Student support grants likely to be axed

Amp34 · 12 Jun 2015 at 10:56

thebennyboy said:
He is a entitled taxpayer who thinks every student should just pull 9k /year out of their arse and have no financial assistance from the state.

Why do you need 9k?

See previous posts about people not understanding the tuition fees loan...

thebennyboy · 12 Jun 2015 at 10:57

Moses said:
A pledge which would have helped only the richest grads, and done nothing for the poorer ones. A headline grabbing promise which would have been a terrible policy in practice. Wow.

So coming out with less student debt is a bad thing? lol, you are just so wrong if you think that.

thebennyboy · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:00

Amp34 said:
Why do you need 9k?

See previous posts about people not understanding the tuition fees loan...

He seems to believe that the taxpayer shouldn't pay anything, when in reality with 3k fees they weren't. However with 9k fees comes a higher burden on the taxpayer as student finance will require money injecting into it.

thebennyboy · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:01

Moses said:
It's because only the richest grads pay off the loans. The poorer ones never do. If you pay off £x of £1 000 000 and £x of £1 000 000 000 you've paid off the same each time.

The headline debt on their account would be lower, but they'd pay off the same.

And with fees at 6k, if they don't pay it off it will still cost the taxpayer less than if the fees were at 9k. Students will have less to pay off, the taxpayer will be less burdened with the cost of student finance.

Gammawolf · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:01

The real problem is there are too many students. Until there are less people doing useless **** at university and paying out the ass for it then nothing will change. There simply is no need to push people huge amounts through university like cattle it serves no purpose but self justification of the system.

thebennyboy · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:06

Gammawolf said:
The real problem is there are too many students. Until there are less people doing useless **** at university and paying out the ass for it then nothing will change. There simply is no need to push people huge amounts through university like cattle it serves no purpose but self justification of the system.

Which means educating people properly during high-school. This government needs to encourage apprenticeships and job placements, people need an incentive to do them. Don't apprenticeships get paid like £2.73 /hour? Where is the incentive in that? Nobody wants to work for £2.73 /hour.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

cheesyboy · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:06

Gammawolf said:
The real problem is there are too many students. Until there are less people doing useless **** at university and paying out the ass for it then nothing will change. There simply is no need to push people huge amounts through university like cattle it serves no purpose but self justification of the system.

Except that's not the problem.

From the article:

Former Conservative adviser Nick Hillman from the Higher Education Policy
"To be honest, although it causes big problems - it will mean bigger debts for students including poorer students - it is better than reducing the number of university places."

And if we had too many uni students, we wouldn't need to import so much skilled labour, would we?

quickshot89 · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:14

cheesyboy said:
And if we had too many uni students, we wouldn't need to import so much skilled labour, would we?

You don't get skilled labour from going to university, you get it from doing apprenticeships. Those that go to uni end up leading, designing the products that the skilled labour go do/build. That's why we import.

Amp34 · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:15

Moses said:
These students are not doing 50 weeks non-stop, given they're undergrads.

I'm just pointing out that I have done long hours on courses. He doesn't seem to realise many of us in this thread are speaking from experience. I agree with most of the stuff you have said.

cheesyboy · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:16

quickshot89 said:
You don't get skilled labour from going to university, you get it from doing apprenticeships. Those that go to uni end up leading, designing the products that the skilled labour go do/build. That's why we import.

Except the skilled labour we import has generally been through university :rolleyes:

(medical staff, IT, Engineering etc)

Amp34 · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:18

thebennyboy said:
They at least pledged to get fees down to 6k. They also pledged more support for poorer students.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labours-3k-university-tuition-fee-5245471

IMHO the whole student funding system needs a serious overhaul, it shafts the middle classes terribly. Student finance honestly believed my parents could sub my loan by 2k /year, yeah cus a middle class family can just **** out 2k /year when things are already tight.

And? What would have reducing the loan done for anyone? Several people here have already said only 30% of it will be paid off* anyway it makes no difference to anyone except the most well paid after uni will pay back less.

*whether that's true or not I have no idea.

quickshot89 · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:21

cheesyboy said:
Except the skilled labour we import has generally been through university

(medical staff, IT, Engineering etc)

And what about all those with skilled labour in classic fields, plumbers, electricians etc, they certainly don't need to go to university, they do apprenticeships. Sure they do the NVQ's etc, but thats split between in a classroom and on the field. Most IT or engineering students are sat in a classroom for most of their student lives. Nurses are a different story as they dont pay fees

Amp34 · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:22

thebennyboy said:
He seems to believe that the taxpayer shouldn't pay anything, when in reality with 3k fees they weren't. However with 9k fees comes a higher burden on the taxpayer as student finance will require money injecting into it.

That's not the case. The true cost of a course per student was much higher than £3k, the difference was made up by government paying the difference for every UK student. Now the government pay less directly to the universities and front up an increased loan instead.

MichaelAwkward · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:22

Amp34 said:
Get the full maintenance loan and top it up with working part time during term time or full time during holidays. It's what most non grant aided students do.

The idea is that those from disadvantaged poorer backgrounds have had enough to struggle with in their lives up until that point, thus making them work alongside their studies instead of giving them ~£270 a month extra is an unnecessary hardship. Plus, what if they can't find work? What if the work they find doesn't pay enough? Those who don't receive the grant may not have led a life of luxury, but they are deemed to have had a reasonably comfortable upbringing - therefore requiring them to work or their parents to live more economically is a reasonable compromise.

While on the surface it seems not great it seems similar to the grants they used to give to sixth formers. Most of it was spent on going out and having fun, while those slightly better off had to work for the same amount of money. Unfortunately the few that actually needed it lost out but the majority just lost their play money.

There is zero evidence that those who receive grants go out and get wasted and have fun any more than those who do not receive them. In my experience, those who have received grants are more sensible with their money.

Isn't this also offset in part by the significant increase in grants to poorer students from universities themselves, which was part of the promise given when tuition fees went up.

Depends entirely on the university. Like I said, it's not guaranteed.

Amp34 · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:23

thebennyboy said:
And with fees at 6k, if they don't pay it off it will still cost the taxpayer less than if the fees were at 9k. Students will have less to pay off, the taxpayer will be less burdened with the cost of student finance.

You're completely misunderstanding how student loans and the subsidy system work.

George Hincapie · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:27

thebennyboy said:
I wouldn't have coped if i had to work during term time, but yes maybe i could have worked the summer but i shouldn't have to.

You must be one of those so called "tax payers", an ignorant fool however is what you current are. Also, "students getting drunk" is used too often and often is found to only be done by a small minority of students. I shall say again, you should NOT be obliged to work during term time to fund your studies.

An interesting perspective. So you expect to be able to go to Uni and study but do nothing to support yourself financially? Instead you would prefer the tax payer to keep you?

If you want to go to Uni then support yourself.

MichaelAwkward · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:29

George Hincapie said:
An interesting perspective. So you expect to be able to go to Uni and study but do nothing to support yourself financially? Instead you would prefer the tax payer to keep you?

If you want to go to Uni then support yourself.

That kind of attitude is the entire reason why our society is so crap compared to the rest of Europe and other parts of the world.

We pay and support people to go to university in order to a) give those from disadvantaged backgrounds a chance to move in terms of social mobility and b) to create a generation of more skilled and educated people so that taxpayers benefit in the future.

A university education benefits everyone, not just the person receiving it.

delta0 · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:31

MichaelAwkward said:
Good for you, but that solution doesn't suit or isn't available to many.

Of course it is. It easy to get through uni with the basic allowance. It only goes wrong if you spend too much. I would say that is available to 99% of people at uni at least.

MichaelAwkward · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:32

delta0 said:
Of course it is. It easy to get through uni with the basic allowance. It only goes wrong if you spend too much. I would say that is available to 99% of people at uni at least.

How is it easy to get by on £130 a month? That's less than Job Seekers Allowance.

thebennyboy · 12 Jun 2015 at 11:36

George Hincapie said:
An interesting perspective. So you expect to be able to go to Uni and study but do nothing to support yourself financially? Instead you would prefer the tax payer to keep you?

If you want to go to Uni then support yourself.

So you would rather people that won't be able to cope working alongside their studies to just go onto the dole? Rather than become a future taxpayer alongside paying off his/her student debt. Too many people on here seem to believe that because they could do it, everyone else should be able to. Which is simply a load of ****.