To think a degree is not wasted if you're a SAHM

[Ouluckyduck]

as stated today by Sarah Vine in the Times. I learnt many things and it made me the person I am today. It may influence how I raise my children or how I am as, eg, a school governor. When I was a uni I certainly didn't know that I would end up being a SAHM with an SN child. Girls should be encouraged, imo, to aim high, but also to make the life choices they want to make without being made to feel guilty about it.

I met my dh at uni, glad I went :)

That among other reasons!

Spuddybean: I find it very sad when working recruiting in unis now and students tell me they chose subjects because they pay well. Or ask what pays best architect or doctor? I'm not saying everyone should be as naive, stupid, arrogant ideological as i was, but surely there should be passion for a subject and a desire for knowledge just for the joy of it.

I agree, but only up to a point. The fact is, it costs a bloody lot of money these days to get a degree in the UK, a figure that only seems to be on the rise. To pursue a subject merely for the joy could be seen by many as quite flighty, given the debt that many many students will be riddled with after graduation, particularly if that subject doesn't particularly lead directly into an obvious career field.

When I went to university way back in the day I chose my subject (Italian Studies) because I was good at languages and 'fancied' studying a new one. With hindsight, although I loved loved LOVED my year abroad, loved the language, loved learning it, (coming close to) 20 years later, it isn't actually a skill that I've put to much use.
Thankfully, I graduated with no debt at all. Not something that many students these days have the luxury of doing. If on top of a debt, you've got a degree in something you cannot necessarily apply directly to a job, I wouldn't knock anyone for asking which subjects/degrees pay well - au contraire - I'd applaud their foresight and early planning.

My DH and I both went to university as mature students. DH's degree isn't necessary to his job, although it's obvious that the skills and confidence he gained have helped him to progress faster through the organisation.

I used my degree to train as a teacher.

Our children are clearly benefiting from our educations. Not financially in the slightest because we are renting and currently fucked over by the system and worse off than my parents have ever been, however, I can see that they are both having hugely different life/educational experiences to both my husband and myself.

I did my degree for the sake of self fulfilment, interest in the subject and enjoyment. As Penny says, I think that future students will be far more focused on what the financial rather than personal return on their degree will be.

A degree is certainly not wasted if you became a SAHM.

I can only speak for myself. Mine is wasted in terms of being useful to get a better job than I would get without one. This seems to be the reason many people want to do a degree, and is the one "they" always bang on about when they try and push for everyone to go to uni regardless of if they are actually academically suited/want to/can afford to or not.
It's not wasted in terms of the learning and time I spent studying, that was enriching and I don't regret it for that, but as for the actual "earning power" or any improvement in my life because of it, there hasn't been any, and it's fairly likely there never will be.
Whether I was at work or a SAHM, the same applied, that's about the one thing that has nothing to do with it. The odd thing is, it's not a "useless" degree in Klingon Grammar or Surf Studies, but degree and a masters in science and environmental subjects. It just never made any difference. Maybe I'm just intrinsically unemployable

It depends what you view as the point of getting a degree, I see it as knowledge is always intrinsically good just for it's own sake, but the current set up in England makes it pretty clear that it's supposed to be an investment (financially as well) in your career - which means you could make a case for it being wasted

I would have thought parents who are better educated, know which school they want their children to go to, move into that area, the houses prices are higher so it keeps the poorer people in the area with the schools not doing so well.

That school has higher expectations of the children and the grades and behavior are better. So the children do better.

I'm sure teachers must take some credit for children's education.

To be fair Amothersplace, Vine has written quite convincingly about how it's a good thing to have a more ordinary looking woman doing a beauty column instead of a stunner who clearly doesn't need make up anyway. I mean, Nigella Lawson used to do Vine's job a few years ago. Making her look gorgeous can't be much of a challenge. Nor Hannah Betts or Hannah Pool.

I don't feel I am a better mum than the mum next door because I have a PhD.

But I do feel that doing that PhD (in a subject far removed from childrearing) helped to develop qualities in me that have also been beneficial for my childrearing: in other words, I am a better mum than I might otherwise have been. This has nothing to do with the fact that some other mum who left school at 16 may be a better mum still. My children have only got me, so I have to be grateful for anything that has helped me to develop, never mind what has been good for other people.

Although it was a long time before I could see any signs of increased earning power, I also found that my education provided the kind of enrichment that made the early years of poverty easier to bear: talking is cheap and dh and I found we had more to talk about the more we had read.

Sometimes I do feel like my degree was wasted, as in it was a waste of money paying for it as I have never worked (had 3 dcs one after the other straight after graduating) but I do still have the knowledge and experience I got from it, so am glad I did it. I may have wasted my time more if I did something career orientated that I wouldnt have enjoyed but I studied something I love and atleast I will be able to help my dcs in that subject later.
I don't think its anyone else's business to say whether it was wasted or not, apart from the person who's degree it is.
That is really bad the comment in the delivery room, what a cheek!

Being a SAHM is not a permament state. Virtually all women eventually return to the workplace eventually.

Very few people DIRECTLY use their degrees. A degree shows that you are capable of a certain level of thinking and that you are good learner. It helps you if you choose to retrain later on.

