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?

Out of interest is that how you looked on your own degree at the age of 18 - purely as an investment and as a means to an end? Did you know what you wanted to do for a career then?

So claire - are you happy t live in a society wherethere are no teachers or nurses, as the return on their 'investment' is too low?

Is the 'worth' of a job always accurately measured in salary terms?

ARE bankers really 100 times more 'worthwhile' than binmen??

Actually, Claire, I think lifelong learning and training is increasingly essential in today's society. You'd be pretty worried about doctors, teachers and lawyers that weren't completely up to date with best current practise wouldn't you?

PS Thanks fivecandles - dodgy keyboard renders my innacurate typing even more horrendous than usual, though, so apologies for numerous typos...

Agreed fivecandles - lifelong learning is bth essential and wonderful - I hope we all continue to learn rather than stultify come the age of 21....

It's been interesting chatting but must go to bed. Night all.

Actually, yes, I did know what I wanted to do at 18 (17, actually) and picked a worthwhile degree.

I cannot defend the indefensible.

I can't really be bothered with the straw-man arguments put forth here. I have made my views clear.

There is nothing wrong with lifelong learning, but it does not need to be publicly funded. The beneficiary, or their loved ones, should do the funding.

No straw men here.

To me, not funding degrees is as ludicrous as not funding secondary education is to you.

If we only studied things with a very clear, immediate financial advantage to us, then we would lose most of ur society's knwledge in ne fell swoop. The study of history, archaeology, languages and linguistics, literature etc etc do not make money but does that mean they are valueless?

You'd have t be an utter philistine - and a very, very short-sighted one at that - to imagine that were the case.

Let the market decide whether these degrees, or any others, are valuable.

Wow - to have your faith in the market.

Presumably the hole that capitalism is currently in in no way proves the stupidity and short-sightedness of markets?

After all, we can't learn anything from history, can we, and what is literature but a collection of nice stories. Have you thought of suggesting we burn them - might get some value from the paper they're on you know? We could power a few more power stations on that till the paper ran out. Save us all a few bob.

I made no such suggestion.

Straw man?

Claire - do you not understand that by assuming that only directly vocational courses have value you are in effect relegating all other subjects to the dustbin of history - ignoring the fact that lots of courses without an immediately obvious vocational application may actually have a wider value t society?

Why does everything come down to £ and p for you?

Why can you not see that things can have an intrinsic value whether or not 'the market' has any interest in them?

Does the phrase 'knows the price of everything and the value of nothing' not resonate just a little?

Straw man again.

I don't assume that courses do not have intrinsic value. That is not the same thing as believing that the taxpayer should pay. If they have value, let the person or organisation who holds the value pay.

It seems that everything comes down to money - that is why we are discussing this topic. I say the beneficiary's money; you say the taxpayer. What is the difference?

Thank you fivecandles for describing translators as "essential". Our existence is usually completely ignored or at least never commented upon, let alone the value of what we do. And, even though I did not know when choosing courses at 18 how my career would eventually pan out, I certainly wouldn't have been able to do this work without my degree in Modern Languages, something that would almost certainly have been denied me if the proposed loans system had been in place thirty years ago.

Why would you not be able to do the job with the current loan scheme.You repayments are a fixed % of your income and you don't pay anything up front for your degree ,I can't understand why that would preclude you from your profession.If you are lower paid and have not paid off the debt after 30years of deductions it gets written off

Mrswoodentop - I couldn't have done the job for the simple reason that my parents would not have supported my decision to embark on higher education in the first place if it had been dependent on my taking on a massive loan such as is being proposed now (whatever the future repayment arrangements). They did not have the benefit of a university education themselves and there was no such thing in those days as "widening participation" etc. - if you were good enough for university, you went and everything was funded.

I don't know if anyone had posted this yet, but here is a link to the terms and conditions to the new loans: www.saas.gov.uk/_forms/slc_terms_conditions_12_13.pdf

There, on page 3, is the line "The regulations may change from time to time and this means the terms of your loan may also change." So there is no guarantee that the postponement of repayments (which, incidentally, continue to accrue interest while they are not being paid) will still apply, or that outstanding debt will be written off after 30 years. And 30 years is a long time in politics.

claire - you missed my point somewhat - the intrinsic value is primarily to society not the individual - hence society should pay.

There's no need to demonize others to understand that there are difficult choices between say people losing homes from housing benefit changes or care being removed from elders unable to self care or children giving up a hot meal daily or pensioners being taxed a bit more or stopping funding free education above a certain level. However if we're all happy to raise PAYE by a few more percent, even another 10%, that would buy a lot more welfare. Somehow I can't see MN messages shooting up with volunteeers for that one.

Labelling someone as capitalist is pointless, in the end capital is what pays for all these things, including the delicious capital from all those peasant Chinese who save and even pay £20+k tuition fees without a second thought for what they forgo. Peasants all over the world change their lives, and fair thinking people try to do the best socially with restricted resources. They don't pretend someone else will have to pay for them.

There are capitalist employers who are happy to take on your friend's son, yakbutter, it's simply matching what someone can offer with what they need. Taking on someone with life threatening conditions is no different from someone who these days is almost certainly going to move job after a year or three. It often works very well because there is no sense of entitlement, but a mutual respect and human contract. The key is that it is mutual, and not expected.

Of course it is all about choices, thirdhill - eg tax cuts for the rich, no mansion tax, no chasing up vodafone for the odd £6 bn - it depends on your priorities doesn't it?

Yes b&b, with a democracy, no matter how unwise choices may seem in retrospect you live with what everyone has chosen. If you put aside all that anger, do you really think everyone well heeled likes everything about the budget? Especially those who have seen other nations recover and actually pay out to not only wealth creators of today, but the old who they owe their present and the young who hold their hopes.

You focus on the rich, others look at the losses suffered by those in need. You have your anger, others try to make do, and not just for themselves.

It is all about choices. Anger is your choice. There are other choices.

apart from which the OP has long left

thirdhill - I wouldn't describe myself as feeling especially angry though I admit to finding the political situation incredibly depressing.

I think the point is that with a democracy we ought to be able to cast our vote on the basis of manifest promises - the reason why many people - Tory voters as well as everyone else - are currently feeling hard-done-by is that a lot of what is being done now was never what was voted for, by anyone, because the current lot in power are doing the opposite of what they were voted in to do. That is not democracy - that is dictatorship.

Much of the 'suffering' you refer to, such as the top down reorganisation of the NHS, is being inflicted on the British people without any electoral mandate whatsoever.

Excuse me if I do not jump for joy. :(

manifestO promises! - effing 'o' :)

The electorate have repeatedly proven themselves to have dodgy memories. Otherwise all we have to do is to survive until the next election.

The downturn was always going to be a smoke screen to proceed deeper and faster than may have been otherwise acceptable; why do you think there was an unprecedented withdrawal from service over the last five years by senior public sector staff old enough to parachute out? Public services as a proportion of GDP was always in the mix long before the last election.

Anyone who looked past the headline electioneering would have seen clearly that voters are now getting what they asked for. If they really couldn't see it then, they won't again next time.