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 think either people have faulty memories or they only knew well off people in the 80s and assumed that this was the norm.

I got a minimum grant in 1985 and my parents were both classroom teachers. Which isn't the beat of the ghetto streets, but is hardly "toff" either.

But the same may not be true of all the cabinet.

Mum didn't work through choice?

I know this as it was widely discussed by jonny. We were very good friends. Plenty of conversations about how 'tough' her life visiting coffee shops was.

As for hardship of divorce, I'm not sure why this means you should get more money. Jonny already got 10k from Dad, why does he need any more from the government?

If we are paying everyone for hardship, what about those where a parent dies? What about the death of a sibling? Should we give cash for that as well?

I'm not blithely dismissing obstacles, I see them everywhere for plenty of people, but obstacles don't just come from having poor parents.

The need to help students pales in comparison to the desperate need for money in schools. For some children it is their only chance and being even halfway cared for.

GirlWithaPearlEarring I showed the Principle on a Plate to my DC, so they get it. My DS is 18 and going to uni this year. Most of his friends will rely on bank of mum and dad to pay for everything. He already has a part time job and applied for loans, we will help too but can't guarantee with how much as my DH is disabled and looks like he won't be able to carry on working much longer (part time at the moment).

I also work part time after taking voluntary redundancy from stressful full time work. We have looked after DH elderly parents in a major way the last 3 years and my own mother recently came out of hospital and is 85. So although she is back home it is clear that won't be for long. She now can't get her shopping regularly, can't maintain her garden or house so I do that.

DS is lucky not to have to pay tuition fees (Scotland) but not as lucky as friends some of whom will go into catered halls - definitely easier but more expensive. At a push he could stay at home but with long journey to uni and at least 2 buses needed. He needs to get out into the world though and gain some independence!

I had full grant in 1980s and it has been difficult to get to grips with how things are now. I would not have gone if I had to get into debt to do it - too afraid. Money takes away fear.

I should add that although I can't commit to helping DS with so much unknown in my own situation, he knows he already is privileged! There are people very much worse off than him.

My DC know they are privileged. But I dispute that they are handed things on a plate.

I know from years on MN that they work a hell of a lot harder than many on their academic studies.

Haven't read the whole thread but QuiteLikely have you applied for a mortgage since April 2014?

They most definitely take into account student loans and I had to say how much I spent on mine every month and it lowered my affordability.

They most definitely take into account student loans and I had to say how much I spent on mine every month

AND THE AMOUNT REPAID PER MONTH IN THE FIRST TWENTY OR SO YEARS WILL NOT CHANGE, BY ONE PENNY, WITH THE CHANGES BEING PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET, OTHER THAN FOR PEOPLE EARNING SIX FIGURES IN THEIR TWENTIES

I am opposed to tuition fees as a civilised, rich country educates its young, and we also need well educated people for the economy - it's not just about personal fulfilment and gain. And we need doctors, teachers, engineers, yes even lawyers!

Rather than having huge debts, graduates should simply pay a higher rate of tax. I've repaid my tuition fees and grant manyfold in any event, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to levy an extra 2% tax if you are a graduate (and 3% for higher degrees). Much easier than having a minimum of £27K to repay before you've even started working life.

As for grants versus loans, in Germany it used to be the case that if you finished in the top x % of your year, you didn't have to pay back the maintenance loan. Maybe that would be a good compromise for here (and available to all regardless of parental income).

Problem with that muminhants is that those of us with higher degrees tend to stay in academia, where we are paid a pittance for what we do.

It's interesting that people complain about the idea of students being funded by "the taxpayer". Why do people forget that graduates are taxpayers too? The education of young people is one thing it's definitely worth paying tax for.

Most of his friends will rely on bank of mum and dad to pay for everything.

In my experience, parents who turn down the maintenance loan are ill-advised.

The loans are the cheapest and softest money imaginable, and anyone who uses their own money, unless they have money that they would otherwise set light to Bill Drummond stylee, is making a mistake. If your child ends up in a low paid job, you've just given the government money they would never otherwise have received. If your child ends up in a high paid job, repaying the loan is easy. In the middle, you could always use the money you would have given them now to ease their position later.

It will almost always be better to give them that money as a deposit on a house; they would then by (in essence) borrowing the deposit on soft SLA terms, with you as an intermediary.

I have, however, heard of people raising second mortgages, cashing in pensions and spending life savings on avoiding student loans for their children. These are simply bad financial decisions. Any financial advisor (or a reading of MoneySavingExpert) can explain why this is crazy stuff.

For most people, having fifty grand in the bank and their child having fifty grand of SLA debt leaves the child in a better position than the opposite position, because you can later give the child the fifty grand. Being able to reduce your mortgage by fifty grand with that segment of the debt on SLA terms is fantastic value for money for anyone other than someone who's on six figures in their twenties, and those aren't the people I have financial sympathy with.

I could (just about) afford for my children not to have loans, fees or maintenance. My children have full loans, because I've studied the situation carefully.

those of us with higher degrees tend to stay in academia, where we are paid a pittance for what we do.

Top of senior lecturer is, what, seventy-five grand?

Gemauve actually my loans are pre-1998 and they're a whopping £170 a month. The government sold off that loan book to a private company. If we defer (not default - but legitimately defer due to loss of earnings) it now goes on our credit file.

So I am very sceptical about any claims made for long terms plans on student loans.

Have a gander at the Erudio student loans thread.

Actually I though lecturers in universities were well paid and they get three times as much holidays as most others.

Actually I though lecturers in universities were well paid and they get three times as much holidays as most others.

The latter part is not true: I'm currently supervising MSc projects, for example.

Actually I though lecturers in universities were well paid and they get three times as much holidays as most others

We get a leave entitlement the same as my OH in the private sector, and also an allocation of research leave to take - which we have to use, to fulfil REF requirements. It's the students who get the long holidays, not us!

Top of SL might be £75k in some places, possibly, but most full-time academics are on very significantly less than that!

When you say significantly less do you mean less than half? It's just someone posted that it was a pittance

And there is a strange anonmaly that it is unlikey to make sense only to borrow part of it - because of the way the repayments work you may be no better off.

I think that's the point. Assume I'm wrong and there are major changes to loans that have already been granted. In which case, having borrowed nothing is a benefit. But if you're going to borrow the fees, then you won't repay them in the first fifteen years anyway, so in any imaginable re-casting of the loans if makes no difference if you had the maintenance loan as well.

And in any event, only about 10% of students receive grants under the current scheme anyway. 90% of students are unaffected by this change. They aren't all "toffs" as someone charmingly put it upthread.

Yes, I do.

And much less even than that for the very many on fractional or causal contracts, of course.

Gemauve is right regarding taking the loan. 60% are never paid back which is really an issue that needs to be addressed- don't dumb down degrees, you can go to some uni' with two EEs.

Complete waste of time. Make a trade a real option rather than forcing unsuitable people to do a course they will struggle with, leave in the first year or never start to pay the loan back.

Why would someone do a degree and not want to earn over £22k, at the end of it. I have a nephew who did one, does a succession of low paid roles topped up by benefits. Hasnt made one payment yet and is proud of it. He says he had a great time btw so that's ok then!

but it has always been done that way (except in the early 60s)

Do you have the dates to hand?

My understanding is that pre-Robbins, grants were by the discretion of the LEA and could be gated on anything including parental income, the course (hence women being directed to teacher training), the phase of the moon. Post-Robbins there's the grant system that survived to the mid-1990s. I've always been unclear as to whether the universal grant system introduced in the early 1960s was always means-tested, was means-tested but initially at a level which gave a grant to everyone who wasn't the elder son of the Duke of Westminster, or was means-tested from the off. Which is why I caveat mention of this with "except possibly in the early 60s": I don't know the answer. If you have facts, please post!