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

[PotteringAboutIn]

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

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

I went to uni late 80s and yes it was way cheaper. However you are using the term boomer in a hostile way about your elderly mum, which seems unkind. Just say sure mum and move on.

One thing that is not comparable from when I was at Uni in the 90s and looking at what my DC is checking out - accommodation.

I shared a room - no option for first years, there were 2 showers between 22 of us and 3 toilets - we shared a wardrobe per room all for 45 pw on my floor. Kitchen was 5 stoves for 100 and one TV room.

My son for his 180pw gets a single room with ensuite, a kitchen for 8 of them and living room for the 8 of them and a spare room to book guests into. There is an on site gym and a canteen if he wants to buy food. Sheets provided and laundered and rooms cleaned once every 2 weeks.

There is basic and basic!! There is no way, the current generation would live in the conditions we were given. They expect alot and for that you have to pay more.

Oh and I paid fees am sick of the current generation saying fees are exclusive to them fees started in the 1990s that was 30 yrs ago - I paid them in the 1990s and my starting salary was 13k

Another Boomer bashing thread. Which is why its now an insult. Is your mum even a boomer?

My Mum doesn't get it either.

She went in the late 70's - free tuition - and grant to pay all her living expenses. She said she had more money in the back after her 3 year course than she did at the beginning, and didn't work at all. Imagine that now?!

I try to avoid talking to her about it.

Working in a pub was difficult. Sexual harassment was everyday. I used to put trainers on after I'd finish my shift and run the quarter mile home, switching between three routes in order to escape the men who would follow me. My boss thought it was funny. 🙄

Yep, also you need to work and do the degree at the same time, and generally you can't choose which uni you go to as you employer does that for degree apprenticeships.

My daughter is heading to Durham this september after a gap year. I must admit that I was skeptical at first due to the cost and debt however the job market is dire at the moment and those roles where "get your foot in the door" are in such great demand that school leavers don't have a chance. Additionally she's left school with great grades and although there are level 2 apprenticeships there not what she wants to do. I have just gone through a period of unemployment due to redundancy, I must admit I have had sleepless night over uni. Thankfully I have restarted work and have my payout to help her out but it was scary for a while.

Anyway, I'm excited for her now and hoping she loves the experience.

I feel like the answer me (annoyingly) is it depends. If they want a career that has no path in without a degree and/or a specific interest in something likely to lead to very high earnings then probably it is worth it. If they have no clue what they want long term then something else might work out better for them.

Currently for new loans being taken out the fees act as additional tax of 9% on anything over £25k. If you finished uni with £48k of student loan debt after a 3 year course (which is about average) and unless you have high earnings you’ll pay that extra 9% on pay rises for the majority of your working life.

For my two if there is another route like an Apprenticeship they are excited about that leads to decent career prospects or options to get into a traditional career like finance via AAT/ATT vs a degree I’d absolutely encourage them to seriously consider it. Lots of our apprentices at work have ultimately done finance qualifications plus modules at uni to make up a business degree and gained work experience alongside and by 22/23 when they finish they are often more employable than typical graduates due to their proven ability to work and manage the balance of that/study & they have zero debt and sometimes even a decent chunk of savings

Absolutely nothing to do with being a boomer. Some of us are good at maths, have functioning memory and still live in the real world today.

Hubs went to uni 1991 - we were married. At that time, only 15% of the population went. Tuition fees were covered, but maintenance 'grants' had already been converted to student loans. I earned £200pw and our rent was £34 pw. He didn't get a dependent's grant for the kids. There were no loans for Masters or PhDs. He worked alongside doing both of these. It was hard. I worked Monday-Friday and he worked Saturday and Sunday. He got paid something like £2.50ph ...

So if we calculate that out, £40 pw for accommodation would mean someone would have to work 16 hours to cover that. £180 pw for accommodation would mean someone would have to work 14 hours (min wage) to cover that. It's cheaper.

The problem seems to lie in the 'graduate tax' for the 35% of people who would never have got into uni in the 1990s.

Well only September 1998 onward. That was the very first year for fees. No one who paid fees didn’t do part of their degree in the 00s

My DM is an inflation denier. I've tried explaining but she almost refuses to understand. Seems to think that by empathising with the current generation it eradicates any struggle she may have had. I can fully understand it wasn't easy for her, but financially it's now incomparable.

It’s kind of important to note that for “boomers” the vast majority had no option to go to uni at all. So while it may be difficult to put your kids through, two or three generations ago it may well have literally been impossible.

By almost any measure lives are better now than 50 years ago. Women’s rights, gay rights, racism etc still need work but aren’t in the same league as they used to be. We spend a smaller proportion of money on food than almost any time in history. Crime is lower, deaths from accidents (eg fire, cars) are all lower.

Housing and childcare are super expensive. But 50 years ago women didn’t count properly towards a mortgage application, many couldn’t work at all after kids. Leaving an abusive husband meant you were a terrible mother for breaking up a family.

‘Boomers’ had it easy? Nah, it’s much better to be around now.

Student maintenance loans were introduced in the UK in 1990 through the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990

I don’t object to the term Baby Boomers, as a description of those of us born between 1946-1964. I’m an early BB, born 1946. Anyone in their 80s is part of the Silent Generation. Just saying. I do however object to the thinking that we’re all living in the past with no concept of how things have changed during our lifetime.

Our son went to University, graduated early 90s. He got a grant, he had his holiday jobs, and a bit from us. Now we have a granddaughter at university, there is no comparison. DS lived in shared houses, they were pretty grim compared to the custom built student accommodation that has sprung up all over. Her parents are high earners, so she wouldn’t have qualified for a grant back in the day, but it’s a vastly different expense nowadays, as there are tuition fees as well as living expenses.

Costs now are partly a reflection of how living standards and expectations have increased generally. Younger generations would be horrified at some of our living standards in the not too distant past.

But you don't have to go. As always, it is a choice.
If you don't think it will lead to a good job, learn a trade. Become a plumbers mate and do an OU business degree at a later date. Take a CIM course in marketing from home, get a marketing assistant role, build up some experience and then take a degree if you think you need it.

£30 per week plus bills for a room in a shared house in 1995

But that’s different to fees. No one paid tuition fees until 1998 and then it was only about 1000 per year. The maintenance loans were to cover some of your living costs

This thread has reminded me about a woman on Instagram. Sadly I can't find her so don't have a link.

When the students leave her city at the end of the year they stuff tons of reusable things into and around their bins - I mean stuff like toasters, whole decorated fake Christmas trees, pots, pans, kettles, loads of tins of unopened food, clothes with tags on, camping kit - literally tons of useful stuff.

She's got a team together and they gather it all up and do a Free To Collector. People take away boxes and boxes of food and other usable items.

There's a message here.

When T Blair wanted everyone to go to uni the world was booming - computing, internet really taking off, oil industry booming, still manufacturing in the U.K. - it was a good idea then - sadly no changes were made in the following decades - and by then unis just wanted bums on seats having expanded so much. Lack of forward planning.

So because there were no nurseries, nursery vouchers or preschool provision, and school didn't start till the September after your (youngest) child turned 5, you think it was somehow cheaper for your mum.
Why do you pay for nursery? Is it so you can earn an income or perhaps even progress your career?
Astonishing!

It's specifically that being born as part of a baby boom meant that you were young at the same time a very large proportion of the population was young, middle aged at the same time a large proportion of the population was middle aged, retiring at the same time a large population of the population was retired etc. It has been used in a disparaging way at times but the word exists because it describes a phenomenon

For example the fact that there was a population bulge meant that there was an economic benefit as the baby boomers entered working ages and this lasted for decades. As a much larger proportion of the population were working and paying taxes than was normal. This had consequences. As that same bulge of people entered retirement this also had consequences as it meant that a disproportionate number of people are now not working. It doesn't make anyone bad or entitled.

The point about some boomers being teenagers in the sixties is that culture/counterculture became very youth orientated. This continued into the seventies as the younger boomers who were born in the sixties themselves became teenagers. There were youth driven movements in every decade. However, commercially the youth became a much bigger market than before and drove culture more than before. This is a known phenomenon that has been written about loads. The band's from that era are still some of the biggest selling because their young fans continued to buy records into middle age and into retirement. That, plus the weird effect of the internet on culture, means the tastes of the sixties and seventies still feels more vivid than the tastes of teenagers today.

There was also a political effect in that a large proportion of the population being young adults in say the seventies impacted politics, as does the fact that a large proportion of the population being older now. If you want, look up the ages of American presidents/presidential candidates over the last 50 years. The birth dates have remained almost the same.

My last set of digs in 1985 was a bedsit in the attic of a victorian house in West Norwood. Up among the eaves, single bed, no heating, no insulation, single glazing.

The "kitchen' comprised of a sink, a Baby Belling, an electric water heater on the wall and an ancient fridge. The meter took 50ps.

Shared bathroom (no shower) with the bedsit next door. He was a plumber who peed on the carpet. First thing I did when I moved in was wash the carpet in the bath, unjam the window to create some ventilation and scrub the entire room, floor to ceiling with Vim and then Dettol. 🤑

Life was not easy, no matter what people think.

I'm a late boomer. I don't think the term is terribly useful, because being at the end of a large family my upbringing and experiences were so very different to that of my eldest sister who is 16 years older than me. Yet she is also labelled a 'boomer'. Being brought up in the late 40s and early 50s was nothing like the mid 60s.
Our parents were apparently from the 'greatest generation'.
I did go to uni, paid for by the state. I'm paying for my children's uni fees (anything they can't cover through working). The one thing ingrained into me as a child was to live within your means and avoid debt. I wouldn't have gone to uni if it meant coming out with an enormous debt and I wouldn't wish that on my children.

So I think 'boomer' is a useless term. Anyone who assumes that all people born between 1946 and 1964 had the same upbringing and all have the same homogenised attitudes, is a narrow minded idiot.