The Value Of Your Child'S Education.

[TommoPhysicist]

I just want my children to be healthy and happy.

I have found most parents to be so ignorant of their children's needs, that they rarely ever achieve a positive influence on them.

You may find it a better investment to spend time with your children and find out what they want, rather than just spend money on them.

[brit1984]

I just want my children to be healthy and happy.

I have found most parents to be so ignorant of their children's needs, that they rarely ever achieve a positive influence on them.

You may find it a better investment to spend time with your children and find out what they want, rather than just spend money on them.

Indeed, spending time with your children is just as important as spending money (both are very important).

In fact, I quit my job as soon as my first child was born so I could spend as much time with her as possible.

[mjj]

The OPs original price range is wrong - the top schools in Thailand cost at least 20,000 USD (@600,000 baht ) per year, and that's for a 5 year old.

Of course the top 3-4 private schools in Thailand are much better than 98% of UK state school and certainly give a world class education.

I think this whole thread is understandable- those without money need to justify to themselves that the expensive schools are not worth it in anycase (e.g. by saying state schools in UK are better than top Thai schools etc etc). Those with money point out it is worth it. Bottom line- you pay for the most expensive education you can reasonably afford for your kids.

Oh and Tommo's point about education not being worth it because 1 or 2 famous billionaires with no little eduction happened to become rich is laughable- i just feel sorry for the kids of adults who believe that.

Did you actually read the op? What part of the '400k - sometimes more' did you not understand? Oh, I know the 'sometimes more' part.

Also the point of the thread is not whether you can afford a top school, it's about how much is a school education worth? Personally I take education in a holistic sense, not just the school education. As I stated before (no doubt your selective reading missed that as well) travel, activities are important also.

Most of the people on this planet do not have a bottomless pit of money, so how much do you give to each aspect of a child's education. Some on here believe the schooling is the be all and end all. I do not. IF the ONLY two choices I had were a top school and no holidays or activities and eating mama everyday, or a middle school, lots of travelling and activities like scuba diving, rock climbing, etc at the weekends, I would take the latter.

Thailand has many doctors, dentist, lawyers, etc and I would bet every penny I own that they did not all go to an international school. So you must be able to get a decent education else where. And please remember this thread is not about university, neither should it be included.

As you say, the schooling in the uk is better, but it is still crap - watch an episode of The Jeremy Kyle Show - I would not pay for it. Today the dole office is full of university graduates. Graduates are taking craps jobs. Why? Because most of the qualification in the uk now are not worth the paper they are written on. So, great go to the uk, get a better education for your children and then watch them waste there life as they have no job to go to. <deleted>, in the uk now, you need a degree to be manager at McD's!!

I graduated nearly 20 years ago and back then virtually all you had to do was turn up to get the degree. Today, they probably give them away with 5 Corn Flakes packets! Personally, I found A levels more challenging and more fulfilling.

For those of you that are older than I and studied for a degree around the 70's, I can only envy you as I think you will have had a first class education.

At no point in this thread have I said school education is worthless, but some posters seem to only see black and white, where as my intention of this thread was to bring out the variations of grey. What different people value and why.

The notion of moving back to the uk if you cannot afford an international school is just plain ridiculous. Life in Thailand for me is just that, life. In the uk it was a slog and a rat race. Comparative to the uk, my disposable income here is huge, my lifestyle is much improved and my general enjoyment off life has improved.

[mjj]

I just want my children to be healthy and happy.

I have found most parents to be so ignorant of their children's needs, that they rarely ever achieve a positive influence on them.

You may find it a better investment to spend time with your children and find out what they want, rather than just spend money on them.

Indeed, spending time with your children is just as important as spending money (both are very important).

In fact, I quit my job as soon as my first child was born so I could spend as much time with her as possible.

Very admirable. And enviable. But not realistic for most of the population, is it? Can I ask how old you are? Well I have asked, but will you answer?

