|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Student fees - 'shameful, wrong and unfair'.
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
Better still ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) , as from next year, the income of resident step parents will be taken into account when assessing loans/fee contributions.
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
Whomever is contributing financially to the household should be included.
If that includes a natural mother and father and a step-parent or two, why not?
The choice to live common-law and/or remarry should consider the consequences to the children/students.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Do these sort of questions apply to mature students or others who live away from parents prior to going to university? And, do such students then have to pay the fees themselves or are their parents still expected to pay?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
adsarf
Apprentice
# 4288
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Irish & Proud:
I don't think anyone on this board has expressed the opinion that education is not a universal right. As an absolute education is a right. A free education is also a right (similar to free health care) which many of us would aspire to.
<snip>
The idea behind reducing the number of university places is not to deny a free education, but to make tertiary education there for the academically elite,
Still confused. You want to reduce the number of places available in HE whilst still aspiring to free education for all as of right? How can you do that?
Surely if its only available to a few it isn't a right? At least not in the sense of a Human Right. Or are you suggesting that Education is available as a right but someone other than the individual is entitled to determine what *kind* of education is appropriate?
Posts: 24 | From: Hampshire | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ann
Curious
# 94
|
Posted
If you have supported yourself for at least three years, your parents don't have to. If you are married, your husband/wife's income is taken into account.
--------------------
Ann
Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Irish & Proud
Shipmate
# 4825
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by adsarf:
Surely if its only available to a few it isn't a right? At least not in the sense of a Human Right. Or are you suggesting that Education is available as a right but someone other than the individual is entitled to determine what *kind* of education is appropriate?
Education is available to all as a right. Education has to stop at some point in your life though. I just advocate that we encourage more people to come out of the education process at an earlier stage, therefore reducing the tax burden of having to put so many through tertiary education.
Posts: 221 | From: Somewhere with not enough rain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
Ann - My sister had lived in her own flat for two years, working full-time, and supporting herself, and my parents were still assessed for her, and required to pay the full fees.
In UK, the fees and loans are assessed in March. A friend's father got made redundant in July this year, and their household income consequently reduced. Said friend made an application to the LEA (Local Education Authority, who do the assessment of income etc.), asking them to re-assess, based on the new levels of income. LEA said that they'd made the assessment, and it wouldn't now change til next year ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
All-in-all, I don't agree with the way it's assessed. They need to consider:- Who is actually contributing to the household.
- How many dependents are being supported, whether as children, or through university.
- What other outgoings there are.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767
|
Posted
I began university in 1997, having deferred my entry for a year, and was one of the last students to have a grant. When I first applied to university, these grants had already been frozen for the best part of 8 years. Thus, when I got to University, they were what had been deemed appropriate in the late eighties, a time when inflation was at its peak in this country. Thus, I received 1800 a year, plus about 1600 a year loan, making just about 3 1/2 grand. If I had had to pay fees as well, I would have been stumped, as even working during the holidays did little to improve the tightness of my budget.
And make no mistake, it would have been me paying those fees. My father may have been old fashioned, but as far as he was concerned, I was over 18, I was an adult, and I was therefore responsible for myself. I lived away from home permanently. The whole culture at university that your parents would pay, and that you would be returning home every holiday did not apply to me.
From the interviews with poorer young people that I have seen on the television, it appears that a substantial number are put off by the severe debt which is vast becoming an inevitable part of student experience. I was reasonably careful with my money for the most part of my degree (apart from an awful period when I suffered from severe depression, and blew 400 pounds on books and CDs. Not good). However, I still left university with around £12,000 worth of debt. Fortunately for me, most of that was to my Uncle. If it hadn't have been for him, I would have had to drop out of uni.
I will never earn huge amounts of money, unless I strike it rich creatively, as I have a Theology degree. I know of very few high earners with a comparable degree. Fortunately I will be able to pay back my loan in full next year, as I am due to inherit rather a large amount of money, but that is just a happy coincidence.
Furthermore, in reaction to the government's policy of getting 50% of the country into higher education, a great many departments are actively lowering their grade requirements. Many lecturers are already overstretched, and yet they have to teach ever more students because more students means more funding. Nett result, many lecturers are suffering from stress, and a great many students get an impoverished education.
I do not really know what can be done about it if the country truly cannot afford grants. I wonder whether some sort of sponsorship for those on vocational style courses would not be in order. And some charitable scholarships for other courses may also help. I tend to favour a graduate tax, too. Perhaps a dual system could be established, whereby EU students are eligible for loans, in the same way as now, and UK students have to wait until they are earning a certain amount before a graduate tax becomes applicable (say, 20K or so).
I suppose the thing that really grates, (and I recognise that this is a childish argument), is that many of these politicians calling for top up fees and the like have been through university themselves. They received grants, some of them would not have been able to afford to go to university without them. And these grants were certainly reasonable. When I was working out my finances before University, my Dad tried to calculate what his grant would have been worth in 1997 terms. Turns out that his book allowance alone was equivalent to about £500 per annum. I had to skimp on book buying, as most courses had at least one set book, usually at least £15 pounds. My book budget had to be at least £100 per annum. This is a lot of money when you're trying to pay bills as well, but it was hardly the sort of thing that I should have beens kimping on.
All in all, I think it's a crying shame that students are now having to put themselves in so much debt while in the pursuit of knowledge. And if Laura is right about the direction in which we're headed, I had better start saving for my own children now (I don't have any yet).
