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

Rikki

chickflix wrote: »

I don't give my parents money for digs. I live really comfortably and I don't see why other students shouldn't live the same way. Some students just want to move out and live the so-called 'student life style' which is made up for lots of alcohol and going out and going deep into your overdraft. Its a load of rubbish. If more students simply lived at home whilst studying and had a part-time job they could have a lot of money in their pockets and live comfortably. Additionally, they would be able to afford a nice car and have that freedom. I'd rather have all that than live away from home, have tonnes of debt and worry about rent, bills etc.

Not everyone can live rent free at home student or not. You are very lucky and I hope you appreciate it.

Not all courses are available at your nearest university. Many students have no choice about leaving home, getting into debt and don't have parents who can financially help them out.

chickflix

Rikki wrote: »

Not everyone can live rent free at home student or not. You are very lucky and I hope you appreciate it.

Not all courses are available at your nearest university. Many students have no choice about leaving home, getting into debt and don't have parents who can financially help them out.

I know and I do appreciate it, but it really annoys me when students DO have a choice, then they choose to move out for the sake of it usually for the reasons I mentioned THEN they complain about being skint etc.

Rikki

chickflix wrote: »

I know and I do appreciate it, but it really annoys me when students DO have a choice, then they choose to move out for the sake of it usually for the reasons I mentioned THEN they complain about being skint etc.

As long as you cook the occasional meal and wash up that's okay. :cool:

What are you studying?

durhampoker99

Well...

It seems in the 12 hours or so after my last post I've been barraged with abuse over my background and university choice. Maybe I'm wrong and all my friends at other (very good) universities have been flat out lying to me when they've told me how little work they get away with doing and quite how easy what they do is. Maybe...but I doubt it.

I actually think the truth lies here...that whereas at Oxford/Cambridge there is no way of getting around doing the levels of work I do (trust me - I would have found them otherwise) at other unis there are. Not turning up to lectures and even contact time, according to my friends, are not huge deals. Whilst it is encouraging to hear bestpud talk of face-to-face contact with his lecturer even he makes it out as though that's a rarity (probably caused by his tutor having experienced the benefits of Oxford tutorials) and is only possible because of his own initiative. Is that a fair assumption? On the other hand we HAVE to turn up to 2 tutorials a week and discuss our reading one-on-one for an hour at a time. Please don't tell me this is anything like comparable to what you get elsewhere, otherwise the entire Oxbridge ethos has been recreated at a fraction of a price at other places and I should have gone there.

melancholly wrote:

the most important quality you need to get a job is the right attitude - everything else will be secondary. you can have the best degree in the world but with a snotty attitude like yours, that will be your limiting factor.

If that attitude has come across it's unintentional. Maybe I have it without knowing. Either way, I'm not sure I care. If you really think a "snotty attitude" is a restrictive factor in city careers then you really are still living in ivory-towered cuckoo land. Anyway, it's not been a bar to Booze Allen offering me a full time place to start in 2010 (I'm not attempting to boast, I don't need to prove myself to you lot, I'm just pointing out how wrong you are either on this "attitude" I apparently have or whether it practically impacts on careers).

durhampoker99

cupid_s wrote: »

Durhampoker, as an aside would you summarise for me the hours that you are expected to put in. I doubt very much it would be much more than what I had to do.

Obviously I don't work the exact same number of hours every week, nor do I properly record those hours which I do work...but roughly:

Reading: 25 hours
Writing essays: 7-8 hours
Seminars: 2 hours
Tutorials: 2 hours

So about 40, it may well be less than many here worked. It's just about enough to get by though.

Kellogg...I accept that I do benefit from a sort of self-perpetuating advantage deriving from my Oxford education. Top jobs are historically awarded to those from Oxbridge, who in turn decide who to give the next top jobs to etc.

As much as you say I have no "understanding of poverty" - probably fair - neither does the man that we are almost certain to elect as our next Prime Minister, nor does the man who has recently been elected Mayor of London. If such a lack of understanding isn't a bar to a career in politics (and it doesn't seem to be) then why should I need one to conduct my own career in my own interests.

