The Student Room Group

Student Finance: How is this fair??

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Origami Bullets
Indeed - just look at the god-awful patchwork system that they have in the States, which leads to people having to choose universities on the basis of how much they cost. I think most students there would give their eye teeth for our system.



Definitely. The system we have has its flaws but I'm so grateful it's not like the US' way of doing things.
Well to be honest, it sounds fair to me. Why?

I am a mature student of 32 in my 3rd year. I pay £400 a month on rent and utility bills plus £120 a month of food, £60 bus travel, etc. Now, if i were living at home like most students, i would be NOT paying those sort of bills, so yes, you should receive a lot less money. Simple as.

If you live at home, you're getting free rent, free food. My mate lives at home with his mum, pays her probably £100 a month keep and saves the rest of his student loan and bursary every year - he's saved about £15k in the last 3 years, whereas ive spent that on rent, bills, travel.

What annoys me is students now get upto £11k a year on student loan, grant and bursary (in my uni that's what a student would get with a household income below £25k). £11k!!!!! That's some people's annual wage! So if a student lives at home with their parents and income is below £25k - that student aged 18 gets £11k in their pocket a year. Now THAT IS WRONG and where the system fails......

By the way, i don't have that luxury of being able to live with my mum or dad (divorced), so i have no choice but to live independently. Believe me, if my mum or dad lived in a house (mum lives in 1 bed flat, dad:remarried with kids) - id move back home!!!
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by ScouseEmma28
Well to be honest, it sounds fair to me. Why?

I am a mature student of 32 in my 3rd year. I pay £400 a month on rent and utility bills plus £120 a month of food, £60 bus travel, etc. Now, if i were living at home like most students, i would be NOT paying those sort of bills, so yes, you should receive a lot less money. Simple as.

If you live at home, you're getting free rent, free food. My mate lives at home with his mum, pays her probably £100 a month keep and saves the rest of his student loan and bursary every year - he's saved about £15k in the last 3 years, whereas ive spent that on rent, bills, travel.

What annoys me is students now get upto £11k a year on student loan, grant and bursary (in my uni that's what a student would get with a household income below £25k). £11k!!!!! That's some people's annual wage! So if a student lives at home with their parents and income is below £25k - that student aged 18 gets £11k in their pocket a year. Now THAT IS WRONG and where the system fails......

By the way, i don't have that luxury of being able to live with my mum or dad (divorced), so i have no choice but to live independently. Believe me, if my mum or dad lived in a house (mum lives in 1 bed flat, dad:remarried with kids) - id move back home!!!


To be fair - although i don't agree with anything the op says - they're talking about only getting a full loan and no grant based on their parents income. You're 32 so yours is based on your personal finances. You have a very generous uni because my brother is in London on full grant at around 8k and he couldn't pay his rent in December. Whats with all the that is wrong in caps, yes 11k is high, but where is your uni based? The grants and loans are less for people who live at home, i really can't see it being 11k, are you just calculating every single bursary - because they have many conditions, limited numbers and some are academic etc. Plus if you're not getting maximum amounts, i'm assuming it's because you earn't enough personally to prepare and save up. And just because you know one person who's parents don't charge them allot, it isn't proportional to the population, some parents have no choice; they are on a low income hence why the student is getting extra support and many other reasons.

You're 32 and you don't have the luxury of going home to mummy and daddy? Boo-hoo; people allot younger than yourself don't because their parents are dead or abusive or whatever. I'm surprised you haven't worked out the world doesn't owe you anything by now AND you're in your 3rd year so you're paying lower fees! Try being grateful for what you do have:rolleyes:
Student finance is great because it opens up rich kids eyes to the value of fairness and equality.

When they get to uni and find out that their parents aren't going to subsidise them and they find they have less money than some of their peers, not through any form of merit system but simply because of the parents they have been born to, they understand the concept of injustice.

If it wasn't for that they would have never really learned this lesson they would have probably just expected to have been richer than most of their peers, like they were when they were growing up, and just accepted it saying "well life isn't fair, my parents worked hard for their money, deal with it". Its when you put someone in a position where they can understand what it feels like to have less than others, that they start to fight for fairness.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Student finance is great because it opens up rich kids eyes to the value of fairness and equality.

