Fee waivers for poor students should be scrapped
Scroll to see replies
Original post by rickfloss
No they dont, they get given care, they get no money!!
if you assume, you make an ass out of u and me
Disabled students allowance is pathetic, maybe if they actually focused on helping to pay for the treatment required for the disability whilst at uni it would be much better
But hey, poor people shout louder then disabled people
if you assume, you make an ass out of u and me
Disabled students allowance is pathetic, maybe if they actually focused on helping to pay for the treatment required for the disability whilst at uni it would be much better
But hey, poor people shout louder then disabled people
It seems like you're taking it out on "poor" people, so how about no. They get an opportunity to help themselves financially so they obviously will take it. You can blame the Gov. or the Student finance finance system for any problems.
Original post by rickfloss
what about student from abusive families?
why dont students with mental or physical disabilities get fee waivers?
Unthinkable
why dont students with mental or physical disabilities get fee waivers?
Unthinkable
They might. As far as I am aware, fee waivers are offered by a university, not by student finance. So some universities may offer fee waivers for disabled people.
At the end of the day, fee waivers are one way of attracting students to apply to a university. Unless you want to be more authoritarian, and either ban all universities giving fee waivers, or tell all universities they have to give fee waivers of n amount; then the free market means that universities can do what they want to attract students. Some choose to offer lower fees for everyone. Some choose to offer higher base fees, with reductions for poorer people.
Original post by neunundneunzig
Disabled students get extra money for their university expenses, so I assume they can save up the surplus to later pay off their fees if they want?
And care-leavers are likely to be people who were previously in abusive families...
And care-leavers are likely to be people who were previously in abusive families...
Disabled students don't (often) get extra money (not by DSA anyway), they get given money in return for listed extra expenses, which they usually need to submit receipts to get the money back.
Original post by rickfloss
No they dont, they get given care, they get no money!!
if you assume, you make an ass out of u and me
Disabled students allowance is pathetic, maybe if they actually focused on helping to pay for the treatment required for the disability whilst at uni it would be much better
But hey, poor people shout louder then disabled people
if you assume, you make an ass out of u and me
Disabled students allowance is pathetic, maybe if they actually focused on helping to pay for the treatment required for the disability whilst at uni it would be much better
But hey, poor people shout louder then disabled people
DSA is not designed to pay for treatment. If you need additional treatment than the NHS can provide, or more general help for living with your disability, you should claim DLA/PIP. DSA is designed for extra costs that you incur while studying due to your disability.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by ed-
I think there is already so much incentive though...
Someone with poorer parents than mine gets a loan worth thousands of pounds more than I get (that they potentially don't have to pay back), and they're entitled to bursaries and scholarships ...
And then my parents have to make up 1000 pounds in accommodation costs (first year at least) and give me £80 a week to live on even though my dad's retired so he has to work part time and my mom will probably follow suit soon enough.
Someone with poorer parents than mine gets a loan worth thousands of pounds more than I get (that they potentially don't have to pay back), and they're entitled to bursaries and scholarships ...
And then my parents have to make up 1000 pounds in accommodation costs (first year at least) and give me £80 a week to live on even though my dad's retired so he has to work part time and my mom will probably follow suit soon enough.
What you should really be angry about is the amount your parents would have been taxed (when they were working) than a poorer student receiving help, who has probably had less than you in 18 years (no offence, just stating the facts).
Original post by MagicNMedicine
The problem with this argument is that some people are very hypocritical about it.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
One of the finest posts I've seen on here in awhile.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
The problem with this argument is that some people are very hypocritical about it.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
The children from wealthier families didn't choose it either. Aren't you of the opinion that people shouldn't be punished because of their circumstance of birth? So shut up.
Agreed, it's ridiculous. Some of the people commenting on here seem to think that students from poorer backgrounds 'deserve' fee waivers because they've had such a hard life? Nonsense, I've got friends whose parents earn very little yet they haven't got a care in the world, and another friend whose dad's going on for being a millionaire but has been through all kinds of horrible things. Regardless, after graduation, all students have the exact same opportunities (other than those whose daddies use their connections to get them a cushy job), so at this point background is basically irrelevant. Wouldn't it be better to put the money from fee waivers into bursaries?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by neunundneunzig
Students from poor families had to deal with financial instability, sub-par living conditions, sub-par education and so on, and you're quibbling about them paying a bit less in university fees? They're far less likely to be able to go to university in the first place purely because they were unlucky enough to be born poor. Show some sympathy.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
The problem with this argument is that some people are very hypocritical about it.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
As someone who agreed with the OP, the argument isn't about the "unfairness" of it for me, it's just that fee waivers specifically seem to be unnecessary money lost which could be spent. If you want to encourage low income kids to go to university, don't give waivers, hold outreach programs and educate them on the system to remove misconceptions, or give them more bursaries/maintenance grants if you want.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by rickfloss
No they dont, they get given care, they get no money!!
if you assume, you make an ass out of u and me
Disabled students allowance is pathetic, maybe if they actually focused on helping to pay for the treatment required for the disability whilst at uni it would be much better
But hey, poor people shout louder then disabled people
if you assume, you make an ass out of u and me
Disabled students allowance is pathetic, maybe if they actually focused on helping to pay for the treatment required for the disability whilst at uni it would be much better
But hey, poor people shout louder then disabled people
what if their condition weren't curable? e.g. deaf students get a note taker, no treatment around at the moment can restore their hearing
And on topic I agree that the fee waiver system is a bit unfair. People will be paying it back from their own salary and were a student from a less well off background to stay less well off then they'd never pay back as much as a student from a more advantaged background.
