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

I agree with you HowCAn. I think it's fairer that all students studying the same subject are coming out with the same loan and starting from the same place.

Ah Hillingdon, you're right wing tosh really makes me laugh. Your calls for personal responsibility and not relying on the state are laughable when you take into consideration the fact that the state pays around £98 billion in corporate subsidy and aid per yer to mostly large firms. Not to say the least about the responsibility of the bankers who have gambled, lied ( PPI, LIBOR, FOREX etc) and cheated their way through the boom and then needed aid to get out of it. Where is their personal responsibility?

This student loan thing is yet another way of shoving the costs of training employees onto the individual and away from firms, allowing them to maximise profit for their rentier class owners.

Keynes for the rich, Hayek for the poor and especially the young. There is only one on the road to serfdom.

Your OP ignores fact that many students with wealthy parents are subsidised by their parents whilst at uni and often have their debts paid off for them. I remember one friend who had the loan paid into a high interest account as instructed by his wealthy dad so he could make some interest on the money whilst at uni.

I remember one friend who had the loan paid into a high interest account as instructed by his wealthy dad so he could make some interest on the money whilst at uni.

Yes; At least seven students on my course at uni did the same. The interest rates then made it worthwhile.

Yes, I remember that too cansu and Maggie. Money was put in TESSAs so they profited from the interest free loan. Very common around the mid 90s onwards.

Getting a job to pay your way through Uni is no way near as easy as it sounds. Once you have a majority of students (10s of thousands in some major cities) all after the same part time work - there simply isn't enough to go round. And 'paying yourself through Uni' - exactly what PT jobs can pay £50k plus over 3 years?!!!

Even if this does not act as a disincentive to go to Uni (and I believe it will) then you have just saddled all graduates from lower social strata with enough debt to firmly keep them down there.

Herethere - but you only pay the debt back once you start earning a certain amount. Everyone coming out of your course will have the same debt and will a be going on to look for similar paying jobs. What does your parents' income have to do with that?

Because if your parents can help you when you're struggling before, during, or after university, they probably will. I would, and my parents did.

If they can't, they won't.

I believe that when you go to university at 18, you do so as an adult, therefore you should in theory be self sufficient and self funded, however some young adults are fortunate in having families that can shoulder the burden of the funding, that is just luck of the draw. Yes, some students will have to be juggling demanding part time work to top up their living costs, and some won't. Life isn't fair, but that's the way it goes. My daughter is studying A levels full time, working 12 hours a week and also studying dance and singing out of college, she is heavily over committed in time, but that's just how it is, will her grades suffer, possibly, but her next step to uni depends on all she is doing now, I would love for her not to have to work, but at the same time I am so proud of her commitment. If she succeeds in her chosen career she will never be a high earner, but she will be doing something she is passionate about. I always felt it wasn't fair that some students would only leave college with the student loan debt and others with also a maintenance loan, I think this system of a loan for all is in general fairer, as a graduate you should not be in a better financial situation simply by the nature of your birth.

Very well said tooty.

as a graduate you should not be in a better financial situation simply by the nature of your birth

but that is exactly what will happen! I can't believe the only fretting about unfairness and financial situations here is insofar as they relate to wealthier students!

My dd won't get a grant - good, she doesn't need one. Those whose parents can't help out should certainly get help, not debt!

"We don't means test adults' benefits on parental income though, so why is student finance treated differently? After all rich parents may go on helping out long after their adult children are 21, so on that basis why don't we go on awarding means tested benefits based on parental income, indefinitely? "

Because there is no way to know whether the parents are actually subsidising the students and to what extent?

I totally agree with tooty and I've said the same on MN mant times before. All this nonsense about 'fairness' and level playing fields makes me laugh -financially and socially engineering how students are funded through uni according to their parents' financial status is the least fair thing of all and is anything but a level playing field. It's very very skewed towards making it easier for poorer kids than for middle class ones. I just don't understand the argument that students from poorer backgrounds can't afford to go to uni unless they have their fees paid and are given partial grants for the maintenance element. It's a loan! It's not repayable until/unless you get a decent job!

The amount of the maintenance loan should be increased for those who feel they need/want more to live on so that no one needs to be subsidized by their parents. It's crazy that as adults taking on an adult debt that parents
incomes should be a factor at all.

There are also all sorts of loopholes in the way that funding for students of single parents is calculated. You could be living with one parent who has little or no earned income so you get your fees paid etc., while your other parent is very much present in your life and earns a fortune but their income is not taken into account! It's a joke.

Everyone should be entitled to exactly the same level of loan depending on the course you are on (they should be banded and weighted) with no free funding for fees whatsoever. So more rigorous courses like medicine should be eligible for a larger loan because it is recognized that it is less feasible to be able to work part time while studying. Any course where it is recognized that is a higher cost attached to studying because of the expense of the relevant materials or books Should qualify for a larger loan, but everything else should be at a flat rate regardless of your background.

Good post DontDrink.

I agree it is better to have a level playing field. 100% inheritance tax and a couple of pence on income tax rates should be more than enough to reinstate free tertiary education and give everyone maintenance grants. Not sure what the best proposal is for properly rewarding different career choices given current pay differentials is though.

Bollocks. What it means is that students from less well-off families know they will finish university with more debt than their wealthier friends, who don't need the loans or as much of them. And then they will effectively be taxed more highly, in the form of repayments, on whatever jobs they get over £21K (which, lets face it, is not very much money).

18 year olds from poorer families need more help to go to university. It's basic.

It's very very skewed towards making it easier for poorer kids than for middle class ones What a stupid thing to say.

Hillingdon/DawnDonnaAgain

Is no-one else on this thread shocked by Hillingdon's attitude to DawnDonnaAgain and other people talking about how these changes affect people with disabilities.

People with disabilities are people too, and have a right to discuss their experiences / concerns here. There are a lot of us, and our circumstances are not in fact "unique" and therefore irrelevant. Shocking behaviour and I have reported one of Hillingdon's posts.

longtimelurker101

Agreed the private sector needs to put its hand in it pocket and start funding university depts.

No tuition fees and grants enabled me to be first to go to uni in family, disgusted at the way the ladder has been pulled up.

Personally think all STEM should be free.

Having 'wealthy' parents ie parents who earn just over the cut off for grants doesn't necessarily mean that they will be helping you out. Most people will finish university with the same amount of debt. Debt that they will only start to pay off when they earn enough.

And having so called poor parents doesn't always mean poor. I knew someone whose Dad earned £80K plus who got the grant and EMA because the parents were separated and Mother only worked a few hours a week. And grandparents can help out too. This is the fairest way. The amount of your loan shouldn't depend on how much your parents earn or don't earn. The student is the one paying it back andno

Yeah I know someone too whose situation and behaviour would totes back up my argument. Do I win £5 and a right wing policy?

bumbley no! having wealthy parents doesn't necessarily mean they'll help you out. Having poor ones definitely means they won't, though, doesn't it?

How is a system based on assessing your parents' income fair on those whose parents do earn above the threshold but can't/won't be helping them out?

So we legislate on the assumption and for the indulgence of wealthier people being tight gits? Should my children get free school dinners because I might be a twat and not feed them even though I can afford to?

Is no-one else on this thread shocked by Hillingdon's attitude to DawnDonnaAgain and other people talking about how these changes affect people with disabilities

Nope, "inured" is probably the word. Hillingdon frequently posts along those lines.