UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[xxChrisxx]

Ah yeah I see, but the extra money earned on average from the degree is still far in excess of £27,000. I'd wager.

Although on a point you lightly touched here, I'm in complete disagreement with the fact that one year someone will have ~£10,000 debt from the tuition, and the following cohort will be saddled with £27,000. You could be looking at someone who was born on September 1st at 00.01am who'll potentially be £17,000 worse of, I think a long term gradual scheme would have been much better. (although the government "couldn't of possibly seen this coming", sure.)

It's all ********. Why are the loans based on parents income, when the student themselves will have the debt?

As a hypothetical scenario:
You have one child from a low income background (household income of 16k, parents divorced etc). You have another from a middle income background (household income of about 40k, both parents living together).

They both go to the same University to study Engineering.

The low income background student is eligible for 1/2 tuition paid by a government grant. They also get a 2K grant on maintenance. Grants are non repayable.

As this currently stands (with top up fees to be increased). 4.5K tuition will be paid by a grant. With 2K free.So total loan per year under the new rules will be 4.5 + 4 (tuition + maintenance) and 4.5 + 2 grant.

So per year: 8.5K payable debt per year. 6.5K free.

Those coming from a family earning 40K, they are eligible for no tuition help and no grant. Meaning a loan of 9+4 = 13K debt per year.

How is that remotely fair?, both students have the same prospects but those coming from a family that is poor will get the same thing for 12-16K cheaper.

Numbers are representative (I wasn't hit with top up fees but, the percentages of tuition paid free and 2K grant are real figures) of a situation I found myself in at university. I'm pissed off with it because I'm saddled with more debt that someone I'm competing for the same job and pay with.

 

[cristo]

How is that remotely fair?, both students have the same prospects but those coming from a family that is poor will get the same thing for 12-16K cheaper.

Have you tried supporting a child on a salary of £16k? I fully support a system where the less well-off are encouraged and helped to attend university. Otherwise, university is only a place the for rich. A household income of £40k is above the average for the UK, and so the parents are more than able to provide some financial support to the student.

 

[JaredJames]

It's all ********. Why are the loans based on parents income, when the student themselves will have the debt?

Completely agree.

Those coming from a family earning 40K, they are eligible for no tuition help and no grant. Meaning a loan of 9+4 = 13K debt per year.

Actually, I believe anyone can apply for tuition help and get it. It isn't income dependent (although there are other restrictions - place of study, course).

Your maintenance loan is income based. That is to cover living costs etc.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Educati...ation/StudentFinance/Gettingstarted/DG_171573

You are right about grants though.

Overall your point stands. A student from a low income background can leave university with up to 50% less debt than a student from a middle income background, even if neither of their parents provide them any support what so ever.

 

[JaredJames]

Have you tried supporting a child on a salary of £16k? I fully support a system where the less well-off are encouraged and helped to attend university. Otherwise, university is only a place the for rich. A household income of £40k is above the average for the UK, and so the parents are more than able to provide some financial support to the student.

I do agree with this, in that parents who are paid well enough should be requested to help their children in university. However, I don't think its fair people are judged by something they have no control over.

One of my flatmates in my first year had parents with a combined income of over £60,000 per year, however she hadn't spoken to them in a year and wasn't dependent on them in any way. They provided her with no support at all. Thanks to the system, their income was taken into account (you have to be estranged for over 3 years I believe not to have the income taken into account).

 

[xxChrisxx]

Have you tried supporting a child on a salary of £16k? I fully support a system where the less well-off are encouraged and helped to attend university. Otherwise, university is only a place the for rich. A household income of £40k is above the average for the UK, and so the parents are more than able to provide some financial support to the student.

ITS A LOAN. Therefore you have to pay it back when you are working. You don't pay anything up front. So how poor or rich your parents are is totally irrelevant.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Actually, I believe anyone can apply for tuition help and get it. It isn't income dependent (although there are other restrictions - place of study, course).

That's changed singe I paid it, I started before top up fees. So I'm not too bad my tuition was only £1200.

