Oxford Tuition Fees Cut for Poorest

Scroll to see replies

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).

How do you figure? Yeah you can still go to university and poor people aren't disadvantaged but you still have bigger debts...

Reply 21

The_Lonely_Goatherd

So much ignorance on this thread :colonhash:

I for one am very happy to hear this news. I thought I had an amazing deal whilst I was at Oxford but clearly it just gets more jammy! Really great news :h:

Reply 22

Palatial Veranda

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.

This.

I cannot understand how and why your parent's income have such a bearing on tuition fees.

1. Father is a school caretaker and mother has been medically retired after working part-time in Lidl. Household Income = £17,000. Son/daughter went to state school but was a hard-worker and always had a clear vision. Achieved high results. Son/daughter goes to university and comes out of university after securing a well-deserved position purely on academic merit and hard work.

Student has to pay back £10,500 in tuition fees

2. Father is an air traffic controller and since having children the mother works part-time in a leisure centre. Household income = £60,000. Son/daughter went to the same school as that in Example A, worked hard and always had a clear vision as in Example A. Achieved high results as in Example A. Son/daughter went to university and comes out of university securing a well-deserved position purely on academic merit and hard work as in Example A

Student has to pay back £27,000 in tuition fees

Tuition fee payments are condensed within a loan and paid to the university and the repayment structure is spread out over a long period of time. They are just as manageable from one graduate to the next. You are not asked to stump up the cash up-front before you begin your course. So, there may be some fairly tenuous arguments based on socio-economic factors and upbringing etc but what justifies such a HUGE disparity when the graduating student is the one paying back the debt and not their family and irrespective of family income/background both student A and B have graduated with the same level of opportunity or outcome in the job market. Is such a disparity based on the fact that the higher income family have historically been able to provide a more impressive PE kit? Should the poorer students not receive this sort of compassion lower down the pyramid rather than simply have over £15,000 shaved off of their tuition fees? It just typifies the sort of depthless and feckless attitude which circulates the governments of this country nowadays.

Please, tell me what I am missing here? I am certainly no expert, the above is just based on information that I have gleaned from reading. I haven't been to university.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 23

Hopple

If anything, poorer students need more 'maintenance' money, be it a loan or a grant, rather than a cut in the tuition fees which would be covered by a loan anyway.

The repayments of loans aren't going to cripple you, but studying full time with inadequate living money will.

Reply 24

TenOfThem

Original post by HomoSapiensSap

In short, your prejudices are wholly unfounded.

What a foolish, foolish comment

We earn just too much for my daughter to have anything other than the minimum loans etc

She will take £9k pa loans to pay her fees ... when she has a job she will have to pay this back

Someone whose parents earn less NOW will have to pay back less than my daughter IN THE FUTURE even though they are gaining the same advantage as she is through their studies

So, in 10 or so years time when she is trying to get a mortgage she will have less income than someone whose parents earn less now ... we cannot afford to help her with a mortgage ... why should she be disadvantaged in this way because of MY current earnings

Surely all students should have the same access to loans for tuition and maintenance with the same fee costs THEN on a sliding scale they should receive addition non-repayable grants ... that would support students who's parents have lower incomes now but then ... when it comes to paying back they would be on an equal footing ... clearly the very wealthy would be able to pay off all these debts for their child but the very wealthy are very different from most of us

Reply 25

Arekkusu

Original post by stefl14

How do you figure? Yeah you can still go to university and poor people aren't disadvantaged but you still have bigger debts...

They aren't paid back as debts but as taxes. Particularly if you reach the cut-off point (as even the richest will do under the new system), the amount you pay back won't bear the slightest resemblance to the amount you borrowed but rather to the size of your pay packet. It is a graduate tax, and always has been, and the new system even more so.

Reply 26

Darkphilosopher

Original post by ShredMaster

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

Did you even read the post you responded to?

If not then lets go over this again:

university education is free at the point of use

Reply 27

Arekkusu

Original post by TenOfThem

That is completely wrong, no matter whether your daughter "owes" £9,000x3 or £3,500x3 she will pay it back at 9% of her pay packet over £21,000. Given the same salary, the amount to be repaid is the same. The only advantage would be gained when the latter student pays it off in full before the cut-off date. If you do the math you will see even the £3,500 student will not have a hope of paying it off until they are in their 40s, when one hopes they will already have got a mortgage.