--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"
Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
frin
Drinking coffee for Jesus
# 9
|
Posted
Nightengale, is there a copy of the current, or even last year's, fees application forms on the web that you could link to? Given that a lot of people here will have gone through a different fees system, it might help us to engage with the current one more clearly.
I was one of the very last students to make it through the old maintenance grant system, to the point where the local government body responsible for administrating my grant had very little experience of doing so, and because my case was complicated would annually discover a new 'reason' not to hand over any money (which put me outside of any system for funding studies, whether loans or grants) until legal research, letters from my MP and faxes from the government could be produced to prove them wrong. That was a lot of effort every year.
Having now become a part-time student for medical reasons, the amount of support I might be entitled to is both meagre and means tested. It's something like £500 which is only for families earning up to £13,000 per annum. There is a strong assumption encoded in university and government policies that anyone who studies part time is doing so because they are choosing not to leave employment and that little financial support needs to exist for that group. That part-timers may have childcare, other caring responsibilities or disabilities which preclude them working while studying is not something taken into account by any funding mechanism (although universities sometimes waive fees for part-timers in receipt of certain state benefits).
Going back to the discussion about the number of university places - this is already capped by a number of things, including the physical capacity of a university and its teaching spaces, the number of available qualified teachers or lecturers, the number of students the university and the government agree should be admitted to courses/ the institution (or did this quota get abolished in the last few years). The 'problem' is that the government wants 50 percent of school leavers to go into degree level education, whilst simultaneously arguing that we should all pay more for the privilege as it will increase our earning capacity - but surely an increase of the pool of graduate workers will both work to decrease the salaries of that group and increase the number who end up taking jobs below the skill level at which they would like to work. The economic argument for paying high fees and top-up fees rarely addresses the impact of this.
'frin
--------------------
"Even the crocodile looks after her young" - Lamentations 4, remembering Erin.
Posts: 4496 | From: a library | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
As another who started uni in 1997, I didn't have to pay any fees. Sadly, I didn't get any extra grant because my parents earnt too much. My loans and overdraft at the end of 4 years added up to about £9000.
I managed to avoid the severe deby many others got into by living in a very cheap (£30 a week) house in a 'dodgy' area, and only drinking the beers that were on 2-for-1 offers or suchlike. Book costs were avoided by virtually taking up residence in the library (which also saved on heating/electric bills), so not having to buy any for myself.
I think asking students to pay at least part of their fees through low-interest loans is not excessive. A debt of £10,000 at 3% a year which doesn't have to be paid back at all until you are earning above the threshold (currently about £24,000?) is not bank-breaking.
What is needed is a tightening of standards and discarding of "joke" degrees. The government needs to learn that a University Degree is not the only valid qualification one can achieve. Apprenticeships, vocational courses and academic degrees should all stand side by side, thus giving each student the chance to do what they want.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
richt
Shipmate
# 4679
|
Posted
I was yet another who started uni in 1997. From what I remember, I had a full grant of £1800 p.a. and took out loans in each year, totalling £5000. When I graduated I also had a £1000 overdraft. Averaging this over the 3 years gives an "income" of £3800p.a.
Of this, £180 per month for 10 months went on rent (a relatively high figure for Nottingham), and I was lucky enough to be able to live at home rent free during vacations. This totalled £1800, leaving £2000 for the rest of the year (call it 40 weeks for the 30 weeks of term-time, plus holidays where I stayed in Nottingham). That's £50 per week.
In truth, I didn't stick to that, probably spending an additional £1000 a year, which came from vacation work and saving money from working whilst doing A-Levels. Due to not having to pay council tax and there being a whole host of other ways to save money as a student I could live quite well on that amount (£4800p.a.), going out reasonably often (if cheaply), buying CDs and going away for a bit in the summer. With all the additional expenses and taxes I have now, I feel a lot less affluent than I did then.
My brother-in-law has just started uni this year, and appears to be living within the amount he gets from his student loan. He was also telling me how a lot of people in he has met managed to spend £300 odd in Freshers week and have nothing to show for it. I assume that they are either going to end up with one of these huge figures of debt, or they're going to get Daddy to pay for it.
Posts: 121 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Well yes. We have a rather nifty little corner shop in which can be purchased 8 cans of cheap and evil lager for a £5. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Books are a bit trickier. You pretty much have to buy them because the average class size is between 30 and 40 students and there are often only 1 or 2 copies of the course book in the library. As has been said, universities are under funded and mine is esp. under funded.
I really fail to comprehend how anyone with any claim to intelligence can truly believe that an income of between £3,000 and £4, 000 of which rent pretty much always takes at least half leaves enough change for designer clothes, cars, foreign holidays, going out every night etc*. Do you people not have even the slightest acquaintance with mathematics? This despite the fact that I know many students who have to pay their own fees out of their own pocket. A fact that will not change if universities can charge what they like. Such moves will price people out of an education.
*admittedly some students do this. Some students have a large number of maxed-out credit cards as well. On the other hand, the operative word here is some
And oooo yes. Sometimes I do go to said corner shop. Sometimes I even celebrate friend’s birthdays. When I was a society chair (last year) I even sometimes met my committee over a coffee or something. What an evil, profligate individual I must be ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) How dare I want any social life whatsoever?
The fact is that almost every student I know is overdrawn. Many have used their overdrafts, as has Nunc, to pay for food, electricity etc. I am not saying that no student ever enjoys themselves once in a while. Of course we do. The point is that we can't read books 24/7 for several years. We would go mad. As Ferijen has pointed out, you get almost as much money on the dole despite the fact that the government claims to think that graduates and students contribute to society.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Irish & Proud
Shipmate
# 4825
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
As Ferijen has pointed out, you get almost as much money on the dole despite the fact that the government claims to think that graduates and students contribute to society.
