The Lib Dem's (or will Manda bite) thread

Student university fees - discuss!

I just quickly wanted to start this thread whilst I see Manda's on line at the moment.

The reason for it was during the half time break whilst on the Chatbox, Peter mentioned that his four children (2 girls, 2 boys) will all be starting uni (or hope to) in the next couple of years - and how horrified he was at the thought of the expense they (and he and Wendy) will have to face - tuition fees at around £9,000 per year, living allowance, around £5,500 (I think) per year - and that's just what the government loan - which has to be paid back over the next 30 years following the end of uni.

Good old mums and dads will of course be paying for much if not everything else their offspings require over this period in their lives.

My daughter is currently at uni - so I do have a vested interest in what sort of a debt she will have to shoulder once attaining her degree.

A bloody big amount it will be too!

A three year course at £9,000 tuition per year and living allowance grant of £5,500 again per year amounts to more or less £45,000!!!

And that doesn't take in anything else the student requires - which is quite a lot at that stage in their lives.

That also doesn't cover things such as if the student wanted to stay on for more years, such as courses for medical students for example, nor if they wanted to push on for a higher degree such as a Masters.

It's certainly not inconceivable that my daughter night be finishing her full time university education with a debt around her neck in access of £75,000 - and she is just a typical student doing a 'basic' university degree (I mean as opposed to say a medical degee or similar that takes 5 or 6 years I think).

I am in a very fortunate financial position to fund her myself, and thus she would graduate debt free - a path I had fully intended on taking but was 'put right' so to speak by the Finance manager at a university who strongly adviced me not to do that.

His logic is as follows.

Once some one leaves uni and starts to work, a 'clock' starts ticking. This clock is set to stop in 30 years time. During this 30 year period graduates are requied to pay back the loans they have incurred. Payment is based on ability to pay. There is no charge if they earn under £21,000 per year.

Rightly or wrongly this system is flawed in the favour of women, in that a number of them will probably have a career break sometime within that 30 years whilst they start a family and many of them may not return to full time work for a number of years if ever.

A man however is more likely to remain in work during these 30 years.

After 30 years whatever is outstanding is written off.

I was advised to put my money to better use for her in, for example funding her so that like many she need not worry about money and thereby having to find part time jobs (in some cases even full time jobs) whilst studying.

It also funds opportunities other less fortunate familys may not be able to afford, such as her studying in america for 4 months, having a decent house to rent, an opportunity to explore the world during summer whilst she is young enough with no committments such as money, job, offspring to worry about.

Yes, most of this is just speculation and generalisation on my part, she may for instance not have a family and progress her career for the next 30 years, but even then what moneys I do have left when I shuffle off this mortal coil, she will inherit and she would have had the best opportunity to do well in her education and enjoy her life and experiences whist she could.

I know she doesn't grasp what an opportunity I have given her but she will one day when she has (God willing) a family of her own.

So if like Peter you have both boys and girls going to uni, do you treat them both the same, or do you compensate for the system and support your boys more financially and your girls less, knowing that over 30 years they will come out somewhat equally by doing so?

(Oh, and on a personal note, any comment I deem inappropriate (even made in 'joke') made about my daughter will result in an instant ban - I mean that too!)

Jump ship to gain their personal needs, horrable toothless party.

have to agree with Scott, before the election Clegg came across very well, but as soon as they got a bit of power they caved in on their core principles. They will be lucky to finish third in the next election.

Hi! I left my connection open, but wasn't online till now. Re Sluffys financial arrangements, I understand, it looked for a second on chatbox you were saying you would fund boys and not girls for a different reason, sorry to have misjudged you!
Ref LibDems, I am one, joined the Liberals in Bolton West in 1978, and am unreconstructed old fashioned Liberal. I think the country is in a better position because of the coalition than it would have been had either than been a weak minority government, or a second election, in 2010. I think we are being judged harshly now, and completely acknowledge mistakes were made, we weren't used to being in government, the country wasn't used to coalition, but think history will judge us more kindly. I am standing for council again, and for Westminster for the first time. I work as hard as I can for those I currently represent, whoever they support, and would love the opportunity to continue to do so. I stand up for what I believe in, and me and my team sign up to acting honestly, with integrity, no negative campaigning, will do the best we can, and accept the democratic governmental system in all it's wonderful flawed glory. There! Gotta go, got some doors to knock on, like I have done for every day for the last 5 years (ok, I've probably missed a few for Christmas etc, but must have done so 350 days per year with 1000 bits if casework to make someone's life better). My timing seeking reelection sucks, it's fashionable to deride all politicians as self seeking, untrustworthy idiots, and the libdems specifically get a rough ride. Tough. I believe I can do a great job, can be a great representative, and think that over time, coalitions will prove to be a stabilising influence, tempering the extremes. That depends entirely in the makeup of the next government, and some of the possible outcomes, scare me rigid. Won't bore on, didn't wat you to think I was ducking the question, enjoy your Sunday, all.

