Running out of money

dieselhead

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It always amazes me the number of parents of students who "can't afford" a small allowance for their student offspring but can still manage foreign holidays and decent cars. Even in this situation the kids still blame the government rather than the parents.

I would ask why should they, they have supported their off spring for 18 years, why should they continue to support them as adults? I realise that you could counter, with well why should the government support them, but my response to that would be, why should the government support anyone. I think at 18 adults should be taking responsibility for themselves. If that means applying for a government loan to support them then all these new young adults should be able to start their adult life on an even footing.

dieselhead

Fire_Fox wrote: »

If you gave all students the same maintenance grant and the same amount of student loan (London weighting excluded), some students would still have this topped up by wealthy or generous parents and others would not. Without us all paying a lot more in taxes there is only a finite amount of money in the pot - if you divide this equally between all students, the ones from a less well off background would suffer.



The non-means tested student loan coupled with working in the holidays is more than sufficient to live a frugal lifestyle. In 2006/07 every student was entitled to receive £3305 of non-income assessed maintenance loan - rising to £6170 if studying in London and subject to income assessment.
http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/studying/funding_your_study/sources_of_help/loans.cfm

Let's then say a student works for £5 an hour, an average of a 16 hour week year round (if not working at all in term time, that would be full time for 22 weeks): they would take home approximately £4000 a year. Thus a minimum of £7300 income for a student who is not entitled to a maintenance grant with parents who feel unable to contribute.

According to the Student Income and Expenditure Survey I linked to in an earlier post, the average full-time student spent £2276 on housing in 2004/5. There are entire families living on £4k a year excluding mortgage, rent and council tax (see DFW board). But let's be generous and say that one person needs the entire amount to live comfortably, outgoings total £6300 leaving £1000 a year to play with.

Obviously this is a very crude assessment, as my figures don't all relate to the same academic year nor take full account of individual circumstances. I have attempted to make it the worst case scenario for income, and been generous with the amount required to live on: bear in mind there is also a 0% overdraft to play with.

I would agree with your assessment I live on a very similar amount of money and have done for the last 7 years, however why should some students have to work when others don't? There will always be those in life who will have money and who will be 'topped up' by their parents for most of their life, but for the majority of students it is galling to see the person in the next bedroom, drinking away their huge loan and grant from the government while they leave for work every weekend. I have absolutely no objection to students working, I always have and I believe it provides structure to an otherwise structureless lifestyle. I just don't believe it benefits anyone to sort young adults in to categories based on what their parents earn, if it is possible to live on the minimum student loan (and it very defiantly is) then why does the government insist upon giving greater amounts of money to some (it could be argued at a disadvantage as they will more than likely spend longer in paying it back).

I just believe at 18 as new young adults we should be able as far as possible to begin our university life on a equal footing.

Fire_Fox

No_Future wrote: »

Don't forget that some students e.g. at Oxbridge or medical students have A LOT of lectures and extra work so getting a term time job may not be a realistic option.

If you are lucky to work for a company which allows you to transfer, that's great, but most people don't. I do agree that people should move their butt and look for a job, but it's not a question of just walking into a job, getting a job isn't easy and with many students looking for work you may not be able to get one

Most medical and Oxbridge students come from the sort of background where the parents are only too pleased to their offspring out financially. When I lived in Cambridge I had four student friends who shared a house - two vet and two med students - three who worked part-time and one who was daddy's little princess. :rolleyes:

It's really not that hard to find employment. I relocated permanently to Bradford, a city well known for it's high unemployment rate, the same week I started college. Although I only had six weeks to prepare (late decision to study) I had two offers of work before moving as a result of sending out over 30 CVs on spec and following up every single one.

Yes at 36 I have more experience and qualifications that the average 18 year old, but I also have two years long term sick leave on my record. I was competing for paid work as a pharmacy technician against university pharmacy students willing to work for free so that was one option completely out of the window. I presently work for the NHS in a supposedly professional role for the same hourly rate as the cleaners, and at one point last year was working two jobs AND attending courses in both Leeds and Newcastle! :eek:

Tommy99

dieselhead wrote: »

I would agree with your assessment I live on a very similar amount of money and have done for the last 7 years, however why should some students have to work when others don't? There will always be those in life who will have money and who will be 'topped up' by their parents for most of their life, but for the majority of students it is galling to see the person in the next bedroom, drinking away their huge loan and grant from the government while they leave for work every weekend. I have absolutely no objection to students working, I always have and I believe it provides structure to an otherwise structureless lifestyle. I just don't believe it benefits anyone to sort young adults in to categories based on what their parents earn, if it is possible to live on the minimum student loan (and it very defiantly is) then why does the government insist upon giving greater amounts of money to some (it could be argued at a disadvantage as they will more than likely spend longer in paying it back).

