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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I fear your prejudices are somewhat clouding your arguments.
    No faster way to realise you're on TSR.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because being born just a year before would have saved the 2016-entry cohort many thousands of pounds. Being born just 5 years before would have saved tens of thousands of pounds...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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
    Where is your logic here? These same people were also children once, and went to school until at least 16 years of age... they then got jobs, and paid tax into the system to pay for that education in retrospect.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuyReturns)
    Where is your logic here? These same people were also children once, and went to school until at least 16 years of age... they then got jobs, and paid tax into the system to pay for that education in retrospect.
    The point is fairly clear. They've been provided for by the rest of society amply. To complain about being ill treated by society because you are asked (possibly, to some extent, at a slow rate, if you earn enough money) to pay back the money that everyone else stumped up for another three years of education is cringeworthy.

    It makes perfect sense to internalise some of the costs of university, to deter people from wasting the taxpayer's money on three years of partying, and it's perfectly fair to do so, given that no-one is making you go to university, that a lot of people don't, and therefore shouldn't have to pay for you to do so, and that, quite simply, the rest of us do not have bottomless pockets.

    As for grants specifically, I see absolutely no reason why you should be given extra free money just because your parents don't earn very much. Once you are adequately provided for at the point of wanting to go to university, there is no issue. You won't be paying anything back until you have a job after graduating. At that point, what your parents earned makes no difference.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    The point is fairly clear. They've been provided for by the rest of society amply. To complain about being ill treated by society you are asked (possibly, to some extent, at a slow rate, if you earn enough money) the money that everyone else stumped up for another three years of education is cringeworthy.

    It makes perfect sense to internalise some of the costs of university, to deter people from wasting the taxpayer's money on three years of partying, and it's perfectly fair to do so, given that no-one is making you go to university, that a lot of people don't, and therefore shouldn't have to pay for you to do so, and that, quite simply, the rest of us do not have bottomless pockets.
    Would you be in favour of retrospective charges to old university graduates then? Then need to pay back what they owe after all!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuyReturns)
    Would you be in favour of retrospective charges to old university graduates then? Then need to pay back what they owe after all!
    What? No. That doesn't make any sense. They don't 'owe' anything because they didn't borrow anything.

    I'm not in favour of retrospective changes to the rules of the game in any scenario. If you undertake a course on the understanding that you'll get it for free, or otherwise on certain terms, that should be stood by. That doesn't mean the same terms have to be provided in perpetuity to everyone in the country. If that were so, no kind of change to state provision of anything would ever be possible.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    What? No. That doesn't make any sense. They don't 'owe' anything because they didn't borrow anything.
    They were essentially subsidized by the government, something not afforded to the current generation of students. (I obviously don't actually agree with what I was saying, I just wanted to see what your response would be... so I agree with your second point)
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    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.
    Because tax.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuyReturns)
    They were essentially subsidized by the government, something not afforded to the current generation of students. (I obviously don't actually agree with what I was saying, I just wanted to see what your response would be... so I agree with your second point)
    You also have to remember that there used to be far fewer students.

    But, because of that, in a sense I think it was even less fair that the state should have paid everyone's tuition fees. What you used to have was a (mostly) privileged 10% of the population who went to university at 100% of the population's expense. So, for example, builders who left school as soon as they could to start work were paying in full for the higher education of future academics, judges, and politicians.

