Student Loans -- A Life Sentence

[Casual Observer]

I think that experience and on the job training is more important than the academic qualification. In parts of Africa you can find some remarkable medical practioners who have have very little formal training.

I am certain that many nurses would make top rate doctors but the various professional bodies keep them out for obvious reasons (a nurse gets 20-40K and a doctor can get £100K for part time work).

Well, I'll leave a doctor to respond to that, however, somehow I'd still prefer open heart surgery from someone who has learnt which bits go where and I'm certain you'd learn that on a medical degree.

It's a bit like in Electrical Engineering. Everyone who thinks an electrician can do what a Chartered Engineer does probably doesn't understand what a Chartered Engineer does. Same goes for bricklayer versus civil engineer, clerk versus lawyer etc. etc.

I think what gets confused in this debate is the issue of those jobs that don't need a degree level education. But, I repeat, some jobs do.

I am certain that many nurses would make top rate doctors

Yes - I'm sure many could cope with the extra learning needed. But the appropriate place to get that is on a degree course, that's why there are such things!

[Smell the Fear]

I couldn't agree more. I graduated in Electrical Engineering nearly 3 years ago, and have used much of what I learnt in my job. Experience on-the-job develops you, but no employer wants to spend several years teaching you the basics.

What winds me up is the devaluation of degrees through sending too many people into Higher Education. Then again, even this wouldn't be so bad if most of these extra bodies weren't doing Media Studies, etc. Anything where there's 'no wrong answer' has got to be guff.

Employers aren't stupid - they separate the "real" degrees (law, science, maths, engineering, medicine, dentistry, and a few others) from the run of the mill guff.

Everyone I know who studied a real degree is doing ok for themselves. The bums who thought media studies was a good idea are struggling.

[Casual Observer]

Employers aren't stupid - they separate the "real" degrees (law, science, maths, engineering, medicine, dentistry, and a few others) from the run of the mill guff.

Everyone I know who studied a real degree is doing ok for themselves. The bums who thought media studies was a good idea are struggling.

My point exactly, which is why I said earlier that this debate always gets confused on account of the less valuable degrees.

Edited June 3, 2006 by Casual Observer

[RightToExistInASpace]

I disagree, though I suspect I'm splitting hairs.

Yes, in some (perhaps many) cases it's better for a person to get out there on the job market and start grafting. But it does depend on the person and the industry. You try getting a job as a programmer without a degree and you'll get nowhere... perhaps start in QA and work up to web design, but it's a very hard path. The same goes for any technical occupation.

I got a job as a software developer with only A levels in the late 90s and was pretty good at it. I went to do a degree because I thought it would help my career and I would be missing out without that level of education. I graduated in 2002 and there were no jobs whatsoever in software devlopment. Doing a degree for me was a total waste of time - 4 years of lost income (had to take an extra year after having a bad accident), and then another three years just to get my income to exceed £20,000.

I would recommend anyone (except those with straight As at A level and who are academically gifted) to try for at least a year to get a job before deciding to go to university. If you can't get anything better than a call centre job, go and study. If you can get a good job (not impossible) then don't piss three years away making yourself poorer.

If you want an education, read books. You don't need to go to university for that. There's nothing that your average second rate lecturer in HE can tell you that you can't get from a book.

Edited June 3, 2006 by RightToExistInASpace

[BuyingBear]

If the current establishment wants to screw over the next generation then fine, just don't write yourself entitlements and pensions that cannot be met. You can't have your cake and eat it.

[dnd]

I wouldn't consider 'computing' to anyone ATM - there is too much competition with younger guys/girls and outsourcing

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

It hardly matters what people think is the purpose of a degree in the noughties or whether they mean anything. It doesn't matter whether you think Uni courses should be state funded or whether fewer people should attend University.

The reality is that hundreds of thousands of young people are suffering due to graduate debt. At best, this means their purchasing power is dragged down significantly for many, many years or at worst they face poverty. I know this from experience - I had a student debt, which was modest by current standards, but a 13k graduate starting salary.

