UCAS utterly unfair

[Iwasneveragoddess]

My third child is filling out his UCAS form and as happened with his sister he has to put the highest earner in the household on the form, which will affect his loan, this isn’t me it’s my DH who is not father to any of my children.

He is still paying maintenance for his own children and is not financially responsible for mine, how on earth is this fair?

If you have parents, you have support

I was completely estranged from my father for years as a teenager, and he lived abroad.

I definitely didn’t have “support”, emotional or financial.

You are not applying for finance on the UCAS form op! Go to student finance website and read up!

Butchyrestingface
If you have parents, you have support
I was completely estranged from my father for years as a teenager, and he lived abroad.

I understand. I was referring to the poster who said that they have parents and are not completely estranged, are in contact etc. That's emotional support at least.

MsMaisel
Devereux1 why do you think it’s “perfectly reasonable” that teenagers be denied the same access to education as everyone else purely because they were sexually abused?

Of course, I cannot even begin to answer that question as you are asking me why I think something that is made up in your head.

Would you like me to discuss something that I have actually written?

MsMaisel

Seriously, please stop. You have got yourself in a train of thought and are interpreting everything you see through a truly perverse perspective.

@minesagin37 a RTFT moment for you there

OP established on the first page that she meant the finance application. Unlikely by page 15 this wouldn’t have happened

If you have parents, you have support

That's got to be one of the most ignorant, naïve comments I have heard on this forum. What about children brought up in care example? Do you think that because their parents are alive they have support?

As the being estranged it is ridiculous that they base it on whether you have spoken to your parents in the last 12 months. DH wasn't brought up by his mother and she provided no help and support whatsoever during his childhood but because he had spoken to his drug addict mother in the 12 months before she died the authorities decided he did not meet the definition of being estranged and he was financially penalised because of it. Not fair.

Devereux1

MrsMaisel listed the incredibly stringent criteria for a teenager to prove estrangement, and you said those criteria were reasonable.

She has been totally taken aback at your assertion, so she's now pointing out why they're not. Don't like it? Well, it's cause and effect, cause and effect.

As it happens, I agree with her, 100%, because I hae experience of a young person's homeless hostel for people aged between 16-25. The residents were definitively estranged, in the sense that their parents threw them out on the street, so that the local council had to step in Their parents certainly weren't going to emotionally or financially support them through uni. Yet, despite this, not a single one of them would have met Student Finance's criteria for estrangement though. They are too strict. They don't reflect the complexity of abusive households.

woodchuck99
What about children brought up in care example? Not what I was referring to.
Do you think that because their parents are alive they have support? No. That's not what I was referring to.

Devereux1

Seriously, go back and look at your post. It's even worse now I've gone back and looked at it. Completely tone-deaf. You took MrsMaisel's post apart, line by line, where she explicitly mentions sexual abuse and then you have the gall to say that you weren't talking about teens from abusive households?

I haven't even mentioned children from abusive backgrounds other that referring to a line where MsMaisel said they were banned from education, which obviously they are not.
An entire point about showing that children with no financial or emotional support can still succeed and excel and go to university is twisted into some awful, sick rant about attacking children who are victims of abuse?

I think I have entered a twilight zone. This is such a perverse way to look at the world and discussions, it must be a horrible way to live.

It is 40 years now. The teacher may be on 30K year now but it wouldn't be for life as obviously there will be pay rises.

Not according to the government’s website.

You seem not to actually understand how the repayment works.

MSE’s latest estimate is that around 80% of people will never pay back the whole loan and many won’t pay back anywhere close to the full amount.

@Xenia I was a teacher and I have friends and colleagues who did their 40 years often full time or took on additional responsibilities to move up the scale. It's not rare for that to happen. But that was before the current uni loans system kicked in.
I got a grant though not the full amount. My parents - although in theory could have paid the rest- couldn't really afford to, so I worked at weekends and holidays to help pay my way.

In outer London for example, teachers' pay on M3 ( in theory this could be after 9-10 years) is £44,500.

Devereux1 i'm going to take it you don't vote conservative, because they traditionally believe in taking personal responsibility.

Read. Your. Own. Post, you lummox.

One line after you quoted MrsMaisel posting about sexual abuse, you compared her situation directly with that of an orphan you knew, and then you said, "if you have parents, you have support".

You quoted someone posting about sexual abuse and said "if you have parents, you have support".

You. No-one else. You.

Why do post about a general natter evolve to discussing exceptions for papers? Kids who go to Uni and have sadly been the victims of sexual abuse are thankfully very rare.

This thread is about the fact that some parents who earn just above the maximum cap might not have much disposable income to support their kids and that it isn't right that the finances of an adult at uni should be assessed based on the income earned by their resident parent partner who they might very little to do with.

JamieVardysHavingAParty

Are you alright?

One line after you quoted MrsMaisel posting about sexual abuse, you compared her situation directly with that of an orphan you knew

Reality: One line after I quoted MsMaisel posting about sexual abuse (which made no mention of the parents being responsible for the abuse) and she wrote about them being banned from access to education I made no comparison whatsoever of any of that. I cited an example of a student who went through their own hardship, with no financial support by the way despite what you and MsMaisel keep on pretending, and did well despite what happened to her. I was in awe of her. How on earth could you find something nasty in that?

*and then you said, "if you have parents, you have support".

Reality: No, not then was it? It was in answer to a separate quote about speaking to parents for a year. No connection in my mind with sexual abuse since she had never mentioned the parents committing sexual abuse. No thought in my mind whatsoever about the specific case of sexual abuse. Nothing whatsoever in my mind or my posts was about sexual abuse, or rape, or any of vile comments which MsMaisel has fabricated in her own head. Just normal interpreting this to mean there are parents somewhere in the background who are offering some level of support. Not an exceptional specific case of parental abuse, I would have thought that was patently obvious.

Just encouragement for anyone reading this, that no matter if you don't have parents, or are estranged from them, you are not barred from education at all. Go for it. And I still stand by that despite the torrent of abuse, nastiness and made up in your heads rubbish from you and MsMaisel. You're both completely frightening.