To think poor students will still be able to go to uni and now it will be fairer on ALL students !

[bereal7]

I've read a few ridiculous comments from posters complaining that their children won't be able to afford university. This is bullocks ; the loans will still be there and even higher now. On top of this, they don't have to be repaid until you are earning more than £21k. Therefore, there is no reason why poorer students can't afford university.

If anything, this is now a fair system. It was not right that some students could get such high grants and loans that they don't have to work whilst other only got the bare minimum and have to work - sacrificing their studies - just because their parents earnt more. Those who didn't have to work would be more likely to pass and have higher paying jobs but not have to pay back as much. It was a ridiculous and unfair system which penalised people whose parents were earning more on paper and I welcome this change. Everyone who wants to , and gets the grades, can go to uni but will have to pay back the loans the same as everyone else once they graduate. Aibu to think poorer students will still be able to go university?

So annoyed by the comments and hysteria so I'm sure there's a few typos in there - apologies

Casual contracts of which my son and many of his friends are on (and like them because of the flexibility) are 2% of work contracts unless I am mistaken. so, 98% aren't...

Hope I have got the 2% correct and am putting my bullet proof clothes on if I am not!

Are you posting to me, Hillingdon? I'm not sure what you're asking, if so?

Steaming, not really. Tbh, I see often on threads people talking about zero hrs, casual contracts. They have always been around, it was called temping in my day! Will they allow you to have a mortgage, nice holidays etc. probably not. They were never meant to. My first three years of working were undertaking these types of roles.

If they really are only 2% of work contracts I am not sure what the big fuss is as 98% of them are not. Sorry, if I wasn't clear

Oh, ok. Well I don't know what % are on casual contracts, sector-wide to be honest. Those who are accept that it's a normal stage in an academic career, though not a very pleasant one and certainly not one you'd choose because you like the flexibility. Most of us have done it, and it's not a great place to be, though you're grateful for it at the time.

Anyway - the average starting salary of someone on a full-time permanent contract will be less than half of the £75k someone pulled out of the air on the previous page, and how far below half will depend on the institution. And the long holidays mentioned are also a myth. HTH.

Oh - also, now one of the problems with casual contracts is the issues they raise for student satisfaction. Although the people on them are usually great and very well-liked by students, where students are increasingly wanting more and more contact time and support, it doesn't make for a great 'student experience' if your tutor can't be around for consultation when you want it, and isn't allocated an office in which to hold it. So although I suspect there'll be a lot more of this in coming years, I don't think the impact on student experience has necessarily been thought through.

Casual contracts are certainly the way the wind is blowing.

It suits me to be employed in that way (being a lecturer is not my main occupation and I make no bones about that).
One of the universities I work for much prefers it, the other is a little uncomfortable but accepts that it is my choice.

I think I am very good VFM .

But I do think you need a proper core of full time, contracted members of staff as the driving force of a department.

Hillingdon They have always been around, it was called temping in my day! Will they allow you to have a mortgage, nice holidays etc. probably not. They were never meant to. My first three years of working were undertaking these types of roles.

Out of curiosity, how did you pay the rent? Bills? Knowing you may have no work that week. Were landlords ok renting to you knowing your income wasn't guaranteed?

Do you think these contracts have changed so they're even less likely to be manageable? Eg. are companies having huge numbers of staff and granting them wildly different hours at different times? Because it seems like people on these contracts are getting no work at all some weeks (and yet have to be on call for work at any moment), and certainly not getting full time hours other weeks so they could save a bit. Whereas those I know who temped years ago seemed to be able to pick up as much work as they wanted.

I think it might seem like a bigger issue because of the way it's linked to the DWP. Eg. the potential for jobseekers to be forced to take up insecure zero-hour contracts, with no guarantee they'll have any work.

I see what you mean in that the new system is more equitable but it isn't any fairer. One of the main reasons DD has decided against training to be a vet is that she's end up with nearly 70k of debt just for fees alone. So now EVERYONE will be in that position. Yay!

I applied for a permanent role! If they are only 2% of work contracts isnt it a bit of a non issue

Actually at the time there were loads of roles. I was in London and the M4 corridor which I know helped.

Some of the roles were for months, one for a year and then they offered me the role permanently.

Out of probably 15-20 assignments over 3 years I was offered 4 permanent roles but they were admin/secretarial roles and I did eventually move on. No uni degree or specialist qualifications in case anyone is wondering. M

I think they key was being willing to work in London or the Great West Road (if anyone knows that area)

I am not sure 2% is a lot if at least half like them. It assumes the other half have NO way of doing anything other than zero hours and also assumes no personal responsibility for getting something different or more suited to them.

There will be people for whatever reason state there is nothing they can do and wait for the state to resolve it.