Don't forget if you were on the dole you could claim housing benefit and so would not have to spend half of it on rent!
Posts: 221 | From: Somewhere with not enough rain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pinky
Apprentice
# 5119
|
Posted
hey, i am one of the students at Liverpool Hope with my opinion already posted. Just writing for two things - thankyou for helping us in the project - this is just an extra project along side our academic studies. But also as we are studying Pastoral Theology we are not only looking at the right and wrong of tuition fees but also the ethics that revolvoe around it. Money like it or not can cause family problems - whether its lack of it or too much of it. We want to get a good degree and get a good job but at what cost, being a huge financial burden, constantly worrying about money - surely this is not right?
The insensitivity of the form requesting knowledge of both parents even if you don't have knowledge of them yourself must be addressed.
--------------------
Pinky Spanner
Posts: 3 | From: Liverpool, England | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
If you DO have financial problems whilst at University, go and see your Student Services/Financial Support Office etc. The government provides money to help students who are broke and it has to be spent, and you lose nothing by putting in an application.
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hildegard
Apprentice
# 4598
|
Posted
Terrible sense of having encountered all this in a previous life... oh no, it's this one! This is a big topic of debate in Oz-land also, not so much in polls as in the columns of newspapers, in university staff-rooms and in student demonstrations - anti. Fees for teriary education were introduced a few years ago by a government run by JOHN HOWARD, THE ONLY WORLD LEADER APART FROM TONY BLAIR WHO WANTED TO HELP INVADE IRAQ, who had noticed that people who had been to ordinary schools were getting to university. I don't know of any polls like this that have been conducted in Australia, but as far as I can make out, the only people in the whole country who think it's a good idea are the aforementioned Prime Minister and the education minister. Every other single individual in the country, including every university academic, thinks it's a terrible idea.
And guess what! after the fees have been around for abit, they start to go up... and then the government starts spending less and less on education, and when the universities complain, the government says: "OK, we'll let you charge whatever you like for fees - and if Australian students can't pay, you can enrol higher-fee-paying students from overseas." That's where we're at now. Poorer students can't afford university, and courses like Old Norse or Fine Arts that can't attract fee-paying students, or sponsorship from the commercial sector, get closed down.
Sponsorship from industry and commerce, what an interesting idea that is. The Coca-Cola Chair in Hospitality. The McDonald's Research Grant for food technology. Don't laugh, it's almost here.
I've probably gone on long enough and I think you'll catch my drift... DON'T GO THERE!
Posts: 6 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I am working on two principles:
1) Students gain financially from higher education
and so does the country so the cost of higher education should be shared.
2) That it is unfair to ask anyone to pay for something they have not had the advantage of yet.
Therefore I would propose a government ring fenced tax on Graduates (i.e. it has to be paid to the Universities according to the number of students they are teaching FTEs)
Let there be a basic grant, to students for survival possibly set at job seekers allowance level and let us acknowledge that we owe something back from the extra finance education brings us.
To repay about £40,000 pounds would mean a graduate tax of about 4% per annum. These are conservative figures as it excludes over 54 and is two years out of date. This is about equivalent to 16% of the extra earnings your degree has brought you. It could of course be incremented as well and should be payable by all graduates whose degrees are recognised whether or not they are degrees from a UK university.
I would guess that the true cost of a degree is probably in the region of about £100,000 and possibly more when all expenses are taken into consideration.
Yes I am a graduate and I would get this tax as well.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hildegard:
Fees for teriary education were introduced a few years ago by a government run by JOHN HOWARD, THE ONLY WORLD LEADER APART FROM TONY BLAIR WHO WANTED TO HELP INVADE IRAQ, who had noticed that people who had been to ordinary schools were getting to university.
Unfortunately, nice as it would be to blame Mr Howard for everything, it was a Labor government that introduced tertiary fees. The seeds of destruction of our free tertiary education system (won by Gough, All praise to the Great One) were sequentially sown by the evil John Dawkins (late 80s) and Kim Beasley (early 90s) (Green Papers and White Papers I can't remember which) Labor Ministers of Employment, Education and Training.
Of course the Liberal Party was laughing all the way to the bank.
Maintain the rage!
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Puppycat
Ship's Toast and Vegemite
# 4941
|
Posted
I know that for myself after 6 years at university I had a Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)debt of more than $20,000 Australian. Not content with charging these fees to students for limited places the Federal Government is bumping up their fees and allowing students who don't academically qualify for one of the funded places to buy their way into a university place by paying up front fees. I'm still paying my student debt out of my taxes and can expect to be for a number of years to come yet. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
There is something particularly offensive about government representatives telling people that the government cannot afford to, and will not fund free university places for students and it is necessary for students and/or their parents to pay all these fees when they themselves went through university at a time when it was free.
The government benefits in two ways with this policty. They get the higher taxes I pay plus the money for my HECS debt. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I guess the only way of getting back is to return the favour. When they are all old and retired and we are in control cut their pensions and health care benefits! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
“The Angels stole my phone box.” Doctor Who ~ Blink
Pics of my trip to Israel and Paris
Posts: 1905 | From: Picnicking at Hanging Rock | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Puppycat:
Not content with charging these fees to students for limited places the Federal Government is bumping up their fees and allowing students who don't academically qualify for one of the funded places to buy their way into a university place by paying up front fees.
On the plus side, at least the government has stopped discriminating against the stupid rich.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Puppycat
Ship's Toast and Vegemite
# 4941
|
Posted
quote:
On the plus side, at least the government has stopped discriminating against the stupid rich.
Because clearly the stupid rich are sorely discriminated against. yes certainly. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[Edited for UBB.]
[ 21. November 2003, 05:15: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
“The Angels stole my phone box.” Doctor Who ~ Blink
Pics of my trip to Israel and Paris
Posts: 1905 | From: Picnicking at Hanging Rock | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
Well, yes, they were. Prior to Gough ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) , they were allowed to buy places at uni. Since then, they've had to compete for places like all the riffraff, which isn't fair given that their parents are rich.
I'm glad that has been redressed.
[ 21. November 2003, 04:19: Message edited by: David ]
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
As a beneficary of a fullish grant back in the early 80s, I'm grateful that I'm not faced with the life limiting options faced by students today. But the core problem is that the student loan system doesn't pay enough; if it was adequately comfortable to live on what the loans pay out, then its offer of repaying the debt on the basis of what you are earning and only increasing the debt by inflation is a good deal. Where the problem lies is in the way that students are taking out commercial debt - which is not so forgiving.
The level of such student loans should be set at something above job seeker allowance - including a significant figure for rent. On that basis, it should include a significant top-up fee as well, and should be available for ALL tertiary education students, regardless of family circumstances. However anything less is unjust....
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... The level of such student loans should be set at something above job seeker allowance - including a significant figure for rent. On that basis, it should include a significant top-up fee as well, and should be available for ALL tertiary education students, regardless of family circumstances. However anything less is unjust....
And the government's logic is that if you can live off £44 per week benefits given from one department (the Inland Revenue or the Department for Work and Pensions), a student (18-25) should be able to live off that too. In addition, they quite sneakily take the loan to last for term time only (i.e. 39 weeks in most instances). The maximum loan of £4000/39 weeks = £102 per week which, if I was working for the Department for Education and Skills (and I most certainly am not) would be sufficient to pay the living costs and (most of the) rent for the academic year (London, of course, gets a higher level of loan but the maths works out the same). Part time work should be able to pay for the 'extras' like, oh, the rent costs in most southern cities which are higher than £58 per week or even books (bizarrely thought to be quite essential for degree courses ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ).
'If' - and I quote from DfES bods I met earlier this week - 'you can provide a justifiable explanation why a student claiming hardship needs more to live off than someone on benefits (taking into account the additional costs of studying e.g. books and equipment) then we will pass it on to the minister.'
I leave the floor open for suggestions...
[ 21. November 2003, 08:35: Message edited by: Ferijen ]
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767
|
Posted
The thing that gets me is that, as a student, you are not permitted to apply for Housing Benefit, despite, in many cases, being on a comparable income to those normally eligible. Why they can't instigate, say, student housing benefit, payable for the 39 weeks of term, at the same rate normally applicable to others in their income bracket, I don't know. I was thinking about this the other night, and if, for example, they paid out 40 pounds a week for those on an eligible income, that would leave rent at more like 800 to a 1000 pounds a year for these students, which is much more manageable. In the case of students in halls, they could be informed by the university of the exact term dates, set up accounts with the university, and just pay the money directly to them. That way, student's living costs are directly reduced, and they end up paying for it when they themselves are earning.
And yes, student loans need to be increased, if that is the system they're insisting on sticking with. If they can manage to offer prospective teachers £6K/annum, then I don't see why they can't with prospective nurses, public sector workers etc who will be contributing just as much to society.
And I agree with whoever earlier said that it seems all the more galling considering that these very ministers have had the benefit of a free tertiary education. Perhaps part of their policy should include insisting that all such people pay a lump sum to their alma mater as a thank you to all concerned? If they can't afford say, a 20K lump sum, I'm sure they can take out an affordable loan to cover it.
--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"
Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benny Gee
Shipmate
# 5204
|
Posted
I'm a second year undergraduate, so I apologise if this turns into a rant about the current system. There seem to be two major issues here - ideological issues with student fees and practical issues with the current system. I'll start rambling about the latter:
Many people on here seem to believe that a years rent is about two thousand pounds. However, the current North/South divide in the housing UK market means there are huge variations in this and the loan system does not take this into account.
For example - I am a student in Oxford, officially the second most expensive place to study in Britain after London. London students get larger loans because of price issues, I do not. My monthly rent is £300 per month. Paying my rent for 12 months plus my tuition fees amounts to £4700 - more than my loan and money from parents combined. This is without utilities, food, clothes and about £100-worth of books per term.
Compare this to Sheffield, where I know someone paying £210 per month rent - that's £1080 pounds less per year. Although I can understand that it's hard for the government to set loans spacific to every variable, surely there must be some way to change this?
The system has also shown that it cannot take into account the huge inflation in house prices nationally. I know the house I'm now living in was £250 a month two years ago - a difference of £600 a year. Student support has not moved at the same speed, although I do not know the exact figures.
Fortunately, I managed to get a really good summer job and worked solidly for 3 months so I can afford a reasonable lifestyle. Even so, I am still dependent on my parents paying for my fees and 25% of the maximum loan (they miss the cut off point for more assistance by a couple of hundred pounds), despite the fact they are not legally required to. Because it is not a legal requirement, in 10% of cases they don't provide any assistance at all. Surely this proves that the system is not working???
As far as I can work out, some major changes need to be made. Firstly, I believe that students should not be dependent on parents, so loans should not be means tested AT ALL. The maximum loan needs to be significantly increased and hopefully set with respect to local conditions. By giving the student enough to survive without parental finance, this would remove the multiple child funding issue. The flipside of this is it does increase the amount of loan available, although if parents are still contributing students do not have to take out the full amount.
One thing that I do know is that the current situation cannot continue for too much longer. The majority of universities are struggling for cash - this does include Oxbridge. I know here that college rents are due to go up 60% in 3 years in some colleges to cover costs. As far as I can tell, HE is not included in "education, education, education" as quite frankly the situation is appalling. The idea of a 'marketplace' seems badly thought out - surely universities should be working together? Top-up fees WILL put off some top students from applying to appropriate universities, thus damaging the country's "knowledge-base" in the long run. As much as I think that the current Labour government has put up taxes too much in it's time in power, unless it can reallocate funds from somewhere else then raising taxes can be the only way to avoid reducing standards. Tax the rich as they're most likely to have been to uni and have kids who need smaller loans, but that's because I'm a leftie. And please please please can someone convince Blair to drop the 50% in HE figure? Choosing a nice, round, arbitary number as a target resulting in overstretched funding and pointless qualifications is not helpful.
Posts: 438 | From: Here and there | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightengale
Apprentice
# 5153
|
Posted
Hi, this is the course tutor again. I must say I am thrilled with the debate, stories and genuine attempts to come to grips with an almost impossible issue. You are all well on your way to receiving an 'A'! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Just kidding - that would be unethical of course. Thank you to everyone who has taken part so far. Perhaps we could debate a bit more on how the system could be more pastoral. There are some really appalling stories out there - could the situations have been different if handled in a different manner or is this simply an administrative issue that has no business trying to deal with individual cases? Over to you...
Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Is there provision in the UK system for assessing students as independent (ie. tested on their on income) by taking into consideration their family circumstances? Here, it was the case that once someone had married, lived defacto, worked full-time for 2 yrs, could not live at home due to violence, abuse or irreparable breakdown of relationship with parents who would not support them (not 100% sure on that one), they were considered 'independent' for the purposes of assessable income.
The education allowance I received (which differed from the usual Austudy/Teas) had a Living at Home rate; a higher Living away from Home rate; and a higher again independent rate. Unless they were classed as independent, students received the Living at Home rate, unless there was a case why they could not live at home (no space; detrimental home environment; unreasonable travel time). I suppose dividing students into these 3 categories has a pastoral element or at least takes into account differing life circumstances. This way there is some ironing out of the differential between students who live at home with everything laid on and for whom any allowance is surplus; compared to those who must live away from home by virtue of the higher rates.
What happens in the UK for the other 13 weeks of the year, btw? Do people go on the dole once the summer holidays start? Here education allowance is paid for the full 52 wks.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot (Icarus):
Do people go on the dole once the summer holidays start? Here education allowance is paid for the full 52 wks.
Nope, students here are inelligable for benefits ... so no dole, housing benefit, income support even outwith term time. Of course, it isn't consistant as I found when Liverpool Council charged me full rate council tax for the summer between my first degree and PhD (rather than the 20% rate for students) on the basis that I wasn't a student yet I couldn't claim any benefit because I was a student.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
there is no spoon
Apprentice
# 5206
|
Posted
I went to Uni in 1979, with a full grant, and just about managed - I lived in catered halls, came home occasionally, completed my degree. My husband did hid degree as a mature student, his second year was the year the Thatcher govt. froze student grants. Life was challenging. Our families were fairly typical working class poor. Our eldest has just started Uni. Our choices are: pay for her, or allow her to rack up a significant debt. We earn too much for her to qualify for assistance, but not so much that we have money spare. We've paid her tuition fees, and now 3/4 of my salary covers her living expenses. She's at a Uni in London, in halls, and needs to eat.
She's responsible, has saved from her part-time job to help meet the costs of her degree, and is now trying to get a job, as well as study.
In less than 2 years, our son will start uni., we will be paying 2 sets of tuition fees, as well as hall and other living expenses.
Yes, its our choice to fund them, as we believe God wants them to be debt-free, it is very frustrating that the political party we support is making Thatcherite decisions without seeming to think of the long-term consequences.
Education should be a right, not only available to those who can pay. I think 50% in higher education is daft - we need plumbers and electricians, not David Beckham experts, and the consequence of noddy degrees is that someone has to pay the costs. We need more vocational training, and for it to be seen to have equal value as higher ed.
The raising of tuition fees in 2006 will see the return to higher ed. elitism, with only the rich being able to afford it.
Posts: 1 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
Well, yes, they were. Prior to Gough , they were allowed to buy places at uni. Since then, they've had to compete for places like all the riffraff, which isn't fair given that their parents are rich.
I'm glad that has been redressed.
*snort*
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave the Bass
Shipmate
# 155
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by there is no spoon:
We need more vocational training, and for it to be seen to have equal value as higher ed.
Quite a lot of university education these days is vocational - degrees in accountancy, management, business studies, marketing, etc, are not taken to satisfy a students thirst for knowledge, but to get them a job afterwards. It's the way all education is going nowadays. What is imoportant is not knowledge and understanding, but skills and training. The only reason you can't do degrees in plumbing or carpentry is that these are not seen as suitable careers for the middle-classes who dominate universities.
Posts: 2162 | From: In a forest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
I think some kind of graduate tax is fair, with full bursaries for the best but poorer students and for those students of those subjects where the relevant skills and qualifications are in real demand in society.
