Financial support for kids at uni

[salmonandchips]

What's fair when you have two kids at uni but one has bursaries / grants / lower cost living accommodation than the other? Meaning that before parental support, one child is thousands of pounds per year better off?

Give them both the same amount and let them get on with it? The "disadvantaged" one will just have to work more hours in their part time job / and or get an overdraft.

Or try and even it up some how, meaning that one child might get more financial support from parents than the other?

The one that gets a nursery if it's a nhs course.. Then it's for things like travel to placement. It's so much more expensive to do that type if course and the terms are longer.

I think if you cover the rent completely for both that would be equal.

Its hard to be truly fair.

Irrespective of which child belongs to which parent (which TBH I think is an issue here), it is hard to make a rule about uni costs.

What if one child is at Imperial College London and the other at Bangor University? The living costs are so different.

What if one child studies medicine or architecture (long courses, extra years)?

What if one ends up at a local uni and lives at home, or doesn't go at all?

If you have two or more DC how do you decide what to give the first one, when you don't know what DC2 and any additional DC will want to do?

What if you have a 'rule of thumb' and then all DC decide to go to really expensive Unis because you have agreed to fund the accommodation?

I think you need to give both children the same amount of money tbh. I've seen so much resentment among siblings when one has chosen a certain path that costs the parents more.

Dss should have his accommodation paid and small bit on top. Dsd should get the same amount, if not given to her then invested for after uni.

Both children should be given the same amount of money

University is about making decisions including financial ones. I stayed at home to avoid huge loans. Neither child should be penalised for choosing their university

I think being flexible and responding when and if there is a need is sensible. You can predict how things will pan out, one scholarship isn't awarded yet and there are many factors to consider. I presume the extra your DS would get with you being a sole parent would be a loan anyway. And he may well earn more by choosing the more prestigious university. You just need to ensure they both have an OK standard of living and any extra is a bonus and potentially unfair, perhaps your DP will change he mind once they are settled and he sees the difference. Or do you have some access to money you can send if needed? It's a shame as £1.5k is not much for a higher earner, especially with an inheritance due. Perhaps your son will learn to be more resourceful and independent from having less.

Maybe it's easier when parents can't afford to pay anything except in emergencies - I just had a loan and thankfully no tuition back then, as did my sister, both equal with very little support and I still have my loan outstanding as I've been a SAHM for five years. My sister is probably the due to low income, we're early 30s. I know the debt is much greater now. I think we did benefit from the experience of scraping by and using the whole student overdraft every term and we didn't need to work.

As for general sibling finances, my sister has had far more hand outs than me because she needed it. That's fine as I/we didn't. I'd be ok with her having more in the wills too, she has no security whereas we have a home and a lot more in savings. DH's parents are the other way and gave his sister money when they gave it to help with our wedding, they gave her more for her wedding too without the same arrangement and she's massively more well off than us, but it's their choice and we are ok without it so it would be ridiculous to complain - DH has always had less as he's more independent. How would parents spilt their wills fairly if circumstances are so different eg one child having children and the other none, or one child being very wealthy and the other scraping by? You can't necessarily top them up to the same level but a little adjustment seems fairer. FIL had an issue like this, they tried to even things out and there was resentment. It's probably nicer to have poor grandparents on both sides so no arguments, just a few hundred each to a dozen siblings.

Looking at it a different way, she's chosen a not as great uni to ensure she is better off financially. If you top him up more than her then her sacrifice of going to a lesser uni was pointless, she could've had the same amount of cash going to a better university.

Also, she is working part time to supplement her income, your DS does without rather than getting a job. He should stop being so lazy and get off his arse and earn extra money!

We have both agreed that they can get part time jobs at uni.

Dp now agrees that dsd won't need to work if we give them what he wants to give, but ds will have to - just to get to survival level.

Ds spends his spare time studying.

Dsd spends her spare time out and about.

That's fine. They both get the same pocket money. That's their choice. He goes without some of the nice luxuries that dsd enjoys.

We don't expect dsd to work part time to pay for our rent though.

The way I got round a similar dilemma was I informed both kids I would cover all their accommodation and tuition fees, but they needed a loan for everyday living. That sorted out any disparity in finances due to grants etc. But left each DC responsible for how profligate they were at Uni.

Remember that having a part time job through university may well advantage your DS in the future when he is applying for jobs. So the percieved disadvantage, may benefit him in the end (especially as he sounds like he may need the financial imperative to actually bother to find a part time job)

I'm more than happy for him to work and he knows this. In fact I've been quite keen all along to ensure he HAS to work, so our contributions are minimal to fund their accommodation and basic food only.

If he didn't have a step sibling from the same home who was being told she won't have to work, then it wouldn't matter.

I think it's very entitled to expect a boyfriend (you're not married) to fund your son through uni.

It should be you or his dad paying if you can afford. If not, he chooses a different place or works alongside. He is an adult and needs to know choices have consequence.

You can't expect him to pay for your son and leave his actual own child out. She's made wiser cheaper choices so that she can practically self support whereas your son has chosen somewhere else that needs parental funding.