RE Sluffy's argument:

It assumes that young people will assume stereotypical roles in a patriarchal society so if what Sluffy proposes was enacted in law it would be prejudicial against anyone who doesn't want to play that game.
That included one in five women who currently choose to remain childless (at the age of 45) - a trend that is increasing in the West where societal pressure for women to have a career further acts to increase the childlessness trend.

This is a debate about "values" rather than economics - ask Natasha - he's been 31 for the last 10 years but as a "professional" won't be troubling the census any time soon.

If you don't want the burden of putting your kids through university, keep it in your pants.

Simple.

Few things annoy me more than parents bleating about the cost of bringing up a child. No one made you do it.

Nat, you're right and wrong.
Nobody asked parents to bring children into the world, but if you are really as successful as you say you are, did you do it all on your own, or did you have help , in whatever capacity, from your parents ? 
Its been proven that nowadays for any chance of a reasonable chance in having a comfortable and productive life, you need a good education.
Whereas, in the past, a good education could be gained far easier, and much earlier than nowadays, we are looking at crowded classes, with curriculums, and educational decisions now being political footballs. The opportunity to pull away from the horde has been reduced to a grab at the chance of a degree, which has been diluted over the years to not much more than merely opening another door. Unfortunately, the chance of making money, wasn't missed by the government at the time, and which is now regarded as a good form of income.
All parents want to help their offspring to do well, (even yours Nat), But to tax them in this way, is a cynical way of taxing both the current and next generation, not to mention restricting the future producers of the country.

wanderlust wrote:RE Sluffy's argument:

It assumes that young people will assume stereotypical roles in a patriarchal society so if what Sluffy proposes was enacted in law it would be prejudicial against anyone who doesn't want to play that game.
That included one in five women who currently choose to remain childless (at the age of 45) - a trend that is increasing in the West where societal pressure for women to have a career further acts to increase the childlessness trend.

This is a debate about "values" rather than economics - ask Natasha - he's been 31 for the last 10 years but as a "professional" won't be troubling the census any time soon.

Sorry mate, once again I have no fecking idea what you are on about?

If you had fully read my post above you would see I wrote this -

Sluffy wrote:Yes, most of this is just speculation and generalisation on my part, she may for instance not have a family and progress her career for the next 30 years, but even then what moneys I do have left when I shuffle off this mortal coil, she will inherit and she would have had the best opportunity to do well in her education and enjoy her life and experiences whist she could.

Where then did I assume an ongoing "stereotypical roles in a patriarchal society"???

Where did I even suggest that what I 'propose' should be enacted in law?

I didn't.

And for "societal pressure for women to have a career" maybe that as more to do with the cost of everyday living - buying/renting a house, car, travel, fuel, heating before you even get on to the little luxury's in life such as entertainment, holiday, going out for a meal, etc, etc.

Particularly so if the woman is going through life single than in a relationship.  Basically it is cheaper to have kids if there is two of you paying towards them.

I don't know what my daughter will choose to do in life but as far as I'm concerned I've given her the best opportunity to not only have the best education I can but to enjoy her life during that time too, to take any opportunitys that may come her way (like 4 months tuition in an american university) free of any financial worries or constraints.

Yes she, like most graduates will have a large debt to shoulder but statistically  (using your very own statement above!) 80% of the women WILL go on to have children and probably not work the full 30 years after leaving uni - and thus pay back less than a male graduates.

I believe that something like 50% of student grants are expected to be written off after 30 years anyway - and as that is an average between the two sexes, I would imagine the percentage of female debt written off would be considereably more than what it would be for males.

It's all just basic common sense really - and don't forget this advice was from a university head of finance and not just something I've made up to look clever in how to play the system!

gloswhite wrote:Nat, you're right and wrong.
Nobody asked parents to bring children into the world, but if you are really as successful as you say you are, did you do it all on your own, or did you have help , in whatever capacity, from your parents ? 

The only help I had from my parents was advice. Of course they could have given me money but that would have made me 'soft' and any achievement I made would be down to them and not me.

Every parent would be far better letting their kids find their own way in life, rather than giving them thousands of pounds to almost certainly piss away on some pointless degree.

You remain my number one heroine Nat