I really do despair, I'd have thought parents, who have been navigating the complex adult financial world for some time, would be a bit more in the know about this. While doing university tours recently I even had someone who thought you were supposed to take part-time jobs in the holidays and pay off the loan as you went along!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 28

Darkphilosopher

Original post by Hopple

They already get more in loans/grants...

Reply 29

TenOfThem

Original post by Arekkusu

....

You are right of course :frown:

But, I understand from younger friends, that mortgage companies are taking into account the amount of student debt remaining

I just get a bit peeved that the monies been used to support students isn't better structured ... reduced fees just seems pointless

Reply 30

Hopple

Original post by Darkphilosopher

They already get more in loans/grants...

More than more is better. It doesn't even matter how much student debt you're in provided that £21k continues to give you a good quality of life, but what does matter is if you can afford to live during your studies without jeopardising your degree by taking on paid work.

Reply 31

Astronomical

I don't get it.

Sure, they're poor, but so what? After they graduate they will have exactly the same opportunities as anyone else with the same degree. Why should they not have to pay the same amount for the same thing because of parental income?

Who is paying for this tuition fee loan, after all: the student with the degree, or the parents? It sure as hell isn't the parents, else they'd have paid upfront; so how can anyone possibly justify burdening some students with far more debt for the exact same thing based on something that won't make a single bit of difference in 99% of cases?

I could perhaps understand an additional grant or something that would actually help the poorest students during their studies, but slashing their tuition fees is quite blatantly giving them an unfair advantage in the post-university world.

Reply 32

Arekkusu

Original post by TenOfThem

You are right of course :frown:

As far as I know, they do not and cannot, as it's removed from your payslip at the point of earning. All the mortgage company sees is a lower net salary.
(Besides, with so many people going to uni these days, it would hardly be an issue even if it were.) This is probably the main reason why it's taken out via PAYE, a rare taste of the sort of financial-manipulation-based privilege people like MPs and bankers so famously enjoy.

I agree with what you say there, it's a shame these rich donors are throwing away their money on such a pointless scheme, probably due to scare stories from the papers.

Reply 33

TenOfThem

Original post by Arekkusu

Fair enough ... probably my misunderstanding

Reply 34

M'Ling

Households of two on 16,000 earn more per head than a family of five with an income of, say, £25,000. I think Oxford would do better to base this diminution on a sliding scale on an individual basis based on income per head.

Reply 35

JammyChoos

yay! Im poor... I just dont have the grades :frown:

Reply 36

M1011

Entirely unfair. Pathetic really.

Why should one student have to be paying student debt repayments for their entire working life, whilst another has it all free because he was deemed to come from a low income background? This is just stupid, the system is set up so that you pay nothing until you earn a certain amount, and then you pay a proportion of your income. WHY is this a barrier to anyone? WHY should certain people have no responsibility to pay back for their education should they succeed in life, whereas others should?

This angers me so much. When are people going to start treating all students the same rather then obsessing over family backgrounds. I've said this before and I'll say it again (despite some fool who'll undoubtedly reply to tell me about his struggles), the average student on maximum support is definitely (DEFINITELY) richer then the average student coming from a 50k income family. People don't have buckets of cash lying around, they have mortgages etcetera that they have to pay (not to mention most people work damn hard for their money), so why do people keep thinking that these students are getting massive handouts from home? Why should they be? They are adults with their own responsibilities. Why in the name of Jebus should they need to ask for handouts from home?

Either give the support to everyone or to nobody. Loans are ideal, because they are repaid dependant on earnings. There is no barrier to poor people attending university financially, but it seems there are increasing barriers for children whose parents earn a modest amount of money.

Pathetic.

Reply 37

im so academic

Original post by M1011

So in other words make everyone pay back £9000 or everyone pay back £3500?

If it's the latter, then all this scaremongering regarding the fee hike would be all for nothing.

Reply 38

BristolStudent96

What a waste of money. The challenge is for poor people getting into university not them paying for it. The way the system works is that there are no upfront fees and if you don't earn above a certain amount it does not have to be repaid.

Once people have received their Oxbridge education the poor kid has just as much advantage as an Eton kid, and will most likely end up with a high paying job, meaning no one who goes to Oxbridge should worry about paying fees as the majority of graduates end up with top jobs when they leave.

Reply 39

Fallen

Original post by Hopple

Well at Oxford they get way more than enough.

My girlfriend has £12,000 per year available to her (not including tuition fee loan, which obviously we never see). Half of it is a grant, half a loan, but she has absolutely no issues with living money!