See I live in my overdraft, on the premise that I'm having the best time of my life so why not have fun while I can?

Granted I'll be working in the summer to put the money back.

Here's a little secret some of us old boys often keep to ourselves.....you have a long life and your best times are not over at 21..

thats irrelevant, the point CMR and Invincible were making that is it is possible to live within your means whilst at university, and this should be applicable no matter what number of students read for a degree.

the point i was making was that massive levels of debt are now considered the norm, again, no matter what number of students read for a degree.

however, there are students, one a regular poster on here, that seem to have gone to uni for the criac, and having graduated are doing fu[ick[/i all with themselves, and their degrees now, but i suspect that the individual on here doesnt have massive amounts of debt anyway.

Actually the number of students does matter, because it all has to be paid for by someone. If the top 7% of students go to University after school then the taxpayer can foot the bill and pay a grant and housing benefit etc. and look at it as an investment in the future economy of the country. When 50% go on to higher education it's not an investment in the future economy of the country, and the taxpayer can't afford to subsidise academicaly week individuals who should be and would be better served developeing in a different environment. So hence no grant, tuition fees, high rents etc....

I would say that 40% of students at university are not where they should be. Universities were designed to take the academicaly gifted and maximise that potential. Not to take anyone with one grade E at A level and give them a "degree" at the expense of taxpayers.

Thats all fair enough, it really is, but that isnt how it is, nor how it will probably be ever again. universities will accept anyone who is willing to pay, and with the debt culture that we live in, that is just about anyone who applies.

as noted above, fees will rise to a minimum of £5000 from next summer, but applications wont decline, because it can all be paid for later, maybe even with a summer job...

It's nigh on impossible to live at uni without going in to an overdraft. I was left with £112 of my last loan after my rent was paid, how is that supposed to last 3 months until the next installment?

Even with a job (yes I'm now working) I'm majorly overdrawn and I don't go out THAT much.

i agree, i stayed debt free owing to working a ridiculous amount of hours and living at home.

the average student (no pun intended) isnt able to study without debt, but you, like most others have to accept a massive amount of debt to earn your degree.

Which then leads to the debate of whether or not it's worth it. Personally I'm getting loads of work experience in all sectors of sport trying to enhance my CV for when I go graduate, but I'm still thinking it'll be hard to find a job.

because of the education you will have or because of the economic climate?

Both I'm guessing, although I suspect things will have picked up by then.

It is possible I know people who did it, you can't do it having a job that works 2 or 3 hours a week its hard work but its possible if you want to - and thats the problem too many take debt for granted and think it didn't matter.

I lived at home and worked damn hard simply because I knew couldn't afford to live away - its about living within your means, I would have loved to move away to uni but it wasn't possible. But we have a society who on the whole are uncapable of living within their means so why is it a shock most students can't.

I get a lot of help off my parents, who as most people know, are very good to me.

If I didn't get this help, there's no way I'd be able to live away for uni. For example, my dad paid my £350 housing deposit yesterday, there's no way I could afford that.

bang on.

Universities have always accepted anyone who pays - particularly overseas students. There should be a scholarship scheme that covers the fees and living expenses (to a reasonable amount) of the top 5-10% of academic achievers. The old grant system was means tested but even posh kids got their fees paid and their housing benefit etc. (as it should be in my view - they are independent adults and should be treated as such).
Universities have lost track of what they really are and if you dilute them out you will have less quality and more quantity. We wouldn't want SL to revert back to one division containing all pro/semi pro teams would we?
It's just not the right place for most of the people who are there, and it's become a substitue for actually creating employment and careers for young people out of school. Eventually natural selection will apply and a top tier will emerge (if it's not happened already), only this time the top tier will be as unnacessable to the lower waged as University was pre-war.

I understand your point, particularly on the academic subjects, but then I disagree with you too.

I'm also of a vintage where a university entry had to be earned the hard way rather than simply progressed into, but at the same time those who had earned it the hard way were generally funded through their course with no debt at the end of it other than their beer money (and bank overdrafts weren't handed out like confetti either).

I started Grammar School with 120 other lads in my year, by the time we got to the first year sixth to do A levels only 30 or so remained and some, including me, dropped out after the first year sixth.

Of those 30 only a handful went on to a Uni of some description and that was as many as the university system could handle, entry levels were extremely high so that only the very gifted were accepted and the courses were generally limited to the "professions", science, law, medicine etc.

I prefer the system now.

My eldest is two years through a Uni course that she simply had to ask to be on, yes she had to achieve certain marks but there was always going to be room for her and as many students who wanted to attend - I've no doubt that you'll argue that thats because the standards have been lowered to ensure that as many as possible are included in the system but I'd argue that I'd rather have 80% of students going through A levels and further education beyond that than have 80% of 16 year olds thrown into the workforce and only a tiny percent of 18 year olds be accepted at a few Universities.

Which ever way you look at it we have a more educated population now than we ever did when I was 20 years old.