'The argument over student loans could kill the next generation's...' blog discussion

slimmer1

I'm now over 60 and remember the issues in my days at uni and this long term view is not yet realised. Prior to the 60's, only the monied classes could access uni education and as qualifications = jobs = income = power!!!, the monied clesses continued their clique of control. After the opening up of uni by the grant system, loads of 'ordinary' people now gained degrees and over the 80's & 90's started to obtain positions of influence and to 'rock the boat' of the establishment which really didn't like this.

This bill puts higher eduction back out of the reach of so many lower income students but offers full access to those with resources. This hitherto unemphasised disparity will inexorably reverse the power base back to the landed gentry from whence it all started. Look over your shoulders back to Victorian times, that's where we're headed - but will take a generation to show.

Optimist

webwiz wrote: »

Quite. And are not English students EU students?

Scotland and Wales can legislate on internal matters and those laws must under EU rules apply equally to all EU members.

However here is the catch, England isn't a member of the the EU. It is the UK as a whole which has the membership. It is therefore technically a internal matter that English students seem to be discriminated against.

bluenose1

The bottom line for me is that students who are not eliglible for financial help (middle England) may owe up to approx £50,000.
Also I can't see any simple calculator that would tell them how much they are likely to repay over the full term of repayments including interest. Are we talking they could be paying back £60,000????

I would love to know how much someone earning approx £25,000 a year would end up having to pay back on top of the £50,000 over the full term of the loan. I know every case is different but it would be an indication.

It sickens me the debt our young will be saddled with if they choose to go to University. I already worry that young people can't afford to buy houses.
We are always told that graduates have higher earnings so surely they are contributing more in income tax anyway.

iansoady

We were told by Martin that payments will "only" be £7.50 a month for someone earning £21,000. At this rate it will take 300 years to pay back £30,000.......

Richard019

Optimist wrote: »

Scotland and Wales can legislate on internal matters and those laws must under EU rules apply equally to all EU members.

However here is the catch, England isn't a member of the the EU. It is the UK as a whole which has the membership. It is therefore technically a internal matter that English students seem to be discriminated against.

Don't know about Wales, but in Scotland it's based on residency rather than race. I'm an English person who's been living in Scotland for 4 years so I qualify for my fees to be paid (I think 3 years is the qualification point). Equally a Scottish person who's been living in England wouldn't qualify for the free fees.

As has been mentioned previously though. In order to fund the free fees, free prescriptions etc there's been less spending elsewhere so that the budget is met. It might seem unfair because it's a Scottish PARLIAMENT making the decision, but it's essentially no different to different County Councils having different policies. As an example, I know they were extended to elsewhere but when EMAs first started you could only apply for them if you lived in certain areas. I was fortunate I was in one of those areas, there were other people on my A-Level courses who I'd been at school with for the 5 years before that who couldn't apply because they lived across the County boundary from me. I don't remember any outcry over that.

stoneman

I think it's about time that we weeded out these layabouts who just don't want to go to work. The easy ride of 3 or 4 more years of boozing grant money away before they have to step out into the real world hopefully will come to an end. I heard a student yesterday being interviewed about the "riots" (and lets be clear that is what they were) and when asked what she was studying she replied with "drama therapy" !!!!!! is that when it's at home.
We are losing generations of craftsmen and women in this country because no-one wants to go out and learn a trade at 16. you can not decide to do this at 24, it's just too late. You will not take it in and will not be prepared to have your brain molded by someone nearer you own age.
I am a stonemason and did a 6 year apprenticeship at the age of 15, I am now a higher rate tax payer and put both of my children through university because that is the route they chose. I am !!!!!!ed if I should be taxed so that I have to pay for this generation that want everything handed to them on a plate. I am fed up with walking the streets of Nottingham on a Saturday night seeing drunk students with no respect for themselves, let alone others, being sick, urinating, and fighting. Bring back the birch and national service.

jackieblack

stoneman wrote: »

I heard a student yesterday being interviewed ............. and when asked what she was studying she replied with "drama therapy" !!!!!! is that when it's at home.

I heard that, nearly fell off my chair!
I was almost starting to feel some small degree of sympathy for her point of view until she came out with that!

setmefree2

MARTIN This whole thing is a nightmare. :eek::eek:


Some have suggested that there will be a finanical penalty if you don't take out these loans :eek::eek: and a financial penalty if you try to pay them back :eek::eek: If that is true then these ARE NOT LOANS at all, they are a graduate tax.

How can they make people take out these loans - it's just not right?!

Please HELP US do something!

jamespir

people will ber put of going to uni so there will be a shortage of doctors scientest even mps

to saddle somone with 9000 pounds worth of debt is wrong

reevery

iansoady wrote: »

We were told by Martin that payments will "only" be £7.50 a month for someone earning £21,000. At this rate it will take 300 years to pay back £30,000.......

Wrong. 30 at most. It will get written off, although something is seriously wrong if they are on £21k for the duration of their career.

-
Students won't be overly put off. Those who are will be those who don't understand the system. I don't condone the fee increase but I seriously don't understand what is so bad about a system which guarantees you have a maximum of 30 years to make a contribution towards the cost of your education, which you don't pay if you're not earning above the threshold (and which doesn't accrue interest when you're not repaying).

You have to remember that the Government wants young adults in University because it helps their unemployment figures. Frankly, the 1992 changes did more damage because now all these "mickey mouse" subjects are degrees and not vocational. However, to suggest they aren't important and that people shouldn't be studying them is out of order, they are relevant to some career path.