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?

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.

Only rare, in the sense that they are less likely to go to university. Over a couple of years of experience of young people's homeless accommodation, including residents who were there fleeing sexual abuse from a relative, I only know of one who went to university. One.

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.

That's based on its being written off after 30 years but it's changing to 40 years so I think many more will have to pay it off. Certainly a teacher starting on 30 K will. Even those that don't will pay off most of it before it is written off. Considering retirement age is increasing so much I wouldn't be surprised if they increase the date of write-off even further.

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.

If you state "if you have parents you have support" you were suggesting that everybody who has parents has support which is clearly not always the case. If you meant most parents or parents generally provide support you should have said that rather than making a blanket statement and then trying to wiggle out of it. Many children, not just those who have been sexually abused, have been brought up in care and the fact that by speaking to them once a year they are considered not estranged is outrageous.

The person who did not have parents would have received financial support by the way. They may have worked as well but that doesn't mean they got no financial support.

Devereux1

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?

I don't know what time-frame you are harking back to, but in the current one, of high university fees, tuition loans, and maintenance loans, which this thread is about, someone with deceased parents would be able to apply for full maintenance loan. A child estranged from their parents very likely cannot, because the criteria are unreasonably harsh.

*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.

I cannot believe this. You still haven't checked what you wrote, have you? They weren't separate quotes, were they? It was one short paragraph. She mentioned sexual abuse in the sentence immediately before that one.

Here, I'll remind you.

So kids who are being sexually abused and run away from home are totally fucked and basically banned from access to education unless they can somehow survive for three years solo. But don't forget you aren't allowed to so much as speak to your parents for a full year, one single moment of weakness, one single answered phone call, and NO EDUCATION FOR YOU.

You separated them into sentences. That doesn't make them different points. They were one point, and you replied to that, in the way you did. It is patently obvious that there are no parents offering support in the background. Two posts before the one you quoted, she referred to her own past directly!

And at the end of all that you wrote that having parents was the same thing as having support.

If you take one line out of context in a post and reply to it alone, your response applies to the whole post. If, given the post as a whole, that makes you look very, very rude indeed, then that makes your post rude and aggressive.

That reminds me, the door is not hanging straight.

The topic has been slightly lost but I can assure you that children in care are very well supported financially to attend university. Finances is definitely not a barrier for them.

The topic has been slightly lost but I can assure you that children in care are very well supported financially to attend university. Finances is definitely not a barrier for them.

Children who were taken into care, yes. Teens in the halfway house of supported accommodation/long-term homelessness hostels who moved out or were chucked out post-16, no.

The unfairness is that children in the middle but whose parents cannot afford £4k and are not near a university so cannot live at home are worse off than children whose parents have no money and the child gets £8k loan instead. It was the same when I went in 1979 except now more people get to go - in my day lots of us got the minimum grant and many parents did not or could not make it up to the full grant, whereas chidlren whose parents were badly off got a full grant and did pretty well.

We would have to go back to when my uncle went off the read medicine in 1936 to a time when the better off did better than the less well off - I found his 1936 bill - the fees were in today's money £9000 - just about the same as today which his parents paid although by 10 years later they could not afford it all for my own father who had to pick a shorter course as his father was 49 when he was born. I presume in 1936 if you couldn't afford the fees you probably could not easy go unless you won an academic scholarship.

A teacher would not be on £30K for life- only if they worked for one year only! They get small increases each year up to 6 years (so their salary then is high £30ks) and after 6 years they can be promoted to Advanced Teacher Status with salaries right up to £50K+++ and more for headships.

Funniest thing I have heard all day. I wish this was still the case (and it’s not £30k to start yet.....)
Most schools will not put forward for ATS because it costs money - I don’t know anyone who has and many schools still haven’t passed on the interest rises to staff as they haven’t the money in their budgets. Automatic annual increments went a long time ago.
It’s a scandal and those who used to be teachers probably aren’t aware of just how bad it has become.

It was the same when I went in 1979 except now more people get to go - in my day lots of us got the minimum grant and many parents did not or could not make it up to the full grant, whereas chidlren whose parents were badly off got a full grant and did pretty well.

