The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 200
Original post by Lewroll
I think after the bit, 'yes my parents will help me' the rest of that statement becomes pointless. A poor student gets no help from anyone , apart from the government
The government doesn't help me, with EMA now or when it comes to my degree. You should pay for your own children, it's that simple. I'm not saying there should be no help whatsoever, but 2 free years? That's taking the mick.


Ok if you really are middle income (i seriously doubt that, but ok then) then you may face problems as well. It should cost more for the same thing. Thats like saying a billionaire should pay the same taxes as a poor person. It shouldnt be the case of 'only go to uni if you can afford it' university should be available to everyone to access, however some people will not feel they have access to something out of their budget, in which case, they should get help.
Why do you doubt it? Okay, what are you classing as middle income? And personally, I believe in a flat percentage rate tax, so I would support a billionaire paying the same percentage as a poor person. There are student loans. If they're educated enough to go to uni, they should look at funding options.


Hold on a sec, how is a student responsible for their parents income. They didnt choose to be born into a poor family, just as you didnt choose to be born into your family. They shouldnt be penalised just because of their parents failure to be rich. Everyone should have access to uni, and if that means that people who cant afford it pay less and those who can pay more, then that makes sense to me.
And I shouldn't be penalised because my parents have decent jobs. I should have the right to the same product at the same price as other people. Uni education is a product.

Ok i agree, we need the best students. However many poor students wouldnt have gone to university in the past. Poor intelligent students. If you look at a school with rich students, you will find that nearly all of them will go to university regardless of how smart they are. Thats not the case in poorer areas. Schemes like this will hopefully change that.


That's bcause of upbringing. They're brought up to look at the options available, and in an educated environment. For example (I'm not 'rich', but anyway), my father used to talk to me about current affairs, politics and the like, from the age of 6. I doubt someone from a council estate would talk to their child about the same types of things.
Original post by win5ton
That makes no sense what so ever.


how so?
Original post by .Ali.
Anyone can afford to. You can open an ISA with as littl as £1. No one is going to miss £1 here and there. It'll add up.

Thy should use the interest, and if they take out from it, make sure they put back into it.


And you are really going to be able to get something worthwhile by putting £1 away every now and again.

Look. You are lucky you were born into the family you were. A lot of people are not as fortunate as you are. A lot of people struggle to pay the bills, to pay for food, to keep a roof over their families head, let alone finding the money to save, or to buy their kids text books and such.

I agree that the EMA system is broken, but you blame the government for that. Not the poor kids who get it (and do actually need it).

Going back onto tuition fees, as I have said before, I do think this policy is slightly mis-calculated. IMO the only reason they have announced this is to draw some attention from the actual issue of increasing fees.
Original post by .Ali.
The government doesn't help me, with EMA now or when it comes to my degree. You should pay for your own children, it's that simple. I'm not saying there should be no help whatsoever, but 2 free years? That's taking the mick.


We are going around in circles. If people should pay for their own children that means some people wont be able to go to university. Then you are going to say 'but student loans' and then im going to say 'students will still be put off'. This seems quite pointless, but i will persevere.

Why do you doubt it? Okay, what are you classing as middle income? And personally, I believe in a flat percentage rate tax, so I would support a billionaire paying the same percentage as a poor person. There are student loans. If they're educated enough to go to uni, they should look at funding options.

All i base my opinion on is what you've given me. And judging from all the posts ive see by you on TSR, I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who would doubt that. However if you say you are then I'm going to have to take your word for it. I'm in a middle income house btw, my parents can afford to help pay for university, but they arent going to, so I'm on my own.
As for them being educated enough to go to uni, yes they are, however i know many people whose parents have tried to put them off university because of the huge debt.

And I shouldn't be penalised because my parents have decent jobs. I should have the right to the same product at the same price as other people. Uni education is a product.


But you arent being penalised. The government raised the fees because they need more money. The fees would rise for everyone. However the people that complained were the people who couldnt afford it, which is why this '2 year free' idea has been suggested, and remember this is only for the very very poor, those on free school dinners etc. Not the whole low income student population will get this, so you are in the same position as them (sort of)

That's bcause of upbringing. They're brought up to look at the options available, and in an educated environment. For example (I'm not 'rich', but anyway), my father used to talk to me about current affairs, politics and the like, from the age of 6. I doubt someone from a council estate would talk to their child about the same types of things.


