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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think they goverment should take into account everything such as how much beneifts families are getting, how many children they are, if the student itself is worth going to university etc.. before making payments soley based upon hosehold income.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if the student itself is worth going to university

    eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    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.
    I agree there should be SOME taxation, and there should be some welfare, I'm not saying completely erradicate it. But there should only be basic welfare. It is not necessary to pay for two years at uni for others.

    Interesting point about money, but I believe that although the state created it, it is there to be earned. Hence why jobs have different salaries and wages.


    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.)
    Ahh, I see what you're saying. Yes, you could argue that, but as long as they aren't living off of the state, there is no problem.




    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.
    Sorry, I should have explained that better. I mean that for every gifted poor child, there is a gifted rich child. So we wouldn't lose out if the poor didn't go to uni, as there are gifted people who can afford it. I'm not saying the poor shouldn't attent uni, I'm just saying that that particular argument doesn't hold.

    I can see the benefit, but as I said, there are other students who are good at economics who would either be able to afford it, or not put off by the debt.


    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.
    But he has an education. If he chooses to waste it, that's his problem. Yes, comprehensives may not be as good as some top nprivate schools, but he has a chance to get GCSEs, then A Levels, and then attent uni. No one has completely equal opportunities in life. People are born with different talents and abilities. So technically, no one has a completely level playing field. But they all have some sort of education that they can get to uni with.

    I think it's unfair to say he didn't create his own wealth. He studied hard, got the grades, and worked hard for it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    I agree there should be SOME taxation, and there should be some welfare, I'm not saying completely erradicate it. But there should only be basic welfare. It is not necessary to pay for two years at uni for others.

    Interesting point about money, but I believe that although the state created it, it is there to be earned. Hence why jobs have different salaries and wages.
    Don't really understand the last part.

    Again, the reason for this scheme is purely to stop people being put off. Not to make things "fair."

    Sorry, I should have explained that better. I mean that for every gifted poor child, there is a gifted rich child. So we wouldn't lose out if the poor didn't go to uni, as there are gifted people who can afford it. I'm not saying the poor shouldn't attent uni, I'm just saying that that particular argument doesn't hold.
    Statistically unlikely.
    There are many more poor people than rich people (relatively.) Therefore it holds that there are more gifted poor children than rich children.

    To believe otherwise suggests that you believe intelligence is mostly genetic, when evidence points to this not being the case. If we assume that the richer one is, the more intelligent they are: There was a test, where they got children from different castes in India (like our class system, only 1000 times more entrenched) and actually, the poorer children outperformed the richer children in tests. When told of the other children's caste, the observations reversed, demonstrating that percieved notions of standing have a direct effect on performance, meaning your point at the bottom is wrong.

    I can see the benefit, but as I said, there are other students who are good at economics who would either be able to afford it, or not put off by the debt.
    So the poor stay poor, and the rich stay rich? You surely don't believe that there are no poor children who would be BETTER than rich children at things like medicine and economics? If you don't, then surely we have to say it is right to enusre they reach a position where they can help society.

    But he has an education. If he chooses to waste it, that's his problem. Yes, comprehensives may not be as good as some top nprivate schools, but he has a chance to get GCSEs, then A Levels, and then attent uni. No one has completely equal opportunities in life. People are born with different talents and abilities. So technically, no one has a completely level playing field. But they all have some sort of education that they can get to uni with.
    See my caste test.

    I think it's unfair to say he didn't create his own wealth. He studied hard, got the grades, and worked hard for it.
    Had the other child been dropped into that position, he would have roughly the same it seems though. So it can't be said he has earned his wealth alone. I do take the point that they have "worked" for it, but I don't think they have "earned" it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Einheri)
    My parents pay my fees and they don't earn that much. My dad earns £50k a year, which is a good wage but it doesn't go that far (it's not like surgeons on £100k p.a.) and my mum only works part-time. It's about priorities - your parents chose a bigger house (if they're still paying off their mortgage then they bought above their means) over giving you the best head-start in life they could afford.
    With both of my Mums and Dads income together its not as much as your Dads. My Mum works part time too. I would hate for my brother to see that comment...his room is about the size of cupboard, smaller than any uni rooms I've seen. We've replaced half the windows as thats all we can afford so my house looks weird with half brown and half white windows. I don't think that they've brought above their means because of this. That would mean not being able to pay the mortgage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd love to know the opinion of bigots like .Ali. of the latest report from the Sutton trust where evidence gathered from universities shows pupils from comprehensives tend to get better degrees than people from independent and grammar schools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Every student should get the same help regardless of parental income or class.