Hmm, I think we are talking about different things here - I was just referring to the casualization of university teaching, not the zero hours debate more broadly.

As I say, those on temporary or part time contracts know that that is very normal, but generally they are finishing up or recently done with PhDs, and hoping that this will be the first step on an academic career. They could do 'something different' like totally move sector I suppose, but that's a bit of a waste of years of postgrad study.

I'm just saying I think there'll be more of it, and I don't think that's necessarily going to be a good thing for anyone.

As far as I know from people in disability support, no-one really knows what's happening. Money may stay in place, but how it can be spent may change. They may decide notetakers cannot be funded anymore, for example.

I'm confused by the 'university isn't for everyone' argument - I agree that there are plenty of people going because they're expected to, when they would arguably be happier in a trade, but those aren't kids from low income families. I agree trades should be more widely accessible through apprenticeships and be celebrated, but that doesn't change the fact that kids from low income families are being put off from doing what they are best suited to because of cost.

There are loads of reasons that students can't work or work enough to get by - a disability that prevents them, a disability that doesn't preclude working but no positions in an accessible workplace (no employer is going to put in a lift for someone on a zero hours contract), long lab/taught hours equivalent to more than a full time job, long terms, university rules against term-time work, universities in towns where there isn't a need to employ students - many smaller towns have plenty of people crying out for bar work who want all the work they can get and aren't going to go home during the busy holiday periods... And bar work in a pub is so hard to find, more likely you'll find yourself in some dodgy club where you kick out at 3am and don't get home before 5am. Who's going to do that except someone who absolutely has to?

I disagree OP. Big time.

I'm a student money advisor, and I can say that when I was at uni sooo many years ago, it was easy to find a job to supplement your income and pay for your fees, nowadays the job market is very specialised, and with so many people out of work, also very competitive so, jobs that you could easily get in the past as a student, you won't be able to get these days. These are different times.

The student loan is not enough to cover fees and living expenses. Most families are able to bail out their children and pay accommodation deposits and other extras to supplement the student loan, but there are families out there that are unable to do so, because there is simply no money left over after covering the family' most basic needs. In fact, some students work long hours, not to have some money for fags or drunken nights, but to send money back to their homes to help with the cost of raising their siblings. This is all heartbreaking stuff.

When the government forced universities to raise their fees, they promised university education was going to continue to be a possibility for the less financially able. The Maintenance Grant and the National Scholarship Programme were created to specifically support those students whose families were financially struggling.

Once the fees were up, the government cancelled the National Scholarship programme within less than 2 years of its creation, so it is quite disappointing to hear that they are planing to cancel the maintenance grants too, as this will make higher education prohibitively expensive to low earnings families. It would be an elite thing.

Oh, and if you think the student loans will continue to be sooo easy to pay, beware... The NSU has campaigned very hard in the past to stop our dear tory government selling the student debt to companies thar cannot be expected to be so benevolent as to keeping the current loan repayment conditions.

Exactly motherofalldilemmas - exactly my point about Erudio.

I think what will put more students from low income families off higher education is seeing others go through and not do so well in terms of jobs.

I think it has been stated upthread those students are less likely to get the top jobs so have less role models.

Therefore will see less return and parents become less supportive of the idea.

I must confess I am less interested in the idea of my children going to uni, having seen several friends children and members of the family go and not really do well out of it.

I don't think we will "put them off", I'm sure this won't be a choice thing, we will be striping them of the chance to continue their education beyond A levels as simply, they wouldn't be able to afford it.

There are many academically gifted students, who have managed to do brilliant despite adversity, who won't be able to join their peers in higher education because there won't be funds to support them.

By the way, this class segregation has already been in place for PG. Studies. Funding for PG studies has always been offered on the basis of academic excellence, it was rare for financial need to be considered at all but, a few years ago, the government cut the funding of research councils for masters degrees, not for PhDs, just masters.

No big deal you would say... But that meant that very bright students, who had shown sugnificant promise to get into academic careers, had excellent grades, and who would have been able to get scholarships in the past, could no longer access research degrees as they couldn't afford to pay their fees and living expenses for a full year studying a master (not even working FT). The ones that could progress to PG studies on those few years where the ones who had families able to fork the money.

Fortunately, the government has back tracked a bit last year, and for the first time in decades, students can now access more affordable loans than the career development loans offered by high street banks. These new loans, however are not as benevolent as the undergraduate loans.

I agree with you OP. I think if people are interested in going to
University they will still go and they will still be able to go. I think it may make people think twice about what they want to study rather than just picking anything and/or going just for the sake of going.

so depressing to read so many blithely accepting the reduction of our civil society to a short list of what 'we' can afford
we didn't screw up the global banking system by gambling on getting high returns on risky loans
but now it's fair that we pay for it? really?