Should student maintanence loans be judged bases on your parent's income

Pre 18 the government provides a significant amount of support, for children. Personally I have friends who've had school trips paid for, as well as educational bursaries and textbooks being purchased for them.

I went to a state selective grammar school. There were kids from all sorts of backgrounds, from very well off to those living off the benefit system. Did those from disenfranchised backgrounds do worse than anyone else? No.

Though there is some disparagy in pre-18 education, it's the governments role to increase the quality of our state schools, there is far too much box ticking, preventing teachers from teaching.

Also the issue of people fiddling with there taxes isn't really that big in the middle classes, it's only the mega rich who can afford good accountants.

Partners don't have to be in a sexual relationship

Because partners share household expenses (and their income) more than most friends do. Partners will be seeking to provide a long-term future together, at least ideally.

Plus like I said friends (and other non-dependents) can still affect levels of benefit entitlement, though I don't think they affect student finance (I'll have to check).

I'm not referring to the odd educational trip. I'm referring to weekly outings to museums and heritage sites, for example. This is something that the state doesn't (and can't) subsidise, and there just isn't the spare time for these in the school year

To use some local examples to me. Say a child is studying Roman Britain one term. The more affluent parent (who is more likely to be in better health, has access to private transport and can afford entrance museum entrance fees and additional books) can take their child to Hadrian's Wall including several Roman forts. Then the Great North Museum in Newcastle the following week to see their Roman collection. Maybe even to other cities as far as London's British Museum. The next term the child could be studying Industrial life at the turn of the 20th century, so the parent takes them to museums such as Beamish. This doesn't just work for history but can be applied to other subjects such as geography.

A parent who is less well off may not be as mobile and able to take their child to such places due to finances and/or health.

Then there's technology such as computers, the internet and educational toys. Though less expensive than they once were, so no longer only available to middle class parents, they can still be a significant cost to a less well off parent.

Also, as I've already touched on in this thread, those who are less well off are more likely to experience chronic illness. Chronic illness can have a very disruptive effect on a child's education.



Exactly, a selective grammar school. Those attending had already demonstrated they were high achievers at age, what, 11? So a relatively late age.

I never meant to suggest that no one from a less well off background can't attain high educational standards, especially if they live in a relatively affluent area. What I am saying is that they are less likely to or will face more challenges.

An important part of this is also attitude. My parents were perhaps would you could call comfortably off, but never anywhere near well off. Nevertheless, they always had the attitude that education is important and were aspirational, always intent on me staying at school until 18 and then going to university. Your old students at the grammar school, even those less well off, probably had similar attitudes among their parents.

Similarly Middle class parents are also more likely to be quite devious and will manipulate the system thus making sure their child gets a place. For example my Uncle and Aunt didn't raise my cousin as Catholic. However, once they realised attending the local feeder school wouldn't guarentee them entry into the local high performing Catholic Secondary school (as it would me, and did my brother) they put on a show for a the local Priest and had her Baptised at age 10. This sort of behaviour is very common among middle class/aspirational parents.

If you really think that parental wealth has no effect on child educational outcomes then you need to familiarise yourself with the mass of academic work out there. Take two children at age 3 or 5, one from a low socio-economic background but the other from a higher socio-economic background. Both deemed to be equal in abiity. By age 11 the more middle class student will be outperforming the less well off student. By age 18 the difference can be even more apparent.



But there will always be some schools poorer than others. We can improve resources available to schools and can get better quality teachers (which is still not easy). But dealing with the problems of poverty, society and anti-social behaviour, including school truancy, and changing attitudes toward education is a lot more difficult.

Furthermore it will be always be the case that affluent parents can afford to do more for their child, including additional tutoring.



Oh, I don't know about that. I know several of several business owners who employ competent enough accountants. Though well off, I wouldn't describe them as "mega rich".

Firstly I'd start off by saying that life isn't fair full stop. People are born unequal in terms of intelligence, attractiveness, health, family wealth and so on. Whatever we do we can never iron out unfairness.

I don't think anybody on here would argue that the gifted poor need a leg up to get onto the further and higher education ladder

but what there seems to be is that there is some kind of assumption that there is a magical switch at which point families go from being able to afford nothing to being able to afford everything. and I mean in terms of life and benefits in general not just financing students.

My point of this life story? that over the years of financial improvement we haven't seen a huge improvement in our living standards to the exponential level that you imagine.

As we earned more we claimed less and that is fair, no complaints, as benefits should be there for when they are needed. But it is amazing how when you hit a threshold financially they assume you have money to burn.

My belief is that the Govt wants the squeezed middle to borrow money to fund their offspring to fuel the economy.

A lot of these showy material things are got on loans or credit.

Your parents may be smiling as they take you on these educational trips and get you a new laptop for your coursework but underneath they may be feeling the pain.

To the outside world it looks like they're affluent and coping but in reality they're borrowed up to the hilt (which the Govt wants) to fuel a "keeping up with the Joneses" lifestyle or to support their offspring. Having had the rug ripped from under us before when we had our first child we refuse to borrow massively and are not afraid to tell our sons we can't afford stuff when we really can't.e.

Dear The Student Room,

I'd like to ask your thoughts on something which greatly frustrates me, why is your maintenance loan/grant based on your parental income? Once you're 18, you're a man/woman grown, independent of your parents. You can apply for mortgages on your own, purchase alcohol, join the army without parental permission etc etc. So why is it that your financial status regarding student loan and grant depends on your parents? If you're 25 and apply for a mortgage on a house, they won't ask how much your parents earn. The same should be true for when you're 18.

As of now student's who's parents earn over around 43 thousand pounds are only eligible for a maintenance loan of £3575 when studying outside of London, this isn't enough to cover the cost of accommodation, never mind other costs associated with university, including extortionately priced textbooks and general maintenance. This isn't a problem for the mega rich and the molly coddled, but it is a problem for the squeezed middle. Why should they be expected to bank roll there children's university experience? When other students receive far more than needed from the state. A significant proportion of graduates will go on to earn over the £43000 pound threshold, how many of you would like to fund your children through university because they simply aren't given enough resources for there education.

I'd like equality for all, every student who will study at the age of 18 or above should be judged based on there own merit, not there parent's income.

My parents were told the best way to finance me and my brother to go to university was to get divorced. Seems like something is broken if there is a financial incentive to split up.

It does seem a bit unfair that parents are expected to pay towards their child to go to university, yet they are under no legal compulsion to do so.

You will pay off what you pay off. Anything you don't pay off will be written off after a set amount of time. Where's the problem?

I guess you're right but I rather pay it all off, It would make me feel better knowing I have nothing to give back

Having children is not a right. If you can't afford them then don't have them. Or only have as many as you can afford.

I also realise that, as you experienced yourself, incomes can fall over the course of a lifetime and this is impossible to predict. But in this case there's state support, in theory. ".

I suspected by your tone, including telling me about the "recession hit 80s" and "recession in the early 90s" that I'm younger than I am.

I am 28 years old and remember both decades. My parents no longer buy me such things. When they did buy those things they did not buy them on credit, but with savings/their earnings.

I admit things were difficult in mid-1980s, in my first couple of years of life, as they stretched themselves with a large mortgage and my father's overtime was cut back (my mother stayed at home). This meant moving to a smaller, cheaper home. They only bought what they could afford. They did not buy these things on credit (besides new cars, which was just added to the mortgage).

We lived within our means. Holidaying in the UK (but for two holidays in the mid-90s), only having the one (relatively modest) car. No Sky TV until I was 17. It's just that my parents put their two children, and their chidren's education, first. Being relatively comfortably off they were able to do so.

Please don't make assumptions about what my parents did.".

Yes, because the obsession with credit and borrowing worked so well pre-2008, didn't it?

That people may feel under pressure to live in as expensive a house as possible, have two or three cars (or one fairly expensive car), have all the latest technology and go on foreign holidays, says more about society as a whole and than it does the government. .

All I'm saying is that children of middle class parents, even those who are only relatively comfortable off (and part of the squeezed middle) do have substantial advantages over poorer students and better educational outcomes as a result. Do you deny this?.

As for Student Finance, I'm not wishing to stifle debate or suggest that some reform won't be beneficial. But we need a better proposition that just "get rid of the Mickey Mouse courses".

Dear The Student Room,

I'd like to ask your thoughts on something which greatly frustrates me, why is your maintenance loan/grant based on your parental income? Once you're 18, you're a man/woman grown, independent of your parents. You can apply for mortgages on your own, purchase alcohol, join the army without parental permission etc etc. So why is it that your financial status regarding student loan and grant depends on your parents? If you're 25 and apply for a mortgage on a house, they won't ask how much your parents earn. The same should be true for when you're 18.

As of now student's who's parents earn over around 43 thousand pounds are only eligible for a maintenance loan of £3575 when studying outside of London, this isn't enough to cover the cost of accommodation, never mind other costs associated with university, including extortionately priced textbooks and general maintenance. This isn't a problem for the mega rich and the molly coddled, but it is a problem for the squeezed middle. Why should they be expected to bank roll there children's university experience? When other students receive far more than needed from the state. A significant proportion of graduates will go on to earn over the £43000 pound threshold, how many of you would like to fund your children through university because they simply aren't given enough resources for there education.

I'd like equality for all, every student who will study at the age of 18 or above should be judged based on there own merit, not there parent's income.

X

Master race full student loan and grant and accommodation costs written off so don't have to pay any accommodation because my parents are poor, you jelly?