One of my friends got it totally free (but he really didn't have any money) which is perfectly ok with me.

It's those who parents are 'separated', mum doesn't work but dad gives them £400 a month. Their loan went into a high interest fund. Mine went on books and beans on toast.

 

[JaredJames]

ITS A LOAN. Therefore you have to pay it back when you are working. You don't pay anything up front. So how poor or rich your parents are is totally irrelevant.

Exactly.

Although I still think your parents should help somewhat, if they can.

But then again, as per my previous example it isn't fair to judge people on their parents ability for the reason shown there.

I personally prefer a system where all students are treated equally. And then if parents can afford it, they have the choice to help you out.

 

[JaredJames]

One of my friends got it totally free (but he really didn't have any money) which is perfectly ok with me.

Fine by me.

It's those who parents are 'separated', mum doesn't work but dad gives them £400 a month. Their loan went into a high interest fund. Mine went on books and beans on toast.

My parents are separated but my father doesn't give me or my mother anything so I didn't get that benefit.

I have a friend whose parents don't work, grandparents pay his living/course costs and he gets the maximum student loan with a large proportion of grants. So it's effectively free money. This is definitely a problem with the system but I'm not sure what you can do with it. Perhaps if they paid housing costs directly to the landlord, that would take a significant portion of the problem away.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Exactly.

Although I still think your parents should help somewhat, if they can.

But then again, as per my previous example it isn't fair to judge people on their parents ability for the reason shown there.

I personally prefer a system where all students are treated equally. And then if parents can afford it, they have the choice to help you out.

I edited that to reflect more closely what I meant. Being treated equally is all I want, I also think helping people out gives a better spirit of community. It's those that abuse the system that annoy me so much.

It's just that the balance is all off. It's those who are in the middle who get hammered for everything.

I mean why do they leave with less debt per year? If it was judged so that everyone left with the same (to have a level playing field), with the government making up the difference for the poorest. I'd be fine with that. But when you see people effectively better off than you are simply because their parents have less money. It's really galling.

 

[JaredJames]

Edited it to reflect your changes, the point still stands.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So I dropped out of this thread for a while, but I want to follow up on a few points:

• Is it really ethical for students (or prospective students) to violently revolt because they won't get something for free or less than it's worth? (even if it was promised to them)
• Shouldn't getting a college degree be a career-minded endeavor? (e.g., if you're getting a degree, you plan to use it to do X)
• Shouldn't Universities be allowed to set tuition based on quality of education, rather than have it arbitrarily dictated by the government?
• Isn't the amount of money a person has the social analog to a student's grades? Work Hard : Have Money :: Study Hard : Good Grades

 

[mheslep]

Tax payer funded university education also strikes me as one of the most regressive ways to spend government funds: all those that can't qualify academically for a university admission, or are just not inclined to go, more often that not the poor, end up forced to pay for those that do qualify via taxes.

 

[cristo]

So how poor or rich your parents are is totally irrelevant.

You're only saying this because you come from a well-off family. I think if you were the child of a single mother who earned £16k a year you would realize how 'relevant' the issue was. The fact of the matter is that your parents could afford to support you to an extent that the single mother case could not. Therefore, the government should give you less support. If you don't like that, then maybe you should move to another country where this level of 'fairness' does not exist.

 

[JaredJames]

You're only saying this because you come from a well-off family. I think if you were the child of a single mother who earned £16k a year you would realize how 'relevant' the issue was.

Uh, with the exception of my mother earning £17k, this is exactly my case. I agree with Chris on the matter.

The fact is, you are opting to take a loan. But, they are then testing your parents to check your eligibility and how much you get. I wouldn't say so much if they had to countersign it.

It's like going to buy a car and the car company checking your neighbours credit file. What does how much you get have to do with them? The only time parental earning should come into the equation is when checking if you should get loan or grant (or a mix as is usually the case).

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You're only saying this because you come from a well-off family. I think if you were the child of a single mother who earned £16k a year you would realize how 'relevant' the issue was.

