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

bandraoi

Broke_Student wrote: »

Thank you for putting some of those points across as I can really relate to some of them.

Accomplishing my achievements had always seemed to be the 'wrong' thing to do because of the environment in which I was educated. At school I would have to watch on as my 'friends' would spit on a teachers back or demolish equipment before I could use it. Getting straight A's in everything I attempted was seen as seriously uncool but I was smart enough to join in with anit-social behaviour out of class to avoid being bullied like other kids sometimes were. In this sort of environment it was almost impossible to find ways to excel further and I would have to find ways of improving my CV out of school. The teachers were not always helpful either - I once had a piece of coursework draft marked at 98% stolen from the teachers cupboard and there was absolutely no followup and I had to do it again in 2 days! I think of it almsot as a real life Grange Hill!!

Being in that sort of educational circumstance usually correlates with less than average circumstances at home, as I would say was the case with me. Without going into too much detail - terraced house no real garden, divorced parents (but a mother with very good morals), nobody in the immediate family through higher education so nil help with homework or careers advice, chavs/rudeboys on the streets making the home environment feel less safe etc.

My University obviously recognises this through giving me the scholarship I recieve (as it is based on both merit and home circumstance). I am actually very comfortable as I also recieve a full loan/grant/bursary package, so have started saving for a deposit when I graduate from medical school.

This sometimes raises comments from my friends at University. It is 'unfair' that I get more money than them, I 'run down' the system, their parents work hard etc etc. I don't always blame them as many have been brought up bright but naive. Many are from ridiculous backgrounds; new cars, £10k+ per year private school fees for 7yrs, even getting bought flats to live in - i've noticed there is a disproportional amount of rich kids at London medical schools. Ofcoarse not everybody is as well off as these guys but the fact is most of the middle class kids who don't get a full grant have lived relatively fulfilled lives (but the problem is they don't know it) and have current security they cannot see (i.e. their families won't struggle for food or shelter whilst at Uni).

I know this post is a little off topic but I wanted to emphasize the different situations people can be in as understanding this is important in understanding that how limited funds are distributed is a resonable way in todays world.

If loans/grants/bursaries were split equally between all students then those like myself are more likely not be able to go to Uni despite how hard they tried when younger, yet those from middle classes should still be able to go to Uni (but be slightly more comfortable for 3 years).
If the money is distributed disproportionately away from those most likely to be from fulfilled/secure backgrounds (but still manage to go to Uni) then more people will be able to go to University (and importantly, those extra people are likely to be the ones who will gain most).

What do you guys reckon?
I say go f*** yourself to the person who once told me I should not be at University achieving more than them yet still be from the background I describe.

Again, people who's parents have higher incomes now, didn't necessarily always have higher incomes. An awful lot of the people who have well off parents spent their childhoods without much, as their parents struggled to advance their own careers and get to the position they're in now. They didn't necessarily get all these "advantages" of which you speak.

Oldernotwiser

The_One_Who wrote: »

I thought that. But have never really looked into how any of it worked before my time. I assume there was a similar fuss over funding in those days too?

All the time! People were having the same arguments as on here at least 40 years ago. Nothing changes.

The_One_Who

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

All the time! People were having the same arguments as on here at least 40 years ago. Nothing changes.

Ah, I thought it might be a bit worse now since people seem to think they are "buying" their education.

Oldernotwiser

The_One_Who wrote: »

Ah, I thought it might be a bit worse now since people seem to think they are "buying" their education.

Although the arguments about maintenance rumble on, of the course the big change between then and now is that we didn't have to pay fees, regardless of income.

Broke_Student

bandraoi wrote: »

Again, people who's parents have higher incomes now, didn't necessarily always have higher incomes. An awful lot of the people who have well off parents spent their childhoods without much, as their parents struggled to advance their own careers and get to the position they're in now. They didn't necessarily get all these "advantages" of which you speak.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.
I accept that some of the parents who look well off on paperwork were not always so well off and some may be struggling at present - it would be naive not too.
That is why in my post I tried to always use words such as many/most/usually/generally to avoid stereotyping and making assumptions:

many

Ofcoarse not everybody is as well off as these guys

more likely

are likely to be

usually correlates

Based on this I am tempted to deem your point irrelevant as it does not contradict what I said. I will therefore argue my points on the method of distribution of funds being suitable still stand.