    That way every potential student has the help needed for university and everyone has to pay back the same amount after university, except those taking on certain courses - i.e. medicine which are different.

    The current system leaves middle class students in a worse off position financially after graduation than those from less well off families. I think thats highly unfair as those from less well off families get grants and things when realistically there should be no grants and just loans so therefore those that take out the loan pay back what they earn. No one should be forced to take on more debt after university just because there parents earn more and the SLC assume parents will help when they often do not.

    Poorer children get it better than middle class children.
    Poorer children get grants and 100% loan whilst others get 75% non means tested loan due to the SLC's discriminative system.

    At the end of the day we are all equal so should all pay the same amount.

    I'd be livid if I went into an Apple shop and someone who's parents were on benefits paid £600 for a Macbook Pro then when I asked to purchase one I was asked for my parents income and told them and they said it would cost me £1000. Thats exactly the same principles the system the maintenance loans work on. Its disgraceful. I just wish someone would take them to court as its a severe form of discrimination and one person challenging such a thing would mean they would have to alter the system to mean loans were available to all regardless of parental income - It has to be paid back anyway once the graduate is in a job so I really don't see what's the issue with such a thing.

    Also, a graduate that comes from a less well off family and a graduate with the same degree from a middle class/rich family are in exactly the same position in life after graduation. They both have to look for jobs and 9/10 are both going to continue living independently so are both in the same boat. The only difference is those from middle class families are usually in more debt because they didn't receive any grants so had to resort to overdrafts.

    The SLC wants to sort its act out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    whine, whine, whine.
    Give over you bunch of Tarquins.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    What?
    You have some very.. very weird view points on this

    It isnt hard for people to go to university.. hence why there are so many people going. The only reason people cant at the moment is because of grades and a select few who either fall above the category for loans and also have no financial help from home or get a small amount of the loans etc and cant find any more money elsewhere.

    Put up tuition fees when the country is doing good.. but keep it low when the countrys economy is doing bad? Do you not understand economics AT ALL? When the economy is bad we need to make cuts and get more money from certain sectors, in this case university fees.

    You pay 9% of your income OVER 21 thousand a year.. do you realise how small that is? Jesus you act like students have to pay it back in 5 years or something. Say your on a 22k a year graduate entry job, that means you are paying 90 quid back a year.
    Anyone who actually knows soemthing about it and doesnt just have a rant because "oh noes i has to pay more moneys i cant afford it!!1!" realise the increase in fee's wont affect people as much as they think, just do some research on the fee's.
    Well actually you obviously dont live in a deprived area where the chances of getting a job which pays over 21k are very slim! I have a degree where I was lucky enough to get in before the tuition fee raises but because I havent been able to get a job which pays over the threshold no payments have been made back and the interest which has been added now brings my total to about 2k more than the loan I originally took out. What im saying is that by the time SOME people manage to get a job which reaches the threshold and they start paying back the fees SOME loans would have had thousands on them. OK look at it like this you get your degree but you cant/ dont get a job which reaches the repayment threshold for say two or three years, think of the interest which would have been added in that time and think about when you also want to get a mortgage etc... yes they may not effect the students straight away but it will take far longer to repy the loans back which may impact on other areas of a persons life for longer- even if the repayments are small!
    Yes there are some good points to putting up the tuition fees ie degrees will be more valuable in the sense that not everyone will be rushing out to get them and maybe people will spend more time thinking about what degree they want to do as opposed to just doing anything for the student life experience. And talking of cuts well yeah I know about the economy I do read papers and watch the news lol
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by b33tlejuice)
    Well actually you obviously dont live in a deprived area where the chances of getting a job which pays over 21k are very slim! I have a degree where I was lucky enough to get in before the tuition fee raises but because I havent been able to get a job which pays over the threshold no payments have been made back and the interest which has been added now brings my total to about 2k more than the loan I originally took out. What im saying is that by the time SOME people manage to get a job which reaches the threshold and they start paying back the fees SOME loans would have had thousands on them. OK look at it like this you get your degree but you cant/ dont get a job which reaches the repayment threshold for say two or three years, think of the interest which would have been added in that time and think about when you also want to get a mortgage etc... yes they may not effect the students straight away but it will take far longer to repy the loans back which may impact on other areas of a persons life for longer- even if the repayments are small!
    Yes there are some good points to putting up the tuition fees ie degrees will be more valuable in the sense that not everyone will be rushing out to get them and maybe people will spend more time thinking about what degree they want to do as opposed to just doing anything for the student life experience. And talking of cuts well yeah I know about the economy I do read papers and watch the news lol
    Oh obviously i dont live in a bad area?

