Paying for children at university

bylromarha

onlyroz wrote: »

I went to uni in London, my brother went to uni in Grimsby. If our parents had given both of us the same either he'd have been living the life of luxury, or I'd have been living off porridge and sleeping in the gutter.

I think you should ensure that they've both got the same amount of money in their pocket once their accommodation is paid for.

What did your brother think of this?

I turned down a place at Cambridge mid 90s. Rent in Warwick area was much cheaper than Cambridge & looking at the limited funds, I made my uni choice based on finance. Didnt even get brochures for London unis as they were way out of my price range.

Owain_Moneysaver

bylromarha wrote: »

the one in London will get far more money than the one in, say, Lampeter.

Some things will be cheaper in London than in Lampeter. And there's a lot more opportunities for part-time work (and sometimes well-paid part-time work) in London.

onlyroz

bylromarha wrote: »

What did your brother think of this?

I turned down a place at Cambridge mid 90s. Rent in Warwick area was much cheaper than Cambridge & looking at the limited funds, I made my uni choice based on finance. Didnt even get brochures for London unis as they were way out of my price range.

I don't think he thought anything of it at all. He had a good lifestyle in Grimsby, was able to run a car, and to rent a house with his friends. I spent four years living in a series of squalid death-traps, but still had a great time. Neither of us went hungry, and we both ended up with the qualification we wanted, and left uni without any significant debt. It was helpful that our parents were able to afford to fund us, but I have a number of friends who self-funded their way through uni (via loans and part-time jobs) and they were all able to attend the university of their choice without having to worry about finances.

PS - I think my mum would have preferred me to go to Warwick, but at the end of the day she said it was my decision.

Lunar_Eclipse

I would definitely take cost differences into account, so would contribute more to the child in 'London' than 'Grimsby', assuming it's feasible.

The caveat is having agreed with the child in advance that an equal amount would be given and therefore they need to take this into account when choosing a university. This means most would not choose London, though I'm told by friends who went there (back in the day) that it's not that much more expensive as a student. Rent amounts say otherwise!

splishsplash

I've paid different amounts for each of my three children for registration fees, rents and utilities. Different cities; different universities, accommodation types and utility providers; of course the costs will vary. They bring food from home and come home every weekend or every second weekend. Travel, clothes, phones, eating out, entertainment etc., are all financed by their part time jobs.

I'm not giving the money to the children. The money is a means to an end - they are each getting the degree of their choice in the university best suited to them. I'm giving each of them the same level of help though the actual figure may be different.

Similarly, I didn't give thousands to my children who didn't have orthodontic treatment just because I paid it for the one who did. Different children have different needs at different times.

If I'm giving money to them for their own use though, it would be equal in all cases.

Beckyy

If it's feasible I would say it's fairer to treat them both equally in the sense of paying for 'X' rather than giving them both the same amount of money.

duchy

I do think it depends

If for example the only place to study a particular course was in London rather than they just fancied living in London for 3 years it would make a difference. I do think this discussion should be had before the UCAS forms go in -and the comparative costs and contribution the parent is willing to make is discussed with the child.

Spirit_2

I have only one daughter so not had this dilemma. My instinct is to meet their needs equally rather than make it the same financial commitment.

This is a good lesson in values beyond money. Your equal treatment becomes about safety, security, well being. A financial focus smacks of comparison and sibling rivalry. I would not fuel those behaviours.

Jagraf

Life in London is more expensive. Something lots of people don't appreciate. If you want what london offers whether working, living, or a student, then it costs.

I had this conversation with my OH a few days ago. We have both commuted into the City in the past and know london well, but I wouldn't particularly want DD to study there as it's so expensive to live somewhere nice - just like in real life.

I don't get the paying extra for one child because they go to ucl etc, that's their choice and overly funding it gives them a false sense of affirdability once they graduate.

Life in London is more expensive, but there might me more opportunities. If one child earns more will parents fund the other one so that they can live the same lifestyle?

Jagraf

Spirit wrote: »

I have only one daughter so not had this dilemma. My instinct is to meet their needs equally rather than make it the same financial commitment.

This is a good lesson in values beyond money. Your equal treatment becomes about safety, security, well being. A financial focus smacks of comparison and sibling rivalry. I would not fuel those behaviours.

I can see what you mean but you actually are making them financially equal by your argument. It's about choice - imo if one place is more expensive to live in that's life - if I were giving a house deposit to my kids I wouldnt give one if them £50,000 more because it was a more expensive place to live.