Why is Student Finance based on our parents income?
What does our household income have to do with anything? My parents can't help me out, I'm the one going to Uni and has to have the debt, how is that fair to assess on something out of our control? We should all be equal.
What's the reason for it?
What's the reason for it?
Scroll to see replies
Because the assumption is that if your parents earn over a certain amount, then they will be financially in a position to help you out. This doesn't really hold water these days, as it takes no account of long-term debts such as mortgage obligations.
The playing field could easily be levelled by putting all applicants into the existing non-income assessed route and abolishing the income assessed route completely. But of course that would mean that everyone gets a lower level of funding, because that's how non-income assessment works.
The playing field could easily be levelled by putting all applicants into the existing non-income assessed route and abolishing the income assessed route completely. But of course that would mean that everyone gets a lower level of funding, because that's how non-income assessment works.
Original post by Klix88
Because the assumption is that if your parents earn over a certain amount, then they will be financially in a position to help you out. This doesn't really hold water these days, as it takes no account of long-term debts such as mortgage obligations.
The playing field could easily be levelled by putting all applicants into the existing non-income assessed route and abolishing the income assessed route completely. But of course that would mean that everyone gets a lower level of funding, because that's how non-income assessment works.
The playing field could easily be levelled by putting all applicants into the existing non-income assessed route and abolishing the income assessed route completely. But of course that would mean that everyone gets a lower level of funding, because that's how non-income assessment works.
tbh, I'd rather get support based in parents income, rather than everybody getting the same low amount.
At least this way people get what they deserve
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Olympiad
tbh, I'd rather get support based in parents income, rather than everybody getting the same low amount.
At least this way people get what they deserve
At least this way people get what they deserve
Not necessarily, because many parents can't afford to contribute the amount that SF say they should. SF don't take any account of existing financial drains like a mortgage, supporting a second household/children after a divorce etc.
In addition, having an uncooperative step-parent is a pretty common situation these days, from what I've seen on TSR. If you live in a household with a parent and a step-parent, then the step-parent's income is taken into account by SF when they do the calculation. If the step-parent refuses to contribute, then the student's funding is lowered by SF and not "topped up" from home.
I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't think either situation is particularly fair or ideal. What would be fair, would be a non-income assessed system for all students, with higher payments. Of course in the current economic situation with the number of people going to uni, this will never happen because it isn't affordable. And if it was, people would start complaining that it wasn't fair that "rich" people get the same as "poor" people, so that would be a no-win as well.
Certainly there are no easy answers.
Original post by Olympiad
tbh, I'd rather get support based in parents income, rather than everybody getting the same low amount.
At least this way people get what they deserve
At least this way people get what they deserve
There are still flaws in it. My mum earns within the less than £25,000 bracket yet her partner of a few years takes the total household income up to over £60,000 which means I am not eligible for a grant. Her partner won't be helping pay for accommodation/living expenses which means his earnings are pretty much worthless to me yet has a greater effect on how much I can get from the government.
That is not fair and I am sure it is a similar situation for many other people.
(edited 10 years ago)
It actually stops many going to uni if their parents aren't supportive, I should be able to go to uni, take all the loans out I need myself and not be a burden on my parents, £4500 isn't even enough for accommodation in most places
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It is pretty wretched what the government has done to higher education. Socialized student finance has driven the price of university to incredible levels and has meant that if you want a higher education and are less well-off, you have to get public funding for it.
No socialized student finance is going to be fair, because theft cannot result in virtue, and public institutions are morally bankrupt and hilariously incompetent.
No socialized student finance is going to be fair, because theft cannot result in virtue, and public institutions are morally bankrupt and hilariously incompetent.
Original post by Olympiad
tbh, I'd rather get support based in parents income, rather than everybody getting the same low amount.
At least this way people get what they deserve
Posted from TSR Mobile
At least this way people get what they deserve
Posted from TSR Mobile
"Deserve"? That's a bit of an odd choice of word. Would you say that somebody from a lower income family is more "deserving" of help in education than someone from a high income family?
As I've said before, I don't see why it is based on the income of parents when it won't be the parents responsible for paying the debt back. Perhaps allow students from lower income backgrounds to get more loan, I understand that generally they are less able to get help when they need it. For example I had a friend at uni who once ran out of money, rang her parents, and they transferred £40 within 10 minutes. This is something that not everybody would be able to do.