I thought the fee reductions and payment of bursaries was being phased out and the funding (all though reduced in total) used to fund postgrad for students from less well off families. I might be mistaken but I thought this was on the news or similar.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hiya.
I think I probably come under the bracket of the poorer background students that you're talking about but I completely agree with you. I need to support a 2 year old and my work probably wont fit around university next year so I wont be able to work (unless I can find a more flexible job) so I am entitled to more. However, I have looked into all loans and grants and have noticed that there are alot more grants than loans being offered. One of which (grant) I can pick instead of the Maintenence Loan so I dont have to pay it back. But personally I would rather get the loan and pay it back. I feel like I would be just be taking from the tax payers and not giving back and I dont think that it is right. And as you say its not like it is difficult to understand the re payment system and we should all get roughly the same wage so why should I come out with 10k less debt that you when I can be in a position to pay it all back??
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think I probably come under the bracket of the poorer background students that you're talking about but I completely agree with you. I need to support a 2 year old and my work probably wont fit around university next year so I wont be able to work (unless I can find a more flexible job) so I am entitled to more. However, I have looked into all loans and grants and have noticed that there are alot more grants than loans being offered. One of which (grant) I can pick instead of the Maintenence Loan so I dont have to pay it back. But personally I would rather get the loan and pay it back. I feel like I would be just be taking from the tax payers and not giving back and I dont think that it is right. And as you say its not like it is difficult to understand the re payment system and we should all get roughly the same wage so why should I come out with 10k less debt that you when I can be in a position to pay it all back??
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MagicNMedicine
The problem with this argument is that some people are very hypocritical about it.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
Well said mate.
Poorer background = lesser opportunities.
Something that the OP forgot completely about.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
The problem with this argument is that some people are very hypocritical about it.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
Funny thing is that I would stake my measly loan on the fact that the proportion of students who get very small loans and have parents who are well off and able to support them (willing and ability is different) through uni is very similar to the proportion of students who are on full grant/loan and are literally penniless at home/went to the local comp. Plenty of students at top grammar schools living in affluent areas are getting the big grants etc. Separated households is the big one, along with self employment. Do you really think there is a massive difference in the 'opportunities stakes between a family earning 28k and one earning £42k?. The latter is the squeezed middle, and the children won't be lavished with summer trips to St Tropez.
People really do underestimate just how many people are blowing their loans on Topshop hauls and summer jaunts abroad. Most 'poor' students use their loan as 'free money'. Is it really necessary to give someone £2000 when they already have enough to live on if we assume they are getting 7k from SF. It is not a productive use of university funds.
You make the critical assumption that household income is synonymous with wealth and privilege. I'm not entitled to any grants/bursaries and there are plenty of people who have had far more opportunities than me who are getting full support. As a little anecdote, I know two people at Habs boys who are getting full grants/loan because their parents are divorced, yet their dads are city bankers. The system is a joke.
The whole system is ironic, it attempts to elevate the working class by levelling the playing field yet, by giving excessive grants/loans/bursaries. it actually turns the whole thing on its head. At university the middle class become the working class, and the poor become the middle class. Beautiful..
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Cutmeloose
Separated households is the big one, along with self employment.
I don't agree with you entirely - I think MagicNMedicine has a point about life just being unfair - but I do agree with this. It's ridiculous that you can be better off if your parents divorce.
Also, having had various jobs since the age of fifteen - at one point 20 hours a week during my a-levels - I find it frustrating the amount of people talking about waiting until their loan comes in so they have money to drink (most people's loan doesn't cover accommodation), or spending their overdraft as a matter of course.
Nonetheless, MagicNMedicine's logic is inescapable, and given the choice I'd take my life over theirs any day, so meh.
Original post by Octohedral
I don't agree with you entirely - I think MagicNMedicine has a point about life just being unfair - but I do agree with this. It's ridiculous that you can be better off if your parents divorce.
Also, having had various jobs since the age of fifteen - at one point 20 hours a week during my a-levels - I find it frustrating the amount of people talking about waiting until their loan comes in so they have money to drink (most people's loan doesn't cover accommodation), or spending their overdraft as a matter of course.
Nonetheless, MagicNMedicine's logic is inescapable, and given the choice I'd take my life over theirs any day, so meh.
Also, having had various jobs since the age of fifteen - at one point 20 hours a week during my a-levels - I find it frustrating the amount of people talking about waiting until their loan comes in so they have money to drink (most people's loan doesn't cover accommodation), or spending their overdraft as a matter of course.