The reality was like living on less than the minimum wage, although I wanted to avoid debt consolodation so didn't elongate the debt for a few extra quid of breathing space.

Every week people commit thousands of criminal acts for which they are fined, some fairly serious. A small, one-off fine.

A graduate is now 'fined' EVERY MONTH, again and again and again for the crime of getting an education. Fined for not arsing about at school and getting some half-decent GCSEs. Fined for doing well at A-Level. Fined for wanting to see how far they could take their education. Fined for losing three or four years of income. Fined and fined and fined, over and over when they need that money to live, to save, to build a deposit, to get married, to clothe their kids.

It's utterly ******* immoral and I wouldn't use the scumbag politicians who created this injustice to wipe dogcr*p off my shoe.

Edited June 3, 2006 by CrashedOutAndBurned

[BuyingBear]

Higher education is a waste of time and money anyway - degrees are worthless nowadays - everybodys got one

Exactly, it has become a basic qualification like GCSE's, if you haven't gone one a potential employer will assume you're really quite thick.

[RentingInSweden]

Its all about quality. Further education is a business now and they need bums on seats.

Anyone can get a degree but to get a good from a good university still takes as much effort as it ever did.

After a few years of work my employer has agreed to pay 50% of a part time MBA and give me some study time.

Some of the courses offered are crazy, no GMAT needed we dont care about your grades seems all you need is a pulse and cash!!

If there is no competition for places then its not worth doing IMHO.

[Pluto]

Uni is just another way the government get to reduce the unemployment numbers and students get to foot the bill.

The miracle economy..hehe

[BuyingBear]

A graduate is now 'fined' EVERY MONTH, again and again and again for the crime of getting an education. Fined for not arsing about at school and getting some half-decent GCSEs. Fined for doing well at A-Level. Fined for wanting to see how far they could take their education. Fined for losing three or four years of income. Fined and fined and fined, over and over when they need that money to live, to save, to build a deposit, to get married, to clothe their kids.

This is the death of aspiration, I'd suggest none of the above but instead getting tanked up on £10 "all you can drink" deals funded by debt, you can later puke on the street, smash up the surrounding area whilst getting into countless fights and breaking a few bones... this is good for the economy and keeps the public services busy! You can also do your girlfriend a favour by entitling her to a free council house and a limitless meal ticket.

You know I'm right!

The UK is completely atomised, where's the middle ground?

Edited June 3, 2006 by BuyingBear

[We've gone]

I would recommend anyone (except those with straight As at A level and who are academically gifted) to try for at least a year to get a job before deciding to go to university. If you can't get anything better than a call centre job, go and study (if the university/course is worthwhile). If you can get a good job (not impossible) then don't piss three years away making yourself poorer.

If you want an education, read books. You don't need to go to university for that. There's nothing that your average second rate lecturer in HE can tell you that you can't get from a book.

I think this is good advice.

[Guest]

And further to this - to help you get your job - if you ever interview at a company that has a blonde bimbo HR interviewer who asks you to "talk about yourself", she's only got the HR job at the company because she's shagging the boss, and read her interview technique from a few Top Interview Tips off the back of a cereal packet. Avoid.

If the celiing tiles in the foyer are water-stained dark brown, they don't give a shit about their ceiling, so they won't give a shit about anything else. Avoid.

Also, if the company has laminated newspaper cuttings about themselves on display, bear in mind that no self respecting company does this. Avoid.

[BuyingBear]

If the celiing tiles in the foyer are water-stained dark brown, they don't give a shit about their ceiling, so they won't give a shit about anything else. Avoid.

I too once visited Slough

[Guest]

I too once visited Slough

You're a cool guy, Buying Bear. You seem to put up with my cheek.

Or at least take it in the manner intended.

[Yankee]

Here's another recent article on this gloomy topic.

Generation X's Debt Headache

By Laura Barcella, AlterNet. Posted May 31, 2006.

Today, more and more twenty- and thirty-somethings are struggling to stay afloat -- and 'Strapped' author Tamara Draut knows why.