Exactly. So as I said, people from a rich school will be more likely to go to university than people from a poor school. The point still stands. It doesnt matter why they are more likely, the fact is they are. Unless you can think of a way of changing the whole ideology of the working class, than this scheme is one of the few ways of getting more of them into university.
Reply 204
Original post by WelshBluebird
And you are really going to be able to get something worthwhile by putting £1 away every now and again.
£1 here, £5 there, you have some extra, so you put in £20. If you start as soon as you get a job, then yes, you can get somewhere.

Look. You are lucky you were born into the family you were. A lot of people are not as fortunate as you are. A lot of people struggle to pay the bills, to pay for food, to keep a roof over their families head, let alone finding the money to save, or to buy their kids text books and such.
As I said, the odd bit of savings goes a long way. I do accept that some people aren't as fortunate as myself, but if people work hard and aquire the right skills, they can better themselves, and stop relying on the state.

I agree that the EMA system is broken, but you blame the government for that. Not the poor kids who get it (and do actually need it).
I don't blame the kids, I mean they're hardly going to refuse.

Going back onto tuition fees, as I have said before, I do think this policy is slightly mis-calculated. IMO the only reason they have announced this is to draw some attention from the actual issue of increasing fees.


Agreed.
Reply 205
Original post by Lewroll
We are going around in circles. If people should pay for their own children that means some people wont be able to go to university. Then you are going to say 'but student loans' and then im going to say 'students will still be put off'. This seems quite pointless, but i will persevere.
Look; if I want a Rolex tomorrow, and I can't afford it, do I a) wait until I can/not buy it, or b) Ask the electorate to give me a percentage of my income for it? It's the same principle...we shouldn't be paying more than in necessary for others. If they're put off by the debt, too bad.


All i base my opinion on is what you've given me. And judging from all the posts ive see by you on TSR, I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who would doubt that. However if you say you are then I'm going to have to take your word for it. I'm in a middle income house btw, my parents can afford to help pay for university, but they arent going to, so I'm on my own.
fair enough, I'd be interested to know what you would financially say is middle income?

As for them being educated enough to go to uni, yes they are, however i know many people whose parents have tried to put them off university because of the huge debt.
Whoa, what demotivational people! That's bad parenting.

But you arent being penalised. The government raised the fees because they need more money. The fees would rise for everyone. However the people that complained were the people who couldnt afford it, which is why this '2 year free' idea has been suggested, and remember this is only for the very very poor, those on free school dinners etc. Not the whole low income student population will get this, so you are in the same position as them (sort of)


Yes I am. That money could be used to make uni cheaper for all of us, not for a select few.

Exactly. So as I said, people from a rich school will be more likely to go to university than people from a poor school. The point still stands. It doesnt matter why they are more likely, the fact is they are. Unless you can think of a way of changing the whole ideology of the working class, than this scheme is one of the few ways of getting more of them into university.


You see, I have no sympathy for 'Jeremy Kyle' type people (NOT the whole working class, you know what I mean), and I don't want uneducated people at uni, thanks.
Original post by .Ali.
Look; if I want a Rolex tomorrow, and I can't afford it, do I a) wait until I can/not buy it, or b) Ask the electorate to give me a percentage of my income for it? It's the same principle...we shouldn't be paying more than in necessary for others. If they're put off by the debt, too bad.


You seriously cannot compare buying a luxury watch to a university education. You just can't. Its the most stupid comparison I have ever seen.

Original post by .Ali.
I don't want uneducated people at uni, thanks.


By uneducated I'm guessing you mean poor?

Original post by .Ali.
I do accept that some people aren't as fortunate as myself, but if people work hard and aquire the right skills, they can better themselves, and stop relying on the state.


But not everyone can. Working hard is will not always get you anywhere. Plenty of people work much harder than anyone on TSR, yet they get minimum wage and have no prospects of anything better. Its called the poverty trap for a reason. In the ideal world, you'd be right. But sadly the real world doesn't work like that. Most people who earn a large wage do very little to deserve it.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 207
Original post by bananaterracottapie
how so?


"it might act as a further deterrent in case it doesn't work out"

What is the deterrent? I take it you mean the higher fees, but if it does not work out and they are earning less than 21,000 then they will not have to pay back a penny.
Original post by .Ali.
Look; if I want a Rolex tomorrow, and I can't afford it, do I a) wait until I can/not buy it, or b) Ask the electorate to give me a percentage of my income for it? It's the same principle...we shouldn't be paying more than in necessary for others. If they're put off by the debt, too bad.