    I genuinely think that the present system is pretty much the best compromise we can hope for, that recognises that having an educated population is good for everyone, and that good students whose families can't afford to pay their fees mustn't be limited by that, but that it is first and foremost a private benefit. Thus, we all pay towards cheap, favourable credit for students, and subsidise higher education beyond that, but students have to pay it back so far as they are able. One can argue the exact terms, but I think something like what we have now is just about right.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Wavefunction)
    That's the problem with the UK/USA today, people think they're entitled to so much more than they are.
    FTFY.The British mentality is one built upon a foundation of dreams and entitlement. They are led to believe in their dreams all through childhood and then expect to follow them through with little effort later on in life, after having it rather easy in comparison to others. Whilst Mexican children are working in the burrito shop after school for their family, whilst Indian children are forced to study hard in every science to become doctors and engineers, whilst Pakistani children are studying in school and then working in the local corner shop on weekends, whilst Eastern Europeans are working hard in the summer months to return home to little broken down villages with cash to provide for their families, whilst the Polish move across Europe and clean cars and labour on construction sites - many Brits have gotten into a situation whereby they think they deserve everything handed to them on a plate. Then when all these other people, who often also speak multiple languages, do very well, the Brits are the first to cry about it all because they are not getting it handed to them on a plate, but rather they're getting beat by much better people in a competitive economic market who have studied hard, worked hard and self improved to get to that point.
    (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.
    No, the grant system took from hardworking middle class families and subsidised the poorest families at their expense, which created a race to the bottom because the middle class then had to fork out extra of their net income to help contribute towards the education of their child(ren). Of course, those at the bottom don't realise this as they're getting what they want so it doesn't matter. The screwing over of the middle class in the UK is one of the main reasons I left. The UK is full of parties intent on screwing over the middle class which is why leaving is the best choice if you're a graduate who wants to do well in life and earn a good disposable income to have a good life.The parties love to subsidise the poor at the expense of the middle class.The parties love to subsidise the rich corporates at the expense of the middle class.Social welfare and corporate welfare is crippling the backbone of the British economy, the middle class owned SME's that drive the nation and keep it going. Middle class wages have also been compressed way too much and many jobs that were once respected and seen as middle class occupations in the UK are now on the breadline or below the average in terms of salary, which is ridiculous.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    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)
    Some US unis are almost free for its students (some State unis for local students and Ivy League ones).
    Offline

    2
    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.
    I honestly hate it when people compare Scandinavian nations to other countries. The only reason the Scandinavian system works is because it's on a very small scale, you try to make it work anywhere else it just doesn't, it becomes to easy to abuse public goods, this behaviour can be controlled in a small population. (Comparison Denmark has a population of 5.6 million whilst the UK has a population of 64 million.) If the system worked on a large scale people would recognise that and begin to change their systems, but they don't because it doesn't work.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    For myself, and possibly many other people, I dislike the system we currently have because it ignores the people in the middle. Just because my parents earn more than others doesn't mean I can afford to go to university more than other people. I don't get any of my parent's money now and won't at uni, I have to fund it all myself with the lowest loan I am entitled to and so can't actually afford the living costs (accommodation, food, etc.). University grants/bursaries only help those with low incomes or those who excell in specific areas, and so people like myself and many of my friends find ourselves in a position where we may be reconsidering going to university simply because we won't be able to afford it, because there is an assumption that our parents can fund our education.
    Offline

    13
    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.
    Because it's borderline unethical to have students from poorer households more in-debt to the government that richer students. Under the previous system, the maintenance grant replaced loans at a 2:1 ratio so poorer students would always have less to pay back.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    These are expenses which they have chosen to take on. Can it be put to better use by funding their child's education? Probably.



    You should only be in debt if you genuinely have a need to be in debt.

    Poor people, in order to pull themselves up, are forced to go into debt to live the fantasy of securing a well paying job at the end of their degree.



    It is a fundamental change from a grant to a loan. Whilst some universities do have bursaries, scholarships and the like, the default change to a loan is an underhanded way of unlevelling a level playing field.

    If I was from a low income family and asked whether I wanted to be saddled with all these loans when I graduate, I'd think long and hard before I made a decision.
    Thats precisely the point. The whole point of the maintenance loan is for it to be mostly government funded until the student is in a position to pay it back. For some people their maintenance loan can't even cover the rent and not all middle income families can give up around 2-3k a year because everyone has different circumstances. The system discriminates most against those in the middle, not those at the bottom.

    Student debt is slightly different to the kind of debt you are referring to. If anyone, it would be middle income students that can't cover their cost of living and can't get sufficient parent or uni support that will go into that form of debt whilst at university.