I would hate for my taxes to be spent on some of the daft courses that seem to be run at some universities...
Could someone for example explain the social utility in bunch of young people doing theology at university ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ?
Hurrah for Engineering or medicine - lets give full student grants and free education to do such useful subjects but if a student wants simply to indulge some mere personal fad that will not assist the student to get a better job at the end then this should be at their expense and not be state subsidised.
The problem in the UK is that we seem to fund all and every student on a per capita basis and largely indiscriminately without consideration of the course that they are taking. The huge and unnecessary cost of paying for everyone to go to university who wants to go and can go, without considering whether it will do them or society any benefit, means what provision there is, is spread too thinly.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
People keep mentioning 'noddy' degrees, and disparagingly say of them, that they should be scrapped.
All well and good, but who decides what is a 'noddy' degree, and what is a good degree?
Is Theology a noddy degree?
Is Psychology a noddy degree?
Is Film Studies a noddy degree?
How about Drama, Art, any kind of Literature, Forensic Science?
There are not enough doctors - perhaps we should give bigger grants to people who choose to go to medicial school? That would make it more attractive.
University isn't solely, or even predominantly, about getting a degree which will get you a job. It's about learning, and a life-long love of it. It's about learning to be an adult, and independent, and look after yourself. It's about figuring out who you are, what your interests are, what you support, what you're against etc. It's about skills rather than simply knowledge.
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Oh Sark you hopeless romantic! ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Nightengale:
There are some really appalling stories out there - could the situations have been different if handled in a different manner or is this simply an administrative issue that has no business trying to deal with individual cases?
I'd say dealing with individual cases is unworkable and also becomes subjective. IMO, the only fair way to administer a more compassionate system is to have an agreed upon set of criteria for why a student should be exempt from being assessed by parental income. That together with different rates of allowance according to Living at Home; Away from Home and Independent; would make the system more equitable.
I suppose you could consider it pastoral care in aggregate...
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hildegard
Apprentice
# 4598
|
Posted
Hiyer... Following debate with interest, but either I'm missing something obvious or I'm seriously out of whack... OK, that's a possibility...but I'm glad you picked up my "deliberate mistake" about the Liberal Government introducing fees... Seriously, what I don't seem to see too many people saying is: Free education is, if not exactly a right, a highly desirable GOOD THING which a just and caring society should strive to achieve. That's wot I fink anyway - and practically everyone else I know in the education sector, whether secondary or tertiary. Here in OZ the gov't put forth the ludicrous proposition that it was only right that students pay for their education, as they were the ones who benefitted from it via higher incomes etc. Bizarrely enough a lot of people seemed to have swallowed this enormous lie. A couple of points: (1.) I must remember when I am at the dentist, doctor, vet etc that I am receiving no benefit from their education; (2) One of the first things that third world countries try to do is to get their people educated, since an educated population will be better able to work, to look after their health, to take a responsible part in civic life and politics etc; (3) If graduates benefit from their higher education by having higher incomes, why are fees applied to individuals who aren't earning any income, or a low one? (4) And why don't they charge those sneaks who didn't even go to university and are earning a high income - yer rock stars, estate agents and such like? and (5) again on the "higher income" scam, isn't this "benefit" redeemed to the community by the higher taxes these individuals will be paying all their lives? So isn't charging them for their degree as well a sort of double-dipping?
No folks, I think that education is a good to the community, and the inevitable result of making it more expensive is that only the rich will be able to afford it, and that there will be a shortage of professionals in some areas.
From a viewpoint of my own theology, I can't support any scheme which favours some people over others because they have money.
I'd like to hear some theological reflections on the subject!
Posts: 6 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hannahs-d
Apprentice
# 4672
|
Posted
If you earn more then you pay more tax - so yes, if you have to pay an additional tax ontop because you are a graduate then you get a double whammy.
Student loans and tuition fees suck.
At 16 I can get married, get a full time job and get pregnant should i schoose to do so, at 18 i can vote, and get married without my parents permission,
but at 19 I still have to go cap in hand to my parents.
I'm an independent adult for all purposes except when the governemnt decides to charge my parents extortionate amounts for my decisions.
University was never designed for everyone, i believe it was to top 10% of students it was originally aimed at. And obviously the more people in higher education, the less valuable my degree is.
but i cannot do the job i love without having first managed to get a degree.
so i have a choice, do a job i hate and where I'm not fufilling my potential, or go through a degree get huge debt, and get a job I love, but is not this huge salary everyone seems to expect a degree to lead to.
I choose to do a 4 year degree in chemistry.
I g raduated this year, i had to pay tuition fees of over 2.5k despite havign a year in industry (yes you do have to pay fees whilst doing a year in industry) and not having to pay fees in my final year as I got married (and my husband was as poor as me).
I came out with debts of over 11K even with having had to work every holiday and getting a paid year in industry.
I didn't live lavishly. We had times when we couldn't afford to turn the heating on, and when i had to cash in my penny jar, just to buy beans so i could eat.
loans barely cover accomodation (which incidentaly is not unsually infested with mice and or cockroaches - lovely)
in addition to all that, I'm married to another graduate - we are starting off our married life with huge debts due to fees and loans - we don't have the privilige of being able to consider saving a deposit for a house or starting a family.
YES, student fees are obviously shamefull, wrong and unfair,
they leave the less well off in huge financial difficulties whilst assuming it will be ok because all graduate jobs pay well.
have you tried getting one??? and they frequently don't pay well.
