[Silkysam]

I think everyone is missing the point.

Everyone who has done a bit of research know's that the new system makes people no worse off after a degree than the old system did. We also know that it doesn't need to be paid before hand so is more like a tax than tuition fee's (I think a graduate tax is the way tuition fee's should go).

But the problem with the new tuition fee's is that it will put people off who don't understand the system, these are usually students from poorer backgrounds. I know quite a few people who will not be going to universtiy now due to the tuition fee rise.

Now some of you may argue that it's a case that people need to be better informed; but the fact is that tripling the fee's will put people off straight away, they then won't even look at going to university and therefore won't find out that the new fee's is actually a better system.

I do find it weird that it is Oxford doing this as nearly all student's (if not all) applying won't be put off due to the new fee's. This is clearly just a way to attract more students from low income backgrounds to apply specifically to Oxford (which in it self isn't actually a bad thing).

So in principal the idea behind this move is good, as it is trying to attract students from lower income families, but the execution is poor, as it is then unfair to students not from low income families.

I will say that if this system makes one person each year who wouldn't have applied to university apply then the system is worthwhile, despite its obvious flaws.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Silkysam)
I will say that if this system makes one person each year who wouldn't have applied to university apply then the system is worthwhile, despite its obvious flaws.

It would be far better spent on sending people into schools to explain the new tuition fees system.

[Silkysam]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
It would be far better spent on sending people into schools to explain the new tuition fees system.

I'm not saying it is the best way to spend the money; I'm just saying people are getting too hung up on it being unfair to students from higher income families and instead look at the ill informed people this system encourages to apply who otherwise wouldn't.

There are obviously better way's to spend this money but this is the system which was put forward so we have to live with it. I stand by my statement that it is still worthwhile aslong as it makes a difference to one person.

Also I don't get why people are whining about it being unfair when some of you whining also, probably, say "life is unfair" when it comes to some people being able to pay for better education (due to their parent's income mostly) and is therefore ok.

I don't stand by the life is unfair so tough attitude (espicially when it comes to education) at all, but I don't get why some people pick and choose when to whine and when to say "tough, life is unfair".

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Silkysam)
I'm not saying it is the best way to spend the money; I'm just saying people are getting too hung up on it being unfair to students from higher income families and instead look at the ill informed people this system encourages to apply who otherwise wouldn't.

There are obviously better way's to spend this money but this is the system which was put forward so we have to live with it. I stand by my statement that it is still worthwhile aslong as it makes a difference to one person.

I disagree that it is worthwhile if it helps one person. £300 million to help one disadvantaged kid is in no way worth it.

If they are so ill informed then they aren't really the type of student who should be applying to Oxford. Those applying to Oxford are generally some of the smarter students in their school and I'm fairly sure they know how to use the Internet. All the information they could ever want on the tuition fee issue can be found on it.

Also I don't get why people are whining about it being unfair when some of you whining also, probably, say "life is unfair" when it comes to some people being able to pay for better education (due to their parent's income mostly) and is therefore ok.

I don't have any personal interest in this story, I am fortunate enough to not need to use the Student Finance system, but I do think it is extremely unfair on those from families with higher incomes. Tuition fees should have nothing to do with parental income. When the students leave university they can get the same job, earning the same money, yet because one of them has parents who earned less than the other, they will be paying this 'graduate tax' for far less time.

I'm not really sure how this can be compared to the State vs Private school issue at all. Most students are 18 and are of the age where they no longer need to rely on parental income (through the SF system). So why are some unfairly discriminated against by the system? I know people who have fairly well of parents who don't support them through university, and because of their parental income, they have to survive on the minimum maintenance loan plus any supplemental income from jobs. So why should a poorer student, who also doesn't get any financial help, get thousands of pounds more through grants to help them live.

[Silkysam]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
I disagree that it is worthwhile if it helps one person. £300 million to help one disadvantaged kid is in no way worth it.

If you read the article the fund will be kept through investments. I also said one person per year so therefore the amount of people helped is the same as the number of years Oxford stays a university.

If they are so ill informed then they aren't really the type of student who should be applying to Oxford. Those applying to Oxford are generally some of the smarter students in their school and I'm fairly sure they know how to use the Internet.

Read back through my first post. I said it was strange that it is Oxford doing it. I think the universities lower down the table, with students who are not sure about going to university, should have this scheme instead of Oxford.

I don't have any personal interest in this story, I am fortunate enough to not need to use the Student Finance system, but I do think it is extremely unfair on those from families with higher incomes. Tuition fees should have nothing to do with parental income. When the students leave university they can get the same job, earning the same money, yet because one of them has parents who earned less than the other, they will be paying this 'graduate tax' for far less time.

I'm not really sure how this can be compared to the State vs Private school issue at all. Most students are 18 and are of the age where they no longer need to rely on parental income (through the SF system). So why are some unfairly discriminated against by the system? I know people who have fairly well of parents who don't support them through university, and because of their parental income, they have to survive on the minimum maintenance loan plus any supplemental income from jobs. So why should a poorer student, who also doesn't get any financial help, get thousands of pounds more through grants to help them live.

