I don't have a problem with student loans themselves as long as they are nominal interest rates and reasonable fees. As grendel mentioned it's more of a graduate tax but this is ridiculous and it's a big step in the wrong direction towards the US system which is crippling.Would these be the same student loans that were first implemented under New Labour by any chance?
Yes "AND"The student loan is a tax on future earnings - it’s not prohibitive to the poor
£500/mo off my salary makes quite a big difference thanks.
Does the amount change dependent on the interest rate charged?
What's the point in this change then? What's the point in student loans as the govt essentially writes them off after a few years
The length of time I’m paying does. My post grad loan has barely gone down in five years of paying it. It’s fucking depressing.
That’s a lot!!! On what salary unless that’s too personalThe length of time I’m paying does. My post grad loan has barely gone down in five years of paying it. It’s fucking depressing.
That’s a lot!!! On what salary unless that’s too personal
Yeah I get that, but in the grand scheme of things I wouldn’t expect it will make a huge difference. Out of curiosity, are you forecast to pay off the loan in full?
Edit: I should add, I also have a student loan that is being repaid and it’s a pain in the arse so I understand where you’re coming from.
Yes exactly, the government has sold the debt for pennies in the £ at that point, ergo writing most of it offThey weren't written off, the pre 2012 loan books were sold to dodgy debt collection companies with no provision for the existing terms to be maintained which resulted in aggressive pursuit of money owed. The companies involved were regularly in trouble with the ombudsman for dodgy practices.
Im not sure. Does it tell you on your account anywhere? I can’t see it. Been paying my undergrad loan for almost 20 years but on a much lower wage and it’s just over two thirds gone IIRC, post grad I’ve been paying for almost 5 years and it’s gone down 20%. So on those figures I’d expect to pay it off.
That’s a lot mate.No I don’t mind: £70k, with post grad and under grad loans. It’s not putting me in poverty but I’d be lying if I said it didn’t grate.
But if that's the case, why didn't they write it off for the students rather than selling it to a debt collector, who by nature they know will pursue it vigourously? You're taking the hit anyway, so take the political goodwill from writing it off.Yes exactly, the government has sold the debt for pennies in the £ at that point, ergo writing most of it off
But if that's the case, why didn't they write it off for the students rather than selling it to a debt collector, who by nature they know will pursue it vigourously? You're taking the hit anyway, so take the political goodwill from writing it off.
Basically, they've got very little from it, the ex-students are much worse off and angry at their treatment and prospective students are put off having seen what is happening to those who went before them.
That’s a lot mate.
I agree. Considering they're supposedly trying to push STEM, they really are making it an unattractive long term proposition.What pisses me off and maybe I’m being unreasonable is I feel like I’m being punished for choosing a decent degree. If I’d got an arts degree and earned bugger all my education would cost me less despite being valued the same at point of “sale”.
I agree. Considering they're supposedly trying to push STEM, they really are making it an unattractive long term proposition.
The entire system needs a rethink, whereby less emphasis is put on things like uni in subjects where it's unnecessary and greater kudos is given to technical and vocational achievements. Same end goal, different route.
Would these be the same student loans that were first implemented under New Labour by any chance?
Would these be the same student loans that were first implemented under New Labour by any chance?
What pisses me off is inverted degree snobberyWhat pisses me off and maybe I’m being unreasonable is I feel like I’m being punished for choosing a decent degree. If I’d got an arts degree and earned bugger all my education would cost me less despite being valued the same at point of “sale”.
Further education in a nutshell. Its about making money not about preparing a suitable workforce that matches the nations requirements.What pisses me off and maybe I’m being unreasonable is I feel like I’m being punished for choosing a decent degree. If I’d got an arts degree and earned bugger all my education would cost me less despite being valued the same at point of “sale”.
Does it really?? It’s a genuine investment in your life isn’t it?What pisses me off and maybe I’m being unreasonable is I feel like I’m being punished for choosing a decent degree. If I’d got an arts degree and earned bugger all my education would cost me less despite being valued the same at point of “sale”.
Further education in a nutshell. Its about making money not about preparing a suitable workforce that matches the nations requirements.
What pisses me off is inverted degree snobbery
there's defiantly benefit to academia but I'm not sure there's a lot of benefit to having hundreds or even thousands of people studying things like media studies or music management when there simply aren't the jobs available. The knock on impact is that those type of industries now have a huge percentage of staff who are unpaid interns.Agree that formal education should not be for profit, disagree that education is for preparing people for work, this sort of line is what lead us to tuition fees in the first place
Does it really?? It’s a genuine investment in your life isn’t it?
The incentive is making more money.Well this is an argument against marketisation of degrees full stop. Learning shouldn’t be tied to income potential really. But if I’m being asked to pay back more if I earn more then you’re being subsidised for taking less marketable degrees, which isn’t fair and is a perverse incentive economically.
Firstly, not quite, as above these ones were designed by a Tory government.
Secondly, who's in charge now, with the power to do something about it?
I thought your pathetic excuse for keeping Boris in office was that there's too much to do to get rid of him. Are you saying your Tory Government can't do anything about this?
In fact is there anything other than a bit of military support for Ukraine and sending the 'wrong kind' of refugees to Rwanda that they can do?
Typical Tory. Deflect, deflect, deflect...
It was a direct response to education being privileged and elitist, but you knew that, as usual taking it out of context and pretending to be thick.
If it was a direct response to something, then why didn't you put that in your pithy one liner implying that it was all New Labour's fault (and seeming implying that it's nothing to do with this Government)?
Bit lazy mate, perhaps you're taking your work ethic from party-animal Boris?
Anyway, back to the specifics. The Government's own analysis of the changes is here:
Higher education reform: equality impact assessment - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Guardian's analysis of that document is here:
England student loan changes will hit poor hardest, official analysis finds | Students | The Guardian
And the New Statesman summarised it all in a graph here:
View attachment 24387
So, basically, if you're poor and/or in a disadvantaged group you're going to end up paying more.
You're a Tory Rob, and a supporter of Boris and his cronies through thick and thin.
I'm a bit thick, as you say, so please explain to me how this change is in any way fair? Feel free to link to your own evidence.
Again misrepresentative. I didn't say the govt weren't involved, nor that they couldn't change it. I replied to a post that said education wasn't for everyone as if cost was a barrier. I merely pointed out that it began under New Labour so hardly elitist.
I also fail to understand how it costs anyone more since you only pay back when you're earning more and therefore have dragged yourself out if poverty through education. Surely that's a good thing?
Fwiw I never did agree with opening up degrees to so many via polytechnics being rebranded to so many places, diminishing the genuine achievements. When only a small percentage went, it meant more. So many pointless degrees in anything and everything, that you're then competing against high numbers to get the same postgrad jobs and without any real experience. Imo better off working from A levels unless you're chosen profession has entry barriers without a degree.
No.So many assumptions here it's hard to know where to begin. I can't really misrepresent a one line comment. But hey ho, at least we've got to the point where we can agree that the current government is responsible for its own policies.
So let's keep it simple.
This government's proposal means that if you're poor and/or in a disadvantaged group you're going to end up paying more for your degree than if you're rich. Is that fair or not?
No.
Everyone pays the same rate and the same amount back. If they earn less they pay over longer so accrue more interest but that's true however rich you are as it's earnings related. Not sure why that's so difficult for anyone.
I agree to an extent, but more needs to be done in the education sector (and in employment) to make sure that those jobs that are important but don't attract people to them do. I know the market is supposed to do that but it doesn't appear to be working particularly well.Agree that formal education should not be for profit, disagree that education is for preparing people for work, this sort of line is what lead us to tuition fees in the first place
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?