Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

SO, according to my boomer mum, sending a child through uni these days is the same as it was in the 90s

374 replies

PotteringAboutIn · 04/07/2026 20:24

Because apparently they didn't have the wages back then

Ffs
Drives me nuts

What when uni was free, accommodation wasn't anywhere near as expensive and you even got a grant

OP posts:
Nativetree · 05/07/2026 15:34

Gwenhwyfar · 05/07/2026 12:01

"I have friends who qualified as solicitors, civil engineers and accountants via that route, and nurses only needed 5 O-levels to start training."

Yes, I know someone who worked as a solicitor after doing 'articles' and no degree. I don't know if there are any still practising with that background though.
Nursing was something you could start at 17 when I was younger. We had a future trainee nurse in sixth form, but she was only there to use the time till she was old enough because she didn't need A levels, let alone a degree.

I was a legal secretary late 1970s and as I understood it, all the new solicitors with degrees still had to do two years articles. Like on the job training where they got paid little (I think they earned the same as I did). It was mandatory. Competition for articled clerk positions were very competitive (and I think many got places at the best firms thanks to the uni they went to, the school they went to, who their dad was and what his job was. It was very difficult for those who came from regular schools and from “normal” backgrounds). Maybe it was possible to train as a solicitor for a much longer stint in articles.

Nativetree · 05/07/2026 15:43

ohtowinthelottery · 05/07/2026 15:11

My DM was born in the SG. I'm a boomer. DMs mother died when she was 16 with 3 younger siblings. She basically became their mother. She was also evacuated from her home city to North Wales in the war.
My DF lost his DM at the age of 9 with 2 younger siblings. He too was evacuated from the same city as DM in the war.
My parents both lived until I was in my 50's.
Did they have it tough? - yes they did.
Did I have it tough? To an extent but for totally different reasons not of my parents' making.
Has my own DS (millenial) had it tough? Yes again for very different reasons to the generations before him.
Did any of us spend our lives whinging that other generations had it easier? No. We got/get on with life making the best of what we have.
Slagging off other generations is totally pointless.

Totally agree. My dad also was evacuated to Wales as a child during the war.

Culture changes so much too. When I was 18 the norm was to get a job, often live at home, meet someone and if you got engaged, stay at home and save like mad for a house deposit. Nowadays the cultural expectation for many (or even the requirement for work purposes) to move out and rent a flat. Or rent with boyfriend(s) (was uncommon for most “boomers”). I could t have afforded to have saved with now husband for a deposit if we were renting a flat and saving - bit like now. Sure it would have been amazing to share before marriage.

Also cultural expectations of holidays, cars, eating out and going out - all very different. Just how it was and now is as culture evolves through the generations.

Peachykeenjosephine · 05/07/2026 15:53

Denim4ever · 05/07/2026 12:35

As a person who is early 60s, I don't identify at all with the Boomer moniker. I was still in school in the 80s.

The Generation Jones bracket is more comfortable

Exactly! Same!

endofthelinefinally · 05/07/2026 16:11

Thepeachboys · 05/07/2026 10:16

inflation was 27% in 1975 so wages hadn't kept up in nursing and people were struggling

Yes. It was tough. I got married in the early 80s and we we scrabbling to get a mortgage. We were both earning around £3.50 an hour after tax and interest rates were 15%. Things like furniture and carpets had to wait.

Dontlletmedownbruce · 05/07/2026 16:26

I distinctly remember the night of a formal ball in my second year at Uni because I got a taxi with 2 friends. We had never gotten one before. It felt so expensive and fancy! We were safety conscious and always made sure everyone was walked home, we stayed in large groups but that often involved round trips, walking friends home then back to whatever house the majority were staying, someone always slept over. We were excited about our 3 course meal, we had eaten dinner out once or twice together ever. At that time, my aunt had a shop that sold formal wear so I had a brand new dress that my Mum got for cost, borrowed shoes and I did my own hair and make up. Each of my friends had either rented or borrowed a dress and thought i was so lucky to have a new one. One friend had been gifted money to get her hair done. She got an up do, not one of us had coloured hair as that was unaffordable. We met for drinks in pals house where 4 girls lived and had 1 bathroom and we all had sleeping bags to stay on the sitting room floor. That was mid 90s. I have friends with student kids now and they have mostly ensuites or 2 to a shared bathroom. All buy new dresses and shoes for occasions. They get taxis home all the time 'to be safe', they all have hairdressers and some get their nails or eyebrows or tan done regularly. They all eat out fairly regularly too, it's not a big deal. I talked to someone recently who went to the exact same formal do and her experience was completely different. It feels like they were on a different planet of luxury and high standards.

