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

dtsazza

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 don't think it's fair to call it can-kicking. In this case the government is paying out the amounts up-front and hoping to get them back over several years. (In fact, this makes the short-term situation worse but the long-term situation better.)

And given that the cost currently falls on the state for anything above the existing student fees, it seems like it would be very unlikely that the state would be worse off here. If I understand things correctly, the only cases that the new system costs the state more than the old, is

1. someone earns between £15,000 and £21,000 consistently - they would have paid something back under the old system but don't pay anything under the new one;
2. plus a small boundary above the £21,000 threshold whereby the amount paid back is less than the total liabilities of the old system. (Breakeven point is roughly at £23,000 p.a. forever; whereby you'd pay back £180/year, so over 50 years would cover the old system total of ~£9,000. Although someone having a flat salary forever isn't a very realistic situation.)

It is worth thinking about the fundamentals of what's happening here. Previously (a couple of decades ago) the government footed the entire bill for university education. Then more recently the graduates were made liable for a portion of the bill, to be paid back as a sort of tax. This clearly decreased the cost to the Treasury.

Now we're making students liable for a greater portion of the bill, though decreasing the absolute rate at which they pay it back. The question is then simply whether the increase in threshold is balanced by the greater liabilities, meaning that future graduates will be paying in for longer.

And that can't properly be answered without fairly accurate projections of the expected yearly earnings of graduates throughout their working careers (and thus a comparison of their total repayment amounts). Anything else would just be a matter of "I reckon" and "surely it must...".

gadgetmind

dtsazza wrote: »

This clearly decreased the cost to the Treasury.

Only if student numbers remained the same, which they haven't as someone somewhere seems to have decided that quantity is key and quality not important.

dtsazza

gadgetmind wrote: »

Only if student numbers remained the same, which they haven't as someone somewhere seems to have decided that quantity is key and quality not important.

I should have clarified - it represents decreased marginal cost to the Treasury (compared to the previous scheme, in the same situation).

If more people go to university, and the government pays any part of student costs, then of course the absolute costs will go up (all else being equal). Which in my opinion is further support for increasing the proportion of these costs that notionally fall on the students' own shoulders; it's only really fair if the government can potentially finance everyone going to university.

And since the government's money ultimately comes from taxpayers, it's a question of whether all taxpayers in aggregate should pay for an individual's tuition, or whether that individual should pay for their own tuition through their "graduate tax". The latter seems much fairer, as well as more sustainable.

olly300

gadgetmind wrote: »

What blows me away if how little of the English language seems to be taught in English lessons in the UK. Basics such as parsing sentences and the rules of punctuation seem to be skipped in favour of more esoteric and "creative" activities.

From what I've seen until recently the "creative" activities were boring beyond belief thanks mainly to SATs.

If you are around in about 15 years time a set of young adults will come through who have been taught English grammar, how to spell correctly without the use of a spell checker and with the ability to do mental arithmetic.

Though they will probably hate anything taught to do with computers if ICT lessons continue as they are now.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

gadgetmind wrote: »

What blows me away if how little of the English language seems to be taught in English lessons in the UK. Basics such as parsing sentences and the rules of punctuation seem to be skipped in favour of more esoteric and "creative" activities.

You obviously haven't been anywhere near a school for a very long time

setmefree2

Pennywise wrote: »

I speak from experience. A while ago, I engaged an accountancy graduate on a relatively decent salary and naively expected them to be able to prepare a set of accounts. How wrong could I have been. I ended up having to send them on a local college course for basic book-keeping before they were any good to me. I'm the first to put my hand up for accepting blame - I should have checked what an accountancy degree covered and made a fundamental mistake by assuming it covered preparing a set of accounts!

There is a massive difference between preparing a set of accounts in a theortetical setting (ie an exam) and actually doing it in real life. An accountancy graduate needs to be trained in these skills (but they'll learn fast as they have the right knowedge base.) This is why accountancy graduates undergo training and aren't considerd to be qualified to do anything on graduation.

But I guess you know that now.

gadgetmind

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

You obviously haven't been anywhere near a school for a very long time

No, but my daughter has, and I saw the work she was being set and what she had to revise for CGSE English, in which she got an A.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

gadgetmind wrote: »

No, but my daughter has, and I saw the work she was being set and what she had to revise for CGSE English, in which she got an A.

Well is she'd practiced her grammar and punctuation a bit more she might have got an A*.:p

StevieJ

Pennywise wrote: »

I speak from experience. A while ago, I engaged an accountancy graduate on a relatively decent salary and naively expected them to be able to prepare a set of accounts. How wrong could I have been. I ended up having to send them on a local college course for basic book-keeping before they were any good to me. I'm the first to put my hand up for accepting blame - I should have checked what an accountancy degree covered and made a fundamental mistake by assuming it covered preparing a set of accounts!

I can imagine now, I bet you got your pencil out, licked the end and started to construct T acccounts to show them how it is done



Funnily enough I remember a chap from years ago, he was an Oxford Grad and ACMA qualified and he quite boldy stated that he didn't think he would be capable of doing any book keeping, he said he wouldn't know where to start

gadgetmind

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

Well is she'd practiced her grammar and punctuation a bit more she might have got an A*.:p

She got seven A*s and three As, so I don't think she did too bad overall. She's always been better at science and maths than the softer subjects.