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

Oldernotwiser

I think that melancholly's comments may have been directed at Kellogg's posts; apologies if I'm wrong.

Continuing in the money saving vein, the first thing a student on a budget needs to consider is the cost of the accommodation itself. Having a look at accommodation prices at universities with which I'm familiar, it's interesting to note that most places have a variety of prices for Halls accommodation with almost a 100% difference. I was told some years ago that the most expensive accommodation is taken first, which very much surprised me at the time. It seems obvious to me that if money is an issue, this is an area that needs careful consideration. I wonder if nowadays the cheapest accommodation is taken first?

silvercar

I was told some years ago that the most expensive accommodation is taken first, which very much surprised me at the time. It seems obvious to me that if money is an issue, this is an area that needs careful consideration. I wonder if nowadays the cheapest accommodation is taken first?

Still the case. According to my son's accom office, the en-suite's go first with demand outstripping supply. By the end of the first month the situation is reversed with students clamouring to swap for the cheaper rooms. £20 a week extra is a lot of beers!

durhampoker99

bestpud wrote: »

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!

OK first thing...I know for a fact that my Oxford degree will help me greatly when it comes to getting jobs, as it appears to have done for your lecturer friend. This isn't some injustice, it's understandable. We have already been through one rigorous selection procedure by academics many of whom have been judging which of their applicants are the most intelligent for a number of years. Chances are they know what they're doing. On top of that the education we receive is a completely different one to anywhere else in the country (bar Cambridge) and encourages a huge amount of self-motivated reading and research...more on that later.

I'm also quite sure there are more intelligent people than me at other universities. Some who applied to Oxbridge and were unlucky not to get in and some who didn't want to come. I don't think myself superior to all graduates.

I don't for a second think that everything in life can be explained through "textbooks". Some things, however, can. Which is why they get written, and why they are observed by everybody. The only "economic theory" I have really espoused is that of a progressive tax system, that's no theory - it's a fact. I've also enlightened you to the fact that by investing in education the government will receive long-term benefits derived from a more educated work force. You could have worked that out for yourself - although maybe not.

I have offered much more than economic theory (I hope), including a fairly well though out argument against what I perceive to be an unfair system of funding distribution. Just as Oldernotwiser has argued the opposite.

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.

A 2.1 or first from Teeside University will indeed get you a chance to be on a graduate scheme...not a very good one, but yes I understand. I'm also aware that a 2.2 from Oxford won't.

Unfortunately if you really think a first is a first regardless of institution then you are sadly sadly wrong. It's not, and it shouldn't be. Here's why. My average week consists of writing 2 essays which each require about 15 hours of reading before writing. I then sit down with my tutor one-to-one for about an hour and he proceeds to grill me on my essay, tear it apart or compliment it, whilst also talking over all of the other reading I did on the topic. Compare this to an average student at any university apart from Oxbridge which consists (as I'm sure you'll agree) of submitting as few as 2 essays a TERM and never having classes smaller than 20-30 people. Lectures are the primary source of information (mine is books, I have never been to a lecture) where the information needed is spoon-fed and an essay title might be set.

It's entirely different and a major part of the reason that Oxbridge are indisputably the best for almost every subject. All of my exams take place at the end of 3rd year, nothing before that counts. I have 12 three-hour exams in two weeks at that point, I need to average a first over them all to achieve one. Compare that to other universities where "coursework" and general marks in termly essays count, often bumping up their actual exam average by several percent.

Hopefully I've explained why employers regard an Oxbridge degree as superior and realise that a first is most definitely not a first. Case in point...me. I got a low 2.1 in my first year exams and yet got an internship this summer with Booze Allen consultancy (they're quite good). Tell me someone from a lesser institution would have even had a look in, of the interns they took on this year about 90% are Oxbridge.

melancholly

i hope that a few years after graduation the oxbridge chip goes. i have a nice cambridge first, and although it undoubtably helps get a job, i am well aware that it does mean i am infinitely superior to all other graduates.

please be careful when you write about how much better you are than everyone else - all it does is protray a largely unfair idea of what oxbridge grads are like and explains why there is such negativity towards them outside of the city. trust me, if you don't go into banking, law or consultancy, an oxbridge degree can work against you.

i went there and the smugness in the post above is too much for me....... please can i say that while i loved the place and i know it has many advantages, most graduates don't have the same sense of entitlement and i apologise on our behalf.

durhampoker99

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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!

So I'm basically arguing with a radical socialist...fair enough. I suppose it explains why I'm completely unable to turn you!

Just a quick note on that "real" Labour government who had the huge tax rates...the total tax take from top earners even adjusted for the growth and inflation we have experienced since then was significantly less than it is now. Why? Well it's fairly obvious. When you are paying 80% of your income over £150k in tax there is a tiny incentive to work those extra hours that increase it from 150 to 250. You'll only actually receive 20k more. Whereas for 60k he may have worked those extra hours for 20k he'd rather have the time off to spend with his family. So instead of getting the 40k you would have done with a 40% top tax band, the government gets nothing. On top of which the economy slows down greatly.

Maybe you want to return to the stagflation days of that 70s government? It was the worst time in British since the war...but yes, it's a great policy. I'm not sure I've heard anyone advocate such a taxation strategy since then (and I looked - my A level coursework was on this). Interesting...

durhampoker99

melancholly wrote: »

i hope that a few years after graduation the oxbridge chip goes. i have a nice cambridge first, and although it undoubtably helps get a job, i am well aware that it does mean i am infinitely superior to all other graduates.

please be careful when you write about how much better you are than everyone else - all it does is protray a largely unfair idea of what oxbridge grads are like and explains why there is such negativity towards them outside of the city. trust me, if you don't go into banking, law or consultancy, an oxbridge degree can work against you.

i went there and the smugness in the post above is too much for me....... please can i say that while i loved the place and i know it has many advantages, most graduates don't have the same sense of entitlement and i apologise on our behalf.

