BBC News banging on about student loans, again!
Discussion
fido said:
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.
The bit about the best students is a bit odd coming from someone suggesting that students should pay. It is my point entirely. Poorstudents will be put off going to university by these costs. They are not stupid. If we want the best students, and not to just select from those who have mummy and daddy to pay for their skiing holidays, then student fees and massive debets are not the way to go.
We can, it seems, pay a fortune for the olympics, a sport. I know where I would consider investing my hard earned.
Derek Smith said:
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.
As there is no need for money up-front to go, and these poor students are in the same payback position as less poor students on graduation what goes?
In fact there are studentships and grants and all sorts to support students from genuinely poor families so their position isn't as dire as claimed and slightly better off families are in worse positions.
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
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.
As there is no need for money up-front to go, and these poor students are in the same payback position as less poor students on graduation what goes?
In fact there are studentships and grants and all sorts to support students from genuinely poor families so their position isn't as dire as claimed and slightly better off families are in worse positions.
I think one of the reasons that the powers that be within the BBC are so against people having to pay for their own university education is that the majority of them have children, and most of them are expecting to go to university. So purely self interest.
One thing that seems to be regularly missed in these debates (and by the media too) is that the new student loans are now, for the first time ever, available to students studying on a part-time basis. Ergo you could be studying and working, gaining experience whilst (effectively) off-setting your fees.
It's not difficult for me to envisage a scenario where a student takes e.g. 5 years to complete their bachelors degree, but has amassed valuable "real-world" experience at the same time, whilst potentially also having the arguably impressive quality of having completed a degree whilst working.
A positive development in my view, which seems to be overlooked.
Also, the repayment rate is 9% of income earned over £21000. If you earn e.g £25k as a graduate (not an unreasonable expectation) that comes to (bag of a fag-packet calc.) £30/month.
I think that unfortunately, the Government has been incredibly poor at promoting positive examples of how the new system will work and have lost the initiative in the propaganda war, which ultimately will lead to a drop in university admissions - a massive negative in my view.
It's not difficult for me to envisage a scenario where a student takes e.g. 5 years to complete their bachelors degree, but has amassed valuable "real-world" experience at the same time, whilst potentially also having the arguably impressive quality of having completed a degree whilst working.
A positive development in my view, which seems to be overlooked.
Also, the repayment rate is 9% of income earned over £21000. If you earn e.g £25k as a graduate (not an unreasonable expectation) that comes to (bag of a fag-packet calc.) £30/month.
I think that unfortunately, the Government has been incredibly poor at promoting positive examples of how the new system will work and have lost the initiative in the propaganda war, which ultimately will lead to a drop in university admissions - a massive negative in my view.
Derek Smith said:
Poorstudents will be put off going to university by these costs. They are not stupid. If we want the best students, and not to just select from those who have mummy and daddy to pay for their skiing holidays, then student fees and massive debets are not the way to go.
I think your comments about the 'poor' and 'rich' are telling. "They are not stupid." - frankly some of them are and they should not be funded to do some non-degree at the expense of a potential STEM graduate who has to pay tuition fees (which were increased by Labour). As for the stupid rich, well we live in a society where if you are wealthy, you can educate your stupid rich child at a private school so he turns into less-of-a-moron. That situation is unavoidable in a capitalist society. And that's why IMO the 11/13+ selection was a good idea.As to your Olympics reference/jibe .. if only we used to same methodology to train our students as we did with our athletes - and you don't waste funding on those who show no aptitude in sport because it would be pointless. And some of those successful athletes have rich parents - should we make them wear ankle weights to slow them down a bit?
singlecoil said:
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.
My wife went to University of Penn (an Ivy league school, but certainly not the most expensive in US) for a 4 year graduate degree, then later went back for a 2 year masters. She was lucky enough to qualify for a small academic scholarship to help with funding, but this is what you should be prepared to budget if starting this year:Total Tuition and Fees $43,738
Housing 7,952
Meals 4,416
Books 1,210
Personal 2,284
Total Budget $59,600
Yes, that's about £37k per year. Degrees tend to be 4 years to our 3, so that's getting on for £150k before going back for a masters.
The interest rate for the federal backed student loan is currently 6.8%, so not much discount on the market rate either. You can claim hardship if you can't afford repayment for a period of time, but the interest keeps ticking up.
blueg33 said:
Pesty said:
Was only in the background but I liked the student who was going to study philospohy so he could get rich.
McDonalds pay quite well these days 
Link to U.S. list.
fido said:
Derek Smith said:
Poorstudents will be put off going to university by these costs. They are not stupid. If we want the best students, and not to just select from those who have mummy and daddy to pay for their skiing holidays, then student fees and massive debets are not the way to go.
I think your comments about the 'poor' and 'rich' are telling. "They are not stupid." - frankly some of them are and they should not be funded to do some non-degree at the expense of a potential STEM graduate who has to pay tuition fees (which were increased by Labour). As for the stupid rich, well we live in a society where if you are wealthy, you can educate your stupid rich child at a private school so he turns into less-of-a-moron. That situation is unavoidable in a capitalist society. And that's why IMO the 11/13+ selection was a good idea.As to your Olympics reference/jibe .. if only we used to same methodology to train our students as we did with our athletes - and you don't waste funding on those who show no aptitude in sport because it would be pointless. And some of those successful athletes have rich parents - should we make them wear ankle weights to slow them down a bit?
I was a beneficiary of the 11+. However, my parents could not afford to put me through uni even in those days. So I ended up in a factory.
Again the mention of labour. Who's arguing about which political party is to blame? Not me. My point is that potential is wasted. If we need STEM students then we need to invest in them. It seems obvious to me.
I'm not sure what you mean by Olympics jibe. If we can afford the eer increasing costs of the olypics then we can afford to invest in education. That was my point. Further, if you show aptitude in 'my' sport of rugby you can get considerable help with the financial and educational side. I have followed the career of one lad who was at my club. He's now in a premiership team and came off the bench for England in the 6N. He was poor but his potential was recognised.
Derek Smith said:
I was a beneficiary of the 11+. However, my parents could not afford to put me through uni even in those days. So I ended up in a factory.
.. which is why they introduced LEA maintenance grants in 1962 [Education Act]. Poor kids (like myself) got the full whack - as i recall i even managed to save a little in my final year due to revising instead of not going out.fido said:
Derek Smith said:
I was a beneficiary of the 11+. However, my parents could not afford to put me through uni even in those days. So I ended up in a factory.
.. which is why they introduced LEA maintenance grants in 1962 [Education Act]. Poor kids (like myself) got the full whack - as i recall i even managed to save a little in my final year due to revising instead of not going out.Apart from that, Labour and the BBC have a beef with grammar schools Derek, surely you wish you could have gone to a boggo comp and toughed it out with the intelligentsia in mixed ability nirvana and a Che Guevara wannabe as your form tutor. Or would that perhaps be a bit of a pastiche in terms of BBC and Grauniad information pollution.
Derek Smith said:
If we need STEM students then we need to invest in them. It seems obvious to me.
But these students, if they do well and end up in jobs where they are able to make a significant contribution to the general prosperity, will also be well paid during the course of their employment. What they will get out of it personally will almost certainly outweigh the general benefit. And that's if they stay in this country, of course. So to expect them to pay a decent chunk of the cost of their own education is only right and proper.Surely the discussion should be about STE subjects.
A recent report told the wholly expected only-a-matter-of-time story of universities dropping maths from science and technology courses as neither the students nor the lecturers can cope.
Still never mind, all can have prizes so it's not a problem and every other country in the world is just as daft as a f
king brush over egalitarian delusion so we'll remain competitive forever.
A recent report told the wholly expected only-a-matter-of-time story of universities dropping maths from science and technology courses as neither the students nor the lecturers can cope.
Still never mind, all can have prizes so it's not a problem and every other country in the world is just as daft as a f
king brush over egalitarian delusion so we'll remain competitive forever.I would be quite happy to see the end of tuition fees and the return of a means tested maintenance grant - but only with the number of places radically reduced so that the cost to the taxpayer remained the same. We would also need to reform A-levels to make them fit for the purpose of filtering the intake. Free university education for the brightest 10% rather than expensive university education for the least debt averse 50%.
Bill Carr said:
Also, the repayment rate is 9% of income earned over £21000. If you earn e.g £25k as a graduate (not an unreasonable expectation) that comes to (bag of a fag-packet calc.) £30/month.
So after 3 years at £9k tuition fees and £2.5k subsistence the loan will be £34,500. paid back at 30 per month = 1150 months or 96 years! Before interest is factored in. Even if the person earns £60k pa that equals 6 years payback, but it takes some time for most graduate salaries to reach that level.blueg33 said:
Bill Carr said:
Also, the repayment rate is 9% of income earned over £21000. If you earn e.g £25k as a graduate (not an unreasonable expectation) that comes to (bag of a fag-packet calc.) £30/month.
So after 3 years at £9k tuition fees and £2.5k subsistence the loan will be £34,500. paid back at 30 per month = 1150 months or 96 years! Before interest is factored in. Even if the person earns £60k pa that equals 6 years payback, but it takes some time for most graduate salaries to reach that level.blueg33 said:
So after 3 years at £9k tuition fees and £2.5k subsistence the loan will be £34,500. paid back at 30 per month = 1150 months or 96 years! Before interest is factored in. Even if the person earns £60k pa that equals 6 years payback, but it takes some time for most graduate salaries to reach that level.
If the repayment is low enough to not be impactful, who cares? £30/month = just under £7/week, or a couple of pre-packed sandwiches and a drink. Also, the loan is written-off after 30 years. And if your income falls below £21k, you stop repaying. I don't know what happens if you permanently emigrate, but I doubt the UK government would be able to chase you for repayment.
I strongly suspect there will be a large cohort of students who for a variety of reasons will either pay back a tiny fraction of their overall loan or never pay back any of it. Ergo their higher education will be essentially free.
Friends and I each managed to earn in excess of £2.5k/year whilst at uni (ten years ago), working in shops/takeaways/bars during the holidays. I don't believe it's beyond the wherewithal of current and prospective students to do the same nowadays, which - combined with a student account overdraft - would pay a fair chunk of living costs IMO. It's not fun and it's not pleasant, but you do it because you need the money and are hoping that the investment is ultimately worth it.
blueg33 said:
The whole country benefits from a well educated workforce.
Indeed it does. The problem we had was tens of thousands of 'students' taking a random degree <cough>sociology<cough> at the taxpayers expense which I hope this discourages.I lived in the US for few years and over there parents start saving when the kid is born for their college fund. If you don't have that you have to work your way through school. I can't see it hurting their economy.
40% income tax
2% national insurance
9% student loan contribution
let's say 8% pension contribution
that leaves you with about 40% of your take home over a 'reasonable amount'
even if you pay basic rate tax that's 20% income, 11% ni, 9% student loan, 8% pension.
perhaps some people could argue that this is storing up trouble for the future
2% national insurance
9% student loan contribution
let's say 8% pension contribution
that leaves you with about 40% of your take home over a 'reasonable amount'
even if you pay basic rate tax that's 20% income, 11% ni, 9% student loan, 8% pension.
perhaps some people could argue that this is storing up trouble for the future
singlecoil said:
But these students, if they do well and end up in jobs where they are able to make a significant contribution to the general prosperity, will also be well paid during the course of their employment. What they will get out of it personally will almost certainly outweigh the general benefit. And that's if they stay in this country, of course. So to expect them to pay a decent chunk of the cost of their own education is only right and proper.
Would they not also be paying more income tax? Would the company they work for, or even the one they own, bring money into the country to the benefit of everyone? Not to mention paying other taxes.
If we don't train our own scientists and engineers then we will have to import them at an increased cost. And they are the ones most likely to leave later on.
Or, of course, import the technology and pay the money directly to other countries.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff