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

DrFluffy

skintmumof3 wrote: »

i know this sounds a really stupid question.
i have been reading a lot lately on student finance and budgeting etc as my son is off to uni next month.
but a lot is printed about living off your student loan and not going into your over draft.... but i thought the student maintenance loan paid your rent for the year and you had to have other finance.. eg job .. or mum.. for daily living expenses.....
so either some kids have got very rich parents who can pay out £5,000 a year for rent or am i miss reading these articles...
sorry to sound dumb, but this uni stuff is all very new to us.
many thanks
skint
x

I have a job. It's the only way.

durhampoker99

The_One_Who wrote: »

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.

Actually, and especially recently, there has been a big drive to fund underachieving inner-city schools more than proportionately. The real problem these schools have is attracting decent teachers...but that's a different discussion for another time.

bestpud

durhampoker99 wrote: »

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.

And none of this gives them an advantage over working class students? Can you not see how all these advantages place these students in a higher position when thinking about and applying for university?

And, if they have paid all this money out for schooling (which helps a lot when it comes to HE btw) then how can they say they suddenly don't have it a year later?

What you are saying is these families should be allowed to say they haven't used 'their' taxes on compulsory education (because they prefer little johnny doesn't mix with chavs or travel on dirty buses, and they want him to get the very best grades so he can choose the very best uni etc) and therefore, they'll have the HE they've prepared him so well for, free, thank you very much? :rolleyes:

They have been helped before uni and MOST better off parents DO help their children - even if it is only buying them a laptop for christmas/to go to uni with, or sending them food parcels! Mostly they find this 'non-existant' money! :rolleyes:

But forget that! It will be much fairer if we give money to everyone because a FEW parents refuse to help their children!

Forget that many more working class students will struggle and many more will not go. Statistics show these children are less likely to go to uni already.

Forget that most wealthier parents do give money so those students would be rolling in it. The privileged must take priority, just in case one of the little darlings has to go without because they have greedy parents! :mad: :rolleyes:

Yes, let's just change the whole system to appease a few greedy parents who want to fund their expensive lifestyle rather than their offspring! :rolleyes: That will be sooo much fairer.... NOT!

Oldernotwiser

durhampoker99 wrote: »

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.

So who trains the teachers , doctors and nurses who work in the private sector? Who funds A&E services and intensive care that hardy exist in the private sector? Who pays for the roads that these wealthy people drive their cars on?

If you weren't so young and naive I would get seriously cross with you!:mad:

durhampoker99

I've made it fairly clear that I was referring more to those parents who fall outside the bracket but CAN'T afford to give their children anything. The reason there is a loan for everyone regardless of income (even those who earn £1m) is so that those who receive no money at all CAN still go to uni, if everyone can - why fund some more than others?

Not all those from the top few percent of earnings went to private school either...so that's unfair. You sound incredibly bitter, don't be - that's capitalism.

Essentially what this system does is to encourage those from poorer backgrounds to go to university on !!!!! courses, get nothing out of them whilst racking up debt for themselves for the future and costing the government money now. It's because they're going BECAUSE they get grants and loans, the sort of money they have probably never seen/contemplated in their lives. Those who really want to go to uni, regardless of their background, will go so long as its actually possible (they'll work in the hols etc)...these are the people we want to be encouraging. The system fails to do this though.

Oldernotwiser

silvercar wrote: »

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.

You're missing one very important group. those who can't afford to contribute but still manage to do so, going without for themselves and sacrificing things so they can help their student children to achieve the education which wasn't available to them when they were younger. You never hear about this group, but believe me, they exist.

The_One_Who

durhampoker99 wrote: »

Essentially what this system does is to encourage those from poorer backgrounds to go to university on !!!!! courses, get nothing out of them whilst racking up debt for themselves for the future and costing the government money now. It's because they're going BECAUSE they get grants and loans, the sort of money they have probably never seen/contemplated in their lives. Those who really want to go to uni, regardless of their background, will go so long as its actually possible (they'll work in the hols etc)...these are the people we want to be encouraging. The system fails to do this though.

I think you fail to realise that if they don't want to be there (and they can earn a lot more working in a shop or even on benefits) then they will drop out after the first year.

durhampoker99

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

So who trains the teachers , doctors and nurses who work in the private sector? Who funds A&E services and intensive care that hardy exist in the private sector? Who pays for the roads that these wealthy people drive their cars on?

If you weren't so young and naive I would get seriously cross with you!:mad:

Young maybe...naive no.

Well the state does (training wise) but I'd argue that cost is more than met for by the taxes they themselves subsequently will pay - they earn a lot more than average. How many times does somebodies' training have to be paid for?

Roads - well, road tax and excise duties on fuel comfortably exceed expenditure on roads. That's why I specifically said income taxes.

A&E and intensive care - apologies, I'm not too familiar with the workings of the private health sector as (touch wood) I haven't yet had any dealings with it. Maybe that is a cost. Actually thinking about it...the police, fire service, coastguard and prisons service is an example. I take it back, they don't consume nothing. Just very little.

kelloggs36

Who trains the teachers? Mmm, we have to pay our own way and take out a loan like the others - having to make sacrifices, hence we now have debts we wouldn't have had, and can't afford to help our own children who have started university!!! So, no help from the Government other than a LOAN, so I paid for my own training - whether that be for public benefit or private makes no difference.

kelloggs36

The public get the benefit of my training, whilst not investing in it other than my salary (which as a newly qualified teacher will be quite low - certainly compared to other sectors where a degree is required - should have trained to be a lawyer!!!)