Three Quarters of Students Won't Pay Back Debt

[Guest Kopfkino]

I don't see that as wrong though. Unless they thought they would earn as much as a doctor. Or be the next US president.

You don't see somebody attending an educational institute just for the experience, at great cost to the taxpayer ,as wrong?

[Webbo]

I think it will be used as a bargaining tool to impose restrictions on students or raise fees further.

No, you're going to have to explain that one, it makes no sense at all.

[Benji]

You don't see somebody attending an educational institute just for the experience, at great cost to the taxpayer ,as wrong?

Quite difficult to quantify what is a worthy cost though. For some people the experience may develop the soft skills they need in a working environment that they would not otherwise have had (yes I appreciate that's just as achieveable as an apprentice or "in the real world"). Plus no one truely knows at 16/17 what the future holds for them: the degree might open new opportunities through career fairs etc.

I studied law and work in the city so the two go hand in hand, but I'd argue someone studying a "respected" degree like law who doesn't end up in the profession is probably wasting 90% of their time - that amount of what you learn has no relevance outside the legal world.

I think it's quite difficult to judge other than on an individual case basis, and even then only five years down the line with the benefit of hindsight. But I see a lot of good in everyone being given the opportunity to aspire to do whatever they want to do.

[ADK]

You don't see somebody attending an educational institute just for the experience, at great cost to the taxpayer ,as wrong?

 

No I don't. Toffs have been doing this for years, do you think a classics degree from a red brick will lead to a job as an ancient Greek? It's a chance to go and socialise and become more independent while studying something you have an interest in.

 

No, you're going to have to explain that one, it makes no sense at all.

 

"Three quarters of students won't pay back debt"

 

Do you believe that is a positive or negative statement?

 

I believe it's a negative statement and people will react by scrutinising the current set up.

 

 

Quite difficult to quantify what is a worthy cost though. For some people the experience may develop the soft skills they need in a working environment that they would not otherwise have had (yes I appreciate that's just as achieveable as an apprentice or "in the real world"). Plus no one truely knows at 16/17 what the future holds for them: the degree might open new opportunities through career fairs etc.

I studied law and work in the city so the two go hand in hand, but I'd argue someone studying a "respected" degree like law who doesn't end up in the profession is probably wasting 90% of their time - that amount of what you learn has no relevance outside the legal world.

I think it's quite difficult to judge other than on an individual case basis, and even then only five years down the line with the benefit of hindsight.

 

Good points.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Quite difficult to quantify though. For one some people it may develop the soft skills needed in a working environment that they would otherwise not have had (yes I appreciate that's just as achieveable as an apprentice or "in the real world") plus no one truely knows at 16/17 what the future holds for them.

I studied law and work in the city so the two go hand in hand, but I'd argue someone studying a "respected" degree like law who doesn't end up in the profession is probably wasting 90% of their time - that amount of what you learn has no relevance outside the legal world.

 

Of course it's difficult to quantify but plenty of graduates go into jobs which aren't graduate level jobs which kind of does quantify it to a degree. Fair enough if they go into a graduate level job because that's making the uni process more worthwhile, it doesn't matter if the job isn't relevant to their degree. My brother graduated and went into a degree that he didn't need a degree for and his girlfriend at uni works as a receptionist in a David Lloyds gym so uni for her was a complete waste of time effort and money.

 

Who knows what I'll end up doing after graduating but I'd love to pay off my student debt as it will mean I'm earning a fair whack. The added interest is a bit annoying but somebody has to pay for people that are barely paying anything back. On the other hand I might end up being one of those who barely pays anything back

[Webbo]

 

 

"Three quarters of students won't pay back debt"

 

Do you believe that is a positive or negative statement?

 

I believe it's a negative statement and people will react by scrutinising the current set up.

 

 

 

How   will it be used as a bargaining tool to impose restrictions on students or raise fees further.

[Guest Kopfkino]

No I don't. Toffs have been doing this for years, do you think a classics degree from a red brick will lead to a job as an ancient Greek? It's a chance to go and socialise and become more independent while studying something you have an interest in.