Apologies if there was an element of smugness, it wasn't intended. I find it offensive that whilst I have to work my !!!! off to get anywhere near a first people at some unis seem to be able to coast into them, maybe I expressed the point too pointedly. Again, apologies.

I can't really speak for careers outside of the ones you have mentioned (they are the only ones that I have ever considered) so it might be true.

I really don't consider myself "better" than other people. I do consider the education I am receiving better, and for that I am grateful.

Again, apologies if it came across in the wrong way. I think I got slightly riled up. I know exactly the stereotype to which you prefer (and they definitely exist at Oxford) of pompous public school boys who think they are entitled to the world and I can assure you that I most definitely don't fit into that category.

Out of interest, which college did you go to?

bestpud

durhampoker99 wrote: »

OK first thing...I know for a fact that my Oxford degree will help me greatly when it comes to getting jobs, as it appears to have done for your lecturer friend. This isn't some injustice, it's understandable. We have already been through one rigorous selection procedure by academics many of whom have been judging which of their applicants are the most intelligent for a number of years. Chances are they know what they're doing. On top of that the education we receive is a completely different one to anywhere else in the country (bar Cambridge) and encourages a huge amount of self-motivated reading and research...more on that later.

I'm also quite sure there are more intelligent people than me at other universities. Some who applied to Oxbridge and were unlucky not to get in and some who didn't want to come. I don't think myself superior to all graduates.

I don't for a second think that everything in life can be explained through "textbooks". Some things, however, can. Which is why they get written, and why they are observed by everybody. The only "economic theory" I have really espoused is that of a progressive tax system, that's no theory - it's a fact. I've also enlightened you to the fact that by investing in education the government will receive long-term benefits derived from a more educated work force. You could have worked that out for yourself - although maybe not.

I have offered much more than economic theory (I hope), including a fairly well though out argument against what I perceive to be an unfair system of funding distribution. Just as Oldernotwiser has argued the opposite.



A 2.1 or first from Teeside University will indeed get you a chance to be on a graduate scheme...not a very good one, but yes I understand. I'm also aware that a 2.2 from Oxford won't.

Unfortunately if you really think a first is a first regardless of institution then you are sadly sadly wrong. It's not, and it shouldn't be. Here's why. My average week consists of writing 2 essays which each require about 15 hours of reading before writing. I then sit down with my tutor one-to-one for about an hour and he proceeds to grill me on my essay, tear it apart or compliment it, whilst also talking over all of the other reading I did on the topic. Compare this to an average student at any university apart from Oxbridge which consists (as I'm sure you'll agree) of submitting as few as 2 essays a TERM and never having classes smaller than 20-30 people. Lectures are the primary source of information (mine is books, I have never been to a lecture) where the information needed is spoon-fed and an essay title might be set.

It's entirely different and a major part of the reason that Oxbridge are indisputably the best for almost every subject. All of my exams take place at the end of 3rd year, nothing before that counts. I have 12 three-hour exams in two weeks at that point, I need to average a first over them all to achieve one. Compare that to other universities where "coursework" and general marks in termly essays count, often bumping up their actual exam average by several percent.

Hopefully I've explained why employers regard an Oxbridge degree as superior and realise that a first is most definitely not a first. Case in point...me. I got a low 2.1 in my first year exams and yet got an internship this summer with Booze Allen consultancy (they're quite good). Tell me someone from a lesser institution would have even had a look in, of the interns they took on this year about 90% are Oxbridge.

Oh dear! I actually feel embarrassed for you - what a cringeworthy post!!

And it confirms everything I put in my post!

Btw the second quote wasn't from me. I'm not sure if you realise that as your post carries on as though you are still addressing my post?

What you fail to have realised is academic brilliance (which you no doubt have :rolleyes: ) is no substitute for living in the real world and being able to deal with day to day problems. You may be absolutely brilliant at writing an essay, after your hour long one-to-one tutorial, but that tells me nothing about how you'd cope in the average workplace, or where common sense and inter-personal skills are required. Then again, you're not ever going to work in an average environment, or mix with those 'beneath you', are you? :rolleyes:

Oh and two essays per semester?? Which unis have you been looking at??

That has to be the worst post I have ever read on here! I really am cringeing at the level of arrogance and, more to the point, ignorance. Be careful where you spout such rubbish as you are in danger of making such a fool of yourself!

Jeez!! :eek:

kelloggs36

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

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!

Yes, but ALL courses are covered the same - whether they are of public benefit or not, that is what I'm saying. And a great MINORITY of teachers work in the private sector, meaning that the public get a great deal out of teachers thesedays, without much investment.

kelloggs36

Lectures are the primary source of information (mine is books, I have never been to a lecture) where the information needed is spoon-fed and an essay title might be set

Absolute rubbish - I didn't go to Oxbridge and my course was not like that! We had to have a huge bibiliography to show that we had read well beyond the content of the lecture, and to show that we could put forward a coherent argument. It was NEVER about regurgitating a lecture as you seem to infer.

Oldernotwiser

durhampoker99 wrote: »

So I'm basically arguing with a radical socialist...fair enough. I suppose it explains why I'm completely unable to turn you!

I can see you've not met many radical socialists! I'm you're ultimate wishy washy liberal.

And as for turning me - you must be joking! As if mature, educated adults are going to be affected by the views of an ex public schoolboy with overblown ideas of his own worth, who thinks that, just because mummy and daddy are rich and have bought him a place at Oxford, that the sun shines out of every orifice.