It is the fact that those from lower income backgrounds don't have to pay some of it back then I find unfair, because if they ever reach the stage where they would be paying it back, they are no longer "lower income" and it is therefore irrelevant what their background was whilst studying.
Original post by Klix88
Not necessarily, because many parents can't afford to contribute the amount that SF say they should. SF don't take any account of existing financial drains like a mortgage, supporting a second household/children after a divorce etc.
In addition, having an uncooperative step-parent is a pretty common situation these days, from what I've seen on TSR. If you live in a household with a parent and a step-parent, then the step-parent's income is taken into account by SF when they do the calculation. If the step-parent refuses to contribute, then the student's funding is lowered by SF and not "topped up" from home.
I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't think either situation is particularly fair or ideal. What would be fair, would be a non-income assessed system for all students, with higher payments. Of course in the current economic situation with the number of people going to uni, this will never happen because it isn't affordable. And if it was, people would start complaining that it wasn't fair that "rich" people get the same as "poor" people, so that would be a no-win as well.
Certainly there are no easy answers.
In addition, having an uncooperative step-parent is a pretty common situation these days, from what I've seen on TSR. If you live in a household with a parent and a step-parent, then the step-parent's income is taken into account by SF when they do the calculation. If the step-parent refuses to contribute, then the student's funding is lowered by SF and not "topped up" from home.
I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't think either situation is particularly fair or ideal. What would be fair, would be a non-income assessed system for all students, with higher payments. Of course in the current economic situation with the number of people going to uni, this will never happen because it isn't affordable. And if it was, people would start complaining that it wasn't fair that "rich" people get the same as "poor" people, so that would be a no-win as well.
Certainly there are no easy answers.
I'm aware that it has it's disadvantages, however is rather have that vs everybody gets the same.
Maybe it's due to the fact that I'm in a private school - some of my friends have had their grandparents/parents pay their entire student fees within their first year, which I find annoying.
Although - I certainly am not one of them. My parents aren't rich, and I'm pretty sure they won't contribute as much as some of the students in my school have been given.
Original post by San Fran
There are still flaws in it. My mum earns within the less than £25,000 bracket yet her partner of a few years takes the total household income up to over £60,000 which means I am not eligible for a grant. Her partner won't be helping pay for accommodation/living expenses which means his earnings are pretty much worthless to me yet has a greater effect on how much I can get from the government.
That is not fair and I am sure it is a similar situation for many other people.
That is not fair and I am sure it is a similar situation for many other people.
I'm aware of the flaws, but I understand why it is how it is. They expect that parents will help you out, this clearly isn't the case for some people, but overall I don't see it being changed.
Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox
"Deserve"? That's a bit of an odd choice of word. Would you say that somebody from a lower income family is more "deserving" of help in education than someone from a high income family?
As I've said before, I don't see why it is based on the income of parents when it won't be the parents responsible for paying the debt back. Perhaps allow students from lower income backgrounds to get more loan, I understand that generally they are less able to get help when they need it. For example I had a friend at uni who once ran out of money, rang her parents, and they transferred £40 within 10 minutes. This is something that not everybody would be able to do.
It is the fact that those from lower income backgrounds don't have to pay some of it back then I find unfair, because if they ever reach the stage where they would be paying it back, they are no longer "lower income" and it is therefore irrelevant what their background was whilst studying.
As I've said before, I don't see why it is based on the income of parents when it won't be the parents responsible for paying the debt back. Perhaps allow students from lower income backgrounds to get more loan, I understand that generally they are less able to get help when they need it. For example I had a friend at uni who once ran out of money, rang her parents, and they transferred £40 within 10 minutes. This is something that not everybody would be able to do.
It is the fact that those from lower income backgrounds don't have to pay some of it back then I find unfair, because if they ever reach the stage where they would be paying it back, they are no longer "lower income" and it is therefore irrelevant what their background was whilst studying.
Probably is the wrong word, I was replying quickly :|
Anyhow, I'm trying to imply that overall I see it working better to assess based on parental income, rather than everybody gaining a low amount of financial support.
Original post by Olympiad
tbh, I'd rather get support based in parents income, rather than everybody getting the same low amount.
At least this way people get what they deserve
Posted from TSR Mobile
At least this way people get what they deserve
Posted from TSR Mobile
But people don't get what they deserve.
