"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
So who's figures on loan repayments should I trust? Please do tell me. A news editor or the gov website?
Fair enough, it seems he has got that figure badly wrong. I will try and ask him on Twitter if he can explain.
On the second point of course it matters when Huskaris graduated. His debt is only a third that which my niece will have to pay back.
As true as that is, it is only the term of the repayment that changes, not the monthly costs.
If the average graduate earns more money as a consequence of getting a degree I presume that the loan repayments will always be less than the uplift in Income that the degree has earned.
This does, of course, assume that all graduates get a job commensurate with their advanced qualifications. But then if not they probably should have chosen to get a job at eighteen and save themselves to cost of a degree.
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
So who's figures on loan repayments should I trust? Please do tell me. A news editor or the gov website?
Fair enough, it seems he has got that figure badly wrong. I will try and ask him on Twitter if he can explain.
On the second point of course it matters when Huskaris graduated. His debt is only a third that which my niece will have to pay back.
I was on the pre 2012 plan so did it before it went up to £9k
For the record, I would have gone even if I had to pay the full market rate, as long as the loans were as easily repayable as they are.
I don't deserve to benefit from something some are either unfortunate enough not to benefit from or who want to do something different like an apprenticeship.
Who wants to pay for my CIMA Accountancy courses then? It's education after all.
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
So who's figures on loan repayments should I trust? Please do tell me. A news editor or the gov website?
Fair enough, it seems he has got that figure badly wrong. I will try and ask him on Twitter if he can explain.
On the second point of course it matters when Huskaris graduated. His debt is only a third that which my niece will have to pay back.
Can't argue that her debt will be higher, but financially on a month by month basis she will be better off than those who have pre 9k per year fees as the earning threshold has increased.
Two people, let's just say it's Huskaris and your niece. Husk has 30k in debt, your niece has 60k due to increase in fees. Both earn 30k a year for example. Husk will pay 91 a month, your niece will pay 67 per month.
Husk will end up paying 32760 over the course of 30 years (when the loan is written off) and your niece will end up paying 24120. So regardless of how much the debt is, people paying loans back on post 9k fees will pay over 25% less than those who don't.
The only time this won't happen is if you're earning big bucks and your monthly fees are a couple of hundred quid, which lets be honest if you're taking home that much, shouldn't make a dent.
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
So who's figures on loan repayments should I trust? Please do tell me. A news editor or the gov website?
Fair enough, it seems he has got that figure badly wrong. I will try and ask him on Twitter if he can explain.
On the second point of course it matters when Huskaris graduated. His debt is only a third that which my niece will have to pay back.
As true as that is, it is only the term of the repayment that changes, not the monthly costs.
If the average graduate earns more money as a consequence of getting a degree I presume that the loan repayments will always be less than the uplift in Income that the degree has earned.
This does, of course, assume that all graduates get a job commensurate with their advanced qualifications. But then if not they probably should have chosen to get a job at eighteen and save themselves to cost of a degree.
This infers that the only purpose of undertaking higher education is to get a higher paid job. Surely not the only reason.
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
So who's figures on loan repayments should I trust? Please do tell me. A news editor or the gov website?
Fair enough, it seems he has got that figure badly wrong. I will try and ask him on Twitter if he can explain.
On the second point of course it matters when Huskaris graduated. His debt is only a third that which my niece will have to pay back.
As true as that is, it is only the term of the repayment that changes, not the monthly costs.
If the average graduate earns more money as a consequence of getting a degree I presume that the loan repayments will always be less than the uplift in Income that the degree has earned.
This does, of course, assume that all graduates get a job commensurate with their advanced qualifications. But then if not they probably should have chosen to get a job at eighteen and save themselves to cost of a degree.
This infers that the only purpose of undertaking higher education is to get a higher paid job. Surely not the only reason.
No. It implies it. You're inferring. (I once worked with an Egyptologist. A not entirely appropriate qualification for a stock registrar.)
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
So who's figures on loan repayments should I trust? Please do tell me. A news editor or the gov website?
Fair enough, it seems he has got that figure badly wrong. I will try and ask him on Twitter if he can explain.
On the second point of course it matters when Huskaris graduated. His debt is only a third that which my niece will have to pay back.
