Uk replace student grants with loans

Specialun

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36940172?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter

i dont think this is completely unfair. Why shouldnt the student repay the grant/loan

The_Valeyard

This coming from people who probably benefited from free education. Or the elites who never have to worry about needing a loan or having debt.


This could just add more debt to poorer families and students.

Speedwell

Because we can all see how well the student loan system works in the US :P

silverharp

the main problem I see is that third level eductation costs will explode and just get trousered by University staff. Otherwise think carefully about what you study , medicine law or Stem and you might get your money back, do some useless communications degree and you will be dragging an anchor for a decade after you leave college

irish_goat

My family made more than £25,000 but with 4 wains in the house there was no way my parents could afford to put us through uni themselves, hence we had to get loans/part-time jobs. Don't see why it should be different for anyone else.

mr.anonymous

Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Speedwell

irish_goat wrote: »

My family made more than £25,000 but with 4 wains in the house there was no way my parents could afford to put us through uni themselves, hence we had to get loans/part-time jobs. Don't see why it should be different for anyone else.

I expect if you gave it a little compassionate thought, you could see why.

Water John

We might as well do away with free second level and national school too. Lets even reverse the free playschool 2 years.
Its all about money, not investing in people. Isn't that the way we should go?

irish_goat

Speedwell wrote: »

I expect if you gave it a little compassionate thought, you could see why.

I gave it compassionate thought when I was forced to spend every weekend working whilst those living off grants could spend their time studying or partying.

Alf Stewart.

I only finished paying mine off a few years ago.

Was a nice feeling seeing its disappearance from the salary slip.

The Backwards Man

Reading, writing and counting should be free to learn.

If you want to learn how many million years old the pebble you found on the beach is or about the importance of mis en scene in the Maltese Falcon you can pay for it yourself.

Water John

I think your Moniker says it all.
Education is a key cornerstone for the future of both the people and the country.

Fleawuss

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Reading, writing and counting should be free to learn.

If you want to learn how many million years old the pebble you found on the beach is or about the importance of mis en scene in the Maltese Falcon you can pay for it yourself.

The age of the pebble is useful scientific knowledge. Otherwise, spot on.

osarusan

Tories must be heartbroken, brexit made them do it, no matter when it was decided.

LordSutch

Specialun wrote: »

Uk replace student grants with loans

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-36940172?ocid=socialflow_twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=twitter

A better translation might be "Universities in England to replace student grants with loans".

Scottish, Welsh and NI Universitis are not mentioned, therefore using 'UK' is a misleding.

Dirty Dingus McGee

It cost me €2,000.00 per year to attend NUI Maynooth and that covered everthing I needed Registration Fee,Books and Transport costs.I got a grant for about £1,000.00 one year. Thats the way it should be.Crippling people with expenses for educating themselves is almost a puishment for trying to improve yourself.If secondary education is free (despite it not being so in the past) why shouldn't third level be relatively inexpensive aswell.

irish_goat

irish_goat wrote: »

I gave it compassionate thought when I was forced to spend every weekend working whilst those living off grants could spend their time studying or partying.

Hold on a minute, isn't that you are meant to do at 3rd level? God, this morbid attitude of wanting to shove people as quickly as possible into a lifetime of work & debt. People are only young once. Let them them enjoy it as much as they can.

irish_goat

Deleted User wrote: »

Hold on a minute, isn't that you are meant to do at 3rd level? God, this morbid attitude of wanting to shove people as quickly as possible into a lifetime of work & debt. People are only young once. Let them them enjoy it as much as they can.

Yes, difference being I couldn't afford to go to uni without working as I didn't qualify for a grant.

FishOnABike

[sarcasm]I can see this ending well.[/sarcasm]

Are graduate salaries going to be increased in line with the loan repayment costs ? I very much doubt it.

I can see it being beneficial to go bankrupt a year or two after graduating (particularly in jurisdictions which have a one year bankruptcy regeime).

irish_goat

irish_goat wrote: »

Yes, difference being I couldn't afford to go to uni without working as I didn't qualify for a grant.

Unfortunate in your case, but it doesn't mean the grants system is wrong though. Those who go on to employment will pay back way more in taxation to the state over their working lives than they took in grants.

Austria!

Why should we pay for their education? It's not like society at large gets any benefit, culturally or economically, from having a well educated population.

PopePalpatine

FishOnABike wrote: »

[sarcasm]I can see this ending well.[/sarcasm]

Are graduate salaries going to be increased in line with the loan repayment costs ? I very much doubt it.

