Student Loans 2012

kayr_2

melancholly wrote: »

as much as i detest what they're doing, i want to just add again that the loan repayments will be a proportion of income. there will be no crippling repayments - if someone loses their job, the repayments will automatically stop.

But would they then have to pay RPI + 3% interest when they'd been paying a lower rate while employed?

melancholly

kayr wrote: »

But would they then have to pay RPI + 3% interest when they'd been paying a lower rate while employed?

they wouldn't pay anything. however, the interest on the loan would continue to increase - i'd imagine, if the info is correct, at RPI + 3%. i guess i want to emphasise the difference between the interest rates and the repayment terms. one is rubbish, one is still pretty good!

melancholly

kayr wrote: »

I'm not so sure - about the happily bit anyway. What I have heard in the last year from eg Cambridge admissions tutors is that they are genuinely committed to recruiting the most able students, whatever their background.

i think there's a big difference between the admissions tutors and those in charge of finances (and i think the real power goes with the money control!). so many students get top grades that they could fill their places twice over without really dropping standards at all. if they could get students whose parents didn't want them saddled by debt to pay larger fees (which in reality will be a reduction versus full fees at many private sixth forms), then they'd jump at it. they still get the students they want, but they get more from some to help pay for others.

dizzie

Perhaps it is just my cynicism...but one of the things that worries me about today's announcement is this:

1. We know that universities have to improve access in order to charge more than the £6,000 per year. And despite the fact that until today, it seemed that everyone would be entitled to a loan for tuition fees....it is clear that Universities will be under pressure to offer more generous subsidies in tuition fees for students from lower income families - as a way of tempting them to do a degree.

2. So where will universities get the extra money to provide subsidies? Well, they'll be able to charge other students the full £9k per year and of course they get a lot of money from international students....except that

3. The government is taking measures regarding student visas which is expected to cut the number of people coming to the UK from outside of the EU....so if universities get fewer international bottoms on seats, they are going to lose money. They are going to be looking to obtain extra cash from elsewhere if this happens.

4. The government figures for the affordability of providing student loans under the 2012 scheme was worked out on an average fee of £7.500 per year. They clearly miscalculated that the majority of universities would be charging at or near to the maximum £9,000 per year. There are fears that university quotas for student numbers (or at least those eligible for student loans) will need to be cut for the proposals to remain affordable.

In summary, could it be that the plan is as follows:

(i) Cut the quota of student places in UK universities (this will keep the student loan amounts to a "controllable" level
(ii) Allow universities to make up the numbers through the "off-quota" numbers of students they recruit....which in view of the speculated reduction in numbers of international (non-EU) students, would mean offering "off-quota" places to home students.
(iii) Allow universities to make up the shortfall in income from overseas students by allowing them to charge "off-quota" places to home students at full international rates.

My question is this? Say you are interviewing two students for a place at your university. The first comes from a low income family and the second from a middle income one. There is nothing much to differentiate these students - both have attended state schools, have similar grades and appear to have similar academic potential. You are aware that you have to improve social mobility and are aware of the problems over university funding. Are you going to be tempted to offer the quota place to the low income family student and then offer an off quota place to the middle income family pupil in order to try to boost the coffers?

The announcement this morning made it clear that institutions would expect candidates for off-quota places to meet the same entrance requirements as those met by on quota students.

So what do you think?

kayr_2

Very interesting points, dizzie.

dizzie wrote: »

Say you are interviewing two students for a place at your university. The first comes from a low income family and the second from a middle income one. There is nothing much to differentiate these students - both have attended state schools, have similar grades and appear to have similar academic potential. You are aware that you have to improve social mobility and are aware of the problems over university funding. Are you going to be tempted to offer the quota place to the low income family student and then offer an off quota place to the middle income family pupil in order to try to boost the coffers?

I think there are people in Government who would be in favour of this. However I would hope that there will be far too much opposition to this to let it happen. On the other hand, the way things are going, nothing would surprise me any more.

