to be worried there is no thread about what is being done that will affect our children's futures?

[granted]

I have become increasingly concerned both at the measures being taken by this govt (and the last too, though obviously nothing we can do about those now) that will impact on the next generation.

Articles like this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1328228/Revealed-30-year-graduate-debt-trap.html

on top of high house prices, increasing unemployment, climate change - we spend so long on this site debating the tiny things, like bedtimes, number of baths, bla bla bla - just surprised that I haven't come across other threads discussing this.

Do other mums feel like this, and if so, what can we do? Am thinking about situations where women campaigning together have made huge changes eg I think in Norther Ireland women were drivers for the peace process etc.

I feel strongly that a load of super-rich and entirely male politicians have no concept of what effect the raft of policies they are implenting will have on ordinary families and ordinary children - who after all, have no vote to make their views heard - and the current lot will probably have retired by the time they're old enough to make their views known.

Anyone else?

LoveRedShoes - I think that a lot of it is how people view university. I personally think it should be viewed as a means to an end. Every young adult prior to apply to university will have to make the decision - is my degree worth 24,000 pounds (or whatever). Will the job I get at the other end be worth that, or would I do better to start work now instead.

If it's not worth it for them, then they shouldn't go. It's a lovely experience (for some) for three years, but lovely experiences shouldn't be funded by the government. If enough potential students make that distinction then HR departments will adapt pretty rapidly and drop the degree requirement for non-specialist entry level jobs.

Likewise, the stampede towards unnecessary degrees in nursing and childcare and similar will stop, again allowing a wider range of people to access them.

I think there is a sense of entitlement. But not just from people trying to 'get' things from the state but from people who did very well under the old no-cost university system plus affordable houses plus almost guaranteed jobs.

It's hard for this group to understand how different it is for young people now. I left Oxford with almost guaranteed career options. I was able to buy my own property within a few years.

My children won't have this.

Agree SpareChange. My DD is 16 at the moment and will have to decide herself whether doing a degree is worth the debt. I wish fees werent going up, but understand why they are doing it.

I am fed up of tv and newspapers saying poor families won't beable to afford to send their DC. It's got nothing to do with what your family earn, because it is the student who will pay back the loan. If they have a good degree, they should beable to afford to pay back the loan, over their lifetime.

Does anyone know how much say someone on £21,000 will have to pay back per month?

Poor families will be OK as the lowest-paid quartile won't pay the fees, will they?

I think they will have to pay the fees, but they will get a maintenence grant, which obviously helps them to live whilst a uni.

QuickLook - but it does have everything to do with the family. Because it is the family income which is taken into account when it comes to organising loans and grants. So a medium to high family income will mean the student has a higher loan to pay. For the very rich, this will be no issue at all, for the very poor, scholardhips and or grants will help, but the lower middle earners will lose out, as their children will pay more and the family wil not be wealthy enough to help.

Anyway, on-topic: I have nothing against tightening my (albeit already narrow) belt a little and the idea of cutting back on luxuries to get through the bad times. (Not that I really have many luxuries other than a now aging PC and a large collection of books which I bough when I had a job. Oh, and a few computer games; should I be selling those?) What I do object to is the fact that not everyone seems to be having to tighten their belts much or even at all. I don't think it's a sense of entitlement to ask that if I am making sacrifices, everyone should be.

Oh for goodness sakes! - can't you read?

No, the poor will get no help with the fees.

In fact, as the article in the OP states (it does work - try cutting and pasting it into your browser, sorry no technical nous to reproduce links), the full amount of loan available will not even cover the full expenses.

Poorer students will qualify for a pittance towards their maintenance costs - big deal.

Re the comment I made earlier about students' debts affecting climate change was supposed to be ironic - my point was that there was no connection at all - ie I fail to see how you've addressed my concerns by wittering on about entitlement.

Anyone else read the v v important articles I posted links to re the Bernanke 'put' and the credit crunch mark 2?

Or are you content leaving that nice man George Osborne to deal with all those nasty number things and money stuff?

Grrr.

QuickLookBusy
I don't know how much it will be in the future, but when I was earning £21k, I was paying back about £100 a month for my student loan
Obviously my loan was a hell of a lot less than some might be facing in the future, so they will be paying that £100 for a long time, but I really don't buy this argument that it is the difference between being able to afford to eat or not, or that it will prevent people from poor backgrounds moving to london/taking the job of their dreams/having a social life
If money is that tight, they can do a night a week in a bar to make up the £100 they are paying back for their education

I have absolutely not issue with rich parents paying to put their DC's through university, I think its a great idea. Just make sure students from lower paid families don't have to pay a bean. Problem sorted.

Lots of threads about the various issues you have raised OP, bit complicated to discuss the whole of the problems this government are storing up for the next generation.

Granted, I still don't follow your logic
If you have 2 graduates out in the big wide world of work, both earning £25k a year and both paying £100 out of their paycheck every month for the cost of their education, what does it matter what their parents earnt? They were both given a place which required no up-front payment and the same opportunity to study on the same course on the same footing.

For what it is worth, I started university in the first year of fees and loans.
I got just under £3k a year as a loan, which had to pay for my fees of £1k a year, plus all my living expenses. I got zero from my parents, save for the odd few jars of pasta sauce from their shopping the week before I went back after the holidays.

Why the hell are students starting in a couple of years not able to do the same?
Why is the thought of paying 'tax' later in life such a barrier to education?

My DD1 is at uni now, so I sort of understand what you mean Tott.

We are lucky enough to help her. She is still on a very tight budget, and once she settles into uni will probably get a job. Many of her friends' parents cant afford to help, so they have got part time jobs. Something students have done for generations.

However, they will all be paying back a very similar amount of debt. They all have

1. A loan for tuition fees,
2. A maintenence loan.

Some students get a slightly bigger maintenence loan, but I dont think it is very much more.

Poorer students also get grants, which they DONOT have to pay back.
There are also alot of burseries given out. My DD was given a whole list of grants for everything from laptops to just living expences, which poorer students can apply for.

So therfore the vast majority of students are loaned and pay back the same amount of money.

So it is them who pay back the debt, it is nothing to do with their family.

sparechange you put it much better than me!

"If you have 2 graduates out in the big wide world of work, both earning £25k a year and both paying £100 out of their paycheck every month for the cost of their education, what does it matter what their parents earnt? They were both given a place which required no up-front payment and the same opportunity to study on the same course on the same footing."

I think the media {and labour party} have really frightened people, spouting "poor students won't beable to go.

Tikitikitembo I went for about a year. I couldn't afford any more :(

I wanted a decent education but feel I was let down by the system. In exchange I will never be able to get a decent job as I have no qualifications (we don't have an apprenticeship scheme either)and will always pay the minumum tax because I am a low earner. So the state loses out there.

Sparechange you do put that well - i may be wrong, as I don't have uni age children, but I live in a university town. The students don't look scruffy anymore and seem to eat better and have a lot more (eg cars?) than when I was at uni. I think the problem is again that sense of 'deserving' things and entitlement.
I had to go well into overdraft, take out loans and got grants AND worked three different part time jobs and summer jobs to finance my way through. Oh, and I lived in shared accommodation for four years after I was earning, whilst I had to watch SOME people around me have housing benefit, houses, dole, and not work through choice. And please don't say they are in the minority - yes, some people need their benefits, but my goodness I could rattle off the name of at least twenty who didn't.

Tikitikitembo - my friend is an estate agent earning £50k including commission and has no qualifications.
I do know what you mean though.
It's amazing how many friends I have with degrees who now work in completely unrelated careers and are retraining to be plasterers and plumbers.

"We believe a limit is desirable and are therefore proposing a basic threshold of £6,000 per annum. In exceptional circumstances there would be an absolute limit of £9,000

A quarter of graduates will pay less overall than they do at present under the new proposals.

Maintenance grants for the poorest students, with household incomes below £25,000, will be increased from £2,900 to £3,250 a year. Those with a family income of up to £42,000 will be allowed a partial grant. The government will retain a higher maintenance grant for students in the capital.

The government will announce a £150m bursary system to encourage the most deprived students to apply"

So, these are the actual policies. The poorer students on the average course will get over half of their fees paid. Hardly a pittance. Many families will still get a partial grant. Some people won't pay back the fees and they will be written off after 30 years (amounting really to a low graduate tax for them). I don't disgree with any of the actual policy.

I think you're confusing "not understanding" with "not agreeing with you".

LoveRedShoes-You are so right about students expecting more today. DD1s uni halls are unbelievably nice. The heating is on all day, they have a cleaner once a week, she has an ensuite bathroom!!

I am so happy she is living somewhere lovely, but I dont think the tax payer should be paying for it!

Lucky, I think the 'fees' bit can still be paid as a graduate tax, but those from poor backgrounds will get cash up front to pay for living costs. I suppose there is nothing stopping them paying that money towards the fees

But beyond covering the costs of getting them to and from university, do children from low-income families really need to have their rent/food paid for them, while those from middle-income families get jobs to pay for their living expenses? Not sure I can see the logic behind that either, other than as a softener for the blow of fees rising.

