Parents earn enough to not qualify for larger loan - but wont help out

This is true. You are correct. I had forgotten about that. After 1st year when you have to move out of halls it can get more expensive though. A lot of people are put off studying in London because of the increased costs.

Because if people with well-off parents who refuse to help them out financially got extra help, then every well-off parent would start "refusing" to help - possibly whilst giving their offspring noticeable sums in cash, which wouldn't show up on their offspring's bank accounts!

I suggest you read the wiki article on class structure.

Middle class =/= millionaire.

Class isn't about how much money you have or earn (except perhaps in the case of a few very wealthy upper class families).

Working class people can and do become millionaires. In fact, a lot of really wealthy people make money from a poor background or with limited formal education. Those who make a LOT of money don't necessarily have a lot of formal education.

Middle class people don't call send their children to private schools, nor does sending your child to a private school mean you are anything close to a millionaire.


http://www.forbes.com/2003/07/28/cx_dd_0728mondaymatch.html

Why not have sufficient repayable loans for all students? The point being that all students should have enough money to attend uni, regardless of parental income.

Who would fund the extra hundreds of millions that would cost?

I couldn't disagree with this anymore.

Divorce is happening among many families from all areas of society. Money doesn't also result in a comfortable lifestyle.

I take your earlier point about some students from poor families being less likely to consider university. That is true.

In this case I think there should be more scholarships available to students with outstanding ability. This would encourage talented students, regardless of background.

However I disagree with the numbered points.

1. I'm not sure having parents who earn average or slightly above average income counts as being rich

2. Income =/= compassion

3. Actually this is far from unusual. There have been many previous threads and heated discussions with many students in a similar position.

4. Let's be clear. The parental income is the difference between students. The students themselves do not have more money in their bank account, simply because their parents earn slightly more. So why do poor students need the money more? Regardless of parental income everyone has to pay for rent, food etc. If the student with parents on lower income is loaned/given enough money by the SLC, but the student with parents on higher income is given insufficient money by the SLC then the latter student either has to work a lot more than the former student just to get by or take an expensive commercial loan. Why should the 1st student not have to work (or work as much) as the 2nd student just because their parents earn less? It's not the fault of the 2nd student that their parents earn slightly more.

Isn't the fair thing to do to offer all students a loan that is sufficient to live on and repayable? It's a loan so everyone has to pay it back. If you're an adult, your own bank balance has nothing to do with how much your parents earn.

Its not about fairness its about encouraging poor people to go to university to increase social mobility, by giving the previously under privileged children an advantage at university by removing the worry of income it allows them to 'catch up' with your typical middle class kid who had a lovely nuclear family went on holidays to Florida every year and parents paid for to have piano lessons up to grade 8.

But not giving enough loan to students with slightly higher income just makes life harder for that student, how does it help students from poorer parents in any way?

Also - middle class income =/= lovely nuclear family & stable life, lol

Umm... I know being middle class doesn't make you a millionaire, but most people who are wealthy in adulthood come from wealthy backgrounds. That's the point I was trying to make, and don't think it's disputable. Yes there are some self-made millionaires from working class backgrounds (Alan Sugar springs to mind) but these are a very small minority.

I know sending your child to a private school doesn't mean you're a millionaire, but it does mean you can afford to give your child educational advantages that those from working class backgrounds don't get. I missed years 3 and 4 of school because I didn't have a house. Would that have happened to a middle class child? I doubt it.

I wasn't trying to start some kind of class war with that post If you'll look back at the first post I responded to, the poster implied that rich people were being 'ignored' when it came to education and I was just pointing out that that is not the case.

I HAVE NO SYMPATHY for children with wealthy parents who refuse to aid them at University. These kids should see this as an opportunity to become independent, and take more life satisfaction rather than having another ASDA at home delivery paid for by Daddy arriving on the doorstep.

We are talking about the Maintenance loan/grant right?
I don't give a monkey's arse if your typical middle class student will have a harder time at university because they have less state support. They should be grateful they are at university and not one of the NEWTs who have been failed by their parents AND society to even give then the hope of a future worth living.

And no middle class income =/= lovely nuclear family. IT does however give an increased chance of coming from a stable background and THE MONEY helps tremendously even if other griefs are caused.

Regarding the OP, if you are doing a Science degree, take a gap year do a YinI. Look for sponsorship from a company, be pro active rather than looking for a get around.

If not go and work at Tesco for a year, live on a pittance and save some money. Then you can get a winter/easter/summer job and fund your university through that.

I HAVE NO SYMPATHY for children with wealthy parents who refuse to aid them at University. These kids should see this as an opportunity to become independent, and take more life satisfaction rather than having another ASDA at home delivery paid for by Daddy arriving on the doorstep.

