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

kessington

A good place to start would be an audio slide show or podcast on this site. Reading tons of text to get the outline is massively offputting - even to graduate parents and aspiring students.
Getting SU members to go into schools and present the options would be good too. My teens have had precious little advice from their better-than-average Scottish comprehensive about how to make course choices (half an open evening) and there has been absolutely nothing for them or parents on finance.
Yes Scots are lucky with the tuition fees at the moment but we are still having to make up the difference between the maximum student loan my daughter can get of around £950 pa (based on parental income) and everything she needs to live on and study. She can't borrow that under the present rules and you can't live away from home on £950 per year.
You could also do quite a bit more moneysaving directed at students. For example the best short-term deals on utilities and phones that don't lock them in for months beyond their likely tenancy.

Reader1

I’ve found the administration for SLC repayments isn’t run very well. I’ve gone back and forth between my employer, the inland revenue and the Student Loans Company because it’s not automatically set up (even though you have to fill in forms declaring details of Student Loans), and even then it’s difficult to start this (only 2 employers have ever done this in my history). It should be set up automatically and enforced the same way they collect Tax & NI which they’ve never missed in my career. It’s much easier this way, there’s less to worry about (than doing it yourself), it’s not a scare-tatic as you have to pay it back one day eventually anyway, even if it appears on your payslip it shows everyone what a good student you really were ! I’ve resorted to making payments myself but I’m just wondering if the administration had improved I could have made up for lost time !

alihj

Kim_Beardsley wrote: »

I agree with this point. Many degrees are a pointless waste of time and just an excuse to go to Uni. Some of my sons friends have 8 hours of lectures a week, the rest is private study. I for one would not like to be paying massive fees for 8 hours lectures a week. Also perhaps Uni hours should be like those of employment with perhaps 4 weeks a year holiday. Increase the hours, reduce the holidays and then you may be able to knock off some time from the overall time spent at Uni thereby reducing debt.

I totally agree - although I accept that going to Uni is about more than the actual time spent in lectures, surely a 3 year course could be condensed into 2 years, saving a lot of time spent building up debt?
My daughter's debt is going to be £15k more than my 1st mortgage - and that was terrifying!

My main anger though goes to the discrepancy between England, Scotland and now wales.
Why is my daughters education treated differently to someone in Glasgow?
How can any Westminster govt believe that this disparity should be allowed to continue??? :mad:

I am curious as to why we do not see more protesting against this?
Even when it was finally mentioned in Question Time last week, less than half the panel actually answered the question. Please please please lets make it an even playing field within the one country...

antonia1

alihj wrote: »

I totally agree - although I accept that going to Uni is about more than the actual time spent in lectures, surely a 3 year course could be condensed into 2 years, saving a lot of time spent building up debt?
My daughter's debt is going to be £15k more than my 1st mortgage - and that was terrifying!

My main anger though goes to the discrepancy between England, Scotland and now wales.
Why is my daughters education treated differently to someone in Glasgow?
How can any Westminster govt believe that this disparity should be allowed to continue??? :mad:

I am curious as to why we do not see more protesting against this?
Even when it was finally mentioned in Question Time last week, less than half the panel actually answered the question. Please please please lets make it an even playing field within the one country...

Firstly, if you are happy for your daughter to study the hours full time, I assume you are one of the lucky families who can subsidise her while she's at uni because she would not be able to hold down a job and keep on top of her studies. Imagine if you could not afford to do so, but all that is left after accommodation and half-board is £50 per term (or £150 per year) to spend on books, transport, lunches.

Secondly, the system is different is Scotland and Wales because they have different governments than England. Each of the home nations has a budget and the Scottish and Welsh governments have decided to make savings elsewhere in order to prevent tuition fee rises.

Reader1

I’ve found the administration for SLC repayments isn’t run very well. I’ve gone back and forth between my employer, the inland revenue and the Student Loans Company because it’s not automatically set up (even though you have to fill in forms declaring details of Student Loans), and even then it’s difficult to start this (only 2 employers have ever done this in my history). It should be set up automatically and enforced the same way they collect Tax & NI which they’ve never missed in my career. It’s much easier this way, there’s less to worry about (than doing it yourself), its not a scare-tatic as you have to pay it back one day eventually anyway, even if it appears on your payslip it shows everyone what a good student you really were ! I’ve resorted to making payments myself but I’m just wondering if the administration had improved I could have made up for lost time !

sunalwaysshines

The key point here is that a three year course would currently cost about £9K in tuition fees and will now go up as high as £27K. For somebody from a poorer family who cannot contribute towards this - it is a huge prospect and will prevent talented people from going to University.

Your points are valid but minor compared to this.

I can understand that those who benefit from higher education should pay for it, but shouldn't that be done as a basic principle of the tax system? you earn more - you pay more. The problem is that the government need to save money NOW so this is not going to happen

rgoodger

Why is the Student loan system linked to parents income. Surely, an 18 year old student is an adult as far as the goverment is concerned, and should therefore be legally assessed on their own income.

With the discrepancies in Student fees, depending where in the UK you live, we are endagering some serious ill feeling amongst our students. Two children can grow up either side of the Scottish border, and could attend the same schools. Have parents working in the same office and on the same rate of pay. Then sit next to each other on the same University course. One pays zero in Tuition Fees the other could pay from £10000 to £27000 for the three year course.

I have had one child through University and will have another through in a few years. They will both be responsible for there own fees. There is no problem with charging for the prospect of an enhanced education. But it does need to be totally fair for all UK students.

As a side issue, I do wonder if University lecturers/staff deserve their huge wages for the minimal time they put into students.

rgoodger

antonia1 wrote: »

Firstly, if you are happy for your daughter to study the hours full time, I assume you are one of the lucky families who can subsidise her while she's at uni because she would not be able to hold down a job and keep on top of her studies. Imagine if you could not afford to do so, but all that is left after accommodation and half-board is £50 per term (or £150 per year) to spend on books, transport, lunches.

Secondly, the system is different is Scotland and Wales because they have different governments than England. Each of the home nations has a budget and the Scottish and Welsh governments have decided to make savings elsewhere in order to prevent tuition fee rises.

Different goverments, they may be in name, but we are all a part of the same tax system. If these goverments had full autonomy over their finances, they would be in a similar state to Ireland. Their students may find their subsidies disappearing very quickly. We all live in the UK, and should all be fully in the same Government system.....or fully out!

rgoodger

Cardelia wrote: »

I'm going to just respond to this because it contains so many inaccuracies.

Firstly, the primary purpose of a university is to carry out research. Not to teach students. Most lecturers are, first and foremost, employed as researchers who happen to do some teaching. This is especially true of "proper" universities.

Secondly, your estimated costs are way, way off the mark. If you want to know the actual cost of a degree, look at what an international (non-EU) student will be charged. Their fees are often upwards of £10,000 a year, and that's just for humanities degrees which don't have practical sessions or large amounts of contact time. Even the University of Buckingham (the UK's only true private university) charges £9k a year, so I have no idea how you think a university can charge as little as £2k a year and survive. Oh, and lab work is "inexpensive"? Good luck trying to explain that to a vice-chancellor!

Thirdly, it is actually research grants which subsidise undergraduate tuition. The current system, where universities get all their teaching income from the government, does not provide enough income to enable universities to fully operate their teaching activities. Undergraduate students, especially EU students, are subsidised by other forms of income - I presume you find this as unacceptable as you found the thought of it being the other way round?

Fourthly, a university education is not a commodity. As someone who is involved in educating students, it really makes me despair to see education being thought of like this. Studying for a degree is nothing like buying goods or services. You have to earn the right to get a degree, you can't just pay your £3k a year and expect to be handed everything on a plate.

If you want to consider the value for money aspect, then you have to look at what added value a degree will give you over the course of your lifetime. Trying to look at it from a point of view of "I only have 3 hours contact time a week therefore my degree is poor value for money" is pointless. University study is much, much more than trying to get as much of a textbook spoon-fed to you by a lecturer so that you can cram it in the night before an exam before promptly forgetting it and moving on to the next topic. Anyone who thinks like that shouldn't be at university.

If all this is true, then what is a student getting for their £9000.
If this is true the maybe Lecturers should be renamed Researchers.
We complained about overpaid Bankers. We need to look at the pay our University Lecturers,,,sorry Researchers are paid. Do they provide good value for the time they put into the students. Where is OFSTED when you need them.

oskie

Apoligies if this has been covered elsewhere in the thread in one of the other pages.
I was just wondering about a few things. First one, is whether banks and building societies will ignore huge student loan debts when graduates go and apply. And if so is there a guarantee and how can they? If somebody owes 40K and is paying it back a bit every month then this will show on their wage slip as a deduction. Therefore the bank will clearly see that this person is paying a debt off and has less take home pay than their employment contract suggests. Surely they will have to factor this in to ensure responsible borrowing? Clearly ignoring the loan (and the required repayments, which could go on as long as the mortgage) is not a realistic option? And what about a couple who are both graduates, with around 70K debt or more between them, both paying some back? Surely the government arent pretending a bank will just ignore that kind of combined debt? Have we had assurances on that from the actual banks? I have not heard much being said about this in the news. Will it not be the case that graduates will sit down at the bank and then be told, years after they left uni, that they can only borrow a lower amount to take into account the student loan?
It will also mean graduates will have to speculate on their likely earnings for many years hence, because each time they progress and have a salary raise they will be losing some of that in the repayments, so their wages will never be quite what they seem for many years, even when they have got children and other things to worry about. The interest issue also needs to be clarified, as others have said.