[sonicdragon]

We made the choice of moving to the UK for the sole reason of the children's education. As Guesthouse pointed out earlier in this thread, in general the top tier of well educated young adults get the cream of the jobs in western countries. This is indisputable and will likely never change. FWIW, these were the factors we considered as to where we should educate them:

1. Consistency and stability. We had been living in Paris and a few other places beforehand. Moving around every few years is great when you are a couple, but very unsettling for school-age children. So we wanted the kids to enter a primary school that they would stay at for the duration (7 years in the case of the UK).

2. Quality of life would have been better for us, as parents, in Thailand, but not so for the kids. Here in the UK, our kids go to ballet, streetdance, football, cricket, mandarin Chinese, music and swimming and these are either done on school premises (outside the normal curriculum) or within a 5-10 minute drive. They love it (they want to do tennis too, but we have to stop at something!). On top of that, the school they attend is within a 2 minute walk of our home so there is no problem with long journeys to/from school every day.

3.The exposure to the cliques, consumerism and various kinds of prejudice/disrespect that come with the top Thai and Hong Kong international schools was a major drawback. This occurs in UK schools too, but is far less of a problem than in Hong Kong and (especially) Thailand. To some extent this can be ameliorated be the home environment, but there is an element of luck involved. I know former colleagues in Hong Kong who had a great family home life and did their utmost to instil their own values in their children, but they still got into the "wrong clique" at school (GSI and Kellett) and it wreaked havoc.

4. On the other hand, in the in the UK, it is hard to find a good state school that does not have some problems with unruly/undesirable elements.

Again this can be ameliorated at home but again there is an element of luck involved. This problem even exists in some primary schools in certain areas for kids in the 8-11 range, but is obviously a lot worse in secondary school. For this reason we chose to live near to the best state primary school we could find, however we intend to send our children to a medium-size private school for their secondary education.

5. Money was also factor, but not a major one. If the kids are in a private UK school then our normal living costs would be around the same here, in HK and in Thailand, so our costs are lower while they are in a state primary school, but will be around the same in a few years when they go to private school. I can also work here in the UK, or in HK, so that's another factor, though I've been semi-retired now for a while now so this doesn't play an important role. Then there is the issue of university fees - if they decide they want to go - which is another factor in favour of a UK education. Lastly on the money issue, my wife visits her friends and family in HK and Thailand every 3 months, and takes the children twice a year, so the cost of plane tickets does add up - it comes to about 7000 pounds / 350k baht per year - but this would be more than offset (at the moment) by school fees if we lived over there.

There is little doubt in my mind that the quality of education at the top HK and Thai international schools is as good as that at a good private school in the UK, so this was a non-issue, but given the factors above, the choice of a UK education was a fairly simple one for us.

[skybluestu]

I think you summed it up at the end! Good parenting will be just as important, probably more than, the education they receive.

You should be providing the best education you can afford...its really that simple..

"Would you pay 400k for a state school in Farangland?"......yes If could afford it, without question...

Not if it meant having to work so many hours that I hardly saw my child and not if it meant no overseas travel so they couldn't experience different cultures. Like I said, being a good parent is just as important as an education as to what type of person the child turns out to be.

[brit1984]

I just want my children to be healthy and happy.

I have found most parents to be so ignorant of their children's needs, that they rarely ever achieve a positive influence on them.

You may find it a better investment to spend time with your children and find out what they want, rather than just spend money on them.

Indeed, spending time with your children is just as important as spending money (both are very important).

In fact, I quit my job as soon as my first child was born so I could spend as much time with her as possible.

Very admirable. And enviable. But not realistic for most of the population, is it? Can I ask how old you are? Well I have asked, but will you answer?

I am aware we all have our own circumstances. I was just replying to TP's snipe.

I am 27 and a half, by the way.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[StreetCowboy]

...

