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

wozearly

flimsier wrote: »

So it's his task force now? I thought it was the governments'. It certainly has the full backing of David Willets and the government. To say it's completely impartial is to ignore who set it up, and their reasons behind setting it up.

Sorry, but I don't understand why Martin needs to government for this. He didn't with PPI, nor does he with energy prices. And he's not being listened to because it's a government task force.

And I know why Martin says he's involved. In fact, I think he's honest in his intentions. But he's now a part of an institution that will influence him, and is nakedly using him as a part of their propaganda war.

Oh, and I've read exactly the pieces you point to.

Last, where have I accused him of being untrustworthy please? Or retract that. Argue with what I write; not what you want to assume I write.

Is ITSFI a government task force? That wasn't my understanding.

I probably shouldn't have referred to it as "his" (ie, Martin's) because its a bit more complex than that, but my perception of the key source of bias in this case would be that a signficant chunk of its membership are from the universities, who have a significant financial interest in students concluding that the finance system isn't a barrier to going to university, correctly or not.

The government is arguably an indirect beneficiary if students reach that conclusion because it may reduce the flak they would otherwise get.

Martin and Wes (Head and Deputy Head), are people with no financial interest in students concluding university is right for them if financially its the wrong answer. Bear in mind that they've both criticised the new system and if they weren't in there, ITSFI would almost certainly run the risk being a universities' propaganda tool.

If Martin can get access to the money that the universities are willing to put into ITSFI to use for promoting clarity and understanding, not just promoting, that's a valuable resource which otherwise wouldn't be available or would be giving a biased message instead.

Or more biased, at any rate. I suppose it depends on what people think of ITSFI's communications so far.


On the trustworthy note, happy to confirm that you never said Martin was untrustworthy - it wasn't you I was referring to. I was commenting on your students saying that they didn't trust him (which I quoted in the post). Using the word "accused" might have been extrapolating too far, but the implication in your post was that for one reason or another the students didn't trust Martin.

If its Martin that they don't trust - that suggests that either they don't trust Martin as a member of ITSFI, or that they don't trust Martin in his MoneySavingExpert role either. Nothing wrong with that, but it begs the question who should have been giving the message instead...

If it isn't Martin personally, then either they don't trust messages on student loan financing from sources that might be connected to source of bias - or they just don't trust anyone at all.

I would normally agree with adopting a cynical view, but with student loans its a nightmare. Schools, universities, the NUS, the government, family members - all of them have a potential reason to give biased information in favour of going to university.

On that note, where do you recommend that your students get information on student finance? Or is it a case of "look at everything, but beware of bias"?

Lokolo

wozearly wrote: »

On that note, where do you recommend that your students get information on student finance? Or is it a case of "look at everything, but beware of bias"?

Thats the problem we have on this forum, it seems to be parents vs. the rest. The parents are constantly against student loans whereas the others try and point out whats not so bad about them (not ideal, and I know meloncholly isn't happy about them but accepts them and has her voice heard, whereas a lot of the others are blank no no no they're exceptionally bad etc.!).

An example of this is setmefree outraged that someone on £30k will have to pay back £810 a year for 30 years, an amount which will effect the earner the slighest amount, and give you the ability of being able to spend 3 years of your life away from home (possibly) and earning yourself a degree.

Now students will listen to their parents and I think this hasn't helped them understand. Parents will see it as a debt, which is always bad in their minds, so the students won't listen to the guides.

When I was looking at university I came on this site for advice, I got it and I learned a hell of a lot and its one of the reasons I now have the job I do. However, I wouldn't have got this same advice (as I wouldn't have come here) if I had listened to my "All debt is bad debt" Mum (no matter how great she is!).

wozearly

Wobblydeb wrote: »

Is this year of entry, or year of application? Are they taken at the same point each year?

p.s. Watch out for increases due to other admissions systems being absorbed into UCAS, such as NMAS.... I think that's what gave rise to the big jump 2008 to 2009.

Because each set of figures referred to the previous year's figure and the percentage changes matched up, I'm reasonably confident that they're talking about the same point and the same basis.

The figures refer to applications rather than entry year. They may well include international students as well.

Its a bit of a minefield when you've only got four years of headline figures...I'd see them as a reference point, not necessarily leading to any conclusions.

wozearly

Lokolo wrote: »

Thats the problem we have on this forum, it seems to be parents vs. the rest. The parents are constantly against student loans whereas the others try and point out whats not so bad about them (not ideal, and I know meloncholly isn't happy about them but accepts them and has her voice heard, whereas a lot of the others are blank no no no they're exceptionally bad etc.!).

I sympathise with why parents are so angry about the change if their son/daughter is aspiring to earn more than average (and its likely that most applicants will).

