Help needed! The cost of sending your kids to University.

Snap

Dominic said:

That's an interesting point
.........does a medical tutor get paid more than an English Lit tutor ( I have no idea )

FOr me it's about the hours of tuition and facilities they get. Medicine students are in lectures or a clinical setting full time. Say 35 hours a week. Including all the facilities and insurance. My daughter studied law - maybe 15 hours a week formal tuition with seminars. Same fee. That's bollocks. And a con.

Snap

On the subject of education and fees. In my view, society benefits very much from educating it's kids to the highest level possible. Whether that be academic or applied and practical skills, I think the state has a duty to provide it without charge. For me it's more important than any physical infrastructure therefore it should IMO come out of the govt's purse that we all pay into as part of our societal membership fees aka tax.

ArchtopDave

/\. I entirely agree, plus it seems shameful to me that students go on to start life in debt (which is index linked). 

Scotty55

Not sure if this helps or not, but a family friend had 2 kids at uni - one in Edinburgh, one at Oxford. Being Scottish, that meant that there were no tuition fees, so one would think that Oxford would be far more expensive. However, friend found that, with the bursaries and grants available to students at Oxford, sending their child to Edinburgh worked out more expensive. Can't imagine that the Oxford bursaries were means-tested as she and her husband are both NHS consultants.

Worth checking whether the chosen uni(s) can offer any financial assistance to students.

sweave

Both my kids are at uni. Worth checking out different places / courses as, when you take into account rent, cost of doing sports and other clubs, subsidized bars, subsidized canteens, etc. there can be significant differences in costs. E.g  Cambridge is surprisingly cheap! 

Smellyfingers

Is anyone expecting their children to pay them back at some point?

It sounds like some are getting potentially lucrative qualifications.

ArchtopDave

Smellyfingers said:

Is anyone expecting their children to pay them back at some point?

It sounds like some are getting potentially lucrative qualifications.

A straight NO from me. As far as I'm concerned, I'm hopefully providing my daughter with a good education, and the chance to set herself up for her life ahead.

Blaendulais

Snap said:

Dominic said:

That's an interesting point
.........does a medical tutor get paid more than an English Lit tutor ( I have no idea )

FOr me it's about the hours of tuition and facilities they get. Medicine students are in lectures or a clinical setting full time. Say 35 hours a week. Including all the facilities and insurance. My daughter studied law - maybe 15 hours a week formal tuition with seminars. Same fee. That's bollocks. And a con.

In 2015 the average debt for newly qualified docs was 70k.  It was 20K for me in 1990.  My daughter is a lawyer shes earnt more in her 1st full year after finishing training with the admittedly big firm, then i ever earnt as a medical consultant.  She doesnt get woken up at night either.

thumpingrug

Smellyfingers said:

Is anyone expecting their children to pay them back at some point?

It sounds like some are getting potentially lucrative qualifications.

No.  Absolutely not.  Ensuring my kids got the best chances they could was my responsibility.  Being a parent doesn't come with strings attached and I certainly didn't have kids as some sort of futures investment.

Sleepyscholar

Snap said:

On the subject of education and fees. In my view, society benefits very much from educating it's kids to the highest level possible. Whether that be academic or applied and practical skills, I think the state has a duty to provide it without charge. For me it's more important than any physical infrastructure therefore it should IMO come out of the govt's purse that we all pay into as part of our societal membership fees aka tax.

Although I agree with you, I do see the opposing argument, which is that making all education free -- including higher education -- ends up subsidising something that benefits wealthy people more than poor people. So free education in principle: absolutely, yeah. But it needs to be coupled with serious attempts to extend access to education throughout society. And that includes practical apprenticeships etc as much as university. I think we should row back on the numbers going to university, and go back to recognising that there are multiple paths to acquiring knowledge and skills, all of them valuable.

ThePrettyDamned

I had to turn down my top choice (Edinburgh) because the accommodation was too expensive. I went to Norwich instead, which was a lot more affordable at the time while still being a place I really liked. I am glad I went. 

mrkb

Useful info thanks. We’ve been putting the child benefit payments into a savings account since our son was born (about £1200 per year), so sounds like most of his uni costs will be covered by that.

lustycourtier

Scotty55 said:

Not sure if this helps or not, but a family friend had 2 kids at uni - one in Edinburgh, one at Oxford. Being Scottish, that meant that there were no tuition fees, so one would think that Oxford would be far more expensive. However, friend found that, with the bursaries and grants available to students at Oxford, sending their child to Edinburgh worked out more expensive. Can't imagine that the Oxford bursaries were means-tested as she and her husband are both NHS consultants.

Worth checking whether the chosen uni(s) can offer any financial assistance to students.

My son had unis fighting over him offering him extra grants etc, but when he went to Oxford he hated everything about it. It really wasn’t for him. I think the thatcher statue outside the train station settled that before he even got to the uni 

rsvmark

Smellyfingers said:

Is anyone expecting their children to pay them back at some point?

It sounds like some are getting potentially lucrative qualifications.

