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

onomatopoeia99

Person_one wrote: »

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!

I did my A levels in 1987. I attended a state school, and my parents were what might be called "working class" by those that need to put people into categories (dad a draughtsman / toolmaker that had to clock in and out of the factory every day, mum a copy typist). No-one in my family had stayed at school past the minimum leaving age, ever, before me. So I was the first to do A levels, which had you told my parents that in 1969 when I was born they would not have believed you. Dad told me once, after I had graduated, that he expected me and my brother to leave school at 16 like the rest of the family (earlier in some cases when the leaving age was lower), so A levels were unexpected and university was never considered until I was well into secondary school and it became apparent that I was still top of my class and near top of year in maths and sciences.

I went to Bristol (university of, not the poly) to do an engineering degree (one run in conjunction with the computer science department as it encompassed both hardware and software aspects of computer systems). Had I pursued that option, my A level and S level / STEP grades would have got me into Cambridge.

I certainly did not encounter inequality in the application process or once I was there. All the universities I applied to on the UCCA form made me offers and I discovered that the people on my course from expensive private schools were made the same offer as I was. Indeed, one could say they were equal. I find it difficult to imagine how someone that could not manage at least an A and a B in Maths and Physics at the 1980s standard A levels would have coped to be honest, so it would have availed them nothing being let in due to having gone to a better school as they would simply have failed the end of year exams and have to resit or drop out.

sooty&sweep

Hi
Personally I don't think the parent or child should pay tuition fees I think as a nation we should invest in a skilled workforce.
Me & my husband both have degrees but I'm not sure if my children will do a degree. Not because we don't believe in the importance of education but it depends what sort of skills they want to learn. I think in some cases an apprenticeship is a better option.
Jen

Edwardia

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

I think the basic problem is that in the UK university education was free and then suddenly had to be paid for. In USA and Canada the culture has been for many years that you knew you would have to pay for it so you work hard to try to get scholarships, have part-time jobs etc and parents start college funds and pay into it as do some grandparents.

Many people say that working while studying is detrimental to studies. I disagree because you're showing potential employers that you're organised and you pick up transferable skills.

The quality of uni education seems somewhat dumbed down now that so many people go to university. I've seen it suggested in media that without universities there would be higher youth unemployment and universities are like creches for young people.

Dumbing down education and expecting it as a free right for every child does a disservice to young people who end up in dead end jobs with loans and to our country which needs a better standard of education to compete with Asia.

Person_one

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

I did my A levels in 1987. I attended a state school, and my parents were what might be called "working class" by those that need to put people into categories (dad a draughtsman / toolmaker that had to clock in and out of the factory every day, mum a copy typist). No-one in my family had stayed at school past the minimum leaving age, ever, before me. So I was the first to do A levels, which had you told my parents that in 1969 when I was born they would not have believed you. Dad told me once, after I had graduated, that he expected me and my brother to leave school at 16 like the rest of the family (earlier in some cases when the leaving age was lower), so A levels were unexpected and university was never considered until I was well into secondary school and it became apparent that I was still top of my class and near top of year in maths and sciences.

I went to Bristol (university of, not the poly) to do an engineering degree (one run in conjunction with the computer science department as it encompassed both hardware and software aspects of computer systems). Had I pursued that option, my A level and S level / STEP grades would have got me into Cambridge.

I certainly did not encounter inequality in the application process or once I was there. All the universities I applied to on the UCCA form made me offers and I discovered that the people on my course from expensive private schools were made the same offer as I was. Indeed, one could say they were equal. I find it difficult to imagine how someone that could not manage at least an A and a B in Maths and Physics at the 1980s standard A levels would have coped to be honest, so it would have availed them nothing being let in due to having gone to a better school as they would simply have failed the end of year exams and have to resit or drop out.

One person's story does not mean the inequalities didn't exist, in fact they still do exist. Unless you believe that the children of wealthier parents are in fact just more talented and intelligent, the numbers aren't right.