When they get to uni and find out that their parents aren't going to subsidise them and they find they have less money than some of their peers, not through any form of merit system but simply because of the parents they have been born to, they understand the concept of injustice.

If it wasn't for that they would have never really learned this lesson they would have probably just expected to have been richer than most of their peers, like they were when they were growing up, and just accepted it saying "well life isn't fair, my parents worked hard for their money, deal with it". Its when you put someone in a position where they can understand what it feels like to have less than others, that they start to fight for fairness.


THIS!
Reply 45
Original post by lozzielizzie
What piss me off most, for me is I'll be 24 when I start but 25 within two months of starting but my first still got to be based on my parents income. Which is why because am working full time currently am putting away as much as I can. As I can't be bothered to have my parents income taking into account just because am a couple month shy of being 25. So am taking the basic maintenance loan and saving as much as i can. Second year and third year should be easier as it be based on what I earned. So I should get near full maintenance loan and grant. So am only be getting 3575 which isn't much.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Being 25 is not the only criteria for classification as an independent, for example if you have lived by your own means for the last three years.
Reply 46
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Student finance is great because it opens up rich kids eyes to the value of fairness and equality.

When they get to uni and find out that their parents aren't going to subsidise them and they find they have less money than some of their peers, not through any form of merit system but simply because of the parents they have been born to, they understand the concept of injustice.

If it wasn't for that they would have never really learned this lesson they would have probably just expected to have been richer than most of their peers, like they were when they were growing up, and just accepted it saying "well life isn't fair, my parents worked hard for their money, deal with it". Its when you put someone in a position where they can understand what it feels like to have less than others, that they start to fight for fairness.


So, so true!
Reply 47
Original post by dragonkeeper999
I have a much better plan. The government should provide higher maintenance loans/ grants for subjects on some list of required jobs - there's a list somewhere aimed at immigrants for what skilled workers the UK needs. By providing additional financial support for related degrees, and possibly linked to academic achievement, the UK gains more of the skilled workers we need, and less graduates from pointless degrees - I'll give the common example of film studies. Why waste the government's money paying for their tuition fees (the student will probably never earn enough to pay it back) and also maintenance grants?
Also, everyone should be given the same blanket loan. But no grants - so the money will always be paid back to the government at some point. Yes, some people will still receive additional support from their parents, but at least people like me will actually be able to afford accommodation.


The government already provides 'additional financial support for related degrees'. For example, NHS students do not pay any tuition fees. In addition, subjects are put into different groups and allocated funding based on a scale (i.e. medicine and some sciences get the most funding and the humanities now get nothing). This system combats the high costs of these 'important' subjects by offsetting some of the costs, but because everyone pays the same tuition fees the reality is those useless film studies students you deride subsidise you because their course is far cheaper to run. And you have the cheek to ask for more money to their detriment!

How about we introduce variable tuition fees and see your tuition fees skyrocket to cover the actual cost of your course, eh? Your subject is so much more important and you have far better graduate prospects so why should you not pay more? How does that sound? The useless film studies graduate will also be paying off their student loan because they will be paying far less than they are currently charged. Much fairer all round, right? :rolleyes:
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Student finance is great because it opens up rich kids eyes to the value of fairness and equality.

When they get to uni and find out that their parents aren't going to subsidise them and they find they have less money than some of their peers, not through any form of merit system but simply because of the parents they have been born to, they understand the concept of injustice.

If it wasn't for that they would have never really learned this lesson they would have probably just expected to have been richer than most of their peers, like they were when they were growing up, and just accepted it saying "well life isn't fair, my parents worked hard for their money, deal with it". Its when you put someone in a position where they can understand what it feels like to have less than others, that they start to fight for fairness.


Very well said. Life isn't fair, as people from 'poorer' backgrounds know all too well, it's only right that people who have had a more luxurious childhood see that as well.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Student finance is great because it opens up rich kids eyes to the value of fairness and equality.

When they get to uni and find out that their parents aren't going to subsidise them and they find they have less money than some of their peers, not through any form of merit system but simply because of the parents they have been born to, they understand the concept of injustice.