Posts: 2 | From: manchester | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
University was never designed for everyone, i believe it was to top 10% of students it was originally aimed at. And obviously the more people in higher education, the less valuable my degree is.
Dream on. It was originally designed for lots less than 1%. Even when I went in the early nineteen eighties it was estimated at only 5%. No sorry, I think that was the percentage who did A'Level.
Margaret Thatcher increased access to University, encouraged people to stay on to A'Level so they did not boost the unemployement figures and eventually gave the Polytechnics and Colleges University status. The Labour government has only carried on the trend.
We can not put the Genie back in the bottle, the options for those who were bright but not up to the old elitest A'Level/University standards have gone and the Universities taken over the role. There are no longer the true work place aprenticeships which took the majority of these up.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
There are several reasons why university tuitions in the US are much higher than that in the UK (and the rest of the world for that matter). In the 1970s, the difference was not as great (in the $1000 range or so?) but even adjusting for inflation, college tuitions in the US suddenly started following an 8% rate of growth in the late 1970s through today.
Here are some factors that I think had this effect.
1. In the years of high unemployment in the 1970s, the most highly educated were out of work and competed and got jobs that usually went to people with less education. So jobs that previously required very little education (front desk receptionist) began to require university degrees. Therefore university degrees grew in demand. They were seen less as a way to find oneself and more as a way to get a decent job.
2. US government initiatives to make college affordable to all included scholarship and grant money. This allowed non-state run universities to charge higher tuitions.
3. Universities realized that if they raise tuition and increase scholarships, they can get more money. For instance, if you take a $10000/year tuition (the tuition when I went to college in the 1980s) and make it $12000, and give the students who cannot afford this an additional $2000 in scholarships, you still get the students you want, but the people who have more money will give you $2000 more per year. Furthermore, you're communicating to the poorer students that they're getting $2000 more in education, for free.
4. This increase in revenue allows top universities to get into bidding wars over the most renowned faculty. In turn, as expectations of salaries rise, faculty salaries generally rise everywhere. I hear stories characterizing faculty salaries in the 1950s as basically, "It's a good job and the pay is enough to make ends meet if you're careful." Now, it's more like "should we have caviar for our next party? After all, it's just money." I'm exaggerating, but only slightly. Being an assistant professor on tenure-track and before tenure, I make more than twice the median income for a single male my age.
Here's some tuition data at Stanford University (which is not that different from many other private universities):
1920-21: $120
1930-31: $300
1940-41: $345
1950-51: $660
1960-61: $1,005
1970-71: $2,400
1980-81: $6,285
1990-91: $14,280
2001-2002: $25,917
I'm not sure what the conversion rate to pounds was at various times, but assuming the current rate of $1 = .5874 pounds:
1920-21: 70 pounds
1930-31: 176 pounds
1940-41: 203 pounds
1950-51: 388 pounds
1960-61: 590 pounds
1970-71: 1410 pounds
1980-81: 3692 pounds
1990-91: 8388 pounds
2001-2002: 15224 pounds
Kevin
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neep
Ship's Meerkat
# 5213
|
Posted
Hmmm. I'm a student, and I think the current system just about works. Admittedly, there are too many people being put into university for no better reason than Mr. Blair says so, but the loan system works well enough.
The only thing I think should definitely be changed (not considering myself knowledgeable enough about the many other contentious issues), why should students or their parents pay tuition fees? Haven't centuries of work on the education system been done to offer education equally to all who are capable?
Without that, I think the current loan is enough to survive comfortably on.
--------------------
"Your standing days are done," I cried, "You'll rally me no more!
I don't even know which side we fought on, or what for."
Posts: 293 | From: A burrow, in England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
musician
Ship's grin without a cat
# 4873
|
Posted
I don't think students should pay fees. I don't think apprentices should either, nor nurses when they're training.
It's such a complex area, but if we as a society don't fund the future, what chance is there?
We'll go back to having universities with only rich students, irrespecytive of ability.
Do you want operated on by "Bertie Wooster" and his chums?? Have them running businesses? Operating nuclear plants??
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ship's Meerkat:
Hmmm. I'm a student, and I think the current system just about works. Admittedly, there are too many people being put into university for no better reason than Mr. Blair says so, but the loan system works well enough.
The only thing I think should definitely be changed (not considering myself knowledgeable enough about the many other contentious issues), why should students or their parents pay tuition fees? Haven't centuries of work on the education system been done to offer education equally to all who are capable?
Without that, I think the current loan is enough to survive comfortably on.
The question is where are you at uni - and what is the cost of your accomodation. That is the thing that makes the difference; where accomodation is still cheap, the present level of loan is probably sufficent. But in the more expensive areas 'down South', but increasingly elsewhere, the implicit rent figure is a bad joke. Can you please tell us what you are paying for your rent per week and whether you have to pay that for 52 weeks a year - and can other students do likewise.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
So, if students shouldn't pay, and parents shouldn't pay, who should pay? The lecturers, porters, cleaners, IT guys, librarians, cooks, etc. all need to be paid.
And if the government pays, then where do they get the money from? Which programme should they cut? Or should they increase taxes?
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Irish & Proud
Shipmate
# 4825
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nightengale:
Perhaps we could debate a bit more on how the system could be more pastoral. There are some really appalling stories out there - could the situations have been different if handled in a different manner or is this simply an administrative issue that has no business trying to deal with individual cases? Over to you...
Nightengale we will try to debate your question but as it is such an emotive issue, the likelihood is that we will keep deviating back into the rights and wrongs of fees, grants etc.
