News UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[xxChrisxx]

General question: Do you think MPs should never exercise their own judgment on an unpopular issue?

Compared to towing the company line? Yes.

They didn't even have to vote against it, the Lib dems could have just abstained.

In this case there were a couple of backbench rebellions, and a couple of lib dem MPs resigned. At least those guys stayed true to their principles. They were voted in becuase of their views and stance and stuck by them. It's the ones that were voted in pledging to stop a raise in fees then just fold like a deck chair that raged people. As Cristo said, it would have gone a long way for the Lib Dems to be more open earlier. Had they said 'well we've changed out minds for 'x' and 'y' reasons. People would still ahve been annoyed but to a lesser extent.

EDIT: Read that as 'ever excercise'.

 

[cristo]

MPs should of course make their own decisions. We vote the MP into be our 'voice' in government, but we also vote him/her into office in order to make difficult decisions for us. Clearly, the MP should make up his own mind, since we cannot have a referendum every time something needs to be decided!

 

[JaredJames]

Compared to towing the company line? Yes.

In this case there were a couple of backbench rebellions, and a couple of lib dem MPs resigned. At least those guys stayed true to their principles. They were voted in becuase of their views.

Agreed.

The MP's who resigned / rebelled are the only ones in my opinion, who deserve to be there.

The MP's are there to represent the people who voted them in, on the basis of what they promise in the election campaign. They are not there to say one thing to get in and then impose their own beliefs onto the people who voted them in once in power (although I'd hope they campaign for what they believe in so the two act as one).

Also to note is that a number of the MP's who voted to raise tuition fees (within the Lib Dems) signed a pledge to abolish the fees. Again, I know it wasn't possible with the coalition, but it doesn't mean they had to vote to raise them. Just because it's a coalition, doesn't mean they have to be the conservatives b*tch.

 

[JaredJames]

MPs should of course make their own decisions. We vote the MP into be our 'voice' in government, but we also vote him/her into office in order to make difficult decisions for us. Clearly, the MP should make up his own mind, since we cannot have a referendum every time something needs to be decided!

Yes, but people made their feelings clear on this issue and it deserved more consideration than simply ignoring people.

Once again, the UK government are doing what they want and not listening to the people.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, but people made their feelings clear on this issue and it deserved more consideration than simply ignoring people.

Might one not also say that the budget issue is clearly of importance at this time, and this particular vote deserved more consideration than simply being a reflection of the opinions of the people?

I don't know what the motivation was for the Lib Dems that changed stances, but ... if I vote for someone based on some common set of positions that we share, I would still prefer that person, once elected, to make decisions based on his/her best assessment of the issue at the time (even if that's a decision I oppose), rather than blindly keep a campaign promise or sheepishly tow the party line. Of course, I'd also expect that the campaign promises not be a popularity gimmick, which they often are.

 

[JaredJames]

Might one not also say that the budget issue is clearly of importance at this time, and this particular vote deserved more consideration than simply being a reflection of the opinions of the people?

There were three main parties in the election and all had different plans for financial recovery. They didn't all include such drastic cuts. Given we don't have a true conservative government, why are we simply doing what they want? The lib dems had a chance to impose their will here, by showing they wouldn't stand for raising tuition fees. But they didn't, they rolled over an accepted the conservatives.

So far, I haven't seen anything showing we actually need all of these cuts. We only have them because the conservatives want them.

Obviously it needs more than just the peoples opinion, but then as above, I haven't seen anything showing that these cuts are for the best (outside of the conservatives policies). So I don't know if it's a case of us needing them or the conservatives wanting them.

So perhaps we should have a better analysis done to give a more structured and reliable opinion on what is really needed (done by someone not connected to the government).

I don't know what the motivation was for the Lib Dems that changed stances, but ... if I vote for someone based on some common set of positions that we share, I would still prefer that person, once elected, to make decisions based on his/her best assessment of the issue at the time (even if that's a decision I oppose), rather than blindly keep a campaign promise or sheepishly tow the party line. Of course, I'd also expect that the campaign promises not be a popularity gimmick, which they often are.

Yes I agree, but I also agree with Chris in that they could have come out and explained things sooner and given us reasons for it. Instead they went about this situation very poorly and now look what we're left with, rioting.

I'd also add that nothing changed pre / post election in regards to the financial situation. If they could work it before, why couldn't it be worked after? Unless they were blatantly lying pre-election. We have a coalition government, there's no reason they couldn't implement policies from both parties, a compromise if you like.

 

[JaredJames]

Well I've just seen something that's really annoyed me.

