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

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesman13)
    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.
    I never quoted you, I quoted Winter Rain.

    Anyway, change 'middle class' to 'middle income' and the point still stands.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think many of you are forgetting that the average salary in the UK is about £22k- 25k a year. I think many people here seem to be deluded with the idea of what is 'middle class' and 'rich'.

    Those who will be get this two years free tuition will be from families who are entitled to free school meals (under £16,190). If £16k that was a family income from both parents, they much be on less than £8k per year salary.
    I wonder those who claim they are middle class would feel if their parents earn as much as that?

    I think its quite disgusting really, I have many friends at university who claim they are 'not rich' but most of them came from independent schools, where the tuition fees were £3000 per term and live in nice apartments in London. I had one politics students who said they had to work for money, but when I went out with her, she spent £40 on a block of cheese in a posh shop.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This wont help all poor kids. There are lots of poor house holds that aren't eligible for free school meals or who earn just over this that will still be affected.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aprilterri)
    This wont help all poor kids. There are lots of poor house holds that aren't eligible for free school meals or who earn just over this that will still be affected.
    Dont join that bandwagon, jesus.

    The fact is, the government cannot go case by case and look at everyones needs.

    IT HAS TO SET A LIMIT.

    People are ALWAYS going to be 'just above' that limit, no matter what it is.

    Add a thousand more to the limit, all the people that complained will be happy. But now we have people just above the new limit that will complain.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I get confused by politics and economics and the like, so please bear with me btw..

    I will attempt to sum up the main argument here, please let me know if I am missing anything (or the whole point!)...

    To use a metaphor, before I got a job, my mum would pay for clothes for me. Now I have a job, my mum doesn't because I can afford them for myself (this isn't because she can't afford to buy me clothes any more or less, it just seems unnecessary to her to pay me what I can afford). Either way, job or not, I get the clothes that I need/want.

    Continuing with the metaphor, say everyone's mum is the same as mine. Some people are annoyed because they are working and someone else is not and they have equal opportunity to buy clothes. Some people say it is fair as everyone needs clothes, though the people who choose to get a job benefit clearly from the independence, experience etc.

    Am I on the right lines? Is that basically it? (obviously it is different in some ways because that is just a simple metaphor)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lewroll)
    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.
    Again, just because it's not LIKELY, it still happens, and therefor is irrelevant to the question I'm asking. Those people deserve the same amount of help as someone from a poor background in my opinion, anyone who's got no one to support them while a university needs the same amount of support.
    I think it's you guys who're missing the point I'm making, if a person from a poor background get a place at university, same as someone from a rich background, and neither are recieving parental support, they should both in future be able to get a job to pay back to loans they had to take to study there in the first place. BOTH of them. If help is going to be given to anyone, it should be available to EVERYONE WHO NEEDS IT. So once again, regardless of how unlikely it is to happen, WHY do those whos familys won't support them, not deserve the same amount of support as someone whos parents can't?

    And if a student can support themselfs, of course then they clearly don't need the help, regardless of they are from a poor or wealthy background, but those people still worked to save up, and don't forget that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Winter Rain)
    Again, just because it's not LIKELY, it still happens, and therefor is irrelevant to the question I'm asking. Those people deserve the same amount of help as someone from a poor background in my opinion, anyone who's got no one to support them while a university needs the same amount of support.
    I think it's you guys who're missing the point I'm making, if a person from a poor background get a place at university, same as someone from a rich background, and neither are recieving parental support, they should both in future be able to get a job to pay back to loans they had to take to study there in the first place. BOTH of them. If help is going to be given to anyone, it should be available to EVERYONE WHO NEEDS IT. So once again, regardless of how unlikely it is to happen, WHY do those whos familys won't support them, not deserve the same amount of support as someone whos parents can't?

    And if a student can support themselfs, of course then they clearly don't need the help, regardless of they are from a poor or wealthy background, but those people still worked to save up, and don't forget that.
    Nice idea, but unreasonable. It's practically impossible to create legislation which moulds itself around individual cases, especially in a highly populated country like ours. So, it's better to have legsilation that helps those who can't help themselves than those who are not to be helped by their families by their own perogative.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hantheman)
    Nice idea, but unreasonable. It's practically impossible to create legislation which moulds itself around individual cases, especially in a highly populated country like ours. So, it's better to have legsilation that helps those who can't help themselves than those who are not to be helped by their families by their own perogative.
    I'm not saying the idea is perfect or easy, but that some people are still over looked in the system, and they seem to be the ones that will struggle the most because there is little to no help form either side
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Winter Rain)
    I'm not saying the idea is perfect or easy, but that some people are still over looked in the system, and they seem to be the ones that will struggle the most because there is little to no help form either side
    I understand your point, but I disagree. The government has no right to get involved with familes who choose not to help their children. If you can afford it but choose not to, then why should the government bend over backwards to help? That's just interfering.