I disagree entirely with your first paragraph. Most people who are wealthy in adulthood actually come from working class backgrounds. Okay, perhaps Alan Sugar is in the minority with the level of his wealth, but I don't think it's a coincidence when you hear about all these heirs and heiresses who squander their trust funds on partying. Sensible wealthy people don't even give their kids that much money for this reason.

And, uhm, life isn't as black and white as either being "middle class" (whatever that means) or missing two years of school because you were made homeless. My family have never been made homeless, but I am in the same position as the OP. The way they calculate parental wealth is misleading. They don't just go on parental income (and the figures they use are from several tax years ago - so basically pre-recession), but they also take into account other assets. I wouldn't expect my parents to sell their shares in the stock market to put my siblings and I through university, and it would be a pretty stupid move, to be honest (they'd make massive losses right now, for a start).

I actually think "rich" people are ignored. They pay taxes like the rest of the population, and a lot of them take their children out of the state system - thus relieving pressure on a struggling system (the state schools in my area are pretty dire, and couldn't meet my needs as a child [I have a mild physical disability]) while also contributing financially to it. They might not be ignored in the same way that poor or vulnerable people are ignored - they're not on the breadline - but there is literally no incentive to be rich in this country... their children get less financial assistance in higher education; they pay higher taxes (especially in the 50p tax band). It's no wonder that the country's top earners bank in foreign countries.

If you actually looked at the way they calculate income, you'd realise this is rubbish. a) they take figures from several tax years ago, pre-recession, and many people's incomes have gone down since then; b) they don't just look at income; not all "rich" people have wads of cash to hand to their offspring (they also look at shares, etc, and right now it's not a seller's market); c) not all children with "wealthy parents" are dependent layabouts who have never worked.

That's the point: independent. When you go to uni, you're an independent adult. You parental income has nothing to do with your bank balance. The amount of loan you get should have nothing to do with parental income.

Wtf is a NEWT?

It's odd that you say the children of the 'wealthy' should become independent, but it's ok for children of the 'poor' to get extra handouts (grant/extra loan) and not become independent.

'Wealthy' parents doesn't mean daddy pays for everything, lol.

And if the family is 'wealthy' they probably wouldn't be shopping at ASDA, lol.

A) No longer are these figures taken from pre-recession for current applying students.

B) No not all, but my argument is not based on the small minority you are outlining. My argument is based on large cross sections of society, for the most part students with wealthy parents receive exceptional support, why the hell do Universities have different tiers of accommodation if not to sate the greedy appetites of the rich. At my University for example it is not feasible to live in the rich halls on a Loan+Grant, so how are all the students (Several 1000s) in the posh halls affording the accommodation? Part time jobs at Tesco so they get a double bed and en suite? Don't make me laugh.

C) No they are not, most of the time they are very ambitious and hard working people. They gain these ethics as a result of their background, as do the poor students. When we are talking about these 'poor' students at University we are talking about the offspring of the Working NOT Under class. The Underclass (ie those branded as feckless jobless layabouts living in large estates) are severely under represented at University. I am not saying for rich students to compare themselves to University students from working class backgrounds (for the most part parents are 'blue collar'), but to be thankful they were born into the world they are and are not currently looking after 5 siblings in a rundown estate in London.

Source?

I didn't say life was that black and white, I was using that as an anecdote to add to my main point Sorry but I honestly can't take you seriously after the stock market comment (#middleclassproblems), and your claim that 'there is literally no incentive to be rich in this country' (sorry, what?). We're not going to agree, so I really don't see the point in debating this.

Your parental income has everything to do with bank balance.

As I said earlier, we are not talking about a fair playing field AT university. We are talking about a fair playing field for University INTAKES, by giving poor students a GRANT it ENCOURAGES them to study. Rich kids don't need that encouragement.

The GRANT is not a handout, it is there as a tool of social engineering so 'poor' kids like myself have a shot at increasing their social standing. The 'poor' kids at University are mostly from working class backgrounds, have had relatively comfy lives (I have no complaints) but have gone to rubbish state schools and parents earn between roughly 0-30k (mostly by both parents working). The grant is NECESSARY for these hard working young adults to be able to survive at University. My parents have little spare income for me, without the grant or loan I would not be at University.

For the OP their parents CAN support but WONT. Tough titties, just because their parents are selfish berks who care little for their offsprings education, doesn't mean every child who has parents capable of supporting them should get a large Loan. The OP should find other means of funding themselves at University.

For my bank account, my parents refusing to pay is effectively the same as my parents being unable to pay. Why the discrepancy?

Um no it doesn't. The student doesn't get money from their parents just because their parents earn above the average income.

Dunno, but somehow they have found extra hundreds of millions to fund the increase in tuition fee loans

But they haven't. The student will have to pay more back. I seem to remember that the funding for unis has decreased, hence the higher fees.