Student debt - a lifelong millstone for some.

[llamatron]

The figure's I've heard are that most courses cost around £7k, the Government are removing all grants from non STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths I believe) courses, so most courses will be left with a shortfall of £1k/year/student based on the £6k soft-cap. The Universtities are supposed to fund this shortfall through "efficiencies".

 

 

 

The problem is though that the Government doesn't get to keep any of the money that isn't spent. If a course only costs a University £1k/year, but they set their charge at £6k/year, the University keeps the additional £5k/year, not the Government. If the students on that £1k/year course don't earn enough over the following 35 years to pay it back in full, the Government loses what money isn't paid, but the University gets to keep the extra £5k.

 

 

 

But, they'll also be borrowing a lot more than before - and with it being a low interest rate on all loans, the Government is basically losing money on each loan (even when I went to Uni before we had top up fees, we were recommended to take out the full loan regardless of whether you needed it, and even sticking it in a normal bank account (back then) would earn you more interest than you were being charged).

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure the "extreme circumstances" will become normal circumstances in a couple of years. Also, many courses are more than 3 years (virtually all Hallam Uni degrees are sandwich degrees, with a year in industry (where the student can find a suitable position) between teaching years 2 and 3, and charged for an extra half year of tuition). Then there is the loan to cover living costs (which most students now spend immediately on rent). I graduated in 2005 with £12k of debt from living cost loans alone. Adding on your £18k (plus my sandwich year) would give me a debt of £33k, and that's the minimum for someone doing my course.

 

Im not claiming the government will not be out of pocket, Im just saying they probably won't be losing more than they are already and it seems like a decent deal for the students to me.

[llamatron]

Less than ten years ago it would cost ~£3,600 to do a full degree at University, in two years time it will cost ~£18,000 to do the same course. It's very difficult to prepare for costs inflating at those sort of rates. How much will it cost in 10 years time from now?

 

depends whether we are still trying to get 50% at uni doesn't it!

[llamatron]

Absolutely. Labour should never have made it a target to have 50% of all school leavers going to university. This means we have a generation of graduates believing they are entitled to graduate jobs when Labour were just trying to increase the 'quality' of the general workforce. Standards have dropped and we have vast numbers of low quality graduates who a couple of decades ago would not have been capable of getting a degree.

 

However, this doesn't mean that we should go back to discriminating students according to what they can or can't afford. We need a system that is based on merit and achievement, not the ability to pay.

 

well I totally agree with slashing the numbers and having it free but that is un likely to happen under any government so we have to think of something else

[harvey19]

And my point was how can parents be expected to save up to put their kids through university, when the costs are rocketing like they are currently.

 

It'll be worse for the next generation, as while they're trying to save some money to put towards their childrens' eductation, they'll still be paying off their student loans.

 

The point where people are having to make the decision about whether to go to University or not based on finances rather than academic ability is where the system has collapsed. "Yes Johnny, you may have more qualifications than Stephen Hawking did at your age, and you may have written that paper explaining how to create energy from grains of sand, but we've not got the money to send you to uni, go and be a bricklayer instead, the country needs them".

Just a point but there are others ways to get an education other than full time university. My brother in law did not go to university after he left school but worked in a laboratory and qualified for his doctorate in science, later he trained to be a teacher at an highly respected school.

There is the Open University also where you can qualify whilst working.

[dosxuk]

Just a point but there are others ways to get an education other than full time university. My brother in law did not go to university after he left school but worked in a laboratory and qualified for his doctorate in science, later he trained to be a teacher at an highly respected school.

There is the Open University also where you can qualify whilst working.

 

Yes, I agree. But I also believe very strongly that it is totally wrong that people are being forced to make decisions about their education, and their childrens' education based on the ability to afford tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt which they may never pay off, rather than their academic ability and whether that particular mode of study is suited to that person.

 

Just as, as a country, we don't benefit from every bricklayer needing a degree to get a job, we don't benefit from people who would become scientists, doctors or engineers deciding not to do a degree because they're too worried about the debt they will be in, while a load of rich kids go on to do degrees in history of art with wakeboarding because mummy & daddy can afford the fees.

 

Anyway, this thread was about the debts being incurred, not whether the misguided decision to set the 50% target was a good idea.

[harvey19]

Yes, I agree. But I also believe very strongly that it is totally wrong that people are being forced to make decisions about their education, and their childrens' education based on the ability to afford tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt which they may never pay off, rather than their academic ability and whether that particular mode of study is suited to that person.

 

Just as, as a country, we don't benefit from every bricklayer needing a degree to get a job, we don't benefit from people who would become scientists, doctors or engineers deciding not to do a degree because they're too worried about the debt they will be in, while a load of rich kids go on to do degrees in history of art with wakeboarding because mummy & daddy can afford the fees.

 

Anyway, this thread was about the debts being incurred, not whether the misguided decision to set the 50% target was a good idea.

 

Yes, you are quite right, it is me that strayed off subject but I think it is all related and that if we sorted out the basics there would not be the fees dilema.

[dosxuk]

Yes, you are quite right, it is me that strayed off subject but I think it is all related and that if we sorted out the basics there would not be the fees dilema.

 

It is all related, and everyone can see as such, apart from the Government. Why the review into student funding didn't tackle the number one question of "why do so many young people need to go to University" we'll probably never know, but it didn't, and we've now seen the results of the review.

 

The future of higher education, as I see it, and without some big change of direction, is higher fees and slowly increasing numbers. Universities are businesses, especially now they've had virtually all of their funding removed, and as such the only way for them to continue in business is to lobby for higher fees and higher intakes.

[harvey19]

It is all related, and everyone can see as such, apart from the Government. Why the review into student funding didn't tackle the number one question of "why do so many young people need to go to University" we'll probably never know, but it didn't, and we've now seen the results of the review.

 

The future of higher education, as I see it, and without some big change of direction, is higher fees and slowly increasing numbers. Universities are businesses, especially now they've had virtually all of their funding removed, and as such the only way for them to continue in business is to lobby for higher fees and higher intakes.

 

I think the whole issue is about reducing student numbers and making degrees more selective. Eventually I think certain degree courses will receive extra subsidies and some universities will close. Slowly changes are already being made to the initial proposals and I dare say other changes beneficial to the students will be reported as being won by the LibDems.

[caparo]

Im not claiming the government will not be out of pocket, Im just saying they probably won't be losing more than they are already and it seems like a decent deal for the students to me.

 

Well there certainly isn't a great shortage of Chinese students coming over here to go to uni. They obviously haven't been put off by the rising fees.

[HJL_Shef]

worked in a laboratory and qualified for his doctorate in science

 

You'd be very lucky to get offered a PhD with no undergraduate degree! I would consider it an impossibility at most universities.