Student loan

Arleen

I would suggest that the lesson to take from it is to either get student loans only if that course has realistic and sensible chances of giving you a well-paying job or when you already have a career that can pay for the course of your dreams. Sadly most of the people who enter higher education never actually considered what will be the value of the degree when it's all done and dusted.

The key thing is that there is nothing wrong with going on with your studies at some later time when you already have a career under your belt. You may not be joining your mates by doing so, but you likely will be better off in your life.

Pixie5740

If faced with £40k+ in student loans then I think would-be students need to evaluate return on investment and value for money. Perhaps look at the alternatives such as the costs of studying abroad instead, or part time through the Open University, or if a degree is even needed at all.

dresdendave

Simple_student wrote: »

Pixie first of all thanks for taking the time to help..
In the case of Erudio they paid the government far less to take over my loan than they have settled for ...in this respect there are no losses to cut they are on the make. In my case I would have been paying back far less than the original loan if I had taken their offer so I suppose that's win win.

I can't see how it's a win for the taxpayers who paid for your higher education.

badmemory

If the SLC had been allowed to sell off the loans to deferring students at 50% instead of selling them to Erudio for not much more than 1p in the £ then the taxpayer would have been much better off.

Pixie5740

badmemory wrote: »

If the SLC had been allowed to sell off the loans to deferring students at 50% instead of selling them to Erudio for not much more than 1p in the £ then the taxpayer would have been much better off.

Would they have taken that offer given that some of them will probably be able to keep deferring until either they turn 50 or 25 years after graduating when the loans will be written off? Given these loans were available from 1990 to 1997 most people must be past those milestones already. Then there are the people who could have kept deferring but were too lazy to a) keep SLC updated with their whereabouts and b) couldn't be bothered to fill in the deferment form each year. Where would SLC have sent their offer letters?

Tammykitty

badmemory wrote: »

If the SLC had been allowed to sell off the loans to deferring students at 50% instead of selling them to Erudio for not much more than 1p in the £ then the taxpayer would have been much better off.

I graduated in 2004, and would love the oppourtunity to pay 50% of the remaining loan and thats it done and dusted!


Tired off the £100+ a month tax, but wouldn't pay it off at the full amount as who knows what the future brings

Simple_student

Dresdendave is right of course ..the taxpayer lost as soon as the old mortgage style loans were flogged off.. But as you know the Tories are about to sell the newer PAYE loans off too with the same bargain basement approach and of course the same assurances about future debt. I have one of those loans too ...round two is about to commence!