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

Oldernotwiser

kelloggs36 wrote: »

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.

Don't be silly, the fee loan people take out covers only a fraction of the cost of courses, whether for teachers or any other degree!

Oldernotwiser

kelloggs36 wrote: »

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!!!)

See previous reply. And if you teach in the private sector the public get no benefit from it whatsoever anyway.

durhampoker99

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

See previous reply. And if you teach in the private sector the public get no benefit from it whatsoever anyway.

See my post...TAXES pay for it, the ones those who work in the private sector pay. Think of it as a cycle.

Government to teacher (training/education)
Me to teacher (wage)
Teacher to government (tax)

It's like saying "who do you think paid for my law degree"...well me, when I start earning and paying taxes. That's how it works. The consumer is not somehow indebted to the government for every service they pay for for their entire lives.

On the other hand, the government also pays for the degrees of thousands of students at the likes of Teeside "University" who will probably end up with no better job because of that degree and may never repay it through taxes. But that's another discussion for another day.

Oldernotwiser

durhampoker99 wrote: »

See my post...TAXES pay for it, the ones those who work in the private sector pay.

And what happens to the taxes that public sector workers pay, or don't you think that those count?

As for the rest of your rather patronising post; so YOU pay for your degree but the government pays for the degrees at "Teeside "University""? Now that's a really interesting concept.

You really are a credit to your education and income level!

Liz_M

I'm not going to pretend that I know as much about the system as most of you on here do...all I know is how much loan I get and how much rent I pay etc. But from my experience of seeing how people at my uni live, the system seems to work ok. The situations people are saying are 'unfair' seem to me to be the minority of individual cases, and I don't see how there can be a system that accomodates each of these individual cases. If they were to try to accomodate this it would mean a lot more admin and staff which would cost more.

Trying to go back to the original post, in my experience it seems that most people get by fine by either working part time during term time, or full time during the holidays, or both.
There seems to be almost a competition at uni (or mayb it is just my uni?) where students seem to WANT to be the poorest. I don't understand this. I am very fortunate that my parents can help me and they pay my rent for me, and help me out with other things when they can. However I don't just take loads of money off them and spend it partying and lazing around all the time. I could have lived fine on the money I had but I wanted to be able to afford slightly nicer things, so I got a part time job last year. I also spent one night a week working for a charity. Because I worked 3nights a week in my job, and 1 night a week volunteering, it meant I didn't go out drinking that much last year. I know people who say 'oh my god youre so lucky your parents pay your rent'. This is true and I know how lucky I am, but they say it as if I'm getting something that theyre not - when in some cases these people were getting money from their parents every week for food, or their parents were paying their fees so they didn't have to have a fee loan only the maintenance loan, or their parents were helping in other ways. So their parents were giving roughly the same amount as I was. Most of these people I am thinking of didn't bother to look for a job during term time, said that they would 'go mad' if they didn't go out at least once a week - usually twice, went away for weekends to visit friends regularly, and then complained at the end of the year that it was so unfair that they were struggling with their rent and it was 'alright for you' because my parents helped me out with my rent. I have always agreed that yes I am very fortunate that my parents help me, so I don't know why these people compare themself to me saying i'm lucky, trying to hide what their parents give them.
I'm kinda dragging out what I want to say here but basically most people I know at uni (I'm not even saying this is the case everywhere, but I can only go by the people I know of) get enough money to live ok, it's just how they manage the money that doesn't always work.

I'm going to stop now because I think I'm starting to waffle...I'm tired lol.

durhampoker99

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

And what happens to the taxes that public sector workers pay, or don't you think that those count?

As for the rest of your rather patronising post; so YOU pay for your degree but the government pays for the degrees at "Teeside "University""? Now that's a really interesting concept.

You really are a credit to your education and income level!

Where did I say that they didn't "count"? Of course they do...they're all part of the cycle. Why should they be given a special status just because they provide a service that is paid for by us indirectly (through taxes) as opposed to a service such as banking which is paid for by us more directly. There is no difference...

An interesting way of putting it...but yeah I suppose on some levels I do pay for my own degree as opposed to those from lesser universities. I mean the truth is that my education at Oxford is going to much better equip me (and therefore the economy as a whole) to provide useful services than somebody who is educated at Teeside. I actually don't believe this higher "social utility" should be translated into more funding for us, although there must be argument for it. It will be adequately compensated for in the marketplace. Anyway, that's a different argument - the one against the ridiculous 50% target of the government's and the standard of some of the "universities" across the country.

I feel our previous argument has gone around in circles and can probably be best summarised by saying that we are never going to agree...and this is the reason:

I am happy to depart from the usual "you buy what you can afford" philosophy of a capitalist economy with reference to HE because of the long-term economic benefits which accrue to high quality (note - high quality) investment in the employment force. I also realise that it's necessary for the state to fund it partially on the grounds that if they were not to do so talented young men and women from poor backgrounds would never have access to the top level jobs they deserve and can only access through a degree - it's a way of breaking the poverty cycle. I also agree with helping students out more than is "absolutely necessary" as a means of incentivising HE for the purpose of the aforementioned economic benefits.

This, I'm sure, all agree with. The problem I have with unequal funding is that it acts as a covert income re-distributer much as income tax does. I have no problem with progressive income tax. The problem I have with this is that it is simply unfair to the students who are not the ones earning (or not earning) the income on which they are judged. The fundamental disagreement therefore lies at this point, and it's an irreconcilable one, that Oldernotwiser is comfortable with the fact that university funding acts as an income re-distributer (an understandable viewpoint, if not one I agree with) whilst I am not.