If it wasn't for that they would have never really learned this lesson they would have probably just expected to have been richer than most of their peers, like they were when they were growing up, and just accepted it saying "well life isn't fair, my parents worked hard for their money, deal with it". Its when you put someone in a position where they can understand what it feels like to have less than others, that they start to fight for fairness.


If only it was possible to +rep more than once...
Original post by evantej
The government already provides 'additional financial support for related degrees'. For example, NHS students do not pay any tuition fees. In addition, subjects are put into different groups and allocated funding based on a scale (i.e. medicine and some sciences get the most funding and the humanities now get nothing). This system combats the high costs of these 'important' subjects by offsetting some of the costs, but because everyone pays the same tuition fees the reality is those useless film studies students you deride subsidise you because their course is far cheaper to run. And you have the cheek to ask for more money to their detriment!

How about we introduce variable tuition fees and see your tuition fees skyrocket to cover the actual cost of your course, eh? Your subject is so much more important and you have far better graduate prospects so why should you not pay more? How does that sound? The useless film studies graduate will also be paying off their student loan because they will be paying far less than they are currently charged. Much fairer all round, right? :rolleyes:


But the money goes straight to the universities and the students don't see any of it. I would much rather pay a higher tuition fee, which is simply slowly paid off like a graduate tax, than end up in tonnes of debt from having to live off my credit card for four years. This would also serve as more of an incentive for students to study useful subjects, as many people think of short term gains (i.e. more money NOW (as with my suggestion) or an easy degree at uni (as with the current system)), or understand that they would not struggle to pay off the higher tuition fees as it depends on your income - so you would not be forced to starve to pay off the debt, as your would with a bank loan, and those who did a decent degree should be more employable and therefore earn enough. They should also scrap this 'wipe the debt after 30 years' thing, it's just going to lose the government money and discourage people from working hard to get decent jobs.
Reply 51
I know the feeling, my maintenance loan is going to come to £3575 a year, which equates to only having £12 a week after accomodation to spend on food, books and entertainment and my parents can in no way support me. It's annoying that maintenance loans are based off parental income rather their disposable income. Ultimately I'm just lucky I have a job already lined up for the summer for a couple of months.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Student finance is great because it opens up rich kids eyes to the value of fairness and equality.

When they get to uni and find out that their parents aren't going to subsidise them and they find they have less money than some of their peers, not through any form of merit system but simply because of the parents they have been born to, they understand the concept of injustice.

If it wasn't for that they would have never really learned this lesson they would have probably just expected to have been richer than most of their peers, like they were when they were growing up, and just accepted it saying "well life isn't fair, my parents worked hard for their money, deal with it". Its when you put someone in a position where they can understand what it feels like to have less than others, that they start to fight for fairness.


Yes, my parents worked hard to get a decent job and have paid more than enough tax to cover the government's grant if they chose to offer me one. However, their hard-earned money doesn't go to me but to some other unworthy child who's parents already take our money to rent their council house and feed their ridiculous number of children. Why should my parents be forced to fork out even more money to support me at uni (which they can't afford and are currently refusing to do) when some parents have never worked a day of their lives nor even tried to get a job, and the state will happily support them. I understand that some parents are unable to work - yes, offer more support to young carers and those with disabled siblings/ parents, but don't do so at the detriment of those who come from the families who have funded the benefits system. Personally, I think the government should be cracking down hard on those who have lived off the benefits system and not really tried to get a job - withdraw their money until they start applying for every job available for them, force them to do charity work, get them doing something useful. This should eventually reduce the stress on the benefits system, leaving more money to loan to those who actually need and deserve it - students. And simply offer all students a blanket loan, which they must pay back at some point, rather than the complicated system of grants which is costing the government loads of money and is unfair. I also think my earlier suggestion of more financial support for those studying useful degrees was also an acceptable solution.
Reply 53
Original post by dragonkeeper999
Yes, my parents worked hard to get a decent job and have paid more than enough tax to cover the government's grant if they chose to offer me one. However, their hard-earned money doesn't go to me but to some other unworthy child


So you're unworthy also? :p:

who's parents already take our money to rent their council house and feed their ridiculous number of children.