The notion of moving back to the uk if you cannot afford an international school is just plain ridiculous. Life in Thailand for me is just that, life. In the uk it was a slog and a rat race. Comparative to the uk, my disposable income here is huge, my lifestyle is much improved and my general enjoyment off life has improved.

No its not. Its something I have considered, and friends of mine are in the process of doing just that, and I would not ridicule them

SC

[mjj]

Brit,

You rich bastard! I hate you lol.

Please don't tell me you grew up on a council estate and made your first million before 18.

[sonicdragon]

I think you summed it up at the end! Good parenting will be just as important, probably more than, the education they receive.

You should be providing the best education you can afford...its really that simple..

"Would you pay 400k for a state school in Farangland?"......yes If could afford it, without question...

Not if it meant having to work so many hours that I hardly saw my child and not if it meant no overseas travel so they couldn't experience different cultures. Like I said, being a good parent is just as important as an education as to what type of person the child turns out to be.

I don't know if overseas travel is such a good thing in itself. I've lived all over the world and I agree that to "experience different cultures" is a great thing for anyone - but it depend what you mean by "experience". A few weeks holiday in India (for example) isn't going to give a child a good experience or understanding of Indian culture. I would suggest that living in the UK would serve you better in that regard In fact that's one of the factors I omitted from my post above (#95 above) - the UK is a very cosmopolitan society and coupled with a UK education (free or private) along with good parenting (of course) can make for a very well-rounded young adult.

On the other hand, Thailand isn't very cosmopolitan at all, so if you are living there I can definitely see the benefits of foreign travel - but I think you have to do a lot of it (ie live in a country for an extended period), to see any real benefit.

Also, the worth of books, documentaries, movies and online material that can educate a child about different cultures should not be underestimated.

[brit1984]

Brit,

You rich bastard! I hate you lol.

Please don't tell me you grew up on a council estate and made your first million before 18.

I hate you too lol.

I didn't grow up on a council estate or make good money until after uni. I am a bastard though, and, importantly for this thread, I spent the last 2 years of schooling in the state sector.

My motivation was to mix with some "down to earth" English girls, but it didn't stop me getting into Oxford (and more than 30 other kids from my year also went there or Cambridge).

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[brit1984]

We made the choice of moving to the UK for the sole reason of the children's education. As Guesthouse pointed out earlier in this thread, in general the top tier of well educated young adults get the cream of the jobs in western countries. This is indisputable and will likely never change. FWIW, these were the factors we considered as to where we should educate them:

1. Consistency and stability. We had been living in Paris and a few other places beforehand. Moving around every few years is great when you are a couple, but very unsettling for school-age children. So we wanted the kids to enter a primary school that they would stay at for the duration (7 years in the case of the UK).

2. Quality of life would have been better for us, as parents, in Thailand, but not so for the kids. Here in the UK, our kids go to ballet, streetdance, football, cricket, mandarin Chinese, music and swimming and these are either done on school premises (outside the normal curriculum) or within a 5-10 minute drive. They love it (they want to do tennis too, but we have to stop at something!). On top of that, the school they attend is within a 2 minute walk of our home so there is no problem with long journeys to/from school every day.

3.The exposure to the cliques, consumerism and various kinds of prejudice/disrespect that come with the top Thai and Hong Kong international schools was a major drawback. This occurs in UK schools too, but is far less of a problem than in Hong Kong and (especially) Thailand. To some extent this can be ameliorated be the home environment, but there is an element of luck involved. I know former colleagues in Hong Kong who had a great family home life and did their utmost to instil their own values in their children, but they still got into the "wrong clique" at school (GSI and Kellett) and it wreaked havoc.

4. On the other hand, in the in the UK, it is hard to find a good state school that does not have some problems with unruly/undesirable elements.

Again this can be ameliorated at home but again there is an element of luck involved. This problem even exists in some primary schools in certain areas for kids in the 8-11 range, but is obviously a lot worse in secondary school. For this reason we chose to live near to the best state primary school we could find, however we intend to send our children to a medium-size private school for their secondary education.

5. Money was also factor, but not a major one. If the kids are in a private UK school then our normal living costs would be around the same here, in HK and in Thailand, so our costs are lower while they are in a state primary school, but will be around the same in a few years when they go to private school. I can also work here in the UK, or in HK, so that's another factor, though I've been semi-retired now for a while now so this doesn't play an important role. Then there is the issue of university fees - if they decide they want to go - which is another factor in favour of a UK education. Lastly on the money issue, my wife visits her friends and family in HK and Thailand every 3 months, and takes the children twice a year, so the cost of plane tickets does add up - it comes to about 7000 pounds / 350k baht per year - but this would be more than offset (at the moment) by school fees if we lived over there.

There is little doubt in my mind that the quality of education at the top HK and Thai international schools is as good as that at a good private school in the UK, so this was a non-issue, but given the factors above, the choice of a UK education was a fairly simple one for us.

This is probably the best post on this thread so far. You have considered the options rationally and come to what seems like a sensible conclusion for your personal circumstances. You have also clearly put the kids first, which is admirable.

[brit1984]

...

The notion of moving back to the uk if you cannot afford an international school is just plain ridiculous. Life in Thailand for me is just that, life. In the uk it was a slog and a rat race. Comparative to the uk, my disposable income here is huge, my lifestyle is much improved and my general enjoyment off life has improved.

No its not. Its something I have considered, and friends of mine are in the process of doing just that, and I would not ridicule them

SC

Agreed, for families with school age children, it is difficult to think of any factor that should be a higher priority when deciding which country to live in. Considering how trivial some of the reasons some people on here give for moving to Thailand, moving to another country for the sake your children's education is anything but ridiculous.

[sonicdragon]

.....

The notion of moving back to the uk if you cannot afford an international school is just plain ridiculous. Life in Thailand for me is just that, life. In the uk it was a slog and a rat race. Comparative to the uk, my disposable income here is huge, my lifestyle is much improved and my general enjoyment off life has improved.

The way I see it, my "general enjoyment of life" is completely dependent on my children's quality of life, their education and their long-term outlook. I would sacrifice anything for them and if I didn't think I was doing my absolute best for them given my own circumstances and resources, then I would change whatever was necessary to do so.

[mjj]

.....

The notion of moving back to the uk if you cannot afford an international school is just plain ridiculous. Life in Thailand for me is just that, life. In the uk it was a slog and a rat race. Comparative to the uk, my disposable income here is huge, my lifestyle is much improved and my general enjoyment off life has improved.

The way I see it, my "general enjoyment of life" is completely dependent on my children's quality of life, their education and their long-term outlook. I would sacrifice anything for them and if I didn't think I was doing my absolute best for them given my own circumstances and resources, then I would change whatever was necessary to do so.

I agree. That is one of the reasons we came to Thailand. Yes, the education is of a lower standard, but the cost of living a good lifestyle is much cheaper. More importantly the ability for me to fund and help my child to be able to get a good job / start a business is easier.

I said it before, so many graduates in the uk with limited opportunities because of the lack of jobs.

For me,

Quality of life - Thailand wins

Education - UK wins

Long term outlook - Thailand wins.

Look at the posters on here, many retiring at 40. How often does that happen in the UK?

[sonicdragon]

.....

The notion of moving back to the uk if you cannot afford an international school is just plain ridiculous. Life in Thailand for me is just that, life. In the uk it was a slog and a rat race. Comparative to the uk, my disposable income here is huge, my lifestyle is much improved and my general enjoyment off life has improved.

The way I see it, my "general enjoyment of life" is completely dependent on my children's quality of life, their education and their long-term outlook. I would sacrifice anything for them and if I didn't think I was doing my absolute best for them given my own circumstances and resources, then I would change whatever was necessary to do so.

I agree. That is one of the reasons we came to Thailand. Yes, the education is of a lower standard, but the cost of living a good lifestyle is much cheaper. More importantly the ability for me to fund and help my child to be able to get a good job / start a business is easier.

