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

durhampoker99

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The needs of university students are the same whether they come from high or low income families which is why it's fair to give money to students whose families have less.

Why you think that we live in a society that practises income (re?distribution is beyond me so I do hope that you're not planning on reading PPE at Oxford or you're going to be in for a few shocks!

I'm not studying that, no. I've just finished my second year of Law.

If our taxes had no re-distributive function then the tax band would be a standard one and no tax credits/benefits would be paid out. Example:

Man earning £0...after tax/benefits earns £12,000
Man earning £40,000...after tax/benefits earns £28,000

Obviously not real numbers but you see the point...that £12,000 has been effectively re-distributed from a higher earner to a lower one. I don't need a degree in PPE to tell you that, A-level economics suffices just fine. Not to mention the fact that government services (public transport, health, education) are disproportionately consumed by lower income levels - furthering the re-distributive effect of taxation/government spending.

You're argument is entirely contradictory: everyone needs the same amount whilst at uni, the government can't afford to give everyone all that they need for the entire time. Therefore lets choose something arbitrary (parent's salary) to decide who gets the money that they do have, leaving those who receive it able to afford university without any extra work and those who don't to either beg their parents or compromise their degree by working hours during the week. Healthcare is provided for all regardless of income equally, lower education is the same...why when it comes to HE should the government suddenly decide that the distribution of spending should depend upon earnings (and not even those of the person in question!)?

It's just another "lottery". You'd be about as fair to say those with red-hair get the biggest share, those with blonde the least and those with brown somewhere in between. Neither parents salary nor hair colour necessarily provides any indication of how much the students involved need.

silvercar

Wait for the backlash. Wind forward 25+ years when the parent who didn't support their offspring wants help as a pensioner. The ex-student refuses on the grounds that they need the money for themselves or are putting it by to fund their own children's education.

Remember it is your children that choose your care home.

The_One_Who

Spending on public transport and education are not disproportionally consumed be less wealthy areas. I'd argue the opposite in fact. Money spent on a less than average inner-city state school will not match that of a better school in the suburbs. Those from wealthier families will have been benefitting their child from birth. They will have went on holidays, been taken day trips to places, etc. They probably even received something for doing well in their exams, or had a tutor to help. Everyone in my class from "the rich end of town" got a gift of some sort for doing well in their exams. I got a "well done" from my parents and that was it.

Why shouldn't those from low-income families receive financial help? Yes, I know it's not fair if you are earning just above the cut off point but there will always need to be cut off somewhere and there will always be someone losing out. This year the cut offs have been raised so that now most people will be getting some sort of help from the government. I think it's a combined income of £60k or lower. If you are earning over that then you should be able to help your child out somehow.

bandraoi

The_One_Who wrote: »

I think it's a combined income of £60k or lower. If you are earning over that then you should be able to help your child out somehow.

Well yes you should be able to and indeed you should.

But there are lots of parents out there who won't, or who won't unless you agree to do course X, or don't do course Y. In those cases, despite being financially and legally independent of their parents in every other way the student is stuck in a double bind that lower income students don't face.

The_One_Who

bandraoi wrote: »

Well yes you should be able to and indeed you should.

But there are lots of parents out there who won't, or who won't unless you agree to do course X, or don't do course Y. In those cases, despite being financially and legally independent of their parents in every other way the student is stuck in a double bind that lower income students don't face.

In that case then the student should talk to their parents and explain why they want to do a certain course or go to a certain university. An explanation of the system would probably help. It is not the fault of the poorer students, though.

bestpud

This is going OT a bit, but I understood taxes went in favour of higher earners and thus, the bottom socio-economic layer pays proportionally more?

People seem to underestimate the many advantages of coming from a higher income family too, and that is way before they get to university and does have an impact on their choices and where they start from when they get there.

But as I said before, the intention is to attract a particular type of student (ie from low income families), and not make life easier for students in general!

In an ideal world, every student would pay no fees and would all be given grants, but realistically that is not going to happen.

Also, in an ideal world, children would all receive the best compulsory education and have access to a garden and other enriching experiences. In reality this does not happen but it's something the wealthier in society don't seem to care about until the chips turn and they perceive their children to be the ones losing out!

bandraoi

The_One_Who wrote: »

In that case then the student should talk to their parents and explain why they want to do a certain course or go to a certain university. An explanation of the system would probably help. It is not the fault of the poorer students, though.

The sort of parents I'm thinking of usually aren't open to reasonable discussion like that. Abusive parents, the pressure of family traditions, pressure to do the prestigious degree - eg Engineering not Drama, gender bias eg Girls don't go to university . . .
There are lots of reasons why 18 - 21 year olds become estranged from their parents, and that doesn't just apply to those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Nobody's suggesting the poorer students should be punished, just that they shouldn't be unfairly advantaged.

melancholly

the thing is, this arguement seems to have shifted to being about the tiny proportion of children from well-off parents who choose not to give any financial support........ that's a tiny proportion of students and i think it's a bit of a red-herring to think that it is reflective of what the system achieves in a wider context.

i can't see that giving more loans to students from a poor background 'unfairly advantages' them. i find that suggestion almost offensive. i think there are a lot of students posting on here from very similar background to me (fairly middle class families, where both parents needed to work to get by), without any sort of appreciation of what poverty really is.

this is a dead end sidetrack - some students will do better out of the system than others, but the idea that we shouldn't help those who grew up in relative poverty, to help them educate themselves into social mobility.... i just dont' know what to say. perhaps it would be 'fairer' if all students paid the real cost of their education and only 5% of the population could afford it?!

The_One_Who

Well then we should be giving those from poorer backgrounds all the advantages that those from wealthier ones get. Good schools; supportive parents who can help with homework; good, safe neighbourhoods; annual holidays; days out; gardens; houses that aren't going to damage their health because of damp; good food; adequate heating; etc etc etc.

OK, so they get some financial help when it comes to higher education, if they get that far. They don't get the leg up they need throughout compulsory education. There are children from poor backgrounds who start school miles behind some of their more well-off peers. Being smart isn't cool for a lot of people. Those who try to do well in school can be bullied mercilessly because of it. Those from middle-class areas don't tend to have this experience.

I doubt there are many parents nowadays who won't allow their female child to go to university. If you are legally estranged from your parents then you can inform the SLC of this and they will take that into consideration.

brettcta

Rikki wrote: »

Quick question, what do you class as a sensible university?

Once you leave the halls after your first year. Student rented accommodation is very high and plus the cost of bills for gas,electric and food on top.

the girlfriend is just about to start at staffordshire university in stoke.

the campus accomodation was awful and around £81 p/w (without meals)


we went down the road after speaking to a tutor at the university and found a Unite student accomodation. Far superior living conditions, en-suite bathroom, massive common room (with 2 pool tables & cable TV) and free internet in every
room, for £71 p/w all in (including a cleaner!)