MSE News: Confusion reigns as student fees fear takes hold

Lokolo

lynzpower wrote: »

What the most obvious thing to do was to basically tell universities they cant accept those with lower A levels, after all part of the alleged problem is that a degree is not exclusive enough. It wouldn't need to be increasing number.

If you had to get minimum 3bs, or hell 3As to get into Uni -anywhere- then

a) less people would go= making degrees more exclusive and a real 'mark' of intelligence of the academic elite.
b) more people would be working (cos they are not in uni) so there would be more tax take.
c) Some universities would have to close down ( the crap ones)
d) the strong departments in weak unis could be merged with stronger unis or a cobbling together of the strengths from all over

There are all sorts of permutations,but ramping up the interest, increasing the amount borrowed and extending the period grads dont pay it back : with no discernible difference in the product is not a gift.


I dont know why Martin is so for it= makes pretty !!!! financial sense to me. :eek::eek::eek:

I also dont know why everyone is so fixated on 21grand as if its megamoney!! It so isnt :rotfl::rotfl: I hope we are all aspiring to earn more than a 3GCSE receptionist as thats what they get paid around here.

Cant he do an article on where we can go to get a degree thats a lot cheaper than this crock of... ?

gadgetmind wrote: »

Yes, you're right, and I'm not laughing. Our rush to the mediocre regards higher education has given everyone a degree but no-one with anything of value. Employers don't trust degrees and have to have their own tests and training programmes, so what are universities bringing to the party?

I have recently encountered some *very* bright work experience students (age 16/17, send good letters to get work experience while at school we turn down 95%, but the other 5% ...). I am tempted to float the idea of an apprentice programme to run alongside our graduate programme.

I don't have a problem with this, and would fully support it, if that was whats happening. But its not. Nowadays everyone has to have what they want (as we live in a fair world where no-one loses out, the losers get a medal etc.), which means everyone has to have the ability to go to university.

The solution that has been decided is that everyone should pay and effectively pay back a graduate tax for 30 years. This big old debate isn't on the quality of university education (of which I have seen some shocking stuff from even my own university), but the fact everyone is looking at the headline debt thinking omg its loads holy sh** etc. and frankly its depressing to think people see the headline debt and crap their pants. By all means, I was a student, I know that people do not read nor understand student loans! I had numerous friends tell me they didn't even know that student loans had interest!

If either of you want to run for PM and reform university education so it is for the best and brightest then I would vote for you, but thats not what this discussion is about and the 2 are mostly unrelated.

lynzpower

I don't have a problem with this, and would fully support it, if that was whats happening. But its not. Nowadays everyone has to have what they want (as we live in a fair world where no-one loses out, the losers get a medal etc.), which means everyone has to have the ability to go to university.

ability or right?

What I dont get is that the person that gets AAB pays the same as someone that gets DDE, yet could be doing the same course at different universities.

The solution that has been decided is that everyone should pay and effectively pay back a graduate tax for 30 years. This big old debate isn't on the quality of university education (of which I have seen some shocking stuff from even my own university), but the fact everyone is looking at the headline debt thinking omg its loads holy sh** etc. and frankly its depressing to think people see the headline debt and crap their pants. By all means, I was a student, I know that people do not read nor understand student loans! I had numerous friends tell me they didn't even know that student loans had interest!

I would much rather my freinds didnt go: or took time out working to save up to go to uni than be placated with niceties like its not that bad or you dont understand.

and yes, I have seen some serious quality issues as well.

gadgetmind

lynzpower wrote: »

a) less people would go= making degrees more exclusive and a real 'mark' of intelligence of the academic elite.

I'm conflicted. I want more good grads, but we *must* *not* lower standards. If we want more grads, we must improve education at every level so we're feeding in more people with good GCSEs and A-levels. Don't lower standards, raise quality!

b) more people would be working (cos they are not in uni) so there would be more tax take.

For many, on-the-job training beats a degree, and it's better for employers.

c) Some universities would have to close down ( the crap ones)

My wife worked at a poly turned uni. They joked that they'd take Nuns (two Ns and a U) and later on any student that passed the mirror test; if your breath fogs a mirror, then you're in.

Madness. Utter madness. It doesn't help universities, students, or employees, so why are we doing it? Or A-levels and degrees used to respected. No more.

Lokolo

lynzpower wrote: »

ability or right?

What I dont get is that the person that gets AAB pays the same as someone that gets DDE, yet could be doing the same course at different universities.

