how do you live off student loans if it all goes on rent

Oldernotwiser

silvercar wrote: »

In my experience the most "expensive stuff" are the other children. It seems grossly unfair to say to the eldest child, "you are on you own, we have ths costs of the little ones at home" and then when the little one goes to uni offer far more support.

Its also impossible to say that parents should stop buying the expensive stuff to support their offspring, when the expensive stuff are the younger children!

Perhaps if parents value a university education they should use their money for this rather than things like designer trainers, mobile phones and other "expensive stuff" when their children are younger. For many people choices have to be made and priorities decided upon.

silvercar

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Perhaps if parents value a university education they should use their money for this rather than things like designer trainers, mobile phones and other "expensive stuff" when their children are younger. For many people choices have to be made and priorities decided upon.

I was actually thinking of food and clothing.

Oldernotwiser

silvercar wrote: »

I was actually thinking of food and clothing.

Obviously there are essentials to be bought but many middle class parents who say they can't afford to help their student children manage to have expensive holidays abroad, decent cars and buy their kids all the latest "stuff". Not true for everybody, of course, but for many it does come down to priorities.

kelloggs36

Oldernotwiser - you clearly don't understand that we don't all buy designer trainers etc for our children - I never have and just don't buy into that phsyche (waste of money as far as I'm concerned), mobile phones either - oldest is the only one who has one and she has to pay for it herself. As Silvercar says, children cost money on a day to day basis like clothes and food and the increase in heating and lighting etc!! Not luxuries. I wish you would stop assuming that we have all lived lives of luxury and then plead poverty later - it isn't like that. Times have been very hard over the years, sure they have got better over the past couple of years, but that doesn't mean that we have squandered our money and can afford to put money aside on the assumption that our children will go to university.

kelloggs36

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It's not just about buying things though; parents' life choices impinge on their children and I don't see why the government should have to compensate for those choices.

What do you mean? How does the fact that both parents have worked hard make it that they are less deserving than parents of children who have never worked in their lives and yet qualify for so much more??? Everybody makes life choices, yet those who choose to try to do their best get kicked down the hardest.

Oldernotwiser

kelloggs36 wrote: »

What do you mean? How does the fact that both parents have worked hard make it that they are less deserving than parents of children who have never worked in their lives and yet qualify for so much more??? Everybody makes life choices, yet those who choose to try to do their best get kicked down the hardest.

As an example, my mother went back to work when it became obvious that I'd be in education for some time (this was a fair time ago when it was less common), they wouldn't have been able to help me on one wage. They also stopped going on holiday when I needed help. Now, not everybody wants to do this but these are some of the choices parents might need to make if the genuinely want to help their children through university, rather than moaning that the government don't do enough.

The government, quite rightly puts money into helping children from lower income homes, rather than subsidising better off parents who choose to spend money on other things than their children's education.

silvercar

The government, quite rightly puts money into helping children from lower income homes, rather than subsidising better off parents who choose to spend money on other things than their children's education.

But is it right that those who are able to work, but lived off benefits for the last 20 years, get help for their children, whereas those who have worked and sometimes financially struggled are expected to support their children, when they haven't got the money to do so?

Oldernotwiser

silvercar wrote: »

But is it right that those who are able to work, but lived off benefits for the last 20 years, get help for their children, whereas those who have worked and sometimes financially struggled are expected to support their children, when they haven't got the money to do so?

First of all, I'm sure that there are far more students from homes where the parents work and earn low wages than there are from homes where the parents have been on benefits for 20 years. Unfortunately this isn't a group renowned for having its children go to university! Secondly, it's not the parents who are being helped, but the children. The idea is that where parents are unable to help, the government will step in and do so. I can't see what anybody could object to in this philosophy.

I don't know how you think that the government could help people who have struggled in the past but are now comfortable. All they can do is to draw up a sliding scale below which help is given and above which help is not available. You can only do this by taking recent income as proof of the money that's coming in, not the struggles that might have been made to get to that point.

No system is perfect but income thresholds are raised regularly and I can't see any better way of doing this if we want to have this number people in HE. Personally, as I've said before, I'd prefer fewer students and better funding, but that's not the way things are going at present.

meester

Rikki wrote: »

Students have to move out of halls in year 2.

I chose my college at Cambridge because they had accommodation for 3 years.

So that's not true.

silvercar

Years ago (80s) the grant means testing looked at expenditure as well as income. So if you had high outgoings (on things like mortgages rather than car loans & credit cards) your children got more money than if you had a high income but low outgoings.

We can argue about who should benefit all day, the fact is that the students who are most hard done by are those whose parents are expected to contribute but don't.