As true as that is, it is only the term of the repayment that changes, not the monthly costs.
If the average graduate earns more money as a consequence of getting a degree I presume that the loan repayments will always be less than the uplift in Income that the degree has earned.
This does, of course, assume that all graduates get a job commensurate with their advanced qualifications. But then if not they probably should have chosen to get a job at eighteen and save themselves to cost of a degree.
This infers that the only purpose of undertaking higher education is to get a higher paid job. Surely not the only reason.
Not quite. I am suggesting that if the decision to go to University is being made on cost grounds and nothing else (like wanting to advance one's mind or study something of interest) then if the cost is not going to be justified one doesn't go.
If the cost is worth the experience alone then the financial outcome is irrelevant.
There needs to be a distinction as there is lots of justification claimed for free education, as it is believed that those that benefit from it will pay much more tax later in life, as a result of it. I think it is a harder sell to the public (tax payers) for someone to be given a free education if they are not going to contribute more when they leave. I am aware that contribution comes in different ways and that it doesn't always need to be increased tax revenues, but the point still remains.
This is, of course, assuming that one does not think that a three year extension in education, for fun, should be paid for by the tax payer. I am all for increasing the education standards but I think that, at this stage, we need more resources being targeted at ensuring that all children leave school with a GCSE in Maths and English, and ideally Science. Pushing more and more of those that scrape A levels into University does, indeed, increase the average level of education, but I'd prefer to see the average grow by increasing the qualifications of those 'at the bottom' not push more at the top into degrees that they might not be suited to.
"The typical graduate has negative net worth and if they earn, for example, £30,000 a year then they are paying £220 a month in loan repayments on top of their taxes."
I earn more than that and pay less a month than that (£150)
Quite possibly. When did you graduate?
@cafcpolo If you want to take Nick Cohen on, go and have a go, if you think yer 'ard enough.
Here's a fact for you Prague, straight from the gov website...£220 a month, off £30k per year is as I said. Bullshit.
It does not matter when Huskaris graduated, it is 9% regardless.
So who's figures on loan repayments should I trust? Please do tell me. A news editor or the gov website?
Fair enough, it seems he has got that figure badly wrong. I will try and ask him on Twitter if he can explain.
On the second point of course it matters when Huskaris graduated. His debt is only a third that which my niece will have to pay back.
As true as that is, it is only the term of the repayment that changes, not the monthly costs.
If the average graduate earns more money as a consequence of getting a degree I presume that the loan repayments will always be less than the uplift in Income that the degree has earned.
This does, of course, assume that all graduates get a job commensurate with their advanced qualifications. But then if not they probably should have chosen to get a job at eighteen and save themselves to cost of a degree.
This infers that the only purpose of undertaking higher education is to get a higher paid job. Surely not the only reason.
Not quite. I am suggesting that if the decision to go to University is being made on cost grounds and nothing else (like wanting to advance one's mind or study something of interest) then if the cost is not going to be justified one doesn't go.
If the cost is worth the experience alone then the financial outcome is irrelevant.
There needs to be a distinction as there is lots of justification claimed for free education, as it is believed that those that benefit from it will pay much more tax later in life, as a result of it. I think it is a harder sell to the public (tax payers) for someone to be given a free education if they are not going to contribute more when they leave. I am aware that contribution comes in different ways and that it doesn't always need to be increased tax revenues, but the point still remains.
This is, of course, assuming that one does not think that a three year extension in education, for fun, should be paid for by the tax payer. I am all for increasing the education standards but I think that, at this stage, we need more resources being targeted at ensuring that all children leave school with a GCSE in Maths and English, and ideally Science. Pushing more and more of those that scrape A levels into University does, indeed, increase the average level of education, but I'd prefer to see the average grow by increasing the qualifications of those 'at the bottom' not push more at the top into degrees that they might not be suited to.
I agree with all of that.
The argument for encouraging vocational qualifications as a genuine alternative to academic study is also a valid one. For example, proper time-served apprenticeships for the trades and the old HNC/HND qualifications that were generally more technical/engineering based. I say old - not sure if they are still offered.
One of the issues in society is people looking down their noses at tradespeople and technicians as if they are somehow inferior. We need more tradespeople, engineers, scientists, technicians, software developers and so on.
My two sons both did degrees (my eldest a Masters as well) because they wanted to and because they also saw those qualifications as a right of passage into the world of work. That's wrong. I also went to uni but I also had real choices and 'A' levels back in the 70s were a qualification in their own right - now they are just entrance qualifications to university.
Having a daughter doing A levels the GCSE's were very much badged by the school as a pathway to the next (i.e. A Levels) and in turn A Levels are badged as a pathway to Uni.
Has having fee paying for further education resulted in less people from working class backgrounds being able to access university? Has this been affected by the rising cost? e.g. was it OK at £3k but not at £9k.
Does leaving university with high levels of dept impinge on an individuals life in other ways? e.g. Would it stop them being creative, starting a business, owning a home.
Do we believe that having a better skilled workforce benefits and enriches the whole of society. Both directly and indirectly.
Are their other benefits to having universal further education (not just universities)? e.g. improved health, life chance of children, reduced crime.
Has having fee paying for further education resulted in less people from working class backgrounds being able to access university? Has this been affected by the rising cost? e.g. was it OK at £3k but not at £9k.
Does leaving university with high levels of dept impinge on an individuals life in other ways? e.g. Would it stop them being creative, starting a business, owning a home.
I believe I read that the number of people from poorer backgrounds attending university has fallen since the rise to £9k, but i am not going to offer any proof! But, loan repayments would definitely affect a mortgage application as they are a monthly outgoing.
Edit: After looking into it, apparently research shows the opposite and fees have had no impact on people from poorer backgrounds applying but it has lead to a drop in the number of mature students.
Numbers from poorer backgrounds are steadily increasing despite the fee rise. The only unis this does not apply to are places like Oxford, Cambridge and a few of the other bigguns.
Numbers from poorer backgrounds are steadily increasing despite the fee rise. The only unis this does not apply to are places like Oxford, Cambridge and a few of the other bigguns.
There was something on the BBC recently saying that more students from poorer backgrounds were dropping out at a higher rate before completing their degrees. Also, I believe universities get some sort of funding if they take on students form poorer backgrounds (or lose it if they don't) so there is an incentive to try to take them on
Numbers from poorer backgrounds are steadily increasing despite the fee rise. The only unis this does not apply to are places like Oxford, Cambridge and a few of the other bigguns.
Graphs from the above using UCAS as their source which is where university applications go through. Another article below goes into the detail of the increase among "lesser" universities.
Some very interesting stuff from the BBC on Student loans. Plenty to discuss from that little lot! bbc.co.uk/news/education-40511184 Personally struck by the statement that it's poor white boys from NE England who are the category least likely to go to uni. But all the charts show some thought-provoking issues.
I was really disappointed to read @stonemuse echoing Gove's argument that people who don't go to uni shouldn't "subsidise" those who do, through their taxes.
What a sad, selfish argument.
@PragueAddick Really! It's sad and selfish that I think of those who have no chance of getting to university?!?
I'll leave my response to James Forsyth, a person I do not usually back but who has it right on this occasion:
'Take tuition fees. Rather than talking apologetically about the need for a ‘national debate’ on the matter, as Damian Green bizarrely did at the weekend, the Tories should be making the social-justice case for them. They should be relentlessly pointing out that scrapping fees, as Corbyn wishes, would amount to a massive bung to the middle classes. What is progressive about having someone stacking supermarket shelves subsidise the Oxbridge law degree of a future commercial QC? Corbyn’s supposedly progressive agenda is often just a cover for the economic self-interest of the intelligentsia.
At the same time, the Tories should move to sort out the mess that is the Student Loan Company. Given how cheaply government can borrow, it is hard to see the justification for the more than six per cent interest rate that is to be charged on student loans. They also should be on the side of the students and teaching staff against greedy vice-chancellors, who have somehow managed to end up paying themselves, on average, more than a quarter of a million pounds a year.'
What I don't like is the prospect of students wanting to study one of the subjects not considered essential but nonetheless "essential" like for example ancient languages or the classics would be put off by the fees and the only people then undertaking those subjects would be those from a wealthy background regardless of ability. Do we really want elitism and a return to earlier times when only the privileged few can fulfil their potential ?
Education for anyone who wants it enriches us all both on an individual basis and that of a nation.
This is my weekly observation that University Education is not supposed to be vocational, even if it turns out to be. The authorities have selected a single outcome of University education, earning potential, and based it's fiscal policy largely on that. It feels a bit like asking why have parks without entrance fees?
90% of what my taxes go on probably do not directly benefit me but that's not the point is it? It's already been shown to be a lazy fallacy that free tuition doesn't benefit working classes and bringing class into it just obfuscates the problem. It also ignores the fact that the current scheme is not fit for purpose.
I was really disappointed to read @stonemuse echoing Gove's argument that people who don't go to uni shouldn't "subsidise" those who do, through their taxes.
What a sad, selfish argument.
@PragueAddick Really! It's sad and selfish that I think of those who have no chance of getting to university?!?
I'll leave my response to James Forsyth, a person I do not usually back but who has it right on this occasion:
'Take tuition fees. Rather than talking apologetically about the need for a ‘national debate’ on the matter, as Damian Green bizarrely did at the weekend, the Tories should be making the social-justice case for them. They should be relentlessly pointing out that scrapping fees, as Corbyn wishes, would amount to a massive bung to the middle classes. What is progressive about having someone stacking supermarket shelves subsidise the Oxbridge law degree of a future commercial QC? Corbyn’s supposedly progressive agenda is often just a cover for the economic self-interest of the intelligentsia.
At the same time, the Tories should move to sort out the mess that is the Student Loan Company. Given how cheaply government can borrow, it is hard to see the justification for the more than six per cent interest rate that is to be charged on student loans. They also should be on the side of the students and teaching staff against greedy vice-chancellors, who have somehow managed to end up paying themselves, on average, more than a quarter of a million pounds a year.'
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Maybe so but isn't the interest rate 6%? Using a compound interest calculator 50k becomes £300k after 30 years. Of course, money will be repaid but it will still be difficult to catch up, and by the time you are earning £100k you will owe loads and pay loads back.
The student loan system is basically a graduate tax. Surely income tax should deal with students who earn more than non graduates that don't earn as much?
10 years of austerity budgets where you hit the incomes of the poorest more an more - well there comes a point when they say no. Some Tories have actually got this now. But the government seems intent on it's path. It is only going to end one way - that should be pretty clear to everybody.
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm more worried how Corbyn intends to fund it.
Although, of course, he won't. It's just electoral bullshit to get student support.
Ok so then those billions and billions are effectively what's the government is spending on University education. Why not just spend it directly instead of saddling the graduates with a load of unnecessary debt on top of it?
University used to cost a student 3k a year, even further back it didn't cost students a penny. There's absolutely no reason to be charging 9k a year.
It's a totally bonkers system and needs a complete rework.
Comments
On the second point of course it matters when Huskaris graduated. His debt is only a third that which my niece will have to pay back.
If the average graduate earns more money as a consequence of getting a degree I presume that the loan repayments will always be less than the uplift in Income that the degree has earned.
This does, of course, assume that all graduates get a job commensurate with their advanced qualifications. But then if not they probably should have chosen to get a job at eighteen and save themselves to cost of a degree.
For the record, I would have gone even if I had to pay the full market rate, as long as the loans were as easily repayable as they are.
I don't deserve to benefit from something some are either unfortunate enough not to benefit from or who want to do something different like an apprenticeship.
Who wants to pay for my CIMA Accountancy courses then? It's education after all.
Two people, let's just say it's Huskaris and your niece. Husk has 30k in debt, your niece has 60k due to increase in fees. Both earn 30k a year for example. Husk will pay 91 a month, your niece will pay 67 per month.
Husk will end up paying 32760 over the course of 30 years (when the loan is written off) and your niece will end up paying 24120. So regardless of how much the debt is, people paying loans back on post 9k fees will pay over 25% less than those who don't.
The only time this won't happen is if you're earning big bucks and your monthly fees are a couple of hundred quid, which lets be honest if you're taking home that much, shouldn't make a dent.
If the cost is worth the experience alone then the financial outcome is irrelevant.
There needs to be a distinction as there is lots of justification claimed for free education, as it is believed that those that benefit from it will pay much more tax later in life, as a result of it. I think it is a harder sell to the public (tax payers) for someone to be given a free education if they are not going to contribute more when they leave. I am aware that contribution comes in different ways and that it doesn't always need to be increased tax revenues, but the point still remains.
