# Home Tuition Fees for University



## Pippa Heylings (Mar 12, 2012)

We are currently relocating to the UK as a result of my husband´s work. My son is a teenager and will be able to fulfill the 3 years residence prior to attending University. However, we are not sure how many years my husband will work in the UK. We do not want this to affect my son´s University options. Could you please explain the ruling concerning the home tuition fees. Once my son has completed his 3 years´residence, and i 18 years old, does his parents´ residence then affect whether the home tuition fee will be available for him for the duration of his University education? i.e. do we still need to be living and working in the UK throughout his University education?
many thanks


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Pippa Heylings said:


> We are currently relocating to the UK as a result of my husband´s work. My son is a teenager and will be able to fulfill the 3 years residence prior to attending University. However, we are not sure how many years my husband will work in the UK. We do not want this to affect my son´s University options. Could you please explain the ruling concerning the home tuition fees. Once my son has completed his 3 years´residence, and i 18 years old, does his parents´ residence then affect whether the home tuition fee will be available for him for the duration of his University education? i.e. do we still need to be living and working in the UK throughout his University education?
> many thanks


Your son's 3 years' residence won't count as he has presumably been in UK mainly for the purpose of receiving education, i.e. being in school or sixth form college. Also when he starts his course, he must have settled status, i.e. indefinite leave to remain (ILR). And he isn't an EEA or Swiss citizen or a family member of one. The fees status at the start of his course will determine how much he will pay throughout the 3 or 4 years at uni.

So as things stand, he will be charged overseas student fees and isn't eligible for financial support such as loans, bursary or grant, and has to pay his fees each year upfront.
See Tuition fees England, Wales and Northern Ireland

The only positive thing is as overseas student, he won't be competing for one of publicly-funded uni places and unis tend to be more generous in making an offer, as they get paid more.


----------



## gbu (Apr 7, 2011)

Joppa said:


> Your son's 3 years' residence won't count as he has presumably been in UK mainly for the purpose of receiving education, i.e. being in school or sixth form college.
> 
> .


I can't imagine any scenario where a person at or approaching university age, would not be at school. 
How can it be that the requirement is that they must have been resident for at least 3 years without being a student?
What else would one be before applying to attend university- ridiculous rule if it is as you say.


----------



## jlms (May 15, 2008)

gbu said:


> I can't imagine any scenario where a person at or approaching university age, would not be at school.
> How can it be that the requirement is that they must have been resident for at least 3 years without being a student?
> What else would one be before applying to attend university- ridiculous rule if it is as you say.


It is not ridiculous, it is the way the government ensures Uni places go to EEA students in a preferential manner. All countries I have lived in have similar (or worst) provisions.


----------



## gbu (Apr 7, 2011)

jlms said:


> It is not ridiculous, it is the way the government ensures Uni places go to EEA students in a preferential manner. All countries I have lived in have similar (or worst) provisions.


I can't agree... any person of school going age, once with EU residence (in every other EU country that I'm aware of), is entitled to 'home' university fees immediately, and in most cases is treated and offered the same as a national of that country. 

In the UK by contrast there is this 3-year rule which may be acceptable on its own , but to add that you may not have been going to school during these 3 years is a joke. 

As I said any other EU country, your children's entitlement to university is immediate! And at local cost, which in places like Norway is free.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

gbu said:


> I can't imagine any scenario where a person at or approaching university age, would not be at school.
> How can it be that the requirement is that they must have been resident for at least 3 years without being a student?
> What else would one be before applying to attend university- ridiculous rule if it is as you say.


Yes but most are British citizens and settled in UK. 3 years' residence excluding educational purposes only applies to non-EEA students. Otherwise many thousands of foreign pupils attending UK private schools (mostly boarding) would be eligible for cut-price fees.


----------



## gbu (Apr 7, 2011)

Joppa said:


> Yes but most are British citizens and settled in UK. 3 years' residence excluding educational purposes only applies to non-EEA students.


Which is contrary to how non-eea students are treated elsewhere in Europe, where (by whatever means) they achieve residency status e.g. non-eu dependant of an eu citizen. 