What about people that go to school without any support from their parents? I'm not saying it's easy, but your level of commitment and effort have a direct correlation to what you achieve in life... Student loans, jobs during school, scholarships, and grants all make this possible if you are worthy.

The fact of the matter is that your parents could afford to support you to an extent that the single mother case could not. Therefore, the government should give you less support.

What if the government doesn't have the money for it? Steal from the rich to give to the poor?

If you don't like that, then maybe you should move to another country where this level of 'fairness' does not exist.

I find your definition of "fairness" to be somewhat lop-sided. If a person is poor (or grew up poor) they have the right to take money from people that worked hard and made more money? Sounds to me like there's no incentive to work hard at all...

 

[cristo]

It's like going to buy a car and the car company checking your neighbours credit file. What does how much you get have to do with them?

Are you kidding? Wow, you sure love to draw wild, irrelevant analogies.

 

[cristo]

I find your definition of "fairness" to be somewhat lop-sided.

You're from America, so that's hardly surprising. However, in this thread, we are talking about tuition fees in the UK.

 

[JaredJames]

Are you kidding? Wow, you sure love to draw wild, irrelevant analogies.

Why is it irrelevant?

I want a loan, you check my parents. Their input isn't required for anything other than a check of how much I get in a loan.

The key here is that it's a loan. I am expected to pay it back (and will have to) once I'm working. Not my parents, not my neighbours, no one but me.

Fair enough, check my parents in respect to grants, but what is the point in basing how much loan I get on their income?

Like I said, it's like going for a car loan and the company checking your neighbours. It doesn't make sense and given the responsibility of the loan is with me and not them, why does anything about them have anything to do with me getting my loan. A car company won't turn you down on the basis of your parents / neighbours / friends incomes, so why should this be any different?

I gave an example previously of a situation with my friend where parental income involvement in the calculation of loan amount has left her worse off than someone on equal footing as her. I received the full loan amount because of my parents income, and received no support from my parents. She didn't receive the full loan amount because of her parents income, and received no support from her parents. How is that a fair system. (Plus she hadn't spoke to them in a year, but the system doesn't take that into account.)

 

[Hepth]

Fair enough, check my parents in respect to grants, but what is the point in basing how much loan I get on their income?

I think the key is that it ISN'T fair in specific circumstances (middle-class parents refusing to help pay for school vs. low income) but that it is a small sacrifice to allow the low-income populace a chance at a higher education. The MAJORITY of middle class can, and will help fund a student's education. The government/banks/etc know this. So rather than make some complex system where they somehow can tell if a middle class family LEGITIMATELY refuses to assist their child (or whether they're just saying so for a free ride), they just say "deal with it".

Obviously not ideal, but works most of the time. It's just unfortunate. Same goes for the variety of grants (especially in the US). I got to watch my girlfriend (very smart) get into a much better grad school than I did while she had lower grades, less extra-curriculars, lower ranked undergrad, etc because she received an ethnicity-based fellowship, and since her school was paid was accepted almost anywhere. I, as a white male, had very few such chances (with similar probabilities of acceptance., her's had 5 applicants and there were 4 fellowships to be granted.)

Unfortunate? Of course. But its ok if it means that a lot of people are granted a fairer chance of success.

 

[cristo]

The key here is that it's a loan. I am expected to pay it back (and will have to) once I'm working. Not my parents, not my neighbours, no one but me.

Actually, that's not true, and I'm surprised you don't know this, given that you clearly have a loan with them. Since you have no equity, should you default on the loan your parent/s will be required to pay the loan on your behalf. So, unlike you neighbour in your analogy, you parents are involved.

Fair enough, check my parents in respect to grants, but what is the point in basing how much loan I get on their income?

Like I've said many times, because the poorer people are less able to provide additional support than the more well off families.

 

[xxChrisxx]

You're only saying this because you come from a well-off family. I think if you were the child of a single mother who earned £16k a year you would realize how 'relevant' the issue was. The fact of the matter is that your parents could afford to support you to an extent that the single mother case could not. Therefore, the government should give you less support. If you don't like that, then maybe you should move to another country where this level of 'fairness' does not exist.

