Maintenance Loan? I support it!

George Osborne has been criticised by Students and Academics alike for the removal of maintenance grants.

It’s slightly unusual to come across a ‘Tory sympathiser’ in a student newspaper (after all, students are notorious for being socialist vegans and who ‘found their true selves’ on a gap year building schools in Tanzania), but as a student who didn’t qualify for a maintenance grant by a few pounds, I feel as though the new Tory plan is justified and actually promotes equality.

Earlier this year in the aftermath of the Conservative win at the General Election, it was announced that to help reduce the deficit, George Osborne was going to remove maintenance grants and, instead, the money would be given as a loan. At first I was slightly apprehensive about this new proposal; at first it appeared as if grants were going to be completely removed and that no alternative would be offered. However, when reading about this matter thoroughly, I realised that grants were going to be converted into loans.

Now, I truly do understand people’s frustration – many argue that this change deters students from applying to University due to the prospect of the amount of debt that they’ll have towards their end of their studies. However, I think this is utter rubbish. The maximum grant allowance a student is entitled to receive is £3,387, compared to the £9000 a year the student spends on studying, this is merely a fly in the ointment.

Why then, should people effectively be given free money because of their circumstances as a child?

So, time for a case study: if a student does not receive the grant and takes the money in a form of a loan, they will owe Student Finance £37,161 (providing they are on a three year course). You only start to pay back your loan after you earn £21,000, and you then pay 9% of anything you earn over that salary. The average Warwick graduate salary is £24,000 and therefore the student will be expected to pay 9% of £3,000 annually, so £270 a year, or £22.50 a month. It would therefore take 137 years to pay off. See where I am heading? (Just for the record, if the student received this money in the form of a grant, it would still take 100 years to pay off), therefore, students will not feel this burden financially for this change in government policy.

I think that everyone can agree that Student Finance and its distorted calculator needs a serious re-evaluation

Now enough of the maths – I agree that was pretty boring – and one last reason on why I agree with Osborne. When we, as students, graduate and get into ‘the real world’, we will all be on the same footing – that is, we will all be equal. We will all have a degree from Warwick and the same opportunities have been offered to us. Why then, should people effectively be given free money because of their circumstances as a child? Why should those who had household incomes above £42,875 have to pay more than those on an income a few pounds less? A student’s household incomes don’t matter at 21 – they are adults, they are left to fend for themselves.

I could argue several other points against maintenance grants, or at least that everybody should be entitled to one, but I am running out of.  I came across a lot more Conservative in this article than I actually intended to. But, on a serious note, this lack of equality that surrounds student grants and loans is just part of the wider issue: I think that everyone can agree that Student Finance and its distorted calculator needs a serious re-evaluation.