I thought that whole article was ludicrous. This idea that the state should pay for childcare is ludicrously entitled. Why? I can see an argument for childcare being tax deductible as a legitimate expense to enable one to work, as that makes a realistic equation. Is the money earned from work enough to afford childcare. If someone cannot earn enough to pay for childcare, especially if tax deductible, the obvious solution is to care for one's own children. And, if there are two parents, they can both work out the long term benefits and drawbacks, and make a decision as a family. Her example of the nordic countries is poor, too, as they are cutting a lot of state expenditure now, as their model (good as it looks) is unaffordable going forwards.

And I agree with really tired. With the exception of academics, engineers, scientists and doctors, I can think of very few people who directly use their degrees.

A degree is never a waste but as a SAHM you are not using those particular skills

The less attention-grabbing but more accurate title would be

"What's the point in a law degree if you then have no choice but to stay at home doing finger-painting because childcare is so shit and society is not set up to make things easy for working mothers?"

It's less snappy, I'll admit, but that's what the article is about. It's about Denmark having sensible amounts of high-quality state-funded childcare and less of stigma about putting your children in that childcare, so that women who would like to work can do so.

What is the point of women having a law degree if they give it all up for finger-painting?

For those of us mourning the end of season one of the Danish political drama Borgen, Monday?s interview in The Times with the real first female Statsminister of Denmark, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, felt almost nostalgic.

Among other things, she explained why women have so much more influence in public life in her country than in Britain (40 per cent of Denmark?s MPs are female, compared with Britain?s 22 per cent): well-run, state-subsidised childcare. ?You need childcare that is high quality with well-educated staff to look after the most precious thing you have,? she told Janice Turner.

Thorning-Schmidt has two daughters, aged 14 and 12, both of whom went to daycare from the age of 1. ?All my friends, everyone I know, they send their child to childcare; always the State, community-organised local.? And no one feels guilty: it?s normal for women to pay other women to look after their children during the day so that they can get on with their careers. After all, she adds: ?It seems a waste for society to give a woman a degree in a fancy university and she then spends her time looking after the children.?

Many will bristle at the implication here, which is that looking after children is not as rewarding as having a career. But that?s not what she means. What she means is that women should be able to do both.

Part of the reason so many British women feel they have to choose between a career and children is because that vital bridge between the two ? that is, good, reliable, affordable childcare ? is sorely lacking. Successive governments have shied away from the idea of state-funded nurseries, preferring to allow a patchy private sector to provide care that can be substandard, expensive, or both.

It?s a problem that is only likely to get worse. In the current economic climate it would be politically impossible for a government, especially a right of centre one, to suddenly announce that they were going to find a way of helping families pay for their child or children?s nannies. Can you imagine the outrage? Tax breaks for Mary Poppins. Whatever next, subsidised butlers?

This inherent misunderstanding, not to mention simplification, of the issue is a big part of the problem. For working mothers, a nanny is not a luxury but a necessity. And yet many people persist in associating childcare with the rich, the idle and the upper-classes.

Nannies, childminders and au pairs are for silly, lazy women who are either too idle or too grand to look after their own children and who would rather spend their time playing bridge or having their hair done. Those women exist, of course (lucky cows), but they are not the majority.
Thorning-Schmidt is so right.

What exactly is the point of having a law degree if you?re going to give it all up for finger painting? In Britain, where girls do so well at school, university and beyond, we still have some very odd attitudes towards what they tend to grow up to be, ie, working mothers.

As a culturally progressive nation, of course, we?re officially all in favour of them. But until we make it practically possible for more women to balance work and family, we?ll always be decades behind our Nordic sisters.

Trills,

A lawyer can afford good childcare in the UK, easily. They have the choice. It is not a "free" choice, but that is a good thing. Choices should have consequences.

Have you looked at tax levels in Denmark? I don't see many successful women relocating there for the childcare. In fact, you will find a lot of successful Danish women in the bars and restaurants of central London, here for the lower tax rates.

Karmabeliever Sarah Vine's article mentions that in Denmark there is state-subsidised childcare as the very first point.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm letting you know what the actual article is about so that you can discuss that rather than discussing one line, probably written by subs rather than by the author of the actual piece, which has clearly been written as a "hook" to get you in.

Missed that. Sorry

Hang on, I think we were referring to different articles. I read the one that MollieO linked to in the Evening Standard, not the Times article.

Oh, OK. Well the thread was originally about the Times article. Which I was probably not supposed to c&p here.

They seem to be based on the same information/evidence but take slightly different approaches to it.

I agree women and girls should have choice education isnt a waste its enriching and having a degree (I havent got one ) is an achievement ,and being a sahm isnt a waste of time imo degree or no degree ,

My experience of Denmark was of a huge expectation for women to return to work, when their baby is very young, because the state has provided excellent and affordable childcare. That's great if it's what you genuinely want to do, but not so great if you would prefer to be a sahp. It seems to be looked down on - as if it is not a proper use of your time. I find that a bit sad - choice is fantastic, but it seems that doesn't really exist in Danish society, because of the pressure to return to work.

What is nice though, is the expectation that fathers are 50% responsible for their own dc - none of that 'babysitting' their own children bollocks, that we seem to get here.