Turn on thread page Beta

Would you cut course fees for disadvantaged kids? watch

  • View Poll Results: Would you cut course fees for disadvantaged kids?
    Yes
    77
    46.67%
    No
    88
    53.33%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    ...findings in research conducted by our very own Student Room team has found that disadvantaged students are nearly TWICE as likely to be worried by course fees.

    Yet, the government claim they're getting more and more disadvantaged students into university education.

    Would you go as far as cutting course fees for the disadvantaged as an incentive to go to university?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I am from a disadvantaged background, from a poor area (it's an ex-mining village) and first to go to university in my family.

    I don't care about the tuition fees, they are the same everywhere almost. I won't pay it all back.

    What is annoying is the living costs. My parents earn just over the £25,000 threshold. The cost of living is rising, wages have stalled, yet the thresholds haven't risen. I will be getting no bursary from the university because my parents earn over the £25,000 threshold, that is £4,000 lost. I can't get the bursary that is specific to my course because my parents earn over £25,000, yet another £3,000 lost. If I was in the below £25,000 bracket I would be over the moon at going to university, but again it is the people in the middle that get beaten for it.

    It's not the poor that need help, it's those in the middle that have relatively little help with maintenance costs. They don't take into account siblings and other expenditure.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KBradders)
    I am from a disadvantaged background, from a poor area (it's an ex-mining village) and first to go to university in my family.

    I don't care about the tuition fees, they are the same everywhere almost. I won't pay it all back.

    What is annoying is the living costs. My parents earn just over the £25,000 threshold. The cost of living is rising, wages have stalled, yet the thresholds haven't risen. I will be getting no bursary from the university because my parents earn over the £25,000 threshold, that is £4,000 lost. I can't get the bursary that is specific to my course because my parents earn over £25,000, yet another £3,000 lost. If I was in the below £25,000 bracket I would be over the moon at going to university, but again it is the people in the middle that get beaten for it.

    It's not the poor that need help, it's those in the middle that have relatively little help with maintenance costs. They don't take into account siblings and other expenditure.
    I can agree with this. My friend went to London a few years ago to uni. Her parents earn over the threshold, and they wouldn't help out with a lot of the funding that she needed (costs of living and such), so she had to fund it all herself. She even came to me for help at one point.

    I think people also need to think about if parents won't help their kids with financial aspects of universities.

    I'm below the bracket, and I get the maximum amount of money.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I do think it is a bit unfair. I'm below the bracket so pretty much get the maximum in everything. My mum is a single mum but I'm the only child left at home so I will be getting quite a bit of help from her. I'll still need the bursaries and loans but I know there are probably people out there that are above the bracket but will get less financial help from their parents because of extra siblings and other stuff. I definitely think they should take into account siblings.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    All these replies are about living costs and maintenance loans/grants. But course fees aren't paid back until AFTER the uni course, not by the family but rather the individual so how do current circumstances affect your ability to pay back course fees AFTER your course when you are earning over £21,000?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PacoElDelMolino)
    All these replies are about living costs and maintenance loans/grants. But course fees aren't paid back until AFTER the uni course, not by the family but rather the individual so how do current circumstances affect your ability to pay back course fees AFTER your course when you are earning over £21,000?
    Well no they shouldn't lower the fees for the poor, because everyone would be in the same boat at the end of the day.
    If you earn over £21,000 then you're capable of paying back, just like everyone else.

    But I replied about both tuition fees and maintenance. This is because universities offer either fee waiver or money to help with living costs. It is much wiser to take the option to help with the cost of living. I could apply for £9,000 fee waiver or £1,500 money to help with living costs, this is based on academic qualifications and not based on income. £9,000 I'm not forced to pay back, £1,500 now is incredibly helpful especially if you're struggling.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that help with living costs is much more important than help with tuition fees.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Exists in the way of bursaries etc.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Numberwang)
    ...findings in research conducted by our very own Student Room team has found that disadvantaged students are nearly TWICE as likely to be worried by course fees.

    Yet, the government claim they're getting more and more disadvantaged students into university education.

    Would you go as far as cutting course fees for the disadvantaged as an incentive to go to university?
    The key question is does it change behaviour rather than does it make people worried?


    Ultimately the only justification for saying that high earning graduates from poor backgrounds should pay less than high earning graduates from wealthy backgrounds is if the fees would have deterred them from studying at all.


    What evidence there is seems to suggest that the fees levels do not actually deter students from going.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yes - and I would also cut fees for non-disadvantaged kids...

    University is too expensive, but my personal opinion is that everyone should be treated EQUALLY. The vast majority of students are over 18. Our parents can no longer receive government childcare support or whatever it was called - therefore the government thinks that we should no longer be financially reliant on our parents. Except that they base financial support at university on parental income - and without taking into consideration how willing or able parents are to contribute. This simply isn't fair. All students should be offered the SAME maintenance loan and pay the SAME fees (including students in Scotland/ Wales etc.) - but be required to pay it all back, i.e. no grants/ other free money. And no wiping off the debt after 30 years - it's going to cost the government a fortune...

