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

Maintenance grants replaced with loans for new students Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So? They are getting extra money at the point that they need it (before starting at uni), but are not being subsidised by the taxpayer in the future after they have graduated and should be independent adults who are capable of earning their own money.

    The only nuanced argument in favour of 100% grants I've heard is that people from lower class backgrounds are less likely to be high earners due to uni brand/lack of family connections/lower aspirations, but that calls for a small, partial subsidy of their maintenance loan, not a full one.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Newcastle456)
    What are you talking about. This simply isn't true. Even with a master degree from Cambridge, I need to work a few years before I can have enough points to move to Australia.

    Free education means that students from poorer backgrounds who would otherwise be deterred are more likely to take part. The taxation rates do not change, it means the distribution of government expenditure changes.

    If your logic held true: under the new proposed changes, even less would be recouped as people would leave the UK, potentially even to countries where their absolute income is lower but their standard of living is higher. However, in reality, very few British people migrate, namely because we don't learn languages well so we don't have much mobility.

    In sum, you are chatting ****.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why would they be deterred?You only pay back the money when you earn above £21000 paying £90 for each extra £1000 you earn.If they are being deterred its because of what those against tuition fees are incorrectly stating.

    The current system actually helps improve access for poor people as Universities use the extra money to fund grants and bursaries to improve access(they actually have to ensure they do this for them to be allowed to charge fees).

    In Scotland, where tuition is free, not as many poor people are attending their Universities due to them not being able to afford as good funding for them and the free tuition is paid for from English students studying in Scotland and from them getting a proportion of the money spent by English Universities on tuition fees as this is counted as expenditure.

    I don't get why people believe the poor should pay for the middle class/rich as thats what free tuition fees it means they'll be paying for it with their taxes,while they never got to go themselves.Tuition fees will help to lower the inequality between these two groups as a lot of the middle class/rich will be paying back their tuition fees, which they should for the education that enabled them to earn much more than the poor.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnGreek)
    So? They are getting extra money at the point that they need it (before starting at uni), but are not being subsidised by the taxpayer in the future after they have graduated and should be independent adults who are capable of earning their own money.
    Yep. I fully agree with this logic. Poor students need more money at the point of entry. If a loan is the best way to do it, that's fine.


    The changes are great for me, headed to university in Oct as a mature student with a family.


    It doesn't matter if I have less debt when I leave uni if I can't afford to feed my family whilst I'm at university.

    To even be worried about the amount of loans you'll have in 3 years is a privilege. The rest of us are worrying about the next 3 years.


    After I've graduated from Durham with a Comp Sci degree I'm not too worried about 40k of debt. If you're going to be worried about money after your degree, perhaps you're doing the wrong degree or at the wrong university.

    SS
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    x

    Good post.

    However, your signature is, how shall I put this, garish?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    Why would they be deterred?You only pay back the money when you earn above £21000 paying £90 for each extra £1000 you earn.If they are being deterred its because of what those against tuition fees are incorrectly stating.

    The current system actually helps improve access for poor people as Universities use the extra money to fund grants and bursaries to improve access(they actually have to ensure they do this for them to be allowed to charge fees).

    In Scotland, where tuition is free, not as many poor people are attending their Universities due to them not being able to afford as good funding for them and the free tuition is paid for from English students studying in Scotland and from them getting a proportion of the money spent by English Universities on tuition fees as this is counted as expenditure.

    I don't get why people believe the poor should pay for the middle class/rich as thats what free tuition fees it means they'll be paying for it with their taxes,while they never got to go themselves.Tuition fees will help to lower the inequality between these two groups as a lot of the middle class/rich will be paying back their tuition fees, which they should for the education that enabled them to earn much more than the poor.
    The average person in the UK barely understands how interest works, never mind look at loan conditions in such detail. What you say, is also vastly incorrect, it's not a flat £90, you yourself don't understand, validating my point.

    What grants and tuition fees? These are being eroded away.

    Your arguments make no sense. Why would the poor pay? Are they not having children that may want to go to university? They too go free. If you are earning more, you are already taxed more. Why should people keep paying for learning etc. Furthermore, if you're that rich, you wouldn't even take a loan with interest payments. Only middle to poorer children take loans.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntSou29)
    What? It was obviously an example. You can change Australia for Germany. The specific example is not important. My point, which I think I made clear, is that geographical mobility is facilitated by acquiring a degree, and in today's increasingly globalised economy there are less incentives to limit oneself to a specific national labour market.



    You're making false assumptions. I agree that Higher Education should be available for all of those who meet the conditions set by any University. If an educational system prevents students from low income families to access higher education, then it is a poor system. This can be solved by higher loans and lower interest rates.

    And where exactly would you cut if you're not increasing taxes? The Defence Budget is at 2.21%. NATO requires it to be set at 2%. The current government wants to further increase Defence Spending, which I disagree with, but still, 0.21% is not enough.



    What do you mean by 'less would be recouped'? If higher education is free at the point of use, there will be nothing to recoup. You can't recoup less than nothing.