Despite the fact that you dont need a rolex and the country needs doctors, nurses, paramedics, architechs, scientists etc. If we have fully capable people not going to university then it is our best interest that they do go to university, whatever the cost.

fair enough, I'd be interested to know what you would financially say is middle income?

Well considering average income is about 21k id say middle income ranges from around 30k to 55k or maybe even larger. The middle income will be the largest group of people, both high and low income will be smaller. So there will be a big difference between people at the top of middle income sector and those at the bottom.

Whoa, what demotivational people! That's bad parenting.

Yes it is, but sadly thats what many people are like.

Yes I am. That money could be used to make uni cheaper for all of us, not for a select few.

You do realise fees are being raised because the country is out of money. How exactly can university be made cheaper for everyone. If you have a good idea, i suggest you share it, because I and 1000s of other people will be very happy to know it.

You see, I have no sympathy for 'Jeremy Kyle' type people (NOT the whole working class, you know what I mean), and I don't want uneducated people at uni, thanks


Why would there be uneducated people at your uni. You know they have to get the grades as well, the universities dont just take in any random poor person. So if you are applying to a university that wants AAA then you wont find any uneducated people there will you. If your applying somewhere that wants EE than you might do. Where are you applying? I assume it is somewhere quite high ranking.
Reply 209
Original post by WelshBluebird
You seriously cannot compare buying a luxury watch to a university education. You just can't. Its the most stupid comparison I have ever seen.

Why not? It's a product.


By uneducated I'm guessing you mean poor?


No, I mean uneducated.

But not everyone can. Working hard is will not always get you anywhere. Plenty of people work much harder than anyone on TSR, yet they get minimum wage and have no prospects of anything better. Its called the poverty trap for a reason. In the ideal world, you'd be right. But sadly the real world doesn't work like that. Most people who earn a large wage do very little to deserve it.


Depends what you define as working hard. Anyone can better their prospects. Lol at the generalisation at the bottom!
Original post by .Ali.
Why not? It's a product.


Come on. Even you must see the craziness in your comparison.
University education prepares the next generation of doctors, nurses, accountants, lawyers, MP's, Engineers, Scientists etc etc. It is essential.
To compare that to a luxury watch that is no more useful than a £5 watch is lunacy.


Original post by .Ali.
No, I mean uneducated.


Then why on earth are you bringing it into the argument? University by its very definition is for the educated or people who want to be educated. Your point has nothing to do with anything that has been mentioned in the thread.


Original post by .Ali.
Depends what you define as working hard. Anyone can better their prospects. Lol at the generalisation at the bottom!


How about working 12 hour days for minimum wage, doing a hard physically intensive job? Seriously, you live in your own little world if you believe that everyone can better their prospects. If someone has to work 12 hours a day doing a physically difficult job, how do you suggest they get better prospects? Most people at the bottom of society do not have the time / money to better themselves.
Reply 211
Original post by Lewroll
Despite the fact that you dont need a rolex and the country needs doctors, nurses, paramedics, architechs, scientists etc. If we have fully capable people not going to university then it is our best interest that they do go to university, whatever the cost.
There are plenty who can afford it who could, so that argument doesn't really hold.


Well considering average income is about 21k id say middle income ranges from around 30k to 55k or maybe even larger. The middle income will be the largest group of people, both high and low income will be smaller. So there will be a big difference between people at the top of middle income sector and those at the bottom.
Household or per person? I'm trying to work out if you're right when you say I'm not 'middle income' lol. :tongue:


Yes it is, but sadly thats what many people are like.


You do realise fees are being raised because the country is out of money. How exactly can university be made cheaper for everyone. If you have a good idea, i suggest you share it, because I and 1000s of other people will be very happy to know it.
I'm saying the money that is being used to pay for these poor people could have made the fees go to £7,000 instead of £9,000 for example.


Why would there be uneducated people at your uni. You know they have to get the grades as well, the universities dont just take in any random poor person. So if you are applying to a university that wants AAA then you wont find any uneducated people there will you. If your applying somewhere that wants EE than you might do. Where are you applying? I assume it is somewhere quite high ranking.


The type of people you seem to be encouraging sound uneducated. I haven't decided yet, I have a few ideas though. Yes they are high ranking.
Original post by .Ali.

