llamatron Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 They will write off a £50,000 debt? £30 a month for 25 years is £9000, not factoring in interest. Will the people lending this money (the student loan companies) be willing to lend so much for a £41,000 loss? It sounds odd to me. well no if the graduate gets a job with a higher salary they will pay more. I think this is to stop all graduates aiming for the highest pay. It will allow people who become sociologists etc to take lower paid jobs and not worry about paying the loan off I think the idea is that someone who gets into £50k of debt will be a surgeon or something and will therefore be on a high salary and will pay a higher rate. £50k is an extreme value for someone doing a long course at the best uni. Your average English student at sheffield hallam would not get charged that much. They already write off the debt but at the moment its after 30 years and you start paying back at £15k. It would be good if people actually thought-do I need (or even want) a degree? before signing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 I think that it's wrong to look at University fees as debt, it's better to look at them as a deferred payment. exactamundo you are investing in your future unless you are doing media studies-in this case it may be better to think of it as maxing out your credit card:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 They will write off a £50,000 debt? £30 a month for 25 years is £9000, not factoring in interest. Will the people lending this money (the student loan companies) be willing to lend so much for a £41,000 loss? It sounds odd to me. It does sound odd, they may as well just go back to the old system if it doesn't get repaid in many cases. The overheads for running the whole shebang must be colossal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 well no if the graduate gets a job with a higher salary they will pay more. I think this is to stop all graduates aiming for the highest pay. It will allow people who become sociologists etc to take lower paid jobs and not worry about paying the loan off I think the idea is that someone who gets into £50k of debt will be a surgeon or something and will therefore be on a high salary and will pay a higher rate. £50k is an extreme value for someone doing a long course at the best uni. Your average English student at sheffield hallam would not get charged that much. They already write off the debt but at the moment its after 30 years and you start paying back at £15k. Which is surely a concern? If there is a sliding scale of fee depending on the university, some student choice will be dictated to by finances rather than their A level grades and whether or not the course on offer meets their interests. If HEFCE cut their funding their up to 80%, which I think is also a recommendation in the Browne report, then many universities will find themselves in a situation where their position is unsustainable. The likelihood is that the former system will be more elitist than it was previously. Perhaps this is what the aim of this overhaul is? The social engineering utopian vision that Blair had of 50% going into higher education was never going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 It does sound odd, they may as well just go back to the old system if it doesn't get repaid in many cases. The overheads for running the whole shebang must be colossal. read my reply, in most cases it would be paid. If someone goes to cambridge and comes out owing £50k and they get a £200k job they will pay the full loan off easily. The idea is not that people will be using their pensions to pay off their student loans, its just that the people who benefit from their degree pay the most towards it. If we insist on so many graduates someone has to pay for it. Its better to take the money of the graduates than people in unskilled jobs earning very little. I dont know what the problem is with a graduate tax but in effect its the same thing. Someone has to pay somewhere, I would prefer far far fewer graduates and free university places but that will never happen because rich people will always be able to buy their way in and then the "its not fair" crowd will bleat on until the cycle begins again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Which is surely a concern? If there is a sliding scale of fee depending on the university, some student choice will be dictated to by finances rather than their A level grades and whether or not the course on offer meets their interests. If HEFCE cut their funding their up to 80%, which I think is also a recommendation in the Browne report, then many universities will find themselves in a situation where their position is unsustainable. The likelihood is that the former system will be more elitist than it was previously. Perhaps this is what the aim of this overhaul is? The social engineering utopian vision that Blair had of 50% going into higher education was never going to work. why? again that is just a problem with the perception of the loan. You will only pay it back when you can afford it and then at a very low rate. Finally it will get written off after 25 years so why would it influence your uni choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 I would prefer far far fewer graduates and free university places but that will never happen because rich people will always be able to buy their way in and then the "its not fair" crowd will bleat on until the cycle begins again I will agree with you here, there should be a reform of the education system. I'd like to see a second tier of higher education, which could be vocational if need be. From my own education, my degree is in music and i would've been happy to do a two year vocational course for cheaper, but my only choice was to go on to university. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 I dont think it should be written off. Why should it be? Someone, some where has had to fork out and the person who benefits from having the degree should be the one to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 why? again that is just a problem with the perception of the loan. You will only pay it back when you can afford it and then at a very low rate. Finally it will get written off after 25 years so why would it influence your uni choice. Perhaps it is a perception about the loan, but I'm not sure that everyone is quite so cavalier about owing so much money and it will certainly be a deterrent for many who are very capable. 25 years seems like an eternity to an 18 year old, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 I think that it's wrong to look at University fees as debt, it's better to look at them as an deferred payment investment.Actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.