There's also a lot of psychological scariness with a £50,000 headline debt figures, 30 year repayments, above inflation interest and 9% of salary repayment levels.

And its very difficult to understand how much you might actually repay. Whether the majority of students will be better off, worse off or in about the same position varies depending on who you ask and what assumptions you make. And individuals could do much better or worse than the average suggests.

Its a horribly packaged system, even if it isn't necessarily a horrible system. But for the time being we're stuck with it. So efforts to help explain how it actually works to help avoid the natural knee-jerk reaction to how awful it looks can only be a good thing.

2sides2everystory

wozearly wrote: »

And its very difficult to understand how much you might actually repay...

Not at all. A university trained mind can instantly tell that it is a impossible to provide the solution because none of the required variables are bounded in the slightest. You can play with the imaginary numbers if you like, but that is an exercise for students to fine tune their maths skills on at no cost, not an exercise that will persuade them that they should start trusting the government or even Martin Lewis on this subject.

Its a horribly packaged system, ...

You got that half right. In fact it has no string round it and the barely affixed brown paper is no fig leaf for what lies beneath. Give it a few years and the brown paper will be long gone and anyone that has signed for the even more horrible contents will be well outside the safety of any distance selling regulations.

... efforts to help explain how it actually works to help avoid the natural knee-jerk reaction to how awful it looks can only be a good thing.

Diametrically disagree with that ... efforts to explain how it works are a mis-sell and that is something in which I never imagined this website would involve itself whilst Martin still owned it.

wozearly

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Not at all. A university trained mind can instantly tell that it is a impossible to provide the solution because none of the required variables are bounded in the slightest.

Well on that point, at least, we're in full agreement. :cool:

setmefree2

WestonDave wrote: »

he made it clear that this was a big sum that people may have to pay back (up to £75k including interest), or they may have to pay back nothing. He was reasonably positive about Uni, saying that as a product of the US system he'd left with serious debt but had "risen above it" and that others could do that as well.

Much as I love Alvin Hall if he really did say that then I can only laugh my head off!

Student loans outstanding will exceed $1 trillion this year

The amount of student loans taken out last year crossed the $100 billion mark for the first time and total loans outstanding will exceed $1 trillion for the first time this year. Americans now owe more on student loans than on credit cards, reports the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
"It's going to create a generation of wage slavery," says Nick Pardini, a Villanova University graduate student in finance who has warned on a blog for investors that student loans are the next credit bubble — with borrowers, rather than lenders, as the losers.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/story/2011-10-19/student-loan-debt/50818676/1

Moody's Analytics Warns Student Loans May Be The Next Financial Bubble To Burst

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/moodys-student-loans-bubble-burst_n_922646.html


See also the College Debt Crisis

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40682477/

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article25486.html



Makes me wonder what planet these financial gurus are living on - do you think they ever read a paper?

Thanks WestonDave, you've put it all into perspective for me.:)

anselld

wozearly wrote: »

And its very difficult to understand how much you might actually repay. Whether the majority of students will be better off, worse off or in about the same position varies depending on who you ask and what assumptions you make.

I don't think it is difficult at all. The vast majority of students go to uni with the intent of getting a decent job after and therefore paying off the loan eventually.

It is absolutely clear they are much worse off in the long run.

setmefree2

Lokolo wrote: »

An example of this is setmefree outraged that someone on £30k will have to pay back £810 a year for 30 years, an amount which will effect the earner the slighest amount, and give you the ability of being able to spend 3 years of your life away from home (possibly) and earning yourself a degree.

£810 for 30 years is not nothing. One day you will learn this (but only when you leave the comfort of your Mum's house and start fending for yourself )...... It is £24,300 (and that's only if you never, ever get a pay rise......)

2sides2everystory

setmefree2 wrote: »

Makes me wonder what planet these financial gurus are living on - do you think they ever read a paper?

Thanks WestonDave, you've put it all into perspective for me.:)

Goodness setmefree2, I knew in this Tuition Fees fiasco we were playing with the sorts of numbers that interest the banksters enough for them to soon come sniffing, but I had no idea that it had already reached credit card proportions in the US.

Be assured of one thing - whatever is happening in the US right now with regard to household debt will inevitably be the template for what we get in the UK within the decade - if we let it. The US had the ridiculous burgeoning credit card marketing, they had minus 2% balance transfers, 0% balance transfers, 3% fee 0% balance transfers, withdrawn credit limits and all that stuff years before the same outfits did it again here in the UK.

Where in the economy will all the new UK Student Debt sit? Will it be toxic? Will it be packaged with something else and traded? It's just total bollox, isn't it?