Paying back university tuition fees - what happens if DD becomes a SAHM?

[messalina]

Does anyone know the answer to this? If my DD (currently only 3!) were to go to university (and end up with large debt), would she have to pay the fees back if she gave up work and became a SAHM? Does anyone know?

I don't think anyone objects to training of teachers (in the right subject proportions), but what about the training of people in sports studies, or media?

It should be either the individual or the future professions that fund these students, not the taxpayer.

You can muddy the waters by appealing to bleeding heart liberals all you want, but this is hiding the real issues.

They can, but I don't see why the taxpayer should fund them. If their parents do so that is fine, as is having a part-time job.

Leave the housewife out of it. Red herring no. 49.

'all at the tax payer's expense'

You do realize that students already pay tuition fees and there are no longer grants don't you Claire? So, it's not at the taxpayers' expense. It's their expense. And what people choose to spend their money on is up to them sureyl?

'I don't think anyone objects to training of teachers (in the right subject proportions), but what about the training of people in sports studies, or media?'

But teachers pay for their own training!!!!

THe police don't. Why?

Who are you to make judgments about what is and is not a valuable course to study Claire? What if someone does a degree in sports studies and goes on to be a sports physiotherapist? IS that allowed? What if someone does a degree in MEdia Studies and goes on to be the next Stephen Spielberg?

You say that we should fund teacher training (which currently is not funded by tax payers) so what's wrong with doing a degree in Media Studies and then becoming a Media Studies teacher or an English teacher like a friend of mine?

Oh brother.

What is this thread about again?

'as is having a part-time job'

That would have to be quite some part-time job to be able to fund £9000 a year tuition fees for 3 years or 5 years+ for a medic and living costs at the age of 18

Hmm, you seem to be struggling to come up with a coherent argument Claire. Can you answer any of my questions or not?

The point is not to fund the cost of the degree course at the time, but to pay it back afterwards.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or do you simply not get it?

Whose point? Whether you pay it at 18 or bit by bit for 30 years you still pay it. And you still have to pay to live even if you take out loans for that.

You seem to be suggesting that it's possible for the individual or his or her parents to pay this sort of money from a part time job!!

My point of view is crystal clear.

If a student wants to have a free choice of degree courses, they should pay for it themselves. A loan means they don't have to have the money at 18. A decent job facilitated by their degree means that paying back is not a big deal.

If they study for a degree that is in the public interest, then they can get help from one place or another towards the costs.

If they study for a degree that is in demand by the private sector, then they may get a bursary or simply rely on their super duper salary.

Simple.

No - the Costa Coffee habit came from the part-time job. No suggestion of mine otherwise.

Of course, the irony is that this Govt has trebled tuition fees but won't actually get any more money partly because there'll be more people who can never pay it back.

Another wonderful nu-labour legacy that taxpayers have to fund.

'If a student wants to have a free choice of degree courses, they should pay for it themselves. A loan means they don't have to have the money at 18. A decent job facilitated by their degree means that paying back is not a big deal.'

Did you go to university yourself? I'm loving the idea that paying back thousands of debt in the current financial environemnt is no big deal.

'If they study for a degree that is in the public interest, then they can get help from one place or another towards the costs.'

But who decides what's in the public interest? Apparently the police and the army deserve their training for free (in fact they're paid to do it) but not teachers. You said you think teaching should be paid for but not Sports Science but what if you want to be a Sports Science teacher?

'If they study for a degree that is in demand by the private sector, then they may get a bursary or simply rely on their super duper salary.'

Well, that's great if the private sector can and will pay? I wonder if you read the newspapers though.

The public interest is judged by our elected representatives, of course.

I don't think it is up to you or I to decide, is it?

You are splitting hairs with your sports science nonsense.

If they want to be a teacher - then fine, if it is in short supply, they can expect the usual golden hello.

If they want to be a physio for Manchester United, then let Sir Alex contribute to the loan repayments.

Yes, I am a graduate - can't you tell?

'The public interest is judged by our elected representatives, of course.'

Our 'elected representatives' for decades have deemed that the training of the police and the armed services should be paid for by taxpayers but doctors and teachers should not. Can you not honestly not see any problem with that?

As for teachers, earlier you said that their training should be funded. Now what is your view? That it should only be funded if their subject is in short supply? Or that it shouldn't be funded at all but they can be given a golden hello to make up for the £18,000+ of debt they have incurred before devoting their whole lives to public service? Please clarify.

'You are splitting hairs with your sports science nonsense.'

But it was YOU raised sports science because you said it was a degree that you didn't think had value and should not be funded by the taxpayer.

I'm just saying that I don't know how you can make the judgement that one degree is more valuable than another. You could get relatively low grades and go straight into a BEd to become a primary teacher but get really good grades and then do Sports Science as a first degree followed by a further degree in physiotherapy. I'm not really sure how one is more or less valuable than the other.

'If they want to be a physio for Manchester United, then let Sir Alex contribute to the loan repayments.'

Yeah, right, cos that's going to happen isn't it.

You are nuts if you think that employers are going to take responsibility for funding degree courses and where the employer is the state i.e. teaching or the NHS that would be the taxpayer anyway and that also would mean that there would be huge numbers of degree courses that would no longer be studied.

As I've said huge amounts of people don't do a degree which is necessariyl an obvious way in to a career.

Some people might go from a degree in Latin into a successful career as a barrister, others might go from a degree in History into an art dealer.

I don't have a problem with Police Officers being responsible for funding their own training.

claire - if I understand you correctly basically you think of education purely as a personal luxury - presumably like going down the gym or something? and so don't feel that the state should fund it. But those such as myself who disagree with you would argue that increased educational levels in society benefit not only the educated individual but the wider society. An educated society is a civilised society - not everything we do can be quantified in cash terms - increasing the sum of human knwledge is a good in itself.

You have argued that if you extended the right to a free education beyond 19, where would it end - MAs Phds, etc etc? To put it the other way though, why end at 19 - if it is arbitrary in one direction it is just as arbitrary in another? Why fund education post 16? Or post 14? Why not send children out to work at 11? In other times and other countries any of these were thought quite normal and rational.

In most other Eurpean countries, and indeed in many parts of the UK, education is fully or almost fully funded to degree level - why should English students not be entitled to a free education when Scottish or Dutch ones are?

And why should your neighbour not fund someone else's degre - that way, when he chooses to study, he will be funded - and if he has already benefitted from a university ducation, he has already benefitted frm that funding himself so it is only fair to return the favour. Obviously, he may choose not to use the option - just as some people choose never to visit libraries or doctors or leisure centres - but we still fund them, as social goods. I may never visit Birmingham but am happy if my taxes go towards maintaining their roads and schools and hspitals.

Otherwise, logically, we end up with a system where we only fund things we personally use - tolls on every road, no NHS, no free education system at all...

In fact, we end up totally uncivilised, a kind of banana republic with no essential services.

Your idea of heaven, maybe (and George Osborne's)?

Not mine.

If a history graduate is going to become a successful art dealer, they will be well-equipped to pay back for their education.

The whole point is that students need to think about what their degree will give them, and decide whether it is worthwhile. If they do not have a good chance of a decent career out of it, then they shouldn't do it.

A degree should be looked on in the same light as any other investment, because that is what it is.

Beautifully expressed breadandbutterfly.

Heck, lets all study until we are 35, all at the taxpayers expense. Make it 50, why not. No one needs to work. We can all study, study, study.