Papyrophile · 05/07/2026 16:57

I recall similar @Dontlletmedownbruce . That was history. Now, everyone mostly seems to expect an influencer lifestyle and luxury. It is possible of course, but anyone who does so is likely to be paying the credit card bill for ages.

Winefride · 05/07/2026 17:14

DozyCrow · 04/07/2026 20:38

Well your mum is wrong, but you're unreasonable for labelling her 'boomer' on this thread, even if she is of that generation. I hate that the labels 'boomer', 'millennial' etc are used as a way to hate on everyone born of a particular generation.

I'm so tired of the phrase 'boomer' and it's not even my generation.

GreenAlgae · 05/07/2026 17:19

because working wasnt possible, because of expense? What dissonance, it all seems to add up. You have to pay the cost to do it, they had to stay at home because of the cost

Quite. I made that point earlier but it didn't seem to grow legs.

GreenAlgae · 05/07/2026 17:25

Culture changes so much too. When I was 18 the norm was to get a job, often live at home, meet someone and if you got engaged, stay at home and save like mad for a house deposit. Nowadays the cultural expectation for many (or even the requirement for work purposes) to move out and rent a flat

My best friend in the 70s moved out into a bedsit when she was 16. It was horrible and poky and shared a bathroom with 4 other rooms. (Strangers!)
I was still envious, I couldn't afford it. The only reason she could is because her Mum and Dad paid her rent - to get her out from under their feet I guess.
It was great for independence though, and made you really want to save up for a house. Nobody I knew lived together before they were married. Scandalous.

MidnightPatrol · 05/07/2026 18:11

nevernotmaybe · 05/07/2026 15:18

. . . . . because working wasnt possible, because of expense? What dissonance, it all seems to add up. You have to pay the cost to do it, they had to stay at home because of the cost.

The only reason for being a SAHM isn’t because childcare is too expensive.

And it certainly wasn’t the primary reason for being one in the 1980s and prior to that. If anything it was a bit of a luxury - as you could afford to not have some kind of second income.

Bikechic · 05/07/2026 18:29

Tbh, when my dd went to uni in 2020, we gave her about £100 / month to top up her loan (full loan). (And fed her in hols) Not exactly breaking the bank.

GreenAlgae · 05/07/2026 19:14

And it certainly wasn’t the primary reason for being one in the 1980s and prior to that. If anything it was a bit of a luxury - as you could afford to not have some kind of second income

Childcare would have been a lot more than my income. There were no free hours then. We maxed out our credit cards to get over that period. Staying home was certainly not because we could live on one wage.

Seymour5 · 05/07/2026 19:29

As a young mum in the early 70s, housework, laundry, shopping and cooking took up far more time than in later years. No washing machine, no dryer, fridge, freezer, microwave. Nappies soaked in a bucket, then either handwashed, or if we had the money, the laundrette.

Shopping, on foot or by bus most days for fresh food. Cooking from scratch, very basic meals, because we had no spare cash, no family nearer than seven hours away to help out. I couldn’t have worked in the early years, no available childcare. My husband’s income picked up, we saved ferociously and bought a new house, in a cheap area, with a 95% mortgage. No carpets, some second hand furniture, and old curtains. We moved ourselves, helped by a friend with a van.

Life did get easier, he earned more, I started earning a bit, and we moved somewhere better, nice school, aspirational families, positive peer group influences. With more education, and good careers, our DC have travelled widely, and established themselves with solid homes before they had our DGC. But I can see things are more difficult for today’s teens and twenties. Opportunities are fewer, but expectations are higher. They have had so much more as children than their parents did, that it’s become the norm.

The most fortunate will have inheritances from all we ‘ever so lucky’ baby boomers, as long as we don’t end up in exorbitantly priced care homes.

PrettyPickle · 05/07/2026 20:05

Denim4ever · 05/07/2026 12:35

As a person who is early 60s, I don't identify at all with the Boomer moniker. I was still in school in the 80s.