Right sorry yes!

lynzpower wrote: »

I would much rather my freinds didnt go: or took time out working to save up to go to uni than be placated with niceties like its not that bad or you dont understand.

and yes, I have seen some serious quality issues as well.

To be fair though, the repayment terms aren't that bad. I do not understand why people weren't willing to pay X amount above £15k before but now aren't willing to pay Y amount above £21k. The thing thats changed about it you may be paying for longer.

The one thing that annoys me, is that those earning a LOT more, won't be paying fully for 30 years as they will pay off the loan, meaning those in the middle (I say middle, its still quite high salaries!) end up paying more than those who earn more than them, which I see as unfair.

lynzpower

I totally agree with you gadgetmind I really do.

I'm conflicted. I want more good grads, but we *must* *not* lower standards. If we want more grads, we must improve education at every level so we're feeding in more people with good GCSEs and A-levels. Don't lower standards, raise quality!

I dont think they are mutually exclusive. Clearly if 70% of the population gets As at a level, and want to go to uni then unis will have to expand then.

However the expectation that you can go to uni, and get into debt ( and the resultant impact on living standards and cash to spend that impacts the whole economy) with 2 ns and a U is ridiculous.

gadgetmind

Lokolo wrote: »

The one thing that annoys me, is that those earning a LOT more, won't be paying fully for 30 years as they will pay off the loan

My modelling shows that it's a right sodding seriously butt load more. What numbers does your model use?

Lokolo

gadgetmind wrote: »

My modelling shows that it's a right sodding seriously butt load more. What numbers does your model use?

Whats a butt load more?

The_One_Who

Sigh. Yet another thread filled with the same old arguments going around and around in circles. What it ultimately comes down is that some people feel that university education should be free, and some don't. There isn't going to be a middle ground in there.

It doesn't help with the media sensationalising it all the time.

lynzpower

To be fair though, the repayment terms aren't that bad. I do not understand why people weren't willing to pay X amount above £15k before but now aren't willing to pay Y amount above £21k. The thing thats changed about it you may be paying for longer.

The one thing that annoys me, is that those earning a LOT more, won't be paying fully for 30 years as they will pay off the loan, meaning those in the middle (I say middle, its still quite high salaries!) end up paying more than those who earn more than them, which I see as unfair.

May be paying it for longer? (

You take out 48k for 3 years. You get a 2:1. You are pleased and so are your parents

But when you graduate, you are dirt poor, there is no money left to borrow and you are broke.

You move home to your parents house. not a huge selection of jobs round there but you get a admin job for 16k your happy with for now.

You stick at that job for 5 years. You dont really have a lot of money once you paid your board and bought your food and paid your taxes and ran your car and paying off your credit cards and overdrafts that supplemented your living costs.

That 48k you borrowed is now 60733.94

Anyway, you move up to another job with the same employer the 20k bracket and stay there for 10 years. Theres nothing else, but its secure.

You still havent paid it off as you dont have to plus you have a partner and a child now, and really need the cash. You still need to run your car, buy groceries and pay taxes all of which has risen hugely over the last 15 years.

You take a look at your statement on your 10 year anniversary in this job and realise the amount you owe is now £86187.88

You are dreading getting promoted, but you need the money somewhere. Prices are rising and you can barely make ends meet.

You get offered a fantastic job a bit further away, exactly what your degree is in!! Finally!!! Yours getting somewhere!! you could be earning £26000.00 in your dream role?

But that would mean payback time :eek:

Do you take the job? Or do you stay earning under 21k forever to avoid the £86187.88 pound debt now hanging over your head?

If you dont, What sort of salaries will employers have to pay to coax excellent graduates out of the under 21k group?

Or is this a 'two-brains' way to bring down all our salaries


All calculation is based on 5.3% for the full termm, which seems to be optmistic.)

devildog

The one who-you make some very good points although I personally don't see it as university education should be free.

We all (ultimately) base our thoughts/opinions on our own life experiences/how we have been brought up etc that is ingrained into us. Some will say debt is a necessary evil, others will hate the thought of debt in any way/shape/form-that is regardless whether a scheme is more favourable or not.
Obviously the argument for both sides will continue.
I guess what interests me is
1.) How many prospective students on here think the new system is ok/fair?
2)The people here who state that it is fair/reasonable etc, are they ones that it will not affect at all as in they have already been through/or are currently going through the system or don't have any children that will be going through?
It appears(but could be wrong) that the ones it will affect don't like it, and the ones it will not affect think it is ok.