AIBU for pressuring my son to apply to unis close to home?

You can bet your bottom dollar that the non contributing parents aren't handing over a house deposit!

Yes, and those parents can also make a decision on how to spend their money and how to save for their children’s futures. You see some parents would rather save all that monthly money on providing a house deposit for when that child comes out of university. Instead of subsidising the child’s rent for 3 years which is an absolute waste of money!

Yes, deprioritising is a good word! Renting for 3 years whilst experiencing the “university life” is an absolute waste of money if you have universities you can commute to!
That £500 per month (minimum you must subsidise) x12; x3 = £18k over the university period.
If you were to add that to any savings you’ve made for your child over its lifetime, he or she would have a substantial house/flat deposit which is a far superior investment for your child then them living independently temporarily in crap student accommodation!

But since before these kids were born, their parents knew they had to pay for Uni. So that should have informed how many kids they had, what size house they live in, the holidays they had, the phones/gym membership/nails etc.

If your son wants to move out of home and it's financially possible then let him choose. There's no doubt that living on campus can be an invaluable experience and if he commutes then it is not just about getting there in time for lectures but he has to worry about social events and getting home afterwards, and he will miss out on so much - or have to sleep on someone's floor the whole time which isn't ideal.

You're acting completely illogically. You don't know everyone's financial situation, how many DC they have. How old they are, how many different expenses the family has?

Commuting can save a lot of money and reduce student finance debt.

Clearly not the people who were saying we didn't understand because fees were less in our days...

Maintenance was always means tested. I got £0 in the 90s because of my parents income, as did my older brother a few years before me.

So in the 90s (possibly even 80s for DB) we got fees paid (now entirely covered by loan), but our living costs were means tested, and all but the most deprived households were expected to pay a good chunk, if not all, of their children's rent and day to day costs. We were a family with one middle earner and a non earner and we got £0 in grant.

That is a fair point. OP's DC seems that he'll have to make a big commute.

It's means tested, and you've known the score since before your children were conceived. You only can't if you've chosen to deprioritise it.

Not everyone lives close enough to a university to commute though.

Exactly what matters most is that he studies well.

Yes. I knew that. Aren't we talking about the maintenance loan rather than tuition fees?

Not everyone can afford to. You don't know everyone's personal finances. That's why as Londoners all our DC have or will go to London unis. If they get into Oxbridge great, if not...

Not everyone can afford it. You don't know everyone's finances. Some people don't want to hemorrhage a few £k for university accommodation. Is it really "shitty" if a parent lets their child stay at home with them rent free during their higher education?

Yes, everyone thinks years ago people had free grants for their living expenses. I did not go to university, but my husband did in the early 1970s. He did not receive a grant for his living expenses because his parents were earning too much. It certainly wasn’t too much by today’s standard’s. They did not go abroad for a holiday or go out to restaurants/pubs.They had saved for their children’s university costs.
There were no tuition fees then.

Fees are always entirely covered by a loan.

I went to Uni in the early 90s and had zero grant because of my parents income. My parents gave me the full grant amount. This really isn't a new thing.

Not legally, but morally.
I’m rounding here, but if the maximum maintenance loan is 10K, but because of your income your child can only receive 4K, whereas students from lower income families can get up to the maximum, it’s up to you to make up the difference. Why should your child suffer because of your earnings? If you have a higher family income you should be able to pay from income, or have saved, rather than spending it on a bigger house or whatever.

Surely the choice should be entirely his? Its his life not yours.

I think most people who have had the proper uni experience had it when fees were paid for or were minimal.

Or had parents who could afford it or planned ahead for it by saving and limiting their family size.

This.
Let him choose, and live independently.

I’m in the minority here and voted YANBU. While historically, living on campus was part of the university experience and indeed of growing up, it’s much more expensive now. I think if your son wanted to learn a subject and the best place wasn’t commutable, he should move away. If there are excellent universities within commutable distance, it makes sense to me to stay home and save money considering how prohibitive the costs are (and also potentially you will bear some of the costs too).

I think you need to do the maths with him so he understands how much extra accommodation will cost him and how grocery and travel costs will be an extra burden for you. I’d make it clear that if he chooses to live on campus he will need to bear the extra costs and get a part time job to do so.

I think most people who have had the proper uni experience had it when fees were paid for or were minimal. They’ve been excessive in this country for some time now and while they don’t need to be repaid until after graduation and being in receipt of a decent job, why saddle him with unnecessary debt for the rest of his life? Very different if the expense was due to attending a superior university far away from home which would lead to a better education and a better job.

Have you been to uni @SassyBear2 , what you are suggesting is ridiculous. I feel for your son, what a commute that will be.

It's means tested. You can afford to, unless you deprioritise it.

No, you're not legally obligated to, but you're not legally obligated to house your child post 16, pay for clubs, give them a birthday gift, take them to swimming lessons or take them to the dentist. You're a shit parent if you don't. Loving parents don't aspire to do the minimum required of them by law.

Hope you're saving for elder care, because the children you didn't prioritise aren't going to protitise you later in life!

Not everyone can afford to. And you're not legally obligated to do so