OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

In message , at 23:02:30 on Tue, 25
Jan 2005, Nick Maclaren remarked:
And my recollection is that that for every extra pound the parent
earned, more than a pound was deducted from the grant. A poverty trap by
definition.

Or the student. My TOTAL gap year's income (after tax) was deducted
from my next year's grant AND FEES - though I now believe that I
should have got a solicitor to challenge the latter.

When was that. I don't recall contemporaries reporting such a thing in
the 70's.

If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental
income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was a
"good thing".
--
Roland Perry

OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

In message , at 16:16:39 on
Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked:

But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has
now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next,
then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out
of one's pocket, as well as through taxation.

Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care
than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving.

At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers
are equally deserving of a "university" education.

I'd probably dispute that if I knew what you meant by "deserving"!

All 4-year olds should be given a chance at nursery education, because
they will all potentially benefit from it.

By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant
number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further
education or vocational training, perhaps; not University).

But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main
driver.

Just think how many more wonders they could do by replacing the current
system with the Australian system, so that not only rich people can
afford to go to university...

I don't understand that remark at all. Are you saying that today, only
the rich can go to university? In that case half the country is rich.
--
Roland Perry

OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes
If your parents were better off you got a "reduced fees grant" meaning
that you got no maintenance and paid something towards your fees. If your
parents were even better off you got a minimum grant (UKP50 in my day)
only and paid all your fees.

Not in my time. "Minimum grant" was fees plus about 20% of the nominal
living grant.

[I discussed the numbers with enough people at the time to be sure of
this.]

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:02:30 on Tue, 25
Jan 2005, Nick Maclaren remarked:
And my recollection is that that for every extra pound the parent
earned, more than a pound was deducted from the grant. A poverty trap by
definition.

Or the student. My TOTAL gap year's income (after tax) was deducted
from my next year's grant AND FEES - though I now believe that I
should have got a solicitor to challenge the latter.

When was that. I don't recall contemporaries reporting such a thing in
the 70's.

Late 1960s, Wiltshire. I discovered much later that it was probably
unjustified.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

In article ,
(Clive D. W. Feather) wrote:

In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes
If your parents were better off you got a "reduced fees grant" meaning
that you got no maintenance and paid something towards your fees. If
your parents were even better off you got a minimum grant (UKP50 in my
day) only and paid all your fees.

Not in my time. "Minimum grant" was fees plus about 20% of the nominal
living grant.

[I discussed the numbers with enough people at the time to be sure of
this.]

After my time (1968-72) then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

In article , Roland
Perry writes
If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental
income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was
a "good thing".

It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC, you
were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the income
in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year to get
you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could show
special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Roland
Perry writes
If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental
income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was
a "good thing".

It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC, you
were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the income
in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year to get
you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could show
special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home.


Interesting. I'm married, 'set up in our own home' and now at 44, last
September embarked upon a Masters at our local uni, part time. No help with
fees, grants or anything (which is a bit tight as I've not had much work
lately either). It's costing a bloody fortune, I don't mind telling.
--
Ian Tindale

OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

Roland Perry wrote:
Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked:

But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has
now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next,
then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out
of one's pocket, as well as through taxation.

Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care
than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving.

At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers
are equally deserving of a "university" education.

I'd probably dispute that if I knew what you meant by "deserving"!

All 4-year olds should be given a chance at nursery education, because
they will all potentially benefit from it.

By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant
number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further
education or vocational training, perhaps; not University).

But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit?

But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main
driver.

Just think how many more wonders they could do by replacing the current
system with the Australian system, so that not only rich people can
afford to go to university...

I don't understand that remark at all. Are you saying that today, only
the rich can go to university? In that case half the country is rich.

I was exagerating a bit - it's not only the rich, but also those willing
to risk being trapped in debt.

OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

In article , Aidan Stanger
writes
By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant
number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further
education or vocational training, perhaps; not University).

But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit?

Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential
students?

How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original
proposition?

--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
 

In article , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that
parental income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to
think was a "good thing".

It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC,
you were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the
income in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year
to get you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could
show special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home.

Yes, that's all pretty much how I remember it working.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"