LoveRedShoes, I also do not have uni-aged children, but I did try and rent out my house in a university town a few years ago. I put it on with an agent and said I would be willing to have families or students as tenants
The feedback I got was students didn't like it because there was no dishwasher and a downstairs bathroom.
I ended up renting it to a family who apparantly saw no issue with doing their own washing up.

So yes, I do think students really do want the moon on a stick and act like spoilt little brats when they don't get it (see yesterday)

Sparechange, I have to stick up for students as my DD is one She wouldnt dream of being violent or acting like a spoilt brat.

I think yesterdays demonstration was hijacked by militants, who weren't even students.

I agree they have high expectations but if that carries on into work life I think thats a good thing. My DD knows she's going to have a huge debt but just says she will work bloody hard to pay it off. Good for her, I say!!

QuickLook, as DH pointed out, I have a very selective memory, as I refused to shop in kwiksave with my housemates and would insist on going to Sainsbury's, earning the nickname Lady Sparechange

But the days of slumming it in student houses with mould on every surface are long gone. A colleague was telling me that their student house didn't even have a proper hot water system, just one of those little wall mounted hot taps like in village halls.
Compare to my step-sister who has an en-suite bathroom in her halls of residence.

I'm all for standards, but the idea of making a bit of a sacrifice while at university has completely disappeared

No lucky - you haven't understood what you yourself quoted!

That clearly states they get "Maintenance grants for the poorest students" - not help with fees. It's help with maintenance as I said.

They still have to find the same amount for fees as anyone else.

shortchange, I don't disagree with you in principle but in scale - £3000 odd per year can be made up through a few part-time/summer jobs - not a great hardship.

£9000/year, though is a lot more - at least £18,000 in total plus interest costs more, to be precise. Don't forget your student loan ws interest free - these will be at commercial (or in some cases, higher than commercial) rates - so will add up v quickly.

Would you like to leave uni facing a debt of £51K? I know I wouldn't - terrifying thought. Maybe fine if you know you're going to be a lawyer or doctor - but we also need graduates to do poorly paid but valuable work that can only be done by graduates eg teachers, university lecturers etc. For someone earning £21,000 - £30,000 a year say, like a teacher, the interest on the loan is going to have a huge impact on the quality of life they are going to have. Do we really want to put off our best graduates from teaching? Wouldn't you object if your kids' schoolswere staffed with non-graduates or the real dross? I know I would.

Sorry, forgot to clarify the (implicit) answer to your question, shortchange, that it does matter what their parents earn - because in reality the much higher fees will put off students from poorer backgrounds whose parents can't help them with the fees - unless they know they are going into a well-paid profession.

And I don't think it benefits us as a country to have graduates limited to those who either (a) have rich parents or (b) are going into well-paid professions.

We NEED graduates for poorly paid but socially valuable professions too. This move is likely to reduce the numbers willing/able to do that.

Granted, where on earth have you arrived at this figure of £51k?

£9k x 3 years = £27k (and let's not forget, that is a MAXIMUM cap. Not all universities will be charging that. Some may still charge £3k)

And the living costs can be covered by jobs, grants or an additional loan. Even if they take out the maximum loan and pay maximum fees, it is still under £40k

They may pay back more than that by the time it is paid off, but that is how debts work. If someone asked me what my mortgage was, I would say it is the amount outstanding, not the amount I will end up paying back over the years.

Anyway, wasn't your original point that this was going to impact on children from poor families?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea that the interest is minimal for those on low incomes. So the teacher on £25k can pay it back at £100 a month without the balance growing too much.
Meanwhile, the lawyers and doctors on higher salaries pay a higher rate of interest on their outstanding balance

granted - I do understand, I just think that the receiving the maintence is equivilent to paying half of the fees in the long run. Your fees debt at the end is the same as anyone else's, but they will maybe have had to take out a larger loan to subsidise their living as they don't receive a grant, so their total overall debt is higher.

You're also deliberately taking the absolute maximums (from your own article they're assuming 9000 pound fees/year plus living expenses of 8000 pounds a year as being the maximum and you're quoting it as being the likely average). So that is living in, presumably London, at one of the Red brick universities, studying an exceptional degree. What about someone studying art history at an ex-poly in the north of england, how much do you think they will be paying?

What is your grand solution to all of this instead of higher fees?