I guess im in a similarish situation, trying to be fair to two DC in different circumstances, they are whole siblings though. One chose prestigious uni, other chose job and has had all higher education paid for (and been paid wage as well), Higher ed in this case is not from prestigious university and not to honours degree level either. We felt it was fair to give same money to each (one with job got it in form of house deposit), but I confess it doesn't always feel entirely fair. The degree has conferred long term career advantages though - other DC is way more limited in career choice and earning power. Perhaps that would be a better solution for your dad too, if you are worried about her using the excess cash frivolously, keep it back let her use scholarship money and loans to live on and gift it later for a more serious purchase?

I find that interesting. It's like saying I'm not married to step daughters dad so I shouldn't be washing, cleaning, cooking, helping her with prom dresses, clothes shopping and giving her lifts etc. etc.

It should also be pointed out that step daughters mum has never contributed to her daughter that lives with us either financially or practically or emotionally.

We are a family unit. Financially and practically. Dp is the higher earner, but I do more practically for dsd.

I feel I am seeing our kids as equals.

I could move out and solve the financial issue tomorrow. But is that how family units should work?

You can't have a step daughter if you aren't married - it's just inaccurate English. It's your partner's child, not a step daughter. Genes are everything.The genetic parents should support their genetic children.

So why does the law say differently with regards to finance?

Didn't have time to post earlier on. I can see both arguments - yours and your dp. It's a very hard issue and sometimes there are no solutions.
It sounds like your partner wants to treat both children the same despite income from other sources. Several people have suggested putting the money aside for dsd - this sounds like an excellent idea as a compromise. Could you put the money aside in a trust or scheme to mature in x years so she didn't squander the money?
I know that your ds is in this situation both because of his choice of uni and your dp's earnings. Your dp is recognising this. Imo your dp must really care deeply for the family unit even if his opinion differs from yours.
Ignore the people saying stuff about how your dp shouldn't be expected to look after your child. Yes, in utopia his father would give him money but he clearly isn't for whatever reason and you have a decent, loving man, who is happy to take on that role.

I think it's very entitled to expect a boyfriend (you're not married) to fund your son through uni

It's the gov't's expectation rather than OP's.

Genes are everything.

Thank goodness not everybody feels that way.

it is equitable to even things up and financially fair to give equal amounts. My view would just be that effectively you want to support both children to have a set standard of living whilst away and that in this case it means one gets more than the other in terms of financial help.

My view is parents supply what is needed not what is necessarily fair

But then I have one so ...

My parents apply the same principal though and they have 6. We have all needed different things at different times but I have no idea what others have had from them nor do I want to - in my view its their money to do as they please with

DH got a scholarship through uni but PIL still gave him all the money he would have got anyway towards his fees. Then when BIL went to uni they again paid the amount expected. They didn't top up BIL's money. On graduation DH had some money saved towards a house deposit, BIL didn't. It wasn't a problem.

I think DS should get what he needs and DSD (and the other children if they go to uni) should be given the same. However she should be encouraged to save the extra money into an ISA or similar. DP could always put it straight into the ISA for her.

The issue of how much better off DS would be if you split makes it more complicated however. You are running the house but your child is losing out as you have a partner, you have no say over finances and no legal protection due to not being married. It isn't how I would want to live.

So in two years or so, when they are both in jobs, and one is earning £5k more than the other, what then? Do you still even it up?

Surely university is a time to learn about being an adult, as well as whatever subject they are studying?

Resentments do cause damage.

Ive lived at home rent free for 6 years. Bro went to university and got a hefty allowance from my DPs which allowed him to go on swanky foreign holidays, dress in designer gear, shop for his food in waitrose and live in the best part of a not cheap town.

While i get some of his expense was his rent,bills, food etc most students I know live in not so desirable areas, dont shop at waitrose, dont get swanky foreign holidays and dont have designer clothes.

I get rent food bills arent cheap. I really do. But it pissed me off that he had a nice house, shopped in a luxury supermarket and still had plenty of money to buy designer gear while I shopped for my clothes in ASDA and I have to watch every penny. They still give him handouts now despite having a very well paid job.

Give them the same. Their pay in their jobs and their hours is beyond your control. Having £500 say and giving one £50 and the other £450 isnt fair IMO.

Op, not sure if I have read your posts right? Are you seriously expecting your DS to live off £20 per week? What about food, books, bus pass etc? He may not be able to get a job immediately and depending on what course he is doing, he may need to do a lot of studying (particularly if more or less full-time contact hours). Is he not going to be able to come home and visit if he cannot afford the train fare?

Hells

All students, regardless of parental income, can borrow a bit less than £4k pa in student loan for living costs.

Yes I know that. Maybe I read Op's posts wrong but I thought she was saying that his loan would be used towards accommodation with them making up the shortfall - and then £20 a week to live off?

As long as you fund accommodation, they can each get the same loan for living costs and that is plenty. You don't need to give them extra from that and they won't need a job unless they are wanting fun holidays etc, I've found.

If you fund the accommodation you might find one is more expensive than the other but then it's unseen and has the same result - a bed to sleep in.

The scolar ship? Bursery? Well that's a bit like working isn't it, and really should be discounted. My DD has applied for money from her uni to go to conferences etc, that's up to her, she had to fill in paperwork and write an essay I think but I don't penalise her by withdrawing our support for that amount of money!