    I do however, believe we need some flexbility, and allow borderline cases, partciularly in the "middle-class" band some support because obvious financial situations are never black and white, there will be familes in a gray area which need support and they should be looked at indivually wherever possible. But I reiterate, it's the choice of the family whether or not they support the student if they can. Putting government funding in there is just waste of money which should be going on those who don't have that choice.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    They should at least take a gradual approach and not have everyone below a line pay no fees and everyone above pay the full amount. Do what they do for loans and grants. This way at least some in the middle, who are slightly above this magic poverty line will get some of their fees wavered. I think this is the best solution.

    Doing it on an individual case by case basis won't work. Its too big of a task. However, gradually lowering the amount subsided depending on the income (low, middle, high) will go a long way to help. So those below this magic poverty line have all their fees wavered. Those above another line have some, those above another will have none. Again this won't be a silver bullet and rescue everyone, but at least the 'middle' will get SOME help.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planto)
    This may be your individual circumstance but the vast majority of people receive a lot of support from their parents throughout university. Beyond that, you have utterly missed my point again. The fact that you are complaining that it isn't fair IS jealous and petty. This scheme makes it easier for others; it makes it no harder for you. If complaining about something because it only benefits other people and not you isn't selfish, I'm not sure what is.

    For the record, I agree that - since student loans are in place - this scheme would not really solve any problems, but your reasoning seems to be based more on petty complaints of unfairness than any actual practical concern.
    Ah i see your point.. but just because my family earns a couple of grand more than someone else's why should I have to pay more? This scheme doesn't take into consideration the size of a family.. all it thinks about is income. There are 3 children in my family so we have to fund for all of them.. where as someone can earn a bit less but only have one child.. so how are they less off?

    University fees as a whole are ridiculous.. some people think 'what does it matter you pay it off in small bits anyway' but the point is why should we pay more in the long run.. because £9,000 a year is a lot!

    People that get free school meals get free uni now.. benifits too.. hmm.. well that seems to make sense..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesman13)
    Thousands of university students from poorer backgrounds could have their tuition fees paid for up to two years under new government proposals.

    If students arent expected to pay anything back until they are in high earning jobs what difference does their background make? Yet again the rich dont worry - the poorest get free.... and the middle income families struggle and pay the bill.

    my parents earn a little more than 'poor' families which doesnt mean their extra income can be used to pay off my student debts! the conservatives are meant to represent middle income families affected by the 'income trap', obviously not.


    A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE MISSING THE POINT:

    - a student from the WORKING CLASS will have to pay off loads of debt than a student from the POOR CLASS because this policy seems to assume that working class parents can contribute to paying off their son/daughters debt as quickly as a poorer class student by his/her own earnings.

    the working class/middle income families are being screwed over by a government who claims to stand against Britains dependency culture and make sure living on benefits is never as comfortable as earning a hard working living.
    you need to get your facts right about 'working class' (or as you call it 'poor class') and 'middle class'. Middle Class is an income that is greater than £20,000, you said that your family earn a little over £10,000 which is 'working class' meaning you actually would be intitled to free university for two years. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coffee-spoons)
    you need to get your facts right about 'working class' (or as you call it 'poor class') and 'middle class'. Middle Class is an income that is greater than £20,000, you said that your family earn a little over £10,000 which is 'working class' meaning you actually would be intitled to free university for two years. :rolleyes:
    1 - Class is not defined by just income.
    2 - I disagree with £20,000 being "middle class"? You are still talking quite a bit less than the average wage.
    3 - From what has been said so far, it appears like the 1 / 2 free years will be for those who get free school meals. So pretty much the poorest of the working class.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    She might not have gone to university had she not recieved those things.

    You're focusing on the end, rather than the beginning.
    she would have, because all the money she got for help she saved/bought clothes etc with. she didn't even really seem to need it
    it also meant she didn't have to bother with a part time job!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wow only on TSR would I hear people complain about something like this.

    People where I live don't go to Uni because of the cost and because people from lower income families think that being born poor means you die poor.

    If these lower income people need a helping hand why can't they have one? Because you are jealous? Surely everyone should have an equal chance in life and should be evaluated on their own merit.

    My parents earned **** all when I was an undergrad and now they both found work I lost out on a grant, it wasn't fair at the time as I lost money (and Mum & Dad couldn't and wouldn't provide me any), but quite frankly the money pot isn't bottomless!

    The repayments aren't so bad and you can literally put it to the back of your mind. Earn well and you will pay it off fine, also doesn't the slate get wiped clean after so many years anyway?