Nonetheless, MagicNMedicine's logic is inescapable, and given the choice I'd take my life over theirs any day, so meh.
My whole point is that being from a lower income household doesn't mean that you've had a tough life. It doesn't actually even mean that you're poor either. I don't understand why MagicNMedicine's assumed that those from a lower income household are being marginalised.
We live in the frigging UK. There really isn't a huge difference between families earning £25-42k in the 'opportunites' stakes' when you consider variants in family size/tax credits etc. People please do not take that too literally, as there is obviously a £17k difference pre-tax and 11k post tax.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by neunundneunzig
Disabled students get extra money for their university expenses, so I assume they can save up the surplus to later pay off their fees if they want?
And care-leavers are likely to be people who were previously in abusive families...
And care-leavers are likely to be people who were previously in abusive families...
It is not extra money. It is money to meet additional expenses that a non-disabled student typically does not need to meet, a note taker for example.
Original post by rickfloss
what about student from abusive families?
why dont students with mental or physical disabilities get fee waivers?
Unthinkable
why dont students with mental or physical disabilities get fee waivers?
Unthinkable
As I have told you before, just because a student is in education does not mean that a government, in a time of austerity, should pay dor private health care. These are health not education costs. The NHS is there for treatment and diagnosis. If a student requires a psychological assessment, and struggles to get this on the NHS, then a private assessment can take place. The cost of this can be reimbursed through Access to Learning.
Disabled students are treat as a priority for A2L funding. Moreover, disabled students, at least those claiming DLA, are one of the exempt groups when it comes to claiming benefits In full time study e.g. ESA and Housing Benefit. There are also trusts and grants for students with disabilities.
Where is the problem?
Original post by evening sunrise
I thought the fee reductions and payment of bursaries was being phased out and the funding (all though reduced in total) used to fund postgrad for students from less well off families. I might be mistaken but I thought this was on the news or similar.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
That was just about the National Scholarship programme (I think), and comes into effect around 2015-ish. It shouldn't effect the bursaries/grants/waivers offered solely by the uni.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Accalia
That was just about the National Scholarship programme (I think), and comes into effect around 2015-ish. It shouldn't effect the bursaries/grants/waivers offered solely by the uni.
Cheers. Some unis seem to have linked the two, at least as far as what it states on their web site. If there is scope for smoke and mirrors then both are usually deployed.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MagicNMedicine
The problem with this argument is that some people are very hypocritical about it.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
Young people get advantaged or disadvantaged all the way through their education depending on their parents' income. People from poorer backgrounds have far fewer opportunities that people from richer backgrounds do.
Generally those from richer backgrounds take the attitude that, well thats just the way it is, life isn't fair is it, those from poorer backgrounds should just suck it up and work hard and they will get there anyway.
But then when there's an advantage that goes the other way, that benefits those from poorer backgrounds, they see this as a big injustice.
Why don't those from richer backgrounds just say "I can get through this disadvantage, if I work hard I can achieve just as much as those with fee waivers, its down to me and my attitude". Much better than just sitting around whinging about injustice.
You talk as though I'm saying all funding for poor students should be taken away...
That's not what anyone's saying.
The point is that fee waivers are completely pointless considering the payback system and it's money that could be better spent by the universities elsewhere.
I know people from poorer backgrounds studying medicine and law and are definitely going to get good jobs yet people with rich parents studying subjects which mean they'll be lucky to earn much over the threshold for student loan repayment. Where is the logic in fee waivers there?
Original post by James A
Well said mate.
Poorer background = lesser opportunities.
Something that the OP forgot completely about.
Poorer background = lesser opportunities.
Something that the OP forgot completely about.
Did I? Or did you just miss the point?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Sheldor
fee waivers specifically seem to be unnecessary money lost which could be spent. If you want to encourage low income kids to go to university, don't give waivers, hold outreach programs and educate them on the system to remove misconceptions, or give them more bursaries/maintenance grants if you want.
I think my student union recently decided to make this our policy, and to ask the university to do this.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Has anyone combined a doctoral loan with uni funding?Please help!
- Are Foundation year scholarships a thing?
- If I dropped to part time PhD, could I go back to full?
- Masters Program in Business Analytics/Data Analytics
- Can I accept a partially funded PhD while trying to secure additional funding?
- Doctoral loan and uni fee waiver funding, please help!
- Lougbough or aston university
- Applying to the US
- Interested In Playing Sport at University?
- Is the IELTS even necessary?
- Master Economics: LSE vs Cambridge vs UCL vs CEMFI vs BGSE
- Caper test for worcester GEM
- How much money should you have in order to do a masters degree?
- Caribbean Medical School placements in the UK
- MSc Mathematics and Foundations of Computer Science (MFOCS) Oxford
- Going to veterinary medicine from biomedical science
- Year 12s: Are you considering any of the following after year 13?
- Why do Northern universities have more northerners and vice versa for southern?
- uk education system
- Do I need geography/maths for geology?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
