We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Are degrees in the UK value for money?
Comments
-
Im not sure how to answer it but I do know FTB numbers can and do vary, for instance FTB numbers for year to date July 2017 were 356k while FTB numbers year to date for July 2015 were 303k so that is a swing of 53k in FTB.
What is more interesting is that HPI was higher in the year to July 2015 than it was in the year to July 2017 so despite the growth in FTB numbers house price inflation didnt go up but went down
Your FTB's are very unlikely to be 18 year olds:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4693296/First-time-buyers-older-need-bigger-deposits.htmlI would just go back to what I said before, overall housing demand is what is important so the important metric is if the kids opt to live less dense than they otherwise would have done and I think that is unlikely.
So you still think that 5 18 year olds would choose to all go 5ths on a house together? And if this is the case, how do you think this best protects taxpayers money? What if that house falls by 10% in the next 5 years? Instead of 1 person loosing, 3k, 5 people lose it. And you still reckon it's a great idea for very young people to all be pushed into having a house together!?There is also another benefit, most likely the kids would buy local to where they grew up so demand would be more spread out. Whereas when they go off to university they exert pressure on often concentrated areas like inner London has lots of big universities so they add to rental demand in central and inner London.
Right, so aged 18 I would have brought a house and then immediately gone 200 miles north to university!? So then your answer to getting good value for money is letting 18 year old northern lad buy a house, then go to London to uni to rent a room in a bedsit, and then do what with his house up north?It is closer to £9 billion and that isn't a loss its a transfer
Apparently so according to numbers you made up in your head...There choices no not limited because of this idea, they would have FAR MORE Choice because of this. If they want to travail how does this limit them? If they want to move to London how does this limit them?
Erm, because they have brought a house somewhere!? So they owe £500 a month on a mortgage somewhere and that isn't an issue according to you? It's fine, just rent it out of course comes the cry. Yup, get the bank to change your mortgage to a buy to let one which is dead in the water secondary to S24 etc. They have their money in shares and the FTSE plummets in the coming years. How much does the taxpayer lose? What are they going to do with their house when they move to London or go travelling?I cant remember were you the mean mode median toad? that took half a day to get your head around that or am I thinking of one of your pals?
If it makes you feel better I can be. I can't be bothered explaining why you have the wrong end of the stick on that one again.Yes im sure there will be considerations I havent thought through, but nothing you have highlighted is a big issue
That is the understatement of the century.How is that different from a couple who buy a house age 30 together?
How is that different from people who get divorced or never got married and just walk out on each other? !!!! can happen but I trust that most people are decent unlike you who seems to think especially the poor are too stupid to manage their own money and properties that they need the state (and people like you) to manage their lives for them
Because they are 18!!!!!!! You are hardly someone to lecture about looking down on the poor given your posting record on here. You posted quite vigorously not long ago about the horror of giving poor people a flat in new build developments. Now you want to do exactly that. The hilarious thing here is that you are saying that I think that we should dictate how people spend their money, but here you are saying that people should have three choices for their 30k - property, university or shares. At age 30, you could assume some stability in people's life. You want to give 18 year olds 30 grand and get them to buy a property together and think that nothing could possibly go wrong. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.Yes that would be your wet dream only its not likely if they get £30k each that is a 50% deposit on a £120k house. There isnt going to be a 50% house price crash. If the couple so wanted to do so they could pay off their mortgage completely in 7 years so by the time they are 25 they would be mortgage free. That would cost them just £767 a month in mortgage repayments for 7 years and then they own a house outright. If your couple was on minimum wage they would have a take home of £2314 which means their 7 year repayment mortgage is only 1/3rd of their take home pay which means it would be VERY EASY TO SERVICE.
