Uk replace student grants with loans

MagicHumanDoll · 01-08-2016 04:25PM

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 · 01-08-2016 04:26PM

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 · 01-08-2016 04:28PM

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 · 01-08-2016 04:28PM

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 · 01-08-2016 04:36PM

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.

01-08-2016 04:40PM

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 · 01-08-2016 04:44PM

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 · 01-08-2016 04:44PM

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 · 01-08-2016 04:54PM

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 · 01-08-2016 04:56PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:07PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:08PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:11PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:12PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:18PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:20PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:26PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:31PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:31PM

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 · 01-08-2016 05:33PM

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!!

Renegade Mechanic · 01-08-2016 05:39PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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.

That's the idea.
Loan loan loan, interest interest interest, PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT.
Look at America. For a long time now young people have been becoming way too poor to take on a mortgage. So from the point of view of the people who's career is selling loans they can make money from, that's bad.

You can't trap enough people in a house loan, so what's the next best thing to trap th - wait a minute, most jobs now require college education. They have to go to college... Let's make that expensive enough for them to take our loans....

And hey presto, your college "education" costs between 25 and 40 grand a year. Lotsa loans to sell because even the hardest most sacrificial parents won't be able to pay it.

Give it time, you'll see the same thing happening here. Particularly if they remove the laws whereby banks still chase you for money owed on the house they kicked you out of.

01-08-2016 05:40PM

Often have this conversation with my husband.

He grew up in the Uk went to university with a grant, which everyone got at the time it wasn't means tested graduated at 21 to a graduate engineer position verses today where someone in the same position would graduate at least 40k in debt due to fees and would need a master to get a graduate position.

Iwasfrozen · 01-08-2016 05:42PM

2RockMountain wrote: »

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

Even welfare class parents tend to have cars or savings. That's enough to act as guarantor.

Taco Chips · 01-08-2016 05:45PM

FrStone wrote: »

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.

And what, screw the young people again making them pay for the minimum standard of education expected now to have a career and participate in an equitable society. The people mooting and supporting this all received free and massively subsidised third level education. And today's students are paying way more into the system than those that came before them did. Registration fees are now 3,0000 up front every year, they were less than 500 15 years ago. Education is one thing that should be guaranteed for everyone in society, we all benefit from it and that goes for every form of education.

We need historians, scholars of women's rights and Irish literature as much as we need chemical engineers and pharmacologists. We have a very cohesive and relative just society in Ireland, with a lot of social mobility and a low level of income inequality. This is strongly attributable to the universality of third level education on offer here and the removal of the debt burden from students. It's been show all over the world that loans systems do not work, they impoverish young people, they are uncontrollable and end up skyrocketing the costs of third level and they leave people from poorer backgrounds out in the cold because they are not as likely to undertake such debt. I would strongly, strongly oppose any such system being reintroduced in Ireland and question the motives of any politician in favour of it. We have come on so much as a country in the last thirty years thanks to third level education. The government needs to step up to the plate and start reversing the cuts in funding to institutions that they have imposed over the last few years. That is where the major cash shortfall is coming. Universities need to get wise and start spending their funding appropriately too with less of the vanity buildings and glamour projects and more honest research and academia.

The last people who should be fronting even more money than already are the students.

PopePalpatine · 01-08-2016 05:46PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Even welfare class parents tend to have cars or savings. That's enough to act as guarantor.

Somehow I doubt those cars would be under 10 years old and that those savings would amount to anything more than something to buy Christmas presents every year.

Iwasfrozen · 01-08-2016 05:54PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Somehow I doubt those cars would be under 10 years old and that those savings would amount to anything more than something to buy Christmas presents every year.

Oh you'd be surprised.

Still even for those who have no assets at all ( a very small number) a payment schedule could be put in place.

Remember this is only in the case of little Jimmy dodging his loan by fecking off to America. I think a few sharp phone calls would be sent to little Jimmy to tell him to cop the **** on before it got to this stage.

01-08-2016 06:11PM

This proposal is yet another example of how rightwing our society has become in this age of unrestrained free-market capitalism. All those post-WW2 social and educational advances are being torn up in front of our eyes while the inequality between the ultra rich and the rest of us is greater than ever.

How long before the pattern/trend becomes clear?

metaoblivia · 01-08-2016 06:28PM

I think a loan system can work as long as it's kept in check and not allowed to go the direction of the American system.

My family is American, and my mother paid for her college using the loan system in the early 70s. She came from a working class family, but went to a very good, private university. Because tuition was reasonable, she was able to pay off her loans while working a part time job in college, and a year out of college her loans were paid off. Her monthly payments never put financial strain on her. That's a good system.

By contrast, I spent an extra two years at a private university (working two jobs at that time too) for my Masters and now I have a very well paying job, in part thanks to that education. But my loans won't be paid off for another 10 years, and while I can afford the payment, it's substantial. A close friend of mine and her husband owe a combined 400k for law and medical school.

A manageable loan system can be very good, but when tuition becomes unreasonable, it can laden young people with debt for a very long time and that's not good economically.

Renegade Mechanic · 01-08-2016 06:38PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This proposal is yet another example of how rightwing our society has become in this age of unrestrained free-market capitalism. All those post-WW2 social and educational advances are being torn up in front of our eyes while the inequality between the ultra rich and the rest of us is greater than ever.

How long before the pattern/trend becomes clear?

You reckon things would be better under left wing socialism? Say that to a smart Venezuelan and be ready to run..
I can assure you the elite are untouched in either case, but the only equality in more fully rooted socialism, is how equally poor everyone is. The problem with capitalism is that it's the finance side of things that's running away unchecked while production is being restricted by communist levels of protectionism.

Ideally this would be the other way round.
Capitalism based on production instead of finance. Free market production, regulated finance.

Too many people see today's finance based corruption of capitalism, call capitalism bad and make the fatal judgement error of supporting other systems in which the wealthy are still just as wealthy, but now they have more control over you.

uptherebels · 01-08-2016 07:01PM

As a current mature student the current grant system in this country is broke.
Speaking to other mature students, those who did get a grant and those who didn't, it is a nightmare dealing with susi.

Due to my particular circumstances I wasn't eligible for any grant payment.
So now while i'm in college full time, I also have to work 30 odd hours a week so that I can afford to stay in college.Not rich enough but not poor enough.

The problem as mentioned above is if the government are off the hook for funding third level education, would this lead to a rapid inflation of tuition fees?

If i'm paying 20/30/40 k a year i might as well go to Edinburgh/Cambridge/Oxford.

While I don't have a problem with getting and paying back student loans, I don't want to be saddled with debt just to line the pockets of Irish universities (at least not without a major improvement in said universities) especially as my chosen course will probably have me in the top tax bracket within a few years of graduating.

Uk replace student grants with loans

Comments