Do your parents have to lend you money to make uni affordable?

You can get a job as well as go uni, there is plenty of time between lectures and you get 2 days off at least a week and weekends! I work full time and go university I am doing really well and have saved up enough for a house deposit whilst doing it

According to this you are doing a part-time course.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=65396467

Which is fine but may not suit OP.

System is pretty broken tbh

It's all theoretical. For your parents earn more they are theoretically able to and are expected to give you more. In simple terms this is fair and correct. But when you take in expenditure it's not realistic to expect some families to give their kids that much. The system sucks for some and is good for others
I know people who's parents are refusing to give their kids money in uni. Not because they can't afford it but because they don't want to.

It's all theoretical. For your parents earn more they are theoretically able to and are expected to give you more. In simple terms this is fair and correct. But when you take in expenditure it's not realistic to expect some families to give their kids that much. The system sucks for some and is good for others
I know people who's parents are refusing to give their kids money in uni. Not because they can't afford it but because they don't want to.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I know but a lot of my friends do full-time and my brother you get 2-2 1/2 days off a week and weekends off, part-time you do the same course, same modules, same assignments, just less time off. My girlfriend done full-time and had 2-3 part-time jobs. My brother is a part-time football coach does it 3 days a week whilst doing a full-time course

So the system isn't broken in that case. The parents are. Especially if they can afford it.

Just to be clear, nobody repays anything unless they earn more than the threshold.

You really should say currently. Currently nobody pays anything until they're earning more than the repayment threshold. But that threshold can be frozen, changed or removed at any time.

True, but a very significant change would cause political ramifications. Imagine in 10 years time they retrospectively remove the minimum threshold forcing 100's of thousands (if not millions) of lower paid graduates into making repayments. You should also imagine that would be a heavy vote loser...

The recent act of freezing the threshold rather than increasing in line with inflation was very sneeky but not hugely painful given the low rate of inflation.

Personally I think a more likely action will be to extend the loan term beyond the 30 years currently.

So the system isn't broken in that case. The parents are. Especially if they can afford it.

I think the system is still broken to be honest, because it should be set up in such a way that the "child" (who is actually >18 years of age and no longer a child now) needn't be dependent on the decisions of their parents.

There could be a lot of parents who don't want to contribute towards their child's education. For example, in some cases the child might want to study for a particular degree, whilst the parent says "You have to study for the degree of my choice, or else I'm not funding you". Or perhaps in some cases, the child simply values education more than the parent does and wants a university education, whilst the parent doesn't consider it necessary.

I think it makes far more sense to simply have an equal maintenance loan for all students. I don't really see any reason not to do that.



Plus, in some cases its perfectly justifiable for the "parents" not to want to contribute. For example, my father passed away and my mother re-married a man who earns a considerable amount of money (whilst my mum earns nothing).

My "household income" is now very high, but none of that money is mine. My mother's husband ought not to be expected to spend large amounts of money on children that aren't his, nor would I expect to receive any money from someone who is not my parent. However the government still incorrectly assumes that, because my "household income" is very high, it means that there's plenty of money available for someone in my position to go to university. This isn't a case of my mother's husband being "broken", it's the system that is broken.

However when you're in full time education it's not easy to be fully self sufficient. Doing a medical degree for example doesn't really give time for a part time job.
My parents don't believe in the whole you're 18 you're an adult and self sufficient. Instead they're like yes you're older but we will continue to support you as long as you need it. That also refers to doing certain things though.
Yeah you're right there are some flaws when it comes to parents disagreeing with what they're children want.

But giving the same maintenance loan is too expensive so I guess they had to find a way out.

Your case is quite unfortunate but I guess they assume that people in your household would still somewhat provide for you. I think the system should be changed. They should look a bit deeper into individual circumstances.

It's certainly useful to have parents who are willing to financially support you through university.

I think the problem with the current system is that it forces you to rely upon their generosity to an extent, and so they continue to have the final say on whether or not you may go to university, which one you may go to, what you may study etc.


In some cases it may be possible to get a part time job and fund yourself fully, but even still I think a lot of students end up disadvantaged as a result, because someone from a household with a low income doesn't have this problem.


I don't really see why it'd be considered "too expensive" to have the same maintenance loan for everyone. I mean the loan gets paid back with a considerable amount of interest on top these days, so you'd expect the student loans company to profit from each one on average.

I agree that the system should be changed.

Since the child is now above 18, the parents' legal responsibility to financially provide for that child and their legal right to make major life decisions for that child have both expired. So it doesn't really make sense, just on the basis of an unofficial cultural norm, to assume or expect that the child will continue to receive financial support from their parents who, at their sole discretion, now have every right to say "you're on your own, kid".

Remember that it doesn't force everyone. Those who's households are worse off ie getting the maximum loan have enough to live on.

True. But you have to remember even if their parents wanted to ideally they can't from a low income family. Families with higher incomes have more choice in the matter. That's why it seems fair.
See it like this. If one persons household income is £50k and another is £17k then of course it's only fair that the person from a lower income family has access to more money.

A lot people don't actually pay it back. It's written off after 30 years and the monthly amount even when earning £40k a year isn't really a lot.

True but I guess tbh that's not the governments problem. It's a family matter.

Yes, that's what I mean - it can be a disadvantage to those from families with higher household incomes, because their parents effectively retain a great deal of control over their university decisions, whereas people from worse off households are free of that problem.



I think what's "fair" is to make sure that everyone, from whatever kind of household they might be from, has access to a sufficient amount of money that they are able to go to university, instead of having to forgo the opportunity that they can't afford it. Any additional financial help students might get from their parents after that is simply a bonus.

The thing is, a student could be from a £50k household and another from a £17k household, but in actual fact none of that is their money. They're just as poor as each other, at the moment. I think the point at which things become different is when they start earning their own money. Some might earn more, in which they would repay more of their student loan, and some might earn less, in which case they would repay less.



That is currently the case, but I think that by tweaking the terms of repayment (e.g. interest rate, monthly payments, earnings thresholds etc.) it's possible to set it up in such a way that the student loans company would expect to make a profit (or at the very least break even) on average from all the loans that they give out.



I agree - that's why I think the government ought not to be making assumptions about parents necessarily providing financial support to their children. I think it's their job to instead make sure that everyone has access to a university education regardless of what their family situation might be.

I think you need to understand the idea of choice in this situation. In high income families parents have the choice. If they wanted to they could cut down on certain expenses to pay for their children's uni expenses. Many don't want to. But in a low income family where many people are already living on the bare minimum this choice doesn't exist.
I also disagree with your point that students are as poor as each other. That's implying that people get no money from their parents at all. I'm sure many high earning parents give their kids money. They have the capacity to give them a lot more than low income families.
I also think it boils down to individual families beliefs. This makes it difficult for the government to fairly assess everyone. No matter what change takes place certain people will lose out.
Posted from TSR Mobile