The government has canceled EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance) which is a payment of up to £30 per week to students in low income family. Paid from 16 to 19 to help them stay on in further education.

However, according UK Border Force tv programme which follows the immigration officers, when an immigrant comes to Britain, if they register with the government as an immigrant they are given and ID card whilst their asylum application is processed and around £33 per week to live off. Plus get your kids to go to school and healthcare.

Sources:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/cashsupport/

There are other forms of support too, this is specifically for asylum seekers.

This is horrendous in my opinion. What this tells me is that we are willing to pay for random people with no connection to the UK at all and yet we won't help our citizens. This country has gone to the dogs. I find this deeply disturbing.

 

[WhoWee]

Well I've just seen something that's really annoyed me.

The government has canceled EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance) which is a payment of up to £30 per week to students in low income family. Paid from 16 to 19 to help them stay on in further education.

However, according UK Border Force tv programme which follows the immigration officers, when an immigrant comes to Britain, if they register with the government as an immigrant they are given and ID card whilst their asylum application is processed and around £33 per week to live off. Plus get your kids to go to school and healthcare.

Sources:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/cashsupport/

There are other forms of support too, this is specifically for asylum seekers.

This is horrendous in my opinion. What this tells me is that we are willing to pay for random people with no connection to the UK at all and yet we won't help our citizens. This country has gone to the dogs. I find this deeply disturbing.

I guess ideology has no loyalty to a specific group?

 

[JaredJames]

Well the government should be looking after its people first and then others.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well the government should be looking after its people first and then others.

Was the EMA was the ONLY form of government assistance available to British citizens?

 

[WhoWee]

Well the government should be looking after its people first and then others.

I'm not sure that's the politically correct global view?

The ideology of redistribution and fairness is great as long as you're the beneficiary. Please acknowledge, there must be a few hundred million (?) people more deserving out there - at least they didn't give the (citizens) classroom seats away - just forced them to find a job or a loan.

 

[JaredJames]

Was the EMA was the ONLY form of government assistance available to British citizens?

For this particular circumstance, yes.

 

[JaredJames]

Politically correct or not, I don't like the idea of a government that helps non citizens ahead of citizens.

 

[WhoWee]

Politically correct or not, I don't like the idea of a government that helps non citizens ahead of citizens.

I agree. Unfortunately, when expressing the same concern in the US - I'm labeled one of the "R" words. My guess is we both may need to find a way to accept it as the new norm.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, but the fact the government are trying to make cuts and they go to students before people who have nothing to do with the UK and are of no benefit to us says it all.

 

[Gokul43201]

For this particular circumstance, yes.

By "this particular circumstance" I assume you are referring to tuition aid for low income groups. If so, that's not what my question is about.

You said that immigrants on their way to citizenship get $33 per week in assistance (does this apply to all immigrants?) and you then implied that the government was treating these people better than its own citizens. By that, I understand you are saying that British citizens with financial conditions comparable to these immigrants do not receive as much assistance. So my question is this: how much TOTAL assistance does such a citizen receive? Without this information, it is difficult to judge the validity of your implied accusation.

 

[JaredJames]

By "this particular circumstance" I assume you are referring to tuition aid for low income groups. If so, that's not what my question is about.

For low income students and immigrants, my answer stands.

You said that immigrants on their way to citizenship get $33 per week in assistance (does this apply to all immigrants?) and you then implied that the government was treating these people better than its own citizens. By that, I understand you are saying that British citizens with financial conditions comparable to these immigrants do not receive as much assistance. So my question is this: how much TOTAL assistance does such a citizen receive? Without this information, it is difficult to judge the validity of your implied accusation.

Asylum seekers is who I was mainly referring to.

A 16 year old student, who decides to remain in school receives no help aside from the payment of up to £30 per week EMA. Because they are still in school, they cannot claim any more help.

My problem lies with the fact that the government are saying "sod the children of our people who want to remain in school", we need to save money let's take it from them, and yet they still pay out to people who aren't even guaranteed to be allowed to remain in the country.

Think of it like this, I enter the country illegally, I apply for asylum, they pay for a place for me to live, they give me cash for living costs, they provide me with healthcare and any children I have with education. I'm not even guaranteed to be allowed to remain in the country and I'm not allowed to work so not paying anything back to the country.

It's one thing to debate the tax payer funding citizens for various ventures such as university, but it's a completely different issue when they are expected to fund people who are nothing to do with the country.

What are the government thinking when they look at the financial crisis and say "hmm, let's cause problems for our citizens but continue to pump money into people who have nothing to do with the government / country".

 

[cristo]

A 16 year old student, who decides to remain in school receives no help aside from the payment of up to £30 per week EMA. Because they are still in school, they cannot claim any more help.

At 16 years old, if you remain in school, you are classed as a child. Your parents get child support, and if deemed needy they get the benefits that assist you to live.

Comparing this case to someone who comes into the country seeking asylum is like comparing apples to flying saucers. I think it needs to be realized that claiming asylum is a last ditch response, done because someone is persecuted enough that it is no longer safe for that person to live in his/her own country. Just because there are a certain number of failed asylum seekers who aren't in this situation doesn't mean that we should tarnish those who really are in need. As a civilised country, we should support those that are being persecuted, regardless of their nationality.

 

[JaredJames]

At 16 years old, if you remain in school, you are classed as a child. Your parents get child support, and if deemed needy they get the benefits that assist you to live.

Parents are not the child. Just because the parents get something doesn't mean the child sees it. There is a difference.

Living in the Welsh Valleys I'm very much aware of this and it is the case with a lot of people where the parents see it as extra income and the benefits don't get passed onto the child.

Comparing this case to someone who comes into the country seeking asylum is like comparing apples to flying saucers. I think it needs to be realized that claiming asylum is a last ditch response, done because someone is persecuted enough that it is no longer safe for that person to live in his/her own country. Just because there are a certain number of failed asylum seekers who aren't in this situation doesn't mean that we should tarnish those who really are in need. As a civilised country, we should support those that are being persecuted, regardless of their nationality.

I have no problem with helping the truly needy, but there is a damn good reason these people manage to get from [middle eastern country] to the UK and not want to stop in any of the lovely European countries in between. If you are really that desperate why would you trek all the way across France for the UK when the French will help you with such asylum problems? It's because the UK is a soft touch.

Asylum may have been intended as a last ditch response, but as the programme shows, it is offered as a last choice to those refused entry to Britain.
If an American was to come to Britain and got refused entry, they are given their options, one of which is to claim asylum if they really want to stay. It has become a last ditch attempt to get into the country.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Parents are not the child. Just because the parents get something doesn't mean the child sees it. There is a difference.

Parents not fulfilling their obligations to their children is not the same thing as the government not providing financial assistance

 

[Gokul43201]

Think of it like this, I enter the country illegally, I apply for asylum, they pay for a place for me to live, they give me cash for living costs, they provide me with healthcare and any children I have with education. I'm not even guaranteed to be allowed to remain in the country and I'm not allowed to work so not paying anything back to the country.

If this is truly the case, then I must say I find that quite bizarre! But I can understand some very short term assistance for particularly disadvantaged groups of potential immigrants seeking asylum.

 

[Chewy0087]

University choice in the UK is a big deal. If you don't go to a university that is strongly rated in your course then your chances of getting a job after it are seriously affected. Cambridge has a 100% employability rate in some subjects, compared to only 70% for Kingston (where I'm at).

I don't like the idea of only having rich people able to go to somewhere like Cambridge and the poorer only being able to use the 'lesser' places. It puts a bias on people applying for jobs - it gives the rich a greater chance of getting jobs.

You make money the deciding factor in higher education, not academic ability.

People are given a full loan covering the entire of their tuition though, anyone can go to university. Of course you'll have a lot of debt hung around your neck, but if you work hard and get a good degree you'll always end up better off.

 

[JaredJames]

People are given a full loan covering the entire of their tuition though, anyone can go to university. Of course you'll have a lot of debt hung around your neck,

Yes, but it's gone from leaving with £9000 of tuition fee debt to £27000 tuition fee debt.

Note my responses to which I believe you were commenting were in regards to privatising universities. The loan wouldn't cover it all then as it only works to the current cap.

but if you work hard and get a good degree you'll always end up better off.

Not true. I'll try to find the link, but there were 156,000 leaving university last year for only 96,000 jobs.

You can work as hard as you like in some cases and it won't mean a thing. The UK government are causing a lot of redundancies at the moment and the jobs in certain areas just don't exist.

 

[Chewy0087]

Yes, but it's gone from leaving with £9000 of tuition fee debt to £27000 tuition fee debt.

Note my responses to which I believe you were commenting were in regards to privatising universities. The loan wouldn't cover it all then as it only works to the current cap.

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.)

 

[JaredJames]

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.

I believe we touched on this earlier and agreed on a figure of around £300,000 on average more someone with a degree would earn compared to those without.

But, future earnings don't help if you have to pay upfront in the first case. Although this would be dependent on whether you could request a loan for the full tuition amount or if they would keep the cap in place, forcing you to put up the rest.

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.)

Agree completely. Poorly executed by the government to say the least.

 

[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.