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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesman13)
    the conservatives are meant to represent middle income families affected by the 'income trap', obviously not.
    LOL at your concept of politics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    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.
    So we can have unlimited doctors, for example? There wouldn't be any graduate unemployment at all...


    Household. The average household income in the uk is £24k.
    Ah right...fair enough.

    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.
    Why would there still be protests? Jesus, people can't expect freebies all the time.


    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)
    I agree with most of that. However, if people want to waste their money there, that's their choice. When they wish to waste the taxpayers, it is not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    forget the watch then, think of it as any product.
    But my point still stands. You can't compare a university education to any product. Partly because it is not a product, and partly because it is so vital to the UK economy and to the lives of these students.


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    That's what it sounded like.
    Again I'll ask where?


    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Weekends?
    What if they work weekends too? Seriously, not everyone has a nice chushy 9-5 job. Some people don't have a job at all yet struggle. I remember when I was at sixth form trying to get a part time job. It was essentially impossible unless you had family working somewhere already that could pull a few favors for you.
    Working hard will not get you anywhere most of the time. As the old phrase goes, its who you know and not what you know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree it's unfair, everyone should just be treated equally
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But my point still stands. You can't compare a university education to any product. Partly because it is not a product, and partly because it is so vital to the UK economy and to the lives of these students.
    But it is, essentially, a product and a business market.



    Again I'll ask where?
    When you were saying they don't know any better, things like that.



    What if they work weekends too? Seriously, not everyone has a nice chushy 9-5 job. Some people don't have a job at all yet struggle. I remember when I was at sixth form trying to get a part time job. It was essentially impossible unless you had family working somewhere already that could pull a few favors for you.
    Working hard will not get you anywhere most of the time. As the old phrase goes, its who you know and not what you know.
    Time off? If they don't have a job, then they have no excuse. Yes, it is difficult to get a part time job at this age. I agree with the last bit, not all the time though. I can't get a job where my father works, for example (rule change, grrr lol).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the grants were more to encourage the poor to go to uni...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    It should be MY choice whether I want to help people or not - I shouldn't have that choice taken from me. Lol if you won't consider that path unless you have handouts, then that says an awful lot about you...
    That is your opinion. However, I do not believe it should be in the hands of the individual to choose. Individuals are greedy, stupid, and incapable of thinking long term (not that you necessarily are ) If we removed all welfare (I mean ALL) the country's less well off would not be helped at all as much as they are now. So, because individuals are not able to help, it must be forced upon them. There is also the argument that anything you earn technically does not belong to you. I know, how very socialist, but actually think about it. Money (the concept and physical money) was created by the state. Without universal (or at least, state-wide) and standardised currency any work done would be traded for goods.


    That's completely different. If someone is injured in an accident, then it isn't their fault. Yes, they knew there were dangers, so I do see what you're saying. However, with a blown off leg, you can sit on a chair. You can operate a computer. Therefore, you do not need state handouts long term. Thus, our hypothetical soldior can help himself. Much like someone living off state handouts can (unless they are severely disabled, e.g paraplegic).
    It seems you have misunderstood me. I was not saying that disabled people cannot work. You said "Disabled people don't choose to be disabled, but poor people have a sort of choice." I rebutted by saying, if we think that poor people have a sort of choice because they have done things to help themselves into position, then we have to say that some disabled people have chosen to be disabled. Indirectly of course, but still, the idea stands.

    (I do not believe this to be the case, but this is your logic I'm trying to work out analogies for.)


    There's plenty more.
    I don't even know what this even is. So, I'll make my point clearer.

    You spoke earlier of people "being too short sighted to see that their degree would be worth it." Well, I now accuse you of the same.

    Let's assume that a girl who is very gifted but from a poor family is put off higher education by the sheer numbers presented to her of the debt she will accumulate. She decides not to go to university and study Economics, but instead, to become a secretary, and lives a modest life. The country is worse off, as if she were to become an economist, she would have been able to advise the government/businesses through harsh economic times.

    Now, let's assume that this same gifted girl, is helped. She has the first two years of her university paid for, she graduates with a degree in Economics, and does what she could not previously. She pays into the system via taxes far far more than she had extricated, and crucially, the country gains a brilliant mind.

    Can you not see that the second scenario is better for everyone? You may not agree with the principle, but surely you agree with the result? Remember, without this help the gifted girl WOULD NOT HAVE done this. To disagree with this really is tantamount to wishing to keep wealth in the same hands, and to prevent social mobility, regardless of abilty.




    Explain?
    Sure. You say that people have the same opportunities. Evidently, they do not, and apparently, if you were in a position of power, you would ensure any opportunities for the poorer to better themselves would be removed for fear of "making others lose out."

    So, the poor boy who goes to a crap comprehensive does not manage to go to university, he gets a job as a bus driver, and earns £15,000 a year. The boy who goes to a private school, and then onto university ends up with a £100,000 a year job. To say that he has created his own wealth is insane.

    In other words, the field was not level at the start (when they went to school) so then to view things as though it were from the beginning (by righting the field and saying the score is the same) makes no sense.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    So we can have unlimited doctors, for example? There wouldn't be any graduate unemployment at all...
    Ther wouldnt be unlimited doctors. Lets be realistic here...

    Why would there still be protests? Jesus, people can't expect freebies all the time.
    Sorry thats how people are. You cant satisfy everyone.

    I agree with most of that. However, if people want to waste their money there, that's their choice. When they wish to waste the taxpayers, it is not.
    So I suppose a possible solution to that would be to only raise fees on courses which don't benefit society. But then how can we decide what benefits society? There are obvious things such as architecture and medicine, but then there are other courses which might show a benefit such as history and geography. Then there are courses that some peeople would say have no benefit to society. The so called 'mickey mouse' degrees such as film and media studies. If we raised the fees on these courses, I would guess that many people doing media studies would reconsider going to uni. And if they dont go, the fees would need to increase for the other students.
    So I suppose there is no straightforward solution. Not everyone will be happy. oh well. Nice talking to you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sokissme18)
    she would have, because all the money she got for help she saved/bought clothes etc with. she didn't even really seem to need it
    it also meant she didn't have to bother with a part time job!
    So in other words, she was able to focus on her degree and ended up getting a well paid job because of it, paying more than yourself into the tax system?

    So... she's paying back what she "borrowed?"

    There's a problem here?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I do not understand why people are calling it a debt. A debt can result in repossession, losing your home and having to declare yourself bankrupt. The SLC will not take away your TV, your house or your dignity in the case of declaring yourself bankrupt. And quit complaining about not being able to afford a car. Take the bus. Jeez.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yahyahyahs)
    I do not understand why people are calling it a debt.
    Debt: "An amount owed to a person or organization for funds borrowed."

    So, yes, it is in fact a debt.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yahyahyahs)
    I do not understand why people are calling it a debt.
    Have a look at the definition of the word and that may help.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because those from poor backgrounds, myself included, have to pay for EVERYTHING with the little money we have: it isn't just about the fees, it's about books, stationary, food, bedding, somewhere to live, clothes on your back. Coming from a middle income family, you already have the promise that, should something dreadful happen, you can rely on your parents to help you along the way. You say you have "parents", suggesting you have AT LEAST two incomes in your household. My mother cannot find a full time job, and so we are basically living on half a wage.
    And that is why it is fair that people in my situation are given a hand to get an education.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yahyahyahs)
    I do not understand why people are calling it a debt. A debt can result in repossession, losing your home and having to declare yourself bankrupt. The SLC will not take away your TV, your house or your dignity in the case of declaring yourself bankrupt. And quit complaining about not being able to afford a car. Take the bus. Jeez.
    I've got news for you sunshine.
    Bankruptcy does not discharge a student debt.
    The govt changed the law specifically to stop graduates doing it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good this is a good idea!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    As someone who comes from a low income family, I don't entirely understand this either. I say low income, as we're "working class" in monetary terms, but Id say culturally, Im middle, so technically lower middle class.

    At the end of the day, everyone should get a nice wage out of uni, unless of course they are studying media studies at the university of Disney.

    We are expected to pay loans back at 9% over 21K, meaning that it's not really that much at all.

    Say fees are 9K for three years, then thats 27K

    If someone earns 21K, they pay back £0
    If someone earns 22K, they pay back £90/annum, as 22K-21K=1K, meaning that they only pay back £7.50/month or £1.88/week or £0.4/day

    Im not for the fee rises, but it's not as bad as people think. If we were opting for the "fair system", then it would mean that we would probably pay the loans back in around 21 years(at 27K tuition fees). In the old structure, it would take around 7 years or so.

    Obviously, Ill take this up, but I don't see it as fair to other students on my same course who's parents earn more. Ultimately, we should be on around the same wage
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hypocriticaljap)
    I've got news for you sunshine.
    Bankruptcy does not discharge a student debt.
    The govt changed the law specifically to stop graduates doing it.
    I also have news for you too sunshine. Nice attempt at patronising me. Not.

    I never said that declaring yourself bankrupt will discharge you from student loan repayment. I stated that not being able to repay your student loans will not strip you of your dignity like bankruptcy would.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.