MSE News: Guest Comment: Govt student loan explanations 'woeful'

tyllwyd

andrewwallam wrote: »

The rate is RPI plus 3%, a commercial rate. The message should be to pay upfront for tuition fees/ maintenance or if this isn't possible to pay back the money as soon as possible. The don't worry about it attitude seems somewhat irresponsible as the level of debt could balloon.

But you aren't taking into account the fact that repayments are linked to salary, not the amount you borrow, and that it is written off after you've been paying for 30 years. So the level of debt could balloon, but once you've borrowed more than you can pay back within those 30 years, the amount of money you repay doesn't increase.

You need to be very clear about whether you are buying into the system or staying out - if you scrimp and save to keep your loan down to £30K and find that you pay it back in full on the day when it would be written off, and that the person next to you has exactly the same job and has made exactly the same repayments but borrowed £50K and had thousands of pounds worth of debt written off on that day, you are going to feel like a bit of a mug.

I'm not saying that you should definitely take out a student loan - I'm not a fan of the set up - but once you've made the decision to take out a substantial loan, under the system as its been outlined at the moment, there is a strong argument for borrowing the maximum.

gadgetmind

Onyourcase wrote: »

Exactly.
The only fair way is to return to only allowing the intellectual elite to go for free with general taxation paying. Cap student numbers at 1970's levels

I'd like to see a system that can supply a large number of well-educated graduates, but sadly the increase in numbers seems to have resulted in a decrease in quality. We really struggle to find good people and encounter a whole load with 1st class degrees but little knowledge of the subject.

We'd hire 200 people tomorrow if we could find them. We can't find them. Something has gone very wrong and I see no signs of it improving.

The_One_Who

Onyourcase wrote: »

Exactly.
The only fair way is to return to only allowing the intellectual elite to go for free with general taxation paying. Cap student numbers at 1970's levels

What percentage was it in the 70s? About 12-15%?

I doubt any system to cap numbers at such a low level would be passed, it would need to be tapered down. And then there is the issue of what to do with the institutions that would have to close as a result. It's not as simple as just closing them.

As much as I'd like to see a return to higher education being for those academically able to cope, returning to that is probably not going to happen any time soon.

melancholly

The_One_Who wrote: »

As much as I'd like to see a return to higher education being for those academically able to cope, returning to that is probably not going to happen any time soon.

you see my problem is that if 27% of students are getting As at A level, how can you decide if they are able to cope academically at university? presumably those with the top grade should be able to manage.....

the proportion of A levels getting As isn't far off the proportions of students getting a degree (both thereabouts are at 30% - not exactly, but close enough)...... whatever people may say about unis who shouldn't be there as they don't have high academic standards, the reality is that there are far more students leaving school with top grades than there are places at 'top' universities.

changing the university system without addressing school leaving qualifications won't do anything useful. the numbers getting an A* at A levels now are about the percentages of people who got an A in the 1960s. i wish the university application system happened after results - then unis wouldn't have to put so much sway in predictions. it would also help students who do better than expected.

The_One_Who

melancholly wrote: »

you see my problem is that if 27% of students are getting As at A level, how can you decide if they are able to cope academically at university? presumably those with the top grade should be able to manage.....

the proportion of A levels getting As isn't far off the proportions of students getting a degree (both thereabouts are at 30% - not exactly, but close enough)...... whatever people may say about unis who shouldn't be there as they don't have high academic standards, the reality is that there are far more students leaving school with top grades than there are places at 'top' universities.

changing the university system without addressing school leaving qualifications won't do anything useful. the numbers getting an A* at A levels now are about the percentages of people who got an A in the 1960s. i wish the university application system happened after results - then unis wouldn't have to put so much sway in predictions. it would also help students who do better than expected.

I totally agree with you. I think that the entire education system needs to be overhauled. Although it will take a brave politician to suggest it.

Being Scottish I applied with my grades already in the bag, and got an unconditional. But this does have a downside - most people I know who got unconditionals didn't do much in their last year because they already had a place at university.

gadgetmind

melancholly wrote: »

you see my problem is that if 27% of students are getting As at A level, how can you decide if they are able to cope academically at university?

We can't.

As part of her studying for AS levels (five, all maths/science!) my daughter did dozens of practice papers, which I marked for her. One physics paper was marked out of 60, and she only got 45. OK, it was early days in her revision/practice, but I still thought 75% was a trifle low. She looked up the grading scheme for that paper/year and you only needed 32 marks, or just over 50%, to get an A!

!!!!!!! I don't have a problem with the A level syllabus, and the exams aren't easy, but the grading scheme puts everyone who isn't a total dolt into the A category. This is worse than useless!

Oldernotwiser

gadgetmind wrote: »

We can't.

As part of her studying for AS levels (five, all maths/science!) my daughter did dozens of practice papers, which I marked for her. One physics paper was marked out of 60, and she only got 45. OK, it was early days in her revision/practice, but I still thought 75% was a trifle low. She looked up the grading scheme for that paper/year and you only needed 32 marks, or just over 50%, to get an A!

!!!!!!! I don't have a problem with the A level syllabus, and the exams aren't easy, but the grading scheme puts everyone who isn't a total dolt into the A category. This is worse than useless!

The fact that anybody can be doing 5 A levels (and I know some do more), particularly in Maths and Science, surely indicates that exams have got easier and/or syllabuses have been slimmed to the point of anorexia!

Oldernotwiser

melancholly wrote: »

changing the university system without addressing school leaving qualifications won't do anything useful. the numbers getting an A* at A levels now are about the percentages of people who got an A in the 1960s. i wish the university application system happened after results - then unis wouldn't have to put so much sway in predictions. it would also help students who do better than expected.

The true educational scandal at the moment isn't the cost of going to university but the fact that, at the end of 3 years' HE study, most students will only be about a year further on in their academic life than they would have been after taking A levels in the 1960s.

gadgetmind

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

The fact that anybody can be doing 5 A levels (and I know some do more), particularly in Maths and Science, surely indicates that exams have got easier and/or syllabuses have been slimmed to the point of anorexia!

This is five AS levels, which is the first year of an A-level. Next year she'll drop down to four or (more likely) three to take at "real" A-level.

Five was one hell of a work-load. She had pretty much no free periods, huge amounts of homework, and she did 7-8 hours of work seven days a week on revision and old papers prior to the exams.

I also did maths and sciences and TBH I didn't notice anything getting easier other than the marks required to get the grades.

Oldernotwiser

gadgetmind wrote: »

Five was one hell of a work-load. She had pretty much no free periods, huge amounts of homework, and she did 7-8 hours of work seven days a week on revision and old papers prior to the exams.
.

Don't you think that doing 50 hours a week on revision and past papers is excessive and just geared to passing the test? Over what period of time was she doing this?

Nobody doubts that today's students put the hours in but some of us would question to what purpose.