progressive graduate contribution

[aclivity]

Just been reading about this proposal for funding further education ... I'm unclear about the repayment schedules though?

As I understand it, the graduate won't be asked to pay back their education costs until they are earning £21k per annum - and that this figure will be adjusted in line with RPI or CPI. This is all quite clear, but what happens to the debt itself? Does it remain for life, and then get taken out of any estate that the graduate may leave behind? Does it accrue interest in that time too, making a graduation debt of, say £25k, turn into an actual debt of something much higher when the graduate starts to pay it off.

Also, what about people who reach a £21k level for a short time, so the repayment schedule is activated, then return to either a lower wage or become non-earners (even if only for a short period, say during maternity / paternity career breaks)?

I agree with the approach that graduates should pay for the education they receive, just not sure if this approach is the best way to do it.

[sidicks]

aclivity said:

Just been reading about this proposal for funding further education ... I'm unclear about the repayment schedules though?

As I understand it, the graduate won't be asked to pay back their education costs until they are earning £21k per annum - and that this figure will be adjusted in line with RPI or CPI. This is all quite clear, but what happens to the debt itself? Does it remain for life, and then get taken out of any estate that the graduate may leave behind? Does it accrue interest in that time too, making a graduation debt of, say £25k, turn into an actual debt of something much higher when the graduate starts to pay it off.

Also, what about people who reach a £21k level for a short time, so the repayment schedule is activated, then return to either a lower wage or become non-earners (even if only for a short period, say during maternity / paternity career breaks)?

I agree with the approach that graduates should pay for the education they receive, just not sure if this approach is the best way to do it.

As I understand it, you start making repayments once your salary exceeds £21k...

[Gusanita]

I think if your salary drops below 21k you would stop making repayments which is what happens at the moment.

[aclivity]

sidicks said:

As I understand it, you start making repayments once your salary exceeds £21k...

yes, and then?

What if your salary exceeds £21k for 1 year - maybe overtime, maybe a bonus or something else not carried into the following years. Just because you start repayments, does that mean that the debt is then an active debt, or can it go back to sleep in the following year(s)?

[V8mate]

Isn't it something like:

- If you're on <£21k the debt grows at base rate
- If you're on >£21k it grows at 2.2(?)% over base
- All debts are written off after 30 years

?

[BeeRoad]

I think this is the wrong way round personally.

The people who should have to pay back their tuition costs are those who do a degree and then don't use it to further their career. I know lots of people who went to uni for the sake of it doing sociology or somesuch which they then never used again and ended up working in a shop. They are the people who should pay back the tax-payer for funding their pointless degree, not the guy who does law, becomes a lawyer and pays high taxes for the next forty years.

[sidicks]

BeeRoad said:

I think this is the wrong way round personally.

The people who should have to pay back their tuition costs are those who do a degree and then don't use it to further their career. I know lots of people who went to uni for the sake of it doing sociology or somesuch which they then never used again and ended up working in a shop. They are the people who should pay back the tax-payer for funding their pointless degree, not the guy who does law, becomes a lawyer and pays high taxes for the next forty years.

There is some merit in that argument......

[GT03ROB]

BeeRoad said:

I think this is the wrong way round personally.

The people who should have to pay back their tuition costs are those who do a degree and then don't use it to further their career. I know lots of people who went to uni for the sake of it doing sociology or somesuch which they then never used again and ended up working in a shop. They are the people who should pay back the tax-payer for funding their pointless degree, not the guy who does law, becomes a lawyer and pays high taxes for the next forty years.

Wot this man says....

[Fittster]

aclivity said:

I agree with the approach that graduates should pay for the education they receive, just not sure if this approach is the best way to do it.

Why do you think that? Do you expect to repay the cost of your schooling?

Maybe we should come up with a system that produce graduates that are more appropriate to wider society.

Edited by Fittster on Wednesday 13th October 14:37

[Tsippy]

Personally I would prefer that they reduce the number of facilities with University status and make it purely for those bright enough to go (free of charge) rather the taxpayer funded 3year+ pissup for all that it is at the moment.

Edited by Tsippy on Wednesday 13th October 14:37

[GT03ROB]

Fittster said:

aclivity said:

I agree with the approach that graduates should pay for the education they receive, just not sure if this approach is the best way to do it.

Why do you think that? Do you expect to repay the cost of your schooling?

Schooling is nor optional, university is. Until the number of people stop opting to go to "university" there needs to be a payment. You want to waste time & money on "Studies of David & Victoria Beckham" don't expect me to pay for it..

