it means wealthier kids might be given a helping hand, but surely these students are adults so therefore should be treated as such.

Why does there have to be any grants full stop? why can't it just be loans they payback as they earn?

If one of my girls decided to have a baby at 18 she wouldn't be expected by the state to have me bail her out with rent/food etc. So why is this any different?

As someone said lifestyle choice.

The difference is that parents generally feel some responsibility for their children's education. That a "child" is choosing to continue their education beyond 18 is something most parents would want to support and encourage, rather than say they are legally adults and so should do it without any support.

The fact that the loan system does not give enough money to survive at university for those whose parents are earning to the level where the student is only entitled to the non means tested element, means that parents often feel they would want to provide some finance. Both because they want to support their child in furthering their education and in the knowledge that, if it wasn't for their earnings, their offspring would be entitled a grant/ loan/ bursary mix that would make university far more affordable.

LesD

Is it just me, or are there some weird discussions on MSE lately!

Why is this an either/or question? Surely the discussion is about what sort of education it should be. Then the funding has to be considered. University is only one option. All parties need to share in the decisions of which finance is only one part.

As for the suggestion this should be a taxpayer cost ... !*!*!*! Words fail me. Living in the past I'm afraid.

Although, of course, taxpayers are actually paying nearly 50% through the subsidising of the incredulous student loans scheme. (Has anyone else ever designed a scheme with a planned failure rate at this level?)

maybird_2

Family income should have nothing to do with it once they have reached a majority. They should all get access to the same amount of borrowing irrespective of the financial circumstances (and indeed attitudes) of parents, so as to be fair to them all. The students are the ones going to university, they are the ones borrowing the money, they are the ones who will have to pay it back as wage-earning adults.

If only we could get it all free again. But that's not going to happen. Funding does need a radical overhaul and some of the ideas floating around (universities doing the lending, selling off of the loan book etc) are frankly quite scary.

Buttonmoons

Person_one wrote: »

Are you sure you can't apply for a loan? I know things have changed a bit, but when I was studying student nurses could get a non means tested loan of about £2600 per year.

Nope have checked and ZILCHO, you have to work, which is going to be difficult once we are on placement, most companies do want a realm of consistency.

I don't think anyone in my tutor class has got themselves a job yet and a lot of them are still 17, so bar work etc is ruled out.

XRAT

Parents - kids need to focus on studying

Help your kids through Uni by helping yourself through pensions.
Putting £32k (net) per annum into a pension reduces your household income by £40k. Kids get grants if your household income is below £25k.

Indie_Kid

XRAT wrote: »

Help your kids through Uni by helping yourself through pensions.
Putting £32k (net) per annum into a pension reduces your household income by £40k. Kids get grants if your household income is below £25k.

They need to close this loophole. Doesn't seem right that because you've chosen to put so much into a pension, that your children can get more loan and grant.

Mallotum_X

where is the option for jointly?

If many students stopped doing pointless courses then there would be more money to pay for the things the country actually needs.