 

 

I have never said that employment after your degree has to be entirely relevant to your degree.

[Benji]

Of course it's difficult to quantify but plenty of graduates go into jobs which aren't graduate level jobs which kind of does quantify it to a degree. Fair enough if they go into a graduate level job because that's making the uni process more worthwhile, it doesn't matter if the job isn't relevant to their degree. My brother graduated and went into a degree that he didn't need a degree for and his girlfriend at uni works as a receptionist in a David Lloyds gym so uni for her was a complete waste of time effort and money.

 

Who knows what I'll end up doing after graduating but I'd love to pay off my student debt as it will mean I'm earning a fair whack. The added interest is a bit annoying but somebody has to pay for people that are barely paying anything back. On the other hand I might end up being one of those who barely pays anything back

Right but my (probably naive) faith in society would hope that the girlfriend did not enrol on the course with the intention of being a receptionist (and I mean that respectfully, my secretary is worth 1,000 versions of me - i.e. if you knew you wanted to be a receptionist you wouldn't enrol for a degree, unless it was relevant to that). Unfortunately people will play the system like every state benefit, my brother for example doesn't work, has moved abroad and relies on his other half - he will never pay back his loan while I work until the early hours and in return have to contribute more than I took out - I'm hardly sympathetic of that! But again it's all hindsight as to whether his or anyone's loan was beneficial to the state (which it wasn't) but I'd rather he and I both had that opportunity regardless. To start distinguishing between degrees and universities and jobs just wouldn't work. I don't know how the current system works but I'd be favourable to a "one-shot" approach to stop people degree hopping.

[ADK]

How   will it be used as a bargaining tool to impose restrictions on students or raise fees further.

 

People will want the amount of unpaid debt reduced, therefore logically we will hear more of

arguments such as:

 

"we need to reduce the numbers of students doing photography, statistically only 10% of photography students repay their debt"

 

or

 

"in my day only mensa members, dukes and earls got to go to uni, we can't allow any old tom dick and harry to have a degree, it devalues them"

 

or

 

"We should charge more in tuition fees in order to allow for the fact that some students ill not repay their debt. Those who get good jobs will cover for those who do not and we will allow the universities to keep any extra money thus incentivising them to provide better courses."

 

Or other variations. I'm not sure why that isn't obvious though.

[ADK]

"Receptionist" Is a fairly broad term though that could have lesser or greater responsibilities and a degree may still allow for career progression. Just because a job doesn't specify a degree doesn't mean it isn't useful.

[Webbo]

People will want the amount of unpaid debt reduced, therefore logically we will hear more of

arguments such as:

 

"we need to reduce the numbers of students doing photography, statistically only 10% of photography students repay their debt"

 

or

 

"in my day only mensa members, dukes and earls got to go to uni, we can't allow any old tom dick and harry to have a degree, it devalues them"

 

or

 

"We should charge more in tuition fees in order to allow for the fact that some students ill not repay their debt. Those who get good jobs will cover for those who do not and we will allow the universities to keep any extra money thus incentivising them to provide better courses."

 

Or other variations. I'm not sure why that isn't obvious though.

Why would the govt want to reduce the numbers of students in the first place? Govt policy for the last 20 years has been to expand the number of graduates.

[Benji]

I also think universities manage to hide away from their responsibilities here quite well. Many have become churning machines concerned only with bums on seats.

I accept they are institutions that need to balance the books as much as any other business but I do think there should be a better understanding between the Government (as financial backer) and the universities that each and every student offered a place has a reason for going to that university / enrolling to that course. This would need to be university led and definitely shouldn't be Government driven or you'll quickly have the traditionalists come in and reject anything that isn't law, medicine or classics related left, right and centre, but universities shouldn't just be filling courses to rinse, essentially, the state of money. Even if it just means forcing a face to face interview / students need to sit down one weekend and come up with a mini-business plan of reasons (be they academic, social or whatever) why they would benefit from that course so the university can say they think they can add value to that student.