I think you have an incorrect perception of the less well off. Believe it or not most don't have 10 kids, and are lazy bums who have never worked in their life (though there are certainly people like this). There are many people who have had little if any opportunities in life and work very hard, and full-time, on minimum wage.

Many of the students I know who are from low income backgrounds have parents who work full time, or are from single parent families (sometimes the other parent died).

These people have had to overcome more obstacles in order to get to university than a well-off middle class student, who is far more likely to attend a good school, more likely to receive additional tuition, whose parents are far more likely to be able to afford to send their children on educational trips or visits, and buy educational toys and books.

Those from less well off backgrounds are also more likely drop out of university due to financial reasons so it makes sense to concentrate financial support to the less well off.

By encouraging the less well off to attend university, we are trying to give more opportunities to the less well of and break this poverty trap.

Why should my parents be forced to fork out even more money to support me at uni (which they can't afford and are currently refusing to do) when some parents have never worked a day of their lives nor even tried to get a job, and the state will happily support them.


But they are not being forced to. They are free to refuse, as they are doing.

Instead you need to look at other ways to fund your studies (perhaps work and save, overdraft, charities and trusts, or do a distance learning degree).

Yes your parents have paid more in tax, but they (should) have also had far more of an opportunity to save. If they haven't been able to, or just chose not to use their savings on your higher education, then this is not the fault of the government. People from less well off backgrounds have not had the opportunity to save.

How much is the shortfall between your expected costs and what you will receive in financial support? Don't forget what I've said. It should rarely, if ever, be the case that a student needs to drop out for financial reasons. If you do go to university and find yourself in financial difficulty then there is further financial support available.

Personally, I think the government should be cracking down hard on those who have lived off the benefits system and not really tried to get a job


This government is making the biggest, most ambitious (and most controversial) changes to the welfare state in over a generation. It is arguably targeting the wrong people but that's another matter.


I also think my earlier suggestion of more financial support for those studying useful degrees was also an acceptable solution.


Well you get into dangerous ground when you do start talking of "useful" degrees.

Also you claim that students do not not see the money. This isn't quite true with NHS degrees as students are given an NHS bursary (admittedly this doesn't result in "more money" as such, as the money is deducted from the loan, but does mean less debt).

And I really don't think there are people who think "hey, let's not get a decent a job as at least that way my student debt is wiped out after 30 years". These are invariably intelligent people and aware that this means they'll likely be worse off, not better off.
Original post by dragonkeeper999
However, their hard-earned money doesn't go to me but to some other unworthy child who's parents already take our money to rent their council house and feed their ridiculous number of children. Why should my parents be forced to fork out even more money to support me at uni (which they can't afford and are currently refusing to do) when some parents have never worked a day of their lives nor even tried to get a job, and the state will happily support them.


There are plenty of hard working people that have never been to university and have good jobs, and they have to pay taxes just like everyone else, I expect they wonder why their taxes should have to go to pay for you to go and get smashed for three years in the student bar just so you can then have a degree and apply for 'graduate jobs'?

Have you even looked for jobs as an alternative for going to university? Why not do some charity work/voluntary work to build experience if you haven't got any? I wonder if the problem is you can't think of any alternatives to going to university, because you have 'ambitions' and want a graduate level job, and you would regard a lot of entry level jobs as beneath you....the type of jobs you would be happy to lecture the council estate dossers to get off their backsides and take.
Original post by River85
So you're unworthy also? :p:



I think you have an incorrect perception of the less well off. Believe it or not most don't have 10 kids, and are lazy bums who have never worked in their life (though there are certainly people like this). There are many people who have had little if any opportunities in life and work very hard, and full-time, on minimum wage.

Many of the students I know who are from low income backgrounds have parents who work full time, or are from single parent families (sometimes the other parent died).

These people have had to overcome more obstacles in order to get to university than a well-off middle class student, who is far more likely to attend a good school, more likely to receive additional tuition, whose parents are far more likely to be able to afford to send their children on educational trips or visits, and buy educational toys and books.

Those from less well off backgrounds are also more likely drop out of university due to financial reasons so it makes sense to concentrate financial support to the less well off.

By encouraging the less well off to attend university, we are trying to give more opportunities to the less well of and break this poverty trap.



But they are not being forced to. They are free to refuse, as they are doing.