"Government no longer has our back," explains Tamara Draut, author of the recently published book Strapped, in an email. "Young adults today, working to get into the middle class -- they're being hit by a one-two punch: The economy no longer generates widespread opportunity, and our public policies haven't picked up any of the slack."

Her words ring uncomfortably true. As a "young adult" (age 29, thank you very much) from the generation Draut is covering, I've watched more than a few college-grad friends struggle to pay off their towering school loans and credit card debt -- usually on "creative sector" annual salaries ranging from $25K to $40K (while attempting to thrive in notoriously overpriced cities such as New York, Boston and San Francisco).

According to Strapped, Gen X-ers have it much worse than our Baby Boomer parents, because while typical earnings for college grads have stayed the same for three decades, the costs of housing, education and health care have grown exponentially -- much faster than inflation.

The grim financial situation many young folks are now facing is part of a broad governmental failure to regulate the rising costs of higher education, to boost the minimum wage to a livable wage, and to create a sufficient number of full-time jobs -- with benefits -- to ensure that America's massive twenty- and thirty-something work force is healthy and paid well enough to provide for their families.

The result of this sweeping federal failure isn't pretty. Attending college, for many middle-class as well as low-income families, is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" proposition, and in 2003, less than a third of young adults aged 25 to 29 had a bachelor's degree. College is just too expensive for all but the luckiest few to afford -- but not having a degree means difficulty in landing a job. According to Draut, in 1972, the typical male high school graduate, aged 25 to 34, earned $42,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars; three decades later, male high school graduates of the same age were earning just over $29,000.

Because of the scarcity -- and competition to find -- full-time salaried jobs, growing numbers of young people are turning to part-time or temp gigs. During the '90s, the number of jobs handled by temp agencies doubled. And more and more young people are being forced to move back home with their parents; nowadays, four out of 10 people move home at least once after college.

I discussed all of these issues, and more, with Strapped author Tamara Draut in an email interview.

Laura Barcella: What inspired you to write this book?

Tamara Draut: I wanted to counter the conventional wisdom that young people today are struggling financially because they lack a strong work ethic or because they're profligate spenders. There is so much frustration out there among both parents and young people who can't understand why they're having such a difficult time getting ahead. I wrote Strapped with the hope of raising awareness that the challenges facing this generation are not personal, but the result of political decisions made over the last three decades.

LB: What sort of social or economic impact do you hope the book will have on American culture, and young people in particular?

TD: Already the book is having impact. I get countless emails from young people thanking me for telling this story. I've even gotten emails from parents telling me that they now better understand the lives of their twenty-something children. On a larger scale, I hope the book inspires more young people to fight for reforms by showing that the breakdown in opportunity and economic security didn't "just happen," and it can be changed.

LB: Can you give us a brief overview of why exactly "getting ahead" has gotten so much harder for young people today?

TD: Today's generation of twenty- and thirty-somethings are experiencing the fallout of a three-decade-long shift in our culture and politics. A generation ago, three factors helped smooth the transition to adulthood. The first was the fact that there were jobs that provided good wages, even for high school graduates. A college degree wasn't necessary to earn a decent living. But even if you wanted to go, it wasn't that expensive, and grants were widely available.

The second was an economy that lifted all boats, with productivity gains shared by workers and CEOs alike. The result was a massive growth of the middle class, which provided security and stability for families.

Third, a range of public policies helped facilitate economic mobility and opportunity: a strong minimum wage, low college tuition and generous financial aid, major incentives for homeownership and a solid safety net for those falling on hard times. Simply put, the government had your back. This world no longer exists. The story of what happened is well-known.

As the nation's shift to a service-based economy accelerated, the new economy dramatically changed the way we lived and worked. Relationships between employers and employees became more tenuous, as corporations faced global competitors and quarterly bottom-line pressures from Wall Street. Increasingly, fringe benefits like health care and pension plans were only provided to well-paid workers. Wages rose quickly for educated workers and declined for those with only high school degrees, resulting in new demands for college credentials.

As most families saw their incomes stagnate or decline, they needed two full-time incomes just to stay afloat, creating new demands on working parents. Getting into the middle class now required a four-year college degree, and even that was no guarantee of the American dream.

While adults of all ages have endured the economic and social changes brought by post-industrialization, today's young adults are the first to experience its full weight as they try to start their adult lives. But the challenges facing young adults also reflect the failure of public policy to address the changing realities of building a life in the 21st century. Government no longer has our back. As young adults today are working to get into the middle class, they're being hit by a one-two punch: The economy no longer generates widespread opportunity, and our public policies haven't picked up any of the slack.

LB: Why are so few college-qualified students enrolling, when now -- more than ever -- one seems to need a college degree to land a decent job? Is it because the price of university has risen so dramatically, or are other factors also at play?

TD: Young people have gotten the message loud and clear that they need a college degree to get into the middle class. Today, three-quarters of high school grads continue their education with some type of college experience. The problem is that college has become a luxury-priced necessity. Over the last two decades, the cost of tuition has more than doubled, and federal financial aid has fossilized. As a result, young people from low-income households often can't scrape together enough loans, grants or cash to foot the bill.

LB: Tell me a bit about college loans and their insidious impact on the lives and financial security of younger folks.

TD: Today, the average student loan debt for a college grad is close to $20,000. That's a $200 monthly bite out your paycheck for ten years. For those who continue on to grad school, the combined debt is about $46,000 -- a $500 monthly payment for ten years.

The problem is that the typical earnings for college grads have been flat for three decades, while the cost of housing, health care and education have all risen much faster than inflation. So essentially young people must figure out how to do more with less money.

Another layer to this problem is that about 1 out of 5 students who borrow money end up dropping out of college. So they've got the debt, but no degree. The enormous debt load means that today's generation has less money to save, whether for retirement or for a down payment on a home.

LB: I'm part of the general demographic of people you profiled in "Strapped." Can you explain how and why our parents' generation had it easier when it came to graduating from college, getting good jobs with benefits and raising a family?

TD: A generation ago, a young person entered the labor market on an escalator. Young workers could count on a swift and stead progression in their earnings. Today, young workers enter the labor market on one of those automated airport walkways. Productivity may be rising, but young workers' paychecks are staying flat.

Back in 1972, the typical 25- to 34-year-old male high school graduate earned just over $42,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars. Three decades later, male high school graduates are earning just over $29,000. But the earnings for college grads have remained fairly steady over the last three decades.

Young women's earnings have also declined, but not as steeply. Young female workers with college degrees have experienced growth in their incomes compared to three decades ago as career opportunities have grown, though women in this age group earn less than their male counterparts at every level of education.

The earnings picture is grim. But add to that the reality that while paychecks have been stuck in first gear, the price of housing has soared in the last ten years. This is especially true for young professionals because the hottest job markets are still clustered around our nation's largest and most expensive cities. Between 1995 and 2002, median rents in nearly all the largest metropolitan areas rose by more than 50 percent.

LB: What's shifted politically to keep people of this generation down?

TD: Over the last three decades, the triumph of conservative ideology has resulted in a major shift away from shared responsibility toward personal responsibility. States slashed their support of higher education, leading to steep tuition hikes.

At the federal level, financial aid shifted from being a grant-based system to a loan-based system. Guaranteed pensions got replaced with individual retirement plans. After Ronald Reagan's firing of striking airline workers, businesses ramped up their anti-union efforts, and states passed legislation making it more difficult for workers to unionize. The minimum wage lost its purchasing power. …

Over the last three decades, we've witnessed a steady retrenchment from investing in the common good. We've failed to shore up the public structures that provide individuals with the opportunities to get ahead. As I write in the book, in this era of hyper-individualism, our national spirit has shifted from "We're all in this together" to "Hey, look out, I'm about to step on you."

LB: How have the Bush administration's policies affected the lives of Generation X (and Y) for better or -- more likely -- for worse?

TD: The policies of the Bush administration and Congress have made the future look even grimmer for young people. The soaring national deficit and debt will be our burden to pay. Three rounds of tax cuts have further constrained our nation's ability to get serious about shoring up our investments in education and health care. Most recently, Congress made major cuts to financial aid for college, including raising the cost of federal student loans. The Bush administration has taken the creed of selfish individualism to new heights -- and the public good has suffered as a result.

Laura Barcella is an associate editor at AlterNet.

[BuyingBear]

Here's another recent article on this gloomy topic.

Anya Kamenetz wrote a most interesting book on this type of thing. However, I'm more kinking towards Bethany McLean at this moment in time.

[MarkG]

The Bush administration has taken the creed of selfish individualism to new heights -- and the public good has suffered as a result.

It's pretty funny to see her blaming 'individualism' for America's problems when the real cause is the massively bloated welfare state the boomers have voted themselves over the last few decades. The national debt is nothing compared to the unfunded liabilities for healthcare and pensions.

If America was an 'individualist' nation, these problems wouldn't exist.

[Viterbi]

If you want an education, read books. You don't need to go to university for that. There's nothing that your average second rate lecturer in HE can tell you that you can't get from a book.

I 100% agree with you. My kids are all home educated and none of them show any desire to go to university.

My experience of university is that you get taught out of date material by lecturers who are out of touch with what goes on in the commercial world. I have a suspicion that half of all students go to university primarily for the social life.

Yes you can become a programmer without a degree. Start out early like 10 years old; learn different programming languages; work on open source projects; read Code Complete 2; and take a few jobs as a computer technician and website designer beforehand.

[BuyingBear]

It's pretty funny to see her blaming 'individualism' for America's problems when the real cause is the massively bloated welfare state the boomers have voted themselves over the last few decades. The national debt is nothing compared to the unfunded liabilities for healthcare and pensions.

If America was an 'individualist' nation, these problems wouldn't exist.

Depends, the 'individualist' styled boomers still want their tax cuts today but they also want their entitlements and unfunded liabilities in the future, if future taxes have to rise as a result then so be it, someone else will have to pay. We now have a two-tier system, and those who are dumped in debt right from the start and screwed out of a pension are also expected to pay for their betters' golden ticket, something they had no say in, and given their lack of voting weight they can't do anything about it.

[Lesley]

having just completed uni as a mature student I have to disagree. More doors have been opened than ever in my life. I just wish that more people could experience life at uni.

I am however worried about the way in which nulabour have decided to fund it. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong but I am lead to believe that if your parents earn over a certain amount of money you will have to pay and if they dont you will not.

Please explain to me how your parents earning have any bearings on your future earning potential when you leave uni (as it will be the student who will pay it back and not the parent) and how nulabour work it out...........

[BuyingBear]

Please explain to me how your parents earning have any bearings on your future earning potential when you leave uni (as it will be the student who will pay it back and not the parent) and how nulabour work it out...........

If your parents are wealthy they probably vote conservative, 'nuff said.

Yes, the present government really are that simplistic and crude!

[Casual Observer]

If your parents are wealthy they probably vote conservative, 'nuff said.

Yes, the present government really are that simplistic and crude!

Bit of a sweeping statement isn't it?

That goes against the HPC forum credo a bit, doesn't it? I thought NuLabour were one of the enemy, 'coz they've encouraged a get-rich-quick housing boom mentality?

I thought being wealthy (through house price inflation and cheal credit) were supposed to be part of their nasty, cynical policy?

[BuyingBear]

I thought being wealthy (through house price inflation and cheal credit) were supposed to be part of their nasty, cynical policy?

It's simple class envy carried forward, there's a lot to be said for universal systems, what would you think of the NHS if they refused 'free' treatment becuase your grandfather was a bank manager?

Your parents may well be quite wealthy, does that automatically make you wealthy? What happens if your father is of the old school "stand on your own two feet" variety, you will be expected to pay fees but your horny handed son of the soil friend may well be less well off but his parents might do everything to help... which one is poor and in need of assistance?

It stinks, the whole premise stinks, we either have a universal system that treats all people as equal or nothing, anything is better than this mercenary Brownite crap.

Edited June 4, 2006 by BuyingBear