AIBU to wonder why the UK doesn't have a culture of saving for kids' University?

[windygallows]

I'm originally from North America where 'saving for College/University' is a big part of the culture, in fact it's quite normal for parents to take a college fund out just after baby is born. And understandably - University is really expensive in the US eg (tuition + living expenses of $30,000 pa).

I've had both my children in the UK (have lived here for 20 years) and do my best to put a bit of money into a college fund every month, even if its a stretch. When I mentioned this to a few friends they looked at me with amusement and asked 'why?' I've casually asked around if others are saving for college - some have put money aside but haven't specifically said it's for higher education. I haven't pried, just asked a few people so don't have a full picture.

However I'm finding it surprising that this isn't more of a concern for parents. In the UK University isn't 'free' anymore (eg. through grants), tuition is very pricey now, grants are rarely available, and student loans are shrinking. But it just seems like this hasn't been absorbed by many parents. Or maybe it has and I just don't know!

Before flaming me - I'm aware not everyone can afford to put money/savings away and I'm also aware that not everyone can or wants to go to University, so no need to debate that. I'm just questioning the seeming obliviousness to the dramatic change in the cost of University here.

AIBU?

Girlgonewild I don't bring up my daughters to keep house. Surely there is a large swathe of the population between ladies who lunch to city high fliers?

I work full time but I am not a high flyer. I have a PhD and in a professional and managerial post. But I don't earn anywhere near £100k. Most people don't. In fact, I'm one of the rare mums at school that work full time. Most of the other mums are either SAH or work part time. They are mostly highly educated women. Two of the SAHMs have PhDs. One even from Oxford. I'm just presenting the fact that most women work in lower paid jobs. (Charity sector, public sector, etc). Works part time after children. This all contributes to them most likely not paying anywhere near the cost of education.

And the NHS doctor mums I know all work part time too.

Sorry not had time to read the whole thread. I've just been reading on the Martin Lewis website that actually the current student loan system is a better way of paying for Uni fees than saving cash upfront...good news for anyone panicking as they can't afford to save a lot
www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/should-i-get-student-loan

Martin Lewis has no control over the interest charged on student loans and it's compound interest from day 1. It's like writing a blank cheque. Knowing that you will never earn enough to be debt free before old age seems bloody sad to me.

I have explained this to my youngest two but they decided to go to university anyway. They are doing sciences but have no real ideas what they want to do. We will help with some living costs, but in the end the debt is theirs.

We are busy saving for our two boys in cash ISAs which we cannot touch ever and they cannot touch until they are 18. What they do with the money then is up to them but I would prefer they kept it and spent it on a house deposit when the time comes rather than university fees.

I won't be encouraging my boys to go to university unless they are really smart and doing something like medicine/dentistry/law. I don't think uni is what it once was, it means nothing now to have a degree now

good question. I think it's because we've just never thought about it, genuinely. The generation above me used to get their education for free. For my generation and lower part of the uni tradition is getting your loan/ grants sorted, and then finding a job in a pub/ shop.

American style 'college funds' would be a great idea though, for those who could afford it.

I am hoping at least one of my DCs is going to be a bathroom fitter/builder/brickie.

My DH's brother started off as a brickie and now he owns his own building company. He's earns more than DH and I put together. We are both professionals, both graduates. Numerous examples of that, so I think it would be sensible for more young people to go into the trades.

The flipside is that I used to be a lecturer and many of my students shouldn't have been there. They had clearly felt obligated to go to uni.

nagynolonger it doesn't matter what the interest charged or the loan amount. Your repayment is tied to your income. You pay the same how ever large the loan is. The point of the article by Martin Lewis is that the difference in loan size and interest only matters if you are a very high earner. In his model, at that point when he did the calculation, it's earning £35k on graduation and increasing 4% every year.

You won't earn high in sciences. You will be one of the low earners. Your only hope to be a high flyer in his model is city banker, city lawyer, medicine, etc.

a lot of people live on minimum wage struggling with every day things which might be why some parents don't save for university.

also i agree with trades, my husband is a window fitter in a really small town and earns more than two or theee teachers put together.