When I first went to uni, I was in lectures/clinic 5 days and week. starting at 8.30am and ending as late as 6pm. Because I had 2 working parents I received a low amount from student finance, because of my timetable I was unable to work during the week and I took a weekend retail job instead. My friend studying photography, was in lectures for 8hours per week but was able to get a full student allowance because her mum was a single parent. They didn't take into account that her course only required 2 half days of attendance, which meant she was able to work in the same shop as me but for over 30 hours per week. So she ended up with a lot more money then me. The student finance company should scrap the amount decided by parents income, and instead look to how many attendance hours is required.
Original post by day_dreamer
But people don't get what they deserve.
When I first went to uni, I was in lectures/clinic 5 days and week. starting at 8.30am and ending as late as 6pm. Because I had 2 working parents I received a low amount from student finance, because of my timetable I was unable to work during the week and I took a weekend retail job instead. My friend studying photography, was in lectures for 8hours per week but was able to get a full student allowance because her mum was a single parent. They didn't take into account that her course only required 2 half days of attendance, which meant she was able to work in the same shop as me but for over 30 hours per week. So she ended up with a lot more money then me. The student finance company should scrap the amount decided by parents income, and instead look to how many attendance hours is required.
When I first went to uni, I was in lectures/clinic 5 days and week. starting at 8.30am and ending as late as 6pm. Because I had 2 working parents I received a low amount from student finance, because of my timetable I was unable to work during the week and I took a weekend retail job instead. My friend studying photography, was in lectures for 8hours per week but was able to get a full student allowance because her mum was a single parent. They didn't take into account that her course only required 2 half days of attendance, which meant she was able to work in the same shop as me but for over 30 hours per week. So she ended up with a lot more money then me. The student finance company should scrap the amount decided by parents income, and instead look to how many attendance hours is required.
Or even both? / i.e. Having some technique to calculate it based on parental income and number of hours you attend.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox
"Deserve"? That's a bit of an odd choice of word. Would you say that somebody from a lower income family is more "deserving" of help in education than someone from a high income family?
As I've said before, I don't see why it is based on the income of parents when it won't be the parents responsible for paying the debt back. Perhaps allow students from lower income backgrounds to get more loan, I understand that generally they are less able to get help when they need it. For example I had a friend at uni who once ran out of money, rang her parents, and they transferred £40 within 10 minutes. This is something that not everybody would be able to do.
It is the fact that those from lower income backgrounds don't have to pay some of it back then I find unfair, because if they ever reach the stage where they would be paying it back, they are no longer "lower income" and it is therefore irrelevant what their background was whilst studying.
As I've said before, I don't see why it is based on the income of parents when it won't be the parents responsible for paying the debt back. Perhaps allow students from lower income backgrounds to get more loan, I understand that generally they are less able to get help when they need it. For example I had a friend at uni who once ran out of money, rang her parents, and they transferred £40 within 10 minutes. This is something that not everybody would be able to do.
It is the fact that those from lower income backgrounds don't have to pay some of it back then I find unfair, because if they ever reach the stage where they would be paying it back, they are no longer "lower income" and it is therefore irrelevant what their background was whilst studying.
Agree. Completely. Don't see why I have to pay more back just because of what my parents have
Morally I think it's ridiculous that students (the vast majority over 18 and therefore adults in the eyes of the law) should only be allowed to borrow from SF based on means testing which usually means parental income. Mature students are a different case also but this debate seems to be centred around the majority who are starting out as students in late teens or early 20s.
On a practical level the Govt. won't support all students being on a level borrowing playing field because it can't afford to or won't.
Don't you just also love the fact that it seems to be based on the broad assumption that everyone comes from a stable nuclear family of biological parents together earning a regular income with minimal other outgoings?
On a practical level the Govt. won't support all students being on a level borrowing playing field because it can't afford to or won't.
Don't you just also love the fact that it seems to be based on the broad assumption that everyone comes from a stable nuclear family of biological parents together earning a regular income with minimal other outgoings?
Original post by Olympiad
tbh, I'd rather get support based in parents income, rather than everybody getting the same low amount.
At least this way people get what they deserve
Posted from TSR Mobile
At least this way people get what they deserve
Posted from TSR Mobile
But that's the problem, people don't get what they deserve. I started uni this year at 22 and student finance wanted it to go on parental income, even though I hadn't lived with my mum for years and she works 15 hour weeks. However she has a boyfriend with 5 kids, his wage is enough to cover his costs to the kids, his ex wife and my mum's bills. They would never give me money. If it went on parental income, I wouldn't have been able to go to uni at all. Luckily I fought it and had independent status.
A few girls at uni have had their accommodation costs covered by their parents, and still have high finance.
The whole system is messed up.
Original post by San Fran
There are still flaws in it. My mum earns within the less than £25,000 bracket yet her partner of a few years takes the total household income up to over £60,000 which means I am not eligible for a grant. Her partner won't be helping pay for accommodation/living expenses which means his earnings are pretty much worthless to me yet has a greater effect on how much I can get from the government.
That is not fair and I am sure it is a similar situation for many other people.
That is not fair and I am sure it is a similar situation for many other people.
But surely your mum's partner contributes to other household expenses leaving your mum with more of her £25000 as disposable income to help you out with compared to if she was the only one earning.
While in an ideal world everyone would get the higher amount in reality there is not enough money available for such as system unless maybe the changed the repayment method but that would mean higher interest rates and having to pay back a much higher percentage each month.
(edited 10 years ago)
I think it should all be non-means-tested, and all repayable. Either that, or the higher half of it is non-repayable on a means-tested basis, but still available to all. A lot of richer students I know either didn't take out loans, or took them out as booze money. They still have to pay them back if they did that (obvs dependent on earning enough in the future).
I have worked my butt off part-time during Uni terms and full-time during the summer to finance myself. My parents have given me a bit of help, but nowhere near enough to take me up to what someone from a low-income family gets, and the £3.5k I get from the Government doesn't even cover my accomodation.
I would strongly support a system where everyone is entitled to up to £6/7k, which is enough to support yourself almost anywhere if you're sensible (not sure what London costs are, but I guess if necessary I'd support higher amounts there). I strongly believe it should all be fully repayable, because I don't see why someone from a lower income family should pay less than me for their education, but I know a lot of people would support grants. So maybe the top £3k is non-repayable on a means tested basis, but it should STILL be available to everyone.
I've also wondered in the past about a compulsory working/volunteering scheme for those in receipt of government funding, something around 6-8 hours per week, but I still can't think of a good way to implement this.
I have worked my butt off part-time during Uni terms and full-time during the summer to finance myself. My parents have given me a bit of help, but nowhere near enough to take me up to what someone from a low-income family gets, and the £3.5k I get from the Government doesn't even cover my accomodation.
I would strongly support a system where everyone is entitled to up to £6/7k, which is enough to support yourself almost anywhere if you're sensible (not sure what London costs are, but I guess if necessary I'd support higher amounts there). I strongly believe it should all be fully repayable, because I don't see why someone from a lower income family should pay less than me for their education, but I know a lot of people would support grants. So maybe the top £3k is non-repayable on a means tested basis, but it should STILL be available to everyone.
I've also wondered in the past about a compulsory working/volunteering scheme for those in receipt of government funding, something around 6-8 hours per week, but I still can't think of a good way to implement this.
Original post by JennaEmBee
But that's the problem, people don't get what they deserve. I started uni this year at 22 and student finance wanted it to go on parental income, even though I hadn't lived with my mum for years and she works 15 hour weeks. However she has a boyfriend with 5 kids, his wage is enough to cover his costs to the kids, his ex wife and my mum's bills. They would never give me money. If it went on parental income, I wouldn't have been able to go to uni at all. Luckily I fought it and had independent status.
A few girls at uni have had their accommodation costs covered by their parents, and still have high finance.
The whole system is messed up.
A few girls at uni have had their accommodation costs covered by their parents, and still have high finance.
The whole system is messed up.
hmm,
If we were to do it without assessing the parental income, everybody would gain the same amount. - this would obviously be a low figure, hence making it difficult to cover all the expenses. = which ultimately results in you having to have support from family
Posted from TSR Mobile
If you were to abolish SF based on parents income and ultimately make it so that each student would receive the same but a lower amount of finance, then you would see less students from poor backgrounds attend university (something which the current Government is trying to increase, not decrease.)
I do agree however that SF doesn't account for everything however the way i see the Government looks at it;
Low Parental Income: No chance of family support - more finance from SF
High Parental Income: Increased chance of family support - less finance from SF
To abolish accounting parental income in my eyes would be stupid and unfair, however i do believe that there should be flexibility from Student Finance on how they use parental income to calculate what is received.
I do agree however that SF doesn't account for everything however the way i see the Government looks at it;
Low Parental Income: No chance of family support - more finance from SF
High Parental Income: Increased chance of family support - less finance from SF
To abolish accounting parental income in my eyes would be stupid and unfair, however i do believe that there should be flexibility from Student Finance on how they use parental income to calculate what is received.
Original post by JennaEmBee
But that's the problem, people don't get what they deserve. I started uni this year at 22 and student finance wanted it to go on parental income, even though I hadn't lived with my mum for years and she works 15 hour weeks. However she has a boyfriend with 5 kids, his wage is enough to cover his costs to the kids, his ex wife and my mum's bills. They would never give me money. If it went on parental income, I wouldn't have been able to go to uni at all. Luckily I fought it and had independent status.
A few girls at uni have had their accommodation costs covered by their parents, and still have high finance.
The whole system is messed up.
A few girls at uni have had their accommodation costs covered by their parents, and still have high finance.
The whole system is messed up.
The problem is that it would be very expensive in terms of manpower to run a more nuanced system. Even if everyone told the truth on a much more complex form it would take a lot of 20-30k a year staff to process them as you can't use a computer to judge the answers, assuming some lie (and they will) a forensic accountant typically costs well over 100 pounds an hour to sort it out. So you'd end up with a fairer system, but so much would be spent on finding out the necessary information that people wouldn't actually be any better off. If you gave everyone the same it'd also lead to disgruntlement from students from poorer backgrounds. In my case my parents were able to fairly comfortable divert enough to cover my living and accomodation costs from their monthly salaries, any futher loan would have just been extra spending money I didn't need and far from a useful way to spend taypayers' money.
By contrast saying 'oh well last year according to NI their parents earned 120k, odds are they can spare some and are willing to do so', leaves a lot more in the system to actually use for funding education.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Olympiad
hmm,
If we were to do it without assessing the parental income, everybody would gain the same amount. - this would obviously be a low figure, hence making it difficult to cover all the expenses. = which ultimately results in you having to have support from family
Posted from TSR Mobile
If we were to do it without assessing the parental income, everybody would gain the same amount. - this would obviously be a low figure, hence making it difficult to cover all the expenses. = which ultimately results in you having to have support from family
Posted from TSR Mobile
too increase the amount received by all students whilst studying why not just cut the amount of uni courses available. If your on a course that only requires 8 hours per week attendance, why is that a university course?
Could it not be a college diploma?, my friend studied photography (as previously mentioned) and had a required attendance of 8 hours, surely you don't a NEED a degree to take photographs. YES it is a skill and talent but you could further your knowledge/skill at college or polytechnic. Other professions like medicine, law etc need a university environment but there are LOTS of courses out there that don't.
Cutting them from universities would free up money for other courses, increase student funding and decrease student debt ( as not as many students would need finance).
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Why is my maintanance loan so low
- I need to change my Maintenance loan to Maximum
- Help for student finance plz, need letter of entitlement..
- Applying for student finance when married?
- Applying for student finance based on household income form
- student finance
- Living with boyfriend
- Supporting my daughter financially
- Student Finance application & Parent's redundancy
- Getting means tested
- Low Maximum Maintenance Loan
- Does student finance not require any evidence from me?
- student loan for second year
- Student finance with a child, living away from home or at home?
- Maintance loan won't cover living
- step parents and student finance
- Student funding
- How to apply for extra maintenance loan after year started?
- Sister’s NHS bursary asking for my student finance entitlement letter?
- Can you be deemed as independent even if living with parents?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Deloitte Graduate Scheme 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Further Mathematics Paper 3C (9FM0 3C) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 minutes ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 15 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official Loughborough University - Applicant Thread 2024Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Can i receive student finance while on Universal credit and PIP?Posted 3 weeks ago
Student Finance ineligible, dubious reasons , re-evaluation and appealsLast reply 3 weeks ago
2024 applicants: do you understand how student finance works?Last reply 1 month ago
withdrawn from university due to non payment of tuition feesTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
Can i receive student finance while on Universal credit and PIP?Posted 3 weeks ago
Student Finance ineligible, dubious reasons , re-evaluation and appealsLast reply 3 weeks ago
2024 applicants: do you understand how student finance works?Last reply 1 month ago
withdrawn from university due to non payment of tuition fees
