FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Student Loans
Student Loans
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Just seeing the news. You can defer repaying your student loan if you earn less than £2398 per month ! And after 25 years of deferment it's written off anyway !
Seems like a complete farce to me! May as well call it a gift rather than a loan ! Or am I being cynical ?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well I wouldn't of got my degree if it wasn't for a student loan. Not everyone has rich parents and why should only the rich get an education? I don't see anything wrong not starting to pay the loan back until you are more on your feet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Well I wouldn't of got my degree if it wasn't for a student loan. Not everyone has rich parents and why should only the rich get an education? I don't see anything wrong not starting to pay the loan back until you are more on your feet. "
That's not my point ! My point is that £2,398 per month is a good salary - so surely paying it back is not unrealistic ! It's a loan after all! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well I wouldn't of got my degree if it wasn't for a student loan. Not everyone has rich parents and why should only the rich get an education? I don't see anything wrong not starting to pay the loan back until you are more on your feet.
That's not my point ! My point is that £2,398 per month is a good salary - so surely paying it back is not unrealistic ! It's a loan after all! "
actually since 1998 when you start to earn £1409 you start paying it back ..... so i'd say yes you are being cynical |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think you may be missing the point...
At present 75% of all loans will not be cleared by the time ex students reach their mid 50's...
However our government are in the process of selling off the student loan book...
I for one have never heard of a private loans company that is willing to write off 75% of any of its business streams. Therefore I am willing to bet that shortly after the sale of those loans the rules will change and write-offs and low interest rates will be out out the window. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I think you may be missing the point...
At present 75% of all loans will not be cleared by the time ex students reach their mid 50's...
However our government are in the process of selling off the student loan book...
I for one have never heard of a private loans company that is willing to write off 75% of any of its business streams. Therefore I am willing to bet that shortly after the sale of those loans the rules will change and write-offs and low interest rates will be out out the window."
Very true ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think you may be missing the point...
At present 75% of all loans will not be cleared by the time ex students reach their mid 50's...
However our government are in the process of selling off the student loan book...
I for one have never heard of a private loans company that is willing to write off 75% of any of its business streams. Therefore I am willing to bet that shortly after the sale of those loans the rules will change and write-offs and low interest rates will be out out the window."
Apart from you cannot change the terms of the original loan so what cannot be legally collected cannot be collected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I borrowed £1200 in 1996 and .. £1750 in 1997 and I think £3000 in 1998
I have never earned enough to have to pay it back... but for about 18months I paid £50 per month..
I now owe £12000 split between 3 debt companies, none of whom will accept less than £50 per month repayment.
So I do not understand any of the logic of any of it and have just given up. If 75% of my "debt" is written off I wil syill owe more yhan I borrowed. It is all interest and fees because I didn't defer it for years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Apart from you cannot change the terms of the original loan so what cannot be legally collected cannot be collected."
you're correct ... the terms of the loan can't be changed .... however the terms of deferment can be changed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"Well I wouldn't of got my degree if it wasn't for a student loan. Not everyone has rich parents and why should only the rich get an education? I don't see anything wrong not starting to pay the loan back until you are more on your feet.
That's not my point ! My point is that £2,398 per month is a good salary - so surely paying it back is not unrealistic ! It's a loan after all! "
Is that gross or net - as that would make a difference. If it is gross then the monthly earnings could be considerably less. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I borrowed £1200 in 1996 and .. £1750 in 1997 and I think £3000 in 1998
I have never earned enough to have to pay it back... but for about 18months I paid £50 per month..
I now owe £12000 split between 3 debt companies, none of whom will accept less than £50 per month repayment.
So I do not understand any of the logic of any of it and have just given up. If 75% of my "debt" is written off I wil syill owe more yhan I borrowed. It is all interest and fees because I didn't defer it for years. "
Now that's not logical ! I agree , can't understand why they won't accept less than £50 per month ! Esp if by direct debit ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P"
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then."