You are effectivly agreeing with what I've been saying. I also think everybody should be given equal chances. It just so happens for equal chances to occur there will clearly be people who think it is unfair. (Equal chances cannot be achieved through equal amounts of help unfortunatly.)

I personally think everyone should be given a big enough loan to cover their expenses (i.e: about £7000) no matter what their parent's income. Also we should have a full graduate tax system.

One thing you are forgetting though is that student's aren't at university for the entire year. They are therefore still a burden on their parents during the holiday periods (even if they do get a part time job). Student's from low income families may therefore be pressured to get a full time job instead of going to university so they are no longer a burden. This is the reason why giving them a grant is vital in providing equal chance's to all students.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Silkysam)
If you read the article the fund will be kept through investments. I also said one person per year so therefore the amount of people helped is the same as the number of years Oxford stays a university.

Still a big old waste of money. Even if it helps one per year for the next 300 years, that's £1 million a year they're spending on getting one extra student.

Read back through my first post. I said it was strange that it is Oxford doing it. I think the universities lower down the table, with students who are not sure about going to university, should have this scheme instead of Oxford.

Sorry I missed that bit.

You are effectivly agreeing with what I've been saying. I also think everybody should be given equal chances. It just so happens for equal chances to occur there will clearly be people who think it is unfair. (Equal chances cannot be achieved through equal amounts of help unfortunatly.)

I personally think everyone should be given a big enough loan to cover their expenses (i.e: about £7000) no matter what their parent's income. Also we should have a full graduate tax system.

Yep, I agree with that.

One thing you are forgetting though is that student's aren't at university for the entire year. They are therefore still a burden on their parents during the holiday periods (even if they do get a part time job). Student's from low income families may therefore be pressured to get a full time job instead of going to university so they are no longer a burden. This is the reason why giving them a grant is vital in providing equal chance's to all students.

That's fair enough but it could also be the case for some of the lower middle classes who really don't get cut any slack. Those families earning £40k could still be struggling to make ends meet. Yet a student from that family would get just £500 a year and if it was just over £40k then £50 per year.

[NeverEatFish]

Makes me wish I was poorer and smarter.

[419]

I've got no problem or beef with this. It's a good thing.

But as usual, us whose parents are in the middle ground and pretty much live a similar lifestyle as the 'poor' and could do with the help as much as them are left stranded and feel nothing but a great deal of injustice. Thus is the planet we live in.

[Joe909]

This is utterly stupid.

Any University is free at the point of use. Unless you are stupidly rich, you will be taking loans out to cover all your costs.

Lets take for example two pupils, both apply to Oxford for Maths, both get in.

Student 1 - Parents are on 65k a year (combined, post tax)

Student 2 - Parents are on 21k a year (combined, post tax)

NEITHER of these families will be able to afford to pay any of the tuition fee's upfront nor any maintenance loans. Why oh why are poor students getting discounts when they will be earning the SAME amount of money after Oxford AND Pay back the loans at the SAME speed. It is actually unfair on the middle class.

Come on TSR Labour Marxist Socialist squad, neg me to oblivion and please prove my point.

[Silkysam]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
That's fair enough but it could also be the case for some of the lower middle classes who really don't get cut any slack. Those families earning £40k could still be struggling to make ends meet. Yet a student from that family would get just £500 a year and if it was just over £40k then £50 per year.

In my opinion this is where the system really needs to be sorted out. I come from a low income family and I will admit I will be getting too much money, but I'm informed and realise I'm going to get a lot. I think if more effort was made to explain the funding process to parents better (parents are the one's that need to be convinced) then in an ideal world a uniform loan for everyone would suffice.

Just to clarify on my first post though; I was saying the scheme is in place to encourage student's from low income families to apply instead of making it cheaper for them, it just so happen's it does make it cheaper aswell. I probably didn't make this clear enough.

Edit: Yet again another person (the poster above) is hung up on this being about someone getting a discount, when in fact it is about encouraging students from lower income families to apply to university.

(Original post by Joe909)
.

And yes I know it is unfair, I have already stated what I think should happen instead.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Silkysam)
Just to clarify on my first post though; I was saying the scheme is in place to encourage student's from low income families to apply instead of making it cheaper for them, it just so happen's it does make it cheaper aswell. I probably didn't make this clear enough.

I don't think it being made cheaper is simply an added extra. They are encouraging more people from low income families to apply by making it cheaper.

[Silkysam]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
I don't think it being made cheaper is simply an added extra. They are encouraging more people from low income families to apply by making it cheaper.

They probably would have chosen a different method if there was a better one that was within a single universities control and wasn't too expensive that the fund couldn't be upkept through investments.

[im so academic]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
I disagree that it is worthwhile if it helps one person. £300 million to help one disadvantaged kid is in no way worth it.

If they are so ill informed then they aren't really the type of student who should be applying to Oxford. Those applying to Oxford are generally some of the smarter students in their school and I'm fairly sure they know how to use the Internet. All the information they could ever want on the tuition fee issue can be found on it.



I don't have any personal interest in this story, I am fortunate enough to not need to use the Student Finance system, but I do think it is extremely unfair on those from families with higher incomes. Tuition fees should have nothing to do with parental income. When the students leave university they can get the same job, earning the same money, yet because one of them has parents who earned less than the other, they will be paying this 'graduate tax' for far less time.

I'm not really sure how this can be compared to the State vs Private school issue at all. Most students are 18 and are of the age where they no longer need to rely on parental income (through the SF system). So why are some unfairly discriminated against by the system? I know people who have fairly well of parents who don't support them through university, and because of their parental income, they have to survive on the minimum maintenance loan plus any supplemental income from jobs. So why should a poorer student, who also doesn't get any financial help, get thousands of pounds more through grants to help them live.

However, someone could argue that the money spent on reducing the fees for lower-income students came from a private donation and as far as he is concerned, he can spend it on what he wants as it is his damn money.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Silkysam)
They probably would have chosen a different method if there was a better one that was within a single universities control and wasn't too expensive that the fund couldn't be upkept through investments.

There is, go to schools. Either the donor wanted it to be done this way or Oxford decided to do it to get a tonne of good publicity.

(Original post by im so academic)
However, someone could argue that the money spent on reducing the fees for lower-income students came from a private donation and as far as he is concerned, he can spend it on what he wants as it is his damn money.

Of course he can do what he wants with it, and that is most likely what has happened. Doesn't stop it from being a waste of money.

[im so academic]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Of course he can do what he wants with it, and that is most likely what has happened. Doesn't stop it from being a waste of money.

And it is his money to waste. It's not taxpayers' money, so no one should be up in arms about this considering it has nothing to do with you. If he wants it spent on reducing fees for lower-income students then so be it.

[littleone271]

I'm not sure I agree with this either. As other people have quite rightly said - Tuition fees are free at the point of use and repayments don't start until the student gets a job paying over £21k so the family income is completely irrelevant. Students from families of low income are able to attend university and are given a maitenance grant on the understanding that their parents are unable to contribute very much if anything. I'm in the <£25k band and personally it doesn't really bother me either way but I wouldn't have a problem with being given a bigger maitenance loan instead of the grant.

It's too obvious that Oxford are just throwing money at this scheme in an attempt to rid them of the whole elitist stigma so that people can't keep accusing them of being primarily geared towards the privately educated students.

If I was going to Oxford I'm not 100% sure how I'd feel about it, I guess it would be stupid to say no to it. I think it's quite patronising though... It would make me feel like a bit of a charity case and it's almost like saying that I can have a cheap degree because in their eyes when I graduate I'd still be in some way worse off in terms of career prospects than the students from rich families. It's not a very nice message to send out. In trying to get rid of their elitist stigma they're treating people differently based on their income. Why not just treat everyone the same irrelevant of income? I'd rather have the same tuition fees and the same debt as everybody else and see the money spent on facilities.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by im so academic)
And it is his money to waste. It's not taxpayers' money, so no one should be up in arms about this considering it has nothing to do with you. If he wants it spent on reducing fees for lower-income students then so be it.

That's ridiculous. You're right in one respect, it's his money and he can do what he wants with it. But because it is a private donation you can't comment on it? The word 'private' doesn't mean 'immune from criticism'. Also the donation may be private, but Oxford is a public university.

Think of it this way, had the donor specified that he would have liked for tuition fees for students from families with an income above £100,000 to be reduced, there would be outrage.

[Snagprophet]

It's propaganda, which is why I despise it. If you don't think and only acknowledge 'cheaper' and 'for poorest' then you'll be thinking it's a great thing. If you destruct it down to the crucial elements, mainly that not only is it a decent uni but it's Oxford, and the fee is not paid upfront regardless of uni, then you realise it's almost insulting to anyone they're supposedly targeting for some cheap, anti-Conservative points.

[poiuy]

(Original post by HomoSapiensSap)
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.

But from the 64.3 % of kids from state schools, most of the kids would be from grammar, single sex, church or schools where most of the kids are middle class. Maybe they recieve private tuition. Not many kids would be from failing schools.

[Scots King]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
It's propaganda, which is why I despise it. If you don't think and only acknowledge 'cheaper' and 'for poorest' then you'll be thinking it's a great thing. If you destruct it down to the crucial elements, mainly that not only is it a decent uni but it's Oxford, and the fee is not paid upfront regardless of uni, then you realise it's almost insulting to anyone they're supposedly targeting for some cheap, anti-Conservative points.

Exactly this. It is propaganda pure and simple. Students from poorer backgrounds applying to Oxford should be more than capable of educating themselves in how the system works. University is free at the point of use, so no advantage is earned by students from wealthier backgrounds. Quite frankly, if Oxford applicants can't understand this, then they are not Oxford material.

This money could have been much better spent, I'm thinking summer schools etc for poorer students about to study A2 etc.