'Don't pay your kids tuition fees upfront' Discussion Area

PaulW1965

atypical wrote: »

The principal purpose of the guide is to help people make informed decisions based on the information available now. Telling people that there is no guarantee doesn't help people make a decision. There might be merit in raising attention to the fact that this clause exists but I don't think the guide is the place for that.

Are you also suggesting that MSE deliberately mislead people?

Oldernotwiser

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Are you also suggesting that MSE deliberately mislead people?

Perhaps they're not the only ones, eh?;)

atypical

PaulW1965 wrote: »

The information available now is that there is a clause in the student loan agreement that means the government can do what they like in the future. If you ignore that little nugget of info how can you say anyone is making an "informed decision". They are making an "uninformed" decision and are possibly being misled.

I don't think the clause information is helpful in terms of making a judgement call on whether or not to take student loans. You obviously think it does - but it appears the majority here disagree.

And the clause allows for changes. It's not possible to assume that these would be detrimental is it?

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Maybe you think this clause is irrelevant but we are all grown ups. We can decide for ourselves whether we think it is pertinent.

There has to be an element of judgement involved in deciding which information is relevant. The guide could include the possibility of quantitative easing leading to hyperinflation and the effect that would have on student loan interest rates. But it's not relevant.

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Are you also suggesting that MSE deliberately mislead people?

We can do without the melodrama can't we? Obviously nobody wants MSE to "deliberately mislead people".

In any case, you missed this sentence: "There might be merit in raising attention to the fact that this clause exists but I don't think the guide is the place for that."

amiehall

PaulW1965 wrote: »

No

Another thing . ML is the head of a task force which has the mission to explain all things 2012 student loany LINK . Maybe he can explain to us why this clause is in the SL agreement. To me it's very existence suggests that a future government may well change the T & Cs of the loans.... if they are not going to change the T & Cs why does the clause even exist?

They definitely can!! I could wake up tomorrow and find a letter from my bank recalling my overdraft, doubling my credit card rate, increasing minimum payments etc etc etc.

arsenalbarnie

amiehall wrote: »

They definitely can!! I could wake up tomorrow and find a letter from my bank recalling my overdraft, doubling my credit card rate, increasing minimum payments etc etc etc.

Then you can close your account, move your bank account elsewhere. What choice has the govt left with student loans, now it's going to cost so much. Unless you are a lottery winner or an offspring of a well off family, if you want a university education your only choice seems to be borrowing off the government.

Lots of you will shout at me, but you may never have to pay it back! And here the argument starts again. Who knows what mess there will be in 10 years or so down the line. Hobsons choice, put up or shut up, failing that hope for the best.:(

kayr_2

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Sounds to be like you are suggesting that MSE should deliberately mislead people to prevent them getting scared?

Frankly, I'm shocked. I honestly had no idea MSE was like this.

Well I guess I should go find information elsewhere.

No, but I don't think this clause (which does really annoy me!) is as big a deal as you do. I don't trust this government nor any in the future not to do something bad with SLs but I also think the risk of that happening to a large extent is incredibly small. And if it does, as I said earlier, it will probably mean we will be in the midst of even worse economic conditions than now so will be doomed anyway. I am not a big fan of ML in general but I think this guide is trying to make the (sensible) point that for many students it will be worth taking the loans (even with the scandalously high rate of interest) as they are not operated like traditional debt and it is true that many will not have to pay them back. It is possible we will pay the fees up front for our son in 2013, depending on circumstances, but I accept most people are not in our situation or their child may not be likely to have a high earning career so it wouldn't be sensible for many not to take the loan.
So broadly I think ML is right not to make a big deal out of something which is not at all likely to have a significant effect. If he talked about this clause in this particular guide it would make it seem a lot more important than it really is. A lot of people find the student loan concept more worrying than they need to and that is understandable as the issues are very complicated once you get into them. I feel he has tried to give a fairly balanced view in this article given that his audience covers a very wide range of people.
All we can do as parents is try to work out how we can best help and advise our children. It's difficult and yes, I wish we still had free university education but we don't, so have to make the best of what there is. I feel angry about the situation at times, but that doesn't help anyone. Life is full of tough decisions.

I think possible repayment penalties are a much more significant issue than this clause.

arsenalbarnie

kayr wrote: »

I think possible repayment penalties are a much more significant issue than this clause.

So do I if they impose those aswell I may be suggesting our family might like to upsticks to the Netherlands or similar for the next ten years(what with three of them still to go thru higher education) and try the Dutch way of life. I'm glad mine don't have to make up their minds this/next year.

Oldernotwiser

amiehall wrote: »

They definitely can!! I could wake up tomorrow and find a letter from my bank recalling my overdraft, doubling my credit card rate, increasing minimum payments etc etc etc.

I quite agree. Hardly surprising I didn't get a reply to my earlier post on the subject!

"I'm sure you know more about finance than I do but, if you're right, how can this be true?

http://www.moneyweek.com/personal-fi...ir-terms-43431"

arsenalbarnie

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I quite agree. Hardly surprising I didn't get a reply to my earlier post on the subject!

"I'm sure you know more about finance than I do but, if you're right, how can this be true?

http://www.moneyweek.com/personal-fi...ir-terms-43431"

As stated you could then take your custom elsewhere after you have paid off your overdraft!

LauraW10

atypical wrote: »

The principal purpose of the guide is to help people make informed decisions based on the information available now. Telling people that there is no guarantee doesn't help people make a decision. There might be merit in raising attention to the fact that this clause exists but I don't think the guide is the place for that.

Trouble is, once you start deliberately missing stuff out of the guide, it makes you wonder what else is missing. Once you start showing a bias towards presenting information to achieve a particular end, it makes you think the whole guide is biased in that way. How useful is the guide if it doesn't have all the facts ? It starts to look less lke a guide and more like government propaganda. (I'm not saying it is government propaganda, just making a point)