    Tbh, tuition fees don't really affect most English student's decision to go to university - everyone with half a brain has heard that you don't have to pay it back until you are earning enough and the debt gets written off after a few years anyway. The key issue is maintenance loans/ grants since they simply aren't enough for many students to live off with the current system - particularly if you fall into that middle earning band (~25k - 42k?) since many universities simplify their bursary systems with particular cut-offs which won't support these students, yet their parents often don't have enough disposable income to help them either.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The poor are relatively well supported at university, in terms of living costs. From bursaries and a maintenance grant, someone living in a family with an income less than 25k can get 10000 pounds or more. But someone in the middle class (whose family might not support them for various reasons) will get half that. Everyone should get generous grants.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    tbh some people just have bad parents that won't help their kids at all even if they are rich lol. So when they type in their household income they don't get anything and then they don't get anything from their parents either which sucks for them.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    No, can anybody really justify it? The whole point of getting a degree is to be able to get a better job that will pay them more. Does this mean that because my parents went to university and got a good job that pays well I should have to pay more than the next kid who's parents are thick as bricks, working for minimum wage (or not at all) leeching of the system so their poor little kid can go on and get a good job? Should that child then go and pay off their loan in to time because they then have a large grant too? It just leads to those from wealthy backgrounds paying back up to twice what they borrowed and still having money written off their loan while those from poor backgrounds pay not a lot more than they borrowed and pay off their loan completely well before it's written off?

    I have yet to see anybody justify why they should get a GRANT rather than a larger loan from the government, let alone lower fees.

    And they shouldn't need an incentive to go to university, the incentive should be that they will come out with potentially a high paying job.

    p.s. I'm not saying all people from poor backgrounds have lazy and/or stupid parents, rather, for the sake of the argument considering these children.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KBradders)
    I am from a disadvantaged background, from a poor area (it's an ex-mining village) and first to go to university in my family.

    I don't care about the tuition fees, they are the same everywhere almost. I won't pay it all back.

    What is annoying is the living costs. My parents earn just over the £25,000 threshold. The cost of living is rising, wages have stalled, yet the thresholds haven't risen. I will be getting no bursary from the university because my parents earn over the £25,000 threshold, that is £4,000 lost. I can't get the bursary that is specific to my course because my parents earn over £25,000, yet another £3,000 lost. If I was in the below £25,000 bracket I would be over the moon at going to university, but again it is the people in the middle that get beaten for it.

    It's not the poor that need help, it's those in the middle that have relatively little help with maintenance costs. They don't take into account siblings and other expenditure.
    http://www.thebrilliantclub.org/wp-c...Entilement.png

    You should still be getting quite a lot of the grant and loan with an income of just over £25,000 only £454 less or your University is breaking the law.

    Parents should pay the difference between maximum grant and the grant you will receive because it is their higher wages that is stopping you getting the money.

    On to the thread topic of course tuition fees shouldn't be lower because they don't pose a problem to poor students because they are paid back once they receive £21,000 or over and that counteracted the increase to £9000 a year, meaning the Government won't actually get that much more back under the new system "But now repayment levels are projected to drop so low that the government is close to getting back less money than it would have by keeping the old system.".
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonkeeper999)
    Yes - and I would also cut fees for non-disadvantaged kids...

    University is too expensive, but my personal opinion is that everyone should be treated EQUALLY. The vast majority of students are over 18. Our parents can no longer receive government childcare support or whatever it was called - therefore the government thinks that we should no longer be financially reliant on our parents. Except that they base financial support at university on parental income - and without taking into consideration how willing or able parents are to contribute. This simply isn't fair. All students should be offered the SAME maintenance loan and pay the SAME fees (including students in Scotland/ Wales etc.) - but be required to pay it all back, i.e. no grants/ other free money. And no wiping off the debt after 30 years - it's going to cost the government a fortune...

    Tbh, tuition fees don't really affect most English student's decision to go to university - everyone with half a brain has heard that you don't have to pay it back until you are earning enough and the debt gets written off after a few years anyway. The key issue is maintenance loans/ grants since they simply aren't enough for many students to live off with the current system - particularly if you fall into that middle earning band (~25k - 42k?) since many universities simplify their bursary systems with particular cut-offs which won't support these students, yet their parents often don't have enough disposable income to help them either.
    My understanding is that the new grant system is there to replace the Child Tax Credit/Benefit system that's how I take it so that poor students are still supported, when they can't get a job/don't have time to get a job.