    Relax!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Dont join that bandwagon, jesus.

    The fact is, the government cannot go case by case and look at everyones needs.

    IT HAS TO SET A LIMIT.

    People are ALWAYS going to be 'just above' that limit, no matter what it is.

    Add a thousand more to the limit, all the people that complained will be happy. But now we have people just above the new limit that will complain.
    I have no idea what band wagon you're talking about. I'm just stating my opinion.
    My point is for whoever said that the middle class are being screwed over. Its not just the middle class who would be affected as the criteria means that the people it helps will be very small there are many poor people who wont qualify. I may not have explained myself properly but it was late lol. I believe that this is just a crowd pleaser. Like I said my point is that it is not just singling out the middle class and just helping the poor as poor people exist just above the limit and they will be affected by the cuts too. Hardly an attack on the middle class.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aprilterri)
    I have no idea what band wagon you're talking about. I'm just stating my opinion.
    My point is for whoever said that the middle class are being screwed over. Its not just the middle class who would be affected as the criteria means that the people it helps will be very small there are many poor people who wont qualify. I may not have explained myself properly but it was late lol. I believe that this is just a crowd pleaser. Like I said my point is that it is not just singling out the middle class and just helping the poor as poor people exist just above the limit and they will be affected by the cuts too. Hardly an attack on the middle class like the OP believes it is.
    A crowd pleaser?

    The government saw an area they can cut to save money, and they did it.. it is noit to please or harm anyway, it is simple economics. Money has to come from somewhere.

    'Poor' people may not be affected, it is the POOREST of people who ill get the help.. as it should be.. i dont see how thats a problem.

    And again.. did you even read my post? you cannot go on moaning about limits, someone will be 'just' above the limit, people will always be above the limit no matter what it is.. there is no way to stop this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    A crowd pleaser?

    The government saw an area they can cut to save money, and they did it.. it is noit to please or harm anyway, it is simple economics. Money has to come from somewhere.

    'Poor' people may not be affected, it is the POOREST of people who ill get the help.. as it should be.. i dont see how thats a problem.

    And again.. did you even read my post? you cannot go on moaning about limits, about someone people will be above the limit, people will always be above the limit no matter what it is.. there is no way to stop this.
    OMG I'm not even gonna bother answer you. It is not hard to understand what I wrote and you clearly don't. Again my post was in response to the view that the middle class are being 'attacked' and crowd pleaser being the fact that they have added the free year for those on lower incomes. Crowd pleasing meaning I believe that whilst they were going to do something for poorer students an attempt to quieten the protesters. Really isn't hard to understand. If you wanna argue with someone do it with someone who wants to argue back and with a post you understand.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aprilterri)
    OMG I'm not even gonna bother answer you. It is not hard to understand what I wrote and you clearly don't. Again my post was in response to the view that the middle class are being 'attacked' and crowd pleaser being the fact that they have added the free year for those on lower incomes. Crowd pleasing meaning I believe that whilst they were going to do something for poorer students an attempt to quieten the protesters. Really isn't hard to understand. If you wanna argue with someone do it with someone who wants to argue back and with a post you understand.
    Ye but i dont believe you understand anything about politics or economics.

    A government simply cannot react to a protest and a few days later put out something such as this free year(s) at university , it is not feasible. They need time to really go over figures, to debate, to vote etc. How can anyone think they have just instinctively done this to please students?

    If you really think the government saw the protests on their TV and went 'oh, ok , lets give them free education for a year to shut them up' and then that very day went and signed it all off.. your stupid.

    This is just there way of helping the poorest of the poor, who will be most effected by the rises. No1 can doubt that. There is a reason only the poorest of students get it.

    The protests havent and wont change anything. The simple fact is the government HAS to make cuts, it is nort personal against students.. they do not care if students protest, they probably anticipated that, they arent going to change there mind as they arent exactly going to stop the rise, thus putting more strain on the rest of the economy just because some idiots chuck things through windows.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Right.

    Can somebody please tell me, why say somebody from a poorer background than I, should get two free years of study? I am leaving my parents, and living on my own just like them. Why should I be burdened with more debt than them? Say people leave school at 16 and get a job straight away - they don't negotiate your salary/pay based on what your parents earn do they, so why should studying at university be any different?

    Means testing is not fair. For example, my friends parents are divorced. His mum struggles to get by, but his father is very wealthy and has married into a wealthy family, yet he still gets FULL maintenance loan and FULL maintenance grant.

    I also fail to see the link between academic success and money, in the sense that why is someone getting their fees paid for them going to make them succeed any more at university than if you just made them get a loan, like everyone else?

    Sorry if you can't understand what I am trying to say, I struggle to put into words sometimes what it is I actually want to say.
 
 
 
  • 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.