Would you cut course fees for disadvantaged kids?

Because we live in the real world. Because the overwhelming majority of parents do support their children's education. Because the system of parental contributions has existed for more than 50 years. Because the alternative would be a hefty taxpayer subsidy to wealthy families.

There already are hefty subsidies to wealthy families, or did you forget that? I am having About £12.6k "subsidised" this year. What would such an increase do, well, that would increase to 16k, what's that? The whole of a 27% increase. And then you actually crunch the numbers and how does it come out in the long run? Well, if we assume that they don't waste their degree and go back to stacking shelves, 30 years down the line the tax payer is better off than they would be with the current system. They would be only about 1-3% per student better off but 1-3% is 1-3%.

My understanding is that the new grant system is there to replace the Child Tax Credit/Benefit system that's how I take it so that poor students are still supported, when they can't get a job/don't have time to get a job.

Some nasty parents don't pay for their children at university,despite having the money to do so and them saving money by their children not being at their home anymore.There shouldn't really be much income change for rich families because they won't receive Child Tax Credit/Benefit so I can't see their justification for not paying for their children at university because if they paid for them whilst under 18 then they can do after 18.

I think the question should be why should parents not pay for their children's education if they can?why should parents have no responsibility?Parents should have to pay for their children, where their income stops their children from receiving the full amount they need to survive well and in such cases it is seen that the parent's income is enough that they should support/will support their children.

I think this whole idea of stopping paying for your kids at 18 seems quite nasty.If Government reduced it to 10 would parents chuck out their children at 10?Parents should usually support their children as much as they can at whatever age, if their children need the help I think because they love them

There are more situations I think where a parent may need to support their child past 18 because if your household income is high then your children won't be able to get JSA/a reduced amount, if you live with your parents at this time so they would need to pay for the rest of your JSA.

You can't choose your parents income but these middle class/rich students have lived in a house with a much higher household income during their lives so should this inequality not be balanced, by reversing the situation for a few years?

I guess so, but it still suggests to me that the government has some double-standards on what age they expect people to become financially independent from their parents...

I think it's a bit harsh calling them "nasty" - it is possible that they cannot really afford to support their child (e.g. if they have a large mortgage/ debts/ other kids), and also at some point they have to stop paying towards their life - they've paid for 18 years of food, accommodation, possibly schooling, etc. and at some point they would like to retire and enjoy themselves a bit. Just because they chose to have kids doesn't mean they chose to spend the rest of their life financially supporting them - yes they are there in an emergency, but kids do need to fly the nest at some point.

No government is going to change this. As I said we live in the real world.

I think the loan system for living costs needs a serious looking at though

Why would they make the age or majority 10? Or do you propose, for the sake of argument, that the age of consent is brought all the way back down to 8, that we let 10 year olds vote and drink and 8 year old drive? The age of majority is set where it is for a reason.
And the balancing happens, you know, when the children from poor backgrounds go on and get a good job. When they go and earn enough to live a better life style, hell, even if they go and work in the public sector they can pull it off. The child makes the decision whether to turn it around. They make that decision by deciding whether or not to go to university; whether or not to go to a good university and do a proper degree (assuming they are able enough); whether they use that degree to get a good, proper job or whether they waste it and go back to stacking shelves. They turn it around for the rest of their lives if they chose to and put in the work.

I think Middle Class/Rich people who oppose grants/benefits for poorer students don't appreciate the much better lifestyle they have had and don't understand the need to reduce inequality so that students from all classes are equal and have equal opportunities to get into university.

If they can't support their child then there are hardship funds for these circumstances.I think that going into education is doing something for 3 years so is like working but you don't get paid so parents should pay for their children.If your child is just sitting about doing, nothing not even looking for jobs on JSA, then you should refuse to pay for them and force them onto JSA.

Or perhaps those from poorer backgrounds who think that they have some god given right to more support don't truly understand the concept of equality.

I think course fees should be cut for everyone which would obviously help disadvantaged people. Coming from such a background myself the debt I'll be coming out with has played on my mind and more so on the people around me. There was a time when going to university was free and after that when university tuition was cheaper than it is today.
When the UK government upped the fees unis could charge many of them went up to the maximum of £9,000 without changing the course or the facilities. This angers me. Why should we have to pay more for the same? Why are people especially from poor backgrounds who want to better themselves have to do so at a crippling price?

No it is those from richer backgrounds who don't understand it because they came from advantaged backgrounds so this needs to be balanced out by being disadvantaged at university, that's probably the whole point of the student grant/loan system to settle out the inequalities between students.

Rich Student-Rich Parents(Privileged Background)+Less at University
Poor Student-Poor Parents(Disadvantaged Background)+More at University
seems fairer to me than
Rich Student-Rich Parents(Privileged Background)+Same at University
Poor Student-Poor Parents(Disadvantaged Background)+Same at University
when is the initial inequality going to be balanced?If they both go on to a good paying job, then the poor students still had a more disadvantaged background so this inequality still hasn't been balanced.

The Government has to try to make society as equal as possible so it is isn't moral to cut the poor/not give them more than the rich to balance the inequalities.

Are they really? Are you actually worse off as a consequence? I put the figures through for both 2008 and today through a spreadsheet, 4% RPI, CPI, average pay rise and £3600 maintenance loan and £30,000 starting salary in both cases.


Yes, I know I didn't bother plugging in the equivalent starting salary for 2008 (so having 6 years of inflation removed), but the difference would have minimal impact in the grand scheme of things. You're paying about 30% more over all, and if you have a problem with your university not having changed things, take it up with them. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually have and people just don't notice, or don't want to (but I similarly wouldn't be surprised if there was no change).

I am from a disadvantaged background, from a poor area (it's an ex-mining village) and first to go to university in my family.

I don't care about the tuition fees, they are the same everywhere almost. I won't pay it all back.

What is annoying is the living costs. My parents earn just over the £25,000 threshold. The cost of living is rising, wages have stalled, yet the thresholds haven't risen. I will be getting no bursary from the university because my parents earn over the £25,000 threshold, that is £4,000 lost. I can't get the bursary that is specific to my course because my parents earn over £25,000, yet another £3,000 lost. If I was in the below £25,000 bracket I would be over the moon at going to university, but again it is the people in the middle that get beaten for it.

It's not the poor that need help, it's those in the middle that have relatively little help with maintenance costs. They don't take into account siblings and other expenditure.

Equality:the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.
So, how is equality giving one person twice as much (and up to about 4 times as much) because they come from a poorer background?
Why should the wealthy be made to pay twice for their children s education (first in taxes, and then because their taxes are being given to those who need it, plus some more)?
How is it fair that a wealthy child should have to rely on their parents to give them enough to get by, while a poor child is being given several thousand pounds to put in an ISA or otherwise invest?
Or, alternatively, why should a wealthy child have to spend their savings while a poor child is adding to them? (and I mean from their student finance, not work on the side)
How is it fair that if a poor child doesn't want their full loan, the amount that they don't want is taken from the loan and not the grant?
In essence, the son is being punished for the sins of their father. That sin is that they brought a child into a wealthy family.

Not saying that the paying back system isn't better than the old one but you said it yourself it is MORE than it was, a lot more than just a few years ago for the privilege of a university education. Figures (and a few vague ones at that) are figures but you're not considering the human and emotional elements that come with the fees. I also think fees should reflect quality and now nearly all the universities in the UK are charging the top band, where is the quality control that says its worth paying that much for every single one of them? Like you say there will be changes in some places but not all.. do you not think thats unfair?

Yes - and I would also cut fees for non-disadvantaged kids...

University is too expensive, but my personal opinion is that everyone should be treated EQUALLY. The vast majority of students are over 18. Our parents can no longer receive government childcare support or whatever it was called - therefore the government thinks that we should no longer be financially reliant on our parents. Except that they base financial support at university on parental income - and without taking into consideration how willing or able parents are to contribute. This simply isn't fair. All students should be offered the SAME maintenance loan and pay the SAME fees (including students in Scotland/ Wales etc.) - but be required to pay it all back, i.e. no grants/ other free money. And no wiping off the debt after 30 years - it's going to cost the government a fortune...

Tbh, tuition fees don't really affect most English student's decision to go to university - everyone with half a brain has heard that you don't have to pay it back until you are earning enough and the debt gets written off after a few years anyway. The key issue is maintenance loans/ grants since they simply aren't enough for many students to live off with the current system - particularly if you fall into that middle earning band (~25k - 42k?) since many universities simplify their bursary systems with particular cut-offs which won't support these students, yet their parents often don't have enough disposable income to help them either.