MSE News: 'We need war against student fee confusion'

Lokolo

setmefree2 wrote: »

I could go on but I will stop (you'll be glad to hear). I really, really don't understand MSEs position on SLs. How anyone can support this pile of junk is beyond me.

Hmm I wouldn't say having a guide on student finance is supporting it.

I suppose you want Martin Lewis to camp outside number 10 in protest of it?

Lokolo

MacMickster wrote: »

Worst effected by this will be those who earn only £20K to £30K per annum. 20% tax, 12% NIC, and now 9% graduate tax. A 41% effective tax rate on relatively low wages at a time when they are trying to start a family, save for a house deposit etc.

Arts degrees are going to be the preserve of the wealthy only. I think that as the implications of student finance become apparent, more youngsters will decide against a university education.

That's making it sound like on £20k you will only take home £12k..... someone on £30k will take home will be £21,952, which is an effective tax rate of 26%.....

(£30k would have a student loan repayment of £810 a year, £68 a month.... if that is really affecting saving for a house deposit or family that greatly, then I think a reality check is needed)

setmefree2

Lokolo wrote: »

Hmm I wouldn't say having a guide on student finance is supporting it.

I suppose you want Martin Lewis to camp outside number 10 in protest of it?

Did you read the same thing I did?

'We need war against student fee confusion'

Lokolo

setmefree2 wrote: »

Did you read the same thing I did?

Yes, it's a guide explaining it. It's neither supporting it, nor against it, its a GUIDE EXPLAINING IT.

It's not an article saying "Student loans are great" or "Student loans are crap", its an article "This is what student loans are, this is what people think, this is the reality".

wozearly

Charlton_Taz wrote: »

So by going to university you are essentially opting in to paying 9% additional tax on a chunk of your earnings for most of the rest of your life. Doesn't sound great does it?

Ok...you have the argument that if you don't end up earning lots then you don't pay much back...but why go to university then? You can get a lower paid job without going to university (and can also work an extra 3 years earning money in job you wouldn't have done otherwise by going to university).

That depends. For graduate-level jobs where you require a degree to get into the field (e.g. medicine) and where those jobs pay back more than the national average, it represents a very good deal because you still keep 91% of additional post-tax earnings.

Where it falls down is if a degree is not essential to getting the job, or where there are more graduates chasing jobs than there are jobs available (forensic medicine springs to mind), or where the end role doesn't result in a higher salary. In those cases, the additional salary hit from having a student loan likely puts you in a worse situation to a non-graduate.

Unfortunately these can't be predicted easily in advance by a graduate. In principle the government could attempt to guess demand for graduates in certain disciplines (although bear in mind they'd need to do this thinking decades ahead, not just for 3 years' time) and then limited places accordingly.

That might work if we made a corresponding investment in apprenticeships or other training routes for younger people, but then that cost burden could end up requiring a student loan along the same lines if all we're doing is moving around where money is spent.

The alternative is encouraging more young people to go straight into work after A-Levels. Not the most encouraging political message to give at a time of incredibly high unemployment amongst young people...

WISHIWASRICH_2

Universities see 40% fall in soft subject applications

Applications for 'mass communication and documentation' subjects, such as media studies and PR, have been hit the hardest, falling 40.6 per cent compared to this time last year.

the more traditional university courses such as mathematics, engineering and languages have not fared quite as badly as others. With three months to go before the final deadline, applications for mathematics and computer science are down 2.6 per cent on this time last year, for law, they are down 5.2 per cent and for linguistics and classics, down 1.7 per cent. Applications for history and philosophical studies are down 5.9 per cent and European language and literature down 10.1%.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8846236/Universities-see-40-fall-in-soft-subject-applications.html

wozearly

Charlton_Taz wrote: »

In an ideal world it would be great that everyone who wanted to go to university got to go...but in the real world and considering value to the tax payer we should only educate those who need that education to further their careers and essentially pay more taxes in the future. It doesn't really make sense that we (as in the tax payer) are still (in the 'old' and 'new' system) pay many thousands of pounds to put people through degree courses that were never needed for the job they ended up with. Surely we should be concentrating our investment (and encouraging people of all backgrounds) to complete degrees related to industries that create weath for the country.

I disagree. That would push universities towards becoming glorified training colleges for particular industries - great for the industries who would get their training courses subsidised by the taxpayer, of course.

I absolutely think there is a place for educational routes that gear directly towards a specific industry (university isn't necessarily always the right answer there), and that universities as a whole could consider employment prospects for their students more strongly than they currently do.

However, if you take that too far then you risk strangling future wealth-creators - we simply don't know for sure what industries will be our true wealth-generators in the next 20 years, so having a workforce with a variety of academic / practical backgrounds and the confidence and ability to learn something new is highly valuable, and helps to limit the effects of systemic shocks if the global market wrecks one of our traditional wealth-generators industries like mining, car manufacturing or, erm, banking.

THC_2

I love the advice you give. On the whole it's sound, but I feel your war against the student fee confusion has blinded you to a couple of facts.

The new fees repayment system can be changed by the government in office at anytime. Considering the very long term repayment (tax) system and the changes to say something equally long term eg. pensions or the numerous changes to the student fees over the years prove that not only is it possible, it's very likely.

The other side is the debt. You admit no-one yet knows if this will affect mortgages and loans, yet you put a couple of headlines showing this won't be affected, until you read the small print.

Please add them to your facts about student fees, and remove the less accurate and more ambiguous ones, like 'many will pay less'. It's almost certain most will pay more otherwise the government wouldn't have made the change in the first place.

setmefree2

Lokolo wrote: »

(£30k would have a student loan repayment of £810 a year, £68 a month.... if that is really affecting saving for a house deposit or family that greatly, then I think a reality check is needed)

£810 * 30 (years) = £24,300. That's a lot of money. And that's only if you never get a pay rise for 30 years.....

flimsier

THC wrote: »

It's almost certain most will pay more otherwise the government wouldn't have made the change in the first place.

This is the key thing and I don't understand why ML is ignoring it. Successive governments aren't going to go "oh it's raising less and we've a bigger hole, but carry on".

And the subjective (ie predicting the future, including assuming terms will stay the same) parts of the guide are the parts that means that most people, including students I teach, are very very sceptical of his guide.

And that's why he's failing to get his message across. It's a message that is one step from the government (by virtue of being appointed by them). The provenance of the message is tainted - and that's something every history student is taught to question. ie the message ML is broadcasting is only one side of the story - not THE story as he is claiming it is.