    So i dont orginially live in one of the worst, must run down and place with very high crime rate in Bristol?
    With a single parent who has a disability so can only work part time ? (well the hours were in between full and part time, so dunno what you call that) whilst she was fostering and such?
    Where we had to budget what we spend every week else we wouldnt have enough to eat? Where christmas's and birthdays werent as amazing as some because we didnt have the money to spare?
    Because i think i know how my life has been tyvm.

    And ok, reading news and reading papers does not mean you know about the economy. This means you know about what the media want to tell you. A lot of the media will be against the fee's rise just because they know thats what people want to know and such, but in reality this is what the government HAVE to do.. if they dont cut here they will cut somewhere else and other people will moan about that. University costs is a big area the government can cut to save money, they arent doing it to annoy students, they are doing it for the benefit of the country.

    Btw, interest on student loans only go with inflation.. the government subsidises the rest. So i dont see how its a valuable point moaning about having the amount you pay going up, when thats only due to inflation .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Oh obviously i dont live in a bad area?

    So i dont orginially live in one of the worst, must run down and place with very high crime rate in Bristol?
    With a single parent who has a disability so can only work part time ? (well the hours were in between full and part time, so dunno what you call that) whilst she was fostering and such?
    Where we had to budget what we spend every week else we wouldnt have enough to eat? Where christmas's and birthdays werent as amazing as some because we didnt have the money to spare?
    Because i think i know how my life has been tyvm.

    And ok, reading news and reading papers does not mean you know about the economy. This means you know about what the media want to tell you. A lot of the media will be against the fee's rise just because they know thats what people want to know and such, but in reality this is what the government HAVE to do.. if they dont cut here they will cut somewhere else and other people will moan about that. University costs is a big area the government can cut to save money, they arent doing it to annoy students, they are doing it for the benefit of the country.

    Yet university funding is increasing as the universities will still get funding from the government (only 40% has been cut while the potential fee's universities can charge go way over the average cost of a degree, which is £7000.

    Which as current

    £3290 tuition fee loan - paid up front by taxpayer
    rest subsidised by government using taxpayers money

    New system

    £3290-12000 tuition fee loan - paid up front by taxpayer
    still money given by government from taxpayers money

    Therefore, under the new proposals certain universities will be able to increase funding as stated by several websites including BBC education - thus being a bigger burden on the taxpayer.

    Also, as the repayment of loans threshold is increased it means more loans will not get paid back and therefore the taxpayer will get it harder.

    The current system is far better for the taxpayer as even if a graduate gets a job on £17,000 they pay back whereas under the new system they wouldn't.


    Btw, interest on student loans only go with inflation.. the government subsidises the rest. So i dont see how its a valuable point moaning about having the amount you pay going up, when thats only due to inflation .
    Under the new system proposed students will get much larger debts on graduation meaning that their debt will increase faster.

    2% of a £25,000 debt = £500

    2% of a £50,000 debt = £1000

    See the difference - as the debt doubles the debt increases a lot more - the fact that the percentage value stays the same is just a cover up. Also as the debt increases the amount of debt will add on top of that meaning those graduating with a larger debt will have a lot more interest debt to service - a reason why many under the new system will get trapped with life long debt, especially if inflation increases as 4% of £50,000 = £2,000 whereas its only £1,000 on the smaller debt amount.

    Therefore, a graduate with £25,000 worth of debt without repaying anything back will then owe roughly £26,000 after a year due to interest.

    A graduate with a £50,000 worth of debt without repaying anything back will owe roughly £52,000 after a year due to interest.

    * Both above are at an inflation rate of 4%.

    Can you see how it is a big difference? Its not only the first sum you have to take into consideration. Its the interest that will build on in the years after graduation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I actually have no idea what your trying to say..

    You've basically told me students will be paying back more, which everyone knows anyway..

    am i missing some kind of profound point your making?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    I actually have no idea what your trying to say..

    You've basically told me students will be paying back more, which everyone knows anyway..

    am i missing some kind of profound point your making?
    Yes because you told them it wasn't a valuable point to moan when it clearly is.

    How in your right mind do you think its fair that someone who enters in 2011 can graduate with a debt of £25,000 and take on less interest every year, yet someone who enters in 2012 not only takes on the larger initial debt but also has to take on higher interest repayments?

    I think those entering in 2012 onwards have every right to moan and that's coming from someone who is entering in 2011. Not only do their initial debt amount increase but the amount of interest they have to pay annually increases - its a joke of a proposal which doesn't benefit anyone.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesman13)
    its people like you who hinder democracy, not voting for the conservatives just because theyre conservatives regardless of what they have to say.
    How? She is just giving her opinion, and not shoving it down your throat. You may be pro-Tory as far as I know. Democracy is about having a say. To mute her down, and imply that she shouldn't say such an obviously "horrible thing" is not part of democracy.

    She has her views, and so do you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what don't you understand about this? yes we get two years free, oh then we have to pay it back so there is 18,000 that we will owe when we earn enough money. They say but this isnt till you earn 21,000 ... oh okay so what? we'll spend a whole years wages nearly paying it back, not forgetting that there will probably be interest put on this, so when we give this whole years wages to them, how do we pay for our house that we live in since we have to give a whole years worth of pay away?! it's an absoloute discrace.
    I'm so happy for all you posh rich people who are to far up your own arses to see that its not only you who wants a future or deserves one, and its not only scavvy little chavs who will be loosing out for this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lozzalulu)
    what don't you understand about this? yes we get two years free, oh then we have to pay it back so there is 18,000 that we will owe when we earn enough money. They say but this isnt till you earn 21,000 ... oh okay so what? we'll spend a whole years wages nearly paying it back, not forgetting that there will probably be interest put on this, so when we give this whole years wages to them, how do we pay for our house that we live in since we have to give a whole years worth of pay away?! it's an absoloute discrace.
    I'm so happy for all you posh rich people who are to far up your own arses to see that its not only you who wants a future or deserves one, and its not only scavvy little chavs who will be loosing out for this.
    You know you only pay 9% of your income, they don't take the whole fee all at once?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lozzalulu)
    what don't you understand about this? yes we get two years free, oh then we have to pay it back so there is 18,000 that we will owe when we earn enough money. They say but this isnt till you earn 21,000 ... oh okay so what? we'll spend a whole years wages nearly paying it back, not forgetting that there will probably be interest put on this, so when we give this whole years wages to them, how do we pay for our house that we live in since we have to give a whole years worth of pay away?! it's an absoloute discrace.
    I'm so happy for all you posh rich people who are to far up your own arses to see that its not only you who wants a future or deserves one, and its not only scavvy little chavs who will be loosing out for this.
    Go away and come back when you've read how student finance works!
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.