In message , at
19:25:00 on Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:

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.

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.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
19:25:00 on Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel
remarked:

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.

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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

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

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.

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:

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

In article , Ian Tindale
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.

Indeed, I don't think *anyone* is arguing that the funding available
today is a patch on what it was a generation ago.

But much of the reason for that is the greatly increased numbers going
to University.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

Ian Tindale wrote:
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.

But that's a second degree. I wasn't aware that grants or student loans
or whatever have ever been applicable to second degrees.

Robin

R.C. Payne wrote:

But that's a second degree.Â*Â*IÂ*wasn'tÂ*awareÂ*thatÂ*grantsÂ*orÂ*stu dentÂ*loans
or whatever have ever been applicable to second degrees.

Normally, for that situation, you'd be right. However, I managed to get
accepted onto it without a degree or qualifications because of my
apparently extensive experience of the industry (?). So for me, it's my
first degree. Probably everyone else there, as you say, has gone through a
bachelors first.
--
Ian Tindale

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"