Student Loan for 2 children at uni at same time

kr15snw

I wouldnt say they are the winners.

The reason that more is given to those with smaller incomes is because it is expected that the parents help. If you earn over the limit then the government say you can help.

Most divorced families I know off do not get financial help from their other parent, other than the usual csa. No help for rent / food. Hence why they are assesed on household income.

My parents earn under 15 k between them so I get full help. I get help because they dont have a spare penny to support me and without loans etc there is no way I could afford to go to uni.

Lokolo

poet123 wrote: »

Quick post,

You have misundrstood me.

We earn more than the amount mentioned in the first post between us,so my kids get no help at all. We pay full rent,tuition,food,travel.books for 2 kids and will for a 3rd when he goes.

They have part time jobs.

Because we are a family unit we are assessed on the income coming in,that is not right as regardless of where I or my husband live we would /shouldstill contribute,and I am sure many do,but this income is not counted Therefore the kids of separated parents are the financial winners.

Tbh we are both on the same point about both parents having to contribute.

But yeh I do think its unfair that people abuse the system and say they have £x amount because of speraration yet the other half is then paying £x to the children as extra, which obviously in some cases can be a lot. But I do feel this is a minority. I think they should sort it out, but its hard to um lets say, my dad has a new family and is having to support them, he also has to support me and my brother (which is why he doesn't, cause of other family), so to be honest its really a no win unless you get step parents helping out or the absent half is helping out but not delcaring it.

jennifernil

It seems the rest of us, the taxpayers, are certainly the losers. Since the divorced father's (or mother's) income is not taken into the equation and he/she is not expected/forced to contribute, the student gets a higher grant/bursary or whatever, and that comes out of our taxes.

The student, in the case of divorced parents, may well be the winner if they end up with more grant payments and less loans than other students. And maybe even a contribution from the absent parent.

poet123

kr15snw wrote: »

I wouldnt say they are the winners.

The reason that more is given to those with smaller incomes is because it is expected that the parents help. If you earn over the limit then the government say you can help.

Most divorced families I know off do not get financial help from their other parent, other than the usual csa. No help for rent / food. Hence why they are assesed on household income.

My parents earn under 15 k between them so I get full help. I get help because they dont have a spare penny to support me and without loans etc there is no way I could afford to go to uni.

I have absolutely no problem with students from low income families getting grants,bursaries etc. It is only fair that all kids (who are bright enough)should have the opportunity to go to Uni and if grants are the option then so be it. In fact I think the whole system pf paying for higher education is appalling, but that is another thread altogether.!!!!

However my issue is that the new system purports to shift the burden from the family onto the student. If that is so, then why is any parental income taken into account?,the loans/grants should be available across the board, for repayment by the student at a later date.

I know the children of families who do not live together who got EMA whilst at College due to the mothers income only being counted,where the absent father paid the kids an allowance,took them on exotic holidays and generally showered them with gifts. Now they are at Uni they claim everything going,yet still get the payments.

This could be solved by the absent parent being forced to contribute,and TBH the excuse of a second family cuts no ice with me.....if you can't afford to support the first family, dont have a second one when the taxpayer has to subsidise the first one :mad:

angelatgraceland

poet123 wrote: »

I have absolutely no problem with students from low income families getting grants,bursaries etc. It is only fair that all kids (who are bright enough)should have the opportunity to go to Uni and if grants are the option then so be it. In fact I think the whole system pf paying for higher education is appalling, but that is another thread altogether.!!!!

However my issue is that the new system purports to shift the burden from the family onto the student. If that is so, then why is any parental income taken into account?,the loans/grants should be available across the board, for repayment by the student at a later date.

The whole thing regarding loans is appalling. It should be grants-not loans-getting our children into debt. If the burden is supposed to be on the student the idea of the parents income shouldnt come into it. My daughter has started uni at 22. She is an adult. Why should we be forced to pay for further education?
Nice if we volunteer to "help" but having all and sundry nosing into our finances is not appreciated. And why should it h appen? Over 18 they are adults-able to vote. Not dependants. in the sense that under 18s are. Im guessing this is because she is "living at home" which is also "free". No help if you let your kids stay at home with you-only if you send them packing before Univeristy I am guessing-and how they are supposed to pay for it then I have no idea so Im not going to hazard a guess. Ive heard that Scotland has changed this? Again-unsure-but if thats true and the Scots are giving this further education at no cost then as our government is in England why the hell are the English and the Welsh having to pay?
Stop fighting about who has to pay what-married or otherwise and fight to get this education provided for our students with no debts around their necks for the future!

poet123

I agree none of us should have to pay.....but the sad fact is that having gone down that route it is very unlikely that anyone in power will reverse it.
It is as you say disgraceful,more so when you consider that the people who made this happen went through education, and reached their positions of power when it was free, and grants were available.

That being the case, it is only fair that all parents.married or otherwise should contribute,because whilst they don't, the rest of us pay more.

jennifernil

We are in Scotland and have just supported our daughter through 4 years of Uni, she is now on a sponsored PhD. While there are no fees here now, students still need/get loans that have to be paid back for living costs, but there are bursaries for students from low income families.

I too think there should be no fees for Uni, and grants, although ALL parents should also help with living costs where appropriate. I was at Uni in the late 60s and had a small grant plus top-up from parents. In those days hardly any students worked other than in vacations. It's a different world now.

Oldernotwiser

I agree that HE should be free and grants available but not for 40% of the population. When the funding worked like this, only 10/20% of the age group went into HE and the country could afford to fund it properly. Encouraging thousands of young people who aren't really equipped to study at this level to get a degree has led to this mess. What a waste of time and money this has become and how it has lowered educational standards!

(I do wish that people would understand the difference between further and higher education; it makes some posts very difficult to understand!) Sorry.

andyrules

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I agree that HE should be free and grants available but not for 40% of the population. When the funding worked like this, only 10/20% of the age group went into HE and the country could afford to fund it properly. Encouraging thousands of young people who aren't really equipped to study at this level to get a degree has led to this mess. What a waste of time and money this has become and how it has lowered educational standards!

(I do wish that people would understand the difference between further and higher education; it makes some posts very difficult to understand!) Sorry.

Totally agree - but I didn't agree with you on another thread - did I dream the petition one or has it disappeared?

jennifernil

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I agree that HE should be free and grants available but not for 40% of the population. When the funding worked like this, only 10/20% of the age group went into HE and the country could afford to fund it properly. Encouraging thousands of young people who aren't really equipped to study at this level to get a degree has led to this mess. What a waste of time and money this has become and how it has lowered educational standards!

(I do wish that people would understand the difference between further and higher education; it makes some posts very difficult to understand!) Sorry.

I totally agree.

When I was at Uni, degrees were in "serious" subjects. We have 8 graduates in the close family now, 5 with various Engineering degrees, 2 with Science degrees and one psychologist.

Some "degree" subjects these days are laughable.