If you could afford to how many years of education would you fund for your children

[Bellsjames]

I have 3 children all are young adults. We are in position where we have the ability to fund our children’s education, I know many are not able to so I appreciate this question is niche.

Of our children, 1 has done a 4 year course here in the UK, we have funded everything for this so no student debt at all including the fees for the course itself. She is soon starting a 3 year course (postgrad level).
1 has done a 3 year course, same all fees and costs covered.
1 is in their last year of uni and planning to do a masters so another year.

So far we have/have agreed to pay all fees associated with studying, including fees, rent, bills and an allowance for personal spending. All of them have picked up work on the long summers, sometimes adhoc things like tutoring or giving music lessons, others more consistent like hospitality.

It came up in conversation with a relative today and she was shocked that we agreed to fund anything past undergrad even if we could afford to. She was also shocked that we don’t plan to even it out between the kids who will do 3/4 years vs the one who will do 7 in terms of spending as I view it we will fund all education be it 3 years or 7 but it’s up to them how long they stay in education.

If you could how much would you fund? Do you think we are being unreasonable in our approach?

We’ve saved (and grandparents have contributed) to give each of ours a lump sum at 18, which they can either use to pay for university or training or save as a house deposit. We will also top up the difference between minimum and maximum student maintenance loan to the tune of about £6k a year. At the moment DS1 is applying to do medicine and wants to intercalate so 6 years, DS2 I think it’s unlikely he will go, DD much younger so not sure. We think that’s the fairest way to give them each a leg up when it looks like they will take very different paths.

I wouldn’t pay Uni fees, it’s a debt they are unlikely to pay back, I’d rather give them money towards a house.
We paid accommodation, phone and maintained their car, if they needed more they worked for it, and that was up to the end of masters.

If you were theoretically in a position where you were also able to give them all a healthy house deposit (or even enough to buy a house outside of the south east) would that change your mind?

In this hypothetical are we also affording house deposits? If not both, then I’d be priotising house deposits for my kids and helping out with uni where I could e.g their food shops.

It’s 40yrs now to repay. Surely they are planning to earn more than the minimum? The interest rate is high and it’s a big tie around their neck for potentially their whole working life’s. Many do pay it back, surely that’s they go to uni so they become higher earners.

I couldn't afford to so I guess I'm not really in a place to answer but I think I would only do it if it was genuinely going to help progress their chosen career. I wouldn't personally fund education if they just wanted to do it to delay starting work.

Realistically you need to earn £120k + to make a dent in it. I’m on £50k in my late twenties (which I think is fairly decent although I do hope it’ll go up!) and as per my previous post my loan has increased by £7k despite paying it off every single month since I graduated my masters.

I would do one study per child beginning to end, regardless of amount of years. So bachelor's + master's in math, or everything to become a vet, or whatever.
PhD is training for a profession and I would not pay for that. At that point it's merit-based.

I would probably fund one year of delay in total, assuming I see genuine effort.

we can’t pay for everything, we have a pot of money for the kids and I think it’s best paid for things that aren’t funded by the Gov - like a deposit, driving lessons maybe even a bit towards a wedding or a car if needed - if we have cash leftover and it looks like our kids are in a job where they’ll earn enough to make paying it off worthwhile, we’ll pay it off then.

No because there are things we want to have like amazing holidays, theatre, meals out etc and as we move towards old age - help around the house and a lovely residential house with all the care we need. We are not expecting our kids to look after us - our excessive savings will be relied on for our care. And when asked which they’d prefer - our dcs would rather our money was spent on old age care too. We’ve provided them with a good start to life, time for them to work hard and create the lifestyle they require.

I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to fund education indefinitely and unconditionally. It means that the DC isn’t really having to appraise the opportunity fully and is likely to be tempted by the easier option - so many people doing masters and unfunded PhDs which nobody cares about and which probably won’t massively enhance career or earnings prospects. There’s also an opportunity cost to them of staying in education for a very long time in terms of lost years of earnings and potentially missing out on natural entry points for grad jobs, many of which are mainly targeting recent undergraduates.

My inclination would be that unless there’s clear evidence that further study will improve employability, you’re best off getting a grad job after undergraduate and building your CV a bit and then doing more study later if you’re so inclined.

So basically no I wouldn’t fund all the education they wanted to do if I felt that by doing so I was enabling them to make poor or avoidant choices.