    As for the scenario you provided, you'll have a lot of trouble finding such a place (give me an example).



    'We' don't learn languages well'. You make it sound like it is a factory setting. Besides, English is the international language. You don't need to know Swedish, German, Dutch or Portuguese to find work in private companies in the capital cities of any of these countries.

    You also have less trouble accessing the labour markets of Australia, Canada and the US.
    No your point is incorrect. We have left the EU (not that the average person was mobile anyway) because of linguistic barriers.

    You can cut university places and make the process more rigorous, you can restructure pensions, you can become more efficient in defence spending. Why do we need 0.21%? There are plenty of places to restructure , I don't even need to list.

    You are absolutely deluded, if you want to work in France in any bank, consultancy or indeed most jobs, you need French. Same applies in Germany, etc. Moving to US? Have you ever looked into the green card system? Same with Canada and AUS, I can barely move with two tops degrees and I've actively tried, never mind the average person.

    If you are banging on about a globalising world, you will understand that everyone can speak English - Slovak or China man. What skills do you have to offer to a Chinese firm or Slovak firm?

    Recoup from the loan payments. It's free at the point of use but students pay bsck on their loans.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Newcastle456)
    No your point is incorrect. We have left the EU (not that the average person was mobile anyway) because of linguistic barriers.

    You can cut university places and make the process more rigorous, you can restructure pensions, you can become more efficient in defence spending. Why do we need 0.21%? There are plenty of places to restructure , I don't even need to list.

    You are absolutely deluded, if you want to work in France in any bank, consultancy or indeed most jobs, you need French. Same applies in Germany, etc. Moving to US? Have you ever looked into the green card system? Same with Canada and AUS, I can barely move with two tops degrees and I've actively tried, never mind the average person.

    If you are banging on about a globalising world, you will understand that everyone can speak English - Slovak or China man. What skills do you have to offer to a Chinese firm or Slovak firm?

    Recoup from the loan payments. It's free at the point of use but students pay bsck on their loans.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I was just wondering what you mean having two top degrees. I graduated in 2010 with 17500 in debt, interest rates rose every year, now my debt is 21,910. What worries me is new graduates willl leave with high debts and higher intrest rates. Ive have had jobs but not enough to pay my loan, id love to be able to get a high paid job to start paying off my loan.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Newcastle456)
    The average person in the UK barely understands how interest works, never mind look at loan conditions in such detail. What you say, is also vastly incorrect, it's not a flat £90, you yourself don't understand, validating my point.

    What grants and tuition fees? These are being eroded away.

    Your arguments make no sense. Why would the poor pay? Are they not having children that may want to go to university? They too go free. If you are earning more, you are already taxed more. Why should people keep paying for learning etc. Furthermore, if you're that rich, you wouldn't even take a loan with interest payments. Only middle to poorer children take loans.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes it is?

    http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/stu...n-fees-changes

    3 You repay 9% of everything earned above £21,000 – earn less and you don't repay.

    If you earn £22,000 in a year, what do you repay?

    The answer is £90, as £22,000 is £1,000 above the threshold and 9% of £1,000 is £90.
    And if you earn £31,000, what do you repay?

    The answer is £900. £31,000 is £10,000 above the threshold and 9% of that is £900.

    Given that you are asking about grants it is clear you don't understand Universities in general will be offering a grant to poor students(it use to be and is for current students in addition to their Government grant)- I think they have to as part of ensuring they are making their Universities accessible to poor students so they are allowed to charge higher fees.Some Universities charge very high rent so without these grants poor students wouldn't be able to go.

    The Government has increased the amount students will receive its not being eroded away.The poor will be paying for people going to University when they won't be it will be mainly them who foot the bill for the middle class/rich.

    The middle class/rich are not taxed anywhere near enough, most people don't know this but tax is actually regressive.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessica 321)
    I was just wondering what you mean having two top degrees. I graduated in 2010 with 17500 in debt, interest rates rose every year, now my debt is 21,910. What worries me is new graduates willl leave with high debts and higher intrest rates. Ive have had jobs but not enough to pay my loan, id love to be able to get a high paid job to start paying off my loan.
    Well, I went to Warwick and Cambridge. Not going to say my subjects but two prestigious (strong) ones. I won't struggle to get a job, but if I wanted to move countries as is being argued, it's not easy, there are lots of immigration/linguistic restriction.

    I totally agree. I went with grants etc and my loan will still be around £35k.
    For new students, hitting £51k+, that's a lot.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I can't say it's a bad thing. I qualified for full maintenance grants on top of the standard loans when I went to university and I reckon about 80% of my grant money ended up in an ISA. I had way more disposable money than students who didn't qualify for grants.

    At least with this change students will think about whether they actually need to take out the maximum loan amount and as such have less money being wasted. The student lifestyle of binge drinking, nightly meals out, hanging around in £3 per drink coffee shops and constant two mile taxi trips really shouldn't be funded by the tax payer. I had so much spare cash at the end of university because I didn't waste it on such ****.