So now our 18 year olds have to be a couple, earning more than minimum wage, no children of course, no going out, no, oh hang on, we have been her before haven't we. If we exclude A,B,C,D.....X,Y,Z then look everything is easy.For the majority Its a lot less risky than spending £60-80k on university plus £60-80k lost income while at university
Quick, buy houses, they only ever go up. Nobody could ever be in negative equity. Was your favourite phrase confirmation bias?We would not be subsiding housing, the kids can use it for an education or a pension or a house. Do you think when we give pensioners pensioner credits that we are subsiding bingo halls and cat food manufacturers and M&S?
You're not giving pensioners 30 grand! It is probably reasonable to assume a fair bit of pension goes on things old people like. This is a far cry from a one off windfall. If one person takes your 30 grand, then you are subsidising housing. It's a simple concept. You won't get it of course. Heaven forbid we just let housing set it's own level. No, we need help to buy, first time buyer ISA's, BOMAD and now Great Ape's pump 30k a child into it scheme.This would be fairer on them
No idea what you are on about.About half go to university and that number might increase if things stay as they are.
And yes all the kids would get this £30k
Its not a loss, we are not sending them on holiday. If they keep it as a pension then they will be rich when they retire which means less need to pay pensioners benefits. If they buy a house they will benefit financially from perhaps 10-20 years of saved rent plus buying a house 10-20 years ago at cheaper prices. If they go to university its then upto them.
You are so simple I think I'd try to water you if we ever met. Life is easy in your world. Buy house, profit.
Your original beef in all this was that we were wasting 60 grand or whatever on university fees. Now you want to solve this by giving, by your own admission, half the population 30 grand who weren't even going to go to uni. How is this a saving for the taxpayer then? How are you saving us all a fortune? Because 800,000 18 years olds a year can win the property lottery and return a fortune later in life.
You're insane.
Property is cheap everywhere, pots of gold, shag old grannies for a share of their wealth, demand a statement of affairs off your first date's parents. I'm yet again back to where I was whenever the last time I engaged with you - just bewildered that people like you actually exist. I'm out. Make sure you post up your usual I've won reply and then Economic will be along shortly to add something equally worthless.
/Thread.0 -
You sound like an emotional bitter headless chicken
Cut the higher education budget to £10 billion and then you have enough to give every 18 year old £30k no need to increase taxes or increase borrowing.
Let them use it on a house or a pension or an education.
Your concern about the stock market crash or house price crashes isn't any of your business the kids get the money its upto them how they invest it. If the choice was there I suspect only 15% of the population would go to university and the 15% that went would be the ones doing the proper worthwhile useful courses. The other 85% would opt for the pension or becoming homeowners sooner.
If the kids get married, if they split up, if they decide to buy in Scotland instead if Wales, if they decide to take a gap year, if they decide to join the circus. None of it is your business
The only questions you need to consider is if its affordable and is it a net good. I think the answer is yes and double yes. You've not countered it, all you've done is run around in headless chicken hpc mode telling me its stupid because house prices are going to crash 50% by Christmas your pals at hpc fourm guarantee it.
Oh did I mention you sound very bitter? Why?
Try not to spend so much time over there its not good for your health0 -
And stop lying about what I've said or not said its extremely childish
Are you so heated that when you read and reply your mind is literally making !!!! up to argue against0 -
We need to get a grip on this issue. The purpose of going to university is not to go to university. Those who go should only do so if it makes financial sense (they get a better job) or they think it is worthwhile for another reason (in which case they get the debt that goes with it).
The state should only be funding students doing a degree if they are likely to qualify in a subject that is useful for the nation. The numbers subsidised to get a degree should be set by the national need for that skill, whether that is 10% or 20% I do not know. But businesses manage their need for degree qualified people as part of their wider planning, surely the UK can manage university places to match that requirement?
Too many people study obscure subjects for which there is either no demand, no need for a degree or for which employers could recruit and train the people they need.
40% going to university devalues the value of a degree, subsidises employers and puts students into unnecessary debt.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
We need to get a grip on this issue. The purpose of going to university is not to go to university. Those who go should only do so if it makes financial sense (they get a better job) or they think it is worthwhile for another reason (in which case they get the debt that goes with it).
