Student loans

[jimbo]

I'm at uni for 5 years with no scholarships or anything. That means 5 lots of £3.5k tuition fees and 5 lots of a £3.5k loan for housing. Yes, I'm borrowing £7000 per year for 5 years. With inflation the debt at the end of my course will be approaching £40000!!!

My girlfriend is on the same course so should things develop we would be enterring the real world with £80,000 worth of debt hanging over us. What a position to be in!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Just out of curiosity, is it required that student loans be repaid and are they? Over here loans are repaid, while bursaries are not.

Yeah, they're supposed to be repaid.

I also don't understand prufrock's complaint - "I have to pay a higher student loan" while others pay a lower one. A loan is money you borrow and repay later over time as Athers points out. What is paying one as a student? A reference to subsequent repayment terms? Or is there a limit on the amount you can borrow according to financial need?

[jimbo]

Oh and the way to get over the problem is by scrapping useless courses whose graduates find themselves on the dole because they feel over-qualified for most jobs because they have a degree, however worthless it may be.

It's great that more people are going into higher education, but a lot of people are only doing it because it seems the right thing to do. They borrow a bit of money to piss about for 3 years, coming out with a worthless degree and are equally unemployable at the end of it. Therefore they never get to pay off their student loan, making the rest of us fork out. Most of these people should be getting a job at 18 then working their way up in a company or getting a useful trade.

A mate of mine isn't the most academically gifted but felt the need to go to uni. He's in his last year doing American Studies and has hated it. The degree won't really improve his employment prospects and so he has wasted the last 3 years and a hell of a lot of government money.

[jimbo]

Just out of curiosity, is it required that student loans be repaid and are they? Over here loans are repaid, while bursaries are not.

Yeah, they're supposed to be repaid.

I also don't understand prufrock's complaint - "I have to pay a higher student loan" while others pay a lower one. A loan is money you borrow and repay later over time as Athers points out. What is paying one as a student? A reference to subsequent repayment terms? Or is there a limit on the amount you can borrow according to financial need?

Not sure if this is what he is getting at, but.......

The system works something like this. If you are from a poorer family you can borrow more and may get a grant that does not have to be repaid. After graduation you only have to start repaying the loan when you earn over a certain amountn (maybe £16k). As you progress up the earnings ladder, the amount you have to repay each month increases. At the bottom of the scale (below £22k/yr rings a bell) it will take off about 250 years to repay a standard £15k student debt. This is where a lot of the money is lost as clearly it will never be repayed and after a certain amount of time the debt get's scrapped if it has not been repayed.

It may also be important to point out that despite me forking out £3.5k every year for tuition, the government subsidises every university student substantially. Actual fees equate to nearer £10k per year depending on what course you are on. This money is never paid back or asked for.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Mine's about £17k as I've received the maximum loan for four years, Wigan Council paid my tuition fees (£1125pa) as well. I wouldn't fancy the £3k charges you're facing.

Monty - You start paying back once you're earning £15k p.a. at a few pence a week I think and it goes up on a sliding scale - for instance a £30k salary means £1350 repayment in a year.

The loan is at 4.8% interest, up from the 2.4% it was a couple of years ago and interest is charged when you're still a student (controversy). You don't have to pay it back if you die, get to 65 and if you've still not paid it off, or you run and hide in Panama etc.

Regards whether it's good to have a loan system, it's alright but of course means working in the holidays and possibly term time doing shit jobs but that's always been the case here. I had a Finnish mate though who got 1000euro a month direct to his bank from their Government, even outside of term time, the bastard.

It's something of a misnomer to call it 'interest' though, isn't it, Athers? It's just an amount tied to inflation so that we pay back the same as we have borrowed, in real terms - not really 'interest' as I would understand it...

Just to add to Athers' answer, Monty, our student loan repayments are deducted from our wage packets directly by our employers, in exactly the same way as our National Insurance contributions. It's 9% on anything earnt over £15,000.

Athers, what do you mean when you say interest is charged when still a student? I don't believe I have paid any yet. Presumably you mean that the 'interest' starts accruing while one is still a student?

Like you, I'm glad I got into the system before the £3K charges that Prufrock will pay came into operation.... perhaps in these circumstances it is easy for me to supprt them in policy terms.


Yes, we are lucky to live a country which has student loans, but that doesn't put the entire system beyond some gentle scrutiny. I can understand that most of you will be thoroughly unintrested in the issue, except, perhaps, as taxpayers funding it (PF, I can only suggest that site stalwart Zulus is having a bad day - he would usually be the first to say that the appropriate way to deal with a lack of interest in a thread is not to post in it. As a moderator, he does have to read an unhealthy amount of bollocks, so even he slips, from time to time. )

And as a taxpayer, perhaps Capslock's point is the most relevant - why should you be able to turn down your parents' assistance and take his instead?

I agree that the point is sometimes more complicated than that. Parents' income does not always tell the whole story about how much disposable income they have, or about how much they are willing to give to their kids.

I suppose the answer is that it's just not that important, Prufrock. 75% of the loan in non-income assessed. The household income threshold at which the next 25% is given is really quite low in the scheme of things, and it doesn't seem unreasonable that these households should get some more assistance (assistance which will, by the way, nevertheless have to be paid back somewhere down the line - of course, those eligible for this extra debt can turn it down). Plus, it's a sliding scale, so only students from very low income families get the full 100%.

The system is an expensive one, so it's not unreasonable for the number crucnhers to try and keep the costs down by expecting that families should make some contribution. My only concern, as ever, is how much money is wasted in the beauracracy calculating this range of different rates; I wonder if we might be better off in the long term offering everyone the same, given that it is all expected to be repaid eventually. Of course, the party political process does not encourage saving money in the long term by shelling out more in the short term.....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm at uni for 5 years with no scholarships or anything. That means 5 lots of £3.5k tuition fees and 5 lots of a £3.5k loan for housing. Yes, I'm borrowing £7000 per year for 5 years. With inflation the debt at the end of my course will be approaching £40000!!!

My girlfriend is on the same course so should things develop we would be enterring the real world with £80,000 worth of debt hanging over us. What a position to be in!

Indeed, but how much will your joint lifetime earning potential have been increased by, as a result of obtaining your qualifications?



(I hope you have a long and prosperous life together, by the way! )

[Montreal Wanderer]

Thanks - the whole thing seems incredibly complicated, but whatever works for you is fine by me.

[BWFC_Insane]

If everyone who ever mentioned becoming a politician was shot immediately, we might just have an answer to these questions.

Millions of kids are put through further and higher education simply to keep unemployment figures down and for them to be able to say "ooh, look at us, aren't we meritocratic". Complex loan systems, and the bizarre idea that educational institutions should compete for students money is just an inevitable consequence of letting the lunatics run the asylum.

Thats my two pen'orth.

But it has improved the quality of teaching in many (if not all institutions). I used to work in Higher Education and believe me, the notion that Universities are accountable for delivering a service HAS improved things.

However, whether having 50% of kids going through a degree is a good idea or not is a totally different debate.

[FD]

Mine's about £17k as I've received the maximum loan for four years, Wigan Council paid my tuition fees (£1125pa) as well. I wouldn't fancy the £3k charges you're facing.

May I ask, how old are you to be already oweing such a large sum of money?

Same question to Jimbo, £40,000 to be repaid is just...fecking hell man, no wonder none of the kids of today can afford to buy a house etc.

[Athers]

It's something of a misnomer to call it 'interest' though, isn't it, Athers? It's just an amount tied to inflation so that we pay back the same as we have borrowed, in real terms - not really 'interest' as I would understand it...

Athers, what do you mean when you say interest is charged when still a student? I don't believe I have paid any yet. Presumably you mean that the 'interest' starts accruing while one is still a student?

I've just researched this further and it seems I was a little off with my generalisation of them doubling the rate - I found that they set the rate based on the inflation in one month (March) and that doubled comparing the two months March '06 and March '07. Taking a one month sample is not particularly sensible though, plus they take the RPI measure not CPI which is now the preferred government measure. March '08 RPI was 3.8% which is a bit better though.

I get an annual statement withinterest figures and total debt outstanding, do you not?

[Athers]

Mine's about £17k as I've received the maximum loan for four years, Wigan Council paid my tuition fees (£1125pa) as well. I wouldn't fancy the £3k charges you're facing.

May I ask, how old are you to be already oweing such a large sum of money? Do you pay interest on the loan or is there a way around it because it's a "student loan" because the interest on a loan that big for four years must be rather sizeable.

I'm 23 next month. Student loan debt is still the cheapest debt around though and as mentioned above doesn't affect you particularly harshly, neither does it affect credit rating. I knew I was taking it on when I decided to go to further education, hopefully my earning potential through my lifetime will be a lot more than £17k because of it!

[jimbo]

Mine's about £17k as I've received the maximum loan for four years, Wigan Council paid my tuition fees (£1125pa) as well. I wouldn't fancy the £3k charges you're facing.

May I ask, how old are you to be already oweing such a large sum of money?

Same question to Jimbo, £40,000 to be repaid is just...fecking hell man, no wonder none of the kids of today can afford to buy a house etc.

I'm 19 and just coming to the end of my first year of a 5 year course, borrowing £7000 per year from the student loans company.

[FD]

Athers, not so bad but still a lot of debt!

Jimbo, 19 years old and owing £7000 a year? I hope you become a hugely well paid CEO of some massive company mate.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Athers, not so bad but still a lot of debt!

Jimbo, 19 years old and owing £7000 a year? I hope you become a hugely well paid CEO of some massive company mate.

But his degree will add more than £35k to his lifetime earning potential.

Presumably, that's why he has decided to take it on - it's a sound investment.



This is why I am in favour of students paying more (retrospectively, so it isn't a barrier to those from poor backgrounds) for their education. The more the decision about whether or not to go to university is an economic one, the fewer people will do worthless degrees.

[Lord Kangana]

Athers, not so bad but still a lot of debt!

Jimbo, 19 years old and owing £7000 a year? I hope you become a hugely well paid CEO of some massive company mate.

But his degree will add more than £35k to his lifetime earning potential.

Presumably, that's why he has decided to take it on - it's a sound investment.



This is why I am in favour of students paying more (retrospectively, so it isn't a barrier to those from poor backgrounds) for their education. The more the decision about whether or not to go to university is an economic one, the fewer people will do worthless degrees.

Unless of course unemployment starts rising...

[FD]

I agree in princible, as long as they get the jobs they deserve then they should be ok.

I never went to uni and only just under a year at college, got a house a family and two children, we get by okay.

It's down to whatever suits the person

[jimbo]

It should add more than £35k to earning potential, but it's a hell of a lot of debt to be carrying around. I don't have many issues with it and it wasn't a factor in deciding what to do at uni either. Just an unfortunate necessity of doing the course and getting to where I want to be.

[communistworkethic]

I think that he has a point. I've always queried a system that seems to have no problem in shelling out for, housing and feeding chavs and their bastard offsprings yet is reluctant to fund those that will eventually benefit the nation and be paying taxes back in at a higher rate anyway.

commie i will say on this thread, as i have said on others, we disagree on certain issues, you seem to want to take this to the point where you want to twist everything i say to sound like im a complete cockjob. what you say is not at all what i mean, and, dare i suggest, deep down you know it isnt. bruce sums it up a lot closer though perhaps not as closely as id like in that he doesnt define chav.


in my opinion, a kid whose parents are drug dealers, if he/she is a clever kid, has as much right to a university education as a kid whose parents work as mangers at next (first occupation and store that came to mind). and said kid from next has just as much a right to a university education as a kid whose parents OWN next. my point is purely that i, like any youngster wishing to go to uni, i shouldnt be judged either way by what my parent have, or havent, done, merely on my own values. As i have said i personally have no idea how one would do this, I dont pretend to know everything, this thread is designed for views and ideas??????????????????????????

yeah cos that's what you said in your original post isn't it?

You do a good job of making yourself look like a cockjob thanks to your inability to communicate clearly and succintly, in spite of a claim of a wish to do so.

To help us all, are you suggesting that:

a) higher education should be free to all
b) if a student loan system is to exist, that the level of loan provided is based on a much more rigorous method of means testing than is currently in place
c) all students should recieve some sort of "grant" to cover their living expenses irrespective of family income
d) all of the above
e) none of the above

[Prufrock]

I think that he has a point. I've always queried a system that seems to have no problem in shelling out for, housing and feeding chavs and their bastard offsprings yet is reluctant to fund those that will eventually benefit the nation and be paying taxes back in at a higher rate anyway.

commie i will say on this thread, as i have said on others, we disagree on certain issues, you seem to want to take this to the point where you want to twist everything i say to sound like im a complete cockjob. what you say is not at all what i mean, and, dare i suggest, deep down you know it isnt. bruce sums it up a lot closer though perhaps not as closely as id like in that he doesnt define chav.


in my opinion, a kid whose parents are drug dealers, if he/she is a clever kid, has as much right to a university education as a kid whose parents work as mangers at next (first occupation and store that came to mind). and said kid from next has just as much a right to a university education as a kid whose parents OWN next. my point is purely that i, like any youngster wishing to go to uni, i shouldnt be judged either way by what my parent have, or havent, done, merely on my own values. As i have said i personally have no idea how one would do this, I dont pretend to know everything, this thread is designed for views and ideas??????????????????????????

yeah cos that's what you said in your original post isn't it?

You do a good job of making yourself look like a cockjob thanks to your inability to communicate clearly and succintly, in spite of a claim of a wish to do so.

To help us all, are you suggesting that:

a) higher education should be free to all
b) if a student loan system is to exist, that the level of loan provided is based on a much more rigorous method of means testing than is currently in place
c) all students should recieve some sort of "grant" to cover their living expenses irrespective of family income
d) all of the above
e) none of the above

a, which in my view would include c. as a result i would have higher and more tax brackets to help pay for this.

[Prufrock]

i wrote this when i hadnt slept for 36 hours so i apologise for a general lack of clarity in my original post. it wasnt meant to be about me, im not trying to have a big whinge, relatively speaking i am very lucky, but i think the system is flawed. i shall try to talk generally, so bear with me if this doesnt help clarity.

say person x goes to university, and on the same course with the same tuition fees as person y, person z, and person a. person x' familly income per year s 20k. person y' is 40k, person z's 60k, and person a's 80k. now normally person x would be entitled to the highest loan (if it were my university twould be 9k per year (3k tuition, 6k maintenance)) person y would be entitled to a little less, and persons z and a considerably less. in theory this plan is good and fair. most people will get some help from their parents, therefore what help they get from the govenmnet changes depending on what this is expected to be. my problem with the system is you cant predict this. i know real life situations where the parents of person y have paid for all of person y's fees and rent etc... therefore person y comes out of uni with no debt, yet still has the same job prospects.

as i said i dont pretend to have all the answers but in my view it would be much fairer for higher education to be paid for by the state. i think is should be completely free. to pay for it i would suggest more and higher tax brackets, therefore the ones coming out of uni with that benefit would pay for the next generation. my jizz enough money away on other stuff, i cant see how education isn't a big priority.


as for my own situation, its not i wont take help from my parents, i do, but my familly have other things to pay for too like pension plans and the like. i just dont think any student should suffer or gain an advantage becasue of anything their parents have done.