I shall be.

However you seem to be totally missing the point of fairness. Why should someone be better off than the average student? Why don't we all leave with the same?

I think it's fair to say that most parents give about £300ish a month to those at Uni, to live on. The maintenance loan generally goes on accomodation, and the tuition goes on, well, tuition.

I can understand that not all families can afford to give £300 a month (which is ok to live on). I also have no problem with that being given as a free grant by the government.

I object to paying much more for the same level of education though.EDIT: Also we are a massively long way off being 'well off'. We are by no means on the breadline, but as a family they have now have no savings and my dad worked every hour he could for 4 years to put me and my brother though Uni. It's not a stretch to say it took almost every penny they had.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Actually, that's not true, and I'm surprised you don't know this, given that you clearly have a loan with them. Since you have no equity, should you default on the loan your parent/s will be required to pay the loan on your behalf. So, unlike you neighbour in your analogy, you parents are involved.

Absolutely no mention of a guarantor on any of my correspondence from the SLC. I'll happily apologise and retract that if you can prove it. Until then, I call bollocks on that.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You're from America, so that's hardly surprising. However, in this thread, we are talking about tuition fees in the UK.

Perhaps you can define your view of "fair" so that it can be properly debated, rather than simply disregarding my views based on my country of origin...

From what I'm hearing, "poor" people (term also yet to be defined) should have a right to more money than "rich" people because they're "poor" and higher education is a "right." So the less money you have, the more you get from the government, thus no incentive to work for advancement in society.

From what I'm seeing in this thread, "rich" people are being defined as equal to "old money" (e.g. they inherited all of their money and didn't earn it). I still stand by my analogy that hard work : money :: hard study : grades; in other words, if you want money you should work for it, not simply claim it from people that worked harder than you.

I think the key is that it ISN'T fair in specific circumstances (middle-class parents refusing to help pay for school vs. low income) but that it is a small sacrifice to allow the low-income populace a chance at a higher education.

Is it really a small sacrifice?

The MAJORITY of middle class can, and will help fund a student's education.

A single student maybe, but a whole section of the population?

Unfortunate? Of course. But its ok if it means that a lot of people are granted a fairer chance of success.

There's that word "fair" again, but it seems to me YOU'RE the one that got screwed... Why is that "fair"?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Fair:

- "free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception..."
- "fairly: without favoring one party, in a fair evenhanded manner..."

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...pAMoAA&usg=AFQjCNGoh8FHgowvog1EclHPthDZ9mNGuQ

 

[cristo]

I think it's fair to say that most parents give about £300ish a month to those at Uni, to live on. The maintenance loan generally goes on accomodation, and the tuition goes on, well, tuition.

Nonsense. My parents didn't give me anything like £300 a month, nor could they afford to!

Perhaps you can define your view of "fair" so that it can be properly debated, rather than simply disregarding my views based on my country of origin...

I put the word fair in inverted commas for precisely this reason: most people on this forum will not agree with the system in place in the UK, but that is irrelevant since the UK is not America!

So the less money you have, the more you get from the government, thus no incentive to work for advancement in society.

Of course that's how it should be, but it doesn't mean that there is no incentive to work. You shouldn't have to feed adults teasers in order to have them perform in a society.

From what I'm seeing in this thread, "rich" people are being defined as equal to "old money" (e.g. they inherited all of their money and didn't earn it). I still stand by my analogy that hard work : money :: hard study : grades; in other words, if you want money you should work for it, not simply claim it from people that worked harder than you.

But this has nothing to do with the thread. I'm not saying that you should throw money at people left, right and centre. I'm simply saying that those who are less well off should be supported and encouraged to attend university in a view to get a better education than (for the most part) their parents. But, again, it's not hard to understand why you don't agree since this fundamentally goes against the ideals of the US.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Nonsense. My parents didn't give me anything like £300 a month, nor could they afford to!

