MSE News: Autumn Statement 2015: Hidden hike in student loan repayment a 'disgrace'

dizzie

chanz4 wrote: »

Why should the tax payer pay for someone else's job progressions. A loan should be repaid, or we will all end up paying for the jolly times that students have.

Ouch....what's up, don't you ever have jolly times?

Well, when we have a shortage of nurses in our hospitals because people have decided that they'd prefer not to go to uni to study.....because it means amassing all that debt....and when they've decided that they can earn just as much (maybe more) in a non-degree requiring trade instead....I presume you'll put yourself at the back of the queue when you require healthcare provision mate.

Aren't they insisting that the police have degrees too now? Better put yourself at the back of the queue for assistance when a crime is committed against you too!

But hey ho, look on the bright side. Maybe we won't have healthcare staff, social workers or police in future...you know, those dreadful people who went to have jolly times at university 'cos they wanted to work in jobs they thought would be helpful to society (shame on them). But maybe you'll be okay if you need a plumber.

setmefree2

Please update the now out of date Student Loan Calculator MSE

callum9999

dizzie wrote: »

Ha ha, so it would be 100% fair for the bank to change the terms of your mortgage loan would it? And what will stop them from making more retroactive changes? Hiking interest rates, extending the period of the loan? Freezing the threshold further?

....You do talk a load of old codswallop.

And do you know what? Yes, people may have decided not to study here in the UK. I for one have one son who did just that because he wasn't happy with what was on offer. And that was even before this disgraceful retroactive move that this bunch of con-merchants couldn't bring themselves to state openly in today's Autumn statement!

My very first sentence answers your question - retroactive changes arent good but the change itself is perfectly fair.

Then they'd have been utter morons upon which a university education would have been wasted.

callum9999

dizzie wrote: »

Ouch....what's up, don't you ever have jolly times?

Well, when we have a shortage of nurses in our hospitals because people have decided that they'd prefer not to go to uni to study.....because it means amassing all that debt....and when they've decided that they can earn just as much (maybe more) in a non-degree requiring trade instead....I presume you'll put yourself at the back of the queue when you require healthcare provision mate.

Aren't they insisting that the police have degrees too now? Better put yourself at the back of the queue for assistance when a crime is committed against you too!

But hey ho, look on the bright side. Maybe we won't have healthcare staff, social workers or police in future...you know, those dreadful people who went to have jolly times at university 'cos they wanted to work in jobs they thought would be helpful to society (shame on them). But maybe you'll be okay if you need a plumber.

Your argument is all over the place... Are these people entering these professions for the money as you claim at the beginning, or to be helpful to society as you claim at the end? If it's the latter then nothing will change. If it's the former then presumably they'd be less applicants, but given they're already oversubscribed by 2:1 in nursing I see no reason for the apocalyptic scenario you're describing. The aim of the policy in fact is to train more nurses now it's cheaper for the government.

silvercar

So how many students wouldn't have taken the loan out had they known that the repayments would start to kick in on earnings above £21k rather than earnings above £21k + X%?

They took the loan out because they needed the funding.

Paul_Herring

Herbalus wrote: »

The idea is that having an educated society will help the economy and pay for your pension.

Indeed. We already pay for primary and secondary education. And even then it doesn't seem to provide the necessary life skills for people to interact with the big, wide, world.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295793/One-school-leavers-read-Trendy-teaching-harming-pupils-learning.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/20-primary-school-leavers-illiterate-5197209

Herbalus wrote: »

If university helps somebody get a higher paying job, they will pay large amounts of tax.

That's a very, very big if. There are insufficient numbers of high paying jobs for all these graduates to go to.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026362/Geography-graduate-applied-500-jobs-t-permanent-role.html

A geography graduate has applied for more than 500 jobs - but has not been called for a single interview.

http://www.virgin.com/entrepreneur/why-cant-graduates-get-jobs

Its a strange state of affairs when young people are paying 9,000 to get higher educated, but then coming into a market-place where there are no job opportunities.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/30/graduate-good-degree-minimum-wage-pay

I graduated with a 2:1 in history in 2013. I am now 22 and have become stuck as a waitress. What started out as a short-term solution to paying off my overdraft has now become a seven-month job working irregular hours at minimum pay. I have come to wonder why as a graduate am I not able to get a better job?

That's presuming, of course, that graduates in Underwater Basket Weaving and Breathing for Credit actually could get the graduate a high-paying job, were one available, to begin with.

dizzie

Callum9999

My dear, I don't think that my argument is all over the place at all...it's only that you seem not to have grasped it.

