University fees, loans, funding etc
Discussion
Radio 4 was doing one of its usual 'wind up' stories this morning, stirring people up to get the day off to a good angry start...
Anyway, it was a student loans thing, essentially one side arguing that loans and fees were wrong and that graduates would have a debt hanging over them and that even modestly paid people like teachers would be paying back and so on - basically that it was a terrible thing having this huge debt.
The riposte from the pro-student loans/fees side of the argument was that, loans aren't a huge debt and a big worry because most students will never pay them back....!!!
That was the argument for keeping the loans!
The argument in favour of imposing the loans is that most people will never have to pay them back.
More than 80% of students will never repay their loans - and that's the strongest argument against them being a burden on poorer students and the strongest argument in favour of having a student loans system.!
What's the point of having them? Why bother having loans then? Just give make it free.
How much does it cost to administer this whole system? Is there any financial gain to the state or is it just a political 'principle'?
If more than 80% of people never pay them back, it's got to be a fairly close call as to whether it's worth having a loans system at all.
Anyone know whether the system pays for itself?
Anyway, it was a student loans thing, essentially one side arguing that loans and fees were wrong and that graduates would have a debt hanging over them and that even modestly paid people like teachers would be paying back and so on - basically that it was a terrible thing having this huge debt.
The riposte from the pro-student loans/fees side of the argument was that, loans aren't a huge debt and a big worry because most students will never pay them back....!!!
That was the argument for keeping the loans!
The argument in favour of imposing the loans is that most people will never have to pay them back.
More than 80% of students will never repay their loans - and that's the strongest argument against them being a burden on poorer students and the strongest argument in favour of having a student loans system.!
What's the point of having them? Why bother having loans then? Just give make it free.
How much does it cost to administer this whole system? Is there any financial gain to the state or is it just a political 'principle'?
If more than 80% of people never pay them back, it's got to be a fairly close call as to whether it's worth having a loans system at all.
Anyone know whether the system pays for itself?
Edited by irememberyou on Tuesday 13th March 11:20
irememberyou said:
More than 80% of students will never repay their loans
This figure is often banded around, but it doesn't show how much of their loan the 80% will pay back.Personally, I think it is a good policy very poorly implemented. Students should contribute, but the whole concept of loans and the hideous interest rates make it very easy to argue against.
Why not just have a graduate income tax of say 2% on each band?
If only 20% pay them back then everyone I know who went to uni must be in that 20% over the last 10-20years we have all pretty much paid them back.
What I’d like to see is the justification for the price £9000 each year 20 to a class in a popular subject £180,000 per class per year! That can’t be rightcan it? For a lecturer and a room.
25,000 students in a typical city uni (Liverpool) £225million a year.
What I’d like to see is the justification for the price £9000 each year 20 to a class in a popular subject £180,000 per class per year! That can’t be rightcan it? For a lecturer and a room.
25,000 students in a typical city uni (Liverpool) £225million a year.
BoRED S2upid said:
If only 20% pay them back then everyone I know who went to uni must be in that 20% over the last 10-20years we have all pretty much paid them back.
What I’d like to see is the justification for the price £9000 each year 20 to a class in a popular subject £180,000 per class per year! That can’t be rightcan it? For a lecturer and a room.
25,000 students in a typical city uni (Liverpool) £225million a year.
It's that fee change that's stopping the pay back I suspect, the people you know will have been paying £1k a year plus maintenance loans? So £5-10k?What I’d like to see is the justification for the price £9000 each year 20 to a class in a popular subject £180,000 per class per year! That can’t be rightcan it? For a lecturer and a room.
25,000 students in a typical city uni (Liverpool) £225million a year.
Is the pay back 9% on everything earned over £21,000? If people are coming out with £50,000 debt which is racking up 6% interest a year (£3,000). They need to be earning £54,000 a year just to clear the interest... how is that possibly sustainable?
With these figures it essentially becomes a 30 year tax increase so even though they won't be paid off, you'll end up in a situation where someone on £40k for life, will have paid £40500 (at the new no payback before £25k) but won't have actually paid off any of the debt... which seems mental.
irememberyou said:
Radio 4 was doing one of its usual 'wind up' stories this morning, stirring people up to get the day off to a good angry start...
Anyway, it was a student loans thing, essentially one side arguing that loans and fees were wrong and that graduates would have a debt hanging over them and that even modestly paid people like teachers would be paying back and so on - basically that it was a terrible thing having this huge debt.
The riposte from the pro-student loans/fees side of the argument was that, loans aren't a huge debt and a big worry because most students will never pay them back....!!!
That was the argument for keeping the loans!
You must have been fairly well asleep still. Today was being broadcast from Glasgow this morning, and they briefly talked about the difference between the Scottish £0 fees for Scottish students at Scottish unis (but with a cap on numbers) and the English loans, in the context of industrial action at Glasgow Uni.Anyway, it was a student loans thing, essentially one side arguing that loans and fees were wrong and that graduates would have a debt hanging over them and that even modestly paid people like teachers would be paying back and so on - basically that it was a terrible thing having this huge debt.