I can see it being beneficial to go bankrupt a year or two after graduating (particularly in jurisdictions which have a one year bankruptcy regeime).

I recall that student loans are one of the few debts you CAN'T walk away from in the USA, I wouldn't put it past the UK to have a similar law, probably brought in during Thatcher's rule.

steddyeddy

I would rather they put third level on the individual and pump more funding second and primary level education.

Water John

I presume Austria, your tongue is very firmly lodged in your cheek.

Your Face

Austria! wrote: »

Why should we pay for their education? It's not like society at large gets any benefit, culturally or economically, from having a well educated population.

Ahahhahaahaaahaaaa.

xLisaBx

I always thought that the courses with pretty much guaranteed jobs, with professions that the country needs, should be free. Things like nursing, medicine, physio, computer science (all courses with high employment) should be funded because they will spend 40 years paying it back in high tax brackets anyway.
Why should the government fund theology with women's rights or the likes of it, with next to no employment? These people probably won't be paying it back in a high tax bracket.

Water John

Not sure how to police that. Lisa?

padd b1975

Austria! wrote: »

Why should we pay for their education? It's not like society at large gets any benefit, culturally or economically, from having a well educated population.

Exactly.

There's a staggering amount of bullcrap courses in all third level colleges that really shouldn't be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Iwasfrozen

Good news, colleges have been suffering from lack of funding for years. Student loans will increase the college's intake while motivating students to work hard at worthwhile degrees.

steddyeddy

It's worth nothing that Brexit will make it a lot more expensive to run universities in the UK than it will in Ireland. So this is not something we need to introduce yet.

I have always felt that a loan system would be better than the current grant one. There is a Hell of a lot of waste. If for example, a Clonmel Leaving Cert student has a course in mind that is available in Clonmel, but they want to do the same course in Dublin, then they should not be allowed receive a grant, assuming they are eligible for one. If students have to borrow and pay back over a number of years, it might focus their minds and lead to fewer dropouts.

MagicHumanDoll

If you're suggesting that replacing grants with loans, then you haven't experienced what it is like to be poor, and because of that I don't blame you for not understanding. Grants are given to those deemed not to have the family income required to attend college, pay for fees, accommodation, etc.
People who were not awarded grants, were considered to be capable of paying for college. Realistically that might have been a struggle, but it's still possible. For me, someone on the highest possible maintenance grant, my parents are not in the position to contribute a cent toward my costs. They'd love to, but can't due to circumstances. We live paycheck to paycheck as is. So, a grant is a way of enabling me to study, to better myself in terms of getting a degree and potentially earning greater than what my parents do. Take the grant away, in place of a loan system, and I couldn't, as I have no means to pay a loan, get helped when I am stuck for cash, or have the credit to even apply for one.
I'm currently studying architecture, surrounded by many of my classmates who attended private school and go on numerous holidays a year, and yet I do better than most whether it be down to ability, intelligence, whatever. That doesn't matter. Neither does their wealth, or my lack of.
What I am saying is, education should be available to everyone and anyone who wants to pursue it. Am I any less deserving to go to college because I am poor?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunate in your case, but it doesn't mean the grants system is wrong though. Those who go on to employment will pay back way more in taxation to the state over their working lives than they took in grants.

Assuming they work in that state and not in another.

Water John

The actual consequence of many of the views being put here is that mostly only those with monied background will be able to fund third level.
The obvious other problem is those who avail of the loan system will immediately feck off abroad and let the gov holding the loan.

MagicHumanDoll

Deleted User wrote: »

I have always felt that a loan system would be better than the current grant one. There is a Hell of a lot of waste. If for example, a Clonmel Leaving Cert student has a course in mind that is available in Clonmel, but they want to do the same course in Dublin, then they should not be allowed receive a grant, assuming they are eligible for one. If students have to borrow and pay back over a number of years, it might focus their minds and lead to fewer dropouts.

Because all the best courses are in Clonmel and they only want to go elsewhere for the craic. This whole excuse of people only going to college because they can is the whole reason they should be enabled, not punished for going. Those who are only going for the craic will still go if they have money, and yet those who genuinely want to go, but can't due to money, get punished.

Very fair.

Iwasfrozen

Water John wrote: »

The actual consequence of many of the views being put here is that mostly only those with monied background will be able to fund third level.
The obvious other problem is those who avail of the loan system will immediately feck off abroad and let the gov holding the loan.

That can be easily solved with a guarantor.

MagicHumanDoll

MagicHumanDoll wrote: »

If you're suggesting that replacing grants with loans, then you haven't experienced what it is like to be poor, and because of that I don't blame you for not understanding. Grants are given to those deemed not to have the family income required to attend college, pay for fees, accommodation, etc.
People who were not awarded grants, were considered to be capable of paying for college. Realistically that might have been a struggle, but it's still possible. For me, someone on the highest possible maintenance grant, my parents are not in the position to contribute a cent toward my costs. They'd love to, but can't due to circumstances. We live paycheck to paycheck as is. So, a grant is a way of enabling me to study, to better myself in terms of getting a degree and potentially earning greater than what my parents do. Take the grant away, in place of a loan system, and I couldn't, as I have no means to pay a loan, get helped when I am stuck for cash, or have the credit to even apply for one.
I'm currently studying architecture, surrounded by many of my classmates who attended private school and go on numerous holidays a year, and yet I do better than most whether it be down to ability, intelligence, whatever. That doesn't matter. Neither does their wealth, or my lack of.
What I am saying is, education should be available to everyone and anyone who wants to pursue it. Am I any less deserving to go to college because I am poor?

The idea is that you pay the loan back when you start work. You seem to misunderstand the concept. A student loan is completely different from, say a car loan, with a much lower rate of interest.
Good Luck with your studies. One day, you will be able to reap the rewards of your hard work.

Avatar MIA

There are some courses that I'd resent funding through taxes, such as Trinity's Early Irish plus Latin BA. That's a hobby.

But realistically we've all come through a subsidised education system and it should continue. Unfortunately, the Universities in Ireland are falling behind and seem to be underfunded.

So, I would be in favour of some student contribution, but lecturer salaries need to be looked at (and not increased any time soon), some are professional academics that have no practical experience and these are the ones teaching our kids. Unfortunately, the focus of universities has been towards research (more money in to fund salaries) rather than actually teaching kids to become professionals.

MagicHumanDoll

Deleted User wrote: »

The idea is that you pay the loan back when you start work. You seem to misunderstand the concept. A student loan is completely different from, say a car loan, with a much lower rate of interest.
Good Luck with your studies. One day, you will be able to reap the rewards of your hard work.

Oh I see, the American way. Sorry about that.
I still feel victimised at times by these sorts of conversations, and because of that rationality escapes me.
Thanks.

Iwasfrozen

Avatar MIA wrote: »

There are some courses that I'd resent funding through taxes, such as Trinity's Early Irish plus Latin BA. That's a hobby.

But realistically we've all come through a subsidised education system and it should continue. Unfortunately, the Universities in Ireland are falling behind and seem to be underfunded.

So, I would be in favour of some student contribution, but lecturer salaries need to be looked at (and not increased any time soon), some are professional academics that have no practical experience and these are the ones teaching our kids. Unfortunately, the focus of universities has been towards research (more money in to fund salaries) rather than actually teaching kids to become professionals.

Irish Universities are already struggling to attract staff, any cut to a lecture's salery will see more emigrate.

Avatar MIA

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Irish Universities are already struggling to attract staff, any cut to a lecture's salery will see emigrate.

Salaries at entry level aren't great, but from what I hear there's plenty of applications non the less for the relatively few jobs that come up.

Iwasfrozen

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Salaries at entry level aren't great, but from what I hear there's plenty of applications non the less for the relatively few jobs that come up.

At entry, sure, because the prospect of tenure and better salaries down the line.

Look at it this way, if you want quality you have to pay for it. Pay out peanuts and you get monkies teaching the country's future leaders. That's why we need student loans.

2RockMountain

silverharp wrote: »

the main problem I see is that third level eductation costs will explode and just get trousered by University staff.

Damned academics, expecting to be paid for their work...

FishOnABike wrote: »

I can see it being beneficial to go bankrupt a year or two after graduating (particularly in jurisdictions which have a one year bankruptcy regeime).

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I recall that student loans are one of the few debts you CAN'T walk away from in the USA, I wouldn't put it past the UK to have a similar law, probably brought in during Thatcher's rule.

Great incentive to emigrate and make the costs of recovering the debt impractical.

Does this mean it is the end of an era?
http://viz.co.uk/dont-think-ive-ever-early-lecture/

Iwasfrozen

2RockMountain wrote: »

Damned academics, expecting to be paid for their work...

Great incentive to emigrate and make the costs of recovering the debt impractical.

Does this mean it is the end of an era?
http://viz.co.uk/dont-think-ive-ever-early-lecture/

That "problem" can be solved by requiring students name a guarantor for their loan.

eeeee

This would be an extraordinarily regressive step. I went to college in Dublin, got the regular grant and the top up hardship grant, they paid less than a third of my rent. Those partying on the grant are not just living off the grant.

All this does us push the idea that education should only be framed towards an economy, basing investment on an economic outcome rather than scholarship, enquiry, research, innovation. Further education, and indeed all education should be places of critique, critical thinking and creativity, not educate to order for whatever business happens to be hot right now.

It also stops anyone from anything other than an extremely privileged background from studying art, arts and humanities. I was the only person from my socio-economic background doing my course in the year I was in, the year above and below and that was during the boom when times were good, it's a lot more riven now. You're essentially deciding what people can and can't study based on their current socio-economic situations, hindering social mobility.

It's a great example of neo-liberal capitalist policy that serves those who have only to get more. The feudal dark ages have never looked so close...

FishOnABike

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunate in your case, but it doesn't mean the grants system is wrong though. Those who go on to employment will pay back way more in taxation to the state over their working lives than they took in grants.

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Assuming they work in that state and not in another.

A loan system is more likely to them ending up not working in the state and using the skills they have learned at the state's expense (i.e. taxpayers expense) somewhere else where they are of no benefit to the state.

The student loan default rate in the UK is about 45%. That indicates it is a fundamentally flawed approach towards teritary education funding.

A topical article in today's Irish Examiner http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/student-loans-proposal-will-add-to-personal-debt-413456.html

2RockMountain

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That "problem" can be solved by requiring students name a guarantor for their loan.

So only those who come from 'good' families with nice middle-class parents with nice credit ratings get access to 3rd level then?

FrStone

MagicHumanDoll wrote: »

If you're suggesting that replacing grants with loans, then you haven't experienced what it is like to be poor, and because of that I don't blame you for not understanding. Grants are given to those deemed not to have the family income required to attend college, pay for fees, accommodation, etc.
People who were not awarded grants, were considered to be capable of paying for college. Realistically that might have been a struggle, but it's still possible. For me, someone on the highest possible maintenance grant, my parents are not in the position to contribute a cent toward my costs. They'd love to, but can't due to circumstances. We live paycheck to paycheck as is. So, a grant is a way of enabling me to study, to better myself in terms of getting a degree and potentially earning greater than what my parents do. Take the grant away, in place of a loan system, and I couldn't, as I have no means to pay a loan, get helped when I am stuck for cash, or have the credit to even apply for one.
I'm currently studying architecture, surrounded by many of my classmates who attended private school and go on numerous holidays a year, and yet I do better than most whether it be down to ability, intelligence, whatever. That doesn't matter. Neither does their wealth, or my lack of.
What I am saying is, education should be available to everyone and anyone who wants to pursue it. Am I any less deserving to go to college because I am poor?

Ridiculous.. Pay back the grant when you are qualified and earning above a certain threshold. Therefore, you can afford to pay it back. You can't now, but you will be able to in the future. Why should those with who come from a low income background get an easy ride in college, while the rest of us had to work to pay our fees never mind getting cash handed to us.

biZrb

I have no problem giving grants to people but I think they should be linked to attendance. I wasn't eligible for a grant when I went to college. Lots of people I knew were and all of them didn't bother attending, would drink the grant money away, failed first year and never came back. Whereas I was going to lectures and working holidays and weekends to get enough money to live on. My parents were just regular workers and helped as much as they could but I still had to pay my living expenses myself, hense why I had to work. It made me sick seeing a bunch of wasters piss away money I wasn't entitled to.

conorhal

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Reading, writing and counting should be free to learn.

If you want to learn how many million years old the pebble you found on the beach is or about the importance of mis en scene in the Maltese Falcon you can pay for it yourself.

Third level graduates have a significantly higher earning potential then those that don't, so the state gets a lifelong return for it's investment in students higher education in the form of a tax boost.

padd b1975

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I recall that student loans are one of the few debts you CAN'T walk away from in the USA, I wouldn't put it past the UK to have a similar law, probably brought in during Thatcher's rule.

Being forced to take responsibility for one's actions is Thatcherite now??

Oh the humanity!!