I said it before, so many graduates in the uk with limited opportunities because of the lack of jobs.

For me,

Quality of life - Thailand wins

Education - UK wins

Long term outlook - Thailand wins.

Look at the posters on here, many retiring at 40. How often does that happen in the UK?

Do you anticipate that your children will go to university in Thailand or the UK (if they want to) ? I presume Thailand...and also that you expect them to forge a career or business in Thailand ? If so, then we don't have much to argue over.

One thing I would say though, is that the outlook for UK university graduates, who obtain a good degree from one of the better universities (say the Russell 20), the outlook is, and will remain, very bright indeed. One problem with "university education" in the UK is that there a so many poor universities these days. Another factor is the subject studied. In medicine there is close to 100% employment rate across the board. The same can't be said of classics - you might struggle to get a job at all with a 2:2 from Roehampton but companies would be falling over themselves to take you on with a first from Cambridge.

Edit: I don't think I really got your point about retiring at 40. For singles and couples, of course Thailand is a great place to retire to. But for those with kids, or intending to have kids, unless they wanted their kids to integrate into Thai society as much as possible and live there for the foreseeable future, I don't get it.

Edited June 27, 2012 by sonicdragon

[mjj]

Its just regarding the future outlook. A couple of posters on various threads have said they are now retired, 2 were 39, one was 40 and brit1984 stopped work to bring up his child at 27. If my children could retire at that age, I would be very happy. You very rarely hear people doing this in the UK.

It's not that I'm against working, but not having to work is an excellent option.

Regarding my sons future. I am happy for him to go anywhere in the world for a good university education. This I dont mind paying through the nose for. It was the thought of paying 400-600k a year for kindergarten 2 that was making me question its value.

If I could chose for him, he would be a doctor. A profession that can be taken anywhere and IMO a truly admiral profession. But, he will be his own person and chose what he wants.

Except go in the forces.

Edited June 27, 2012 by mjj

[sonicdragon]

Its just regarding the future outlook. A couple of posters on various threads have said they are now retired, 2 were 39, one was 40 and brit1984 stopped work to bring up his child at 27. If my children could retire at that age, I would be very happy. You very rarely hear people doing this in the UK.

But presumably the people on here who got to the position where they could retire to Thailand at 40 did so from the UK or other western country ? I doubt there are many who were brought up in Thailand, went to a non-international school, but were able to make it themselves, in Thailand, to be able to retire at 40 ? My bet is that most of these people got a good education in the UK (or other "western" country), got a good job (and/or started their own business) and then were able to retire to Thailand at 40 ? Without that education it is unlikely they would have made it to that position.

It's not that I'm against working, but not having to work is an excellent option.

Regarding my sons future. I am happy for him to go anywhere in the world for a good university education. This I dont mind paying through the nose for. It was the thought of paying 400-600k a year for kindergarten 2 that was making me question its value.

If I could chose for him, he would be a doctor. A profession that can be taken anywhere and IMO a truly admiral profession. But, he will be his own person and chose what he wants.

Except go in the forces.

But you understand that he will be classed as a foreign student if he went back to the UK for university ? Right now that costs around 100,000 pounds, for the five years just for tuition alone as a foreign student. By the time he goes to university I expect these fees will have at least doubled or trippled. Even for non-science degrees the tuition fees are 12,000 pounds per year or more. And then there is the cost of accommodation and other living expenses - current guidance, for students living outside London, is close to 10,000 per year. So you are looking at 150,000 to get your son through medical school in the UK, just based on current costs.

FWIW I don't see the point of kindergarten at all, unless you and your wife are working.

[mjj]

Why would he be a foreign student?

If this is due to the qualifications needed, at this point in time I will almost definitely send him to a secondary school that does igcse's or some kind of other international equivalent.

The reason for kindergarten 2 is I am led to believe that children in Thailand have to go to school at 4 by law here.