I've played the pantomime villain slightly since this discussion shifted away from where it was originally (I assume because I was making too much sense for some people to handle). Personally, I don't really care about how you want to label me. If it makes you feel good to point your finger at me and say "that's what's wrong with Oxbridge", then feel free to do so. It's probably fair, there are a lot of people to whom I'd do the same. What this does show is the instant prejudice Oxbridge students experience, melancholy may or may not agree. It doesn't take much for me to be labeled (not just by you) as arrogant and "typical", others would get away with a lot more. If that's the price I have to pay for my privileged position so be it, it's one I'd pay three or four times over.

Background about me that might surprise you (but will no doubt be greeted with significant cynicism) is that since joining Oxford I've volunteered probably in excess of 30 of hours of free time to go to 10 or so impoverished north-eastern schools (from where I hail) promoting the Oxford access scheme and on top of that personally helping out many students who expressed an interest in applying but who's schools completely failed in preparing them. At a guess I'd say about 100 hours I've put in and I have 5 or 6 thank you cards sitting fairly proudly in my bedroom. I'm immensely proud of them and I'll continue to invest my time in the project for as long as I have it.

If you think I'm a "typical privileged public school boy at Oxford" then I'd urge you to come and spend a day at one of the colleges. You'd be shocked. The stereotype exists, for sure, just not in me.

chickflix

Rikki wrote: »

As long as you cook the occasional meal and wash up that's okay. :cool:

What are you studying?

Going into my final year of my LLB (Hons). :beer:

melancholly

hehehe at cambridge all my lectures were 'optional'. no attendance record was kept and the 9am ones were very empty (i went rowing and went back to bed most mornings)! supervisions in my third year were also optional in that you had to ask a lecturer to set them up and if didn't ask.....

you're talking to someone who knows the reality - yes i worked hard, but 14 weeks at a normal crammed into 8 will do that! yes i had more contact time with academics, but it's there on a plate at other unis if people go to 'office hours'. the fact that you feel that it's the 'forcing' you to go to supervisions suggests that you perhaps wouldn't flouish at a place where there is more of an emphasis on the initiative of students. yes it's a fabulous way to teach and to learn, but students at other top unis shouldn't feel inferior in any way.

i'll also say that i've done cambridge undergrad and now taught at two other top unis, so i feel that i can make a comparison.

i'm sure you will be very happy in your career in the city.....

kelloggs36

Kellogg...I accept that I do benefit from a sort of self-perpetuating advantage deriving from my Oxford education. Top jobs are historically awarded to those from Oxbridge, who in turn decide who to give the next top jobs to etc.



And that is where society is all wrong - it is still jobs for the boys it seems!!

melancholly

kelloggs36 wrote: »

And that is where society is all wrong - it is still jobs for the boys it seems!!

only in very very few places, none of which i would personally want to work in anyway

durhampoker99

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Kellogg...I accept that I do benefit from a sort of self-perpetuating advantage deriving from my Oxford education. Top jobs are historically awarded to those from Oxbridge, who in turn decide who to give the next top jobs to etc.



And that is where society is all wrong - it is still jobs for the boys it seems!!

I think it is a bit like that - but life is full of prejudices. Many of them completely unwarranted (race, sex, age). At least in "favour" of this above others is that it does have some rationale - firms only have so much time/so big a budget to select the people they want in their graduate schemes etc and so being assured of someone who was good enough firstly to get into Oxbridge and then also good enough to finish with a 2.1+ is a fairly attractive one.

If we are to assume that firms are motivated first and foremost by profit (which people have no problem doing when it comes to big energy companies) then we must assume they have these recruitment policies for a reason - it's cheaper and generally quite efficient. They accept they miss out on the occasional "diamond in the rough" who ended up at Teeside, for whatever reason, but it's not worth the "extraction cost".