University costs

jbbonce

Oldernotwiser wrote:

Most people nowadays are unaware that not everybody used to get a full grant under the old system. They were very strictly based on your parents' income; in my own case my parents were a postman and a civil service clerk and they were assessed as having to make a substantial contribution. If they were unable or unwilling to make this contribution then there was nothing you could do about it, you couldn't go to university. I had friends in this position who had to work for three years to achieve independent student status as their parents' were well off but refused to contribute. .

This is still the case with the assessed part of the loan and fees. I had to wait and become an independent student because my parents did not want to know about filling in the forms. I am sure it is quite easy to be at university if your parents pay for everything, but if you do not have this luxury, believe me it is not.

Oldernotwiser wrote:

At that time only 10% of the population went to university. The reason that many people (including myself) think that degrees are easier nowadays is because 40% of young people undertake higher level study and many of them are not that bright! A system that caters for 40% has to be less stringent than a system that caters for the top 10% only.

From what you are saying though, it seems it was the richest 10% and not the most intelligent 10%

Oldernotwiser

jbbonce wrote:

From what you are saying though, it seems it was the richest 10% and not the most intelligent 10%

If you read what a couple of us have written about grammar schools you will see that this is definitely not the case. When they existed, a child from a working class home could have an education as good as anything you could get in the private sector. You couldn't buy a place in a grammar school, admission was by merit only. This is not the case these days where money is more important, either paying for private education or a house in the catchment area of a good school. My husband and many of our friends came from very poor backgrounds and yet went on to university at that period. This is far harder these days, despite the government's attempts to make universities give places to underqualified applicants to meet its social agenda.

I do appreciate that there is some means testing in the current system. However it's only 25% of the maintenance loan that's means tested and the family income has to be over £38,000. If my parents were in their jobs nowadays their household income would be around £30,000 in today's money and that income used to mean paying quite a large chunk to supplement the grant. I don't want to nit pick with these comparisons, I just wanted to correct the thinking that "you all got grants in those days" which many current students seem to think is the truth.

Another difference is that the funding was applied very strictly then to a three year degree. If you dropped out or wanted to change courses then you wouldn't get ANY funding for the extra year you would be studying or sometimes for another course at all! Regarding the payment of fees then I would agree that we definitely had it easier.

jbbonce

Oldernotwiser wrote:

If you read what a couple of us have written about grammar schools you will see that this is definitely not the case. When they existed, a child from a working class home could have an education as good as anything you could get in the private sector. You couldn't buy a place in a grammar school, admission was by merit only. This is not the case these days where money is more important, either paying for private education or a house in the catchment area of a good school. My husband and many of our friends came from very poor backgrounds and yet went on to university at that period. This is far harder these days, despite the government's attempts to make universities give places to underqualified applicants to meet its social agenda.

I do appreciate that there is some means testing in the current system. However it's only 25% of the maintenance loan that's means tested and the family income has to be over £38,000. If my parents were in their jobs nowadays their household income would be around £30,000 in today's money and that income used to mean paying quite a large chunk to supplement the grant. I don't want to nit pick with these comparisons, I just wanted to correct the thinking that "you all got grants in those days" which many current students seem to think is the truth.

Another difference is that the funding was applied very strictly then to a three year degree. If you dropped out or wanted to change courses then you wouldn't get ANY funding for the extra year you would be studying or sometimes for another course at all! Regarding the payment of fees then I would agree that we definitely had it easier.

I take your point, but what I am saying is, for the very poorest students, from the poorest backgrounds (like myself) We have the same workload and the same worries that grammar school undergraduates had, as well as the worry of taking on loans that we may be paying off until we retire. Things are getting better though, low income students who will be starting in 2007 will receive considerably more funding than current students.

tr3mor

jbbonce wrote:

I take your point, but what I am saying is, for the very poorest students, from the poorest backgrounds (like myself) We have the same workload and the same worries that grammar school undergraduates had, as well as the worry of taking on loans that we may be paying off until we retire. Things are getting better though, low income students who will be starting in 2007 will receive considerably more funding than current students.

The system can't be much fairer to be honest. We're all going to end up in the same amount of debt. Why should your parents income matter if you only have to pay back your loan when you're earning yourself.

If your degree made you employable then you should have no problems paying off the loan.

If you do have problems maybe you should've thought harder about taking the loan out in the first place.

kittiwoz

Oldernotwiser wrote:

If you read what a couple of us have written about grammar schools you will see that this is definitely not the case. When they existed, a child from a working class home could have an education as good as anything you could get in the private sector. You couldn't buy a place in a grammar school, admission was by merit only.

Yes and no. My grandfather was the first boy in his street to go to a grammar school. He was closely followed by his younger brother. They both won scholarships to Manchester Grammar. It would have been easier for them to get in if they had been able to afford the fees. Also peope who can afford to pay for private tutoring were then, as now, more likely to get in to selective schools.

You are also completely disregarding parental and social expectation which you can't reasonably do. My grandmother is a very clever woman and dreamed of going to university but she was not even allowed to do A-levels. She wanted to apply for scholarships and had had it suggested to her by teachers that she was bright enough to do this but her mother pulled her out of school at 15 because she insisted she get a job and start contributing to the housekeeping. For a working class woman in the 1940s her aspirations were just too far in excess of the social expectations of the time.

However, it was the value she placed on education which allowed my dad to go on to higher education in the 1960s when non of his peers did. Nonetheless it was seen as a bit odd and I'm sure there were plenty of people who said, "What's he doing that for, he could get a good job as an apprentice in a tool workshop and start earning money. Getting a bit above himself if you ask me." If my grandmother had not been so encouraging and in favour of education I guess he might have taken a job in a steel factory and I wouldn't be here today.

Oldernotwiser

My parent's experiences were very similar to your grandmother's so I understand completely what you're saying. It wasn't until the introduction of the welfare state at the end of the WWII that opportunities for the working classes became generally available. Like your father, it was my parents' aspirations for me that enabled me to go in for higher education.

Regarding entry to Manchester Grammar School, I had similar arguments in the past with my ex husband regarding paying for grammar school education (he's a Mancunian). Strictly speaking MGS is/was a direct grant school where it was possible to pay for entry but you could get a scholarship and not pay fees. The grammar schools I'm talking about were (and are) totally non fee paying, entry only by competitive exam.

The only thing that I would disagree with is your comment about coaching. This is certainly the case these days but was not so (in my experience) when I passed my 11 plus. Nobody I knew had any private coaching and all the school did was a couple of sessions of looking at past test papers to prepare you. Unfortunately, standards in state schools have declined so dramatically that very few children would be successful in entrance tests if they didn't have private tuition nowadays. Also there are fewer grammar schools around so competition has become very fierce to avoid the "bog standard " comprehensive.

jbbonce

tr3mor wrote:

The system can't be much fairer to be honest. We're all going to end up in the same amount of debt. Why should your parents income matter if you only have to pay back your loan when you're earning yourself.

If your degree made you employable then you should have no problems paying off the loan.

If you do have problems maybe you should've thought harder about taking the loan out in the first place.

I don't think anyone who waits and goes to university as a mature student goes into it with their eyes closed. But we have no idea what the future holds. If there is another recession, if i get ill or become disabled will I still have no problems paying off the loan?

The income of parents does matter because children of the well-off are able to invest their student loan and come out with no debt a small amount of interest while the poorer students have not only student loans, but most likely an overdraft, credit card and even a personal loan.

So we are not all going to come out with the same amount of debt.

melancholly

jbbonce wrote:

I don't think anyone who waits and goes to university as a mature student goes into it with their eyes closed. But we have no idea what the future holds. If there is another recession, if i get ill or become disabled will I still have no problems paying off the loan?

The income of parents does matter because children of the well-off are able to invest their student loan and come out with no debt a small amount of interest while the poorer students have not only student loans, but most likely an overdraft, credit card and even a personal loan.

So we are not all going to come out with the same amount of debt.

i can't disagree with any of that - but remember that if your income is below the threshold then you don't have to make loan repayments.

the system isn't fair - it may or may not be fairer than before, but realistically, despite it's pitfalls, it's ok in the main..... that's no help to people who are really struggling for money, but with access to learning funds (see the brilliant thread by rob hammond if you haven't already), jobs, budgeting and other money saving, it really is possible to leave uni with a manageable amount of debt.

Oldernotwiser

jbbonce wrote:

I don't think anyone who waits and goes to university as a mature student goes into it with their eyes closed. But we have no idea what the future holds. If there is another recession, if i get ill or become disabled will I still have no problems paying off the loan?

QUOTE]

But if you're unemployed/disabled/ill etc so that your income is below £15,000 you won't need to pay it back anyway.

tr3mor

jbbonce wrote:

I don't think anyone who waits and goes to university as a mature student goes into it with their eyes closed. But we have no idea what the future holds. If there is another recession, if i get ill or become disabled will I still have no problems paying off the loan?

No problems whatsoever, you won't have to pay it off

jbbonce wrote:

The income of parents does matter because children of the well-off are able to invest their student loan and come out with no debt a small amount of interest while the poorer students have not only student loans, but most likely an overdraft, credit card and even a personal loan.

So we are not all going to come out with the same amount of debt.

If you're from a poorer family you'll get the full loan of £4500 plus a grant of £2800, plus your fees loan.

£140 a week?! Thats more than enough for anyone!

The problems lie in borderline students not getting any parental support, these are the ones left to fend for themselves, not the ones from poor families.

And I wish people would stop seeing student loans in the same light as credit card debt or commercial loans. It's not, you only pay a small percentage of your income over £15k. If you fall on hard times there's nothing to pay at all!

(OOH, my thousandth post, what a waste )