Student Debt on MoneyBox Live BBC4 RUBBISH!!

2sides2everystory

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to talk about inflation in this context as fees have risen, not because of inflation but because students are now directly paying for the cost of their fees, which wasn't the case in the past.

Not 'fair'?? To whom? Ah yes, as so many universities are now directly justifying the worth of their courses at £9,000 a year, it is not fair to suggest that if the cap was raised again then none of them would dream of justifying increasing their fees to match the cap? Is that fair?

I honestly don't understand who you think you are helping when you insist on contradicting perfectly valid concerns of parents at almost every turn on these Student Fees 2012 threads. I am sorry to say it, but so often you come across to me almost as some kind of Pied Piper.

To coin another evocative word from the weekend's news, 'grooming' teenagers for uncertain debt of this magnitude is pretty questionable you know.

Oldernotwiser

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Not 'fair'?? To whom? Ah yes, as so many universities are now directly justifying the worth of their courses at £9,000 a year, it is not fair to suggest that if the cap was raised again then none of them would dream of justifying increasing their fees to match the cap? Is that fair?

I honestly don't understand who you think you are helping when you insist on contradicting perfectly valid concerns of parents at almost every turn on these Student Fees 2012 threads. I am sorry to say it, but so often you come across to me almost as some kind of Pied Piper.

To coin another evocative word from the weekend's news, 'grooming' teenagers for uncertain debt of this magnitude is pretty questionable you know.

It's always cost around the £8/9,000 mark for someone to go to university so it isn't "fair" to suggest that the amount fees have risen is due to inflation.

I'm not contradicting anybody but I am putting forward a different viewpoint from yours.

I can only assume that you feel threatened by the idea that students from families where their parents cannot pay the thousands of fees upfront should be able to go to university and compete with your pampered offspring for graduate jobs. It obviously is still the case that the wealthy look after their own and couldn't care less about anybody else.

You have been asked several times what you see as the alternative for students from normal families but you have been singularly silent on the subject, even decrying what the government is doing to improve financial accessibility to low income groups.

When you start making sensible suggestions that are relevant to most people and not just those with ample funds available to them, perhaps people might begin to take your suggestions seriously. Until then, some of us will keep looking after the interests of those from less privileged backgrounds, even if it does p!ss off the affluent who want to deny opportunities to anyone except their own children.

Lokolo

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Now this shows naivety.

Why do you think that most UCAS applicants are still living with their parents, Lokolo? When one gets to 18 or end of year 13 or some other arbitrary cut-off does one instantaneously become a perfectly functioning autonomous economic unit or does one sometimes still appreciate strong and trustworthy guidance from somewhere close to home?

There are many different things a university student is going to have to do without the decision made by parents;

- Where to live
- What energy, TV, internet supplier to be used
- What modules to pick for their course
- When to go out and when to study

the list goes on. So why can't student finance be a part of this?

I am not saying for parents not to get involved, but to be making the decisions for them? It's a no for me.

I am not quite sure why you think I was being naiive, as in fact, the exact situation I am talking about right now is what happened for me. I got given the money, got given advice when asked for it, then made my own decision.

Mrs_Arcanum

iclaudius wrote: »

Woah - looks like I kinda walked the wrong party a bit late. It's apparent that people are on 'sides' in this forum so I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to change minds. But you all appear to have lots of information so I'd like to at least try to learn something here.

As a father of 2 toddlers, thinking about their uni costs, reasons I won't be planning for my kids to go into student debt:

1. Aren't above-inflation interest rates just a wee bit scary?
Martin tries to sweeten the notion of RPI+3% with the tantalising chance of deflation? When has that happened to RPI? Look at historic RPI records as posted by swanlowpark's website...
This is a bit worrying - RPI has been as high as 25% in the 70s and more recently in the 90s was at 9.3%. Even if it was around 5%, when you tack 8% onto this level it starts to look like the interest rate for a private loan. Even on the student loan website it is hard to ignore the fact their rates were at 4.8% only 4 years ago. No way anyone would benefit with 27k sitting around at 4.8%. Martin's little calculations elsewhere fail to account for this.

2. The system encourages debt-takers to sit back and make the minimum payments. Even ML acknowledges that if you sit on it for the max period of 30 years at these new interest rates those blissful 3 years of study will cost more. Key government argument is 'don't worry how much you borrow - you will probably never have to repay it all. ML sheepishly acknowledges he needs 'more research' about whether people will have less disposable income over the life of their debt. Disposable income? What about pensions? Building wealth?

3. Total hokum about the new system enabling young people to save for a deposit. How many people recall earning less than 21k and being able to save the deposit?

4. Tuition inflation is also a bit scary.
1998 1k tuition introduced
2004 3k cap introduced
2010 9k cap introduced
At this rate fees have TREBLED every 6 years. My first kid get to uni in 14 years. At this rate they would be capped above 75k per annum. Sounds crazy but at best it illustrates a concern that these total amounts will continue to rocket faster than other indices as the government creeps towards the US model.

Point 4. However the rate and method for calculating the pay back has also changed. Students in 2004 have more of a debt issue than new students will have due to the payback system.

Older students have debts of £30k which they have to pay back. New students could have £50k but may never have to pay this back, or only pay an average £5K due to the way it is funded. Only those who go from university into high paying jobs will pay back a significant amount.

Agree over deposits. Then the majority these days will struggle with that regardless of student debt. You would be better off using your savings to put a deposit on a house than into paying tuition fees.

iclaudius_2

You have to see the bigger picture. even at 9k the unis are making a loss per student. govt will Only lower its subsidy in future so my point is that in 14 years it is likely fees will bee
much higher.

It's great low income families will be helped more. But I'm concerned about the bell curve of us in the middle.

devildog

ONW- Sorry to say that your comment re "Can only assume you feel threatened............................." is way below the belt and imho uncalled for.

setmefree2

The_One_Who wrote: »

That goes for everything, not just student loans. Unless you can suggest (and properly pitch) a solution or a better idea then we all need to learn to work within it for our own circumstances.

"our own circumstances" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

None of you cheerleaders have kids!!!!!

setmefree2

The_One_Who wrote: »

As an aside, you also really need to learn how to multi-quote. Double, triple or even more multi-posting is not cool.

Insult number one.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Making a lot of fuss about the fact that you have many thousands of pounds available to you to pay student fees up front for a couple of children may make you feel big but it is miles away from the majority of people who have no such option.

Insult number two.

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

by Rousseau, Jean Jacques.

2sides2everystory

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I can only assume that you feel threatened by the idea that students from families where their parents cannot pay the thousands of fees upfront should be able to go to university and compete with your pampered offspring for graduate jobs. It obviously is still the case that the wealthy look after their own and couldn't care less about anybody else.

You have been asked several times what you see as the alternative for students from normal families but you have been singularly silent on the subject, even decrying what the government is doing to improve financial accessibility to low income groups.

When you start making sensible suggestions that are relevant to most people and not just those with ample funds available to them, perhaps people might begin to take your suggestions seriously. Until then, some of us will keep looking after the interests of those from less privileged backgrounds, even if it does p!ss off the affluent who want to deny opportunities to anyone except their own children.

What on earth are you on about now ONW? I represent no affluent family. In fact, if their pride allows, my kids will be scraping the bottom of the barrel for any grants and bursaries they may be eligible for merely as a counter for the disgusting costs associated with the "scheme" the government has applied for next year's budding undergraduates and those immediately beyond.

And Lokolo, you were never equipped to make decisions of the scale you did about borrowing your way through university. You think you were, because you lived through it but your borrowings were a fraction of what is now proposed and the jobs market has declined by a decade of total uncertainty since you made your decision. And what proportion of your peers haven't survived quite so well? Not just those with whom you shared lecture theatres, but the UK university intake as a whole when you were a freshman? If you come on here and nominate yourself as the norm then I regret to observe that you may also be in Pied Piper country.

setmefree2 wrote: »

"our own circumstances" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

None of you cheerleaders have kids!!!!!

And that may be the most succinct observation on all of these threads. Martin Lewis, Taiko, ONW, melancholly, TOW, Lokolo - where exactly are you in the "I have my own kids to advise on this mess" scale ?

Lokolo

2sides2everystory wrote: »

And that may be the most succinct observation on all of these threads. Martin Lewis, Taiko, ONW, melancholly, TOW, Lokolo - where exactly are you in the "I have my own kids to advise on this mess" scale ?

I plan on having children and I don't plan on not encouraging them going to university because of the fees. That's where I stand.

Another point is that I have recently graudated, so I know how it feels having a student debt, I know how to research and I know what the implications are. You do not.

I am not quite sure why you think you are able to judge when you aren't the one taking on the debt, and yet I am not able to judge because I do not have children?

2sides2everystory wrote: »

And Lokolo, you were never equipped to make decisions of the scale you did about borrowing your way through university. You think you were, because you lived through it but your borrowings were a fraction of what is now proposed and the jobs market has declined by a decade of total uncertainty since you made your decision. And what proportion of your peers haven't survived quite so well? Not just those with whom you shared lecture thratres, but the UK university intake as a whole when you were a freshman? If you come on here and nominate yourself as the norm then you I regret to observe that you may also be in Pied Piper country.

I have only 2 friends who have failed to get a job, both of them because they don't want to move out of the area and want their "perfect" job.

The bit in bold, I wasn't quite sure what this has to do with student loans? Lack of oppurtunities will have an impact on whether or not going to university yes, but has nothing to do with loans.

And you are right, before university I wasn't entirely equipped, which is why I researched..... took advice.... then made my OWN decision.

The amount I borrowed is about half of that advertised (I got the minimum loan, was not entitled to anything more) on this site and others, the amount I have borrowed was very little in the decision making process, the amount I was going to pay back was the key. I am now paying back my student loan and it's having a pretty nil impact on my take home.

Sorry about the edits.