HeadDreamer If your bank offered you a loan on those terms, would you take it? When the interest compounds, and can change up or down yearly (it was 5.5% at one point) and the lender can sell the loan on, or change the Ts&Cs at any time? I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

If the loans were on a normal basis, you borrow x, y is the interest added, and z is how much you repay per month, and the loan term is fixed, then fine, but that is not what is being sold.

I've seen HMG change the goalposts on pensions etc in the last 30 years twice at least, and there is nothing to suggest that this won't happen with student loans. As we can afford to do it, we are funding university in full, thus ds won't get hit later, and it avoids IHT as well.

I save for my son but tbh I've assumed that it will be a deposit for a house rather than a university fund. But I guess in reality it's his to do whatever he wants with it when he turns 18.

Headd, most of my children will be in that category. the girls certainly were - trainee lawyers paid £40k etc etc so that is one reason I funded the loans; second reason my parents' view was they paid for our private education and university and then up to us and I wanted my children on the same basis - education paid for; third, that I can afford to pay it out of current income as it's the same as day school fees.

I agree with you that a lot of well educated women choose low paid work or to go part time because they prefer to be at home so if you are in a family where women don't earn much then it is pointless to pay fees for daughters but instead pay for sons. Of course I detest the sexism of that and it certainly does not happen in this family of high earning feminists who pick high paid work.

as a large percentage of students will never pay the loan back, it is generally advised that if you have that kind of money spare, it would better be spent on a deposit for a house, rather than pay up front for something they may have never had to pay back.
I know a few families who have purchased a house that their child can use while at uni, and then sublet rooms to other students to cover the mortgage, that to me seems a better investment.

3 of my eldest DC have gone to uni and frankly the debt is theirs because they've accrued it and they (hopefully) will benefit from it in a higher wage paying career. Here the Government "loan" them the money so it costs nothing to them upfront. A few of their friends who've had the Bank of Mum n Dad paying have wasted an awful amount of money on superficial things, still run up student loans and so no better off. Frankly if I had money to spare I'd ring fence it for a future lump sum for a mortgage at 25+

pam, had an agreement with the older children that I funded them at university provided they took on no debt however and that worked.

I have been able to help them with house deposit as well so they are lucky they have a mother who works full time I suppose.

Also I know some rich parents who told the child to take the loan and stick it in an ISA for 3 years but even then you get trapped in the complex loan system, SLC mistakes, repayiment problems, errors - it's a nightmare and if you can keep out of it so much the better.

Girlgonewild, you do realise that it's not merely choice that propels you into a high paid career?

You say

and it certainly does not happen in this family of high earning feminists who pick high paid work.

Like it's that simple to just say "oh yes I'll take that high paid job please".

My parents both worked full time. They couldn't afford to pay me through uni. There's nothing "lucky" about having a mother who works full time. That's just normal.

third, that I can afford to pay it out of current income as it's the same as day school fees.

I think that is another reason why there isn't a 'saving for college' tradition in the UK.

I think that for many parents who have been used to paying school fees, it is just another 3 years of school fees.

(And obviously paying university fees is so recent that 'saving for college' hasn't had a chance to become a tradition).

It is not simple to get a high paid job. I did not mean to imply that. However it is something teenagers should consider when they make career choices so they make informed choices.

so if you are in a family where women don't earn much then it is pointless to pay fees for daughters but instead pay for sons.

Hang on, how can you tell whether the actual girls whose university fees are being paid/not paid are going to work in well-paid jobs or not? Surely 'a family where the women don't earn much' is based upon a dubious generalisation about the previous generation, not the current students?

I also don't think for a moment that the majority of women who trained for a professional job and work part-time or stay at home do so because they 'prefer to stay at home' unproblematically. To think that is to discount the expectation that women take on the bulk of childcare, workplaces suspicious of the commitment of working mothers, the high cost of childcare and a contention I see all the time on Mn - that childcare costs come out of mothers' salaries making it uneconnomic for them to work.

Uneconomic. Duh.

Educating women is never a waste of money. If they are staying home that education is used to raise the next generation and so it is not wasted at all.

I'm a working parent and can't believe anyone would have an issue with a parent who decides to stay home to raise their DC.