For what it's worth I would say the only way to make it more pastoral is to encourage the local authorities who are processing claims to be a bit sensitive. There are many broken families out there and a lot of hurt people. Even reading one of the forms can put someone off applying as they think 'there is no way I am answering that question!'
I have a vague recollection of when I filled my grant application form in, in 1991 when I was going to Uni, that I had to go in and discuss the application form with someone at the Belfast Education & Library board (the LEA in modern speak). Perhaps for sensitive cases these interviews could be done in private with the prospective students, if only to encourage them that all of these past hurts were not going to be brought into a public arena.
I do also feel that if government is going to saddle our youth with huge amounts of debt, which will hang over them for years to come, that they should be given counselling and advice on managing the debt and how to pay it off. Again this is making the system more pastoral.
I am a graduate. I get paid well. However, my salary barely covers the cost of supporting my family.
It is me & my wife's decision for her to be at home for our kids whilst they are young. This is due to wanting them to be brought up in their parents care and not having to spend large amounts of time in day care.
If we also had a large amount of graduate debt hanging over us, we would not be able to afford this investment in our children's future.
(Told you I couldn't resist it! )
Posts: 221 | From: Somewhere with not enough rain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Irish & Proud:
I do also feel that if government is going to saddle our youth with huge amounts of debt, which will hang over them for years to come, that they should be given counselling and advice on managing the debt and how to pay it off. Again this is making the system more pastoral.
I don't agree that coming out of University with thousands of pounds of debt is great (but I'm not about to come up with the answers either), and part of my job is to deal with the mess that is created by LEA Assessments (some Hampshire students are 9 weeks and waiting for their assessment to come through !) - but just for clarity's sake - modern student debts are horrific, but they are not the same as mortgages, bank loans, credit cards etc. etc. I get my monthly pay slip of £x. Then my tax, national insurance, pension and student loans are taken off and I take home £x-lots of money (and my student loan is only, currently, 4% of the 'lots of money bit' of that equation). In terms of the actual method of repayment of student debts, its the same as a tax, and given my estimated earnings, size of loan etc, its a tax I'm going to be paying for at least 10 years. Debt counselling/advice would imply that an individual is seeking information about budgeting, money-saving etc. in order to manage their repayments from their available income. Student loans never make it that far as they're never part of the available income in the first place. In terms of priorities, it is much more important to pay off that overdraft/credit card bill, or to keep your mortgage at a rate you can afford, than to pay your student loan off.
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
Apologies for double posting - sorry, the last post should have said that my student loan repayment is only 4% of my gross pay, which isn't so much compared with the 28% of tax, NI and pension which I pay.
It would be more reasonable to campaign that the level of loans went out so that students could avoid loans attracting high rates of interest (credit cards and some overdrafts are included in this). Unfortunately, the government just says that there is 'no more money'.
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neep
Ship's Meerkat
# 5213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Ship's Meerkat:
Hmmm. I'm a student, and I think the current system just about works. Admittedly, there are too many people being put into university for no better reason than Mr. Blair says so, but the loan system works well enough.
The only thing I think should definitely be changed (not considering myself knowledgeable enough about the many other contentious issues), why should students or their parents pay tuition fees? Haven't centuries of work on the education system been done to offer education equally to all who are capable?
Without that, I think the current loan is enough to survive comfortably on.
The question is where are you at uni - and what is the cost of your accomodation. That is the thing that makes the difference; where accomodation is still cheap, the present level of loan is probably sufficent. But in the more expensive areas 'down South', but increasingly elsewhere, the implicit rent figure is a bad joke. Can you please tell us what you are paying for your rent per week and whether you have to pay that for 52 weeks a year - and can other students do likewise.
Well, I'm at Cambridge- not generally the cheapest place in the world to live, and I could say a few vindictive little things about Sainsbury's cornering the market... but my weekly rent works out at a shade over £75 per week, other expenses aside.
The start of term would have been a bit tough, because my loan only appeared a fortnight ago, but I'd done a year in industry and saved a reasonable amount of money. With this, I am confident that I'll be able to get through the four-year course without scavenging or resorting to eating my boots.
--------------------
"Your standing days are done," I cried, "You'll rally me no more!
I don't even know which side we fought on, or what for."
Posts: 293 | From: A burrow, in England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
vivvyenna
Apprentice
# 5243
|
Posted
I've been reading this for so long I have forgotten half the points I was going to make.
1)they do consider other siblings at uni.
2)The poorer your background the more loan you get, but that keeps you poorer longer.
3)The thing that annoyed me and friends most was the fact that they advertise the student loan as interest free, but its not. Mine increases by about £300 a year. Although you dont have to start paying it back til you earn over a certain income, the longer you leave it the more you'll have to pay. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
4)There are various grants, sponsorships etc available. I got one this year just by writing a letter. If you are worried about being poorer than necessary because of uni look for one of these.
5)I agree that many students spend money badly, but its hard to work out who is genuinely needing money and who just wasted what they had. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
6)I think until now they have asked about both parents but not step-parents, but this is going to change. For me this is good because my step-ma earns nothing so they'll give me even more debt (good and bad, more money for now, more money to pay back another day!) ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
7)Doesnt it say somewhere in the Bible that debt is bad? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
8)As much as I hate debt it does seem to work in most cases. Loans give most people who need it some money, and the government doesnt have to cover it all. I'm not sure where I stand on top up fees at present. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
That'll do for now. Happy discussing.
Posts: 1 | From: cardiff | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