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!"
I've always believed that if a person is capable of studying to whatever level, beyond GCSE, then it should be open and free to them. Education is never wasted.
We are drifting into a topsy turvey world, where kids who choose not to go to university will end up better off than kids who do. After all, if you get a job at 18, and work hard and well, you will have a net profit after 3 years, rather than a £27,000 debt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!"
Really? Why? Who do you get more from in life... personal trainers, nutritionists, massage therapists, media productions companies (without whom there would be no tv, radio film etc...) or a Historian?
I could possibly have seen your point if you@d stopped in the area of Science... giving free training for people to go into cancer research areas or something... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!"
HALLELUJAH!
from a physicist, who will now join you in hiding... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!
Really? Why? Who do you get more from in life... personal trainers, nutritionists, massage therapists, media productions companies (without whom there would be no tv, radio film etc...) or a Historian?
I could possibly have seen your point if you@d stopped in the area of Science... giving free training for people to go into cancer research areas or something..."
Thanks for asking. Historians.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!
Really? Why? Who do you get more from in life... personal trainers, nutritionists, massage therapists, media productions companies (without whom there would be no tv, radio film etc...) or a Historian?
I could possibly have seen your point if you@d stopped in the area of Science... giving free training for people to go into cancer research areas or something...
Thanks for asking. Historians.
"
Ok, how has a historian made your life better? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!
Really? Why? Who do you get more from in life... personal trainers, nutritionists, massage therapists, media productions companies (without whom there would be no tv, radio film etc...) or a Historian?
I could possibly have seen your point if you@d stopped in the area of Science... giving free training for people to go into cancer research areas or something...
Thanks for asking. Historians.
Ok, how has a historian made your life better?"
By finding out about my family during ww1. Fascinating. Somehow I'm a celebrity or X factor did not seem quite so appealing afterwards.
I accept you may have a differing opinion and I respect that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!
Really? Why? Who do you get more from in life... personal trainers, nutritionists, massage therapists, media productions companies (without whom there would be no tv, radio film etc...) or a Historian?
I could possibly have seen your point if you@d stopped in the area of Science... giving free training for people to go into cancer research areas or something...
Thanks for asking. Historians.
Ok, how has a historian made your life better?"
Understanding our past, learning from mistakes, learning and adapting long forgotten knowledge, applying to the present and future, not to mention interest and enjoyment ? Amongst loads of other positives . Simple really. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!
Really? Why? Who do you get more from in life... personal trainers, nutritionists, massage therapists, media productions companies (without whom there would be no tv, radio film etc...) or a Historian?
I could possibly have seen your point if you@d stopped in the area of Science... giving free training for people to go into cancer research areas or something...
Thanks for asking. Historians.
Ok, how has a historian made your life better?
By finding out about my family during ww1. Fascinating. Somehow I'm a celebrity or X factor did not seem quite so appealing afterwards.
I accept you may have a differing opinion and I respect that."
I think the world has moved on from University only being for people who do "proper subjects". Sure, finding out about your family is great, but why does that qualify someone to have a free education over someone who brings enjoyment to people in other ways, such as media production. X Factor and I'm a celebrity aren't the only things on TV... history documentaries for example... or the News.
As someone who did not do a "proper subject" at Uni I think that saying some are more worthy than others is quite an old fashioned and elitist view.
As I said before, I could see it being an incentive for people to study medicine or science for medical research. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!
Really? Why? Who do you get more from in life... personal trainers, nutritionists, massage therapists, media productions companies (without whom there would be no tv, radio film etc...) or a Historian?
I could possibly have seen your point if you@d stopped in the area of Science... giving free training for people to go into cancer research areas or something...
Thanks for asking. Historians.
Ok, how has a historian made your life better?
Understanding our past, learning from mistakes, learning and adapting long forgotten knowledge, applying to the present and future, not to mention interest and enjoyment ? Amongst loads of other positives . Simple really."
