You know that this makes no difference. All that matters, apparently, is the headline number. So, for instance, the fee changes from 3 to 9k are still evil even though lower-earning graduates pay less in absolute terms under the new system.(Original post by LordGaben)
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.
Also, scrapping the grants is just going to deter people from poorer backgrounds from attending university, just as totally, definitely happened after the same thing was predicted with the 9k change.
x Turn on thread page Beta
Why the uproar about scrapping of grants? watch
- 05-11-2015 18:40
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
- 05-11-2015 19:30
You know that this makes no difference. All that matters, apparently, is the headline number. So, for instance, the fee changes from 3 to 9k are still evil even though lower-earning graduates pay less in absolute terms under the new system.
Also, scrapping the grants is just going to deter people from poorer backgrounds from attending university, just as totally, definitely happened after the same thing was predicted with the 9k change.Spoiler:I just don't see why people are making such a big deal over it. It is frustrating that everyone except low earning graduates have to pay significantly more but with more applicants applying each year I suppose universities need more funding and the vast majority don't pay back the full loan anyway. I just looked at the lib dem website on the tuition fee changes and their simplified data showed graduates up to 50k paying less each month than under the Labour system. Maybe its the length of repayments that is leading to greater lifetime repayment compared to before? I'm not sure.ShowWe estimate that, as a result of this reform:
In the short term, government borrowing, as recorded in the national accounts, will fall by around £2 billion per year. This is because current spending on grants counts towards current borrowing, while current spending on loans does not.
In the long run, savings will be much less than this. The amount of money lent to students will rise by about £2.3 billion for each cohort, but only around a quarter of these additional loans will be repaid. The net effect is to reduce government borrowing by around £270 million per cohort in the long run in 2016 money – a 3% decline in the government’s estimated contribution to higher education.
About two-thirds of those eligible for the full maintenance grant will repay no more as a result of this reform because they will end up with the additional debt being written off. For the remaining third, repayments are forecast to continue for an extra four years on average, with contributions rising by around £9,000, on average, in 2016 money.
(Original post by Andy98)
- 07-11-2015 18:11
I'm more annoyed that the loan that replaced the grant is based on household income; meaning I won't actually get enough to pay rent.
I'm in the same boat.
(Original post by misscaricature)
- 07-11-2015 18:23
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.
therefore how does this matter?
Offline18ReputationRep:Study HelperWelcome Squad
- Study Helper
- Welcome Squad
- 08-11-2015 14:52