Average Uk Student Debts 'could Hit £53,000'

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14488312

Average debts may reach £53,000 for UK students starting in 2012 - double the figure for 2011 - an annual survey suggests.

The Push university guide said average annual debts had risen 6.4% in the past year - more than inflation - to £5,680.

Researchers interviewed 2,800 students and based the projection on an average course length of 3.4 years.

Tuition fees in England will rise in 2012, but ministers say students should not be put off for financial reasons.

The survey is published a week before A-level pupils are due to receive their results, with heavy competition expected for remaining university places as prospective students seek to avoid the fees increase.

Projected rise

Push researchers looked at all the debts, apart from mortgages, accrued by students at different stages of study around the UK, including some on longer courses such as medicine, and some postgraduates.

They then used the rate at which debts have increased in the past to project future rises, as well as factoring in the almost tripling of tuition fees in England to a maximum of £9,000 from 2012.

The average predicted debt on leaving university for UK students is £26,100 for those starting in 2011, rising to £53,400 for 2012 entrants.

For students in England, the projected average is £59,100, with the difference largely due to the fact that Scottish students do not have to pay tuition fees and increases for Welsh students' will be covered by government subsidies.

Excellent news, good to see Osborne's recovery plan in full effect. We just need to get the rest of the country borrowing and GDP growth is sure to return.

At least student debt is going up faster than inflation. Great news for our long term recovery....

[exiges]

I think it's a good thing, certainly concentrates the mind about goofing off for 3yrs to learn American and Spanish literature in the 17th century that you have no intention of using .. Whereas previously the tax payer would be footing the bill for their whimsy.

[rented]

Whereas previously the tax payer would be footing the bill for their whimsy.

And still will be for students in Wales and Scotland.

[fluffy666]

I think it's a good thing, certainly concentrates the mind about goofing off for 3yrs to learn American and Spanish literature in the 17th century that you have no intention of using .. Whereas previously the tax payer would be footing the bill for their whimsy.

Or learning science, maths, engineering.. we don't need people doing that, either. Much better if we just use universities as a finishing school for the rich, whilst making sure that the good jobs and professions still require degrees for entry.

[Lepista]

1. The problem isn't the cost of the education, it's the numbers of undergraduates. Keep university for the talented, keep it free, and keep it for "proper" degrees. There should be nothing to stop university's providing a surfing degree, and people taking it, as long as they are prepared to fund it themselves.

2. The prof. on the radio this morning said the debt shouldn't be regarded as a "loan" - rather as a "graduate tax". An implicit recognition that the debt will never be paid off, and the debt will be a millstone around their neck for the rest of their lifetime.

3. If this does become seen as a "graduate tax", expect everybody who has historically been to university to be expected to pay up in the fututre.

[efdemin]

I'd prefer it if they rationed it by reducing the number of places rather than adding crippling debt onto young people.

Universities should aim for elitism, but elitism in academic ability, not wealth.

[DoctorJ]

Debt expansion is the only way we can survive.

The banks will love it too - bringing forward a lifetimes worth of lovely debt. oh goody!

[cartimandua51]

1. The problem isn't the cost of the education, it's the numbers of undergraduates. Keep university for the talented, keep it free, and keep it for "proper" degrees. There should be nothing to stop university's providing a surfing degree, and people taking it, as long as they are prepared to fund it themselves.

What is a"proper" degree? This has been a bit of a moving target over the centuries. It took decades for English and Medicine to be accepted as "proper" degrees; even longer for Engineering. On the other hand, the very oldest "proper" degree, Philosophy, is a subject where there is absolutely NO demand for professional practitioners!

Edited August 12, 2011 by cartimandua51

[MrFlibble]

The average predicted debt on leaving university for UK students is £26,100 for those starting in 2011, rising to £53,400 for 2012 entrants.

I'd like to see a graph of the total wages earned over a lifetime for a average person entering employment straight after school vs. a average person entering employment after spending five years at college and university. The intersection point now must be so far ahead that I'd have to question whether going to University is actually of any financial benefit at all.

Shame it's come to this, yet another item in life some got for virtually nothing while others are expected to pay full whack for.

Have they done fukcing over the young yet or are they just going to put them in shackles and have them break rocks?

[richrich]

What is a"proper" degree? This has been a bit of a moving target over the centuries. It took decades for English and Medicine to be accepted as "proper" degrees; even longer for Engineering. On the other hand, the very oldest "proper" degree, Philosophy, is a subject where there is absolutely NO demand for professional practitioners!

Depends on your perspective. In the current economical climate, a 'proper' degree lets you find a job with decent pay.

I would call it a 'practical' degree.

[stuckmojo]

but but but on Radio 4 this morning everyone agreed that this should not be really seen as a debt, but it is a "tax"! and a great enabler for a much richer life experience which will unlock incredibly fulfilling jobs and careers.

No one to contradict the circle jerk that was going on either. ******ing disgusting.

[Neverland]

Or learning science, maths, engineering.. we don't need people doing that, either. Much better if we just use universities as a finishing school for the rich, whilst making sure that the good jobs and professions still require degrees for entry.

I dunno. I think its that way already

When I went to a posh UK university in the 90s most of the English kids their were from rich families anyway

The thing about a state subsidised university degree is that is was mostly poorer people paying (through their taxes) for the upper classes to give their kids another leg up

I'm not if partially removing this subsidy is such a bad thing

The idea of what a "proper" degree is and who should decide it is also highly subjective

If you want a small state, the most sensible thing to cut is state subsidies to people who are already richer than average...

[Neverland]

Depends on your perspective. In the current economical climate, a 'proper' degree lets you find a job with decent pay.

I would call it a 'practical' degree.

So "banking and finance" would be a proper degree to be encouraged?

If you go down this road....everything quickly becomes subjective...

[Lepista]

I dunno. I think its that way already

When I went to a posh UK university in the 90s most of the English kids their were from rich families anyway

The thing about a state subsidised university degree is that is was mostly poorer people paying (through their taxes) for the upper classes to give their kids another leg up

I'm not if partially removing this subsidy is such a bad thing

The idea of what a "proper" degree is and who should decide it is also highly subjective

If you want a small state, the most sensible thing to cut is state subsidies to people who are already richer than average...

You could introduce the levelling field that only people educated at state schools could go to a state university.

[Neverland]

You could introduce the levelling field that only people educated at state schools could go to a state university.

Not such a bad idea, but I would question the end results this would generate

Also:

- you have to allow people to spend their money as they choose

- competition in education provision is likely to improve its results (cf. Nordic model)

Despite being a lifelong labour voter I wasn't actually against Willets proposal that the rich could buy their kids places at university at the full commercial rate foriegn students pay provided they met the course entry requirements and weren't selected under the normal route

[efdemin]

You could introduce the levelling field that only people educated at state schools could go to a state university.

Oxbridge would go private quicker than you could blink in this case.

It's a bad idea, basically.

Edited August 12, 2011 by efdemin

[mikthe20]

I'd prefer it if they rationed it by reducing the number of places rather than adding crippling debt onto young people.

The "students" will ration themselves by simply not going to university. I still can't believe that universities can't see a massive drop in applications coming in a few years' time. Of course, what they then ought to do is bring their fees down and cut their exhorbitant overheads and wastage (my missus works at a uni), but they'll just try to foist more debt on students and/or stick the begging bowl back in front of the taxpayers' noses.

[fluffy666]

2. The prof. on the radio this morning said the debt shouldn't be regarded as a "loan" - rather as a "graduate tax". An implicit recognition that the debt will never be paid off, and the debt will be a millstone around their neck for the rest of their lifetime.

A slightly odd tax where the more you earn (past a certain level) the less you pay overall.

[EvilEdna]

Or learning science, maths, engineering.. we don't need people doing that, either. Much better if we just use universities as a finishing school for the rich, whilst making sure that the good jobs and professions still require degrees for entry.

Quite, the poor get poorer the rich get richer.

[Lepista]

Oxbridge would go private quicker than you could blink in this case.

It's essentially a college for the rich now, so taking the costs away from the state would be a good thing.

The "students" will ration themselves by simply not going to university. I still can't believe that universities can't see a massive drop in applications coming in a few years' time. Of course, what they then ought to do is bring their fees down and cut their exhorbitant overheads and wastage (my missus works at a uni), but they'll just try to foist more debt on students and/or stick the begging bowl back in front of the taxpayers' noses.

They are rationing though based on ability to pay, rather than academic ability. That is what is so wrong.

[interestrateripoff]

Oxbridge would go private quicker than you could blink in this case.

It's a bad idea, basically.

How about rich not just paying for their own sprog but also paying for 1 or 2 proles to go, so in effect they'd pay treble fees?

It would certainly make Oxbridge more interesting.

[pathfinder]

Okay imagine the old days say in the 90's

A couple gets together at uni, get married, at 25 they get a mortgage for a flat,

they are now 266k in debt,

I feel so sad for the young, really.

[fluffy666]

I dunno. I think its that way already

When I went to a posh UK university in the 90s most of the English kids their were from rich families anyway

The thing about a state subsidised university degree is that is was mostly poorer people paying (through their taxes) for the upper classes to give their kids another leg up

It would be interesting to put numbers on that statement. Considering that the lower your household income, the greater the chance that your effective tax rate (after health, unemployment insurance, pensions etc) is already below zero.

If you want a small state, the most sensible thing to cut is state subsidies to people who are already richer than average...

But if in the process you cut subsidies from those who are poorer than average, you end up with a more divided and less mobile society. Like the US. And I'm not particularly sure that a small state is a great idea in principal.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Average debt...some will have £0 and some will have £100K.

F**k that.

[cartimandua51]

Average debt...some will have £0 and some will have £100K.

F**k that.

I have the vague idea that the Gov't have / are introducing a clause whereby you have to pay what is effectively a substantial early repayment charge if you (or more likely, BOM&D) pay the loan off pronto, or even if you don't take one out at all. Anybody got details? Can't be faffed to plough through the Gov't websites!