In the hypothetical situation I could afford it, I'd give my son a choice over funding his degree or a house deposit or lump sums in his pension or business start up capital (if sensible)

This is because my other son will not be doing a degree due to sen. If I had money I would be helping him in someway. I dont think its fair that one son has to do a degree to get support and the other would either not get support as he couldn't do a degree or just be supported for who he is (which is not a nice message for degree potential son)

Totally agree!

I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to fund education indefinitely and unconditionally. It means that the DC isn’t really having to appraise the opportunity fully and is likely to be tempted by the easier option - so many people doing masters and unfunded PhDs which nobody cares about and which probably won’t massively enhance career or earnings prospects.

Totally agree but it sounds like the OP is in a country where postgraduate degrees are more necessary to get into some careers. So it might be different for her.

In the UK, many postgraduate degrees are just very expensive ways to avoid getting a job so I would want to keep an open mind and not promise my kids indefinite funding for all education because yay education.

But if they wanted to do a specific post-grad degree that was worthwhile, that might be different

All of it OP. about to fund a four year undergrad course fully for DD in the US and will fund whatever DS needs as he gets to higher Ed.

Though uni is uncertain for him and we might put the same amount into a flat for him to live in (ASD).

If I have the money, my children can have as much as they need.

Thank you for sharing this but it's really quite depressing to hear, I don't know how the Gov ever got away with coming up with a scheme like that - it really is quite shocking.

I funded school from 11 to 18 then all uni costs.Luckily my sons work paid for his masters.

I wouldn't self fund a PhD, if it can't get funding, then it isn't a valuable area of research.

If it's standard professional development, your DS should get a job for a few years at the lower level and his company would likely fund it. He'd be better off then than if you were paying to get him a bit of a leg up.

A funded PhD stipend will be about £22k tax free, and PhD students can make about £25ph tutoring, so they don't need your support.

I wouldn't feel the need to even it up, but I would think carefully about boundaries and apply them equally.

I came on here to say most of this. I would fund a masters - I guess any degree could be 'pointless' if the DC is not that motivated or taking it seriously, but there are many professions (e.g. civil service) where doing a masters in an unrelated subject can give you an edge over other candidates because you have more developed critical thinking and communication skills and generally broader cultural capital. Many friends from my humanities masters and PhD programmes who left academia went on to get competitive graduate jobs (fast stream, accountancy grad schemes with top firms) that you don't technically 'need' postgrad for but it turned out most of their cohort had it. So I don't expect an obvious 'return' on my 'investment' in further study.

But I wouldn't fund a PhD, at least in the UK - so many candidates want to do it so they can pursue an academic career and it's really really hard to get into. We're meant to try and recruit PhD students, but I never encourage candidates to self-fund (or get their parents to pay) as even the ones who get full scholarships struggle to make a career out of it, and those ones are already at an advantage as they can demonstrate that they can win funding bids. I also always make sure my students have an alternative career plan and are happy going into it knowing that they may not get an academic job at the end.

It's tricky for OP re 'making it fair' because if she's funded a totally sensible 3-year vocational doctorate for DC1, she can't then refuse if DC2 wants to do a PhD and try for an academic career which may be unrealistic.

I know this is not the point of the thread, and not having a go at anyone as we all want the best for our kids, but it is so sad that the UK has become so divided. Those with parental support being able to buy education, stay in education longer, and not enter their working lives with huge debts. What a shit show this country has become.

Anyway, to answer the question, I would support Under Grad degree or similar but would expect them to get a part-time job to contribute towards their living expenses.

Interesting you think the Civil Service values unrelated masters - my friend's ds had an unrelated phd and they told him he'd get no special allowances for it.

I would fund undergraduate BSc/BEng/MEng in full and possibly a masters but only if it was a clear continuation such as an industry-specific MSc/MEng. I don't think that a PhD that is not fully funded is worth doing. I don't think an MBA is ever worth doing (based on the fact that everyone I know who has one is a dickhead).

We're far off that stage of our lives but if we could afford it we'd do what you are doing. We wouldn't try to even it out by giving the other kids extra money to make up for extra years of funding - by "only" studying four years they will be making their own money three years earlier so they won't be any worse off.

Dd is doing a 5 year degree spread out with two years of placement in industry. So 7 years total but 5 years of fees, accommodation. This is how long it takes to qualify so it was all or nothing for us we felt. No point in only funding three years.

Do you really think it’s “spiteful” to want to teach your child that they have to take some responsibility for their choices and understand that life costs money? I’m not criticising, this just worries me. I’m in a position to fund, but am worried my child is growing up thinking that this is what they are entitled to without truly understanding the cost. So I’m trying to find a balance.