Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bananaterracottapie)
    it might act as a further deterrent in case it doesn't work out, and they don't have the safety net most people from middle class family will have...
    That makes no sense what so ever.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    It doesn't make any sense that any of my parents taxes should go towards others when they cannot afford to pay for me...
    There are two meanings of "cannot afford".

    There is they are earning such a low wage that they physically cannot afford to pay for something, no matter what they do.

    And there are people who have money, but choose to spend it on other things, thus they cannot afford to pay for something else.

    I suspect your parents are in the second group if you don't get EMA.

    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Not everyone, a lot of people though, yes.

    If they saved or invested some money for 'a rainy day' so to speak, maybe they would have something to tide them over when they need it?
    And what about those who cannot afford to save or invest money? Or perhaps those who had saved money but then had to use it to pay for something that is more important? (like food).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Well I have to have debts too. Yes, my parents will assist me, but I'll still have to pay some of it. I'll still have debts. If you can't see the long term benefits, then frankly, maybe you shouldn't be at uni.
    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

    maybe so, but it shouldn't cost more for the same thing! Lol yes I am middle income.
    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.

    And if people were responsible with money in the first place, they wouldn't rely on the taxpayer.
    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.

    Lol no we don't. We need the best students, be they working, middle, or upper class. When you impose quotas, or try to increase figures, that's when posetive discrimination starts, and that's wrong
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    There are two meanings of "cannot afford".

    There is they are earning such a low wage that they physically cannot afford to pay for something, no matter what they do.

    And there are people who have money, but choose to spend it on other things, thus they cannot afford to pay for something else.

    I suspect your parents are in the second group if you don't get EMA.



    And what about those who cannot afford to save or invest money? Or perhaps those who had saved money but then had to use it to pay for something that is more important? (like food).
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win5ton)
    That makes no sense what so ever.
    how so?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.


    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Incidentally, what do they categorise as 'poorer'? What is the household income of a 'poor' family before they do not qualify for this scheme?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.