The state should only be funding students doing a degree if they are likely to qualify in a subject that is useful for the nation. The numbers subsidised to get a degree should be set by the national need for that skill, whether that is 10% or 20% I do not know. But businesses manage their need for degree qualified people as part of their wider planning, surely the UK can manage university places to match that requirement?
Too many people study obscure subjects for which there is either no demand, no need for a degree or for which employers could recruit and train the people they need.
40% going to university devalues the value of a degree, subsidises employers and puts students into unnecessary debt.
People don't value money that they didn't work for
All students should have to pay their tuition upfront.
But since the country can't/won't just stop funding universities the next best thing to do is give the kids money but give them choice on how to spend that money.
If you say to the kids OK we will give you £30k to go to university or £0k not to go then its not surprising that too many of them opt for the £30k instead of the £0k. Give them £30k up front and let them buy an education or a house or a pension and with choice only 10-15% would opt for the university IMO.0 -
We need to get a grip on this issue. The purpose of going to university is not to go to university. Those who go should only do so if it makes financial sense (they get a better job) or they think it is worthwhile for another reason (in which case they get the debt that goes with it).
The state should only be funding students doing a degree if they are likely to qualify in a subject that is useful for the nation. The numbers subsidised to get a degree should be set by the national need for that skill, whether that is 10% or 20% I do not know. But businesses manage their need for degree qualified people as part of their wider planning, surely the UK can manage university places to match that requirement?
Too many people study obscure subjects for which there is either no demand, no need for a degree or for which employers could recruit and train the people they need.
40% going to university devalues the value of a degree, subsidises employers and puts students into unnecessary debt.
The current system is broken and there are people abusing the system. They do not have intention to study or too thick to study at the university. Keep in mind not every youngster is bright enough to study at the university. But they know that there are still universities FH-colleges out there willing to accept them. If they go to university they might get up to £11,007 pa in addition to minimum wage they get from working in the unskilled job.
Randomly search I found this person who never learn the lesson
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73231856#Comment_73231856
Graduate earn 530 to 650 4-weekly and now still want to abuse the system doing a master's degree using student loan which is probably using another taxpayers money.
"It's 10500 in 3 payments and 6500 of that goes into tuition leaving me with around £4000 over the year."
For UG study, after five years they have taken up to (£11,007 + £9,250)*5 = £101,285 tax payers money. Even they manage to graduate, the money will never be paid back if the graduates are working in the areas which do not need degree at all.. Thought £101,285 is a lot of taxpayers money, to educate a single person doing useless degree (based on the taxpayers need), the taxpayers / the society will not see a penny back.
The UK government publish the shortage occupation list every year where the UK is depending on the foreign graduates to fill the gap need for this country.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-k-shortage-occupation-list#table-1---united-kingdom-shortage-occupation-list
Supposed funding to be concentrated in this areas and might be extended to the areas which have been historically, statistically proven to provide graduate with graduate jobs after graduation, there will be enough graduates and UK will not be depending on other countries to fill the gap.
There is nothing wrong to study whatever you want, wherever you want but if you are using the taxpayers money, the taxpayers must get something in return from funding the system. Otherwise the money will need to come from your own pocket or from the bank of mom and dad.0 -
Windofchange wrote: »So you've found something that says 86% of nurses who graduate go on to be nurses and you think this proves the system is rotten and loads of people are taking the !!!! and going on to be shelf stackers? Kind of proves my point really doesn't it? I have a figure saying 97%, you have one that says 86%. Let's meet in the middle and say 92% of nursing students go on to be nurses. It is hardly scandal of the century is it!?
Even if huge numbers of nurses are dropping out, then by definition they don't get a degree, so don't fit in with your beef that loads of people are getting degrees and then going on to do jobs that they don't need a degree for. I don't see your argument either way. Nurses and other health professions no longer get any sort of bursary, so actually it is the same cost as someone doing English or whatever. If they drop out of uni at year one, then they are the same burden on society as someone dropping out of English or lesbian dance theory in year one.
Thank you for giving your professional insight.