It isn't the same because now they only get a loan at a not particularly great rate of interest. People keep saying that not everybody pays it off and that may be true at the moment but I bet it will be designed in future to make sure most do. They have already extended the time to be written off to 40 years. They will have to pay it for most their working life and even if it gets written off before they have finished they will have paid a substantial proportion in most cases I expect.

Ignore my post. When I started typing I swear I was in my own thread!!

Wrong thread!!!

I’ve reported!

woodchuck99 I have seen your "will have to pay it for most of their working lives" comment before on MN. Can you show calculations around his?

I have seen your "will have to pay it for most of their working lives" comment before on MN. Can you show calculations around his?

Why do you need calculations? If 80% of people haven't paid it all off at 30 years then obviously the majority of people will be paying it for most of their working lives.

If it is extended to 40 years that is.

Why do you need calculations? If 80% of people haven't paid it all off at 30 years then obviously the majority of people will be paying it for most of their working lives.

Eh? Are we discussing the same point? You wrote They will have to pay it for most their working life - I am asking for evidence/calculations why they will have to?

Oh my lord, I've wasted my time explaining social etiquette to someone with hirsute tendencies on their hands. I am a muppet.

Eh? Are we discussing the same point? You wrote They will have to pay it for most their working life - I am asking for evidence/calculations why they will have to?

Yes we are discussing the same point! If 80% of people currently have not paid off the loan by 30 years and it will not be written off until 40 years then they will probably have to continue paying it until they are 62! Is that not obvious?

woodchuck99
Can't you see, none of your calculations make any sense. And you're not answering my question.
I am not asking you what proportion of people have not yet paid off their student loans, nor how long is outstanding on them.

I am asking you for calculations to support what you wrote: They will have to pay it for most their working life. Why do they HAVE to? Where is your evidence for that?

If you don't know why they HAVE to, just say.

Perhaps this will make it clearer to you. This calculation estimates that a graduate starting on 25K will have paid off 67% of the loan at 30 years. so they will have to continue paying it off for another 10 years.They will see 61 at least at this point.

www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/student-loan-repayment-calculator

see be

woodchuck99
At last! Thank you.

Now, the obvious GLARING omission from this calculator is earnings of students. It is incredible that it takes no account at all of students working whilst being a student, just like millions of students used to for decades.

If a student works evenings, weekends, term breaks, summer holidays etc just as we used to do, which obviously every student should be doing to reduce their debt, what is the calculation then?

See? There is no "HAVE TO" at all. They don't have to. If they sit on their backsides and don't work whilst at university, then yes, but that's their choice.

If a student works evenings, weekends, term breaks, summer holidays etc just as we used to do, which obviously every student should be doing to reduce their debt, what is the calculation then?

Firstly I'm not sure when you went to university but when I did in the 80s we didn't work much on top of our grant. My parents and 60s didn't work at all. Secondly, the current loan often doesn't cover the cost of everything and so students have to work on top of it. Accommodation alone can be nearly 8000 in some areas.

See? There is no "HAVE TO" at all. They don't have to. If they sit on their backsides and don't work whilst at university, then yes, but that's their choice.

As I said most do work but they're not going to be able to do enough hours to totally support themselves unless they're doing a part-time degree or one that requires very little work.

woodchuck99.
In the 90s. Everyone I studied with worked. I saved up thousands before university by working during the year before I went to uni. Yes, whilst studying for my A levels too. I worked non stop throughout university and every break.

Accommodation alone can be nearly 8000 in some areas.
Renting rooms in shared households or in halls, like most students did for decades, don't cost £8000. Where are you getting this figure from?

As I said most do work
Oh, so most students do work you're now saying? Right, so if most of them are working, let's revist that calculator you provided an add in their earnings. How many hours per year is the average student working?

Fuck me Devereux1 why don't you start your own thread where you can hector people to your satisfaction instead of derailing this one?!

There's making your point - that's fine, but then there is continuing to argue with, and clearly upsetting, people who don't agree with you for (what is blindingly obvious to everyone else) their own reason, then looking for other people to argue at. You really don't come across well, why don't you go start a fight in an empty room or something and let this thread get back to being useful to the OP?

(And on that note, OP if you are the poster who has posted about your DH before (forces/work patterns and estranged DC sound familiar) he was an arse then, and he is an arse now. As MN say, you have a DH problem, not a loan problem)