The riposte from the pro-student loans/fees side of the argument was that, loans aren't a huge debt and a big worry because most students will never pay them back....!!!
That was the argument for keeping the loans!
irememberyou said:
The argument in favour of imposing the loans is that most people will never have to pay them back.
More than 80% of students will never repay their loans - and that's the strongest argument against them being a burden on poorer students and the strongest argument in favour of having a student loans system.!
What's the point of having them? Why bother having loans then? Just give make it free.
Because those who use their education to earn more, cover the cost of the education that made it possible.More than 80% of students will never repay their loans - and that's the strongest argument against them being a burden on poorer students and the strongest argument in favour of having a student loans system.!
What's the point of having them? Why bother having loans then? Just give make it free.
There are twice as many people at Uni now as in the mid 90s, 1 in 3 18-24 year olds. How much tax do you want to pay to cover the cost of that?
https://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-has-the-student-popu...
I don't think teachers or nurses should have to repay loans but leaving that aside, I was wondering if anyone knew whether the loans system pays for itself or not.
Do we know if, for example, the state lends £5billion per year, gets back £1billion over a 30 year period but it costs how many billion to adminster all of that?
Do we know if, for example, the state lends £5billion per year, gets back £1billion over a 30 year period but it costs how many billion to adminster all of that?
Boydie88 said:
It's that fee change that's stopping the pay back I suspect, the people you know will have been paying £1k a year plus maintenance loans? So £5-10k?
Is the pay back 9% on everything earned over £21,000? If people are coming out with £50,000 debt which is racking up 6% interest a year (£3,000). They need to be earning £54,000 a year just to clear the interest... how is that possibly sustainable?
With these figures it essentially becomes a 30 year tax increase so even though they won't be paid off, you'll end up in a situation where someone on £40k for life, will have paid £40500 (at the new no payback before £25k) but won't have actually paid off any of the debt... which seems mental.
That is the entirely intentional outcome of the recent changes to the student loans system. They want a graduate tax but don't want to call it that and this way they lock the majority into paying for the majority of their working life.Is the pay back 9% on everything earned over £21,000? If people are coming out with £50,000 debt which is racking up 6% interest a year (£3,000). They need to be earning £54,000 a year just to clear the interest... how is that possibly sustainable?
With these figures it essentially becomes a 30 year tax increase so even though they won't be paid off, you'll end up in a situation where someone on £40k for life, will have paid £40500 (at the new no payback before £25k) but won't have actually paid off any of the debt... which seems mental.
Anybody looking at going to Uni and who isn't looking to see if a level 6 apprenticeship isn't available in their field is doing themselves a disservice. With the engineering ones we have been looking at you still end up with a degree and any relevant professional qualifications but the employing company pays both your uni fees and pays you a wage while you study. It has to be a far more sensible option if it is available for your career.
I think we should go back to only the very top people going to Uni and it is free for them. It should be that only the absolute brightest minds go and should be encouraged to study worthwhile subjects. Regardless of wealth you shouldn't be able to buy your way in, if you are rich but thick unlucky!!!
My entire school year has degrees except 3 of us most don't use them in anyway and most shouldn't have really got there at all!! All of us went because it was the thing to do we were told by our parents we had to go to Uni or eternal shame will befall the family. So I have friends with degrees in Philosophy who straight out of Uni started running the family farm. Why bother wasting the time money and debt?
Need to get away from the assumption that you failed if you didn't go to University. Of course another side of this is that it is a jolly good way of getting pissed for 3 years without having to face up to work and adult life.
My entire school year has degrees except 3 of us most don't use them in anyway and most shouldn't have really got there at all!! All of us went because it was the thing to do we were told by our parents we had to go to Uni or eternal shame will befall the family. So I have friends with degrees in Philosophy who straight out of Uni started running the family farm. Why bother wasting the time money and debt?
Need to get away from the assumption that you failed if you didn't go to University. Of course another side of this is that it is a jolly good way of getting pissed for 3 years without having to face up to work and adult life.
TooMany2cvs said:
irememberyou said:
Radio 4 was doing one of its usual 'wind up' stories this morning, stirring people up to get the day off to a good angry start...
Anyway, it was a student loans thing, essentially one side arguing that loans and fees were wrong and that graduates would have a debt hanging over them and that even modestly paid people like teachers would be paying back and so on - basically that it was a terrible thing having this huge debt.
The riposte from the pro-student loans/fees side of the argument was that, loans aren't a huge debt and a big worry because most students will never pay them back....!!!
That was the argument for keeping the loans!
You must have been fairly well asleep still. Today was being broadcast from Glasgow this morning, and they briefly talked about the difference between the Scottish £0 fees for Scottish students at Scottish unis (but with a cap on numbers) and the English loans, in the context of industrial action at Glasgow Uni.Anyway, it was a student loans thing, essentially one side arguing that loans and fees were wrong and that graduates would have a debt hanging over them and that even modestly paid people like teachers would be paying back and so on - basically that it was a terrible thing having this huge debt.