I was interested in one of the student responses: Off-quota places are a badly disguised attempt to completely remove the cap on fees

melancholly

dizzie wrote: »

The announcement this morning made it clear that institutions would expect candidates for off-quota places to meet the same entrance

my levels of cynicism are pretty bad too, and worsening. i don't believe a thing that that Willett's man says. there have already been so many misrepresentations and u-turns that until we get to the end point, nothing is certain.

anyone would think this was a half baked policy that is collapsing in front of them, so they're in a panic trying to prop it up (what where they doing in opposition? they clearly weren't planning anything plausible for being in power?!)

setmefree2

I just don't want to see my kids (and their friends) stitched up

kayr_2

setmefree2 wrote: »

I just don't want to see my kids (and their friends) stitched up

I echo that sentiment. Perhaps those of us who are horrified by these developments should write to our MPs? An MP is obliged to get an answer from the relevant minister (and they have to give an answer) if we write to them about a specific issue. The more feedback those in Westminster get the better, as they do give the impression of being rather random at times.

dizzie

Has anyone been listening to the House of Commons Live? The suspicions on one side of the house were that rich people would be able to buy places for their thick kids. I appreciate the questions that were asked about some charities (either independent schools or wealthy family educational charitable trusts) being able to buy places, but feel that many glaringly obvious questions were left unasked.

(i) So access criteria can not be compromised. Okay well take 10 students - five from backgrounds that could not afford to self-finance through HE and five who could. Let's say they're all predicted (and achieve) the necessary A-level grades. Now let's say that there is only ONE on quota place available. On this basis, the less well-off students would only have a 10-20% chance of getting in (20% if the university chose to keep this place for the less well off - see my second point), whereas universities could chose to take all 5 of the better off students (so long as they are happy to fund the higher fees). So in which social sphere is "mobility" being most improved?

(ii) What will there be to stop universities from offering on quota places to those from less well-off backgrounds thereby trying to encourage more "middle-earning" families to self fund their child's education off quota at inflated prices? What measures will be taken to prevent "middle-earning" families feeling put under pressure to remortgage or downsize in order to release the sizeable lifetime earnings required to fund an off quota place for their child at University. Will universities be second guessing the bank balances/assets or earning capacity of a prospective student's parents before deciding whether to offer them a place on or off quota?

What a chaotic mess this whole tuition fee saga has got into! Grrrr!

setmefree2

Willetts accused of U-turn on rich students

By Chris Cook and George Parker
Published: May 10 2011 19:50 | Last updated: May 10 2011 19:50



The universities minister was accused of “the most humiliating and fastest U-turn in the history of this government” by Labour after appearing to consider backing a controversial admissions policy for a few hours before abruptly dropping his support.
David Willetts was responding to reports in the Guardian on Tuesday that English universities could be allowed to break their current student number limits, so long as the extra students could pay tuition fees in advance without the need for state-subsidised student loans.

John Denham, shadow business secretary, assaulted the plans, claiming “this Tory-led government believes that access to wealth and privilege should trump ability”.
The minister made several media appearances in which he refused to rule out the idea as a candidate for inclusion in a forthcoming white paper before releasing a statement which said: “There is no question of wealthy students being able to buy a place at university”.
Universities policy is already a sore point for the coalition. At the last general election, every Liberal Democrat MP campaigned against tuition fees. But the government voted to allow fees, now £3,290, to rise to £9,000 in 2012-13.
Lib Dem officials credit Vince Cable, the business secretary, who has overall responsibility for university policy, with killing the idea. One told the FT: “There is no way Lib Dems are going to let rich people buy their way into university in this way.”
Mr Willetts has a reputation for being a stronger policymaker than a politician. One Downing Street insider said: “We are not quite sure what he was trying to say but it wasn’t very helpful”.
The policy problem that triggered the confusion is the severe lack of university places in England currently. In 2010, 635,000 UK and European Union students applied to UK universities, but only 450,000 were accepted.
This unmet desire for university places is the main factor driving up tuition fees: when the fee limits rise in 2012, most English universities are expected to charge some students the maximum permitted level. The excess demand means that universities are under little competitive pressure.
That is why the government is enthusiastic about encouraging enrolment among those who do not need state-provided loans and grants.
These so-called “off-quota” students cost the government nothing, allowing universities to expand – and competition to intensify – without straining the business department budget.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5335bccc-7b31-11e0-9b06-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LytJXQxf