How on Earth did you survive then at University? I got a 1.2K loan for tuition. 3.5K maintenance loan (as it was means tested this was the maximum I could get) which went on accommodation typically (3300ish/year), books (typically 120ish/year) and other academic type stuff (pens pencils rubbers rulers). The leftovers were put towards paying bills.

If I didn't get that money I'd have had nothing to eat for a year. And I have no idea where you went, but this was a typical sum given to everyone. Most of the parents of the people I went to Uni with paid for the accommodation and the loan paid for their food, etc. I did it the other way round because it was easier to budget.

You are still sidetracking the issue of why you believe it's fair that I should pay more for the same education as someone else.


Either you are a wizard with your budget or your talking BS to try to make a point.

EDIT: Also the government assed that about £2.5K is an acceptable/agerage parental contribution (as the max maintenance loan was 5K when I went). As that's how much they deducted from us when we filled out the student loan form each year. (300*8=2400) Leaving 3.5K available for loan.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I put the word fair in inverted commas for precisely this reason: most people on this forum will not agree with the system in place in the UK, but that is irrelevant since the UK is not America!

But I'm not simply disagreeing with it, I'm asking you to defend it on legal/moral grounds... why is it "fair" to give more money to "poor" people because they're "poor"?

Of course that's how it should be, but it doesn't mean that there is no incentive to work. You shouldn't have to feed adults teasers in order to have them perform in a society.

That's a very utopian (but ultimately pipe dream) view of society and what motivates individuals. Why should someone work harder if it does not net them any benefit? If you can a) work hard and earn money to buy everything you want or b) sit and have it given to you, which will people choose?

I'm not saying that you should throw money at people left, right and centre. I'm simply saying that those who are less well off should be supported and encouraged to attend university in a view to get a better education than (for the most part) their parents.

That sounds very noble in theory... but what you're really saying is if you have an income under some value you're "poor" and wouldn't be able to get into college because you can't pay tuition. Therefore, you can have your education paid-for by the government, regardless of what your intentions are for that education after you get it. What's wrong with student loans, scholarships, and/or having a job in school?

But, again, it's not hard to understand why you don't agree since this fundamentally goes against the ideals of the US.

I'm mainly trying to understand how you justify this logically. I get the feeling the laws are made with touchy-feely good intentions in mind, but ignore where the rubber meets the road when the program doesn't work...

 

[xxChrisxx]

That sounds very noble in theory... but what you're really saying is if you have an income under some value you're "poor" and wouldn't be able to get into college because you can't pay tuition. Therefore, you can have your education paid-for by the government, regardless of what your intentions are for that education after you get it. What's wrong with student loans, scholarships, and/or having a job in school?

To be fair I believe University education should be free (for the useful courses anyway). As you are likely to pay higher rate tax as a graduate, therefore it's the government investing in the individual to contribute to society.

However the 'too poor to go' is irrelevant, as it's a loan only repayable when you are earning over a certain amount. Everyone can 'afford' the tuition because of this.

The only reason why someone couldn't afford to go, is that it's costs too much to live away. Living at home if you are a student should be banned, as you lean none of the life skills if you stay with your parents. So I'm all for giving those people the means to move away and experience the full University life.

It's solely the fact that the 'poor' also get tuition fee grants, even when I'm forced to take a full loan.

 

[cristo]

You are still sidetracking the issue of why you believe it's fair that I should pay more for the same education as someone else.

Because your parents could afford to give you £3600 a year, whereas poorer people could not. As you say, you could not have survived without the handout from your parents, so how do you expect poorer people to survive?

Either you are a wizard with your budget or your talking BS to try to make a point.

My parents were able to give me some money: enough to probably cover tuition and a bit extra. Then I had the full loan, overdraft, credit card. The main way I survived was that I worked full time over the vacations: I remember putting in a 14 day shift one summer.

But I'm not simply disagreeing with it, I'm asking you to defend it on legal/moral grounds... why is it "fair" to give more money to "poor" people because they're "poor"?

Are you being serious? Why is it fair to give a poor kid the chance to go to university?

What's wrong with student loans, scholarships, and/or having a job in school?

If scholarships existed then that would be a good solution. Unfortunately, British universities don't have surplus funds to sponsor many. As for jobs, I answered that before: there just isn't any time for a job as well as a science/engineering degree.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Because your parents could afford to give you £3600 a year, whereas poorer people could not. As you say, you could not have survived without the handout from your parents, so how do you expect poorer people to survive?

I wasn't at Uni for 12 months. I got 8months * 300. = 2400. They gave me that because it was what was deemed to be acceptable for us when we filled out the loan forms.

See the break down above.

My parents were able to give me some money: enough to probably cover tuition and a bit extra. Then I had the full loan, overdraft, credit card. The main way I survived was that I worked full time over the vacations: I remember putting in a 14 day shift one summer.

You didn't get a loan for your tuition? How much was this 'bit extra'?
Also I had a job in the summer to keep out of my overdraft (failed horribly in the last year though) and because I didn't want a credit card.

That's standard student stuff.

 

[JaredJames]

Actually, that's not true, and I'm surprised you don't know this, given that you clearly have a loan with them. Since you have no equity, should you default on the loan your parent/s will be required to pay the loan on your behalf. So, unlike you neighbour in your analogy, you parents are involved.

Correct Chris, this is b*llocks.

Cristo, I do have a loan with them and I can go into great detail regarding the specifics of the terms if you would like.

I assure you cristo, your parents are not involved.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Are you being serious?

I'm deadly serious.

Why is it fair to give a poor kid the chance to go to university?

Based on the definition I gave above, it isn't fair. The poor kid is given an education on the government's dime, while the "rich" kid/family is left to fend for themselves. Unequal opportunity for use of government funds, in addition to the fact that it is likely the "rich" family has paid far more into the system in the first place. You're asking the "rich" to pay for their own education, plus the education of anyone deemed "poor."

If scholarships existed then that would be a good solution. Unfortunately, British universities don't have surplus funds to sponsor many.

So it sounds like the government mandated tuition cap is in fact preventing people with less money from getting higher education unless the government also gives handouts. If they had more money, they could budget to allow for more scholarships!

In fact, this sounds like an argument for universities to set their tuition based on the quality of their services!

As for jobs, I answered that before: there just isn't any time for a job as well as a science/engineering degree.

There are many examples to the contrary, even if it's only part-time to supplement other sources of income such as loans.

 

[JaredJames]

Can people here please differentiate between someone being given a loan for university and someone being given a grant.

Mech, you seem to be the worst here in this regard. Yes, the government do initially front the money for the loans, but once you leave uni you are expected to get a job and pay it back. You end up paying around 5% I believe of your overall wage, so in effect you are paying an increased tax rate until the loan is repaid.

It isn't simply a government handout (although for 'lesser' degrees it can become that).

 

[JaredJames]

Based on the definition I gave above, it isn't fair. The poor kid is given an education on the government's dime, while the "rich" kid/family is left to fend for themselves. Unequal opportunity for use of government funds, in addition to the fact that it is likely the "rich" family has paid far more into the system in the first place. You're asking the "rich" to pay for their own education, plus the education of anyone deemed "poor."

Not true.

Point 1, as per my above post.

Point 2, everyone can get the tuition fee loan regardless of parental income. It is the cost of living loan which is affected by parental income.

Under the current system, you are expected to pay towards your child's university living costs if you earn above a certain amount. Which I do think is unfair.

 

[cristo]

I wasn't at Uni for 12 months. I got 8months * 300. = 2400. They gave me that because it was what was deemed to be acceptable for us when we filled out the loan forms.

So, seemingly, they gave you the amount that the government would give a student whose parents could not afford it!

You didn't get a loan for your tuition? How much was this 'bit extra'?

Tuition fee loans are a recent thing, they did not exist when I went to university. I can't remember exact amounts, since it was a long time since undergrad, but it wasn't much. Anyway, my financial situation is hardly the topic of this thread!

I assure you cristo, your parents are not involved.

Your parents sign the form agreeing for you to obtain the loan, therefore they are involved.