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?

Offs I made the point about him earning it as the PP was going on about it like it was a lottery win.

Just because I married him doesn’t mean I want or have to be financially dependent on him?

Well they're loans provided by the state which unlike commercially available loans are able to be deferred until the person borrowing earns a certain amount so I think it's fair enough that the amount available is restricted according to money in the student's household.

Of course there should be a parental contribution.

just because I married him doesn’t mean I want or have to be financially dependent on him?

No but you are now because you couldn't live in the house you are in now without him, could you because each of you- and more so him- borrowed and are paying back a loan(s). That's a joint commitment. Why is your son's education any different?

Most couples use their income to support each other and their children, whether bio children or step children.

You have been with him twice as long as his first wife, and for just over a third of his time in the forces.

A decent man would offer to lend their stepson some money out of their pension lump sum to supplement uni and say they could repay them without interest once they got a job.

Rather than rail about 'the system' which I agree 100% is unfair and odd, wouldn't it be better to look at how you as a couple behave with money?

He hasn’t got his lump sum yet?

Of course there should be a parental contribution.

Why? These are adults. It's only recently, and here on MN apparently, that I've heard of adults mollycoddling their adult children for years through university and even beyond. Nobody I went to uni with received anything from their parents except a place to stay during term breaks and emergency funds which the student - full of embarrassment - went cap in hand asking for when they had blown their budget.

We all worked most evenings and weekends, we saved a considerable sum of money before we went off to university. This was also in the day when university meant lectures and labs compulsory attendance from 9-6pm 5 days a week, not the part time schedule that I see nowadays.

We grew resilient, we could budget, we didn't fall apart at any challenge or hiccup in our lives, we were truly independent, we devised great ways to earn more money, we cared about what we spent it on, and most of all we deeply respected our parents and it would have been utterly shameful to expect parents to fork out for us now we were adults.

Am I right in thinking that they don't take into account the income of the non-resident parent?

My experience was nothing like yours. I got a full grant. Noone I knew saved a huge amount but a few worked in the holidays. I was at Cambridge where we weren't allowed term time jobs.

The MEANS TESTED parental contribution is importsmt so that the tax payer doesn't end up subsidising children of families who earn 160k pa to go to uni!

60k that should say!

But it's arbitrary isn't it? You could earn 60k in one part of the country and be fine and dandy or live somewhere else and scrape by.
I just think that when it moved to 9k a year and loans, it should be available to all, regardless of whether another adult should in theory provide support.

Trewser Of course your experience was nothing like mine, I am fully aware of the restrictions placed on students who attend Oxbridge. Obviously I am talking about all the other universities who didn't place that restriction.

I am all for anything which stops the taxpayer having to fund adults studying. I understand completely that a millionaire mollycoddler is likely to lavish their adult offspring with significantly more money than a lesser earning mollycoddler. I don't object to means testing, what I am saying is the entire premise of parental contribution at all, is bonkers.

Yes I agree in principle. But it is what it is.

It has always been a difficult issue. As I wrote above my father could not read medicine unlike hsi brother because his father was in his late 60s by then and could not afford the fees so he read Physics instead graduated and then grants came out after WWII sand my mother was working full time as a teacher (and they put off babies for 8 years after they married although may be it would have been shorted but she needed fertility treatment). They got married when my father was 24 and a medical student and she says she was the first woman in Newcastle to claim the married man's tax allowance but that may not be correct. Anyway the bottom line is that in the 1940s/50s it was also difficult. I think grants came out after WWII which also meant my father could do the 6 years of medicine after his 3 year physics degree and he had a wife to fund him too.

The concept that a parent in England has no legal obligation to support an adult child and yet for some benefits you are expected to live at home until 25 (evne if you have no home) and for students your parents will pay at least £4k a yar to make you up to the maximum loan has always felt wrong even when I went in 1979. Scotland on the other hand I believe under its general law has a principle that parents will support their adult children up to 23 or 25 I think I remember. ( might be wrong about that).

I don't want to derail this thread, but a final point about parents paying for adults to study - it is very noticeable to us employers when a graduate has worked through university and been self sufficient, and those who have sat on their arses and taken their parent's money.

The latter group doesn't last, are infantile in their behaviour and attitude, they crumble unless they are hand held through everything, experienced staff can't bear to work with them, and they dominate the group that doesn't progress or we let go after a probation period.

he hasn't got his lump sum yet
No, and your son isn't at uni yet- almost a whole year to go! And as you know, that's not the point - it's all about his or your unwillingness to help a stepchild.

