[fudgesundae]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18785041

Oxford University will use a record donation to abolish the tuition fee increase for its poorest students - keeping fees at £3,500 per year.

In a bid to remove financial barriers, eligible students will also receive funding for all their living costs.

With matched funding, a £75m donation from Michael Moritz and his wife Harriet Heyman is set to rise to £300m.

This is being claimed as the biggest such financial support package in European university history.

At the launch of the scholarships, Oxford's vice-chancellor, Andrew Hamilton, spoke of the importance of "ensuring that all barriers - real or perceived - are removed from students' choices".

[Snagprophet]

Why does anyone going to Oxford need help paying their fees? What are they going to do with their degree? Work at Tesco?

Edit: Still being negged? What is wrong with you, TSR?

[HomoSapiensSap]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Why does anyone going to Oxford need help paying their fees? What are they going to do with their degree? Work at Tesco?

EDIT: You know what, I have a funny feeling that your post was tongue-in-cheek... If it was meant to be amusing, disregard my post and accept my apologies. If not, the points still stand of course.


What a foolish, foolish comment. Such a comment exposes your foolish prejudices - namely, that everybody who goes to Oxford is wealthy/has wealthy parents. How very, very foolish of you. The statistics of 2011 Oxford admissions show that 64.3% of applicants were from state schools. Of the overall applicants to Oxford in 2011, 57.7% were from state schools, meaning those from Private schools made up 'only' 42.3%.

You also pass over the fact that not everyone who goes to private schools is actually able to pay the fees. But by their academics/sporting/musical etc abilities, they are given scholarships. This is but one example.

In short, your prejudices are wholly unfounded.

[Jackkkkk]

Bristol are doing the same thing! Tuition fees are on a sliding scale of family income so a family on 15000 the tuition fees are only 3500!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[stefl14]

This is just a load of *******s. I'm going to Cambridge and certainly won't be getting help from parents so I'm not exactly rich. Why the **** should poor students have lower fees when university education is free at the point of use? They will have the same opportunities as other well educated students when they leave.

[flown_muse]

(Original post by HomoSapiensSap)
What a foolish, foolish comment. Such a comment exposes your foolish prejudices - namely, that everybody who goes to Oxford is wealthy/has wealthy parents. How very, very foolish of you. The statistics of 2011 Oxford admissions show that 64.3% of applicants were from state schools. Of the overall applicants to Oxford in 2011, 57.7% were from state schools, meaning those from Private schools made up 'only' 42.3%.

You also pass over the fact that not everyone who goes to private schools is actually able to pay the fees. But by their academics/sporting/musical etc abilities, they are given scholarships. This is but one example.

In short, your prejudices are wholly unfounded.

But I don't understand, you don't have to pay tuition fees back until you have a job that earns over X, so why does it matter?

[stinkerbelll]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Why does anyone going to Oxford need help paying their fees? What are they going to do with their degree? Work at Tesco?

Me. I've been very grateful of the financial help I've received throughout my education, and pending results, Oxford will be helping me out no end. It's great that they're making things easier for low income families.

[HomoSapiensSap]

(Original post by flown_muse)
But I don't understand, you don't have to pay tuition fees back until you have a job that earns over X, so why does it matter?

You know what, I'm beginning to think the same thing. For example, what about all of those people who say "Oh we won't be able to go to uni now because of the fee rise" - but won't there still be full government grants and loans?

[Fallen]

(Original post by stefl14)
This is just a load of *******s. I'm going to Cambridge and certainly won't be getting help from parents so I'm not exactly rich. Why the **** should poor students have lower fees when university education is free at the point of use? They will have the same opportunities as other well educated students when they leave.

I kind of agree, personally I think that at the age of 18-22 parental income should be utterly irrelevant, and as someone with foreign parents from my experience this fascination with background seems to be mainly a British phenomenon.

I agree with contextual grades, because some people clearly had an easier time with their schooling than others, but I don't see much point in financial support beyond loans.

But, all that being said, its a private donation, and if you donate £300m then no doubt you can specific precisely where you want it spent.

And if it helps improve access by dispelling the (entirely false) myth that Oxford is more expensive than other institutions, then I suppose it does do some good.

[JCC-MGS]

(Original post by stefl14)
This is just a load of *******s. I'm going to Cambridge and certainly won't be getting help from parents so I'm not exactly rich. Why the **** should poor students have lower fees when university education is free at the point of use? They will have the same opportunities as other well educated students when they leave.

Wah wah boo hoo

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by HomoSapiensSap)
What a foolish, foolish comment. Such a comment exposes your foolish prejudices - namely, that everybody who goes to Oxford is wealthy/has wealthy parents. How very, very foolish of you. The statistics of 2011 Oxford admissions show that 64.3% of applicants were from state schools. Of the overall applicants to Oxford in 2011, 57.7% were from state schools, meaning those from Private schools made up 'only' 42.3%.

You also pass over the fact that not everyone who goes to private schools is actually able to pay the fees. But by their academics/sporting/musical etc abilities, they are given scholarships. This is but one example.

In short, your prejudices are wholly unfounded.

Well I'm going to be paying mine back when I'm full time employed and these people can as well. I am in one of the poorest brackets. I get a generous amount from the government for maintenance. I don't need any special treatment to help pay my fees back, even with the £15,000 minimum income for paying loans back. These people will have a benchmark of £21,000.

I still don't understand what you mean by 'prejudices' - these people will not be 'poor' forever. They'll have an Oxford degree. Their job will cover their fees. I don't understand any logic suggesting someone can't afford uni fees when they don't need to pay up front. It's nonsense. I simply don't believe anyone is too poor to 'afford' university.

[stefl14]

(Original post by JCC-MGS)
Wah wah boo hoo

Lol shut it you Oxbridge reject.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by HomoSapiensSap)
What a foolish, foolish comment. Such a comment exposes your foolish prejudices - namely, that everybody who goes to Oxford is wealthy/has wealthy parents. How very, very foolish of you. The statistics of 2011 Oxford admissions show that 64.3% of applicants were from state schools. Of the overall applicants to Oxford in 2011, 57.7% were from state schools, meaning those from Private schools made up 'only' 42.3%.

You also pass over the fact that not everyone who goes to private schools is actually able to pay the fees. But by their academics/sporting/musical etc abilities, they are given scholarships. This is but one example.

In short, your prejudices are wholly unfounded.

Erm, you only pay back what you're capable of earning after your degree. Your ability to pay has nothing to do with your pre-University household income level. What I'm trying to say is there is categorically no-one who is 'unable to pay the fees'. Even if under your own rather backwards assertion that they'll remain 'poor forever after their degree', if that is the case they will literally never have to pay a single penny of their tuition back, and their debt will be wiped off after a certain amount of time.

[stefl14]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Well I'm going to be paying mine back when I'm full time employed and these people can as well. I am in one of the poorest brackets. I get a generous amount from the government for maintenance. I don't need any special treatment to help pay my fees back, even with the £15,000 minimum income for paying loans back. These people will have a benchmark of £21,000.

I still don't understand what you mean by 'prejudices' - these people will not be 'poor' forever. They'll have an Oxford degree. Their job will cover their fees. I don't understand any logic suggesting someone can't afford uni fees when they don't need to pay up front. It's nonsense. I simply don't believe anyone is too poor to 'afford' university.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[HomoSapiensSap]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Well I'm going to be paying mine back when I'm full time employed and these people can as well. I am in one of the poorest brackets. I get a generous amount from the government for maintenance. I don't need any special treatment to help pay my fees back, even with the £15,000 minimum income for paying loans back. These people will have a benchmark of £21,000.

I still don't understand what you mean by 'prejudices' - these people will not be 'poor' forever. They'll have an Oxford degree. Their job will cover their fees. I don't understand any logic suggesting someone can't afford uni fees when they don't need to pay up front. It's nonsense. I simply don't believe anyone is too poor to 'afford' university.

It seems my funny feeling was correct. Therefore accept my apologies and have a +1.

Also, I do understand what you and others are saying about poorer applicants not needing preferential support and that they are likely to earn a good amount after graduating etc. It makes sense.

[ShredMaster]

(Original post by stefl14)
This is just a load of *******s. I'm going to Cambridge and certainly won't be getting help from parents so I'm not exactly rich. Why the **** should poor students have lower fees when university education is free at the point of use? They will have the same opportunities as other well educated students when they leave.

Why should they not be able to go just because their parents can't afford it? Moron.

[Snagprophet]

(Original post by HomoSapiensSap)
It seems my funny feeling was correct. Therefore accept my apologies and have a +1.

Also, I do understand what you and others are saying about poorer applicants not needing preferential support and that they are likely to earn a good amount after graduating etc. It makes sense.

Yeah, I didn't see you'd edited but I'd probably clicked quote and took longer to type.

[Arekkusu]

HOORAY! It's been two years and finally people are starting to realise the new fees don't make a blind bit of difference (in fact, they're kinder).

[Rooster523]

(Original post by ShredMaster)
Why should they not be able to go just because their parents can't afford it? Moron.

Parents can't afford it? Everyone gets the full £9k loan for tuition fees....

[stefl14]

(Original post by ShredMaster)
Why should they not be able to go just because their parents can't afford it? Moron.

That's not the point you dumb mother****er. My parents can't afford it but I am still going because it's free at the point of use - the government gives loans to every UK student covering the full tuition fees. Why the hell should people benefit from lower fees when they only start paying it back when they start earning. They are just as able to pay it back as anyone else whose parents don't chip in.