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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plonk)
    The level of debt puts off people from poorer families, and this policy may reverse that effect, or at least stop this "I can't go to university now" idea. I would actually rather this money was used to increase grants for everyone, and not as an attempt to calm people down. So we don't completely disagree.
    So surely the government should be convincing them that university is still a viable option rather than just throwing money around. If poorer people are put off by something that is actually untrue, why not just dispel the myths?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    I'd be interested to know why you feel that children from privileged backgrounds who sponge off mum and dad are any more deserving of their wealth than those from poorer backgrounds whose upbringings are funded by benefits - regardless of the reasons for those benefits.

    Yes, perhaps the former's parents have done more to earn the money, but the children certainly haven't. There are a lot of people on this forum who hold a very brattish sense of entitlement and an ironic disdain for those who receive state funding, in spite of the fact that they remain more privileged and have done precisely nothing to earn it.
    The parents have earned the money for THEIR children... not for someone else's children. My parents didn't say... yes I'll get this job in order to pay for my next door neighbour's education. They, as any parents would, said that they'd get a job in order to support MY family and MY kids... and if we have sufficient amounts left over... then we'll give to those other families. Although coming from the Islamic background, you give to those less well off than you quite regularly anyway.

    Well that's why I thought parents raised up their kids.... obviously you think differently :rolleyes:

    You could easily turn the argument around and ask why those poorer families think that they deserve the money from the Government rather than those that earn slightly more than them when they give less in economic input to the country than those families that are middle and higher income. This isn't a good argument... and neither is yours.

    I'd also like to give an example: Say there is a family that has an income just above the cut-off point. They have 4 children. Each of them wants to study in London for university. Most likely, because the family were above the cut-off point for this benefit, they were also above the cut-off points for most other benefits and grants too. London has a higher cost of living than other cities. A maintenance loan does not cover this cost of living. However, they would not be entitled to any grants. Therefore, is this family not a relatively poor family (i.e. technically counted as 'middle-income' but reality says differently). Basically, what I'm saying is... where do you draw the line?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    So... you'd be paying less? Double standards much?
    No, because it's not being payed for by other people...my parents are using their money to help me...my family are paying more than a working class family.

    Can you not see the similarities here? They have a disadvantage, and that disadvantage is being slightly alleviated. I can guarantee you, that it's unlikely 18,000 will be going to £9,000 schools. More people get AAA at Eton than people on free schools meals do.
    You don't choose to be disabled ever. You have somewhat of a choice over income.


    Long term benefits of what exactly?
    Getting a degree?

    Because otherwise, wealth would stay in the hands of the few, and people born in low income familes would not recieve the opportunity to have the same wealth as you. Social mobility in a word. You may not like the idea, but really, in many ways, it's a Conservative idea. "We all get what we deserve" is what I'd say is their root philosophy. Well, if that's true, then let's open it up so that we truly DO all get what we deserve.
    We can all work hard and earn money. It wouldn't stay in the hands of the few, if people are prepared to work for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    We can all work hard and earn money. It wouldn't stay in the hands of the few, if people are prepared to work for it.
    Sadly the world isn't that fair. Working hard does not mean earning more money most of the time. Most rich people in the UK have not earned their money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Sadly the world isn't that fair. Working hard does not mean earning more money most of the time. Most rich people in the UK have not earned their money.
    Everyone has the chance to, though. While inheriting does help, people also get good jobs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's ridiculous, the poorer families firstly even if they have the first 1 or 2 years paid for will still have to somehow pay for the third year or more depending on the course. Also for middle income families just because our parents earn more does not mean we can pay for uni. I think that the issue is that the poorer families who are receiving the same education as the middle income families are equally as likely to get a good job because they have still been educated in the same way any other person on their course has. So when they get this job say they get the same job the person coming from the poorer family will have to pay less off after uni because and the other has to pay more and so obviously for a longer period of time.

    This is about the ability to pay back the debt and that ability is equal for anyone coming out of university, students should have to keep themselves afloat by getting a job and saving and scrimping that's what being a student is along with the studying. Students should not be spoon fed, they leave home for a reason, to grow up! and they are not doing that if their parents are giving them money and helping them with everything so the income of the household owners should not really come into it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qaz25)
    ...
    I'm not arguing any of these points. My point is that for a child to have an arrogant sense of entitlement and disdain for those who "sponge off the state" is inappropriate given that said child has done precisely nada to earn it.

    Many on this forum are seething with bitterness towards families on benefits and are quite vocal about it in spite of the fact that they have never done anything to deserve it. When you live on free money, you do not have the right to criticise others who do the same. It is not the fault of the child that their money comes from the state and it is equally not to the merit of the child that their parents can provide for them.

    It's preposterous for someone whose entire life has been funded by their parents to criticise or complain about someone else who receives funding from the state - both parties are getting a free ride; the only real difference is that the former got luckier.

    I'm in no way suggesting that a parent who earns should not be able to provide for their child - I am simply saying that it is, frankly, disgusting for someone who was lucky enough to be born to wealthy parents to complain about a child who receives state benefits.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    No, because it's not being payed for by other people...my parents are using their money to help me...my family are paying more than a working class family.
    Isn't it awful? Imagine, people being asked to help others. You do realise that the same people that are being helped may one day be your doctor, and they wouldn't have chosen that career path had they not recieved help?

    You don't choose to be disabled ever. You have somewhat of a choice over income.
    Well this is just insane. Logically, very few people choose what pay they recieve, otherwise, everyone would be trillionaires.

    I assume you mean "people can work hard and then they get a better income?"
    OK, so then people who go to war, and have a leg blown off, have sort of chosen to become disabled. Indirectly, like the income, but a choice that led to something nevertheless.

    Getting a degree?
    The doctor thing. It's not just the individual that suffers.


    We can all work hard and earn money. It wouldn't stay in the hands of the few, if people are prepared to work for it.
    The field is not even at the start of the game, to then right it and claim that the score is correct is insane.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessTrish)
    .
    the way the student loans work it couldnt be more progressive, its doesnt make sense to punish those who work and reward those who dont.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think its unfair.
    i agree with extra help, but 2 years FREE is excessive?
    i just had basic loans cos that's all i was entitled to, and my friend had full loans, grants, burseries because her families income was lower. now uni has finished she is currently in a job earning more than me, but she has less debt. (we got exactly the same degrees)
    just because someone comes from a poorer family doesn't mean they are less able to get a good job at the end of uni? if they put the work in, they will get a good degree = getting a higher paid job = not needing free uni!! ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sokissme18)
    i think its unfair.
    i agree with extra help, but 2 years FREE is excessive?
    i just had basic loans cos that's all i was entitled to, and my friend had full loans, grants, burseries because her families income was lower. now uni has finished she is currently in a job earning more than me, but she has less debt. (we got exactly the same degrees)
    just because someone comes from a poorer family doesn't mean they are less able to get a good job at the end of uni? if they put the work in, they will get a good degree = getting a higher paid job = not needing free uni!! ?
    She might not have gone to university had she not recieved those things.

    You're focusing on the end, rather than the beginning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know the cut off point for eligibility? about 24,000 a year family income? or is this too high?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    im guessing its because the government thinks like this
    "why is it poor people are the main people rioting? i know its because their too god dam stupid to realise this fee increase is going to effect them EXACTLY THE SAME as everyone else, we're even giving them more grants, lets give them a years free education to shut them up, hell if their too stupid to understand how the fees work, they probably wont even pass the first year"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I personally think this is the wrong decision.

    The money should be put towards ensuring comprehensive (fees and full living) low cost loans are avaliable to all students.

    There is no unfair burden on poor students if they don't have to pay anything back until they earn over £21,000. A system where students have to rely on their parents to afford to live at university is unfair.

    What happens if someone from a 'rich background' has parents who refuse to support them at uni?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f00ddude)
    im guessing its because the government thinks like this
    "why is it poor people are the main people rioting? i know its because their too god dam stupid to realise this fee increase is going to effect them EXACTLY THE SAME as everyone else, we're even giving them more grants, lets give them a years free education to shut them up, hell if their too stupid to understand how the fees work, they probably wont even pass the first year"
    i agree lol
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Winter Rain)
    And that's good that they do. And it's fine that you disagree.
    My original point was that I don't see why students with parents who earn way above average but recieve no parental help, shouldn't get the same financial aid as those who's parents simply couldn't support them.
    Ive been reading all the arguments and Ive realised you are missing some important points. A student who grew up in a rich family should have more money than a person that grew up in a poor family (their own money, not their parents).

    And you keep going back to the point 'what if the middle class family wont support their child at uni'. That will hardly ever happen and when it does it is very rare. A person from a middle class family is more likely to get some sort of financial assistance from home than someone from a poor family.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    And you keep going back to the point 'what if the middle class family wont support their child at uni'. That will hardly ever happen and when it does it is very rare. A person from a middle class family is more likely to get some sort of financial assistance from home than someone from a poor family.

    i never said 'middle class' i said 'middle income' i.e. the working class who arent suddenly going to start contributing to their 24 year old son's student debt payments.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Why? Sorry, but I'd sooner my parents paid my own fees rather than someone elses. :rolleyes:

    The middle classes always lose out.
    You lose out? Oh poor you? Please enlighten us as to what you are missing out on? I'm sure we will all feel your pain. Curse that bloody government, helping all those poor people when there are all these middle class people in much more need of their help.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I dunno, i haven't read the review proper yet. It does depend how poor someone is, but they say 18,000 a year can benefit from it to say the 10,000 currently on the scheme(these are children who are also eligitable for free-school meals) I think it'll definately encourage poorer families to send their child to uni because of the government paying the 1st and/or 2nd year of the tuition fees. Personally I think I might benefit aswell but as I say it depends on where the limit is for income household.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .Ali.)
    Why should the same product (in this case, Uni course) from the same provider cost more for me?
    Because if everyone paid the same fees, then all the poorer students (many of whom will be smarter than you) wont be able to go to university. A university for the rich doesnt sound like a very attractive place does it (well it probably does to you).
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.