[GuestHouse]

But you understand that he will be classed as a foreign student if he went back to the UK for university ?

That's not always entirely true.

If the applicant moved as a minor overseas due to a parent being assigned by a UK employer to work outside the UK then the application will be accepted as a UK resident.

[ExpatJ]

The OPs original price range is wrong - the top schools in Thailand cost at least 20,000 USD (@600,000 baht ) per year, and that's for a 5 year old.

Of course the top 3-4 private schools in Thailand are much better than 98% of UK state school and certainly give a world class education.

I think this whole thread is understandable- those without money need to justify to themselves that the expensive schools are not worth it in anycase (e.g. by saying state schools in UK are better than top Thai schools etc etc). Those with money point out it is worth it. Bottom line- you pay for the most expensive education you can reasonably afford for your kids.

Oh and Tommo's point about education not being worth it because 1 or 2 famous billionaires with no little eduction happened to become rich is laughable- i just feel sorry for the kids of adults who believe that.

Did you actually read the op? What part of the '400k - sometimes more' did you not understand? Oh, I know the 'sometimes more' part.

Also the point of the thread is not whether you can afford a top school, it's about how much is a school education worth? Personally I take education in a holistic sense, not just the school education. As I stated before (no doubt your selective reading missed that as well) travel, activities are important also.

Most of the people on this planet do not have a bottomless pit of money, so how much do you give to each aspect of a child's education. Some on here believe the schooling is the be all and end all. I do not. IF the ONLY two choices I had were a top school and no holidays or activities and eating mama everyday, or a middle school, lots of travelling and activities like scuba diving, rock climbing, etc at the weekends, I would take the latter.

Thailand has many doctors, dentist, lawyers, etc and I would bet every penny I own that they did not all go to an international school. So you must be able to get a decent education else where. And please remember this thread is not about university, neither should it be included.

As you say, the schooling in the uk is better, but it is still crap - watch an episode of The Jeremy Kyle Show - I would not pay for it. Today the dole office is full of university graduates. Graduates are taking craps jobs. Why? Because most of the qualification in the uk now are not worth the paper they are written on. So, great go to the uk, get a better education for your children and then watch them waste there life as they have no job to go to. <deleted>, in the uk now, you need a degree to be manager at McD's!!

I graduated nearly 20 years ago and back then virtually all you had to do was turn up to get the degree. Today, they probably give them away with 5 Corn Flakes packets! Personally, I found A levels more challenging and more fulfilling.

For those of you that are older than I and studied for a degree around the 70's, I can only envy you as I think you will have had a first class education.

At no point in this thread have I said school education is worthless, but some posters seem to only see black and white, where as my intention of this thread was to bring out the variations of grey. What different people value and why.

The notion of moving back to the uk if you cannot afford an international school is just plain ridiculous. Life in Thailand for me is just that, life. In the uk it was a slog and a rat race. Comparative to the uk, my disposable income here is huge, my lifestyle is much improved and my general enjoyment off life has improved.

"Personally I take education in a holistic sense, not just the school education. As I stated before (no doubt your selective reading missed that as well) travel, activities are important also."

As i said, we self justify our position in life as appropriate- those that can't afford it TEND to often make arguments such as yours- i notice Tommo "education is not important' also 'liked' your quote which nicely makes my point.

As a matter of fact i cant afford to spend 20K $ sending my kids to a top school in thailand, but i am secure enough not to have to make tortured, illogical scenarios to try and delude myself that its better for my kids to go to a cheaper school over a more expensive private school. FACT- the more money you spend on your kids education, the more chance they will have a prosperous and happier life.

[mjj]

Expatj,

I'm not denying that top schools are better, it's just there value. The scenarios I chose in my op are quite specific to me, and I assume maybe to other posters. If education was of little value to me I wouldn't have started this thread.

Can I afford to buy a can of Coke for 10,000b? Yes, but I won't.