Work experience is really good for all kids. Employers do notice the difference. However, some courses make it hard for students to work during term time. One of my DCs did a pure science degree which meant lectures and lab work 9-5, every day, and lab work looking after experiments at weekends. They did though work at weekends throughout the 6th form, and all holidays while at uni.

I don't think anyone disputes this.

Most students manage by working when they can, using the overdraft facility they get from their current bank accounts, and if they are really stuck they can apply for student hardship funds via their uni.

But many parents do top them up, even if it's loan to be repaid. It's a while now since my DCs graduated but at the time we paid one of them £250 a month for living expenses and their loan paid for their rent. They paid for their own books, clothes, transport etc out of earnings from holiday work and money relatives gave them for birthdays etc.

If we hadn't been able to fund them either we'd have made sacrifices, or they'd have gone to a local uni.

I do know families who sold their houses and downsized in order to pay for their kids to go to uni.

Going back to the OP's post, there are

it's all about his or your unwillingness to help a stepchild.

No it isn't. It's about a ridiculous system and the fact that they can't afford to do it.

@DoesntLeftoverTurkeySoupDragOn

You need to keep up. All is fine and dandy now- his bio dad is paying £198 a month . At least one adult in all of this has seen some sense.

it is very noticeable to us employers when a graduate has worked through university and been self sufficient

Do you not employ any oxbridge then?

Accommodation costs far too much. A few years back, I was speaking to a young man whlse family fell into the "squeezed middle" of rich enough to reduce his eligibility to borrow living costs, but poor enough not to be able to subsidise his costs to the extent the modern system expects.

He had worked his socks off to get to his first choice uni, and found that his university halls were going to cost more per term than his maintenance loan. He was going to be into his overdraft from the very day he got to uni, before he'd even had time to unpack.

How is that right?

@Iwasneveragoddess Why didn't you advise your son to apply to a uni close to home if you can't afford to help him with costs? OR why doesn't he work full time for a year and defer his place so he can save up?

Given he is applying now to start next year, it's very late in the day to be thinking about funding and issues with it. I sincerely hope you have been honest with him and he knows the score - and can survive on what his dad gives him plus any money from a job.

Do you not employ any oxbridge then?

Yes we do. Oxbridge changed the rules some years ago and now allows students to work, after they realised that some from poorer backgrounds simply needed to, and they were missing a valuable life lesson.

Prior to this change, the lack of depth from Oxbridge interviees was always apparent. Generalizing massively here, their helplessness/cluelessness in the workplace was better masked.

He had worked his socks off to get to his first choice uni, and found that his university halls were going to cost more per term than his maintenance loan. He was going to be into his overdraft from the very day he got to uni, before he'd even had time to unpack. How is that right?

Work and earn the difference?

@JamesVardysHavingaParty
It's NOT right. I think everyone is agreed on that.

But what most parents do is start saving for uni fees from the day their child is born, if they can.

I know families who saved all the child allowance as a uni fund.

They weren't rich by any means but could afford not to touch the CA most of the time.

And now there are so many unis around including the old polytechnics, now unis, that it would be unusual for a child not to find one within travelling distance, so they can live at home.

Or the OU

Or taking time out to work and save pre-uni.

It's a crazy system but there are ways round it. Students can do it alone but many many parents who can't afford private school fees of £25K a year are willing to do whatever they can for 3 years to help fund uni.

Why? These are adults. It's only recently, and here on MN apparently, that I've heard of adults mollycoddling their adult children for years through university and even beyond. Nobody I went to uni with received anything from their parents except a place to stay during term breaks and emergency funds which the student - full of embarrassment - went cap in hand asking for when they had blown their budget.

That's rubbish. Maybe nobody talked to you much and you didn't realise other people were receiving money from their parents but parents have always made contributions depending on their income. The only difference is that in the past some students received a grant rather than a loan.

Do you seriously think there are enough jobs to go around for all students to earn enough to support themselves while at university and you think that they work so little hours they can do a full-time job at the same time? I'm also curious as to what sort of degree you did that meant you could work enough hours to support yourself without a loan or parental contribution. In many universities lectures can be at any time between nine and seven now so not a lot of time for evening work. Obviously there are no lectures at the weekend but most students will have coursework to complete so not that much time to earn money.