Maintenance grants replaced with loans for new students

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-07-21/HCWS160/

"In the Budget earlier this month the Chancellor announced that, for new full-time students starting to attend their courses on or after 1 August 2016, all maintenance grants will be replaced by maintenance loans. Eligible students on low incomes will qualify for a maximum maintenance loan that is 10.3% higher than the maximum maintenance grant and loan support available in 2015/16.

For new students living away from home and studying outside London, the maximum maintenance loan available for 2016/17 will be £8,200, a £766 increase compared to the maximum maintenance support in 2015/16. I can confirm that the equivalent loan rates for students living away from home and studying in London will be £10,702; for those living in the parental home during their studies, £6,904; and for those studying overseas as part of their UK course, £9,391."

Appalling. This is now in effect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36940172

"Students starting university courses in England will no longer be able to apply for grants towards living costs.

Under changes that came into effect on Monday, grants for students from low-income homes are replaced by loans."

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 1

username1177050

20

Excellent news- poor students get more money At point of entry

Reply 2

hellodave5

19

More debt, notwithstanding fewer graduate level jobs. Such a lucky generation we are

Reply 3

TheBBQ

OP

21

Original post by neal95

Excellent news- poor students get more money At point of entry

..And more of their earnings taken away.

Reply 4

username1177050

20

Original post by TheBBQ

..And more of their earnings taken away.

Well seeing as they are benefitting from a cash boost when they can't afford it, I am sure they can pay their share when they can......it's the same logic when people argue that high earners should pay higher tax......therefore when students are in the position to pay tax, they can pay back their loan also

Reply 5

Hamo2509

14

Original post by TheBBQ

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-07-21/HCWS160/

"In the Budget earlier this month the Chancellor announced that, for new full-time students starting to attend their courses on or after 1 August 2016, all maintenance grants will be replaced by maintenance loans. Eligible students on low incomes will qualify for a maximum maintenance loan that is 10.3% higher than the maximum maintenance grant and loan support available in 2015/16.

For new students living away from home and studying outside London, the maximum maintenance loan available for 2016/17 will be £8,200, a £766 increase compared to the maximum maintenance support in 2015/16. I can confirm that the equivalent loan rates for students living away from home and studying in London will be £10,702; for those living in the parental home during their studies, £6,904; and for those studying overseas as part of their UK course, £9,391."

Appalling. This is now in effect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36940172

"Students starting university courses in England will no longer be able to apply for grants towards living costs.

Under changes that came into effect on Monday, grants for students from low-income homes are replaced by loans."

Stuff like this just makes me flabbergasted that anyone would vote Tory.

Reply 6

AntSou29

I don't understand what the problem is. The system cannot be sustained in the globalized world of today because it is easy to find a job elsewhere once you finish your degree.

I find it unlikely that the people who complain about fees and would rather have free education at the point of use would even blink if they had a job offer paying, for instance, £30 000 in Australia compared to £25 000 in the UK, after taxes.

Free education means only that those who have less mobility in the labour market, usually the low-skilled, have an even greater amount of taxation to pay, since the highly skilled are qualified enough to compete on the global market and have no incentive to contribute to the same system which funded their studies.

By providing loans, everyone remains accountable. It makes perfect sense.

Reply 7

Tiger Rag

22

This is old news.

You lot may think it's fair. But it means that some students will leave uni with over £50k worth of debt.

Reply 8

999tigger

19

Original post by neal95

Excellent news- poor students get more money At point of entry

Are you for real? Its simply more debt.

Reply 9

Atlas Thugged

1

Original post by Tiger Rag

This is old news.

You lot may think it's fair. But it means that some students will leave uni with over £50k worth of debt.

How is that unfair, if I take out a loan and use it to buy a house, I might be in 250k worth of debt.

Reply 10

THE EPIC Panda

10

Surely there is some kind of union that is there fighting for students?

Original post by Tiger Rag

This is old news.

You lot may think it's fair. But it means that some students will leave uni with over £50k worth of debt.

Me being of those students. 9k/year for uni + 8k/year for maintenance and I'm already looking a nice 51k debt. An even nicer number of 68k if I choose to do an extra year for Masters or whatnot. Oh well, at least there's that 21k income threshold (for now...) :frown:

Reply 12

sdotd

17

this is fair. students with richer families don't always get support from the family.

Reply 13

TheBBQ

OP

21

Original post by Tiger Rag

This is old news.

You lot may think it's fair. But it means that some students will leave uni with over £50k worth of debt.

Just reminding that it has now been implemented for new students.

Reply 14

AntSou29

Original post by RDKGames

Me being of those students. 9k/year for uni + 8k/year for maintenance and I'm already looking a nice 51k debt. An even nicer number of 68k if I choose to do an extra year for Masters or whatnot. Oh well, at least there's that 21k income threshold (for now...) :frown:

Someone will always have to pay for it. If not directly, then indirectly through taxes.

But unlike previous generations, where the self-funding character of the welfare system, particularly in regards to education, could be guaranteed, given that the overwhelming majority of graduates would find work in the UK, this is becoming increasingly not the case.

Free education means the state funds an individual's education, but then that same individual has no responsibility to contribute back to it.

It is a system whereby the poor and lower-skilled, who have lower prospects of living elsewhere, have to take the financial burden, whereas those who benefited from free education will likely move wherever they get the best job offer.

This is of course also cultural. The UK is probably one of the worst places for free education because it is not uncommon for people to seek to live outside the country for extended periods of time. On the other hand, free education in the US might actually be a good thing, at least for the time being.

Guaranteeing access to university, providing extensive information about universities and regularly undertaking quality controls is more important than free education for university students.

Reply 15

woodchuck

12

this generation is essentially funding the excesses and greed of the previous generations. this, while, for instance, the 'triple lock' for pensions has been introduced.

Mr Osborne said at the time that there was a "basic unfairness in asking taxpayers to fund grants for people who are likely to earn a lot more than them".

this, of course, coming from an extremely wealthy individual who got a cambridge education for free. in any case, the graduate pay premium has been shown to be non existent for the vast majority of graduates due to the debt repayment. if bright kids choose not to go to university, then where are the skilled entry level jobs for them to go into? in todays hugely competitive jobs market you will be struggling against the system to get anywhere in life.

unless you get a job, use up private savings or get financial support from parents, university is not affordable for middle class individuals.

I've just checked my debt balance, and my debt is £34000 having graduated this summer. it would have been many thousands higher had my parents not supplemented my loan which didnt cover my living costs. how am i ever going to afford a house of my own? or save for a private pension?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 16

AntSou29

unless you get a job, use up private savings or get financial support from parents, university is not affordable for middle class individuals.

That is a lie. That's the purpose of loans. And it doesn't have to be black and white either. There's plenty of space to argue that the loans may not be as high as they should be, or that interest should be lower.

And of course, you'll pay the same amount for some average degree in one of the worst unis as you will for a physics degree from a top uni. That's why one of the most important governmental functions in this matter should be to provide thorough information regarding the quality of educational establishments, so that individuals are not tricked out of their money.

'How am I ever going to afford a house of my own'

Don't? Move somewhere else?

Why do you assume that the conditions that your parents lived in should be replicated in the following generation? Such changes are quite often beyond even the control of national governments. The conditions that made cheap housing possible decades ago are not present any longer. Societies are constantly changing and adopting to new circumstances.

Higher education is something that is predictable and can be prepared in advance. It makes sense that only individuals who benefit from such education should pay for it. On the other hand, health issues and accidents are for the most part unpredictable. That unpredictability is what justifies that the Health Service remain free at the point of use. It is a safeguard against disruptions.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 17

Newcastle456

14

Original post by AntSou29

I don't understand what the problem is. The system cannot be sustained in the globalized world of today because it is easy to find a job elsewhere once you finish your degree.

I find it unlikely that the people who complain about fees and would rather have free education at the point of use would even blink if they had a job offer paying, for instance, £30 000 in Australia compared to £25 000 in the UK, after taxes.

Free education means only that those who have less mobility in the labour market, usually the low-skilled, have an even greater amount of taxation to pay, since the highly skilled are qualified enough to compete on the global market and have no incentive to contribute to the same system which funded their studies.

By providing loans, everyone remains accountable. It makes perfect sense.

What are you talking about. This simply isn't true. Even with a master degree from Cambridge, I need to work a few years before I can have enough points to move to Australia.

Free education means that students from poorer backgrounds who would otherwise be deterred are more likely to take part. The taxation rates do not change, it means the distribution of government expenditure changes.

If your logic held true: under the new proposed changes, even less would be recouped as people would leave the UK, potentially even to countries where their absolute income is lower but their standard of living is higher. However, in reality, very few British people migrate, namely because we don't learn languages well so we don't have much mobility.

In sum, you are chatting ****.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 18

AntSou29

Newcastle456;66701248]What are you talking about. This simply isn't true. Even with a master degree from Cambridge, I need to work a few years before I can have enough points to move to Australia.

What? It was obviously an example. You can change Australia for Germany. The specific example is not important. My point, which I think I made clear, is that geographical mobility is facilitated by acquiring a degree, and in today's increasingly globalised economy there are less incentives to limit oneself to a specific national labour market.

Free education means that students from poorer backgrounds who would otherwise be deterred are more likely to take part. The taxation rates do not change, it means the distribution of government expenditure changes.

You're making false assumptions. I agree that Higher Education should be available for all of those who meet the conditions set by any University. If an educational system prevents students from low income families to access higher education, then it is a poor system. This can be solved by higher loans and lower interest rates.

And where exactly would you cut if you're not increasing taxes? The Defence Budget is at 2.21%. NATO requires it to be set at 2%. The current government wants to further increase Defence Spending, which I disagree with, but still, 0.21% is not enough.

If your logic held true: under the new proposed changes, even less would be recouped as people would leave the UK, potentially even to countries where their absolute income is lower but their standard of living is higher.

What do you mean by 'less would be recouped'? If higher education is free at the point of use, there will be nothing to recoup. You can't recoup less than nothing.

As for the scenario you provided, you'll have a lot of trouble finding such a place (give me an example).

However, in reality, very few British people migrate, namely because we don't learn languages well so we don't have much mobility.

In sum, you are chatting ****.

'We' don't learn languages well'. You make it sound like it is a factory setting. Besides, English is the international language. You don't need to know Swedish, German, Dutch or Portuguese to find work in private companies in the capital cities of any of these countries.

You also have less trouble accessing the labour markets of Australia, Canada and the US.