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?

Claire, if you knew what you wanted to do at 17 for a career and it fits your definition of being a 'worthwhile' career in financial terms (what is it by the way?) that makes you unusual.

Most undergraduate degrees are not directly related to a vocation at all and certainly not directly connected to money making however they are a necessary first step in order to access a career and make money.

But you've still not clarified what is and what is not 'worthwhile' for you. Earlier you said teaching should be funded by the taxpayer. Do you still feel that way?

And yet, in most cases you'd need to have a subject to teach so you'd need to have a first degree in a subject.

Are you saying that in your view taxpayers should fund PGCEs and BEds but not the first degrees for example in English, Physics or French that would enable you to have the subject knowledge necessary in order to teach that subject?

Please do clarify your argument.

'If they have value, let the person or organisation who holds the value pay.'

So, if you want to be a librarian then the library who employs you should pay.

i.e. the state

If you want to be a Doctor, a nurse, a dentist then the NHS should pay i.e. the state

If you want to be a teacher then the school should pay i.e. the state

What if you want to work for a small firm of architects that can't afford to pay for the training of employees as well as to employ them? Does that mean private companies should not be allowed to take on new employees unless they can afford to pay for their degrees? Or does it mean small private companeis shouldn't exist at all?

What if you want to work for a small firm of architects that can't afford to pay for the training of employees as well as to employ them? Does that mean private companies should not be allowed to take on new employees unless they can afford to pay for their degrees? Or does it mean small private companeis shouldn't exist at all?

I know that you are having fine fun having a self-righteous, right-on, lefty rant fivecandles but that is a load of bull. This situation already exists in, for example, Accountancy. Large firms take on trainees - they absord the overhead in their chargeout rates - and shed them when no longer necessary, because they are not all going to make Partner. Small firms don't have expensive trainees - they use untrained or already-trained-by-someone else (see above) staff. It's not rocket science. Private companies and The Market have worked out how to train Accountants at no cost to the public purse.

Most undergraduate degrees are not directly related to a vocation at all ... however they are a necessary first step in order to access a career.

Why? What's the logic, apart from "that's the way it's always been done". It would be better to learn on the job (example above) and leave academia to the true academics. Society does not need the huge volume of graduates it is currently creating.

"leave academia to the true academics"

I was one of these. Have an excellent science degree and a PhD to prove it....thought scientific research was what I would do with the rest of my life.

Then that interfering government paid for me to go on an 'Insight into Management' course ... and it turned out that I was really quite decent at that, too, so I became a manager in industry for the next phase of my career. Ooops, hadn't planned that, nor had the company, so no, they didn't pay for my initial or further degree even though they benefited from the excellent skills it had given me.

Would never have gone into industry to 'learn on the job', it simply wasn't on my horizons, I was going to be a research scientist... it just turned out that I was very good at something else as well and decided to change direction (am I the only person who knows nobody who has not made a substantial career change at some point??).

Then, oops again, after having children I discovered schools and teaching. Well, obviously they'd always been there, but I had never considered working in one until .. well, until I started going in as a parent voluteer and found myself planning alternative lessons to the one the teacher was giving... So oops, more 'not on the job' training [should my current school have paid for my PhD, since they use it as I am science co-ordinator? Or maybe not??] and now I teach ... not too badly...

'Most undergraduate degrees are not directly related to a vocation at all ... however they are a necessary first step in order to access a career.

Why? What's the logic, apart from "that's the way it's always been done". '

Duh! For two very important and blindingly obvious reasons:

1.) Education is not the same thing as training for a specific job. It is about EDUCATION.

2.) There are many jobs you simply cannot do without learning about a particular (or several different) subjects first. You cannot be a good teacher without having a good knowledge of the subject you teach, you cannot be a translater without knowing at least one language, you cannot be a scientist without a science.

Dear God, how depressing that that has to be explained to you.

Are there really people in the world who think that education has no value unless it is directly related to getting a job?

What a truly depressing view of the world.

'This situation already exists in, for example, Accountancy.'

Actually, it's you that's talking a load of bull. Most accountants are graduates and many large accountancy firms select their employees from top performing graduates from RG universities.

THis is the case for an awful lot of large and small companies. They select employees who already have degrees!! Of course, they value the degrees and everything they represent but very companies are able or willing to pay for them for all their employees.

Many Accountantcy firm choose graduates but that's only because they can, they don't need to. In fact, accountancy is in the vanguard of careers that are re-instating non-graduate trainees.

How can you say that firms 'value' degrees and then in the same breath say that they are not willing to pay for them. That's arrant nonsense and an oxymoron.

HR departments like degrees because it means that someone else has done part of the selection process for them. We are getting to the point where having a degree no longer differentiates candidates and some jobs are now requiring Masters. Where is the arms race going to end?

BTW, I didn't say that "education has no value unless it is directly related to getting a job". That's you putting your spin on it. I specifically said that there is a place for academia. But we can't have half the population pretending that they are academics, that's ridiculous.

So the only pointin education is (a) to train one to do a specific job or (b) to be an academic? (Really a subset of a.)

So there is no point in individuals or society learning hw to think, increasing their knowledge of non-vocational things, of becming civilised in the fullest sense of the word?

HOw insanely depressing.

Don't be ridiculous. Children already spend fifteen years at school getting educated.
As a matter of interest, how much education would suffice in your ideal world or do you want everyone to be eternal students?

I think this is a debate worth having it's just a shame that those who are promoting the view that university shouldn't be funded by the state have such limited arguments which seem to amount to not really understanding what education is or is for.

For example this is a really stupid argument,
'How can you say that firms 'value' degrees and then in the same breath say that they are not willing to pay for them. That's arrant nonsense and an oxymoron.'

Firms and society in general will also value the ability to do times tables and tie shoe laces. Should whoever directly benefits from these skills also pay for education from nursery then?

If you're saying that society cannot afford to pay for degrees then what on earth makes you think that the private sector can afford to pay to educate all of its employees and still remain profitable? And don't you think they might object to this? You accuse me of going on a lefty rant but don't you think the right and those in business in particular would have something to say about having to pay for the degrees of all employees.

And as I've already said (not that you both countering any of the arguments or answering the questions I've made) since the public sector needs so many graduates - doctors, teachers etc - by your argument that employers should pay then it would be the state that would pay anyway.

There are lots of things that I value but that doesn't mean that I can or would pay for them - Van Gogh's Sunflowers for example, public swimming pools, the NHS.

'Children already spend fifteen years at school getting educated.
As a matter of interest, how much education would suffice in your ideal world or do you want everyone to be eternal students?'

Again, I'm just left wondering what you know about the way the world works. Doctors and teachers have to have continuous training (funded by the state) for their entire careers. Can you really not understand why this is necessary? Even if you work at the checkout in Sainsburys you will need regular training as technologies and policies change. And then many people go to university as mature students to take further qualifications to support a career or a career change. A close relative had a first degree and went into management in the private sector and is now back at university studying to be a social worker. Interestingly, mature students are the group that have been most affected statistically by the rise in tuition fees. You're much less likely to take a career break or pursue a different career if you have to pay 9000 a year to do so especially if you have a family and that's a real loss to everyone. And then there are evening classes for those who want to pursue a hobby. Parenting classes.

So, yes in my ideal world we would all be eternal students in that we should all be learning and developing new skills in order to adapt to the world as it is and in order to keep our brains active and remain employable and effective as employees and as people in society.

That doesn't mean you do nothing else. As a teacher I HAVE to have several days training every year and many of my colleagues do MAs and short courses to keep on top of their game or to pursue personal interests.

The way that people are presenting their arguments that education should not be funded (and implying that it's a waste of time and somehow an indulgence) is really not helping your cause. We are not robots. And employers might as well employ robots if they just need people trained to do one specific job. In fact, employers want people who are enquiring and free thinking and flexible, constantly learning and developing new skills.

Which is why if they are able to, they choose the top performers from RG universities rather than 16 year olds from school.

'I specifically said that there is a place for academia. But we can't have half the population pretending that they are academics, that's ridiculous.'

But getting a first degree in a non-vocational subject i.e French is hardly 'pretending to be an academic'. I've got a friend who always knew she wanted to go into law but she went to Oxford and got a degree in - wait for it - Latin and Greek. Strangely, this was far from an obstacle to her. In fact her career rise has been meteoric.

So what YOU say employers want i.e. a very narrowly trained workforce who don't care about degrees and what employers actually DO want and can have are at odds Purits.

I've been very clear with my children that they shouldn't look at university with a view to employability but to apply for whatever interests them most.

DD2 is likely to be poor as a church mouse but I don't think she'll care.

Fivecandles,

Just been playing mental 'match the degree to the career path' with my family....

Degrees: History, Physics, Classics, History, Law, Zoology, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Materials and Metallurgy

Carrers (in no specific order as otherwise we'd be very identifiable)
Teacher (Primary), Teacher (Secondary but not in first degree subject), Headteacher (previously Secondary teacher but not in first degree subject as had previous career and used that knowledge instead), Charity Manager, Solicitor, Solicitor, Composer, Playwright, Vicar, Church Youth worker.

All of us are good to very good at our various careers (e.g. playwright's tv work nationally known) so our failure to choose 'vocational' degrees hasn't held us back.....

Sorry, the other point I meant to make - very few of us use the 'subject knowledge' of our degree subjects in our day to day work. HOWEVER, and it is a really big 'however', we all use the skills and the attitudes of mind that our degrees gave us, and these make us better at our current jobs than we would be without them.

Take, for example, the headteacher, who has a science degree. The ability to create a hypothesis, to investigate, to analyse hugh quantities of data, to weigh evidence for and against, to be intensely curious about the link between cause and effect (and rigorous in nosing out false correlations and non-causal connections) is something that makes them agood at their job. The experience of working in a lab team, discussing alternative ways forward, and presenting findings to seminars and conferences, also contributes to their success. 'Teaching specific' skills and subject knowledge do not come from their degree - but the ability to quickly master complex new knowledge (which does) has helped in its acquisition.

Although the headteacher's degree subject may not seem to be 'vocational', indeed to be narrowly 'academic', it nevertheless makes them better at their job because of the skills and attitudes of mind it promotes and the experiences it has given them....

Interesting, teacher.

As a parent, the only degrees I would be concerned about my own children would be the ones directly linked to a particular career. I would much rather they pursue a subject that they are really interested in for its own sake and which keeps their options open in terms of developing transferrable skills and proving they're up to the challenge of coping with difficult concepts and thinking independently.

I think going on to HE purely to prepare for a particular career is very risky and quite limiting for the individual and for society.

Is this thread still going?

I believe that students should pay the cost of their adult education themselves, or get an employer to do so.

You believe the tax payer should provide relatively unlimited funding.

Neither of us has been able to convince the other. That doesn't mean either of us are uncaring or stupid, or whatever - just that we disagree. Both positions are valid and have good models in other countries, but when I toss the coin, it lands on the 'student pays' side. There is no need to get exasperated!

I am heavily influenced by the USA model, where a large proportion of students do go to universities, and where there are many world class institutions. College education is an expectation or aspiration for most social classes.

USA student funding is by the student or their family, unless they are on low income or a scholarship. I think that it is a system that works. A lack of parental income is not a reason to not go to college, as there will be a big enough financial aid and loan pot to cover costs. But the student takes the responsibility seriously. This means that if they are not super wealthy, they choose their colleges and courses wisely to make sure that their future earnings will cover their loans. If you don't have independent wealth, there is no point in doing teacher training at Harvard, because you will never be able to pay it back. But you will be fine at a state college. You might even be able to improve your finances better by doing two years at a Community College and then transferring to State College (credits being transferable between institutions).

I think, ultimately, we will have the US funded model (not the academic model of liberal arts dominance, though). The tricky thing in this time of transition is that we, as parents, have not been used to saving up for college from birth, nor have there been tax efficient savings plans available.

I do find it interesting that the same people who assume that the state cannot afford to pay for HE assume that the private sector can and will. Where is your evidence that this is or could be the case? As I say, I cannot see that businesses, particularly small ones, will be queuing up to do this or even offer scholarships in the current financial climate and yet they're going to continue to seek out highly educated graduates. Go figure.

It's also the case that the trebling of tuition fees has made no difference at all to the amount of income generated from students as students will take longer to pay back the debt and increasing numbers of students will NEVER pay that money back.

Therefore it doesn't even make economic sense to increase tuition fees. It will bring in no extra money.

The private sector can afford what it needs or wants, according to market supply/demand economics.

The problem with the state-fund-all method is that we turn out graduates that are not needed or wanted.

There is no evidence either that there are 'too many graduates' as is often assumed durign this sort of debate. In fact the UK is now failing to compete with other European countries not to mention the US:

'Between 2000 and 2008, it fell from third highest to fifteenth among top industrialised nations for the proportion of young people graduating.

The UK now trails higher education systems in Poland, Iceland, Portugal and Slovakia.'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11203790

Graduate unemployment or underemployment is a pretty good indicator.

That's bunkum Claire. Have you looked around lately? Various bits of the private sector have had to be bailed out by the state just to keep going.

I just wonder where this assumption that the private sector has somehow limitless resources which it will somehow use in a philantrhopic way comes from while at the same time assuming that the state sector can't or won't spend money for the good of society as a whole (and for the good of the economy).

'Taxpayers benefit from investing in higher education, says the OECD. Even though the government subsidises students, this is outweighed by the increased revenue from higher tax from better-paid jobs.

The OECD says that in the UK each extra graduate brings $89,000 (£58,000) to the taxpayer over a working life.

While the UK was slipping behind, Mr Schleicher identified Australia and New Zealand as this year's high achievers at university level - and highlighted the success of Finland, Japan and Canada at school level.'

This stuff just gets left out of the debate as the assumption is always that we can't afford HE.

In fact, we can't afford not to fund it.