Granted this may not be the case of the OP, but the rule of 3 years and in that 3 years you are not allowed to have gone to school!!! Really?!

On top of that... in the UK it seems if you've been illegally in the country for 3 years and then get your paperwork sorted out and approved, those 3 years you had been living illegally count and you would qualify. 

?


----------



## gbu (Apr 7, 2011)

Joppa said:


> ..... Otherwise many thousands of foreign pupils attending UK private schools (mostly boarding) would be eligible for cut-price fees.


The rest of Europe don't seem to have to resort to the same sort of measures. If parents become workers in an EU country apart from the UK and meet residency requirements, then their kids can go to the local universities. 

So anyone who qualifies as a resident of the UK and has kids going to school, cannot get local rates for their kids when they want to go to university! even if they have been resident for over 3 years.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

gbu said:


> The rest of Europe don't seem to have to resort to the same sort of measures. If parents become workers in an EU country apart from the UK and meet residency requirements, then their kids can go to the local universities.
> 
> So anyone who qualifies as a resident of the UK and has kids going to school, cannot get local rates for their kids when they want to go to university! even if they have been resident for over 3 years.


Since tuition fee is a national matter, each country decides what is best for them. Perhaps many other EU countries want to attract more overseas students by keeping the fees modest. In case of UK, because traditionally it has attracted a large number of overseas students, mainly because of the English language and strong Commonwealth links, they had to devise a system that was seen to be fair for home students, whose parents have made a life-long contribution to UK economy and national/local life, who should get the first choice for publicly-funded uni places. 

High levels of fees don't seem to discourage the ever rising number of overseas students wanting to study in UK.

Remember the tuition fees in UK, even at the new levels, are still relatively modest compared to what they charge in US, though that's somewhat mitigated by a generous system of assistance available to all but the most affluent.


----------



## gbu (Apr 7, 2011)

Joppa said:


> they had to devise a system that was seen to be fair for home students, whose parents have made a life-long contribution to UK economy and national/local life, who should get the first choice for publicly-funded uni places.
> 
> .


Thanks Joppa, That, along with the flood of EU students able to now easily access the UK tips the scales I suppose into introducing what is effectively a ridiculous law. 

By contrast the new families who have legally become citizens of the UK, are discriminated against regardless of their track record through either their generation's commitment or intention to make their contribution to the UK. So for them the 3-year rule and requirement to NOT have been in education prior to going to university is ridiculous, no matter how you cut it. 

Tell me why you think the following is not ridiculous:
A NEW British citizen,( after years of his/her British mother being discriminated against (UKM) and prevented from passing citizenship on to her kids) , makes the UK his/her home along with his/ her family. 
In this British citizen's lifetime, his/her kids will in their lifetime be treated like an outsider since all of his/her kids years prior to university will have been in education and therefore not eligible for home rates and student loans. 

Do you not think that is ridiculous?

He/she is a new citizen properly processed- has never had the opportunity before to live in the UK- and his/her kids are now discriminated against (again I might add), over any equivalent of Tom, Dick, or Harry that waltzes over the EU border and enjoys local rates. 

Doesn't that seem wrong?!


----------



## Welsh_lady (Aug 20, 2011)

The op's son may be eligible for home fees, depending on what visa/status he has surely?

If the whole family are relocating to the UK for work reasons the child is surely moving to the UK for family reasons - the main purpose for residence in the UK is not solely to receive full-time education. This normaly relates to international students attending boarding school in the uk while the family reside in other countries.

The link above that Joppa included states this:

In order to qualify for ‘home’ fees under this category, you must meet all of the following criteria:

(a) you must be 'settled' in the UK [see Box 1] on the 'first day of the first academic year of the course' [see Box 2],

AND

(b) you must be ‘ordinarily resident’ [see Box 3] in the UK on the ‘first day of the first academic year of the course’ [see Box 2],
AND

(c) you must also have been 'ordinarily resident' [see Box 3] in the UK and Islands (the Islands means the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) for the full three year period before the 'first day of the first academic year of the course'. For example, if your course begins in October 2011, you must have been ordinarily resident in the UK and Islands from 1 September 2008 to 31 August 2011,

AND

(d) the main purpose for your residence in the UK and islands must not have been to receive full-time education during any part of that three-year period.

