Education versus money

GSM if a students household income (parental home) is above 50k then you only qualify for the basic loan and it does not even cover the rent of basic university accommodation. One of ours has a shortfall of 1500 a year rent in a very basic shared house. We then give an allowance (50pw) and they work over FT in the holidays to make up shortfalls too. It’s expensive for families

Had a quick look and 4% in the 60 s went to university.
Woukd have been more in the 70s/80s so probably higher than 6%.

That may be right Casdon, , it was a long time ago now.

We were told by the lecturer it was 6%. There was no Google in those days so took his word for it. We were an older group mixed with young students fresh from A levels who had a lot more fun than we did ( but we all got on well.

I thought it was 12% when I went in 1968. Robbins report, new universities and all that?

Casdon

Germanshepherdsmum

I also paid my son’s student loan off as soon as he graduated.

Fewer people went to university in the days when the state paid for their tuition fees and gave them grants. It is unaffordable for the number of people who now expect to go to university to be funded by the state.

How does the family’s financial status determine who can get a decent job? How does a potential employer know such details?

Students from disadvantaged backgrounds have to work as well as study whilst they are students to stay afloat, which can affect their results. They have less time for extra curricular activities and networking. Despite having the cards stacked against them many still succeed, but it is undoubtedly harder.

Students whose parents cannot afford to give them an allowance for living costs can apply for a maintenance loan. They might need to do a bit of bar work or shelf stacking but it shouldn’t significantly impact on their studies. I studied for my professional exams whilst working full time and looking after the home. I’m no stranger to the midnight oil.

silverlining48

As s mature student I began a degree course in the mid 80s, At that time only 6% of the population had been to university. I didn’t have to pay and think I got a small grant of £80 pa.
Now up to half the population go onto higher education it would be far too expensive without students contributing to costs by taking out loans which may or may not be repaid.
It continues to amaze me quite how many grans here refer to their time at university. They would have been part of that elite 6%. I can’t be the only one who went to a secondary modern and left school at 15 to get a full time job. The majority did the same and I am forever grateful for the opportunity to take up studies albeit missing the ‘experience’ as I had two children and was in my 30 s.
Both my children went to university and both have fully repaid their loans.

I think the number of people you refer to as having attended university was people of all ages at a point in time silverlining48, not young people starting university in the seventies and eighties. The numbers have been rising decade on decade since the 1960s?

You are right Doodledog he would probably have got more from university at 30 or so. In fact he did another degree (part time) whilst he was working - after his undergraduate degree.

His teachers through GCSE and A levels were all keen to encourage the university route because he was "academically strong" - and so were his friends. It was just us who could see he wanted money in his pocket, nice clothes, and a fancy vehicle. Different priorities really to us at 18.
The study was secondary to his life... but he doesn't regret all the £1000s he spent on it. He did meet a cohort of people who have helped each other be a "successful" in businesses through referrals and partnership working and so on - so I suppose that is in itself a success as he is now very happy as his own boss.
If you asked him directly about his university days I think he'd probably say it was a hoot!
🙄

As s mature student I began a degree course in the mid 80s, At that time only 6% of the population had been to university. I didn’t have to pay and think I got a small grant of £80 pa.
Now up to half the population go onto higher education it would be far too expensive without students contributing to costs by taking out loans which may or may not be repaid.
It continues to amaze me quite how many grans here refer to their time at university. They would have been part of that elite 6%. I can’t be the only one who went to a secondary modern and left school at 15 to get a full time job. The majority did the same and I am forever grateful for the opportunity to take up studies albeit missing the ‘experience’ as I had two children and was in my 30 s.
Both my children went to university and both have fully repaid their loans.

Germanshepherdsmum

I also paid my son’s student loan off as soon as he graduated.

Fewer people went to university in the days when the state paid for their tuition fees and gave them grants. It is unaffordable for the number of people who now expect to go to university to be funded by the state.

How does the family’s financial status determine who can get a decent job? How does a potential employer know such details?

Students from disadvantaged backgrounds have to work as well as study whilst they are students to stay afloat, which can affect their results. They have less time for extra curricular activities and networking. Despite having the cards stacked against them many still succeed, but it is undoubtedly harder.

We paid for our four daughters to go to university. We didn't want them hampered by loan payments, wanted them to choose without finance worry. Easier for us, than them, we thought.

I also paid my son’s student loan off as soon as he graduated.

Fewer people went to university in the days when the state paid for their tuition fees and gave them grants. It is unaffordable for the number of people who now expect to go to university to be funded by the state.

How does the family’s financial status determine who can get a decent job? How does a potential employer know such details?

I actually paid for my two children to go through university, specifically because I didn’t want them to be saddled with student loan payments for most of their working lives, I worked full time for longer than I would have done to be able to do that, and it was a slog. There is no way most people could afford to do that I know, and that is what I think is unfair about your proposal.

We got free education, not just at university but all higher education. Why should it be different for this generation? It’s still partly the family’s financial status which determines who goes to university and who can get a decent job to pay off their loan, not just academic ability.

Do you honestly think that the loans would have been set up the way they have been if there were no benefit to 'the taxpayer'? If you do feel that they are pointless, why not scrap them? The Student Loans Company must cost a fortune in itself, and is far from efficient.

Casdon, I meant to ask who here would incur any loan which they knew they were unlikely ever to repay?

It’s not a matter of knowing they won’t work afterwards, but knowing they are unlikely to earn enough to repay their loan - or, if they are older, that it will be written off in a few years.

Germanshepherdsmum

It is now that university education is funded by loans. Who here would incur a loan which they knew they would be unlikely ever to repay? Is that an ethical way to behave?

Who embarks on a three year course knowing that they won't work afterwards? Very few, I suspect, other than the very ill, or those who intend to live tax free all their lives.

That argument used to be used against educating women - the belief being that they would 'only marry', and not pay back the money spent on education. It's chicken and egg - if we don't educate people they will continue to prove that they don't need it, as they will never get to show what they could have done otherwise. Which came first - letting women reach their educational potential, or having them in positions of financial independence?

Germanshepherdsmum

It is now that university education is funded by loans. Who here would incur a loan which they knew they would be unlikely ever to repay? Is that an ethical way to behave?

We didn’t incur loans because our university education was free to us.

Chocolatelovinggran

My SIL is a farmer. He has a degree in mathematics. He has paid his student loan.
Waste of taxpayers money/ his good times?
Not sure that's so .. oh, and he did try teaching and decided it wasn't for him.

I personally know about three farmers who have degrees in subjects other than agriculture or land management.
One did teach for a while but didn't like it.

It is now that university education is funded by loans. Who here would incur a loan which they knew they would be unlikely ever to repay? Is that an ethical way to behave?

Germanshepherdsmum

If it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything they can do what they like.

And there we have it. To hell with ability, aptitude, hopes and ambition - it's the cost to the taxpayer that counts.

It's not beyond me, GSM, but clearly we are very different people, which is fine - it takes all sorts, as they say. You refer to my views as Utopian, by which I assume you mean that they are based on some sort of pleasure principle? I don't think they are, but I do believe that when citizens are fulfilled, given something to aim for and have a belief that they can attain it (ie are not throttled by a system that prioritises the needs or wants of others) there will be more content, so there will be less crime and less risk of revolution. In turn, that means there is need for fewer restrictions on citizens and more freedom for everyone - things that I value.

If my views are Utopian, does that suggest that yours are Dystopian? Is Dystopia a laudable aim for society?

NotSpaghetti You and your husband may well have been right in the case of your son - I can empathise there from experience with my own family . All the same, would you rather he had been told that he couldn't go, and on what grounds, assuming he was appropriately qualified and didn't bungle the interview, if there was one? Admissions Officers' hands are tied if someone has the qualifications, as they are vulnerable to accusations of discrimination if they don't accept someone - even if it is very clear that the applicant is going to struggle. Maybe his teachers could have tried to steer him towards a pathway that was more appropriate to him at that stage of his life - or maybe they did.

I think all we can ask is that everyone is given the chance to fulfil their potential - after that it is up to them. In an ideal world, 'university age' might be 35-40 when people have had time to mature, but life gets in the way of that for most people who need to make a living, and may have families to support.

If it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything they can do what they like.

Germanshepherdsmum

I was referencing the final paragraph of your post when mentioning history, Doodledog.

Clearly if you were in charge in this educational Utopia, taxes would have to rise in order to absorb the cost of these free lifelong opportunities.

If my plumber had decided to study art history before learning his trade, as you suggested above, he might have had an enjoyable three years but quite how the benefit to him transfers to society , beyond broadening his conversational repertoire, is beyond me.

Do you only value people in terms of their usefulness to society Germanshepherdsmum? A plumber will not only earn enough to repay his student loan (if he has one) in full, he may be using his degree in other ways, research, writing, lecturing or whatever. People are not just one dimensional robots.
I’m also interested in what you think about those who self fund so don’t have student loans to repay, are they still able to go to university if it doesn’t cost the state anything?

Doodledog - sometimes you just know your son/daughter isn't right for university.

The son I spoke of earlier had great A levels was academically very able but lazy unless very motivated. He had a job alongside GCSEs and A levels working (hard) to buy a motorbike because he was motivated but "winging" his exams. He was too immature for the degree he chose - and partying and working a lot as he then wanted a (fancy) car! He wasn't ready for a RG university and my husband and I both felt a sandwich type course or release from within an industry would have been better at that point.
The university wasn't a failure but it did cost him a lot financially!

That's what I'm saying.