More places if you pay upfront

[Xenia]

Today's Times...."Extra univesrity plcawes would be made available for students who pay their fees upfront and don't require help with living costs, under govermnent plans"

At present so few will pay back the loans the new system is going to be very difficult to work economically. Univerities need more students but are blocked by quotas. They want to increase numbers without increasing Government spending. They would of course have to meet the standard entry requirements for that university.

I think the general advice from the financially-savvy is you let them take out the loan as the replayments are quite small and won't impact too much on their ability to get a moretgage, and use the money you would have given them to pay for fees and living costs as a deposit for when they buy their first property.

The Government has totally screwed up this one - it's car-crash tv at its best - except my job and my dc's future is on the line .

Willet's has only realised that OFFA, who have to approve university's plans to widen participation in return for charging fees, actually has no legal power to tell universities what to charge!

Adn why on earth did he think that if you remove a minimum of £3,700 of funding per student, that most universities would be happy to only increase their fees by £2,700....?

Their thinking beggars belief. The latest is that he will make more loans available to students going to the private providers - appretnly this will increase competition which is what the sector needs....

The Treasury is crapping itself as to how it will pay for these loans upfront, and a cap will either be put on universities (similar to now), but they will as Xenia says be able to offer extra places to self-funded applicants. The alternative is allowing institutions to accept as many students as they like, but limiting the number of students who get loans. Maybe first come first served, or only those with 300 UCAS points, or those who's surnames begin with A-H. Or those who were in receipt of EMA. Oh, forget EMA won't exist.....

What a mess

We've had the same debate with the other 3 (with lower fees) and their friends. Some parents say much better to make them take out loans as then they work for their degrees and in England (not Scotland) parents are not responsible for adult children financially.

Others say as i did - I had no loan debt and I didn't want them to (and we signed a piece of paper which said in return for my funding they would not take any loans or debt on - they have so far done 14 years post A level in total of degrees and further study, not just 3 x 3).

Others of their friends took the loans and invested them in an ISA and used their parents' cash to live off but the interest you get on that is very low and the hassle, admin, being on the student loan database etc etc is just not worth the hassle in my view.

The new fees are more complex. I would expect my children to be in jobs where they would have to repay the debt and I think the interest rates will be much more commercial and if we get inflation and huge pay increases like in the 70s again then the rates might go right up and as the student fees are about the ame as a year of school fees I currently pay I suspect if the boys go, then I will just fund it.

If students are more likely to go for the very low paid jobs/degrees because they won't have to pay back loans (which is very interesting result - pick a career you earn very very little in so you don't have loan debt) that's a very perverse result. The interest repayments will not probably be very high and the pain in stead on an average parent having to pay or remortgaging might be great. I would imagine if you can afford to pay because you already pay £10k a year on school fees you might as well carry on paying. If these are massive sums to you then treat the child as an adult and make them fully fund themselves.

Well I am fortunate in that I don't have any dilemma. I certainly won't be remortgaging to help out. I might downsize and get rid of my mortage which will mean I can send food parcels .

If DD goes and she absolutely should, then she will take full loans and grants, hopefully bursaries. I'm just hoping that they will offer students from low income families a good amount to cover living expenses. I am so worried that they will only give extra help to students from unemployed families, which is so unfair as they probably take more from the state than I even earn.

Fees will be debt, we've resigned ourselves to that.

Does anyone in the know have any idea where we will stand. Single parent with a below average salary?

Well, that's the rub, isn't it adamschic?

If you have nowt then you can get cheaper fees and living allowances; if you have a bit but not much, then tough.

And as many people have been pointing out, if, as the Govt says, the fees are repayable by the student and will depend on their future income, then how does what their parents earn come into play? What if student A comes from a poor home yet becomes an investment banker? They have graduated debt free. Yet student B may come from a modest background, is not entitled to any fee remission or bursaries, so is liable to pay back the fees and may not be in a particularly high-earning career.

There are some potentially serious anomalies in all of this.

Yes, it's hugely unfair even under the current system. Milliionaire parents are not obliged to pay their child a penny nor let them live a home in the 50% of the year which is university holidays and some don't. Other not well off parents give the child a lot. Yet the child of the not well off who is given money by the parent gets more help than the child of teh rich parents who pay not a penny. Bizarre and unfair. These are adults, over 18,.

Yes - back in the 80s dh's parents earned too much for him to have a grant, yet they wouldn't pay their contribution. He graduated with a lot of debt. Another thread - but I don't understand why he still speaks to the skinflints. They also refused to allow him to apply to Oxford (in spite of the headmistress visiting them at home!). They were steadfast in their view that "we didn't get the chance, so why should you" and were quite reluctant to sign the papers for dh to go to university at all. I can understand if this was in the Angry Young Man 1960s, but not in 1980s Hampshire.

It's still the case now for lots of children.
The only exception in England is if parents are divorced the one you don't live with can be obliged to pay for university costs apparently although even that was covered off in our divorce court order which says whoever the chidlren live with I pay the costs.

Been reading up today on what's happening. There is a legal challenge already started re tripling tuition fees on the grounds of equality.

Also papers are being prepared to legally challenge the abolition of EMA for students who started last September who were told they would receive the payments for the 2 yr course.

Interesting issue, I also thought when I read about this that there would be a hige stink about people who can afford it buying places. But if they do, then they have paid, whereas there do seem to be ways of weaselling out of not paying if it is a loan.
What happens if the gradute gors to live abroad - can they be pursued for payment then?
If our DC are inclined to go to university, we would probably encourage them to go the US rather than the UK, as the balance has now shifted at their school, with more leavers taking up places this year in the US than Oxbridge.