Poorer students will now get 2 free years uni. another attack on middle income family

Ive been reading all the arguments and Ive realised you are missing some important points. A student who grew up in a rich family should have more money than a person that grew up in a poor family (their own money, not their parents).

And you keep going back to the point 'what if the middle class family wont support their child at uni'. That will hardly ever happen and when it does it is very rare. A person from a middle class family is more likely to get some sort of financial assistance from home than someone from a poor family.

Again, just because it's not LIKELY, it still happens, and therefor is irrelevant to the question I'm asking. Those people deserve the same amount of help as someone from a poor background in my opinion, anyone who's got no one to support them while a university needs the same amount of support.
I think it's you guys who're missing the point I'm making, if a person from a poor background get a place at university, same as someone from a rich background, and neither are recieving parental support, they should both in future be able to get a job to pay back to loans they had to take to study there in the first place. BOTH of them. If help is going to be given to anyone, it should be available to EVERYONE WHO NEEDS IT. So once again, regardless of how unlikely it is to happen, WHY do those whos familys won't support them, not deserve the same amount of support as someone whos parents can't?

And if a student can support themselfs, of course then they clearly don't need the help, regardless of they are from a poor or wealthy background, but those people still worked to save up, and don't forget that.

Nice idea, but unreasonable. It's practically impossible to create legislation which moulds itself around individual cases, especially in a highly populated country like ours. So, it's better to have legsilation that helps those who can't help themselves than those who are not to be helped by their families by their own perogative.

I'm not saying the idea is perfect or easy, but that some people are still over looked in the system, and they seem to be the ones that will struggle the most because there is little to no help form either side

This may be your individual circumstance but the vast majority of people receive a lot of support from their parents throughout university. Beyond that, you have utterly missed my point again. The fact that you are complaining that it isn't fair IS jealous and petty. This scheme makes it easier for others; it makes it no harder for you. If complaining about something because it only benefits other people and not you isn't selfish, I'm not sure what is.

For the record, I agree that - since student loans are in place - this scheme would not really solve any problems, but your reasoning seems to be based more on petty complaints of unfairness than any actual practical concern.

you need to get your facts right about 'working class' (or as you call it 'poor class') and 'middle class'. Middle Class is an income that is greater than £20,000, you said that your family earn a little over £10,000 which is 'working class' meaning you actually would be intitled to free university for two years.

She might not have gone to university had she not recieved those things.

You're focusing on the end, rather than the beginning.

Dont join that bandwagon, jesus.

The fact is, the government cannot go case by case and look at everyones needs.

IT HAS TO SET A LIMIT.

People are ALWAYS going to be 'just above' that limit, no matter what it is.

Add a thousand more to the limit, all the people that complained will be happy. But now we have people just above the new limit that will complain.

I have no idea what band wagon you're talking about. I'm just stating my opinion.
My point is for whoever said that the middle class are being screwed over. Its not just the middle class who would be affected as the criteria means that the people it helps will be very small there are many poor people who wont qualify. I may not have explained myself properly but it was late lol. I believe that this is just a crowd pleaser. Like I said my point is that it is not just singling out the middle class and just helping the poor as poor people exist just above the limit and they will be affected by the cuts too. Hardly an attack on the middle class like the OP believes it is.

A crowd pleaser?

The government saw an area they can cut to save money, and they did it.. it is noit to please or harm anyway, it is simple economics. Money has to come from somewhere.

'Poor' people may not be affected, it is the POOREST of people who ill get the help.. as it should be.. i dont see how thats a problem.

And again.. did you even read my post? you cannot go on moaning about limits, about someone people will be above the limit, people will always be above the limit no matter what it is.. there is no way to stop this.

OMG I'm not even gonna bother answer you. It is not hard to understand what I wrote and you clearly don't. Again my post was in response to the view that the middle class are being 'attacked' and crowd pleaser being the fact that they have added the free year for those on lower incomes. Crowd pleasing meaning I believe that whilst they were going to do something for poorer students an attempt to quieten the protesters. Really isn't hard to understand. If you wanna argue with someone do it with someone who wants to argue back and with a post you understand.

1 - Class is not defined by just income.
2 - I disagree with £20,000 being "middle class"? You are still talking quite a bit less than the average wage.
3 - From what has been said so far, it appears like the 1 / 2 free years will be for those who get free school meals. So pretty much the poorest of the working class.

you say class is not defined by income- but the OP is defining class by incoming, saying middle class people will be worst effected whereas the working class wont.

A middle income is around £24,00, being the 'average' income of the whole country.

Again, just because it's not LIKELY, it still happens, and therefor is irrelevant to the question I'm asking. Those people deserve the same amount of help as someone from a poor background in my opinion, anyone who's got no one to support them while a university needs the same amount of support.
I think it's you guys who're missing the point I'm making, if a person from a poor background get a place at university, same as someone from a rich background, and neither are recieving parental support, they should both in future be able to get a job to pay back to loans they had to take to study there in the first place. BOTH of them. If help is going to be given to anyone, it should be available to EVERYONE WHO NEEDS IT. So once again, regardless of how unlikely it is to happen, WHY do those whos familys won't support them, not deserve the same amount of support as someone whos parents can't?

And if a student can support themselfs, of course then they clearly don't need the help, regardless of they are from a poor or wealthy background, but those people still worked to save up, and don't forget that.