'Students – lower earners deferring to 2012 could pay LESS' blog discussion

melancholly

tyllwyd wrote: »

so it sounds as if even he is not too confident about it !!

well although it sounds utterly ridiculous that a bill passed in december still hasn't had all the details fleshed out the following august, that's how it's been done! early repayment penalties aren't clear yet either...... here's hoping it's all clear before UCAS opens for 2012 entry (which i think is sept 1st?).

Kent_accountant

Why, oh why have we got ourselves in such a mess with tutition fees in this country.

This those could benefit from University can't afford it.

Those that can afford it, don't need to go.

Those that do go and can't afford, borrow huge amounts and then (possibly) never pay it back.

Ok, sweeping generalisation but this is a terrible system.

Lokolo

Kent_accountant wrote: »

Why, oh why have we got ourselves in such a mess with tutition fees in this country.

This those could benefit from University can't afford it.

Those that can afford it, don't need to go.

Those that do go and can't afford, borrow huge amounts and then (possibly) never pay it back.

Ok, sweeping generalisation but this is a terrible system.

Everyone that wants to go can afford it, thats the whole point of student loans, so that those who come from not so well off background can still afford to.

2sides2everystory

Lokolo wrote:

Everyone that wants to go can afford it

Interesting word "afford". I guess you are offering an opinion about managing to bear something without serious detriment ?

One does wonder sometimes exactly how you think you might be qualified to offer such an opinion - are you not filling this thread and others with the view of just one ex mature student whose story simply meant he went to uni a bit later than most and found a student loan helpful after a few years at the university of life? Not quite the same as bouncing every youngster into an SLC contract surely?


The news yesterday was of a mad rush of young people who supposedly sought to avoid a detriment in having to bear a large loan after they had concluded (correctly I think) that a small loan might be eminently more bearable.

I read in the papers this morning that many of them, even "star" pupils with A*s galore, were apparently denied places.

However, from other sources I learn that perhaps overseas students of mixed ability might already been given places on those same courses.

They may be paying as much as £12,000 pa for the tuition fees already I understand.

So are their rights to places more important than those of UK young citizens who want places at 25% of the cost (2011) as opposed to 75% of the cost (2012) borne by their overseas classmates? Are UK students already being sold access to the limited cheap seats on a lottery basis a bit like London 2012 tickets which citizens of other countries could purchase routinely without the lottery nonsense?

Many other bright young UK citizens are sick of the whole thing and are seeking apprenticeships instead.

Is UK university education becoming just another example now of a disreputable money-making machine? Where is the public good in these establishments? It is so difficult to tell what they are really about anymore.

melancholly

2sides2everystory wrote: »

However, from other sources I learn that perhaps overseas students of mixed ability might already been given places on those same courses.

They may be paying as much as £12,000 pa for the tuition fees already I understand.

So are their rights to places more important than those of UK young citizens who want places at 25% of the cost (2011) as opposed to 75% of the cost (2012) borne by their overseas classmates? Are UK students already being sold access to the limited cheap seats on a lottery basis a bit like London 2012 tickets which citizens of other countries could purchase routinely without the lottery nonsense?

ignoring the swipe at Lokolo, it's worth pointing out that quotas for overseas students are being reduced, so there will be fewer places available (which will actually cause a hole in uni funding, since overseas students pay in full for their degrees).

a quick google to UCL (picked a london uni that's well thought of) shows that overseas students are paying up to £17.5K already. rather than 'hearing' from someone, the info is all up there on websites to be taken to get it accurate.

if an overseas student was offered a conditional place based on getting certain qualifications, then if they get those, they get the place. overseas students who want to apply to uk universities have to go through UCAS, just like home students.

i really just wish a few facts were checked before suggesting completely incorrect ideas of how this system may work.

there are many issues about uni applications; having to go on predicted grades and the rush at the end of august to sort it all out. it isn't ideal. but let's at least represent the system properly and then look for faults. making up issues that aren't there is just not helpful.

Lokolo

2sides2everystory wrote: »

One does wonder sometimes exactly how you think you might be qualified to offer such an opinion - are you not filling this thread and others with the view of just one ex mature student whose story simply meant he went to uni a bit later than most and found a student loan helpful after a few years at the university of life? Not quite the same as bouncing every youngster into an SLC contract surely?

No because I am 22, just graduated after going straight to university after Sixth Form, not a mature student

Infact, I am one of those youngsters that are in an SLC contract

flimsier

I'm sick of the political positioning that Martin has on this issue. He's supposed to chair an independent group, but he pretty much argues that the new system is better - and that's all he does. He's promoting young people getting into debt under the guise that this is "good debt".

Second, how the hell is a 17 year old going to know what they are going to earn (ie the article is completely useless because at 17 you have no concept of whether you'll be a low or a high earner) - in particular students who are thinking of going to university.

The amount most graduates will actually pay back is inconceivably high, and prohibitively so. The article is suggesting that they might be better off by delaying, but in fact the vast majority of students will be worse off by waiting, paying back a higher rate of interest over a longer period - and the article is promoting something that is (for the majority) wasting money rather than saving it.

flimsier

melancholly wrote: »

well the calculations on the main website page do have amounts versus salaries. a quick google gets me the average salary for a teacher at £31K (although i don't think that includes head teachers as if you include them, the average is higher) with a starting after qualification of £21. it's worth adding in that most teachers go by the PGCE route so there will be an extra year of interest before starting to pay plus an extra year of fees/maintenance loan (although there are bursaries too - i honestly don't know how much of that will change will in 2012). essentially, with that starting salary, a teacher is unlikely to pay it off!

If you consider the wage rises teachers get every year, they are very very likely to pay it off, and if not, certainly to pay off a very high proportion of it.

flimsier

tyllwyd wrote: »

My worry is the threshold above which you make repayments (currently £21K). This is due to be reviewed and should increase in line with wage inflation. According to Martin's guide http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes#17 "These thresholds are likely to will rise with average earnings from 2017." - so it sounds as if even he is not too confident about it !! (BTW I pointed out the mistake in that sentence a few weeks ago but it hasn't been fixed.) Without changing the terms of the loan, it would be easy for a future government to just decide not to raise the threshold for a few years, and hey presto, they get more money back.

I agree with this. They've changed our pensions to a different scheme even though we've been paying them for years, so now that we have the principle of huge up-front fees paid at 9% over 30 years - well I can't see that ever getting better and I think it's very very unlikely to stay the same for even a few years.

They will change the terms so most loans are repaid. Of course they will.

Lokolo

flimsier wrote: »

I agree with this. They've changed our pensions to a different scheme even though we've been paying them for years, so now that we have the principle of huge up-front fees paid at 9% over 30 years - well I can't see that ever getting better and I think it's very very unlikely to stay the same for even a few years.

They will change the terms so most loans are repaid. Of course they will.

They have only made one change retrospectively since the loans began, and that is making the post 1998 threshold rise with inflation.

So why do you think they will change the terms so most loans are repaid?

This has nothing to do with FSP's and I assume you are one of these that is outraged by an increase of pension contributions for getting the best pension deal available in the UK.....

---

As for "not knowing what you will earn after uni", well you can take a pretty good estimate by looking at graduate jobs in the places that they may want to work..... usually gives a pretty good idea.