I just believe at 18 as new young adults we should be able as far as possible to begin our university life on a equal footing.

dieselhead I would ask why should they, they have supported their off spring for 18 years, why should they continue to support them as adults? I realise that you could counter, with well why should the government support them, but my response to that would be, why should the government support anyone. I think at 18 adults should be taking responsibility for themselves. If that means applying for a government loan to support them then all these new young adults should be able to start their adult life on an even footing.

I sort of agree with both of you. I went to college (Aged 20) to do a access course to get into uni. At college i was classed as a mature student and recieved EMA support. However, as a uni student i was not a mature student untill 25?

I think and this is my oppinion, every student should get a loan not a grant. this would mean that all student left with the same amount of debt, instead of a free ride. If there parents are unable to contribute and can prove it then a grant would be allocated

As, the goverment class over 18's as adults they should be treated like adults. In my first year i had 2 bar jobs one during the day and one at night.

Peace;)

Tommy99

Fire_Fox wrote: »

one who was daddy's little princess. :rolleyes:

I know the ones :mad: :mad: :mad:

Oldernotwiser

Tommy99 wrote: »

At college i was classed as a mature student and recieved EMA support. However, as a uni student i was not a mature student untill 25?

At aged 20 you would've received ALG, not EMA. I also think that you're confusing being a mature student with being an independent student because if you had supported yourself for 3 years then you wouldn't be assessed on your parents' income, even if you were several years younger than 25. Your statement "If there parents are unable to contribute and can prove it then a grant would be allocated" is exactly the situation that exists now, so I don't see what you're disagreeing with!



Dieselhead: I found aspects of your post fascinating. You seem quite happy for the children of wealthy families to have plenty of money but seem to reserve your ire for the "person in the next bedroom, drinking away their huge loan and grant from the government " Considering that these are from the very poorest families, doesn't there seem something rather strange in this to you? Wealthy people having pots of money is fine but financially supporting the poor is a bad thing!

How students' attitudes have changed since my day!

Fire_Fox

dieselhead wrote: »

I would agree with your assessment I live on a very similar amount of money and have done for the last 7 years, however why should some students have to work when others don't? There will always be those in life who will have money and who will be 'topped up' by their parents for most of their life, but for the majority of students it is galling to see the person in the next bedroom, drinking away their huge loan and grant from the government while they leave for work every weekend. I have absolutely no objection to students working, I always have and I believe it provides structure to an otherwise structureless lifestyle. I just don't believe it benefits anyone to sort young adults in to categories based on what their parents earn, if it is possible to live on the minimum student loan (and it very defiantly is) then why does the government insist upon giving greater amounts of money to some (it could be argued at a disadvantage as they will more than likely spend longer in paying it back).

I just believe at 18 as new young adults we should be able as far as possible to begin our university life on a equal footing.

I find it difficult to believe there are many students are not entitled to the maintenance grant and their parents are unwilling or unable to help out financially. For those who are in that situation it is unfortunate, but no system will be completely fair. Students are notorious for not bothering to register to vote or not bothering to cast a vote - the situation might be very different if this changed.

I am a mature student who would not have returned to study so late in life had I not been entitled to a maintenance grant. I think students in general are very well catered for - I could afford to work far less than I do, but intend to leave higher education with sufficient savings to equal my tuition fee loan and other debts.:T

I also intend to leave with experience such that so that I can walk into a graduate job of my choosing, and so have had two voluntary roles as well as paid employment during my course. Thanks to this website I have money management skills that will last me a lifetime. Rather than looking at the negative aspects of working while studying or being constantly short on money, draw on the positives for job applications and interview questions.

dieselhead

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Dieselhead: I found aspects of your post fascinating. You seem quite happy for the children of wealthy families to have plenty of money but seem to reserve your ire for the "person in the next bedroom, drinking away their huge loan and grant from the government " Considering that these are from the very poorest families, doesn't there seem something rather strange in this to you? Wealthy people having pots of money is fine but financially supporting the poor is a bad thing!

How students' attitudes have changed since my day!

What I am trying to say is that we live in a capitalist society where there will always be rich and poor, what I dislike is the government somehow trying to artificially even up the score, in my opinion to the detriment of those in the middle, who seem to be at the greatest disadvantage.

I also don't think that giving some students larger grants and loans is supporting the poor, they are not poor their parents are and I don't believe that parents wealth should be taken into account.

As far as voting goes I couldn't agree more, I have always voted, I was always taught if you don't vote you can't moan so I always vote, so that I can moan, a lot!!

Fire_Fox

dieselhead wrote: »

What I am trying to say is that we live in a capitalist society where there will always be rich and poor, what I dislike is the government somehow trying to artificially even up the score, in my opinion to the detriment of those in the middle, who seem to be at the greatest disadvantage.

So you'd do away with the entire welfare system? And you'd have students pay council tax?

dieselhead

Fire_Fox wrote: »

So you'd do away with the entire welfare system? And you'd have students pay council tax?

No you have taken my comments out of context, my comments concern students at the age of 18, moving out of home for the first time. All I would like is for all 18 year olds to get the same amount of loan, to be treated as adults without the amount of loan they get being based upon their parents income.