1. People who chose to do degrees in nursing do NOT go to university with the idea of making a load of money out of their careers. Don't know whether you are on this earth or Fuller's earth with that comment. They work unsociable hours for pretty rubbish pay in the grand scheme of things, so there is clearly a different "pull" factor at play here. The fact is that people's decisions are usually determined by a mix of pull and push factors. My question to you is do you think the pull factor will be quite the same if they are keen to help people....but are now going to be debted up to their eyeballs to do so? Altruism usually has its limits. If we have a 2:1 ratio of applications to places in nursing at the present under the current subsidised system, are you REALLY so naive as to think that the removal of that subsidy will not make a difference to application numbers such that the government will have no trouble in filling 10,000 more places. Forget Fuller's earth....I reckon you are living in Cloud Cuckoo land.

2. The fact is that the government had a consultation on this matter which closed not long ago. Isn't the point of a consultation that you consider the respondents' views? So tell me, then in your idea of fairness (which is rather warped in my view), what is the point of spending precious taxpayer's money going through the motions of a consultation when you are then going to ignore the majority (95%) consensus and do as you please anyway?

3. When they were voting on tripling tuition fees and made all these commitments on how the blow would be softened (i.e. by the repayment terms being much more favourable than under the old system (which was pretty much the only card they had to play given that commercial rates of interest are being charged now), do you not think that it is dishonest to go back on the commitment which may have swung the vote in their favour.

4. And talking about that vote. Is it just me who smells a bit of a rat? The government was told repeatedly, and also audibly in the House of Commons that the maths just didn't add up. Why were they going to triple tuition fees when they were being told that the terms they were offering meant no overall gain to the taxpayer? Why did this warning seem to go unanswered at the time. Could it be that they had the intention of breaking their commitment right at the very outset, but persisted in making false promises for the sake of keeping university applications to a maximum?

5. I've already answered your question about whether loan conditions make a difference to a young person's life decisions. The answer - in short is "Yes, it can". Europe offers many opportunities to get a quality Higher Education experience at a vastly reduced cost (the UK is not the Be all and End All!).

You see in MY version of a fair society, people who are getting into debt should know precisely what the terms of their loans are at the outset. No other organisation, company or individual can change the terms of a financial agreement at a later date. We clearly have different ideas of what is fair.

callum9999

dizzie wrote: »

Callum9999

My dear, I don't think that my argument is all over the place at all...it's only that you seem not to have grasped it.

1. People who chose to do degrees in nursing do NOT go to university with the idea of making a load of money out of their careers. Don't know whether you are on this earth or Fuller's earth with that comment. They work unsociable hours for pretty rubbish pay in the grand scheme of things, so there is clearly a different "pull" factor at play here. The fact is that people's decisions are usually determined by a mix of pull and push factors. My question to you is do you think the pull factor will be quite the same if they are keen to help people....but are now going to be debted up to their eyeballs to do so? Altruism usually has its limits. If we have a 2:1 ratio of applications to places in nursing at the present under the current subsidised system, are you REALLY so naive as to think that the removal of that subsidy will not make a difference to application numbers such that the government will have no trouble in filling 10,000 more places. Forget Fuller's earth....I reckon you are living in Cloud Cuckoo land.

2. The fact is that the government had a consultation on this matter which closed not long ago. Isn't the point of a consultation that you consider the respondents' views? So tell me, then in your idea of fairness (which is rather warped in my view), what is the point of spending precious taxpayer's money going through the motions of a consultation when you are then going to ignore the majority (95%) consensus and do as you please anyway?

3. When they were voting on tripling tuition fees and made all these commitments on how the blow would be softened (i.e. by the repayment terms being much more favourable than under the old system (which was pretty much the only card they had to play given that commercial rates of interest are being charged now), do you not think that it is dishonest to go back on the commitment which may have swung the vote in their favour.

4. And talking about that vote. Is it just me who smells a bit of a rat? The government was told repeatedly, and also audibly in the House of Commons that the maths just didn't add up. Why were they going to triple tuition fees when they were being told that the terms they were offering meant no overall gain to the taxpayer? Why did this warning seem to go unanswered at the time. Could it be that they had the intention of breaking their commitment right at the very outset, but persisted in making false promises for the sake of keeping university applications to a maximum?

5. I've already answered your question about whether loan conditions make a difference to a young person's life decisions. The answer - in short is "Yes, it can". Europe offers many opportunities to get a quality Higher Education experience at a vastly reduced cost (the UK is not the Be all and End All!).

You see in MY version of a fair society, people who are getting into debt should know precisely what the terms of their loans are at the outset. No other organisation, company or individual can change the terms of a financial agreement at a later date. We clearly have different ideas of what is fair.

