Should parents be expected to help pay for uni?

Education is an investment in your future. Hopefully students will weigh up the costs of university, college, apprenticeships against the potential rewards from being more attractive to the jobs market. It is not just the cost of the 3 year (say) course, but the minimum 3 year loss of earnings that it also entails. However, I would like encouragement for those who take courses likely to be of direct benefit to the economy. There are other courses that are more of benefit to the student and, perhaps controversially, i’d ask when money is short whether these should be equally funded.

In an ideal world, where priorities like health and social care, law and order, state pensions for example, are significantly funded then i’d like further education provided free (although I’m not so sure about the cost of accommodation). I say “significantly” because I think a financial contribution from the student will (may) give them a stake in their choice of education and a commitment to make the most of the opportunity.

I do believe we have a real problem in providing sufficient numbers of quality staff, as well as quality students, to continue with the present wish for university to be almost an automatic right. The original system of vocational colleges, polytechnics, craft education, seemed to suit the spread of abilities far better, We should somehow abolish the feeling the only a degree (of whatever standard, course, and however well taught or received) is an acceptable qualification.

I was appalled to read this:“Last year, 35 per cent was required for a pass in Maths with Edexcel, while this year the pass mark has dropped to 17 per cent. Similarly, last year students taking a Maths GCSE with OCR needed 30.5 per cent to get a pass, compared to 15.3 per cent this year.24 Aug 2017“. I believe this year it was a little over 20%. How on earth can answering only around one in five questions correctly constitute a pass (and therefore not a resit – with the accompanying extra learning that is clearly needed)?

I chose to use my degree but many graduates land up in completely unrelated jobs that are rewarding, useful to society and contribute to the economy.

If your ambitions are to have a big family, a big house, a big car and expensive holidays then it’s probably worth weighing up the loss of earnings but it’s not everyone’s priority. Increasingly a degree, masters or PhD is a requirement for jobs, even where vocational qualifications and experience might be more useful. This is nothing new and I remember it in the late 70s.

Part of the problem in higher education is that helping weaker students gain a degree means that the more motivated and able students are not pushed to realise their potential. Where there is real competition for places it is less of a problem.

I don’t know enough about school/college teaching to make any useful comment on your final paragraph.

We can only fund higher education properly within the overall education budget, as well as meet the increasing need for more investment in primary, secondary and special education, by rationalising post-18 education and limiting university access by reference (a) to academic merit, aptitude and motivation, and (b) to the nation’s priority needs in terms both of disciplines and numbers.

It is clear that there are far too many places and that universities are struggling – expensively competing against each other – to fill them. Students are being led to believe that because there are courses and places there will be careers ahead to match them.

I don’t think any university student should be in debt in order to fund their education. When they enter the world of work three of four years after other employees of the same age they should not be disadvantaged relative to their colleagues by having an unpaid loan hanging like a millstone round their neck. In due time they will achieve higher salaries and repay the Exchequer through their taxes.

I agree with NFH that parents should not be required to contribute towards their adult children’s higher education; those that can will do so anyway in various ways but satisfactory provision should be made so that all undergraduates start on an equal basis.

The anomaly over post-18 parental contributions is a hangover from the days when children did not reach adulthood until their 21st birthday and university students received government grants with parental contributions required only from those with substantial means. The government of the day did not have the resolve to bring the system into line with the reduction in the age of majority which was lowered to 18 in 1970. Since that time parents have also had to maintain their sons and daughters at secondary school through three raisings of the school leaving age [in 1972 to 16, 2013 to17 and 2015 to 18]. [In the earlier days many pupils who stayed on at school in order to gain a university place became a source of pride but also resentment as not making an economic contribution to the family budget.]