Instead you need to look at other ways to fund your studies (perhaps work and save, overdraft, charities and trusts, or do a distance learning degree).

Yes your parents have paid more in tax, but they (should) have also had far more of an opportunity to save. If they haven't been able to, or just chose not to use their savings on your higher education, then this is not the fault of the government. People from less well off backgrounds have not had the opportunity to save.

How much is the shortfall between your expected costs and what you will receive in financial support? Don't forget what I've said. It should rarely, if ever, be the case that a student needs to drop out for financial reasons. If you do go to university and find yourself in financial difficulty then there is further financial support available.



This government is making the biggest, most ambitious (and most controversial) changes to the welfare state in over a generation. It is arguably targeting the wrong people but that's another matter.



Well you get into dangerous ground when you do start talking of "useful" degrees.

Also you claim that students do not not see the money. This isn't quite true with NHS degrees as students are given an NHS bursary (admittedly this doesn't result in "more money" as such, as the money is deducted from the loan, but does mean less debt).

And I really don't think there are people who think "hey, let's not get a decent a job as at least that way my student debt is wiped out after 30 years". These are invariably intelligent people and aware that this means they'll likely be worse off, not better off.


So you're suggesting that I turn down my offer from Cambridge (a university which doesn't let students get a part time job during term time and is a fairly expensive place to live) for a course I am really passionate about and should get me a decent job, in order to get a less useful degree from the OU (who doesn't offer the course I love nor provide adequate science labs), get into tonnes of debt, or take money from charities designed to help those really in need. I accept that I have had a more comfortable upbringing than some, but that doesn't mean my parents have loads of money! We have a large mortgage (yes, it was their decision to buy the house, not mine), have to spend money on care for my grandparents, and my parents only worked their way into decent jobs fairly recently - neither did good degrees at top universities and so both had to work their way up from the bottom. Therefore, we have little long-term savings. And why should my parents be forced to support me when I am legally an adult, and have basically left home. They have my younger sister to support. They have their own life to live. They have a business to run and fund, and therefore cannot afford to support me too.
My government basic loan won't even cover my accommodation costs.
And actually, I do know those who have no intention of getting decent jobs after their degree and don't intend to pay off the debt. One friend's mum is going to uni for the first time to do an art course for the fun of it before retiring, and a cousin went to uni several times, dropped out just before the end of each (which somehow meant he was able to go to uni again for 'free' with the loan system... not too sure how it works) and now has a job at the local McDonald's. He knew all along that his degree (film studies) didn't give him any useful skills or help him get a job, but wanted the 'uni lifestyle'. He still hasn't completed a degree, yet the government has paid for all the tuition fees.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 56
Original post by dragonkeeper999
So you're suggesting that I turn down my offer from Cambridge (a university which doesn't let students get a part time job during term time and is a fairly expensive place to live) for a course I am really passionate about and should get me a decent job, in order to get a less useful degree from the OU (who doesn't offer the course I love nor provide adequate science labs), get into tonnes of debt, or take money from charities designed to help those really in need.


No. I am just saying you can consider alternatives.

You needed get into "tonnes" of debt. By overdraft I was referring to the student overdrafts you get with student accounts. Many students have them. I'm not talking about a high street bank loan.

You don't necessarily need to be "in need" to get funding from a charity or trust. There are all sorts of kinds out there, providing small to moderate amounts of money to students in higher education and some don't consider your financial situation. Instead they will be based on other eligibility criteria such as location, course, ethnic background, or whether you have a disability. Besides, did you claim you can't go to university without this extra money? If that's not "in need", then what is?

Oh, and the OU do have a virtual lab system.

No one has a divine right to go to university and expect lots of £££s from the taxpayer.

I've said it many times before in this thread. In the past we used to have universal grants but back then only the minority were at university. Now we have up to 50% of young people in Higher Education. It's not sustainable.

Far better have the money directed to the less well off, who are more likely to drop out due to financial reasons, than given to the better off students even more money which many (perhaps not all) don't even need.

I accept that I have had a more comfortable upbringing than some, but that doesn't mean my parents have loads of money!