1. I didn't say they did it for money - I was asking if you were saying that as it's what you implied. I don't believe it will have no affect, I think it will have LESS of an affect that you're claiming it will do. Just like all the people banging on about tuition fees stopping people going to university despite record enrolments...

2. Presumably they're obliged by law to consult. Though I suggest you look up the definition of the word - consultation is precisely that. There's no obligation to actually enact what the people consulted want to happen. They give opinions and you decide whether they're valid arguments or not. Though for the THIRD time now, I described the rules as fair, not the way they were enacted (i.e. retrospectively).

3. If such a commitment was made then yes. Though it is still more generous so that's not been broken. Not that I accept it influenced the vote.

4. Why would they want to keep applications at a maximum if they are losing money on each student but want to make money/be neutral? I guess we'll have to wait and see whether their plan is to keep ramping up the repayments.

5. You answered a question I didn't ask. I said would THESE changes stop you going. I'm well aware the UK isn't the be all and end all, which is why I'm moving abroad and the UK will receive no benefit from the roughly £25k given to me from taxpayer's such as yourself (not including the thousands given to the university on my behalf in teaching grants etc). The principle reason why I think the fairest option is for adults to pay for their own education.

Maybe we do have different definitions of fair. Or maybe one of us is incapable of reading simple English and is repeatedly misrepresenting what the other one calls fair?

dizzie

callum9999 wrote: »

1. I didn't say they did it for money - I was asking if you were saying that as it's what you implied.

No - I did not imply that

callum9999 wrote: »

2. Presumably they're obliged by law to consult. Though I suggest you look up the definition of the word - consultation is precisely that. There's no obligation to actually enact what the people consulted want to happen. They give opinions and you decide whether they're valid arguments or not. Though for the THIRD time now, I described the rules as fair, not the way they were enacted (i.e. retrospectively).

So the law is there just to encourage people to go through the motions is it? What about democracy? Shouldn't a 95% opinion against count for something in your idea of fairness?

callum9999 wrote: »

3. If such a commitment was made then yes. Though it is still more generous so that's not been broken. Not that I accept it influenced the vote.

Just how closely did you follow this fiasco at the time Callum? I followed it very closely. Yes, they did make this commitment and furthermore, they drove home the more favourable repayment conditions as a selling point. They were terrified that the threefold hike in tuition fees would cause a huge drop in student numbers, so this WAS their ONLY selling point. They approached and recruited people to spread the message that despite the fee hikes, graduates would be so much better off under this new system. People like Martin Lewis were DIRECTLY approached by the government and asked to spread this message (I bet he feels somewhat exploited now!). And of course it was a vote swinger!

callum9999 wrote: »

4. Why would they want to keep applications at a maximum if they are losing money on each student but want to make money/be neutral? I guess we'll have to wait and see whether their plan is to keep ramping up the repayments.

They wanted to keep student numbers up because if a trebling of the tuition fees had caused a huge collapse in student numbers, the government would have been embarrassed. You see they DO want more people in HE (although they'd rather someone else paid for it) - it's all part of the ego trip that countries compete with each other to be the biggest and the best...and competing to produce bigger numbers of more highly educated people is no different. Besides, what would the result of collapsing student numbers have been? British universities in crisis...some having to close.....lecturers losing their jobs....and a whole load of young people with nothing else to do on their hands. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to answer that one really. But as far as them WANTING it to be cost neutral and not to be of any benefit to the taxpayer, I don't think that was their intention at all. In hindsight, I think the reason that they ignored the warnings that it WOULD be cost neutral is because they knew that they could give backword at a later date. I am accusing the government of deliberately tricking people (by making false commitments) at the time the new framework for increased student loans came in.

callum9999 wrote: »

5. You answered a question I didn't ask. I said would THESE changes stop you going.

You asked "Would your son have refused to go to university if he knew this then?"

The question you should have asked is whether a person would have refused to go to university in the UK if he knew this then (since these rules only apply to people choosing to study in the UK). And my answer is YES, I believe more people would have considered other options. My eldest son said he'd have gone to university in the UK if the tuition loans were set at £3,000 but not at £9,000....so he went off to study his Batchelors at a top university in the Netherlands for an annual tuition fee of around £1500 instead. Don't presume that loan terms and conditions don't matter for everyone. They jolly well do!

callum9999 wrote: »

Maybe we do have different definitions of fair.

Yes, this is the only statement I'd agree with you on!

dizzie

Food for thought:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/25/university-students-in-england-are-now-paying-the-highest-tuition-fees-in-the-world_n_8645308.html