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

Worry_Wart

I paid for my (7) years at uni with a combination of student loan, clinical trials, working, and taking out too many credit cards. Looking back I probably lived on a debt knife edge! Fortunately I got decent qualifications and went straight into a well paid job, and have continued to be employed in good roles for the last decade.

My parents didn't contribute at all and I didn't really expect them to. Although if I had a child and they wanted to go to uni, I think I'd pay for their accommodation so they had a roof over their heads at least. I'd also encourage them to choose the location wisely. I'm very glad I went to Manchester and not Brighton like my younger sister. You can live in Manchester very cheaply.

j.e.j.

Idiophreak wrote: »

Seriously, there ought to be a third option entitled "the taxpayer".

Agreed.

It used to be taxpayer-funded back in the days when only the brightest and best went to university. (As it should be).

But nowadays there are so many kids going to university, many of whom are not in the least bit academic, that expecting the taxpayer to fund it would mean them footing a huge and unnecessary bill.

lulu_92

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

j.e.j. wrote: »

Agreed.

It used to be taxpayer-funded back in the days when only the brightest and best went to university. (As it should be).

But nowadays there are so many kids going to university, many of whom are not in the least bit academic, that expecting the taxpayer to fund it would mean them footing a huge and unnecessary bill.

I agree entirely.

The amount of people that I know who have gone to uni for the "free money" (maintenance loan), stayed at home and gone to the minimum amount of lectures needed to stay in the course is ridiculous.

Anyone can get into university now, and it makes me in a way regret going because a degree was once the thing to make you stand out to employers and you were regarded as an intellectual. Now they hand out degrees like benefits.

onomatopoeia99

Tuition should be free for first degrees up to four years (medics get longer). That only applies to England and Wales students and England and Wales universities, as Scotland is devolved and can do their own thing.

There should be a grant to cover living costs based on the income of the student, not of their parents, indeed the income of the parents should be irrelevant when considering undergraduates that have reached the age of majority. If they are adults then they should be treated as such by the state.

The number of university places may need to be cut to match the funding available. If that means only 20% of 18 year olds can get a uni place rather than 50%, then so be it, the top 20% academically will get in.

In summary : no tuition fees, no loans, decent grant, less places to balance the budget.

I don't have children, but am a taxpayer (and graduate).

sulphate

I don't agree that university should only be an option for the top 20% or those who are considered academic. My husband is not academic by his own admission, but went to uni and did well, 4 months out of uni is thriving in a graduate level job. Before then he worked in a factory and had little prospects.

Some people who are very academic have little people skills and even less common sense. I notice it a lot with my academic A-grade friends who are in jobs such as doctors or veterinary surgeons. They couldn't organise a !!!! up in a brewery. But some graduate jobs require a high degree of organisational skills.

Whilst the attraction of "free money" might be an incentive to some, everyone has to pay it back once they earn over a certain amount, and most will eventually.

toniq

Buzzybee90 wrote: »

The student loans system is flawed, it rewards only those with low income families or divorced/non resident parents.

In an ideal world everyone would get the same.

But what happens is the poorer students get grants and they assume everyone else will get parental help when it's simply not the case.

Very flawed system, household is not took into acct, so even with my hubbys generous salary, we have more mouths and a larger place to pay for yet none of these factors are took into acct just hubbys salary, with 2 at uni and just the basic loans and no grants we top them up as we want them to study and if they work it's a bonus.

It's unfair that they system is so flawed it discourages middle wage earners children from going to uni.

Gloomendoom

toniq wrote: »

Very flawed system, household is not took into acct, so even with my hubbys generous salary, we have more mouths and a larger place to pay for yet none of these factors are took into acct just hubbys salary, with 2 at uni and just the basic loans and no grants we top them up as we want them to study and if they work it's a bonus.

It's unfair that they system is so flawed it discourages middle wage earners children from going to uni.

But if you had fewer mouths to feed and a smaller place to pay for, you would have more money to spare.

Your lifestyle choice.

PlymouthMaid

A mixture of the student, the parents and loans as appropriate to each family at the ,moment. In an ideal world IMO, degrees should be fully funded BUT only for the top 5-10% of students (academically) and only for courses where the country recognises a need to train up professionals for the future.

Person_one

j.e.j. wrote: »

Agreed.

It used to be taxpayer-funded back in the days when only the brightest and best went to university. (As it should be).

But nowadays there are so many kids going to university, many of whom are not in the least bit academic, that expecting the taxpayer to fund it would mean them footing a huge and unnecessary bill.

I agree that higher education should be state funded, just as primary and secondary are.

I disagree that in the past, only the 'brightest and the best' went to university. There were huge inequalities based on class, and tons of brighter but poorer kids didn't get the chance.

It should be taxpayer funded, and all the inequalities in admissions need to be purged somehow so that its truly based on merit!

jackyann

I think that families have different ideas & traditions. In my family, a working class background, education was deeply valued. My grandparents & parents were so proud to think that kids from that background could go to university that they saved in the hope of it (I didn't go myself, but others in my family did). There was also an assumption that you shouldn't work during term-time as it would distract you from your studies.
However I heard other, wealthier, families say that kids should pay their own way and work whilst at university "or they won't value it" (an amazing idea to our family, that anyone would not value such an education!)
So I see that people have different concepts about university education, not necessarily related to their income.

There are also issues about time to earn money. Some courses, especially some science, engineering, medical courses etc. leave little spare time or energy to earn money. Others do seem to take less time, and some students positively benefit from bringing work experience to courses like media, marketing, design, fashion etc.

So, I think it depends on time available, usefulness of work, money available, and how the family sees university education.

I also do think that young people need to look very carefully at university courses and how they may benefit from them.