Student Loans 2012

Taiko

You should've just posted in large bold letters "Union angry that things are kept as they wanted them originally".

melancholly

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13041885
is this an indication of how well the government check their facts about HE?!

(don't get me wrong, Oxford's intake of black students is hardly something to be proud of, but someone should have checked the numbers and not completely made them up. as with many other things, the spin doctoring from this government about HE intake is as bad as new labour..... that's pretty bad!)

melancholly

i don't know that the RPI/CPI thing will matter so much over the life of the loan.... right now, there's a difference but i'm not convinced that that will stay. graduates got a 0% interest rate as a result of using RPI not CPI.

here's the best graph i could get of the two against each other is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11521293

i guess this strikes me as the least of the problems with the new system. i worry that objecting to everything about HE funding just makes everyone involved look awkward for the sake of it. (or maybe it will reach a point of no return when plans will have to change - it seems to have done the trick with NHS reforms!)

maryb

Hi Setmefree2,

Have just read this thread. I have one daughter currently at university and a 15 year old who will fall fairly and squarely into the new system but as it's three years off I have only been keeping a general eye open and not watching all the news like a hawk, the way you clearly have. So apologies for using you as a shortcut to research but I saw a reference a few weeks back to universities possibly being allowed to recruit additional students who were not funded by the Government if it could be done "in a socially progressive way".

Have you seen any more on this? I take it to mean that if you don't take the loan they will charge you more on the assumption you must be rich and therefore deserve to pay more (that's what socially progressive usually means). It would also be the converse of charging a penalty if you repay your loan early and could be sold as 'closing a loophole'.

My daughter is doing a four year course (all of it taught so full costs for each year). We said that we would pay all her fees and maintenance costs for one year so as to leave her with no more debt than the majority of students doing a three year degree and which is what her sister will probably do.

She still had to go through the process of applying to the Student Loan Company, in order to establish that she was eligible for taxpayer funded loans as she would otherwise have been charged the tuition fees applicable to overseas students ie some £10,000 pa (and there will probably be a similar differential under the new system so you would be looking at £15k). However having established that she was eligible, she then simply told SLC that she did not want to draw down the loans she was entitled to.

So, unless you are prepared to pay what they charge overseas students you have to be 'in the system' even if you don't want a loan - which would make it easy for them to load a penalty onto such students.

melancholly

maryb wrote: »

Have just read this thread. I have one daughter currently at university and a 15 year old who will fall fairly and squarely into the new system but as it's three years off I have only been keeping a general eye open and not watching all the news like a hawk, the way you clearly have. So apologies for using you as a shortcut to research but I saw a reference a few weeks back to universities possibly being allowed to recruit additional students who were not funded by the Government if it could be done "in a socially progressive way".

Have you seen any more on this? I take it to mean that if you don't take the loan they will charge you more on the assumption you must be rich and therefore deserve to pay more (that's what socially progressive usually means). It would also be the converse of charging a penalty if you repay your loan early and could be sold as 'closing a loophole'.

essentially, nothing about the details of fees/allowable places will be announced formally until the fees are agreed with the office for fair access. this isn't due until July (even the current unis that have said how much they want won't know if that's what they'll be allowed to charge - it's doubtful that the OFFA will say no given their previous behaviour though!).

setmefree2

maryb wrote: »

Hi Setmefree2,

Have just read this thread. I have one daughter currently at university and a 15 year old who will fall fairly and squarely into the new system but as it's three years off I have only been keeping a general eye open and not watching all the news like a hawk, the way you clearly have. So apologies for using you as a shortcut to research but I saw a reference a few weeks back to universities possibly being allowed to recruit additional students who were not funded by the Government if it could be done "in a socially progressive way".

Have you seen any more on this? I take it to mean that if you don't take the loan they will charge you more on the assumption you must be rich and therefore deserve to pay more (that's what socially progressive usually means). It would also be the converse of charging a penalty if you repay your loan early and could be sold as 'closing a loophole'.

I haven't noticed anything more about this. I took it to mean that the tuition fee would be the same for all students but that the student paying up front wouldn't be included in the government's quota of students (that is, the government would only allow the Unis to recruit x% of students who were taking government funds plus anyone else paying up front).

I can't see this being acceptable as all the Unis would then be motivated to recruit kids who can pay up front.

My personal view is that Willetts is ok with the way things stand, that is - £9k for the majority with large reductions for kids from familes with joint incomes less than £25k. However, I'm not sure this is acceptable to the Lib Dems as Vince Cable seems hopping mad.

setmefree2

maryb wrote: »

My daughter is doing a four year course (all of it taught so full costs for each year). We said that we would pay all her fees and maintenance costs for one year so as to leave her with no more debt than the majority of students doing a three year degree and which is what her sister will probably do.

She still had to go through the process of applying to the Student Loan Company, in order to establish that she was eligible for taxpayer funded loans as she would otherwise have been charged the tuition fees applicable to overseas students ie some £10,000 pa (and there will probably be a similar differential under the new system so you would be looking at £15k). However having established that she was eligible, she then simply told SLC that she did not want to draw down the loans she was entitled to.

So, unless you are prepared to pay what they charge overseas students you have to be 'in the system' even if you don't want a loan - which would make it easy for them to load a penalty onto such students.

I didn't know that and I can see what you mean, so that would be a worry. However, I have seen it written often that tuition fees will be payable upfront without penalty but I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

setmefree2

I think this could be classified as "unintended consequences" of the coalition policy

Private school students switching to comprehensives

Comprehensives see surge in private school pupils applying to do A-levels in their sixth forms

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/12/private-school-pupils-comprehensive-switch

setmefree2

Taiko wrote: »

You should've just posted in large bold letters "Union angry that things are kept as they wanted them originally".

Not quite sure what you mean?

maryb

Thanks everyone. Looks like it's one to keep an eye on. I get uneasy when they talk about making sure things are socially progressive.