An education system based upon how much mummy and daddy earn NOT academic ability?

Oh yes, we all have that same opportunity.

I mean, someone from an estate in Peckham with a struggling single parent family has exactly the same opportunity as someone who's being bankrolled into Eton.

State education is usually nowhere near as good as private education. I worked my ass off in my A-Levels and only managed to get BBD. I'm fine with the Bs but I got the D because our teacher (who was really good) left at christmas in AS, then we were left with 2 teachers who didn't communicate with one another and when it got to the listening exam (it was Music Technology) we found that we hadn't been taught most of the terms and half of the class got Us in that exam. At A2 they decided they didn't like our year so wouldn't even listen to our final compositions before they were sent off the be marked. Were any of your A Level courses as badly taught as that??

what i am saying is that people with poorer parents will be paying this loan for way longer after they graduate cuz their parents wont be able to pay it off for them. UNLIKE RICH PEOPLES' PARENTS, GOT IT!?

Because every person with rich parents still get them to pay for everything don't they?

There will be cases with the current system where kids don't take out a loan because mummy and daddy paid for everything - in fact, I've met a few people at Loughborough like that - so what will make it any different?

dude imagine you are a parent with enough money to pay off your kid's debts.

would you do it?

if not, i'd go see a psychiatrist. debt means STRESS.

But you said uni was a profitable investment?

And i'm saying that poorer people won't be able to pay off their loans faster cuz their mummies and daddies won't be able to bail them out before the interest starts to bite.

I wouldn't see it as debt, per se. When you earn over the threshold, it's simply taken from your wages like another tax. You don't see that money (apart from the deduction on your payslip).

My brother's got a student loan, and he's not stressed because he's got a student loan, he's stressed because of work.

Yes - if you go to university and get a good degree, the total amount you are able to earn in your life is quite likely to be at least 21k higher than if you hadn't gone to university.
The 21k you put into your education is compensated for by your higher earnings. (And if you aren't earning enough, you don't have to pay back the loan anyway).

That is what I mean by "profitable investment" - your earning potential due to having a degree makes up for the amount of money you put in through tuition fees. (That is of course, if you perform well at university and get a good job - which has got nothing to do with your parents).



It's true that if your parents are rich, they can just give you a free 21k whenever they like. But this is true no matter what the tuition fees are set at.

The interest is based on inflation rates anyway. Even if you take a while to pay off your loan and it starts to build up interest, your total salary will factor in that percentage increase as well - since employee market rates are also subject to the same inflation. So it doesn't really matter how long you take to pay it.
(Plus, the debt gets cancelled after 25 years anyway).

I've only just started my AS, but so far they've been really good.

I've been to both state and private btw, and atm I'm at a state sixth form centre and it's absolutely fine, so I don't get why state school would be a problem.

That said, some are awful, and I'd always send my children to private school, so I agree generally they are better.

i like how you are using the terms "quite likely" now.

what i am saying is that people with poorer parents will be paying this loan for way longer after they graduate cuz their parents wont be able to pay it off for them. UNLIKE RICH PEOPLES' PARENTS, GOT IT!?

I am an international student, My parents went beyond their ability to send me to private schools that provide UK education, they wanted to go to a top university, only to find that either you pay 16500/year in cash or you don't get the education??? Is that fair??, I am not saying that the fees (for internationals) should be reduced, but full merit based scholarships should be available to give the meritorious minds a chance to show their capabilities and potential....
I was very interested in science, but I don't have the scope of studying my subject in my country...I will be forced to study something I am not interested in....Obviously my academic performance will decline from now on.... And I will always feel I could have been loads better if I could pursue my field, to the day I die....

I am not the best, but at least if there were ample scholarships and I failed to achieve one I would have been able to justify that I was not good enough.....

i HATE this argument. no, they don't have the same opportunity, but they do have other opportunities, and it's how they take advantage of those to get ahead.

i was born and raised in tower hamlets. i still live there, with my mum and dad, whilst studying at one of the best law faculties in the country, paying for it through loans and a part time job.

why are some of my peers from secondary school in prison, or single parents with toddlers? we all had the same opportunities, we were in the same maths lessons/english lessons, but it's what we chose to do with them that matters. it doesn't even come down to ability - there are people in the 'top sets' at school who are now vastly underachieving, girls who claimed they wanted to be barristers but are now claiming jsa and pushing prams up mare street.

it just annoys me that people (including themselves) try and make the argument of circumstance for their situation. there are far more people from my background and schooling trying to make something of their life, whether it be through apprenticeships, uni, or whatever. the people in prison/single mothers are now the exceptions to the rule and we're trying to change that stereotype. yes, it's harder for us than someone from eton, but if 95% of us can make it, the other 5% claiming 'circumstance' is just out of order.

It's also buggered up my plan a bit, I was going to take a loan anyway and leave my trust fund in the bank, gaining intrest, and then pay off the loan as soon as I get out. I'm not sure I can fully pay for it myself anymore.

I still think this is much better than a graduate tax, though personally I'd favour aboloshing mickey mouse degrees like Health and Social care, Media etc (no offence to anyone taking these!) and making unis purely academic once more.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, admitted that he and fellow Lib Dem MPs would have to break their election pledge in light of today’s economic climate. But he alarmed some Conservative MPs by saying that wealthy parents should be penalised if they paid tuition fees up front to avoid a repayments system that would charge high-earning graduates more.

Oh boohoo, poor you. At least you had that option.

Whilst I do actually agree with some of what you've been saying on this thread (abolish mickey mouse degrees, etc) I think you're being a tad unsympathetic towards the less well-off. You clearly don't understand what it's like to be in a financially tough position, and you clearly haven't been to an average state school!

State welfare is all very well, but if you're in an environment where academic motivation and ambition is less present/less of a focus, then it's much harder to do well and 'rise to the top'. Whereas if you're in an atmosphere that is primed for exam, university and career success, then you don't need to work as hard and fight your circumstances.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do well if you're from a poorer background. But students who fall by the wayside because their background is economically deprived, would probably get to university if they came from a more well-off background.

Why does that matter? Though it may not be the parents fault, you have to accept its not the governments fault either. And it is incredibly easy to repay a student loan (coming from someone who needs the full amount because my parents can't afford to give me a penny) so that's no excuse.



Without meaning to sound harsh, British universities are there primarily to educate British students. Many do have scholarship schemes but it would be hard to justify subsidising the education of someone from abroad who will likely then leave the country. Unless it's part of some sort of poverty scheme to help out 3rd world countries I guess - you didn't mention which one you're from. (Plus you really should have looked how much UK universities cost before committing your entire life to it).

From The Times

What do you think about this idea?

That was my main problem with the idea.

In priniciple, I agree with the Brown Review.

The only problem was that as always, the rich evade paying more than they have to.

I think it should be made clear that only your own income can be put toward paying off this debt, or perhaps a 10 year period where you can't pay it off all at once or something.

I also think that the idea needs to be more clearly conveyed to people from low income backgrounds, as many hear "debt" and decide against it. My own sister now is point blank refusing to go, when if she was told the full facts, her fears would be allayed.

My other concern was that now universities would have even more reason to discriminate against poor students (i.e. to avoid giving them grants) but as long as there is some sort of forced quota (not the best solution, but if we're going down this road, we have to do something) then it should be OK.