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

Perhaps declaring independence some how?

Work and be thankful for the comfortable lifestyle your parents have given you so far, if you were from a broken home and under the 25k limit chances are you wouldn't even be considering university anyway! See this is a chance to break away from your middle class chains.

Work and be thankful for the comfortable lifestyle your parents have given you so far, if you were from a broken home and under the 25k limit chances are you wouldn't even be considering university anyway! See this is a chance to break away from your middle class chains.

This is a pretty small-minded response. A person should not be punished for having rich parents any more than they should be punished for having poor parents. Equal opportunities actually means allowing people from all backgrounds the same chances to succeed; it doesn't mean giving those with poorer backgrounds help and ignoring those with richer parents. I think you've fallen into the trap of assuming that 'fairness' means normalising opportunities over the course of a person's, so that having a privileged childhood means a person deserves less than others for the rest of their life in order to 'balance things out'.

I think you fail to realise equal opportunities in the respect you define fails to recognise that those who have lived through a 'poor' upbringing are less likely to even consider going to university and are even less likely to get in (compare the percentage of students at top universities from Independent/State schools to the actual percentage of school division). Therefore financial incentives and the culture of awarding grants to those from poor family incomes rather than having a blanket loan given to all students regardless of background promotes equal opportunities more so. You need money to live, for the most part rich parents are compassionate enough to support their children through university (this case is exceptional), and poor students need the money more and the fairest thing to do in this case is give them that money to better themselves.

I also think you are rather brash to dismiss my small little quip (mostly joking) as a 'small minded response', I don't see these part of the forums a chance to exercise my thinking prowess nor do I seek to promote debate and discussion. I was merely using my own perverse sense of humour to make light of the situation the OP finds themselves in. Congratulations on derailing a post in an effort to demonstrate to those on TSR how excellent you are at thinking and dishing out artful insight to less mentally able members.

TL;DR Stop being a pompous ass and get back on topic.

Perhaps the expression 'small-minded' was rather strong, but it bears remembering that you were dismissive of the original poster before I was dismissive of you. Not that this anything like justifies the ad-hominem attacks contained in the quoted post, of course. I am a little confused that you would include so much material unrelated to the topic designed to make me look inferior, the subject of which is that I am derailing the topic and that I am attempting to make you look inferior. Of course I won't continue the discussion on these lines as it will begin to overshadow the concerns of the original poster.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you that students from poorer backgrounds are under-represented at universities - particularly those that are most academically selective. But that has nothing to do with the issue raised by the original poster. There are no individuals from poorer families involved here - only a young man who may not be able to attend university because the government expects his parents to provide support that they will not provide.

It is of course anecdotal, but having received the maximum government grant for the majority of my degree, my financial situation was vastly more comfortable during my university career than that of friends whose parents earned over the limit for additional grant/loan but did not contribute financially to their degrees.

This is a pretty small-minded response. A person should not be punished for having rich parents any more than they should be punished for having poor parents. Equal opportunities actually means allowing people from all backgrounds the same chances to succeed; it doesn't mean giving those with poorer backgrounds help and ignoring those with richer parents. I think you've fallen into the trap of assuming that 'fairness' means normalising opportunities over the course of a person's, so that having a privileged childhood means a person deserves less than others for the rest of their life in order to 'balance things out'.

So I can assume you agree that public schools should be abolished then?

Your final statement is absolutely ridiculous. No one thinks like that. People with rich parents are by no means 'ignored', they have a massive advantage over those from working class backgrounds. How many millionaires do you think went to state schools? How many people in the very top jobs went to state schools? How many cabinet members went to state schools? Etc etc.

I feel sorry for the OP, but in general middle class students are much much better off than working class students when it comes to education. Please don't try to pretend otherwise.

Why must all of my posts in this thread be so wilfully misinterpreted? It's quite frustrating.

Allow me to be clear: I don't think that middle class students are better off than poorer students when it comes to attending universities. I never stated, implied, or even hinted at this. In this isolated case of an individual student struggling with one particular aspect of the university experience (his finances) he is at a disadvantage compared to students who receive a government grant. For this reason I resent the suggestion that because his parents are better off than some, his entirely legitimate concerns should be ignored.

I'm not sure what relevance public schools have to this discussion, but if it's of vital importance, my view would be that whilst I dislike the public school system and would prefer to live in a society without them, abolishing public schools would be difficult and dramatic, so we should focus on allowing brighter students the opportunity to excel in state schools and (perhaps more importantly) seek to alter university application criteria to favour students with the most potential rather than those who have been afforded the opportunity (often by attending fee-paying schools) to build a more impressive resume.

It is perfectly doable and I'm sure you will find a way. I manage on my loan and from money I earned from working part time during college. Just make sure you opt for cheap accommodation and budget carefully. Taking a year out to work might be an option.

Work and be thankful for the comfortable lifestyle your parents have given you so far, if you were from a broken home and under the 25k limit chances are you wouldn't even be considering university anyway! See this is a chance to break away from your middle class chains.

Huh? I thought you said the opposite. Now I'm confused.

If you were just talking about this isolated case then okay, but it seemed as though you were talking about rich and poor students as a whole in your earlier post.

I brought public schools into the conversation because you were talking about the rich/poor divide in education, and public schools are a pretty good example of one aspect of it.