In just the same way as I would imagine Oldernotwiser would like to see a 50% tax band for top earners, with the money directly siphoned to those on lower incomes. The problem I have with the whole thing is that under the politically untouchable umberalla of "access to education for all" what is essentially occurring is a re-distribution of income. Hopefully that is something that we can both agree on, even if he has no problem with it.

believe in giving everyone the opportunity to go to university (by making available such finance that enables them to do so without parental help) I do not feel that there is a

bestpud

durhampoker99 wrote: »

Where did I say that they didn't "count"? Of course they do...they're all part of the cycle. Why should they be given a special status just because they provide a service that is paid for by us indirectly (through taxes) as opposed to a service such as banking which is paid for by us more directly. There is no difference...

An interesting way of putting it...but yeah I suppose on some levels I do pay for my own degree as opposed to those from lesser universities. I mean the truth is that my education at Oxford is going to much better equip me (and therefore the economy as a whole) to provide useful services than somebody who is educated at Teeside. I actually don't believe this higher "social utility" should be translated into more funding for us, although there must be argument for it. It will be adequately compensated for in the marketplace. Anyway, that's a different argument - the one against the ridiculous 50% target of the government's and the standard of some of the "universities" across the country.

I feel our previous argument has gone around in circles and can probably be best summarised by saying that we are never going to agree...and this is the reason:

I am happy to depart from the usual "you buy what you can afford" philosophy of a capitalist economy with reference to HE because of the long-term economic benefits which accrue to high quality (note - high quality) investment in the employment force. I also realise that it's necessary for the state to fund it partially on the grounds that if they were not to do so talented young men and women from poor backgrounds would never have access to the top level jobs they deserve and can only access through a degree - it's a way of breaking the poverty cycle. I also agree with helping students out more than is "absolutely necessary" as a means of incentivising HE for the purpose of the aforementioned economic benefits.

This, I'm sure, all agree with. The problem I have with unequal funding is that it acts as a covert income re-distributer much as income tax does. I have no problem with progressive income tax. The problem I have with this is that it is simply unfair to the students who are not the ones earning (or not earning) the income on which they are judged. The fundamental disagreement therefore lies at this point, and it's an irreconcilable one, that Oldernotwiser is comfortable with the fact that university funding acts as an income re-distributer (an understandable viewpoint, if not one I agree with) whilst I am not.

In just the same way as I would imagine Oldernotwiser would like to see a 50% tax band for top earners, with the money directly siphoned to those on lower incomes. The problem I have with the whole thing is that under the politically untouchable umberalla of "access to education for all" what is essentially occurring is a re-distribution of income. Hopefully that is something that we can both agree on, even if he has no problem with it.

believe in giving everyone the opportunity to go to university (by making available such finance that enables them to do so without parental help) I do not feel that there is a

As I said earlier, I have a lecturer who went to Oxford uni a good while ago and he now freely admits that he knew nothing about life at the time!

He also sees it as ironic that he, from a middle class and reasonably priviliged background, went out campaigning for CPAG and other similar organisations and yet had no idea what he was arguing for in the real sense!

He was also given one of his first jobs supposedly on merit and then later found he actually got it because he was an Oxford grad. He admits having this on his CV has helped a lot over the years and yet, he perceives himself as no brighter than many other grads with the same degree classification.

That aside though, maybe one day you will look back and think as he does: What a patronising and naive young person I was, thinking I knew what the 'little' person needed and, being an Oxford grad, I was in a position to argue for them!

Life cannot be measured, or indeed lived, from the pages of a text book I am afraid.

Why don't you come back here when you have a bit more to offer than economic theory?

The rest of us are talking from experience and an understanding that life can neither be analysed, nor explained from a library - no matter how extensive that library is!

The_One_Who

DP99, you do realise that a 2.1 or first from "Teeside "University"" will get you on a graduate scheme whereas a 2.2 from Oxford won't? I know it's slightly changing now for some to include 2.2s but my point still stands. Universities are externally moderated, and it is not just Oxford do Cambridge and Teeside to Bolton. A first is a first. You can get onto a postgraduate course at Oxford with a degree from Teeside. You seem to think that you are somehow better than someone who goes to a "lesser" university.

I don't know what courses are there, but I do know getting a nursing degree from Glasgow will stand you in the same stead as a nursing degree from Glasgow Caledonian. If you want to study optometry in Scotland you have one choice - Glasgow Caledonian.

Oldernotwiser

"I mean the truth is that my education at Oxford is going to much better equip me (and therefore the economy as a whole) to provide useful services than somebody who is educated at Teeside!"

Whatever gave you the idea that Law was a useful service!

Oldernotwiser

durhampoker99 wrote: »

therefore lies at this point, and it's an irreconcilable one, that Oldernotwiser is comfortable with the fact that university funding acts as an income re-distributer (an understandable viewpoint, if not one I agree with) whilst I am not.

In just the same way as I would imagine Oldernotwiser would like to see a 50% tax band for top earners, with the money directly siphoned to those on lower incomes.

Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Firstly, I don't see that university funding acts as an income redistributor at all; you were the one who said that. Secondly, I would like to see top earners paying a far higher rate of tax than 50% (as they did under real Labour governments), not to go to those with lower incomes, but to pay for a renewal of our ailing health and education services, which would benefit rich and poor alike!