Should stay-at-home moms have to pay back college costs?

[markomalley]

Please read the article before answering the poll!

AMSTERDAM — The Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) has proposed recovering part of the cost of study from highly-educated women who decide not to seek paid work.

MP Sharon Dijksma, deputy chairperson of the PvdA's parliamentary party, believes the punitive measure is needed to stimulate more women to join the workforce. She outlined her ideas in 'Forum', a magazine published by employers' group VNO-NCW.

"A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay at home and not to work - that is destruction of capital," Dijksma said. "If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at the cost of society, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge unpunished."

The MP said a fine for non-working mothers is a logical consequence of the PvdA's intention to introduce a 'feudal system', under which graduates repay money dependant on their earnings. "If someone chooses not to work, then a substantial repayment is in order," Dijksma said.

Source: link

So, are the Dutch on to something?

[bowtwi]

Before I could vote, I have to ask at least one question. Okay, two come to mind immediately.

Do males who receive a higher education at society's expense have to repay their scholarship money if they don't seek gainful employment?

What if a woman chooses to stay at home while her kids are young and then she goes to work after her kids are in college? Would the government then return some of her repayment?

I can see where it would seem like a big waste of money to educate someone who doesn't appear to use the education. I guess if it were stated up front to the potential scholarship winner that either they start working in their field within so much time or they have to pay it back it would be reasonable.

[krys]

I voted NO. I think it's wrong to penalize a woman who wants to stay home to raise children.

During the education she wasn't pregnant. There was no child. Why penalize her for a decision based on an event which occurred after the education.

After a relatively short time, she is likely to re-enter the workforce with her education anyway.

I guess everybody wants to save money - but by selecting one gender to pay back education money is not the way to go.

[Goey]

Loans should be paid back - nothing more.

[Jim]

I didn't do the poll because I don't think the conditions apply here in the US.

First of all, if we're going to even consider the basic premise, it should apply to both male and female. But even after that, it seems unlikely that a person who decides to be a stay-at-home mom/dad, fulll-time student, etc would have the money to pay back the loan.

Here in California, you can get a splendid education with very minimal debt. 2 years of community college for very, very low tuition, directly transferrable to a state college with very reasonable tuition. I know, my daughter is doing it and I'm paying the bill. She will get her teaching certificate in the process of getting her BS and intends to teach high school or JC while working on her advanced degrees.

[pond]

feudal system is the key wording in this article.

everyone has to pay back.. according to their income.

moms who chose to stay should also have to pay.

If they have enough money to stay home they have enough money to stay home . they got a paid education then why would they not consider that part of the lifes plan and pay it back?

Moms who go to work everyday have to pay it back , why should a women be rewarded for having a rich husband or to live poorly because she wants to stay home with the kids? They could have declined the education .

[Belle]

I honestly don't have enough information. It seems, on the surface, pretty discriminatory. I may be stupid, but are these loans? What are the women signing up for when they sign up? If it wasn't clear that this was a condition when they went to school, then it's really no different from vee pee and craiggers changing the things required for and expected from the Way Corps.

[herbiejuan]

I think society can and should hold the recipients of society benefits accountable for the gift. Given that society has an investment in that education, society should reasonably expect a return on that investment. I would also expect this to transcand politics and become a major factor in our diverse economic portfolio but I suspect I am dreaming.

Edited April 1, 2006 by herbiejuan

[Shellon]

So, herbie, is that a yes or a no?

[herbiejuan]

I think thats a provisional yes but I'm not sure.

[coolchef1248 @adelphia.net]

imo a loan is a loan

you gotta pay it back

the bank would come to get your car if you didn't make your payment

not pay a penelty but ya gottat pay back a loan

[Shellon]

As a women in college and a mom I might be qualified to contribute.

Most of my schooling has been grants and scholarships. I've done student loans a couple of times when I needed dental work, other medical care, car repair.

I'm also a stay at home mom.

I signed a contract saying I'd pay the loans back. The end. If I don't apply my education, I still owe the money.

To all you taxpayers, thank you for the grant monies. Please don't send me a bill. :)

When I got my first degree in Marketing, my parents paid the bill. I asked them if I had to pay them back since I fell in love and found myself in a cult, therefore never using the information.

They said no. <_< oh, not applicable? So sorry.

[markomalley]

I'm sort of torn on this one.

First of all, if it is a private institution and no taxpayer dollars are involved then my answer would be an unqualified "no."

Second, if the Dutch were talking about making this kind of thing retroactive to women who had already gone through school, my answer would be an unqualified "no."

However, at a state institution (University of Maryland, Michigan State, Riverside (CA) Community College, etc.), my tax dollars go to help fund that institution. That's why in-state tuition rates are so much cheaper at a state school than out-of-state tuition rates.

I have to ask myself a question, here. Am I wanting my tax dollars to go to simply making a more educated graduate, or am I wanting my tax dollars to go to making a resident who can help generate more income and make a better life for everybody (and generate more income from which tax dollars can be made)?

If I am using this money to make an investment in "human capital", then I'd be disappointed if that person didn't use that education to get a job and bring more revenue into the state.

Don't think that this is totally unprecedented, though. There are a lot of students from other countries who are sent, along with their families, to US educational institutions. They are expected to pay back their education through working a certain number of years for their government or for their employer.

ROTC works this way: you get a scholarship and are required to serve a certain number of years as a military officer to "pay back" for the education.

But, should that policy apply to women who want to be stay-at-home moms? If a service commitment is understood as part of the deal to receive in-state tuition, yes. If not, no.

At least imho and ymmv...

[Raf]

As a society, we pay for the things we encourage. If we're asking stay-at-home moms to repay their education costs, we're saying we don't value educated stay-at-home moms. We prefer them with basic high school diplomas, at most, and when the kids have more complicated questions, our answer is, "ask dad when he gets home." I have no problem with kids asking dad. I have no problems with kids asking mom. I voted no.

[krys]

The way I understood the article, it wasn't just a "simple" college education. The way it was worded led me to think they were talking about higher learning beyond that...such as for doctors or lawyers and other superiorly educated people. Was I mistaken?

[justwannabeme]

I think a loan should be paid back. I do not think the woman has to start working in the field...that's her business. Her debt to society is to pay back the loan.

[notinKansasanymore]

Okay, this is just my opinion.

I believe that state-supplemented public universities are in place to help society. Benjamin Franklin understood this when he pioneered the concept of public school, and state universities are simply an extension of that idea.

Stay-at-home mothers are also in place to help society.

The state universities and the stay-home moms both cost society in terms of dollars, but both pay back society in terms of better citizens.

Should society pay a penalty to people who grew up in daycares, so that both of their parents could work?

Somewhere, somebody's got to make decisions based on more than just the dollar.

The value of a well-brought-up child is . . . what?

This whole proposal sounds to me like somebody's trying to keep young women out of college if they want to have children some day. Big Red Flag.

Let's say a man has a degree, but ends up driving a bus (not using his degree). Would he have to pay the fine, as well? Would an educated stay-home father have to pay the fine?

State colleges are not just a gift to the students. The student's parents and families who pay any sort of taxes have helped to provide this "communal" education. Everybody is invited to the table.

This whole "fine for not using the education" thing is absurd. What if a student got the degree, but was then killed in a wreck? Who's going to pay THAT fine for the un-used education? We could really get picky here . . ..