At least when I applied it was just "Have you achieved XYZ grades and can you spell your name in your covering letter/CV? Great you're in. Pay up please Mr Govt."

[Guest Kopfkino]

 

Right but my (probably naive) faith in society would hope that the girlfriend did not enrol on the course with the intention of being a receptionist (and I mean that respectfully, my secretary is worth 1,000 versions of me - i.e. if you knew you wanted to be a receptionist you wouldn't enrol for a degree, unless it was relevant to that). Unfortunately people will play the system like every state benefit, my brother for example doesn't work, has moved abroad and relies on his other half - he will never pay back his loan while I work until the early hours and in return have to contribute more than I took out - I'm hardly sympathetic of that! But again it's all hindsight as to whether his or anyone's loan was beneficial to the state (which it wasn't) but I'd rather he and I both had that opportunity regardless. To start distinguishing between degrees and universities and jobs just wouldn't work. I don't know how the current system works but I'd be favourable to a "one-shot" approach to stop people degree hopping.

 

She played the system well. She had pretty much everything paid for her because she put down that she lived with her Mum who had a low income but spent equal time at her Dad's who earnt a fortune. I very much doubt she went with the intention to be a receptionist but she did seem to treat it as a 3 year social rather than have any direction. She did Creative Writing at Portsmouth.

 

 

"Receptionist" Is a fairly broad term though that could have lesser or greater responsibilities and a degree may still allow for career progression. Just because a job doesn't specify a degree doesn't mean it isn't useful.

 

Well I'm sure any progression that she makes now will be based on what she's done for the company rather than her degree. 

[lavrentis]

In my experience you need a degree to only get an interview . Then you prove yourself in te interview

[fuchsntf]

Anybody within any decent sense of finance must have known and forseen this coming with or without the catastrophical Banking collapse and following recession.

Many will believe I am crazy...but University base courses should be protected and supported, and we should return to the old days way of thinking, with some nick and tuck changes.

We need to support our future would be students.Its a must that finances for this further education is always available.

More money from the larger companies, who should put monnies gained from businesses and corporation taxes put aside to the education pot.Then smaller companies graded and rated accordingly.

The richer families should still pay for their childrens uni education, maybe becoming dualled/coupled with their tax contributions and concessions, but openly seperated.

I come from a socialist Working class background, and all my years, from School to retirement, I have argued that education,

All health services, and other society services should not be entwined Govt.or local politics.

Apprenticeships or to University completion, should not be a major burden to the student, the developement of qualified peoples at all levels feeds and developes our society, and shows its peoples everybody has a chance.

The Banks should also carry a larger burden.

One way is to take the first and small step of recognising that there is nothing practical to using the word Experts, it seems a cop out.The last 20 yrs its the so called 'experts' that have caused our education, financial, even our medical services disasters. This thread was opened on uni education funding so keeping to the theme, why did we need to change it the 1st

place. Why wasnt anything in place to question the change, and obvious future troubles, taken up it must be said, from other

political groups and single ministers.

I dont like the idea that the countries education should depend on financial status of the individual, and again American

policies or ways sieve and slide through into our society.

'

[Mark_w]

To be fair ADK some degrees are pretty useless because many people choose them without knowing what career they actually want.They just think University is what they should be doing after A Levels. I know somebody who did 'American Studies' and has no inclination to ever go to America. She just wanted to go to Uni for the experience.

 

Wait, so doing a University degree without knowing exactly what you want to do after University before you start the course makes your degree useless?

 

Why shouldn't people choose University degrees to continue their education in an area they're genuinely interested in and then use the careers service Universities offer to work out what they want to do and how to get there. I really don't think people should feel pressured into deciding what they want to do for the rest of their life when they're 17 years old, they should be choosing a course that they'll care enough about to invest the time in, and later on working out how that can lead to a job they'll enjoy.

[ADK]

The degree is more than the piece of paper though. You assume somebody would have equally developed if they hadn't gone to university, but socialising with a diverse range of people and having the opportunity to try different things and live independently is usually good, and you do have to meet deadlines even if the standard and amount of work isn't necessarily that great.

