Cyclone Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Because those from a richer background are likely to get support from their parents which isn't available to those from a poorer background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFrank Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I am delighted to hear that francy, not just because it's your grandson but because one of the biggest fundamental flaws in the British system is the simple fact that brighter kids are not stimulated enough, this sort of master class could really help accelerate progression for these pupils. Maybe we should bring back grammar schools... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Because those from a richer background are likely to get support from their parents which isn't available to those from a poorer background. But all students can get the same amount of loan and all have the same rules applied equally regarding repayments. If those from a richer background have help from their parents good luck to them as a result of their parents endeavours. ---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 10:55 ---------- Maybe we should bring back grammar schools... An excellent idea. Did you watch the programmes about grammar schools shown on the past 2 Wednesday evenings at 9pm on BBC 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Because those from a richer background are likely to get support from their parents which isn't available to those from a poorer background. But again what does it matter? For people in certain circumstances; have kids at home, need assisted living or have a costly disability then I can see the need for a supplementary income. But for the vast majority of students the focus is on study, by that I mean all they need is teaching, food and board and time. The playing field in that respect is rather level. If your from the middle of a sink hole estate you can still get enough loans for the duration. If your parents are the duke and duchess of cornwall your probably not going to need the loan, but there's no way to level that playing field as there's only one cornwall and apparently someone owns it. The difference is only in the level of comfort provided whilst going through the degree. There has been a drop in admissions since the fees were introduced (2012) But that has recovered. 'disadvantaged' students are still going, but older people not so much. Nobody takes this sort of stance when it comes to other parts of life. 'I want a new jaguar but my mums not rich, so the taxpayer should fund most of it.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Why should those from poorer backgrounds get their education free when others have to take out a loan. All students should have the same criteria applied. I'm not saying they should. In the current fiscal climate nobody can expect entitlement to free higher education. What I am saying is there should be additional non-debt based support for the very poorest to level up the playing field a little bit. Not talking megabucks here, just something. ---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 11:57 ---------- But all students can get the same amount of loan and all have the same rules applied equally regarding repayments. If those from a richer background have help from their parents good luck to them as a result of their parents endeavours. But that makes it the most regressive possible system, and it punishes some very talented children for not having been born into the 'right' type of family. It could reinforce privilege and limit social mobility. A totally unsupportable position IMO which I'm guessing (say if you are on tax credits yourself) could punish your own kids for not having the right type of parents. If you were in that category then that kind of deferential fawning over your 'betters' is pretty dumb. Idiotic. ---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 12:01 ---------- But again what does it matter? For people in certain circumstances; have kids at home, need assisted living or have a costly disability then I can see the need for a supplementary income. But for the vast majority of students the focus is on study, by that I mean all they need is teaching, food and board and time. The playing field in that respect is rather level. If your from the middle of a sink hole estate you can still get enough loans for the duration. If your parents are the duke and duchess of cornwall your probably not going to need the loan, but there's no way to level that playing field as there's only one cornwall and apparently someone owns it. The difference is only in the level of comfort provided whilst going through the degree. There has been a drop in admissions since the fees were introduced (2012) But that has recovered. 'disadvantaged' students are still going, but older people not so much. Nobody takes this sort of stance when it comes to other parts of life. 'I want a new jaguar but my mums not rich, so the taxpayer should fund most of it.' One of the reasons people may have made decisions to still attend is the maintenance grant which helps take some of the sting out of costs. We'll have to see what impact the removal has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 One of the reasons people may have made decisions to still attend is the maintenance grant which helps take some of the sting out of costs. We'll have to see what impact the removal has. We shall indeed. The policy can always be reconsidered if the evidence is that it's damaging. Let's not have any misleading statistics on the subject though. I for one don't give a hoot if the number of people going to university to do media studies falls by 99%, but I don't want to see a drop off in the most economically useful degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I'm still not sure why its a problem to have this support as a loan? Especially if the result of the loan is getting a degree which enables you to access higher paid jobs. It's not even a big chunk of your earnings that's going to be paid back 9% of 22k is £90 a year and after 30 years the debt is wiped regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 We shall indeed. The policy can always be reconsidered if the evidence is that it's damaging. Let's not have any misleading statistics on the subject though. I for one don't give a hoot if the number of people going to university to do media studies falls by 99%, but I don't want to see a drop off in the most economically useful degrees. It's not media studies and degrees like it that cause problems. Arguably there needs to be some provision for that kind of thing. The problem is the amount of provision, which in turn is led by demand for the courses. Higher education is essentially a market that provides the courses students demand. Because of that the provision diverges from what is needed for the economy as there is no real national strategic plan for what needs to be delivered in the education sector. Certain universities have their finger on the pulse but many are just business-driven sausage machines trying to pull in fees. The way the system is structured makes it difficult for universities to drop under-performing students because the unis would rather bank the £27k in fees over three years. This is different from fairly brutal systems on the continent where students will be unceremoniously dumped out the system if they don't make the grades, where the focus is primarily on quality not the business side of things. IMO our system is very badly broken ---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 12:24 ---------- I'm still not sure why its a problem to have this support as a loan? Especially if the result of the loan is getting a degree which enables you to access higher paid jobs. It's not even a big chunk of your earnings that's going to be paid back 9% of 22k is £90 a year and after 30 years the debt is wiped regardless. It's not the concept of the loan, it's the amount of the loan which becomes regressive when the impact on the very poorest students is considered. They can take loans too but having already started from a disadvantaged position is it right they take on much more debt that better-off students? There has to be something to soften the blow IMO, not massive amounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixboy Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) I'm still not sure why its a problem to have this support as a loan? Especially if the result of the loan is getting a degree which enables you to access higher paid jobs. It's not even a big chunk of your earnings that's going to be paid back 9% of 22k is £90 a year and after 30 years the debt is wiped regardless. Its enough because of the exposure....on 35k looking at approx £130 per month. And thats every month, all the best part of working life. think of it as a loan repayment that never ends... ---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 12:53 ---------- Because those from a richer background are likely to get support from their parents which isn't available to those from a poorer background. and thats an excellent point. the disadvantaged student on the round gets less support from parents than the richer ones. through school to FE to HE the student from a poor background gets a raw deal under the tories. ---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 12:56 ---------- may i just add, loans were taken by poor students before. the grant which was taken away is just one part of the costs of going to university. important to get some perspective. not as if poor students were freeloading before. ---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 12:58 ---------- Why should those from poorer backgrounds get their education free when others have to take out a loan. All students should have the same criteria applied. they dont get education for free. see above. ---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 13:05 ---------- tuition fees £9K PER YEAR living costs £8.5k PER YEAR *based on maximum loan support Total cost of a 3 year course at University (non london) : £52.5k Although it could be significantly more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2015-universities-will-be-allowed-to-raise-fees-beyond-9000-says-george-osborne-10375910.html ---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 13:08 ---------- I would argue for more than £50 grand you can get amazing private sector training or life experience...and still end up at the same point in career. university is generally poor value for money. Edited July 11, 2015 by phoenixboy ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psynuk Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Total payable if job taken at nmw = £0 £1350 of £35k is a more than fair deal if the other option is £0 of £15k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now