The riposte from the pro-student loans/fees side of the argument was that, loans aren't a huge debt and a big worry because most students will never pay them back....!!!
That was the argument for keeping the loans!
irememberyou said:
The argument in favour of imposing the loans is that most people will never have to pay them back.
More than 80% of students will never repay their loans - and that's the strongest argument against them being a burden on poorer students and the strongest argument in favour of having a student loans system.!
What's the point of having them? Why bother having loans then? Just give make it free.
Because those who use their education to earn more, cover the cost of the education that made it possible.More than 80% of students will never repay their loans - and that's the strongest argument against them being a burden on poorer students and the strongest argument in favour of having a student loans system.!
What's the point of having them? Why bother having loans then? Just give make it free.
There are twice as many people at Uni now as in the mid 90s, 1 in 3 18-24 year olds. How much tax do you want to pay to cover the cost of that?
https://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-has-the-student-popu...
It didn't seem like the most compelling case possible.
Does it all come down to - any money back is better than no money back?
What about charging everybody £500?
There must be a cut-off where, when so few people will ever pay the loans back, that it makes as much sense to get everybody to make a modest/achievable contribution, than it does to try and get £50k each from less than 1 in 5 people.
I have no idea where that cut-off would be - it's just an off the cuff thought.
irememberyou said:
I don't think teachers or nurses should have to repay loans but leaving that aside, I was wondering if anyone knew whether the loans system pays for itself or not.
Do we know if, for example, the state lends £5billion per year, gets back £1billion over a 30 year period but it costs how many billion to adminster all of that?
The IFS estimated in 2014 that each student would be subsidised by £17,443 on average, against a total cost of £40,286 - so the government covers around 43% of the cost, on average. Those who end up earning less get a bigger subsidy, those who earn more get less.Do we know if, for example, the state lends £5billion per year, gets back £1billion over a 30 year period but it costs how many billion to adminster all of that?
OP - the trick is to recognise that student "loans" are not anything like a normal loan and they were never intended to be. They are a hybrid between a loan and a tax. It would have been far better to brand them as a graduate tax because that would have focused attention on the fact that repayment is means-tested, which, to put it pretty bloody mildly, is an odd feature for a loan.
Despite the s
te PR, they've been a real success. They've put university funding on a secure footing, they demonstrably have not put off students from enrolling on courses, they've given students a greater incentive to demand good tuition, and a greater incentive for universities to provide it.
It's an easy source of self-righteous indignation for the loony Left and students would naturally prefer to receive a "free" education (i.e. one that on average they'll pay for through general taxation after the event), but when looked at calmly, it's actually not a bad system.
Despite the s
te PR, they've been a real success. They've put university funding on a secure footing, they demonstrably have not put off students from enrolling on courses, they've given students a greater incentive to demand good tuition, and a greater incentive for universities to provide it.It's an easy source of self-righteous indignation for the loony Left and students would naturally prefer to receive a "free" education (i.e. one that on average they'll pay for through general taxation after the event), but when looked at calmly, it's actually not a bad system.
Edited by ATG on Tuesday 13th March 12:18
BoRED S2upid said:
esxste said:
STEM subjects should be free. Nursing courses should be free. Ditto for other courses where we have a need for skilled/knowledgeable workers.
Agree with that with a caveat that they work in the UK after. Free or heavily subsidised with grants or incentives. Unfortunately the Labour policy to get everyone into further education and keep them off the unemployment figures has ended up with a lot of people wasting a lot of time and money.
ntiz said:
I think we should go back to only the very top people going to Uni and it is free for them. It should be that only the absolute brightest minds go and should be encouraged to study worthwhile subjects. Regardless of wealth you shouldn't be able to buy your way in, if you are rich but thick unlucky!!!
The problem here is that the rich can and did still buy their way in. They can afford private education at the best schools. They can afford extra private tuition. This leaves kids that are genuinely bright, but hampered by poor schooling left out. ntiz said:
My entire school year has degrees except 3 of us most don't use them in anyway and most shouldn't have really got there at all!! All of us went because it was the thing to do we were told by our parents we had to go to Uni or eternal shame will befall the family. So I have friends with degrees in Philosophy who straight out of Uni started running the family farm. Why bother wasting the time money and debt?
It's curious that you don't see how this conflicts with your previous paragraph. You're families encouraged you to go to university because it was always a status thing; having a child in university meant your family was doing very well thank you very much... or that you had raised a genius. ntiz said:
Need to get away from the assumption that you failed if you didn't go to University. Of course another side of this is that it is a jolly good way of getting pissed for 3 years without having to face up to work and adult life.
That's how it used to be when university students were all from well-off families who supported their children through university. Things a very different these days, most students are working to support themselves... because they don't come from well off families. BoRED S2upid said:
esxste said:
STEM subjects should be free. Nursing courses should be free. Ditto for other courses where we have a need for skilled/knowledgeable workers.
Agree with that with a caveat that they work in the UK after. Free or heavily subsidised with grants or incentives. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff