Middle-class parents should pay more to send children to university, says Lord Patten

[JoolsToo]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/3109388/Middle-class-parents-should-pay-more- to-send-children-to-university-says-Lord-Patten.html

Basically he's saying if you pay to send your kids to private school you should pay for further education.

So we're back to means testing aren't we?

Some kids from less advantaged backgrounds get free places at private schools so you couldn't expect them to pay for Uni and some wealthy parents send their kids to state schools.

It's all money, money, money and how can we clobber the middle classes for more of theirs.

It seems a strange policy for a Tory.

If universities really need more money to keep up with the US then the least devisive solution would be to raise fees for all. The impact this would have on poorer kids could be somewhat mitigated by making available a wide range of scholarships for poorer children who are high achievers.

I think it is WRONG

Cos some people on benefits get more money than those who work

I don't want anyone to be deprived of going to Uni BUT I think extra charges should only be for the really rich ~ like millionaires etc.

Totally wrong IMO.

Why should one set of parents be required to pay more to get exactly the same service, when they have already paid more towards it in taxes?

The fact that they have paid in the past for independent schools, because they believe it will be better for their children than the available state schools, has nothing to do with it. "They've paid more already so they must be rich" is a very dodgy concept. You could have a family on the exact same income who sent their child to the state school and therefore had more money for other things including saving towards university.

Hmmm I am torn on this one. If you can afford to pay for private schools then presumably you can continue to pay that amount for university fees. In practice though how would this work? If it is based on income levels it is very unfair. I know people on half our income who are wealthier than we are because they got onto the property ladder when they were about 10!

ALSO WHAT ABOUT THE RICH PEOPLE WHO PAY ££££££££££££ loads for a house next door to a top state school or grammar

And so get a free place which then sends the less well off ones to the dump of a school no one wants

And they have to go cos all the places at top state school have been taken by rich parnets who put up the price of houses in catchment area

Also the private school parents are helping out the state cos they are paying high band taxes but not using services of state schools which can be used by other parents otherwise they would be more crowded

What annoys me is that a person is classed as independant of parents at 18 legally,ie an adult,butparents have to stump up for fees!
Either you are an adult or not,surely?

I think he must mean wealthy parents.

It's not really fair to effectively penalise parents who priotised education by setting money aside for it, by then making them pay, while the people who didn't prioritise education first and foremost and spent their money on other things, then get all the necessary grants.

It's tricky.

"If you can afford to pay for private schools then presumably you can continue to pay that amount for university fees. "

Not really. You might be saving up to afford the school fees before your children are at the school, and only have x years worth in the pot. You might also be able to afford to pay, say, 2 sets at a time but have 3 dcs, and rely on the fact that they are different ages and won't be overlapping.

Also, a lot of mc people take a break from paying into pensions or saving in other ways to send their dcs to private school, or remortgage their house to afford the fees.

They pay more in taxes - so they are paying more in any case.

There comes a point where it has to be about the person who is being educated, and not their parents. I know that parents do pay towards their children's university education, but they also contribute to deposits for houses and what have you as well.

The premise behind the loan system is that the student is responsible for paying for their education. This would go against that premise.

But why parents? When does a 'child' stop being the financial responsibility of it's parents,legally?
Parents would have no say in choice of university or course,so why is their income used to decide what money a student is entitled to?
our eldest DD off to university next year,she will be entitled to no help due to our earnings,so will have to take out loans and work. Yes,work!
Will help a bit but have 3 other DCS.

I think all people with big fat index-linked pensions should pay for their children.

And pay everyone else's fees too.

I wouldn;t call people who can afford expensive school fees middle class . I'm a finance director and couldn;t afford to send DS to private secondary for 7 years.

And since when should "class" determine your right to a decent education? Either tax people accordingly and treat 18 year olds as adults and fund them according to their need or treat them as minors and assess their parents income.

There were girls in school with me who couldn't go to uni because they woudnt do what their wealthy parents wanted them to so no money forthcoming for education

they're talking about doing the same over here (ireland) and i think it's ridicuous.
either every citizen is entitled to a free education (or education at the same price,i'm not sure how it works in england) or everyone pays the same.
under the new scheme my parents would have had to pay for my college education which is ridiculous. because A) under our constitution i was entitled to a free education.
B) how can you impose a legal and financial duty on one adult (my father) for another adult (me) as i was over 18 when i went to college.it makes no legal sense.
also what happens to kids of well off parents who don't want them to go to college/ want them to make their own way in the world like they did? do they still have to pay even though they are receiving no legal support from their parents?

Kewcumber, I have heard the story of kids with wealthy parents being forced into courses they didn't want to do, and I agree that that isn't fair. However, in a set up that makes the students responsible for their own finances that would make those kids equal to the kids from poorer backgrounds.
You could also make the point that by putting their kids into private schools parents have done enough to help their offspring in their higher ed journey- something like 6% of kids go to fee paying schools, but they make up around 47% of university students.
Now that is a situation that needs addressing.

Let me guess, Lord Patton's children went through the university programme when you didn't have to pay, and they received a grant.

that isn't right dingdong - about 85% of university undergraduates starting in 2007 were state educated.

even at Oxford which has one of the lowest ratios - 53% of student intake for 06/07 were state educated.

Just a query really. Do the majority of parents pay for their children to attend university?
In Australia, I know of only one person who had their parents pay. Students pay for university themselves through a federal loan scheme.
From conversations heard at school it seems the case that the parents fork out for thier kids. Why?

my neice (just gone to leeds) has a loan which will not pay the full cost of her (university provided) accomodation and food.

loan is reduced to 80% I think if your parents earn above a certian amount (and my Bro is NOT well off!)