 

Therefore you can't distinguish between the two. I simply reject the notion that a degree can be pre-judged as pointless. Some people make poor decisions. I'm not a big fan of the incentives for low income families, I believe people should be treated equally on their own merit and leave it at that.

 

Webbo might be right about the government encouraging graduates. I was under the impression that rhetoric has been fairly anti student of recent with more attention being given to apprenticeships for example. One thing I find harsh is burdening successful graduates with effectively more income tax on top of already paying higher tax for earning more, it seems like paying twice.

[Guest ttfn]

Actually just paid off my student loan as it happens (I was at uni back in the £1k a year fee glory days) and didn't notice the money coming out for the previous 6 years.

As somebody else said, it needs to be seen as a "graduate tax". The amount they take out is designed to be minimal and most don't notice it at all. In fact, now that I get my proper salary I see it almost as a bonus, as this was money that was taken away from me before I even had it before.

[Matt]

Why does this not come as any surprise to me?!

 

Just 2 examples I can talk about -

1) I know someone who is running away from her debt, she's staying out of the country travelling, for aslong as possible, fuck knows how's financing and can afford to do so.

2) And this answers alot to my first point - There was a Uni student who worked with me during the summer, he was telling me, almost bragging to me how he was already thousands of pounds in debt, he answer to it? When he finishes Uni in a few years he's gonna leave the country go travelling, because he reckons - How true this is I don't know but I can only take his word for it, if you are out of the country for 7 (I think he said 7) years the debt gets wrote off.

[lavrentis]

Why does this not come as any surprise to me?!

 

Just 2 examples I can talk about -

1) I know someone who is running away from her debt, she's staying out of the country travelling, for aslong as possible, fuck knows how's financing and can afford to do so.

2) And this answers alot to my first point - There was a Uni student who worked with me during the summer, he was telling me, almost bragging to me how he was already thousands of pounds in debt, he answer to it? When he finishes Uni in a few years he's gonna leave the country go travelling, because he reckons - How true this is I don't know but I can only take his word for it, if you are out of the country for 7 (I think he said 7) years the debt gets wrote off.

 

theres a lot of bullshit when it comes to student loans

 

if hes out of the country travelling for 7 years he'll never pay teh student loan again because he'll probably only be able to get shit jobs when he comes back to the UK

[lavrentis]

imo if you pick a uni course without a plan for after uni aka, you not doing a degree for a job in the same field,  you are stupid.

 

literally throwing money away

 

sickening as well all these student protests, students are the most over privileged group of people

[davieG]

Why does this not come as any surprise to me?!

 

Just 2 examples I can talk about -

1) I know someone who is running away from her debt, she's staying out of the country travelling, for aslong as possible, fuck knows how's financing and can afford to do so.

2) And this answers alot to my first point - There was a Uni student who worked with me during the summer, he was telling me, almost bragging to me how he was already thousands of pounds in debt, he answer to it? When he finishes Uni in a few years he's gonna leave the country go travelling, because he reckons - How true this is I don't know but I can only take his word for it, if you are out of the country for 7 (I think he said 7) years the debt gets wrote off.

I don't think the 7 year rule is true my son's been in Norway for that long and he's still paying it off even though he hasn't earned any money in England in that time.

[bovril]

Yeah I can second this '7 year rule' not being true.

[ADK]

It might be the case for the likes of Wonga loans and other debt, think CCJ's expire after 6 years, good luck ever getting any form of credit again though. Also nothing unique to students. People can declare themselves bankrupt and remain here too.

 

It's worth point out the "three quarters" figure is only a forecast and includes people who repay 99% of their debt so it's potentially a bit misleading.

[Carl the Llama]

I don't think the 7 year rule is true my son's been in Norway for that long and he's still paying it off even though he hasn't earned any money in England in that time.

I think it's if you haven't even begun paying it back.  So basically if I earn shit for another 5 years I save myself 25-odd grand.  Talk about a disincentive.