BBC News banging on about student loans, again!
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17309755
Featured on BBC Breakfast news this morning, one of the BBC's favourite subjects, one of the presenters saying that some students might leave university with seventy THOUSAND punds of debt (they always lean hard on the word 'thousand'). Nothing at all about the repayment terms that mean that they don't have to repay until their earnings go above a certain level, although the danger of not getting a job at all was of course mentioned.
I can only guess that everybody at the BBC went to university free, and they feel that generosity should continue.
Featured on BBC Breakfast news this morning, one of the BBC's favourite subjects, one of the presenters saying that some students might leave university with seventy THOUSAND punds of debt (they always lean hard on the word 'thousand'). Nothing at all about the repayment terms that mean that they don't have to repay until their earnings go above a certain level, although the danger of not getting a job at all was of course mentioned.
I can only guess that everybody at the BBC went to university free, and they feel that generosity should continue.
singlecoil said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17309755
Featured on BBC Breakfast news this morning, one of the BBC's favourite subjects, one of the presenters saying that some students might leave university with seventy THOUSAND punds of debt (they always lean hard on the word 'thousand'). Nothing at all about the repayment terms that mean that they don't have to repay until their earnings go above a certain level, although the danger of not getting a job at all was of course mentioned.
I can only guess that everybody at the BBC went to university free, and they feel that generosity should continue.
The level of debt is easily achieveable with student loansFeatured on BBC Breakfast news this morning, one of the BBC's favourite subjects, one of the presenters saying that some students might leave university with seventy THOUSAND punds of debt (they always lean hard on the word 'thousand'). Nothing at all about the repayment terms that mean that they don't have to repay until their earnings go above a certain level, although the danger of not getting a job at all was of course mentioned.
I can only guess that everybody at the BBC went to university free, and they feel that generosity should continue.
fees £9k pa, Subsistence £2.5k pa. Do a masters and then a law conversion course and you are at £70k
But a decent job means it gets repaid so thats fine, but that level of debt will impact on the ability to buy a house etc. That will have some degree of impact on the economy etc.
We spend a lot of time on PH forums chastising people for debt but seem to be happy for them to take a minimum of £30k debt for training that the country needs in order to maintain its skill base and drive the economy.
There is no doubt that this level of debt is a disincentive to many. But even if its a disincentive to one person then that could be a missed opportunity.
The whole country benefits from a well educated workforce.
Pesty said:
why is this being talked about again?
I expect that the BBC saw a chance to present the student loan system in a negative light again, and took it. They should send (another) reporter to the US, and tell us about how parents have to start saving early if they want their children to go to college. No government provided student loan over there AFAIK.I don't know about you, but I wouldn't fancy coming out of uni with £30k + debt. Thats hanging over you for years and eating away at your disposable income, income which was used previosuly to buy a house/car/get set up for life etc.
I was one of the last fortunate ones, I walked away with I think £3k or so.
If I was in this position again, as nephew/nieces are, I would think twice about going to uni.
I was one of the last fortunate ones, I walked away with I think £3k or so.
If I was in this position again, as nephew/nieces are, I would think twice about going to uni.
Kudos said:
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't fancy coming out of uni with £30k + debt. Thats hanging over you for years and eating away at your disposable income, income which was used previosuly to buy a house/car/get set up for life etc.
I was one of the last fortunate ones, I walked away with I think £3k or so.
If I was in this position again, as nephew/nieces are, I would think twice about going to uni.
Same here. I left with a debt of about 10k, and the repayments do make a difference to my monthly budget...I was one of the last fortunate ones, I walked away with I think £3k or so.
If I was in this position again, as nephew/nieces are, I would think twice about going to uni.
I would definitely be put off by the thought of three times this for a standard degree course...
by the same token, my ex left Uni with abotu £10k of debt...she still has it as she never earnt enough...
Even when you do earn enough they don't require a massive monthly repayment schedule (or they didn't when I paid mine off years ago...virtually interest free back then...
I don't see the problem personally, I'm sure they'll be some that are affected they'll never be a perfect solution...
The bottom line is most students spend the money on cars/petrol/bikes/booze/drugs anyway
The ones that use it for rent/books/course equipment won't be racking up £70k...
Even when you do earn enough they don't require a massive monthly repayment schedule (or they didn't when I paid mine off years ago...virtually interest free back then...
I don't see the problem personally, I'm sure they'll be some that are affected they'll never be a perfect solution...
The bottom line is most students spend the money on cars/petrol/bikes/booze/drugs anyway
The ones that use it for rent/books/course equipment won't be racking up £70k...
Kudos said:
If I was in this position again, as nephew/nieces are, I would think twice about going to uni.
This isn't aimed at you or anybody else in a personal sense but if this discourages holders of a scraped pass Level 3 GNVQPTORSVP flower arranging (coursework) from taking a degree course in Beckhamology then there's no loss to anybody involved. They won't be in a position to get a decent job when they graduate with a mass-market nondegree from low grade institutions so it's pointless getting the debt. The marketplace for a spectrum of useful courses at a range of worthy institutions with variable entry requirements is essential and not the subject of this comment but attempts to fool people into believing that dumbing down degrees such that your gerbil could get one have helped nobody.The 70K is more than achieveable and if you look at all costs then that figure can easily be exceeded.
My daugher eschewed uni and instead took her A levels to an insurance company. For the first year she was earning what would now be 14,000. The second year she went up to around 17k and for the third year, and her third promotion, she got over 20k. If you add all that up that is 50k she would has lost, less stoppages, in three years. On top of that there would now be the £27k fees, oncosts and extra cost of living. Then there's books and such.
Further, my daughter had a second job that paid quite well. She probably would not have been able to do that at uni.
So the 70k is hardly over the top.
Further, my daughter is not lumbered with debt. She now owns her own home with a mortgage of a bit less than half the value of the house.
I advised my daughter to go to uni but she chose a different route. I have to say that with fees so high my advice now would be not to bother.
If we ever come out of this recession we will need STEM graduates. Let's face it, even when universities were much cheaper we didn't have enough. And now they are even less appealing. We read daily of graduates working in McDonalds.
At my rugby club we have two young graduates who serve behind the counter and make food. One works for free writing SEO copy without any promise of a post at the end of it.
From what the OP says, the BBC would appear to be spot on.
My daugher eschewed uni and instead took her A levels to an insurance company. For the first year she was earning what would now be 14,000. The second year she went up to around 17k and for the third year, and her third promotion, she got over 20k. If you add all that up that is 50k she would has lost, less stoppages, in three years. On top of that there would now be the £27k fees, oncosts and extra cost of living. Then there's books and such.
Further, my daughter had a second job that paid quite well. She probably would not have been able to do that at uni.
So the 70k is hardly over the top.
Further, my daughter is not lumbered with debt. She now owns her own home with a mortgage of a bit less than half the value of the house.
I advised my daughter to go to uni but she chose a different route. I have to say that with fees so high my advice now would be not to bother.
If we ever come out of this recession we will need STEM graduates. Let's face it, even when universities were much cheaper we didn't have enough. And now they are even less appealing. We read daily of graduates working in McDonalds.
At my rugby club we have two young graduates who serve behind the counter and make food. One works for free writing SEO copy without any promise of a post at the end of it.
From what the OP says, the BBC would appear to be spot on.
Derek Smith said:
From what the OP says, the BBC would appear to be spot on.
About the potential level of debt? Sure. However, pursuing mass-market free degree level courses in flower arranging or underwater basketweaving for people with lots of Vs and Qs but no capacity for a degree worthy of the name is a waste of money i.e. a waste of the debt they will accrue. How many PhDs will it take in future to staff the drive-thru at a fast food outlet? At £6 an hour.turbobloke said:
This isn't aimed at you or anybody else in a personal sense but if this discourages holders of a scraped pass Level 3 GNVQPTORSVP flower arranging (coursework) from taking a degree course in Beckhamology then there's no loss to anybody involved. They won't be in a position to get a decent job when they graduate with a mass-market nondegree from low grade institutions so it's pointless getting the debt. The marketplace for a spectrum of useful courses at a range of worthy institutions with variable entry requirements is essential and not the subject of this comment but attempts to fool people into believing that dumbing down degrees such that your gerbil could get one have helped nobody.
Far from it, although definitely agreed on various subjects. I did a degree in Computer Science, and yes it's nice to have that hanging on the toilet wall, but I don't see it as absolute necessary. Were I gained was "extra curricular" studying - I passed various professional qualifications while still at uni and probably a good 3-4 yrs before any of my peers would have considered them. Any interviews I go for are not interested in the degree, it's the professional qualifications, and if I hadn't spent 4yrs at uni, I could have progressed further, sooner.
Developers etc nowadays with certain programming skills are in big demand. Zero need for them to go to uni, rather pick up the skill and get experience. They'll be earning £50k min before their peers graduate
singlecoil said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17309755
Featured on BBC Breakfast news this morning, one of the BBC's favourite subjects, one of the presenters saying that some students might leave university with seventy THOUSAND punds of debt (they always lean hard on the word 'thousand'). Nothing at all about the repayment terms that mean that they don't have to repay until their earnings go above a certain level, although the danger of not getting a job at all was of course mentioned.
I can only guess that everybody at the BBC went to university free, and they feel that generosity should continue.
I think you will find that if they do incur this level of debt then less than half of it will be at these reduced rates.Featured on BBC Breakfast news this morning, one of the BBC's favourite subjects, one of the presenters saying that some students might leave university with seventy THOUSAND punds of debt (they always lean hard on the word 'thousand'). Nothing at all about the repayment terms that mean that they don't have to repay until their earnings go above a certain level, although the danger of not getting a job at all was of course mentioned.
I can only guess that everybody at the BBC went to university free, and they feel that generosity should continue.
However, you seem to be suggesting that it is alright for graduates to have this level of debt around their necks until they earn a certain level of income when they will have to repay it. So just when they want to get married, have kids, buy a house, have holidays, they have to pay back more.
Further the other, non-government debt will come up for payment immediately.
As for free university education being generous, the point is that we need STEM graduates, we need fashion graduates.
And if this country is indeed in such a parlous state, how come we can afford this system. It is agreed by everyone that in the short and medium term this will cost the country more money than the old system.
Derek Smith said:
From what the OP says, the BBC would appear to be spot on.
The BBC may well be spot on with its estimate of potential debt level, but that wasn't my point. My point is that the BBC never misses a chance to present the student loan system (and the idea that students should pay for their further education) in a negative light. In other words, the BBC have a political POV about this.My own feeling is that the primary beneficiary of further education is the recipient, and I have no problem with the idea that those recipients should pay for what they get. If they don't think it's worth it, then they are free to choose alternatives.
Edited by singlecoil on Friday 9th March 09:57
Derek Smith said:
As for free university education being generous, the point is that we need STEM graduates, we need fashion graduates.
And if this country is indeed in such a parlous state, how come we can afford this system. It is agreed by everyone that in the short and medium term this will cost the country more money than the old system.
We can't afford it. That is why we have tuition fees (you know the ones that New Labour presided over). Fortunately, there are loads of foreigners willing to contribute to UK higher education (e.g. £15k a year, instead of the £5k paid by home students) because it's still held in high esteem. And if this country is indeed in such a parlous state, how come we can afford this system. It is agreed by everyone that in the short and medium term this will cost the country more money than the old system.
Yes, we need students for sciences and arts alike. But they should be the best students who can achieve decent grades at school. Not the ones who with no academic ablility (a 1st in Beckhamology doesn't cut it) or would be better suited to vocational training.
Kudos said:
Developers etc nowadays with certain programming skills are in big demand. Zero need for them to go to uni, rather pick up the skill and get experience. They'll be earning £50k min before their peers graduate
They don't need to go to university, but the best firms (in their respective fields) will favour those with formal training in computing or mathematics for certain roles. Yes, no doubt they can earn £100k a year as a JAVA/VBA developer; though maybe less in the current climate. But it would be extremely difficult to obtain an Engineering or Quant (Finance) role without formal training.Edited by fido on Friday 9th March 10:09
singlecoil said:
The BBC may well be spot on with its estimate of potential debt level, but that wasn't my point. My point is that the BBC never misses a chance to present the student loan system (and the idea that students should pay for their further education) in a negative light. In other words, the BBC have a political POV about this.
My own feeling is that the primary beneficiary of further education is the recipient, and I have no problem with the idea that those recipients should pay for what they get. If they don't think it's worth it, then they are free to choose alternatives.
If the BBC's point of view is as you have said then I've got to say I'm pleased that there is someone in the media who is willing to put out my point of view. Whether all students should pay or not is another matter but the massive debts that students will incur will put off the poorer ones.My own feeling is that the primary beneficiary of further education is the recipient, and I have no problem with the idea that those recipients should pay for what they get. If they don't think it's worth it, then they are free to choose alternatives.
You suggest that the primary beneficiary of higher education is the student. This may or may not be true. What is true, however, is that businesses hae for years been complaining that there are not enough STEM graduates. Now there will be less. So whether or not the student is the main beneficiary is immaterial. The country needs STEM graduates.
The problem is as you so succinclty put it, there are alternatives, ones where an intelligent person could earn more without all that effort.
We have, I've read, no drop off in graduate lawyering degrees. Very useful to this country.
Derek Smith said:
We have, I've read, no drop off in graduate lawyering degrees. Very useful to this country.
Well, you may jest, but being able to read and understand law is very useful. If only my Estate Agent could employ some of those failed law graduates (instead of having to edit their marketing material myself).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff