Student Loans 2012

atypical

The_One_Who wrote: »

Investment Banking and some law firms are the only two industries that I can think of that do discriminate based on university, although for both of these going to the 'right' university is only the first step.

And consultancy. The rest, including the FTSE100 companies, don't really care. Especially with this shift to competency based applications. It's really just about how you sell yourself.

melancholly

wintersunshine wrote: »

Are you deliberately missing the point? This is is a money saving website and this is a Student money saving board. It may be in your best interests for students to pay the maximum tuition fees as a lecturer (or whatever it is that you do) but it is not in students' best interests. So I'm not sure why you think it is OK to keep pushng the idea that tuition fees should be £9k, when it is very obviously in students' best interests that they are as low as possible.

i have been very clear that i think any students paying fees at all is bad. i wish the increase wasn't happening. i'm trying to put across why the fees aren't going to end up at £7K and why it's really just lies to suggest that the majority will be. i wish that higher education was free (in italics in case the point gets missed!); but hoping that everything will be £7K when they won't isn't sensible. i'd like students and parents to see the reality of the situation. that's not some sinister plan to try and put students in debt (!?!?); but the reality of fees will be far from the original government suggestions were in December. i find the whole situation incredibly frustrating - it's mad for students and it's mad for unis!

i largely expect that no 'good' uni (whatever cut off you pick) will charge at the lower end of the scale.... whatever you say about competency based interviews, not all degrees are equal and there will always be an advantage to going to a top uni in terms of employment and networking. whether it's worth an £9K of debt is debatable....unless you're talking a top 5 uni where it surely will be.

it certainly means students should make the most of opportunities for volunteering, taking responsibility at clubs and interships available through their uni to make their CVs as good as possible (in between part time work to pay living expenses and lots of work to get the best grade possible... in all that free time !)

melancholly

setmefree2 wrote: »

But I'm not sure, in all honesty, that I'd think my own kid should go in to a Uni with the potential for a cash crisis half the way through their course.

i think the list of those at real risk will be longer than you'd think and have unis on there that you wouldn't expect.....

i guess all the news about the gadafi money and LSE makes me think it's a sad state of HE when money from that source seems like a sensible option. but i bet there aren't many places that would turn away that much money, regardless of source. there was a pretty damning opinion piece in the times on friday, slating LSE and the sector and the fact that they're in that situation. i don't have online access but it was an interesting read for anyone who does.

setmefree2

Universities in England wanting to charge fees of £9,000 per year could have to spend £900 of that income on access for poorer students. The Office for Fair Access (Offa) has published guidelines showing how much universities should spend on fee subsidies and outreach projects.
It sets a sliding scale ranging from 15% to 30% of fee income above £6,000.

The guidelines from Offa provide the clearest rules so far on how much universities should spend on ensuring that higher tuition fees from 2012 do not exclude poorer students.
Universities which have a "low proportion of under-represented students" are being advised to spend about 30% of fees above £6,000.
This would mean that some of the most prestigious universities charging £9,000 per year would have to spend £900 of this fee income on projects to support and recruit students from poorer backgrounds.
In universities which have a "high proportion of under-represented students", the guidelines suggest payments of 15% - or about £450 if fees were set at £9,000.

Sally Hunt, head of the UCU lecturers' union, said plans for higher education were in a "shambolic state".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12665503

Shambolic sums it up...:o

melancholly

surely the best way to judge an outreach programme is on its results, not on its cost? unis with established schemes that work mainly get existing students to visit schools.... not expensive but effective. i can understand forcing money on fee subsidies, but on outreach this seems mad (i bet anything will cost a lot more for any given london uni than for anywhere in the north west or north east). maybe this is a way to keep unis happy as the benchmarks will be individually set, but that does rather undermine the position that this is all about improving access.

i'm terrified that in one move, this government will do irrevocable damage to HE. that's not in anyone's best interest.

gadgetmind

Speaking as an employer, I'd favour a system where the employer pays for a grad's education. We pay more anyway as getting a good grad costs at least £24k (if you pay less, they go elsewhere) but in exchange you get an employee who's well educated and a hard worker.

This approach might also make those employers who don't really need the skills that a degree can teach to look harder at bright A-level students, particularly given that they won't have to pay off their fees over a decade or so.

setmefree2

Graduates 'could pay back double their student loans'


Some graduates could end up paying back double their original student loans under the new fees system in England, figures calculated for the BBC suggest.
The figures, by leading accountants, show that a student borrowing £39,000 for a three-year course could pay back up to £83,000 in total, in cash terms.
Under the regime, due to begin in 2012, graduates will pay back 9% of their earnings for up to 30 years.

The accountancy firms, which include Baker Tilly, modelled the payments for BBC Breakfast over the lifetimes of three fictional students.
The calculations assumed all the students borrow a total of £39,000 - £9,000 in fees and £4,000 for maintenance over a three year course - and go on to earn above the national average.
'Hire purchase' The speed at which the loans will be paid off depends on the earnings of the graduate.
The first student begins on average earnings, and gets a £1,000 pay increase each year.
After 30 years, the student has paid back £78,882 in cash terms, and still owes £14,513, which is written off.
The second student gets a £2,000 per year pay rise over and above average pay, and clears the debt completely in 25 years, paying a total of £83,791 in cash terms.
The third student gets paid £4,000 above average earnings, paying off the debt in 18 years - a total of £71,873 in cash terms.
The figures do not account for the way the value of money will change because of inflation over the period during which the loan is paid off.
John Whiting of the Chartered Institute of Taxation said the system was a bit like a student "buying their education on hire purchase, a bit like a mortgage".
"If somebody takes a significant loan it's going to take them a long time to pay it back, and they are going to be paying twice even three times the amount if it takes them a long time to pay it back," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12767850

hermanmunster_3

Quote:
What's more, students who want to pay off their loans early will possibly be hit with a financial penalty.
He said: "The Government is committed to the progressive nature of the repayment system.
"It is therefore important that those on the highest incomes post graduation are not able to unfairly buy themselves out of this progressive system by paying off their loans early.
"We will consult on potential early repayment mechanisms - similar to those paid by people who pre-pay their mortgages. These mechanisms would need to ensure that graduates on modest incomes who strive to pay off their loans early through regular payments are not penalised."

This was mentioned in an earlier post (sorry can't get it to quote properly today) - has any more been said about this ? Seems odd if you have a loan / debt and want to to pay it off ASAP then you shouldn't be stopped from doing so. Have had friends in past who worked really hard abroad for a while to ensure that they could pay upfront for University.

setmefree2

hermanmunster wrote: »

This was mentioned in an earlier post (sorry can't get it to quote properly today) - has any more been said about this ? Seems odd if you have a loan / debt and want to to pay it off ASAP then you shouldn't be stopped from doing so. Have had friends in past who worked really hard abroad for a while to ensure that they could pay upfront for University.

I noticed the following in today's Independent

And parents who seek to pay off their children's debts could face penalties, the Government has said.
But it insists the new system is fair and will lessen the burden on graduates, who are currently obliged to start repayments when they are earning more than £15,000.
While it will remain possible to pay off a loan straightaway, in future such action could incur a cost, universities minister David Willetts told the BBC.
This would mean parents who step in to help their children clear their debts could find themselves penalised.
"What we are looking at is whether, if people wish to repay early having taken out a loan, there should be any payment for that and on that we are going to be consulting people to seek their views," Mr Willetts said.
"The question on which we will consult is whether or not there should be a penalty for people."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/graduates-to-pay-back-double-on-loans-2244487.html

hermanmunster_3

thanks setmefree2 - just what i was looking for.
just considering options at the mo ...