So much intellect and energy on this thread is being put into "interesting" theory.
You on the other hand work, if I may say, work at the Coal Face and have personal, day to day, hands on experience.
More discussion is needed on these sorts of problems.
Working in a pressure environment can be "fun" for a time but if you see the pressure as a long, long tunnel with no end it is not surprising that you might question your career choice. If there is an exit (working abroad or in private health) you might take it.
If there is a shortage as you say 40% then this is clear bad planning by Government.
If they show this level of incompetence I don't know what you can do.There will be no Brexit dividend for Britain.0 -
Thank you for giving your professional insight.
So much intellect and energy on this thread is being put into "interesting" theory.
You on the other hand work, if I may say, work at the Coal Face and have personal, day to day, hands on experience.
More discussion is needed on these sorts of problems.
Working in a pressure environment can be "fun" for a time but if you see the pressure as a long, long tunnel with no end it is not surprising that you might question your career choice. If there is an exit (working abroad or in private health) you might take it.
If there is a shortage as you say 40% then this is clear bad planning by Government.
If they show this level of incompetence I don't know what you can do.
I worked in private for a bit, but didn't like it. Different kind of pressure - pressure to keep patients coming back to get more cash from the private healthcare, as opposed to pressure to discharge them as your waiting list is 12 weeks long.
The shortages of staff is pretty widespread news now. Despite the opinions of some on here that it is an easy fix, or that there is just no problem at all, believe me, there is. I could give you a hundred anecdotes from the past year alone about people quitting, moving out of London, London trusts being unable to recruit secondary to nobody being able to afford to live here, cancelled operations, dangerous working conditions etc etc.
To get somewhat back on topic, the degrees that lead to NHS jobs are essential. Are they value for money? That question is probably largely subjective, but as it stands at the moment, the taxpayer gets their pound of flesh out of me and my colleagues. There is more trouble coming - medical courses for the first time are in clearing. Nursing, physio, occupational therapy etc etc courses aren't fully filled. The government has killed off the bursaries and the support and shock horror, we will have fewer graduates in these disciplines to add to the huge shortages we already have. What with Brexit pretty much eliminating the desire for foreign professionals to come here to work, there is a very dangerous storm brewing.
Looking London centrically as this is my experience, so many are packing up and leaving. As a newly qualified nurse / physio / whatever, you can quite easily spend half your post tax takehome on a bedsit before you've even thought about bills / expenses / student debt / having a bit of fun. Interestingly, we can't currently recruit to senior positions either. Reason being, you are looking at people in their mid 30's - 40's for these posts, and they want a house with garden to bring up their brood. No chance in London on anything under 100k per annum. Result? Locums costing twice as much. An orthopaedic consultant friend of mine worked a couple of weekends ago to cover an emergency list on Saturday - £150 per hour!
Speaking from within my own world - the NHS, you can't get anywhere without a degree. Therefore, a degree is a must. Problem being that degree is now a whole lot more expensive, so although you may kill off some of the mickey mouse courses, you are also killing off essential ones such as Nursing, medicine, physio.0 -
just talking about the medical profession for now: there needs to be a full reform of how lower skilled jobs such as physios, nurses etc are taught. IMO these jobs dont require a 9k a year degree for 3 years. you dont even need a degree. just some training for a couple of years with the majority being on the job training (perhaps the job itself pays for the training they receive).
this can be translated to other lower skills careers. have more apprenticeship type training like i described above and scrap the need for degrees completely. keep it low cost as possible. the best way to do that is to have a lot of on the job training, which is what makes a better nurse, physio etc anyway.0 -
on nurse/physio pay - they are receiving what the market is dictating. and TBH it is fair. compare an average nurse wage to a refuse collector in the uk (26k vs 16k). thats a big difference. but both are esstential. both require different skillsets (refuse collector more physically demanding vs nurses having some basic medical skills and good communication/caring skills). why is a nurse being paid so much more? probably the number of hours worked but then nurses can be both sexes and when was the last time you saw a female refuse collector?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards