BBC News banging on about student loans, again!

[singlecoil]

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.

[singlecoil]

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.

[singlecoil]

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

[singlecoil]

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.

Why would it do that? This is part of the myth that the BBC are complicit in spreading, wittingly or unwittingly. There is no reason to be put off if somebody thinks they are 'poor' since nothing has to be paid out up-front to actually go to university. Payback only takes place when earnings after graduation are at a reasonable level.

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.

Pretty much my thinking too.

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.

[singlecoil]

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.

[singlecoil]

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.

I expect that average time to get there is a lot less for gradutates than it is for those who don't go to university.

[singlecoil]

The country benefits when firms invest in new machinery, but by and large they have to pay for it themselves. Education is an investment, no reason why it should be free. Let he who gets it pay for it.

[singlecoil]

Use Psychology said:

students shouldn't pay for their university education because society benefits from it.

(when done properly and appropriately, i.e. no st degrees, at real universities, etc.)

I consider such degrees as classics, history, English etc st (to use your expression ) as well, especially when taken at Oxbridge colleges. They should certainly exist, but I don't think it is fair that taxpayers should have to fund them.

[singlecoil]

TTwiggy said:

clarkey328is said:

Bah, I think it should be done on a sliding scale of which degrees benefit the economy the most. Having said that, the actual tuition fees don't even register on my finances because I know I'll be able to pay it off easily.
I read an interesting article in our University newspaper the other day about how the rise in tuition fees had pushed people towards more vocational subjects like Science and Engineering, to the tune of a 20% rise. Arts based courses had seen a similar drop in applicants. If that's what it takes to make people do proper subjects, then so be it.

Yes, because the arts have never enriched humanity at all...

I think you know what he meant.

[singlecoil]

He's right too.

[singlecoil]

TTwiggy said:

Really? So the example of the rennaissance man who could turn his hand to art and science with equal skill is lost on you then?

I think you are talking about a gifted individual who probably doesn't need to go to university, not the teenagers who, having had an interesting gap year, are now ready to tackle some classics, or maybe some drama, how about some Frech literature, really useful stuff that the rest of us are going to benefit from? I don't think so. I've no objection to them wasting a few years on that stuff, as long as they pay for it themselves.

[singlecoil]

TTwiggy said:

Never read a book? Watched a film? Seen a play? Appreciated a photograph? Read a newspaper? Enjoyed a painting? Admired a beautiful car?

Nope, pointless those arts things.

Your sarcasm is exceeded only by the irrelevance of your examples.

[singlecoil]

TTwiggy said:

singlecoil said:

Your sarcasm is exceeded only by the irrelevance of your examples.

You mean my examples that will all (most likely) have been created by arts graduates?

Most of the artistic produce that I (and many others) enjoy, and from a much wider range of subjects than the few you mentioned, was produced by people who did NOT go to university. Chance, perhaps? Most of the people who study film, for instance, spend their time studying the work of people who didn't go to university, but who did produce great films.

[singlecoil]

TTwiggy said:

But, as university and degrees are the subject of this thread, then I will exercise my right to defend the arts subjects.

Go ahead, defend them as much as you like. Just don't ask me to pay for people to study them. Feel free to pay my share if you wish, though.

[singlecoil]

TTwiggy said:

singlecoil said:

Go ahead, defend them as much as you like. Just don't ask me to pay for people to study them. Feel free to pay my share if you wish, though.

So you really see no value in them?

To take one example - pertinent to the core of this website - a car can only be produced through the combined efforts of science, engineering and arts graduates.

An engineer may make it go and stop, but it's a designer that determines how it looks and how the driver interacts with it ergonomically.

I didn't say there was no value to them. I'm saying I don't want to pay for them. Hopefully this point will sink in eventually. Have I made myself clear yet?

[singlecoil]

TTwiggy said:

Tax payers foot the bill for many things they may not like, use, or value.

I don't have kids, but I'm pretty sure I'm paying for schools. Some of those kids will learn nothing and contribute nothing towards society; can I have a refund?

I really don't mind you valuing the teaching of arts subjects at university to the point that you are happy to pay for them, why do you mind so much my holding a contrary opinion? You can put forward as many reasons as you like as to why I should think differently on this topic, but I think your efforts would be better spent elsewhere.

[singlecoil]

TTwiggy said:

You're welcome to any opinion you wish to hold. But, if you remember how this started, I was replying to a point made by another poster (who has since come back in reasonable and polite terms to expain his position) and you saw fit to jump in. When I tried to point out the value of these subjects, you called me sarcastic - and yet you think I'm the one with the problem, and it's me who should 'take myself elsewhere'. Odd.

Yes, indeed, you were replying, and you were using sarcasm. Therefore you were being sarcastic. I didn't 'jump in', I was 'replying to a point made by another poster' (you). Nor do I think you should take yourself elsewhere, I'm simply explaining to you that I don't want to pay so that other people can study arts subjects, and that I was very unlikely to chage my opinion. Not odd at all, when you look at it a little more closely.

[singlecoil]

lazystudent said:

singlecoil said:

Yes, indeed, you were replying, and you were using sarcasm. Therefore you were being sarcastic. I didn't 'jump in', I was 'replying to a point made by another poster' (you). Nor do I think you should take yourself elsewhere, I'm simply explaining to you that I don't want to pay so that other people can study arts subjects, and that I was very unlikely to chage my opinion. Not odd at all, when you look at it a little more closely.

If you've set out why and I've missed it earlier in the thread then apologies (on a phone) but why do you not want to pay for them? And how would you define an arts subject? anything that's not scientifically based? Not having a dig, I respect your opinion, just curious as to the why!

I wouldn't draw a sharp line anywhere, but I can tell you that, for instance, History of Art would be on the other side of it. As to why I don't want to pay for young people to spend a few years studying such subjects, are you really sure you need me to answer that? Is it really not self explanatory?

[singlecoil]

1981linley said:

Ok, so lets not value History or English. Let's throw away our culture and heritage by discouraging all but the very rich from persuing them....let the poor do technology and engineering....let them work in the factories and the mines. Let us forget the lessons of History, let fascism or communism re-emerge, hey, at least under Hitler science, all manner of experiments, the chemical industry and medicine flourished, not to mention engineering, of the mechanical AND social kind. Think V2 rockets, U boats, Zyklon B, let dictators again pull the wool over our eyes while we ignore it and do what's best for our country. Let us forget how to reason, weigh up evidence, form balanced and justified opinions, let us forget how to see through government and corporate spin and propaganda.

Don't be ridiculous.

And you are telling ME not to be ridiculous????

[singlecoil]

Colonial said:

singlecoil said:

I wouldn't draw a sharp line anywhere, but I can tell you that, for instance, History of Art would be on the other side of it. As to why I don't want to pay for young people to spend a few years studying such subjects, are you really sure you need me to answer that? Is it really not self explanatory?

So you put no value on art galleries then?

What makes you think that, I don't remember mentioning art galleries? Or are you extrapolating my position? If so, why? Is what I actually said not enough?