The Generation Jones bracket is more comfortable

I totally agree, I was born at the end of the Boomers and I certainly do not identify with them, I identify as Generation Jones as I mentioned in my much earlier post on here.

Vartden · 05/07/2026 21:08

MidnightPatrol · 05/07/2026 18:11

The only reason for being a SAHM isn’t because childcare is too expensive.

And it certainly wasn’t the primary reason for being one in the 1980s and prior to that. If anything it was a bit of a luxury - as you could afford to not have some kind of second income.

Women were often stay SAHM because the availability of childcare was nonexistent
So you didn't have a choice.

maxslice · 05/07/2026 23:09

Peachykeenjosephine · 05/07/2026 07:26

Agree, 60-something here and it wasn't as expensive when my milennial children went in the 2000s as when my Gen Z children went recently! Can't speak for the '90s. Yes wages were less but tuition fees were £3k a year compared to £9k a year, and accommodation wasn't as expensive.

it's interesting though, as us 60-somethings aren't so much Boomers as "Generation Jones".

According to Google:

Generation Jones (born 1954–1965) is a distinct micro-generation sandwiched between Early Baby Boomers and Generation X. While traditional Boomers experienced the optimistic 1960s counterculture, Woodstock, and postwar economic expansion, "Jonesers" came of age in the 1970s marked by the Watergate scandal, high interest rates, and an economic downturn.

so maybe that's affected our thinking!

My my, high interest rates and an economic downturn, such an easy life for the Gen Joneses!

GreenAlgae · 06/07/2026 00:08

My my, high interest rates and an economic downturn, such an easy life for the Gen Joneses!

Blimey, I'm a Gen Jones too. Who knew!!??

Talkingfrog · 06/07/2026 01:16

PotteringAboutIn · 04/07/2026 20:46

So wonder how much the accommodation was back in the 90s

I lived at home during uni, but a friend in halls (newly built) was paying about £580 a term in 1992.
The room wasn't very big, and had a tiny ensuite in it ( not really much bigger than a shower cubicle but had shower, toilet and sink).

IDontHateRainbows · 06/07/2026 04:19

ThatCosy · 05/07/2026 08:39

There were fees in the 90s and no grant. People seem to think that the 90s were the 70s.

I got a grant in the mid 90s.

LathkillDale · 06/07/2026 09:21

MidnightPatrol · 05/07/2026 18:11

The only reason for being a SAHM isn’t because childcare is too expensive.

And it certainly wasn’t the primary reason for being one in the 1980s and prior to that. If anything it was a bit of a luxury - as you could afford to not have some kind of second income.

I didn’t know of any childcare, when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, where I lived, and neither did DH where he lived in another county.

As for the luxury of not needing a second wage - both sets of our parents scrimped and saved to survive. There was no luxury - my parents only got a fridge, when my brother was born, after my father gave up smoking to save up for it. We got a colour TV, when I was seventeen. Both our parents only had a landline installed, when we went to university.

DH’s father worked overtime evenings and weekends to make ends meet. Admittedly, MIL did get a job as a dinner lady, when he went to secondary school.

Both our mothers left school at 15, without any qualifications, and neither could drive.

MidnightPatrol · 06/07/2026 09:51

LathkillDale · 06/07/2026 09:21

I didn’t know of any childcare, when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, where I lived, and neither did DH where he lived in another county.

As for the luxury of not needing a second wage - both sets of our parents scrimped and saved to survive. There was no luxury - my parents only got a fridge, when my brother was born, after my father gave up smoking to save up for it. We got a colour TV, when I was seventeen. Both our parents only had a landline installed, when we went to university.

DH’s father worked overtime evenings and weekends to make ends meet. Admittedly, MIL did get a job as a dinner lady, when he went to secondary school.

Both our mothers left school at 15, without any qualifications, and neither could drive.

This is just an anecdote - that your parents had a very hard time and were skint (and couldn’t drive?), doesn’t mean everyone was in that position. Not every woman left school with no qualifications and only worked part time minimum wage jobs.

People have always used some form of childcare to work - be it family, neighbours etc.

You’re just playing into the example, no empathy or recognition for today’s issues, just the (predictable) ‘I grew up in a cardboard box in the middle of the road’ routine.

Promisingtree · 06/07/2026 10:07

MidnightPatrol · 06/07/2026 09:51

This is just an anecdote - that your parents had a very hard time and were skint (and couldn’t drive?), doesn’t mean everyone was in that position. Not every woman left school with no qualifications and only worked part time minimum wage jobs.

People have always used some form of childcare to work - be it family, neighbours etc.

You’re just playing into the example, no empathy or recognition for today’s issues, just the (predictable) ‘I grew up in a cardboard box in the middle of the road’ routine.

I think that's unfair - pp is presenting her own account of life and pointing out things people born more recently might not have been aware of (fridges/freezers and tvs for example!)
It's never a good idea not to acknowledge the difficulties other people have had - that should work in both directions

LathkillDale · 06/07/2026 11:11

MidnightPatrol · 06/07/2026 09:51

This is just an anecdote - that your parents had a very hard time and were skint (and couldn’t drive?), doesn’t mean everyone was in that position. Not every woman left school with no qualifications and only worked part time minimum wage jobs.

People have always used some form of childcare to work - be it family, neighbours etc.

You’re just playing into the example, no empathy or recognition for today’s issues, just the (predictable) ‘I grew up in a cardboard box in the middle of the road’ routine.

@MidnightPatrol - did you grow up in the 60s and 70s? If not, don’t tell me what it was like where I or DH grew up! It’s not an anecdote, it’s the society in which we both grew up all around us.

You are not a mind reader either. Don’t tell me how much empathy I have for young people today either. I am arguing with pp, who think there wasn’t a cost attached to being a SAHM, and they are uniquely hard done to, in having to pay nursery fees. They are demanding empathy from DPs, while showing none back at the real costs of no career, pension nor financial independence - leaving them subject to financial, psychological or domestic violence and there was little they could do about it. The police weren’t interested in domestic violence then, and rape within marriage was legal.

Pepperlee · 06/07/2026 11:24

Monty36 · 05/07/2026 10:39

Silly comparison really. As university for someone in grant days was vastly different to today.
Fewer people ever went to university. And many did not get the full grant. And the parental contribution was not always possible for parents to give. Students then were often very poor in a different way. People did gap years to earn money before going, not for a holiday travelling.

These days everyone goes. And gets a debt which they pay off bit by bit.

Tony Blair made it so every parent wanted to believe their child was capable and able enough to go to university. Who wants to have the child that doesn’t. As a result young people were told they worked harder, were more intelligent than the year before. Until everyone realised this talk had to stop as it was ludicrous. It also produced young people who expected to do a junior level job ‘for a bit’ only. And to be at the top table fast in any organisation. That expectation for them was very unfair.

As Tony Blair gave universities plenty of money via student loans the central government support for educating our young people diminished.
Universities became businesses. And started to look abroad to support their interests. The overseas student became more lucrative than our own. So they advertise abroad.

Primarily universities were set up to educate the brightest of British young people. And some from elsewhere. Not the other way around.

☝️☝️☝️ Fully agree with this.

Badbadbunny · 06/07/2026 13:38

Nativetree · 05/07/2026 15:34

I was a legal secretary late 1970s and as I understood it, all the new solicitors with degrees still had to do two years articles. Like on the job training where they got paid little (I think they earned the same as I did). It was mandatory. Competition for articled clerk positions were very competitive (and I think many got places at the best firms thanks to the uni they went to, the school they went to, who their dad was and what his job was. It was very difficult for those who came from regular schools and from “normal” backgrounds). Maybe it was possible to train as a solicitor for a much longer stint in articles.

Edited

Similar in accountancy. Young recruits who'd got a degree were on the "Institute of chartered accountants" route to qualification, but school leavers went on a different route to "chartered certified accountant" qualification. Back then you couldn't become a member of the Institute of chartered accountants without a degree. The reality was that "certified" accountants were seen as second best by institute accountants who in those days dominated accountancy practices. That's despite the actual qualifications/final exams etc being the same standard. There was a lot of snobbery among those who'd been to Uni and got a degree and becoming a partner in a chartered practice (the majority) was virtually impossible. Thank heavens things have changed now and I believe that somewhere over the past 2/3 decades the Institute has changed its admission rules so that a degree is no longer an admission requirement. We're seeing a lot more "mixed" accountancy practices these days and lots of practices that comprise only certified accountants.