No. It’s utterly disgusting what (I think) Cameron and Clegg did and sold an entire generation into lifelong debt. The premise was based on the difference between average graduate earnings vs average non grad career earnings. That premium was eroded over time and by successive economic crisis so I believe the argument is highly likely to be obsolete. In fact many grads are now falling back on the safety net and will NEVER be able to pay off their debt. The uni’s are all cashing in, selling a promise of an amazing career in this that or the other whereas in reality those jobs don’t exist in the market place. Meanwhile the unis charge the maximum fees to rinse the students and most aren’t currently even teaching face to face.

Mrs Rsv and I are lucky to have 2 decent careers and refuse to saddle both our kids with debts of £50k plus - not that we are spoiling or privileged or stinking loaded. We are not. I benefitted from a free uni education so I want my kids to have the same. Rant over, as you were.

hollywoodrox

I thought you could get a loan and you don’t have to pay it back til you get a well paid job 
  A few people around here ,Devon have not even had to start paying theirs back as the pay round here is so poor . My friends lad ended up working in a rest home for people with head injuries and hasn’t had to pay back anything so far as he’s not earning enough 

JerkMoans

We've got 2 of the blighters at university at the moment.

Having pondered available options, the fair Mrs Moans & I are funding the whole business.  It's a crap ton of money out of taxed income, but we figured they really need support now, not when I finally drink myself to death in about 18 months' time.

While loans are available, the interest rates are usurious, and as we can - just about - manage, I'd far rather they didn't dip tentative toes into adult life saddled with enormous debts.  As others above have mentioned, we too are from the generation that benefitted enormously from free university education (the local authority even sent me a cheque each term to pay for beer!) and part of our rationalisation is that this is some sort of karmic payback.  

I very much appreciate that we are extremely privileged to be able to do this, and a substantial number of families cannot, and many will face having to make serious sacrifices to help their children.  Either way, however, unless it's some idiotic pseudo-degree, I can't endorse high enough the benefits of decent tertiary education - and beyond, if the youngsters are of an even vaguely academic bent.  It's not for everyone, of course, but even were my pair to have had to borrow to do it, I'd have frog-marched 'em across the threshold of academe.

Just my own two-penn'orth.  The very best of luck to the young members of the @jonnyburgo family, and I hope you find a way to make it all work

sev112

But the kids only get a guaranteed loan for the 9k fees pa.  the rest of the potential loan circa 5k (?) is means tested based on your parents’ income.
I really do not believe that 18 year olds should be tied and indebitedm and reliant on the parents - even in the good old days, we had friends at Uni whose parents were supposed to give them money because they didn’t get a grant and the parents either wouldn’t or couldnt

same thing occurs now 

Sleepyscholar

sev112 said:

But the kids only get a guaranteed loan for the 9k fees pa.  the rest of the potential loan circa 5k (?) is means tested based on your parents’ income.
I really do not believe that 18 year olds should be tied and indebitedm and reliant on the parents - even in the good old days, we had friends at Uni whose parents were supposed to give them money because they didn’t get a grant and the parents either wouldn’t or couldnt

same thing occurs now 

Back in the day, the grant was means tested. My parents weren't well-off (my dad was an engineer for British Gas, as was), but all the same I was on minimum grant. Luckily my parents topped it up to the official level, but as you say, there were some who didn't.

'Welcome to the real world!' say the look-at-me-I'm-so-tough cynics. 'Get a job to support yourself!' I'm not convinced. People like Littlejohn, and Liddle, and Clarkson -- the kind of pundit who love to put out this message -- strike me as privileged yobs punching down.

ToneControl

Sleepyscholar said:

sev112 said:

But the kids only get a guaranteed loan for the 9k fees pa.  the rest of the potential loan circa 5k (?) is means tested based on your parents’ income.
I really do not believe that 18 year olds should be tied and indebitedm and reliant on the parents - even in the good old days, we had friends at Uni whose parents were supposed to give them money because they didn’t get a grant and the parents either wouldn’t or couldnt

same thing occurs now 

Back in the day, the grant was means tested. My parents weren't well-off (my dad was an engineer for British Gas, as was), but all the same I was on minimum grant. Luckily my parents topped it up to the official level, but as you say, there were some who didn't.

'Welcome to the real world!' say the look-at-me-I'm-so-tough cynics. 'Get a job to support yourself!' I'm not convinced. People like Littlejohn, and Liddle, and Clarkson -- the kind of pundit who love to put out this message -- strike me as privileged yobs punching down.

it's always worth fact checking that kind of opinion
All 3 are from working class families, and only Clarkson went to public school, after his salesman Dad and teacher Mother started a successful business

Do they say that kind of thing?

Sleepyscholar

I was aware that they were not Eton boys. The 'privilege' I referred to was not inherited privilege.

'Do they say that kind of thing?' is a more interesting question, although better phrased as 'Do they say that?', as they certainly say that 'kind' of thing. You may be right that I was caricaturing them, which was why I used the phrase 'people like'.

My message was more one of sympathy for today's less well-off students -- and against those who attack them -- than an overt attack on the specific individuals in question.