    Some nasty parents don't pay for their children at university,despite having the money to do so and them saving money by their children not being at their home anymore.There shouldn't really be much income change for rich families because they won't receive Child Tax Credit/Benefit so I can't see their justification for not paying for their children at university because if they paid for them whilst under 18 then they can do after 18.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    http://www.thebrilliantclub.org/wp-c...Entilement.png

    You should still be getting quite a lot of the grant and loan with an income of just over £25,000 only £454 less or your University is breaking the law.

    Parents should pay the difference between maximum grant and the grant you will receive because it is their higher wages that is stopping you getting the money.

    On to the thread topic of course tuition fees shouldn't be lower because they don't pose a problem to poor students because they are paid back once they receive £21,000 or over and that counteracted the increase to £9000 a year, meaning the Government won't actually get that much more back under the new system "But now repayment levels are projected to drop so low that the government is close to getting back less money than it would have by keeping the old system.".
    So, if poor students shouldn't get lower fees because they pay it back when they are older, why should they get a grant and not a loan? Why shouldn't everybody just get a loan they they can live on and the pay back rate increased slightly to, say, 11% to compensate?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So, if poor students shouldn't get lower fees because they pay it back when they are older, why should they get a grant and not a loan? Why shouldn't everybody just get a loan they they can live on and the pay back rate increased slightly to, say, 11% to compensate?
    Poor students would have to take out a larger loan because their parents couldn't support them and this would mean they would have more to pay back even more than richer students so obviously that won't be fair.

    I have noticed that middle class students can take out great loans than poor families but they shouldn't need to, if their parents give them the grant they are entitled to.

    I think there needs to be some sort of system implemented that forces greedy parents to pay for their children, I think parents can be brought to court for not paying for their children under 18 maybe this should be extended.If there are real reasons for parents not to pay that are unusual then these students can apply for the hardship fund.

    There is also the argument that any advantage poor students have at university is to balance out the inequalities they have had in their life compared to richer students because noone chooses their parents income.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    Poor students would have to take out a larger loan because their parents couldn't support them and this would mean they would have more to pay back even more than richer students so obviously that won't be fair.

    I have noticed that middle class students can take out great loans than poor families but they shouldn't need to, if their parents give them the grant they are entitled to.

    I think there needs to be some sort of system implemented that forces greedy parents to pay for their children, I think parents can be brought to be caught for not paying for their children under 18 maybe this should be extended.If there are real reasons for parents not to pay that are unusual then these students can apply for the hardship fund.

    There is also the argument that any advantage poor students have at university is to balance out the inequalities they have had in their life compared to richer students because noone chooses their parents income.
    Why should parents have to pay for their children's university education? If their children want to get a good job they pretty much need to go to university, the penalty for which is that they have to pay back the loan if they take it out. And since nobody chooses their parents income why should those from wealthy families be penalised?
    Running a few figures through a spreadsheet, if the loan outside London was bumped up to £7000 that is enough to reasonably cover living expenses and accommodation, and shortfall can be covered by parents, savings (or the institution for those on an incredibly low income). Increasing the pay back rate to 12% counter acts this extra lending if the student actually makes use of that degree and gets a proper job, if they don't the money was lost either way. In fact, the 12% is better because of the larger loan, the profit on the part of the government is 1 or 2% higher over all as a consequence.

    You will also find that it's spelt "court" and not "caught". And once you are 18 you are LEGALLY DEFINED AS AN ADULT. AS SUCH YOUR PARENTS HAVE NO legal responsibility for you. If parents have a responsibility for their children when they turn 18, then surely they are still responsible for their children even if they're centenarians.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why should parents have to pay for their children's university education? If their children want to get a good job they pretty much need to go to university, the penalty for which is that they have to pay back the loan if they take it out. And since nobody chooses their parents income why should those from wealthy families be penalised?
    Running a few figures through a spreadsheet, if the loan outside London was bumped up to £7000 that is enough to reasonably cover living expenses and accommodation, and shortfall can be covered by parents, savings (or the institution for those on an incredibly low income). Increasing the pay back rate to 12% counter acts this extra lending if the student actually makes use of that degree and gets a proper job, if they don't the money was lost either way. In fact, the 12% is better because of the larger loan, the profit on the part of the government is 1 or 2% higher over all as a consequence.

    You will also find that it's spelt "court" and not "caught". And once you are 18 you are LEGALLY DEFINED AS AN ADULT. AS SUCH YOUR PARENTS HAVE NO legal responsibility for you. If parents have a responsibility for their children when they turn 18, then surely they are still responsible for their children even if they're centenarians.
    Because we live in the real world. Because the overwhelming majority of parents do support their children's education. Because the system of parental contributions has existed for more than 50 years. Because the alternative would be a hefty taxpayer subsidy to wealthy families.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think they should reduce fees to make them more affordable for students, consequently making further education seem more accessible but I don't believe they should be abolished altogether. I believe taking responsibility for funding education is part of the experience of becoming an adult.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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

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.