    The real tragedy is that universities feel they can justify charging £9k+ in tuition fees for what tends to amount to about 20 hours per week sat in a room with 100 other people listening to a guy reading PowerPoint slides. The fees were £3k per year when I went to university and I definitely didn't feel like I got my money's worth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Newcastle456)
    Well, I went to Warwick and Cambridge. Not going to say my subjects but two prestigious (strong) ones. I won't struggle to get a job, but if I wanted to move countries as is being argued, it's not easy, there are lots of immigration/linguistic restriction.

    I totally agree. I went with grants etc and my loan will still be around £35k.
    For new students, hitting £51k+, that's a lot.
    Were they both undergraduate degrees,
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessica 321)
    Were they both undergraduate degrees,
    Nope. I have an MPhil. That's my point, even with master degree points, I can't migrate so easily, so I don't know how said person was arguing as if it were a given.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    How is this news? This was in effect from last year. I received no grant and had to opt for the maintenance loan.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sephiroth)
    I can't say it's a bad thing. I qualified for full maintenance grants on top of the standard loans when I went to university and I reckon about 80% of my grant money ended up in an ISA. I had way more disposable money than students who didn't qualify for grants.

    At least with this change students will think about whether they actually need to take out the maximum loan amount and as such have less money being wasted. The student lifestyle of binge drinking, nightly meals out, hanging around in £3 per drink coffee shops and constant two mile taxi trips really shouldn't be funded by the tax payer. I had so much spare cash at the end of university because I didn't waste it on such ****.

    The real tragedy is that universities feel they can justify charging £9k+ in tuition fees for what tends to amount to about 20 hours per week sat in a room with 100 other people listening to a guy reading PowerPoint slides. The fees were £3k per year when I went to university and I definitely didn't feel like I got my money's worth.
    I'm so glad to have found someone who believes in exactly the same things as me. So many people I know just waste their loans on very expensive accommodation, clothes shopping, coffee etc, and have been given massive amounts of money off their parents instead of even thinking to earn their own money. Surely that's the point of going to uni - if you want to live independently then you should at least manage your own finances.I got £7173 from SF in grants and loans, as well as £3.2k from my university because of my A-level results and household income. I applied for cheap accommodation (£3.7k/year), worked throughout my A-level studies and managed to finish my first year at uni with £4.5k leftover from SF & uni, without even touching any of my earnings, or asking my parents for a single penny. I feel guilty for having taken the grant, as what have I done to deserve that being funded by taxpayers? I think moving from grants to increased loans is a sensible move. Students should be encouraged to get jobs (as this IS possible to do whilst studying), save & budget more (especially things like nights out and fancy accommodation, which SF isn't really designed for), and just go to uni with a better work/money ethic. If you choose to go to uni, you should be prepared to work to at least partially fund yourself. Unfortunately many students nowadays just take too much for granted.Also I agree with you completely on unis charging too much - I pay £31.25/hour for my degree. It's especially awful as a languages student, where contact hours are key as you need to actually talk to have spoken language practice, yet I only had 12 contact hours a week (of which only 4.5 were German). How's anyone supposed to become fluent with just that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    My parents earn minimum wage and we live in council housing, however I completely agree with the shift from grants to loans. At the end of the day, I will be spending that money and I don't see why the taxpayer should pay for something which I could easily cover myself for once I graduate.

    The money saved could go towards something else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No your point is incorrect. We have left the EU (not that the average person was mobile anyway) because of linguistic barriers.
    Now you're just making stuff up. Brexit has got nothing to do with 'linguistic barriers'.

    And YOU are the deluded one. A native English speaker talking of 'linguistic barriers' is a bit of a joke, really.

    You are absolutely deluded, if you want to work in France in any bank, consultancy or indeed most jobs, you need French. Same applies in Germany, etc. Moving to US? Have you ever looked into the green card system? Same with Canada and AUS, I can barely move with two tops degrees and I've actively tried, never mind the average person.
    Well, in this case, the examples do matter . France, Spain and Italy are quite protective of their own language. As for Germany, the 'same' does not apply, AT ALL.

    As for Canada, I've met too many people who have managed to find work there over the last couple of years alone. In any case, it still stands that it is easier for a British person to find a job anywhere else on the globe than for any other nationality.

    If you are banging on about a globalising world, you will understand that everyone can speak English - Slovak or China man. What skills do you have to offer to a Chinese firm or Slovak firm?
    The same skills that you can offer firms in the UK -.-. You're just being lazy now. Of course if you have a law degree you'd have to be a fool to think you'll be able to work for a law firm in Germany. But there are plenty of jobs nowadays where language is irrelevant and where English is used to accommodate a multitude of cultural backgrounds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest I'm on the bench with it. Students like myself from badly off areas are going to rack up a ton of debt, but then again without a £8,200 a year maintenance loan I couldn't afford to do it anyway.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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

    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.