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

That isn't really true though.

For parents CAN afford to help, but do not want to, the likelihood is that they would give their child some money if they really needed it (say the child couldn't afford their rent and needed to pay it or get kicked out). It is very unlikely a parent who could afford it would let their child end up being kicked out of their accommodation.

For parents who cannot afford to help, it is totally difficult. They cannot help whatever the situation. They would not be able to help their child no matter how much they wanted to.

That isn't really true though.

For some whose parents CAN afford to help, but do not want to, the likelihood is that they would give their child some money if they really needed it (say the child couldn't afford their rent and needed to pay it or get kicked out). It is very unlikely a parent who could afford it would let their child end up being kicked out of their accommodation.

For parents who cannot afford to help, it is totally difficult. They cannot help whatever the situation. They would not be able to help their child no matter how much they wanted to.



Generally, the more money your parents earn, the more money they will give to you and spend on you.

But just because the parents earn more it doesn't necessarily mean they will give money to the child. That's the whole point.

But just because the parents earn more it doesn't necessarily mean they will give money to the child. That's the whole point.

I know what you're saying, but there's still a proportion of people who fall between being mega rich and poor enough to get means tested money. The other flaw with the system is that they don't take into account how many children are in higher education. If you've got three children, all born relatively close together and/or on long degree courses (medicine, vet science), you're not going to be able to support them to the same degree as one child, and yet Student Finance doesn't take any discernible notice of this.

The point is in 90% of cases the parents DO help the child, because most parents care about their Childrens education. If legislation was changed to help the 10% who don't, those 90% would benefit again EVEN further.

But in general, that is the case.
Yes, there are exceptions, but in general it is correct assumption.
The only other way of doing it is to individually assess every person, and that would just take too much money and too much time.

1 - As above. Individually asssessing everyone would be too expensive and too time consuming.

2 - But surely you can argue that it was the parents choice? I dunno.

My ideal solution would be to increase the loans available to everyone, so those from high income families still get enough to live on, but those from poorer backgrounds still get more. Or maybe have a separate loan that you can apply for if you really do need it.

Well, if it's a repayable loan I don't see the issue. The student has to repay the debt, does it matter that they borrowed an extra £1 or £2k per year? I don't see the problem. It's not a grant, it's a loan.

The other flaw with the system is that they don't take into account how many children are in higher education.

Well, if it's a repayable loan I don't see the issue. The student has to repay the debt, does it matter that they borrowed an extra £1 or £2k per year? I don't see the problem. It's not a grant, it's a loan.

But where will the extra money come from?



I was told they did.

As I've already mentioned, this problem has been ongoing for many years. People asked then "where will the money come from?" and yet extra money has been found for next year for the increase loans to cover the increased tuition fees. £6k vs a couple of k per year.

Its the best repayable loan of your life which is why there is a huge uptake in the loans even by people that don't need it. The 'better off' (lets stop using poor and rich its so un-PC) students do not need that extra money so there is no need to burden the current tax payer with extra cost, yes it will be clawed back but why bother?

The current system is fine, Loan + Grant = not enough to live on which encourages students to work and become independent without stopping people from attending university.

I was told they did.

1 - Much of that increased cost has come from the money that has been cut from funding that goes direct to unis.
2 - The government is actually going against its whole "spend less money" mantra with this, as it is an idealogical thing the tories have that the state should not pay for anything and private individuals should - hence the move to the student paying more. The government is incurring large costs because of its political beliefs.

Lol, we're going round in circles.

It's fine for students from better off families to work, but those from less well off families don't? Why? Why should their studies suffer?

We aren't going around in circles. 6k In Loan + Grant is not enough to live off, the poor kids aren't getting an easier ride and still have to find jobs/sponsorships. This is the same for most students regardless of if they get a Loan or not.

Dunno, but somehow they have found extra hundreds of millions to fund the increase in tuition fee loans (which is a much bigger sum than the one I propose) around £6k for EVERY student, whereas to give enough to live on would only require an extra couple of k for SOME students. I'm pretty sure the funds exist in some form.

Why is it such a problem to just throw "How much will your parents be contributing?" into the loan algorithm, and then monitor cash flow to the account to make sure figures add up?

Two birds, one stone.