Idiophreak

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.

There are quite broad benefits to society of more people going to university. Lower crime rates, increased GDP, higher tax revenues...I've even seen studies suggesting it saves the NHS money. In any case, university's really good value for a society, especially when you're only *loaning* people the money to be there in the first place.

onomatopoeia99

Person_one wrote: »

One person's story does not mean the inequalities didn't exist, in fact they still do exist. Unless you believe that the children of wealthier parents are in fact just more talented and intelligent, the numbers aren't right.

I don't believe children of wealthier parents are more talented.

I do believe the opportunities are there for everyone who applies themselves through school and gets the A levels needed to get into university, whether they go to a state school or a private school and irrespective of how much money their parents have.

That said, it also appeared to me when I was at school that children with parents in higher paying jobs tended as a whole to get more support, interest and encouragement in their learning from their parents, which was in turn reflected in their academic performance. So, I'd say that parental support is important in the school years and that tends to be better on average from relatively wealthy parents, not because they are wealthy but because they tend to be more academically able, again on average.

I knew more about maths and physics than my parents by the time I was 13. While they always encouraged me, ensured I did my homework and so on, they couldn't help me in those subjects, or any of the others.

Homeownertobe

Parents - kids need to focus on studying

Person_one wrote: »

Unless you believe that the children of wealthier parents are in fact just more talented and intelligent, the numbers aren't right.

Wealthier - no. Intelligent and talented - yes. Parents seem to 'breed' (sorry, for want of a better word) children like them themselves, so it stands to reason that more intelligent and talented parents produce children with intelligence and talents, as well as a love of education.

In the same way that many of the 'underclass' produce offspring who follow them into the same lifestyle.

There are obviously people who grow up and become the exception to the rule, but the general rule of 'the apple doesn't fall far from the tree' seems to hold weight.

SandC

I would say a combination.

I also believe that tuition fees should be covered by tax payer funding for first degrees. I feel that education is worth investing in.

Having said that, I do feel there should be a full and complete review of university courses and degrees to streamline it right down. There seems to be too much of young people being pushed into A levels followed by a degree and not much thought into the subject. Of course, it's always been the case that you might go one way in your education and end up in a completely different career than you envisaged.

I'm a 40 something who doesn't have a degree because I had no aspirations to do so, no vocation as such to work towards and I really wasn't very studious. I did, however, go to uni to do an HNC which was employer funded in my late twenties. I also don't have children so it's not just that I want tuition fees paid to benefit my own family.

lulu_92

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

SandC wrote: »

Having said that, I do feel there should be a full and complete review of university courses and degrees to streamline it right down. There seems to be too much of young people being pushed into A levels followed by a degree and not much thought into the subject. Of course, it's always been the case that you might go one way in your education and end up in a completely different career than you envisaged.

I think 15/16 is too young to decide what career path you want for the rest of your life. I did drama at college and uni. I never said I wanted to be famous or do films (we always used to joke that our ambition was to be on Hollyoaks) but I did want to do theatre or educational work. When I did the degree it made me not want to be an actor anymore but I wasn't going to waste more money on another degree so I left it. I now work in a completely unrelated industry that you can't do a degree in.

Idiophreak

Homeownertobe wrote: »

Wealthier - no. Intelligent and talented - yes. Parents seem to 'breed' (sorry, for want of a better word) children like them themselves, so it stands to reason that more intelligent and talented parents produce children with intelligence and talents, as well as a love of education.

You also can't overlook actual physiological factors...Like the food that children eat varies massively with class/wealth, which effects their physical/mental development, as well as their ability to focus and apply themselves at school.

...also the chances of smoking / drinking / drugs during pregnancy are much higher the poorer the parents are....Then there's breastfeeding, second hand smoke in childhood, lack of exercise....

Sadly, class (in general) has a massive impact on a number of things that have a direct impact on the actual intelligence of a child, quite beyond the likelihood of the child receiving good parenting....