Yet the audience for that would be much smaller without all those media graduates to stick Mr Historian on TV and bring him to the masses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!
Really? Why? Who do you get more from in life... personal trainers, nutritionists, massage therapists, media productions companies (without whom there would be no tv, radio film etc...) or a Historian?
I could possibly have seen your point if you@d stopped in the area of Science... giving free training for people to go into cancer research areas or something...
Thanks for asking. Historians.
Ok, how has a historian made your life better?
Understanding our past, learning from mistakes, learning and adapting long forgotten knowledge, applying to the present and future, not to mention interest and enjoyment ? Amongst loads of other positives . Simple really.
Yet the audience for that would be much smaller without all those media graduates to stick Mr Historian on TV and bring him to the masses."
Looks like I've started a bit of a debate here! 
Anyway, professional archaeologists and historians don't acquire their degrees in the hope to earn loads of money (they don't compared to other professions with degrees) they do it for the love of it - from a nearly qualified archaeologist and historian
P |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just seeing the news. You can defer repaying your student loan if you earn less than £2398 per month ! And after 25 years of deferment it's written off anyway !
Seems like a complete farce to me! May as well call it a gift rather than a loan ! Or am I being cynical ? "
Governments are well aware this country needs educated people to move with the highly skilled jobs we need. Low paid mfg here is in its arse as China and India can do it cheaper. They did give grants but no more they did tax higher but no more BUT if these kids educated in the UK want to take skills abroad they have to pay back the debt. There is method to all the perceived madness when you think about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I work for Student Finance England and students would be fucked if we didn't lend them money for degrees. A degree enables them to get a higher paid job therefore paying back the loan. It's not exactly a gift really tbf. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well I wouldn't of got my degree if it wasn't for a student loan. Not everyone has rich parents and why should only the rich get an education? I don't see anything wrong not starting to pay the loan back until you are more on your feet. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
Well we can either help those who want to gain a higher level of education or simply leave it to those who have the money to afford it as they happen to have been born into the 'right' families.
The problem with that is that just because you have money doesn't mean you have brains. That would lead to a skills shortfall meaning that we would have to look abroad to fill the gap - and this is already happening to some extent. Nothing wrong with that but it does mean that we have capable people who are barred due to lack of money from achieving all they can.
Furthermore, with such a lack of skilled people those employment areas/professions become something of a premium meaning that to entice people in there has to be greater rewards in terms of pay on offer. This is more costly though could be offset somewhat through taxation. However, excessive taxation to claw back some of those higher costs could have the effect of making such professions less attractive and again leading to a skills shortage.
The simple solution is to enable ALL those who are capable of gaining a higher level of education/skill which is, in part, what the loans aim to do.
If you were to see a doctor would your first concern be 'has this bastard paid off his/her student loan' or would you merely be grateful that you live in a country where people are enabled to gain the knowledge and skills to treat you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm confused... if the debts aren't written off for 25 years... and I took out a student loan in the fjrst of second year they were imposed... and mine is only 17 years old... it's still theoretical isn't it. . ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It is just another government farce, when they won't admit that this new system is going to recover less money than the old one, meanwhile deterring some poorer people from studying, in the worry over such huge debts.
I always follow the money, whenever a new government initiative is introduced. The fact that private debt companies have these loans given to them, for next to nothing, and then recover the money, and interest rates as well as fees for any little bit of activity, can go up at any point, is a big part of the reason for this. When you have a political party that is part funded by the likes of Wonga people, then you know that the financial industry will be well catered to.
We should give grants for natives, as we used to do. And EU nationals should provide some security as part of their studying, before they disappear off, never to be traced again or pay any money back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It is just another government farce, when they won't admit that this new system is going to recover less money than the old one, meanwhile deterring some poorer people from studying, in the worry over such huge debts.
I always follow the money, whenever a new government initiative is introduced. The fact that private debt companies have these loans given to them, for next to nothing, and then recover the money, and interest rates as well as fees for any little bit of activity, can go up at any point, is a big part of the reason for this. When you have a political party that is part funded by the likes of Wonga people, then you know that the financial industry will be well catered to.
We should give grants for natives, as we used to do. And EU nationals should provide some security as part of their studying, before they disappear off, never to be traced again or pay any money back."
There are [supposed] to be mechanisms within the EU to recover debts across borders. How and whether they work I have no idea.
The bigger problem is students who push off to a non-EU country (e.g.) the US. If they do that, and never return the money is lost.
The whole student loans issue, is a microcosm of the "there's no such thing as society" 80s credo. Which goes something like "Oh, why must *I* pay for something *I* don't use ?". At which point communal resources become "private". "Why should I pay for schools, I don't have children ?". "Why should I pay for hospitals, I'm not ill ?". "Why should I pay for someone elses education, *I* won't benefit ?". "Why should *I* pay for child benefit, *I* haven't got any children". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's the government who set the limit when a student should start paying back the student loan and recently before the changes a couple of years ago, it was 18,000 annual income. Student Finance has to take into consideration, living expenses, etc too, and not all students get high profile jobs when they first leave. Why should only people who can afford to pay for their uni fees outright be allowed only degrees? We will only increase the poor/rich divide.
Years ago, it used to be totally free! At least students will be paying something back.
P
Years ago, the idea was graduates earned more than non-graduates, so paid it back in higher taxes. It wasn't "free". Think of it like a pension in reverse. Unless you want to tell a pensioner that their pension is "free".
The main problem is that previous governments saw a degree as a sign of middle-classness, rather than a sign of educational achievement, and pushed an agenda aiming to increase the number of graduates. With the predictable result that having a degree means less now than then.
It may be an unpopular view but I do agree with this.
I believe that if someone is going to uni to do something like physics, chemistry, history etc etc, all fees should be paid and the courses should be free.
If the course of choice is media studies, sports science etc etc then you pay all the fees.
I'm off to hide now!
Really? Why? Who do you get more from in life... personal trainers, nutritionists, massage therapists, media productions companies (without whom there would be no tv, radio film etc...) or a Historian?
I could possibly have seen your point if you@d stopped in the area of Science... giving free training for people to go into cancer research areas or something...
Thanks for asking. Historians.
Ok, how has a historian made your life better?
Understanding our past, learning from mistakes, learning and adapting long forgotten knowledge, applying to the present and future, not to mention interest and enjoyment ? Amongst loads of other positives . Simple really.
Yet the audience for that would be much smaller without all those media graduates to stick Mr Historian on TV and bring him to the masses."
Never said otherwise did I ? I only answered a question about how a historian could make your life better. I have an MA hons in mediaeval history. Was a retail manager for years the degree enabling fast track courses. I am now a chef after retraining. I'm sure this historian makes people happy and full of the stomach. Wasn't commenting on other degrees. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sadly, the current system is unsustainable based on earnings of graduates (and lack of jobs etc) plus deferment etc.
But what if....
a) Students lived with their parents whilst undertaking a degree, enabling them to lessen costs by living at home? There is only a small percentage of students that would need to go into rented accommodation because they required a specialised course. If you wanted to go away to study, fine, but be prepared to fund this through loans which would have to paid back at a prorated rate based on income (not deferred).
b) The Government created a saving bonds scheme so that parents could save toward the costs of their childrens education. This could be put toward tuition fees.
c) If there is a shortfall in certain areas (such as say, Maths teachers) then tuition fees are subsidised to encourage uptake into those areas.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Just seeing the news. You can defer repaying your student loan if you earn less than £2398 per month ! And after 25 years of deferment it's written off anyway !
Seems like a complete farce to me! May as well call it a gift rather than a loan ! Or am I being cynical ? "
2398 is the average amount for a wage in the uk per month... You would discourage kids from poorer backgrounds from going to uni |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
