To think the Uni Maintenance Loan shouldn't be means tested?

[Ellisandra]

Interested to hear reasons why it should be, and maybe adjust my view!

My soon-to-be stepdaughter is going to uni in September.

Because her father is moving in with me this summer, her maintenance loan will means tested and my income rather than his (her mother died) means she'll lose £4200 of it.
I will make up the nearly £400 a month, that is not an issue - we are a family.

I would support that for a grant, but this is a loan.

I get that there are admin costs, defaulted loans, people who never earn over the repayment threshold... And interest is low and much delayed repayment so it's not a money spinner for the government. But it's still a loan, not a grant.

Surely there are plenty of people who can't afford to top it up for their child? Household income over £60K and you lose £4200 - £60K doesn't go that far in London mortgages with commuting costs thrown in - £400 is a lot to find. In our case, we couldn't have planned for it - 2 years ago I didn't know I'd be getting a SD! (Lucky me though she's fab )

Then there'll be people who could afford it but refuse.

I was lucky to go to uni before tuition fees, and I didn't have a penny from my parents, I worked my way through. So I don't think kids are snowflakes who can't do that

But I just don't get why some students will be denied access to this because of their parents?

Even if there was a tiered rate so you could get the rest at a higher interest rate, maybe? Just seems really unfair that a student is denied it when a parent (or step parent) can't be forced to give it to them, and anyway may not be able.

The problem is while I agree adults shouldn't be assessed on other adults earnings, it would cost a lot more to do this as the minimum loans are already so big, in many, many cases the extra amount will never be paid off due to the write off and income threshold for beginning to pay back. So effectively the extra would be free money and many people would want to take it (even those who didn't especially need it). The only way to make it less attractive to people who don't really need it is to make the means-tested top up an extra loan, paid back separately to the other to discourage people form taking it who don't really need it. Then you might be able to make it available to anyone regardless of parental income. Students might choose to go to uni in a cheaper area and/or work part time and/or borrow/scrounge from the bank of mum and dad to avoid taking it on, but it still seems rather unfair on those who end up having to have it, and who then have higher repayments later on than they would under the existing system. Advantage is that it would give parents who want to help and who can afford it some incentive to do so.

I thought they'd already 'not uprated' it iyswim? There was some announcement a while back. Will be interesting to see what the manifestos say? (though then again.....)

To abolish future tuition fees while leaving the 2012 onwards students with this level of debt, hmm. We will see!

They've deferred uprating it, rather than saying they never will. The intention is still to start uprating it eventually.

They can claim disassociation and living at a friend's house. At 18 you're an adult and everything offered should not be based on what Mummy and Daddy earn because frankly Mummy and Daddy may well not spend a penny towards your university. Even at 27 my Sister had to go through means testing via Mummy and Daddy and she told the university in no uncertain terms to piss off if they thought they had any bearing on her income. Just argue the toss.

Bluntness When I was doing my degree in 86, there were still people who worked to supplement their means tested grants, so that has always been an issue

Agree but just because something has always been unfair doesn't make it fair. And it's slightly more understandable when it's a grant, but a loan? To limit kids loans if their parents earn over a certain amount is crazy. By limiting it for this reason then it says the government expects the parents to pay and some parents simply will not.

However the issue is wider, nearly a quarter of uni students drop out after the first year. That's one hell of a big cost for nothing. Not everyone should go, and there should be better explanation and understanding of options and better options available, with full loans available to those who do go.

In my daughters degree course 50% didn't make it to the second year. And that's similar to many unis and in the heavier subjects. That's 200 kids right there with a shed load of debt and nothing to show for it.

Even at 27 my Sister had to go through means testing via Mummy and Daddy and she told the university in no uncertain terms to piss off if they thought they had any bearing on her income. Just argue the toss

Huh? It's nothing to do with the uni, it's a government application.

YANBU

Bluntness Then the solution is to severely limit participation and fully fund.

You can't stop students working. The Bulgarian lad ds house shares with works to pay his rent, food and bills. Ds worked last year to fund some things we weren't willing to pay for (we pay tuition fees, rent, phone, and a generous allowance which covers food, bills, books and fun, plus we buy a new laptop as and when required).

I don't think anyone wants to stop students working, what's being discussed is some are forced to work and others have the luxury of choice and it's down to parental earnings that dictates that choice, and students by default are adults so why base how much they can borrow on their parents earnings?

You are totally right op

This makes my blood boil.

1. why are adults expected to support other adults
2. what the hell is the point in it being means tested on parents income, when Students would be paying it back
3. if a student has to work 20/30 hours a week just to live, they're losing precious time they could be studying

There are many better more coherent arguments I could make but I'm so so angry right now.

On a different level - I think it's outrageous the government expects adults of 18+ to be supported financially by other adults. It has always been thus. Grants were always means tested.

I am against student tuition fees, and I believe grants should be reintroduced, but I think loans are means tested because in certain situations they may never be repaid.

The £21000.00 threshold is a figure to watch. I have a strong suspicion that despite initial reassurances, this figure will not be up-rated in line with inflation. Whilst is sounds OK at the moment that you only have to start repaying if you earn that amount, if inflation chips away at the value then, loan repayments will soon become very onerous on people in low paying jobs.

You just know this is going to happen. Don't vote Tory.

When we completed the student finance item it said that if we earnt over £60k (?) then he would only get minimum and so there was no point in completing the forms. So I chose not disclose my earnings (divorced, living with partner but I earn well).
The feedback back to my son as that his sponsor had chosen not to support his application. The wording was unfair because in reality, I am am supporting him.
If I wasn't a supportive parent then he would be really stuffed. It is not fair to penalise students when their parents cannot or will not support them. That is not a level playing field.

Well, I suppose the problem is the daft idea of everyone going to "uni". A policy that I suppose had its heart in the right place (or was it to massage (un)employment figures?) ended up backfiring spectacularly and resulting in hundreds of thousands of young people graduating with masses of debt and pretty pointless degrees from tin-pot institutions.

One thing that does annoy me a bit - though I see that there's no way round it, when you use household income - is that actually, must as I like SD, my income is private! And now she'll know at least the minimum that I earn. My best friends and my sisters don't know that!

I agree with QuitMoaning, I'd completed all the forms but then realised that if you weren't going to get anything anyway then there was no point so told DH not to bother.

DS gets the minimum £3.2K loan with rent of £6.5K

It's because society can't afford to fund everyone when it was decided we should all go to uni, so we have this stupid system that funds people based on a poor calculation of means and not on ability or course choice.

For a lot of people, university is going to be an expensive mistake.

NMW is close to £15k pa and rising. For graduates, student loans are repayable from £21k, meaning that they effectively pay an extra 9% income tax until they have repaid or are in their early 50s. For those earning £21k+ but not a fortune, they probably won't be much better off than those on minimum wage.

as thing stand now dd will only get the minimum loan - it won't cover accommodation and we have three other children to support. She wants to do a 5 year course (combined MSc) - at the moment she is planning a gap year where she will work full time & eek out the money for as long as she can. That means she'll be 24 before she's even remotely financially independent from us.

Dh has suggested the divorce option too Rufus!

lania

I do not think dhs motives are solely about helping ds1 through university

Only joking

Thats dreadful though lania

I work in HE it's a shit system adopted by politicians with the assumption that an independent student (under 25 or one who hasn't supported themselves for 3 years prior to UNi or who isn't likely to be estranged from parents on a permanent basis and can evidence this) whose main parent/parents that they mainly live with has a household income above a certain threshold can afford to supplement their child's student funding. This clearly isn't always the case and not all step parents are as understanding as you do the poor students suffer are in hardship whilst studying and working their arses off.

In my opinion worse still is the suspicious parents on a middling income who refuse to go through the means testing so those students are also on the minimum loan (some of their parents or grand parents if they have custody are on benefits) and no way can they afford to help financially in any way and these students also receive the very minimum loan.

It's all relative but very few of our students can afford to go out on the razzle nad the vast majority are living in hardship.

So bad. Household income taken into account on the years before earnings so doesn't actually reflect the current situation at all. My oh earnings taken in to account, not her actual father's (he gives her money but that's not the point). They are an independent adult at this point, no tax credit etc so why should our earnings be taken into consideration for uni. It's an absolutely absurd system.
Got my email today for 2nd year finance. Oh joy. Had to appeal last year but won. Total ball ache I could do without to be honest.

When people are thinking about whether they can afford to have kids or not on low salaries I think they can end up focusing on childcare costs etc when they should be thinking longer term.

A few of my DCs friends parents are in that awkward middle ground where they are meant to help their DC out but can't afford much. One ended up defferring her place at Uni so she could build up some savings by doing a full time minimum wage job. She started as soon as Alevels finished and worked through until a few weeks before Uni started the next year.

Where we live it seems easy for DCs to get work in the holidays. Uni holidays are really long. There is also nothing stopping them working during sixth form or during the long summer holiday after Alevels. One of my DC had well over £2000 saved from just from babysitting before starting Uni.

If finances are going to be a huge issue then it definitely pays to head North. One of my DC pays £60 (excluding bills) a week for his accommodation. It's not fancy but it's perfectly ok.