Published on 12, July, 2020
It took my son many years to get to university but with the right support he got there.
He has spent all of his student loan and now can't pay his rent, and his housemates are annoyed with him. His dad is in hospital and he's really struggling, he also has other health problems
We applied for a Hardship fund with the university but they rejected it because he had enough money from his student loan, but that is gone now. He also has loan sharks which is scary and making the problem worse. I don't think they've taken into consideration his needs and what that means for money management.
We are appealing it. I was wondering if there's any information we could put on the application to help win an appeal.
Thanks,
Michelle
I think it's a national disgrace that education is so costly. I sympathise with your son's struggles. Universities are corrupt when it comes to funding, and the student loans company should be disbanded. Education should be free or provided at minimal cost.
there are definitely issues around the edges, but the fact remains that the average private financial returns to a university degree are high. so the government (joe public) fully funding degrees then means that people who on very low incomes are contributing - through taxes - to the funding of people that will go on to earn a vastly higher salary. So, there is an equity case for tuition fees, to reflect this.
to give a stark example: why should a toilet cleaner help fund the degree of someone studying PPE at Oxford who will go on to be Prime Minister, or become an investment banker and earn £2 million per year. that is what happens when a system is fully funded by the taxpayer.
Because as a society we all benefit from a more educated population. Every time you walk into a building that didn't fall down on you, or you receive medical treatment or an operation, If you need need legal protection or a host of other things, it's all because someone went and studied at university.
If people are earning vast amounts of money through their degree and it doesn't directly benefit society (say, and investment banker), they will still be contributing much more back into the system via tax (theoretically - I appreciate this relies on fit-for -purpose tax laws).
You raise the point about why those on lower pay should contribute. Firstly, as this is through their taxes, they will likely not be contributing very much if they are really on the lower end of the pay scale, but secondly and more importantly, That person may be very academically gifted and aspire to much more, but the tuition fees become a barrier to entry.
Spreadsheets&Pizza said:I think the element that is unfair is the provision of student loans at a vastly unfair borrowing rate (increased due to the amount of debt that has to be written off)
absolutely.
Depending on the degree of personal payment, this may be a barrier that prevents people from poorer families from attending. The criteria to attend further education should be based on academic merit, not financial resources.
I don't think I've misunderstood. I think we both agree that there is a benefit to society to educate to degree level and beyond, and that the government should subsidise somewhat, I think we just disagree on the amount.
I think the element that is unfair is the provision of student loans at a vastly unfair borrowing rate (increased due to the amount of debt that has to be written off)