This is, of course, assuming that one does not think that a three year extension in education, for fun, should be paid for by the tax payer. I am all for increasing the education standards but I think that, at this stage, we need more resources being targeted at ensuring that all children leave school with a GCSE in Maths and English, and ideally Science. Pushing more and more of those that scrape A levels into University does, indeed, increase the average level of education, but I'd prefer to see the average grow by increasing the qualifications of those 'at the bottom' not push more at the top into degrees that they might not be suited to.
The argument for encouraging vocational qualifications as a genuine alternative to academic study is also a valid one. For example, proper time-served apprenticeships for the trades and the old HNC/HND qualifications that were generally more technical/engineering based. I say old - not sure if they are still offered.
One of the issues in society is people looking down their noses at tradespeople and technicians as if they are somehow inferior. We need more tradespeople, engineers, scientists, technicians, software developers and so on.
My two sons both did degrees (my eldest a Masters as well) because they wanted to and because they also saw those qualifications as a right of passage into the world of work. That's wrong. I also went to uni but I also had real choices and 'A' levels back in the 70s were a qualification in their own right - now they are just entrance qualifications to university.
Having a daughter doing A levels the GCSE's were very much badged by the school as a pathway to the next (i.e. A Levels) and in turn A Levels are badged as a pathway to Uni.
Has having fee paying for further education resulted in less people from working class backgrounds being able to access university? Has this been affected by the rising cost? e.g. was it OK at £3k but not at £9k.
Does leaving university with high levels of dept impinge on an individuals life in other ways? e.g. Would it stop them being creative, starting a business, owning a home.
Do we believe that having a better skilled workforce benefits and enriches the whole of society. Both directly and indirectly.
Are their other benefits to having universal further education (not just universities)? e.g. improved health, life chance of children, reduced crime.
Edit: After looking into it, apparently research shows the opposite and fees have had no impact on people from poorer backgrounds applying but it has lead to a drop in the number of mature students.
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/higher-fees-dont-mean-fewer-working-class-students-look-at-the-uk-for-proof
Graphs from the above using UCAS as their source which is where university applications go through. Another article below goes into the detail of the increase among "lesser" universities.
independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/number-of-poor-students-attending-uks-leading-universities-falls-despite-millions-spent-to-encourage-a6879771.html
bbc.co.uk/news/education-40511184
Personally struck by the statement that it's poor white boys from NE England who are the category least likely to go to uni. But all the charts show some thought-provoking issues.
I'll leave my response to James Forsyth, a person I do not usually back but who has it right on this occasion:
'Take tuition fees. Rather than talking apologetically about the need for a ‘national debate’ on the matter, as Damian Green bizarrely did at the weekend, the Tories should be making the social-justice case for them. They should be relentlessly pointing out that scrapping fees, as Corbyn wishes, would amount to a massive bung to the middle classes. What is progressive about having someone stacking supermarket shelves subsidise the Oxbridge law degree of a future commercial QC? Corbyn’s supposedly progressive agenda is often just a cover for the economic self-interest of the intelligentsia.
At the same time, the Tories should move to sort out the mess that is the Student Loan Company. Given how cheaply government can borrow, it is hard to see the justification for the more than six per cent interest rate that is to be charged on student loans. They also should be on the side of the students and teaching staff against greedy vice-chancellors, who have somehow managed to end up paying themselves, on average, more than a quarter of a million pounds a year.'
Education for anyone who wants it enriches us all both on an individual basis and that of a nation.
The authorities have selected a single outcome of University education, earning potential, and based it's fiscal policy largely on that.
It feels a bit like asking why have parks without entrance fees?
https://google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-tuition-fees-student-debt-angela-rayner-university-costs-jeremy-corbyn-a7831556.html%3Famp
Although, of course, he won't. It's just electoral bullshit to get student support.
The student loan system is basically a graduate tax. Surely income tax should deal with students who earn more than non graduates that don't earn as much?
University used to cost a student 3k a year, even further back it didn't cost students a penny. There's absolutely no reason to be charging 9k a year.
It's a totally bonkers system and needs a complete rework.