No, and that's why I said I can have sympathy to some extent. I come from a comfortable, but certainly not well off, family. Household income was average, had a modest 3 bed detached, but my parents also placed me and my brother (and our education) as their first priority. I admit I was lucky in that respect and that any major financial/life troubles didn't hit until I was in my mid to late 20s. I can appreciate that things haven't been easy for your parents, especially paying for care for your grandparents.

I don't have as much sympathy as I used to have, considering lower middle income students get more money that I was entitled to when I started (even if tuition fees were lower then). However, I still don't want universities to become the playground of the poor and rich, but have the middle incomes squeezed out.

And why should my parents be forced to support me when I am legally an adult, and have basically left home. They have my younger sister to support. They have their own life to live. They have a business to run and fund, and therefore cannot afford to support me too.


But they aren't being forced to support you, as I've already said. Yes, it's expected they contribute, but the government realise this isn't always the case. This is why you need to look at other avenues. Speak to Cambridge. Research charities and trusts. Perhaps try and defer your offer for a year and work.

My government basic loan won't even cover my accommodation costs.


Universities also need to take some responsibility here. Yes, their funding has been cut, but during much of my time as an undergrad things were relatively good and my university still made above inflation accommodation price rises on an almost yearly basis. This meant that loans didn't even cover accommodation. This also affected the cost of private accommodation which would also increase, as landlords were aware of how expensive college accommodation is.

Not only that, but you can also have further restrictions placed on you. For example, at my alma mater (Durham) you can usually only claim the Durham grant if you live in (overpriced) university accommodation. Cambridge prevent students from getting term-time jobs, as you said.

Have you spoken to Cambridge about this?
Original post by manderton
in my opinion it does need an overhaul.

I personally feel it would benefit everyone if the universities were given all the loan/grant money to distribute evenly to accepted students.

None of this 'your daddy's rich' or 'your mum's poor' malarky - if the uni's had all the money they could:

- put the 2nd,3rd (possibly 4th) years funding into a savings account to accrue interest which they can then use to "lower" their fees making the students better off.

- provide weekly allowances in the form of money transferred/meal packages for survival

- stationary budget for pens/workbooks

- luxury budget for the student to do as they please - drink it, save it, spend it on text books

- offer a selection of suggested laptops which can be purchased/rented on a monthly finance scheme

This way money is spread evenly, none of this "OMG student loan CLOTHES CLOTHES GADGETS MORE CLOTHES - OMG i'm SKINT!" will happen, want to bring a console/gaming laptop? great, get a job and pay for it yourself.

It honestly perplexes me the level of entitlement in today's society - everyone moaning that someone has more than them, it isn't fair etc etc.


Part of uni should be about being able to learn to budget yourself. Not something the government should do for you.
Reply 58
Original post by ScouseEmma28
Well to be honest, it sounds fair to me. Why?

I am a mature student of 32 in my 3rd year. I pay £400 a month on rent and utility bills plus £120 a month of food, £60 bus travel, etc. Now, if i were living at home like most students, i would be NOT paying those sort of bills, so yes, you should receive a lot less money. Simple as.

If you live at home, you're getting free rent, free food. My mate lives at home with his mum, pays her probably £100 a month keep and saves the rest of his student loan and bursary every year - he's saved about £15k in the last 3 years, whereas ive spent that on rent, bills, travel.

What annoys me is students now get upto £11k a year on student loan, grant and bursary (in my uni that's what a student would get with a household income below £25k). £11k!!!!! That's some people's annual wage! So if a student lives at home with their parents and income is below £25k - that student aged 18 gets £11k in their pocket a year. Now THAT IS WRONG and where the system fails......

By the way, i don't have that luxury of being able to live with my mum or dad (divorced), so i have no choice but to live independently. Believe me, if my mum or dad lived in a house (mum lives in 1 bed flat, dad:remarried with kids) - id move back home!!!


It's at least 14 years since you left school......you could have saved lots of money since then to fund university studies!
Original post by OU Student
Part of uni should be about being able to learn to budget yourself. Not something the government should do for you.


with your own money, yes - which is exactly what the luxury allowance/job income will do.

However, why should there not be control & limitation on tax-payers money given to the student?

That's like saying there should be no control over MP's expenses and they should learn how to 'budget' those - well, we've seen how that worked out . . .

Quick Reply