Main purpose of residence being full-time education

Where a category includes a condition that the main purpose of your residence must not have been to receive full-time education, a useful question to ask is: “if you had not been in full-time education, where would you have been ordinarily resident?”. If the answer is “outside the relevant residence area” this would indicate that the main purpose for your residence was full-time education. If the answer is that you would have been resident in the relevant residence area even if you had not been in full-time education, this would indicate that full-time education was not the main purpose for your residence in the relevant area.


----------



## gbu (Apr 7, 2011)

Welsh_lady said:


> The op's son may be eligible for home fees, depending on what visa/status he has surely?
> 
> If the whole family are relocating to the UK for work reasons the child is surely moving to the UK for family reasons - the main purpose for residence in the UK is not solely to receive full-time education. This normaly relates to international students attending boarding school in the uk while the family reside in other countries.
> 
> ...


Ah, I see what you're saying. 

In the case of the OP it's fairly clear that they are looking to gain education for their kids but leaving soon after this is in place, which is not really acceptable (if I've read it correctly).

So your interpretation suggests that a NEW citizen, never previously granted the right to citizenship through no fault of their own (e.g. UKM BRITISH born mother now able to pass citizenship on to her children) has only to wait 3 years before his/her children ( or even for him/herself for that matter) can access home fees and student finance.

A little less unfair in that case then... BUT if the UK is HOME to this family, I would like to believe that they should ALL be entitled immediately to the things that UK citizens are all normally entitled to- and this includes the right to lower fees and student finance IMMEDIATELY, not having to wait 3 years!!!

I mean how on earth can anyone defend saying to someone: here's your citizenship, you can share in most things except your or your children's education!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Welsh_lady said:


> The op's son may be eligible for home fees, depending on what visa/status he has surely?
> 
> If the whole family are relocating to the UK for work reasons the child is surely moving to the UK for family reasons - the main purpose for residence in the UK is not solely to receive full-time education. This normaly relates to international students attending boarding school in the uk while the family reside in other countries.


Yes, I have slightly misread the OP's situation. The family, including their son who is presumably 15 or under, haven't yet moved to UK but are planning to. So they are asking when he comes to apply for uni place in 3 years' time, will he be eligible for home student fees?

The answer is probably no, because although he may satisfy the residential requirement (for reason you have given), it takes 5 years for migrant worker (his parent) to attain settled status so he will still be subject to immigration control at the age of 18 so ineligible for home student status. If the boy is still 13 or under and the family stay in UK for 5 years, then he may be regarded as home student after they obtain settled status (though a new rule means the worker has to be earning at least £35k a year, except those in shortage occupation or an academic with PhD).


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

gbu said:


> I mean how on earth can anyone defend saying to someone: here's your citizenship, you can share in most things except your or your children's education!


Because they haven't yet contributed financially to the UK economy. With regard to EU citizens, unless UK gets out of Europe, they can't discriminate against them - provided they have lived in their own or another EEA state for 3 years, they are treated like home students (except that they can only get tuition fee loan).


----------



## gbu (Apr 7, 2011)

Joppa said:


> Because they haven't yet contributed financially to the UK economy. With regard to EU citizens, unless UK gets out of Europe, they can't discriminate against them - provided they have lived in their own or another EEA state for 3 years, they are treated like home students (except that they can only get tuition fee loan).


Not good enough I'm afraid. You can't give someone a second hand citizenship- good enough for some things, not good enough for others. 

Where else in the world have you ever heard of such nonsense?

The whole point of being a new citizen is that you are brand new- never having had the opportunity to contribute.

And on the case of children of british mothers who were sexually discriminated against, you now say to their children- welcome home, come on in - but you're not allowed to use the kitchen or study!

Er, no thanks, not good enough.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

gbu said:


> Not good enough I'm afraid. You can't give someone a second hand citizenship- good enough for some things, not good enough for others.
> 
> Where else in the world have you ever heard of such nonsense?
> 
> ...


As we are straying from the original question, which has now been fully answered, I'm going to close this thread.


----------