Furthermore, the current system also considers how much

"parents struggled to advance their own careers and get to the position they're in now"

as funding is largely graded on a sliding scale of income. It will always be subjective whether the boundaries are set correctly but in my favour the upper and lower boundaries for grants increased to £60k and £25k respectively this year.
On the extreme end it is very rare for a family individual to make the jump from sub £25k to £60k+ within 3 years. It would be unwise to 'adjust' the system for this minority to get retrospective funding. Even if this does happen then I am sure they can spare a child £3k as initially alot of the money will be disposable income. Families making smaller income jumps will 'loose out' based on a sliding scale.

The "advantages" of middle class childhood of which we both now speak are, and always will be, subjective so I will refrain from putting a monetary value against these.

Based on this I fail to understand your arguement. Even if you maintain there are "An awful lot" of people whose parents only just got rich so should get funding the reality is they can now afford it and they only need to fund their child a relatively small amount for 3 years, not life!!

Oldernotwiser

Whilst people who have only recently achieved a higher income level may not have had the opportunity to save for a contribution to their offspring's university education, presumably they will have been used to living on a much lower income and their sudden leap into affluence will represent money that hasn't been committed elsewhere.

silvercar

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Whilst people who have only recently achieved a higher income level may not have had the opportunity to save for a contribution to their offspring's university education, presumably they will have been used to living on a much lower income and their sudden leap into affluence will represent money that hasn't been committed elsewhere.

Or paying off existing debts and now having enough to live on.

For those students assessed as not entitled to the full available grant, there are three groups, those who can and do contribute to their student's income, those that can but don't and those that can't and don't. We can argue about what proportion of students fall into each category, but there will be people in each category. The fact is that there will be some parents who can't afford to make the contribution that the government assesses they should (there will also be some who get a grant when the parents could easily afford to contribute.)

Whether this is because they have had previous hard times or whether it is because they have had a recent and possibly temporary increase in income or whether it is because they have high living costs is irrelevent. For some students they just won't have enough money to survive at uni.

durhampoker99

OK...this is what I don't get.

Some people (everyone, including the government, will agree) are in the position where they get only a basic loan and their parents can't afford to help them out (or don't want to, I would argue there's no difference, but for the sake of the argument let's stick with can't). People here are complaining that if the poorest weren't given extra support they couldn't go to uni. WRONG! Let me explain with an example:

Funding for person explained above: £3000
Funding for poorest people: £5000

My proposal:

Explained: £4000
Poorest: £4000

So it's true, the poorest are £1000 worse off. But if we are to say that those people on basic loans with no parental support are currently able to go to university regardless, then surely with £1000 more than they currently get the poorest could too?!

All you are doing in this system is giving those from a poorer background an easier time purely at the expense of those in the bracket explained above. The problem with my solution is that it just means moving the income levels...and this doesn't address the problem of high income parents who aren't willing to help out (for a number of reasons, not just priorities - I have a friend who's father earns in excess of £1million but chooses not to give him money, he is able to manage without...why should he? He has to become independent at some stage).

I would say then, that the pie is split perfectly equally with one caveat. That being that the amount which every student receives must be at least enough so that they CAN work in the holidays etc to support themselves through uni. If total money divided by total students is less than that, then either more money should be made available or a high (probably very high) income threshold be set. I'd imagine, however, that this wouldn't be needed.

durhampoker99

bestpud wrote: »

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?

Um...no. VAT and other excise taxes are regressive (meaning they take a higher proportion from lower incomes), but this is outweighed by income tax which is bracketed so as to be heavily PROgressive.

I have a tax take/expenditure breakdown somewhere, will dig it out if necessary. Illustrates the re-distributive effect of taxes quite nicely. To the poster who said nicer schools get more money...no. In fact, they get a lot less. The reason they're better is because they have "better" students there, not !!!!! chavs who just want to beat up teachers. The reason the richest 20% consume a lot less public service is also fairly obvious...they go private - schools, accommodation, transport, healthcare. In fact the top 2 or 3% consume virtually no government services paid for by income taxes.

The_One_Who

durhampoker99 wrote: »

I have a tax take/expenditure breakdown somewhere, will dig it out if necessary. Illustrates the re-distributive effect of taxes quite nicely. To the poster who said nicer schools get more money...no. In fact, they get a lot less. The reason they're better is because they have "better" students there, not !!!!! chavs who just want to beat up teachers. The reason the richest 20% consume a lot less public service is also fairly obvious...they go private - schools, accommodation, transport, healthcare. In fact the top 2 or 3% consume virtually no government services paid for by income taxes.

I disagree about schools. Better schools tend to have better facilities. Yes, they also tend to have better students, middle-class pupils tend to be more focussed and have an idea of what they want to do with their future. Being smart is not necessarily uncool for them.

Also, if the richest 20% can afford private education, healthcare etc, then they can afford to give their children money for their university education.