As I alluded to earlier, it's about where the cut off point is and the balance.

The part of Tommo's quote I liked is the part about making the poor believe they actually have a chance, or something to that effect. Do I 100% believe it too be true? No of course not, but the cynic in me believes there maybe some truth in it.

I pity recruitment today as opposed to 30 years ago. 30 years ago you were a bright spark if you had a degree, but they have dumbed them down so much now, that anyone that is willing to sacrifice the time will get one. Even the work shy. 30 years ago did you have graduates working as a Little Chef manager, no. Today, yes.

Edited June 27, 2012 by mjj

[sonicdragon]

Why would he be a foreign student?

If this is due to the qualifications needed, at this point in time I will almost definitely send him to a secondary school that does igcse's or some kind of other international equivalent.

<snip>

No, it's because of his residence in the period prior to starting the university course - and moving back to the UK a few years before university begins does not solve it. As Guesthouse says, there are exceptions, but certainly in the case where someone retired early to Thailand, they would not be able to send their kids back to the UK and get home/EU fees.

I don't know anything about

Edited June 27, 2012 by sonicdragon

[sonicdragon]

But you understand that he will be classed as a foreign student if he went back to the UK for university ?

That's not always entirely true.

If the applicant moved as a minor overseas due to a parent being assigned by a UK employer to work outside the UK then the application will be accepted as a UK resident.

Right, but I suspect that doesn't apply to the vast majority of TV posters in general (and to this thread in particular).

[mjj]

Why would he be a foreign student?

If this is due to the qualifications needed, at this point in time I will almost definitely send him to a secondary school that does igcse's or some kind of other international equivalent.

<snip>

No, it's because of his residence in the period prior to starting the university course - and moving back to the UK a few years before university begins does not solve it. As Guesthouse says, there are exceptions, but certainly in the case where someone retired early to Thailand, they would not be able to send their kids back to the UK and get home/EU fees.

I don't know anything about

Well, I didn't know that. I'll look for some more details on it, cheers.

[TommoPhysicist]

As far as I know children have to be living in the UK for 3 years (or was it 5 years?) prior to university in order to not be considered foreign students. Only children whose parents are employed overseas by the UK government are excluded from this ruling.

So if you are working for a normal company it's hard luck.

Edited June 27, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[sonicdragon]

Why would he be a foreign student?

If this is due to the qualifications needed, at this point in time I will almost definitely send him to a secondary school that does igcse's or some kind of other international equivalent.

<snip>

No, it's because of his residence in the period prior to starting the university course - and moving back to the UK a few years before university begins does not solve it. As Guesthouse says, there are exceptions, but certainly in the case where someone retired early to Thailand, they would not be able to send their kids back to the UK and get home/EU fees.

Well, I didn't know that. I'll look for some more details on it, cheers.

I think the rules are that :

1. You have to be a UK or EU national

and

2. You have to have lived in the UK/EU for 3 years prior to the start of the course (ie been "ordinarily resident")

and

3. The main purpose of living in the UK/EU for the prior 3 years must NOT be for full time education during any part of those 3 years.

Basically, you can't just go back to the UK for the final 3 years of education - if you want to go straight from school to university then you have to go back 6 years before. There may be some loopholes around these laws, but I think that's the intention of the law as it presently stands, though I'm sure it's more complicated that this.

Edited June 27, 2012 by sonicdragon

[MrRealDeal]

Your making a huge incorrect assumption , and that is that the poorly educated person would continue to be better off because somehow even though they had a poor education they would be able to produce something with the 5 million bht , sounds good on paper but in the real world it doesn't work that way , in the real world that money would be gone in no time flat and they would have nothing AND a poor education.

The other person would also have nothing but the education and tools needed to make his own 5 million bhat , so since we live in the real world would you rather be the broke uneducated one , or the broke one with an education ? Because thats the reality of what would happen , just like most lottery winners with poor educations end up worse off 10 years after they win than before they won.

Now lets just look at the 5 mill and be even overly optomistic about what would happen , the best case senerio would be they would buy a few things and invest the rest in something other than a bisness they had no idea how to run or it would be lost , they get a market rate of return and work for a wage comensurate with their education and skills ..... 300 bht per day , and they spend only what it made after inflation keeping lets say 4mill in principle. Once again pretty unrealisticly optomistic as even educated 20 year olds don't do that ....... That would give them about 80,000 bht per year at an 8 percent return putting 6 for inflation. That would enable them to live as well or better than the other person for a while perhaps even 15 years until the other person got a degree and moved up the company ladder.

However once the educated person began making the wages of a 35 year old educated person they would begin to make as much each and every month as the other person makes in a year and the income from 5 million bhat would soon look like peanuts compared to the income of the educated person , who would end up with their own 5 million and employment of more than 12 times the wages of the other. Remember this is wayyyyyyyyyy more rosy than the real world , in the real world they would have bought another car or 2 reduced the principle ect.

So the reality is that the 5 million bhat in any sensible senerio would most likely be gone in a year but even if the unlikely event of a poorly educated person investing well, saving well, spending well, for their whole life , they would still end up worse off than the other well before 40 years old and working un unrewarding crappy labor job the entire time , by 50 years old the difference between the two would be staggeringly different in favor of the educated , all behaviors financially speaking the same , once again a little unrealistic but thats ok.

So the trade off ..... all things being equal and disreguarding the nonsense arguments about the educated person making more mistakes than the uneducated one , not being able to find a job ect , is that the uneducated person even given 5 million bhat would only be better off for somewhere between about a year to 15 years at the most financially speaking , would be working a crappy job , and most importantly not be educated and not really understand. as well. how the world around them works. The other person would understand how things work , have a more rewarding life and job , be able to make better life and family decisions , and end up with significantly more wealth.

It's kind of like the tortise and the hare story , but worse because you have to take into account in this story that not only does the hare lose , but he loses right from the beginning by virtue of being uneducated and haveing a lousy job , even though he has 100,000 more bht per year then his friends , and he keeps losing for the whole rest of his life.

Anyone who thinks it's better to have 5 million bht and a poor education ESPECIALLY in Asia at ANY point of this story is simply wrong , but alsolutely wrong if they think you have a hope in hell of being better off when your 40 with 5 million bht at 18 than with an education at 22-24.

I hope I have made it clear enough, and I know the investment side of the equation is debateable but it's simply not how the real world works to think a poorly educated person will make wealth at 18 with 5 million bht as opposed to spend it or lose it eventually.

And it also unrealistic to believe a poorly educated person has a better life than an educated person in virtually all areas outside of finance having to do with life enjoyment , an educations best asset is not getting a job it's understanding how things work and being able to use logic and reason to your advantage , being able to converse intelegently with others ect.

Trust me it's True or I wouldn't have spent my time explaining it !

[mjj]

Thank MrRealDeal, I agree with you, but I think you missed my point.

We are talking about my son.

He will go to university and get a degree. Unless, he turns out to be thick and there is nothing I can do about it.

Even if I make some bad decisions and end up poor and he goes to the worst school in Thailand, he will not be uneducated. My duty as a father will ensure that.

Of course, giving the 5m would have strings attached.

I think we could agree that a doctor (I'll use this as I have earlier) will learn his trade at medical school, not at secondary and certainly not at primary.

Now, if two students meet at medical school, one with 5m (and the strings) having been to a school lower than an international school (not the worst schools) and the other with no money but an international school education. How much would the international one be at an advantage?

[samsiam]

I am 27 and a half, by the way.

Ah.....the young bucks that still feel it is essential to quote the half a year gain.

Piltos do this also....when they are new,,,they say they have 124.5 hours flying time....then when they get to 500hrs it usually goes up in 100 hour lots....then eventually they state 'around 3000hrs' or such.