Graduates now 'more likely to end up as cleaners', official figures show

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

kabayiri wrote: »

And now they want students to acquire £50K of debt? Does anyone else think this is pure pie in the sky for all but the most gifted (or loaded) students?

If you believe the article most of them will never pay any of it back as low skilled doesn't pay enough to kick in any loan repayments. So 30 years from now we'll be in the :eek::eek::eek::eek:

wozearly

Returning to the original post, it amused me as I took a job as a cleaner immediately after leaving university about 6 years ago.

I didn't manage to get onto a specific graduate scheme whilst at university (an earlier poster made the point that many people applying for these now have at least a year's experience in the field already - something that was already starting then), so I took the job on returning home. I was the most well-educated cleaner the firm had ever employed, though not necessarily their best ever.

It was actually quite a decent job to have while applying for other work. Most of it was out of normal office hours so it didn't interfere with interviews and because of the odd hours it paid pretty well.

After a few months of persistence in job applications I finally got a job offer in the field for my degree.

misskool

kabayiri wrote: »

I think my sister who also lectures would argue a similar line to MissKool. It is a sound coherent argument, one you would struggle to disagree with.

Truth is, subjects are so different. I always thought Arts-based academic subjects relied on a lot of self motivation by the student. Developing that attitude is a skill in itself.

My suggestion for shorter courses is because I genuinely worry for a student emerging with £50K of debt, even if it may not be paid off for years. What a weight that must be on someone's mind? Not everyone is comfortable with debt. I worried about being £500 overdrawn when I graduated.

As usual, there are no easy answers. I'm hoping the picture clears by the time my children have the F.E decision to make.

I think the "debt" idea is just something people get used to. People got used to buying a house on mortgage (that's upwards of £100k nowadays?) and many people buy cars on HP and loans.

At least you don't pay upfront in this country. If you go to an Ivy League universities, fees are $20,000 a term and unless you are gifted, you pay that.

This has come up quite often and I'm not sure what the correct solution is. Make everyone pay?

kabayiri

misskool wrote: »

..

This has come up quite often and I'm not sure what the correct solution is. Make everyone pay?

I agree, I don't know what the correct solution is, but as BackFrmTheEdge illustrates the proposed one is a gamble. If large numbers of students don't breach the repayment threshold then the cost will fall on the state.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression that the state isn't exactly flush with cash right now.

It sounds very much like a politicians solution, why I can hear the metallic ting of the can as it bounces down the road even now.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

wozearly wrote: »

After a few months of persistence in job applications I finally got a job offer in the field for my degree.

Was it more lucrative than your job as a cleaner?

ukcarper

kabayiri wrote: »

I agree, I don't know what the correct solution is, but as BackFrmTheEdge illustrates the proposed one is a gamble. If large numbers of students don't breach the repayment threshold then the cost will fall on the state.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression that the state isn't exactly flush with cash right now.

It sounds very much like a politicians solution, why I can hear the metallic ting of the can as it bounces down the road even now.

That’s what struck me must actually make the national debt worse.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

kabayiri wrote: »

I agree, I don't know what the correct solution is, but as BackFrmTheEdge illustrates the proposed one is a gamble. If large numbers of students don't breach the repayment threshold then the cost will fall on the state.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression that the state isn't exactly flush with cash right now.

It sounds very much like a politicians solution, why I can hear the metallic ting of the can as it bounces down the road even now.

I like ML's conclusion in his latest blog

Please don’t read this as a defence of the new system. My point is that those jumping to the conclusion it isn’t sustainable on the back of the calculator are missing a very big element of the business logic behind this. In fact, the Government’s budget on higher education will be drastically reduced by the changes.
Yet that neither means the system will work well, nor that it’s fair. If nothing else, it shows that the loan book will be huge – and the amount of cash the Government will have to pump out each year will also be huge – and it’ll take much longer to recoup – these alone could mean it may need limit the number of students. However, these are subjects for another day.

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2011/08/26/if-no-one-will-fully-repay-9000-student-tuition-fees-%E2%80%93-how-is-the-system-sustainable/


I think ML is caught between a rock and hard place here. He is busy showing that most students will never repay their loans, which must mean it is a ticking bomb for the tax payer. I don't see how he can have it both ways. This is money the government is borrowing afterall.

Lokolo

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

I think ML is caught between a rock and hard place here. He is busy showing that most students will never repay their loans, which must mean it is a ticking bomb for the tax payer. I don't see how he can have it both ways. This is money the government is borrowing afterall.

Exactly - current 3 systems have been in place:

a) Government pays for everything. (before loans)
b) Government pays partial whilst loans out partial (during loans, pre 2012)
c) Government loans out full in the hope of getting some back (2012+)

Now with a), it's fine if a few people go but as we've seen, more and more go. b) currently the government is still paying for some to get an education whereby they only pay £3k a year. With c), more money will be paid back. Yes loans will be written off but it's better than losing everything right at the beginning.

I'm personally for d), whereby companies sponsor universities to decrease tuition fee costs.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Lokolo wrote: »

Exactly - current 3 systems have been in place:

a) Government pays for everything. (before loans)
b) Government pays partial whilst loans out partial (during loans, pre 2012)
c) Government loans out full in the hope of getting some back (2012+)

Now with a), it's fine if a few people go but as we've seen, more and more go. b) currently the government is still paying for some to get an education whereby they only pay £3k a year. With c), more money will be paid back. Yes loans will be written off but it's better than losing everything right at the beginning.

I'm personally for d), whereby companies sponsor universities to decrease tuition fee costs.

Lokolo, as I wrote on the other thread, I am more than happy for your generation (generation Y) to pick up the tab for this debacle. I'm so pleased that you are happy to do so. Thank You.

I also think it's great that the UK has cleaners educated in the classics because at least they know the word domestos has a latin root.

Masomnia

Lokolo wrote: »

I'm personally for d), whereby companies sponsor universities to decrease tuition fee costs.

This is what happens in America, and they only reason it does is because companies get tax breaks for doing so. So whether it's companies or the government paying for education, it's the tax payer that ultimately foots the bill.