Paying For Uni

[Solly]

The Government is about to introduce a new test for those considering a university career. The central question will be punishingly direct. Do you want to run up a debt of £21,000 in order to go to the best British universities? Some people will, apparently, be put off applying to our elite institutions by the prospect of taking on a debt of this size. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is all to the good.

The first point that needs to be made about the so-called deterrent effect of a £21,000 loan is that anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university in the first place. Incurring such a relatively small debt to pay for the huge economic benefit conferred by proper higher education is a fantastic deal. Over a lifetime, the direct financial benefit in higher earnings is around £400,000. Those who attend our best universities can expect to earn even more. Borrowing £21,000, at preferential rates, to secure twenty times that sum, is an offer you’d have to be a fool to turn down. And if you’re such a fool that you don’t want to accept that deal, then you’re too big a fool to benefit from the university education I’m currently subsidising for you.

The full article is at Times Online. I don't see anything wrong with his reasoning.

The problem with lefties is that they don't get to the facts of the argument, and above is what those facts are. It's no good going on about what class people are before entering uni - getting a degree automatically takes you out of the working class; that is, assuming you don't study for a degree in Beckhamology..

[Seeker]

It certainly discriminates against poorer families.

Yes, some of us get a big job right after graduation, but many don't.

A person from a poor family will pay for servicing their debt by sacrificing Quality of Life, while someone whose family can 'help out' doesn't have to make those sacrifices.

That's a terrific incentive for poor people NOT to build up a huge debt they'll have difficulty servicing let alone paying off. People don't like living like animals for years, no matter what the ultimate benefit, I guess that makes them 'idiots'.

distilled:

Rich family Person: My family will pay it off. Might interfere with skiing season. Might have to bother Uncle Al to get me a job in his company for the summers.

Poor Family Person: Never eat out. Make sure you have some good books because you won't have any money for fun. Desperately search for a job that isn't completely demeaning.

Hmm....why wouldn't the poor guy just enter the workforce as soon as possible and enjoy the most significant chunk of what was once called the 'prime of one's life'?

If it wasn't for marijuana, I probably would never have gone on to university.

I'm all for public education.

It's even worse in Ontario, though, because now you cannot escape your student loan debts through bankruptcy. Even if you have no income or assets, the payments and penalties just keep piling up.

[MikeH]

The problem is that what you'll get is a higher proportion of rich people at the 'best' institutions which will dumb down those institutions. Some of the best potential students will go to lesser instititutions 'cause the fees are lower.

If we have to have loans and fees, and I understand why we need them, then make them be the same for whatever university you want to attend. That way any applicant can apply to any university and the best institutions can get the best people. Even if it all goes to a central fund and then is distributed by the government.

That said.

If they want £21,000 per student and the student will earn, over their lifetime, £400,000 more than if they hadn't gone they will pay the government at LEAST £100,000 extra, £160,000 if it's all at the higher tax band.

Why is that bad?

[Solly]

Originally posted by MikeH
The problem is that what you'll get is a higher proportion of rich people at the 'best' institutions which will dumb down those institutions.

Why? I'm sure the government will introduce restrictions on universities to make them accept by merit.

Some of the best potential students will go to lesser instititutions 'cause the fees are lower.

Read the article again - if they can't accept that short-term debt will massively boost their quality of life, then perhaps they do not deserve to be at (the best) universities at all.

If we have to have loans and fees, and I understand why we need them, then make them be the same for whatever university you want to attend.

I would rather that student loans were made theoretically unlimited.

There's no way a middle- or upper-class student can go to university without parental support at the moment.

That way any applicant can apply to any university and the best institutions can get the best people. Even if it all goes to a central fund and then is distributed by the government.

I think you're just speculating here.

If they want £21,000 per student and the student will earn, over their lifetime, £400,000 more than if they hadn't gone they will pay the government at LEAST £100,000 extra, £160,000 if it's all at the higher tax band.

Because then you are effectively giving a tax break to those who went to university.

[Proteus_MST]

A tax Break most Students can´t use efficiently, cause they spent most of their time with learning and studying and not with working for money (at least here in germany and at least if they want to complete their studies as fast as possible )

Oh and (also at least here in germany) an academic degree is no guarantee for you to get more money out of your job (i.e. if you don´t choose the right fields like Industrial Management as your field of study), in some fields it isn´t even a guarantee to have a better chance on a job.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Boddington's

Because then you are effectively giving a tax break to those who went to university.

Like Mike said: Why is that bad?

It seems like an excellent incentive to create a more educated workforce to me.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Why? I'm sure the government will introduce restrictions on universities to make them accept by merit.

If the number of applicants is reduced the merits of the one that's accepted last will probably have a lesser merit than otherwise.

Read the article again - if they can't accept that short-term debt will massively boost their quality of life, then perhaps they do not deserve to be at (the best) universities at all.

Who deserves to be at the university? Surely the costs will not be the same for everyone as some has to handle it by themselves while others get some sort of help. But that's beside the point. I can't really see how this links to them deserving a place or not. They deserve a place if they have the merits for it and the ability to handle the education. The money is another issue.

[Solly]

"They deserve a place if they have the merits for it and the ability to handle the education."

Yes, and not being able to discern a simple and beneficial investment displays a lack of merit and ability.

[MarkG]

Over a lifetime, the direct financial benefit in higher earnings is around £400,000. Those who attend our best universities can expect to earn even more. Borrowing £21,000, at preferential rates, to secure twenty times that sum, is an offer you’d have to be a fool to turn down.

how about this. if 15 years after graduating, i've made £400,000, the goverment can come and request £21,000
i'd give it to them. if not, the "system" hasnt work for me and the goverment should go back to see why it failed in my case

[FrustratedPoet]

Something kind of like that already happens Mark. The monthly loan repayments are linked to salary - the more you earn the more of the loan you are required to pay-off each month.

Your way is better, though.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Boddington's
[N]ot being able to discern a simple and beneficial investment displays a lack of merit and ability.

Different economic situations, different opportunity costs.

Sure, It might be beneficial but that's hardly a important merit, not all of them is going into finanical economics either.

[CerberusIV]

I don't think this is really about money, rather about how many people study at degree level in the long term. The Tories expanded university education quite substantially about 15 years ago suggesting everyone should have an opportunity to go to university (at the time it kept a lot of 18-21 year olds out of the unemployment figures). Now the Government is having to spend a lot of money to get kids to do vocational courses to be plumbers and similar.

(If you don't live in the UK you would not believe how difficult and expensive it can be to get a plumber to fix a burst pipe or someone to service a central heating boiler)

Basically they hope (but won't publicly admit) this will reduce demand for university places so that some of the crap universities won't attract enough students so will go bust and can be closed down.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Seeker
It certainly discriminates against poorer families.

Yes, some of us get a big job right after graduation, but many don't.

A person from a poor family will pay for servicing their debt by sacrificing Quality of Life, while someone whose family can 'help out' doesn't have to make those sacrifices.

That's a terrific incentive for poor people NOT to build up a huge debt they'll have difficulty servicing let alone paying off. People don't like living like animals for years, no matter what the ultimate benefit, I guess that makes them 'idiots'.

distilled:

Rich family Person: My family will pay it off. Might interfere with skiing season. Might have to bother Uncle Al to get me a job in his company for the summers.

Poor Family Person: Never eat out. Make sure you have some good books because you won't have any money for fun. Desperately search for a job that isn't completely demeaning.

Hmm....why wouldn't the poor guy just enter the workforce as soon as possible and enjoy the most significant chunk of what was once called the 'prime of one's life'?

If it wasn't for marijuana, I probably would never have gone on to university.

I'm all for public education.

It's even worse in Ontario, though, because now you cannot escape your student loan debts through bankruptcy. Even if you have no income or assets, the payments and penalties just keep piling up.

Cry me a ****ing river. If the government supports all education for people, should they support all business ventures for poor people? Getting a degree is not the only way to "get ahead". SNOB.

If you think that it's unfair that rich people can pay for their kid's college while poor people have to get loans, than it's also unfair that rich people can give money to their children. It's just unfair to be rich and not poor.

[rah]

I'm for MarkG's suggestion. And 15 years later sounds about right, long enough to have established yourself but before you have children going to college.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MarkG

Over a lifetime, the direct financial benefit in higher earnings is around £400,000. Those who attend our best universities can expect to earn even more. Borrowing £21,000, at preferential rates, to secure twenty times that sum, is an offer you’d have to be a fool to turn down.

how about this. if 15 years after graduating, i've made £400,000, the goverment can come and request £21,000
i'd give it to them. if not, the "system" hasnt work for me and the goverment should go back to see why it failed in my case

Maybe you should go back to see why you failed.