Doing a degree for first time at 55 and repaying student loan.

For me, it’s not a question of ‘taking what I can get’ but whether I could afford to do it at all! I couldn’t at 18, and maybe I still won’t be able to in my 50s, even with a student loan and no council tax - although I’m fortunate that I’ve practiced budgeting and frugal living my whole adult life, so hopefully would be better able to cope than many younger students seem to.

Maybe I’d never repay the student loan, but neither will a lot of 18-20 year olds. And there are many young people doing degrees that will never use knowledge of their subject in any work situation.

bugslett wrote: »

One of the lads on trucknet did American Studies with the OU, studying whilst being stuck in the cab overnight. He was enthusiastic about it and I.tending to change jobs when he qualified.

Like others on here, I was offered places at unis at 18 but couldn't afford to take three years off. I have wondered about doing a degree, philosophy, Eng Lit would be in the running.

However, personally speaking as someone who has retired early and would study for the pleasure not for the chance to use that knowledge in a work situation, I just could not take advantage of the system so I in effect get it for free. As for the notion of not paying council tax, well I use the services and on around 20-25k a year, I think I should pay.

I am possibly a bit odd/stupid. I've been paying myself through PAYE instead of dividends through my working life, so I've got form in that respect. I'm not sanctimonious as I probably sound - honest - but I just find the tone of this thread a little unplesant. Maybe I should get with the programme and take as much as I can get.

Your stance is illogical. If you had gone to university when you were 18 there would have been no tuition fees & you would have been entitled to a maintenance grant. There would have been no loan. What's the difference now taking a loan & never paying it back?

bugslett wrote: »

....However, personally speaking as someone who has retired early and would study for the pleasure not for the chance to use that knowledge in a work situation, I just could not take advantage of the system so I in effect get it for free.....

You wouldn't be 'taking advantage' - it's the way the system was designed.

Student loans are a political invention - not a loan in the conventional sense.

If a graduate earns enough through their working life they'll pay it back. But if they don't earn enough they won't - and many would fall into that category. So, for some, it is in effect a 'grant' - just like the old days but with it looking over your shoulder for life. And it's a partial 'grant' for the many in between who will pay some back but not all.

That's not them 'taking advantage' - it's how the government designed it - knowing full well that a proportion will never pay all back and some will pay none back.

The scheme is, therefore, in effect, a grant scheme for many, in all but name. If you're retired, on a lower income, and want to take a degree you are perfectly entitled to, using this scheme.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting it's a fair system! For those who have to pay it back it's a monstrous system as the repayments can carry on for ages. And for those who worry that when their wages go up they'll lose 9% to the loan it's a worry about advancing their careers.

But if you know you're unlikely to hit that threshold it's not a worry - as indeed Martin Lewis often points out -, yes there's a debt after Uni - but no, you're not, necessarily, going to be asked to pay it back.

(personally-speaking I had the advantage of grants, in the 1980s, for two Universities, but, despite that brilliant education my earnings, for most of my career [in a low-paid profession], were low compared to most, so if it had been a loan system then I would never have paid it all back even now)

Zanderman wrote: »

If a graduate earns enough through their working life they'll pay it back. But if they don't earn enough they won't - and many would fall into that category. So, for some, it is in effect a 'grant' - just like the old days but with it looking over your shoulder for life.

Not for life, not even close. A person in good health who goes to university at 18/19 will have well over half their life remaining when their loan is written off.

Agree with the general thrust of the thread. Student loans are not loans, and if the Government didn't want people of a certain age and income bracket to get free money for doing a degree, they wouldn't give it to them. By all means campaign to change the system if you don't like it, but criticising people for taking a grant they're entitled to is logically no different from criticising someone for paying their tax bill correctly because you think the rate of income tax should be higher.

Zanderman wrote: »

...
Student loans are a political invention - not a loan in the conventional sense. ...it's how the government designed it...

I was working in the sector at the time, and went along to the launch. There were (and still are) so many loopholes - especially with respect of reclaiming the money from people working overseas.

The government of the time didn't want to call it a graduate tax - but that is pretty much what it is.

I posted a link earlier which showed that pension providers don't deduct student loans. But I don't believe that's coded in statute, so could be reversed - probably without even going to the floor of the house. And might happen as a by-product if a future goverment decided to apply national insurance deductions to pensions.