Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why the uproar about scrapping of grants? watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Well, if we are going to make both students equal (financially), then yes, that is equality.
    The students from low income families are still receiving the same amount of money (actually they might be receiving more) as before the changes but they just have to pay the full thing back. Repayments is based on the job the graduate has and at that time their parents/household income is less relevant. Also the 'well off' families pay more in tax and have more expenses. It is unfair to assume every student from a well off/middle class background will receive help from their parents to make up for their smaller loan.

    Its quite funny how it is the left leaning newspapers that are putting off low income students from applying to uni by over exaggerating about the changes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    Because most people who earn a lot of money have used the Education system to get there and should pay back into the system what they got out of it.
    So tax then?
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Equality is everyone attending Eton and Oxford.
    No it isn't, as not everyone is born with the same level of intelligence.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't recall the people who were entitled to grants objecting to them, let's not be hypocritical here.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Not everyone is fortunate enough to be born into a well off family.
    Intelligence doesn't come from wealth.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    and it's not like these types of policies result in Denmark being a basket case. In 2014 Forbes ranked it the best place to do business. You can have free education and a productive capitalist based economy.
    Blame Labour for introducing fees.

    And don't say that the Conservatives would've introduced them - they were in government between 1979 and 1997 and didn't introduce them, yet within one year of a Labour government they introduced the fees.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Wealth doesn't necessarily derive from intelligence.
    Oh just stop being entitled and accept your lot in life.:lolwut:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Does the change affect people who started university under the old system, but continue under the new?


    (Original post by misscaricature)
    Because students from poorer families would have to get a bigger loan and repay more putting them at a disadvantage. The grant system somewhat balanced that out.
    Usually I support the left wing solution, but it makes no sense that the level of debt you take on is determined by your parent's earnings rather than your earnings upon graduate given that the idea is that you're supporting yourself when you get a job.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    For people worried about being able to pay rent, the minimum you can get under the new system if you're living away from home is ~£5300, so you'll be better off than under the grant system if your parents are nearer the upper limit
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    No its not, because they don't have to pay the money back unless they get a decent income afterwards.

    If they stay poor they won't pay back
    If they get rich after going to university they pay back

    So people pay in accordance to their ability to pay
    This makes much more sense. I have huge respect for people from poor backgrounds who end up earning a really high salary, but a system where a graduate with poor parents who went on to earn a high salary pays back less than a graduate with wealthy parents who goes on to earn a low wage is clearly broken.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The Wavefunction)
    Not sure about those figures. 95% sure my loan is the minimum and is about £3,500 per academic year, give or take. Rent will depend on the area, but I pay £275 rent and about £40 bills, so that's mine covered. I also work part time.
    Mine's definitely at the low end, but the ones I'm looking are higher up in terms of the rent.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)


    It is quite fair to assume that if there is any "spare cash" not being utilised by the well off/middle class families and if the offspring are in some kind of difficulty, then the parents will help their son/daughter out.
    Why is it ok to just raid the savings of the middle, middle classes?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The Conservatives didn't exactly abolish the fees when they came to power in 2010, either.

    In fact, I distinctly recall that they doubled and tripled said fees.
    I'm not going to deny that.

    But it's the principle that Labour were the ones who introduced them, and in fact in 2003 Labour tripled the fees also from £1,000 to £3,000...

    Labour are the ones in the wrong when it comes to tuition fees.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    From an economic standpoint, money that isn't being spent on goods or services, isn't benefiting the economy.
    Yes and no.


    In general yes, but banks are required by law to hold money in their coffees in a way which is proportional to the amount they can loan so savers are contributing by investing their money in a bank.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tailored_Suit)
    Scandinavian countries are just the best, they do almost everything right!
    Like importing terrorists and rapists, and letting them off because of the colour of their skin?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Blame Labour for introducing fees.

    And don't say that the Conservatives would've introduced them - they were in government between 1979 and 1997 and didn't introduce them, yet within one year of a Labour government they introduced the fees.
    I blame both parties. Conservatives can move towards the Scandinavian model if they like, I;d back that, but they won't. Denmark has just elected a right wing government, they are not introducing a loan based system. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, especially considering the sort of person like me is not overly supportive of Tony Blair.

    If I'm being generous I would describe the new labour move as this. They wanted more people in uni, but they could not adopt the high tax levels of the Scandinavian countries to have a similar system to what they have. The whole point of New Labour was that they had to adopt (so goes the theory) Thatcherist principles to get elected. Raising taxes to fund more uni places was not an option. So instead they lumped a load of the burden on students themselves. If New Labour were bad it was because they acted like Tories.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littlenorthernlass)
    So being from a poor family entitles you to free money, but being from a more well-off family doesn't? Well there's equality for you:rolleyes:
    Denmark pays people from wealthy and poor backgrounds £590 a month to study at university. No debts. So why not move in that direction rather than in the direction of america where everyone accrues massive debts that you have to pay back no matter your income status after graduating? (I know our system is still much better than America's)

    It's just like with the NHS everyone can use it free at the point of access. When you have a tiered system where those with enough money have to pay but those with less get given hand outs you generate resentment. Right wing governments that want to reduce the part of the state that is redistribution will use that anger to get people to vote for them and to make everyone pay for themselves. We already have Tory lords debating whether to introduce more up front fees in the NHS. People get angry that the poor get it for free, so they support everyone having to pay. Bye bye NHS. Same can happen with higher education.

    (Original post by littlenorthernlass)
    No, it isn't. Equality is either everyone getting a grant or nobody getting one.
    Out of the two which would you prefer? :holmes:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Wavefunction)
    You still get the money, so you can go to university. It isn't really that unreasonable that you have to pay it back, like most people.

    That's the problem with the world today, people think they're entitled to so much more than they are.
    Absolutely right.

    There's little more pathetic than people throwing their toys out of the pram because, after having their education paid for by everyone else up until age 18, and having loans immediately available at everyone else's considerable expense so that they can study even more, they feel that society has treated them badly.

    I couldn't give less of a **** what Denmark does and I don't know why that's apparently such a hot topic.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Yes, I understand the concept of a loan as opposed to a grant.



    Which "expenses" are these?



    It is quite fair to assume that if there is any "spare cash" not being utilised by the well off/middle class families and if the offspring are in some kind of difficulty, then the parents will help their son/daughter out.



    The changes are life-altering. From graduating debt-free to be saddled with massive debt when leaving university.
    Expenses as in day to day spending. Luxury goods, mortgages etc. bit of a generalisation/assumption I know.

    Is it fair that students should be facing difficulty simply because their parents are high/above average earners. When you move out nobody wants to rely on their parents and maintenance loans should cover everyone.

    Im sorry but its not life altering. There was never a debt free option before the recent changes? Some unis have bursary schemes of their own so some students will still receive grants anyway. The main change is based on the size of the loan they are paying back and at that point what entitled them to the grant is no longer of significant relevance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest;60404737[b)
    ]The UK has no reserve requirement for banks.[/b] Generally, banks set their own loan to deposit ratio targets.


    It's not really my field of expertise so I'm happy to be corrected on this.
    Learn something new huh

    EDIT: Apparently capital requirements still exist
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

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

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