[aclivity]

GT03ROB said:

Fittster said:

aclivity said:

I agree with the approach that graduates should pay for the education they receive, just not sure if this approach is the best way to do it.

Why do you think that? Do you expect to repay the cost of your schooling?

Schooling is nor optional, university is. Until the number of people stop opting to go to "university" there needs to be a payment.

Exactly what GT03ROB says ... personally I have paid for my education since the age of 18 - either directly, or through employer schemes (which may have been a tax relief thing, admittedly). I'm currently pondering extending my open university studies at a cost of £650 for next year ... no grants, no funding, just my own cash.

[Gusanita]

Tsippy said:

Personally I would prefer that they reduce the number of facilities with University status and make it purely for those bright enough to go (free of charge) rather the taxpayer funded 3year+ pissup for all that it is at the moment.

Edited by Tsippy on Wednesday 13th October 14:37

Completely agree.

[Legend83]

GT03ROB said:

Fittster said:

aclivity said:

I agree with the approach that graduates should pay for the education they receive, just not sure if this approach is the best way to do it.

Why do you think that? Do you expect to repay the cost of your schooling?

Schooling is nor optional, university is. Until the number of people stop opting to go to "university" there needs to be a payment. You want to waste time & money on "Studies of David & Victoria Beckham" don't expect me to pay for it..

Exactly.

There was a mini-debate on the radio last night between one realistic lad who argued that the taxpayer should not have to pay for him to go to University and piss all the money up the wall on booze (not those exact words), plus he would not have to start paying it back if graduate jobs were difficult to secure; and some 'me-me-me-me-me-me' girl who thought it was unfair that she had to pay extortionate amounts to better herself.

Basic education is a right. Higher education should be a choice.

[V8mate]

Tsippy said:

Personally I would prefer that they reduce the number of facilities with University status and make it purely for those bright enough to go (free of charge) rather the taxpayer funded 3year+ pissup for all that it is at the moment.

Absolutely. Free Higher Education for our brightest youngsters builds a striong country.

Employers need to go back to providing good training and opportunities for post-A Level students, so that a degree is regarded as an alternative route to a good job rather a necessary one.

[okgo]

V8mate said:

Tsippy said:

Personally I would prefer that they reduce the number of facilities with University status and make it purely for those bright enough to go (free of charge) rather the taxpayer funded 3year+ pissup for all that it is at the moment.

Absolutely. Free Higher Education for our brightest youngsters builds a striong country.

Employers need to go back to providing good training and opportunities for post-A Level students, so that a degree is regarded as an alternative route to a good job rather a necessary one.

Vicious circle.

All the time very simple easy jobs require any old degree to get your foot in the door, stupid average people will go to stupid average uni's and do stupid degree's to get them.

[Gusanita]

V8mate said:

Tsippy said:

Personally I would prefer that they reduce the number of facilities with University status and make it purely for those bright enough to go (free of charge) rather the taxpayer funded 3year+ pissup for all that it is at the moment.

Absolutely. Free Higher Education for our brightest youngsters builds a striong country.

Employers need to go back to providing good training and opportunities for post-A Level students, so that a degree is regarded as an alternative route to a good job rather a necessary one.

The only issue with this is ensuring that the brightest people and not just those from privileged backgrounds get to go to university.

[Tsippy]

Gusanita said:

V8mate said:

Tsippy said:

Personally I would prefer that they reduce the number of facilities with University status and make it purely for those bright enough to go (free of charge) rather the taxpayer funded 3year+ pissup for all that it is at the moment.

Absolutely. Free Higher Education for our brightest youngsters builds a striong country.

Employers need to go back to providing good training and opportunities for post-A Level students, so that a degree is regarded as an alternative route to a good job rather a necessary one.

The only issue with this is ensuring that the brightest people and not just those from privileged backgrounds get to go to university.

I would have said that A-Levels should distinguish those who have the ability to go to Uni from those destined for non-higher education, however I think that an entrance exam would probably be more suitable now seeing as even a hamster can achieve A**** in Biology.

[Gusanita]

I think that harder exams would only cover one aspect. I think that universities should make everyone have an interview as you can tell a lot more about a person from an interview and that schools should only put forward the top students (but then that does raise the issue of bribery and favouritism).

[aclivity]

The problem is that it's in the university interest to have as many students as they can fit - not just the ones who ae clever. Students are customers after all.