I'm saying the money that is being used to pay for these poor people could have made the fees go to £7,000 instead of £9,000 for example.


Except the amount of money they are using for this policy wouldn't be anywhere near enough to do what you are suggesting. It would probably be enough to make the fees for everyone £8500 instead of £9000. Hardly any difference.
So its better to make a difference for the people who really need the help.

As I said, I don't really agree with the policy, but can understand why the money is going there rather than to everyone as you suggest.
Reply 213
Original post by WelshBluebird
Come on. Even you must see the craziness in your comparison.
University education prepares the next generation of doctors, nurses, accountants, lawyers, MP's, Engineers, Scientists etc etc. It is essential.
To compare that to a luxury watch that is no more useful than a £5 watch is lunacy.
There are plenty who do that who can afford it. So that doesn't hold.




Then why on earth are you bringing it into the argument? University by its very definition is for the educated or people who want to be educated. Your point has nothing to do with anything that has been mentioned in the thread.
You seem to be saying "people don't know any better" etc, which implies you're encouraging the uneducated.



How about working 12 hour days for minimum wage, doing a hard physically intensive job? Seriously, you live in your own little world if you believe that everyone can better their prospects. If someone has to work 12 hours a day doing a physically difficult job, how do you suggest they get better prospects? Most people at the bottom of society do not have the time / money to better themselves.


Yes, that is hard. What about training schemes? Open University? Etc. You can't say that's harder than a mentally straining job though.
Reply 214
Incidentally, what do they categorise as 'poorer'? What is the household income of a 'poor' family before they do not qualify for this scheme?
Reply 215
Original post by WelshBluebird
Except the amount of money they are using for this policy wouldn't be anywhere near enough to do what you are suggesting. It would probably be enough to make the fees for everyone £8500 instead of £9000. Hardly any difference.
So its better to make a difference for the people who really need the help.

As I said, I don't really agree with the policy, but can understand why the money is going there rather than to everyone as you suggest.


I see what you're saying. But it could have been used to improve uni facilities then, or something useful and fair.
Original post by .Ali.
There are plenty who do that who can afford it. So that doesn't hold.


But you still cannot compare a luxury watch which no one really needs, to a university education that society does need.

Original post by .Ali.

You seem to be saying "people don't know any better" etc, which implies you're encouraging the uneducated.


Where did I say that?
You are the one who brought the "uneducated" into it.


Original post by .Ali.

Yes, that is hard. What about training schemes? Open University? Etc. You can't say that's harder than a mentally straining job though.


If you are working 12 hour days doing a physically demanding job, where you suggest a person gets the time and energy to study for a course? Seriously. In the ideal world you would be right. But the world is not ideal.
Reply 217
Original post by WelshBluebird
But you still cannot compare a luxury watch which no one really needs, to a university education that society does need.
forget the watch then, think of it as any product.


Where did I say that?
You are the one who brought the "uneducated" into it.

That's what it sounded like.


If you are working 12 hour days doing a physically demanding job, where you suggest a person gets the time and energy to study for a course? Seriously. In the ideal world you would be right. But the world is not ideal.


Weekends?
Original post by .Ali.
There are plenty who can afford it who could, so that argument doesn't really hold.

Yes it does. There are people going that can afford it, there are plenty more who cant afford it. Its on the countries best interest to who have as many people in these careers as possible.

Household or per person? I'm trying to work out if you're right when you say I'm not 'middle income' lol. :tongue:

Household. The average household income in the uk is £24k.

I'm saying the money that is being used to pay for these poor people could have made the fees go to £7,000 instead of £9,000 for example.

You do realise some people had problems paying fees when it was £3000. I still have teachers who are paying off their student loans. A poor student will still not be able to afford that, so there would still be protests.


The type of people you seem to be encouraging sound uneducated. I haven't decided yet, I have a few ideas though. Yes they are high ranking.

Imo the only people who should go to university are the educated all those who wish to become educated. People who have no interest in education shouldnt really be going, regardless of how rich they are. There are a lot of rich peopel who go to university just to mess around and have fun, because it is considered the thing to do, the next stage in life. They are going for the wrong reasons.
You are going to high ranking unis, so you can be certain that no one in your university will be uneducated. Some of them might seem stupid, but all of them would have at least met the minimum grade requirements (unless they are famous or aristocracy in which case they probably got in regardless of their grades)
Reply 219
LOL at your concept of politics.
(edited 4 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest