Increasing Numbers Of High-Flying Students Are Shunning Going To University

[Saving For a Space Ship]

Yeah - and the rest.

Lets do some sums.[/b

Compound Interest

Interest is charged on the loan at £2,663.10 for the first year, if you cannot afford to make repayments then it will be added to your loan and further interest is charged on the interest.

£40,350 - Graduation

£43,013 - 1 Year after Graduation

£45,852 - 2 Year after Graduation

£48,878 - 3 Year after Graduation

£52,104 - 4 Year after Graduation

£55,543 - 5 Year after Graduation

£59,208 - 6 Year after Graduation

£63,116 - 7 Year after Graduation

£67,282 - 8 Year after Graduation

£71,722 - 9 Year after Graduation

£76,456 - 10 Year after Graduation

Higher Ponzication

[SleepyHead]

£40,350 - Graduation

£43,013 - 1 Year after Graduation

£45,852 - 2 Year after Graduation

£48,878 - 3 Year after Graduation

£52,104 - 4 Year after Graduation

£55,543 - 5 Year after Graduation

£59,208 - 6 Year after Graduation

£63,116 - 7 Year after Graduation

£67,282 - 8 Year after Graduation

£71,722 - 9 Year after Graduation

£76,456 - 10 Year after Graduation

.....

Nothing PONIZ about this then......

Jesus, scary.

Every young school leaver, and every university lecturer that sells this con should read this post.

[jfk]

Lots of reporting on BBC and SKY news of happy joyful youngsters receiving their A-levels and plenty of reporting of people rejecting Univeristy due to debt worries and to either try and increase their employability or get on apprenticeships ...

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

It's a graduate tax, effectively - anyone who goes to Uni this way will pay 9% on anything over the threshold. Very few will earn enough to actually clear the balance before age 55.

Except, of course, those with rich parents who pay the fees up front, they will just pay the headline rate of tax. And the dossers of the world, who basically get 3 year's financial support. So it's a tax that specifically targets the 'hard working / aspirational middle'.

its very spedifically not a graduate tax, if it was a graduate tax it would be accounted accordingly, Student loans are loans rather than a tax because of the specific accounting differences within the the state measurement of economy, state/nonstate assets vs liabilities

Edited August 15, 2013 by Maria Gorski

[fluffy666]

its very spedifically not a graduate tax, if it was a graduate tax it would be accounted accordingly, Student loans are loans rather than a tax because of the specific accounting differences within the the state measurement of economy, state/nonstate assets vs liabilities

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is clearly a pig, for accounting purposes.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is clearly a pig, for accounting purposes.

looks are irrelevant when it comes to special flower force, it is whatever the special flower says it is

[TheNoSnowMan]

Heard Martin Lewis on Five Live earlier talking about this. Every time tutition fees are mentioned he always defends them and tries to make them out to be not that bad. It's the old "you only pay it back if you earn more than £21K and after 30 years...".

I thought his job was to save people money not encourage naive kids into 50k of debt for a worthless piece of toliet roll.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

Heard Martin Lewis on Five Live earlier talking about this. Every time tutition fees are mentioned he always defends them and tries to make them out to be not that bad. It's the old "you only pay it back if you earn more than £21K and after 30 years...".

I thought his job was to save people money not encourage naive kids into 50k of debt for a worthless piece of toliet roll.

I guess hes never heard of fiscal drag

[SleepyHead]

Heard Martin Lewis on Five Live earlier talking about this. Every time tutition fees are mentioned he always defends them and tries to make them out to be not that bad. It's the old "you only pay it back if you earn more than £21K and after 30 years...".

I thought his job was to save people money not encourage naive kids into 50k of debt for a worthless piece of toliet roll.

Who would lend money on that basis?

Only pay back if earning over 21K

written off after 30 years?

Government writing checks that taxpayers cannot cash all over the place.

Edited August 15, 2013 by DogTired

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

Who would lend money on that basis?

Only pay back if earning over 21K

written off after 30 years?

Government writing checks that taxpayers cannot cash all over the place.

you only pay it back if you earn more than £21K and after 30 years

thats clearly nonsense becauser theres no legislation binding the next 7 future govts to that specific value or indeed zero% inflation

[Goat]

Traditionally the big advantage of a degree was the signal it gave to employers, it may be irrelevant to the job but it indicated that you were a high flyer, willing to invest in yourself and hence better than the other candidate without a degree.

With tuition fees this signal effect is now gone, to a large extent the only thing the degree now indicates is the level of your parents' income.

I think I'd rather employ someone with good A-levels who can work out that getting into £50,000 debt to study something irrelevant isn't a good idea.

[Tonkers]

Heard Martin Lewis on Five Live earlier talking about this. Every time tutition fees are mentioned he always defends them and tries to make them out to be not that bad. It's the old "you only pay it back if you earn more than £21K and after 30 years...".

I thought his job was to save people money not encourage naive kids into 50k of debt for a worthless piece of toliet roll.

Thing is, that's what I have overheard a lot of prospective school leavers saying - it get's written off after 30 years. They just clearly don't know the implications of this debt.

[Harry Sacks]

RPI + 3% when earning £21k or over.

[crashmonitor]

Thing is, that's what I have overheard a lot of prospective school leavers saying - it get's written off after 30 years. They just clearly don't know the implications of this debt.

Very much my experience. At the end of the day your horizon when you are 18 is four years max. If some are forward planning be cause of the debt, as in the OP, they are very unusual and possibly more mature individuals.

So four years of Blairite fun and a right of passage or sloggging it out in an apprenticeship.....no contest.

[crashmonitor]

RPI + 3% when earning £21k or over.

Precisely why most of it is going to be written off in 30 years time.

Edited August 15, 2013 by crashmonitor

[Harry Sacks]

Precisely why most of it is going to be written off in 30 years time.

But, in that time the amount repaid.....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14785676#student_finance_form

[fluffy666]

Who would lend money on that basis?

Only pay back if earning over 21K

written off after 30 years?

Government writing checks that taxpayers cannot cash all over the place.

The problem is this:

The benefits of people having degrees accrue to the individual through higher pay, their employer through greater productivity and society from the taxes that both pay. There is also a cultural benefit to having a large body of people educated past a basic level and having at least some exposure to critical thinking.

However, the neo-liberal view of the world disregards this and insists that a university education is a purely economic transaction, in which an individual buys an education for the sole purpose of obtaining higher wages. In this view, of course, it is natural to insist that the full cost is paid up-front and if borrowed, on commercial terms, and if employers want qualified people they should pay for the degrees.

The problem is that the vast majority of 18 year only would simply go bankrupt trying to fund university with a personal loan, and companies won't sponsor people through university because there are laws against indentured servitude, and nothing to stop the graduates going elsewhere. So we'd see university education available only to the children of the wealthy, with a smattering of token bright poor kids if this neoliberal dogma was fully applied. Ironically, our business leaders would be whining about a lack of graduates..

Result is a mad compromise - making the loans available but having the taxpayer on the hook for the mass defaults that are absolutely built in; but making the process as complicated as possible. Because of the taxpayer backstop, the actual amount paid by ANY individual won't actually change that much - those that don't go to university will still backstop the loans of those who do, the net result is a relative transfer from middle income to high income.

It would have been much easier to have simply increased higher rate tax - given that most higher rate taxpayers will be graduates or employ graduates anyway - and used this instead. Could even have unified the 45p band and made the whole thing simpler, and this would also catch foreign high-earning graduates to compensate for those who emigrate. But.. less bureaucracy, simplex tax system, more competition for the top places.. who'd want that?

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

The problem is this:

The benefits of people having degrees accrue to the individual through higher pay, their employer through greater productivity and society from the taxes that both pay. There is also a cultural benefit to having a large body of people educated past a basic level and having at least some exposure to critical thinking.

However, the neo-liberal view of the world disregards this and insists that a university education is a purely economic transaction, in which an individual buys an education for the sole purpose of obtaining higher wages. In this view, of course, it is natural to insist that the full cost is paid up-front and if borrowed, on commercial terms, and if employers want qualified people they should pay for the degrees.

The problem is that the vast majority of 18 year only would simply go bankrupt trying to fund university with a personal loan, and companies won't sponsor people through university because there are laws against indentured servitude, and nothing to stop the graduates going elsewhere. So we'd see university education available only to the children of the wealthy, with a smattering of token bright poor kids if this neoliberal dogma was fully applied. Ironically, our business leaders would be whining about a lack of graduates..

Result is a mad compromise - making the loans available but having the taxpayer on the hook for the mass defaults that are absolutely built in; but making the process as complicated as possible. Because of the taxpayer backstop, the actual amount paid by ANY individual won't actually change that much - those that don't go to university will still backstop the loans of those who do, the net result is a relative transfer from middle income to high income.

It would have been much easier to have simply increased higher rate tax - given that most higher rate taxpayers will be graduates or employ graduates anyway - and used this instead. Could even have unified the 45p band and made the whole thing simpler, and this would also catch foreign high-earning graduates to compensate for those who emigrate. But.. less bureaucracy, simplex tax system, more competition for the top places.. who'd want that?

which is off course complete cr@p, theres no legal requirement stopping companies paying for student degrees and no law stopping them from recuperating the cost if employees bog off hence deterring graduates going elsewhere within an agreed timeframe

And as highlighted simplicity is not the driving consideration of the state, its driving consideration is debt and thus growth to settle its constant defict strategy and promises since year dot (as its always been) and thats why a tax as opposed to a loan is a non starter

Edited August 15, 2013 by Maria Gorski

[europbaron]

But, in that time the amount repaid.....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14785676#student_finance_form

That looks to be based on unrealistic salaries for most. Does a 21 year old researcher really earn over £31.5k? I thought that most research jobs required a PhD anyway, and I doubt there are many 21 year olds with doctorates.

An overall average wage for 35 year olds of £41k? Really?

[fluffy666]

which is off course complete cr@p, theres no legalprecedent stopping companies paying for student degrees and no law stopping them from recuperating the cost if employees bog off hence deterring graduates going elsewhere within an agreed timeframe

And as highlighted simplicity is not the driving consideration of the state, its driving consideration is growth and thus debt (as its always been) and thats why a tax as opposed to a loan is a non starter

So, if I quit a month after graduation, exactly what does this company do to recoup costs? It can sue, yes, but a person who has no assets can't be sued for much. And if they go abroad, good luck.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

So, if I quit a month after graduation, exactly what does this company do to recoup costs? It can sue, yes, but a person who has no assets can't be sued for much. And if they go abroad, good luck.

No doubt you will now be able to back up your nonsense with the enormous percentage of graduates funded by corporate scholarships/funding doing said runner.

No thought not

In reality the majority of funded graduates do their required term because they look at cost vs benefit, ie they review the price signal that you think special flowers should be able to override

Edited August 15, 2013 by Maria Gorski

[bogbrush]

Traditionally the big advantage of a degree was the signal it gave to employers, it may be irrelevant to the job but it indicated that you were a high flyer, willing to invest in yourself and hence better than the other candidate without a degree.

With tuition fees this signal effect is now gone, to a large extent the only thing the degree now indicates is the level of your parents' income.

I think I'd rather employ someone with good A-levels who can work out that getting into £50,000 debt to study something irrelevant isn't a good idea.

That signal disappeared long before tuition fees, when idiot ideas like 50% in Uni and joke degrees became the currency.

[Dorkins]

That looks to be based on unrealistic salaries for most.

Yes, the scheme is designed to work in a world of steady increases in real wages. The flaw with this plan is that wages have been flat or falling relative to RPI for over a decade and there is no sign of this changing any time soon. Apparently this minor problem was not enough to stop the politicians and civil servants from going ahead with it anyway.

[winkie]

....there are fewer occupations where brains comes before brawn........occupations where they can easily educate quite cost effectively the brain level required to do the job, money over matters.

[fluffy666]

No doubt you will now be able to back up your nonsense with the enormous percentage of graduates funded by corporate scholarships/funding doing said runner.

No thought not

I wasn't aware that we HAD an enormous percentage of graduates funded by corporate scholarships.

A quick, and admittedly not comprehensive google does not show up any examples being offered.

In reality the majority of funded graduates do their required term because they look at cost vs benefit, ie they review the price signal that you think special flowers should be able to override

What's a 'Special Flower'? I hear the term a lot, it seems to be a general term of abuse for anyone who dares to suggest that market forces are not the be-all and end-all of human affairs.