    I took this from MoneySavingExpert:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Will scrapping student grants stop people going to university?
    In practical terms, getting rid of the student grant will only affect high earning graduates. That's because after leaving university, students repay 9% of everything they earn over £21,000 for a maximum of 30 years. Those who’d currently qualify for a full grant would only actually pay more if it was wiped, if they’d repay their entire tuition fee, remaining maintenance loan after the grant, and interest within the thirty years before the debt wipes.A number crunch shows, as a rough rule of thumb, for a student living away from home, taking the full tuition fees, this is only for those on graduate starting salaries substantially above £30,000 who then get above inflation pay rises after that too. That is at the very high end of graduate earnings.The real risk with ending grants is the fact larger loans can be a psychological deterrent, especially to those from non university backgrounds.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    As someone who gets the full loan and grant, yeh I would annoyed if I didn't get the grant but only a personal level, it wouldn't stop me from going to university as it effectively makes NO difference.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Denmark pays students to go to university. We are a wealthy country just like them.

    Young people, demand better from your government.



    It's for the same reason you don't have to pay back your usage of up-to 18 education, roads and hospitals etc. When you get a high paying job due to your education you will pay a higher rate of tax. You pay for your education that way. Why do you think it is fair that these people pay even more money back?

    I got grants and only 3k fees. I don't understand why everyone is so happy to pay even more.



    Just like that road the protesters are stood on.
    This post is legendary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordGaben)

    Student debt is slightly different to the kind of debt you are referring to. If anyone, it would be middle income students that can't cover their cost of living and can't get sufficient parent or uni support that will go into that form of debt whilst at university.

    I took this from MoneySavingExpert:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Will scrapping student grants stop people going to university?
    In practical terms, getting rid of the student grant will only affect high earning graduates. That's because after leaving university, students repay 9% of everything they earn over £21,000 for a maximum of 30 years. Those who’d currently qualify for a full grant would only actually pay more if it was wiped, if they’d repay their entire tuition fee, remaining maintenance loan after the grant, and interest within the thirty years before the debt wipes.A number crunch shows, as a rough rule of thumb, for a student living away from home, taking the full tuition fees, this is only for those on graduate starting salaries substantially above £30,000 who then get above inflation pay rises after that too. That is at the very high end of graduate earnings.The real risk with ending grants is the fact larger loans can be a psychological deterrent, especially to those from non university backgrounds.

    Which is why I don't understand why there is not more anger at student loans from the middle classes. Alleviating the cost of university targets middleclass people. If Labour want to get middle class voters on board those are the sort of policy areas they need to think about. It's the same area that the lib dems tapped into in the 2010 election.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Which is why I don't understand why there is not more anger at student loans from the middle classes. Alleviating the cost of university targets middleclass people. If Labour want to get middle class voters on board those are the sort of policy areas they need to think about. It's the same area that the lib dems tapped into in the 2010 election.
    Very interesting point. Talking to the current Labour party would be like talking to a brick wall about this issue haha. Also monthly repayments are now smaller than they were under the Labour repayment system. The Lib Dems thought that tuition fees could be scrapped but then they went into government and reality struck.

    Its not necessarily frustration at the cost of university or on student loans itself, its more to do with the fact that the loan they are receiving isn't satisfactory to meet their needs. One possible solution would be to lift the minimum maintenance loan a student from any background can receive. I think its around 3.8k at the moment. Or possibly to set up a scheme where students that aren't entitled to the maximum loan and doesn't feel their parents will be able to support them can appeal for a higher loan but will have to pay back the loan for 2 years longer before it is ruled off to make up for the extra costs of their bonus. Or possibly increase repayment percentage from 9% to 9.5% to cover the small increase in cost to government.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Which is why I don't understand why there is not more anger at student loans from the middle classes. Alleviating the cost of university targets middleclass people. If Labour want to get middle class voters on board those are the sort of policy areas they need to think about. It's the same area that the lib dems tapped into in the 2010 election.
    There is a lot of anger from middle class students and their parents, you just don't hear about it as often. I think one of the reasons for this is the fact that middle class students (I'm speaking from personal experience and sorry for stereotyping) are pressured more into going to university by teachers/peers/families, and so they just have to put up with the lower loans. I go to a college in a fairly middle class area and I don't think there are many people not applying to university, you definitely are forced into applying and have to fight your case if you don't want to. Not only that, but parents are basically encouraged to fund their child's education, and it's assumed they can do so due to their higher wages, so even though they're struggling they just get on with it
 
 
 
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.