Got to say well done to the students gor getting off their backsides and having a French style protest.
Maybe if more of my contemporaries had kicked up such a fuss when Maggie axed student maintenance grants and when Labour (much to my eternal dismay as Labour member) introduced tuition "top-up" fees then the ConDems wouldn't have contemplated such a socially devisive policy. Due to the Polys becoming "New Universities" there are fewer part-time degrees being offered, forcing anyone who wishes to further their education to do a full-time degree and land themselves with a massive debt. These New Universities are also the culprits responsible for coming up with meaningless degrees (such as Tourism) that aren't worth the paper they are written on as far as most employers are concerned, saddling some poor sod with a large debt for nothing when they would have been better off getting a job after completing their A-levels. This is not academic snobbery, it is a very sad state of affairs as some of the old Polys ran really good part-time vocational degree courses, but these have now gone.
One gormless idiot from the Goverment I heard on the radio the other day suggested that students stay at home and study at their local university (fantastic if you happen to live in Oxford or Cambridge) and that if your local university does not offer the course you want you could do it via distance learning over the internet at another institution. All very well and good, providing you don't study a Science subject or Medicine that requires a large amount of time to be spent in a laboratory. The other drawback of course would be access to library facilities which would also affect Arts, Humanities and Social Science students.
Education should be free up to the highest level potentially achievable according to the academic prowess of the individual. If anyone should pay for a university education it should be the parents who are shelling out £30k p.a. to send their kids to Eton and Harrow. If they can afford that, another £90k for three years at Uni isn't going to hurt them!
We don't need 50% of the population to go to university. After all, 50% of the population aren't good enough to be professional footballers so why should we assume 50% of the population are academically capable of getting a degree. We would be far better as a nation getting people educated to a higher basic standard in secondary school.
Student protests
Re: Student protests
Doc, I have seen the protests, anger etc. and I don't pretend to know what is going on regards the background motivation apart from the fee increase, but take a look at this :-
Martin Lewis, who writes the "money saving tips" website has this to say about the whole matter, he says it wont cost as much in the long run, make your own judgement
(I don't know if I am allowed to cut and paste this on, but someone will take it off if it is not allowed)
The argument over student loans could kill the next generation’s education
December 3rd, 2010 by Martin Lewis
The argument over student loans continues
I write as I watch BBC Question Time. It’s petrifying me. While I’ve problems with the proposed changes to student loans, many people’s dreadful misunderstanding of the new system frightens me far more. The current row could fundamentally damage our nation’s future education base…
I think it’s important before I go on that you understand student finance has been a passion of mine since 1991, way before I was a Money Saving Expert. When I first started at Uni, I spent many hours discussing the subject with Prof Nick Barr and Ian Crawford, the academics working to bring the ‘income contingent loan’ system to the UK (it happened 7 years later).
Later, as President (General Secretary) of the LSE students union, I lobbied hard on these issues, even founding the Aldwych Group of students unions – which still exists now – to tackle educational elitism and try and fight for access for all.
In recent years, the site and I have worked with the Government in communicating how student finance really works (see the parents guide to student finance). Yet I’ve never been more worried than I am right now.
Most people simply don’t know how it works.
A typical example was this statement (paraphrasing from memory) made on the programme to the panel.
Woman in audience:
"I don’t think you’ve thought through this at all – when people hit £21,000 they’ll be at the same point when they’re hoping to start relationships and now they won’t be able to afford it because all their money will start going to repay the loans."
Actually the one decent thing in the change is that people will have MORE disposable income than they do under the current system, not less. The new student loan system says you repay 9% of everything you earn over £21,000, rather than the current 9% of everything over £15,000.
Look at the real impact of that:
Earnings Annual Repayments now Annual Repayments under proposals
£15,000 Nothing Nothing
£16,000 £90 Nothing
£21,000 £540 Nothing
£22,000 £630 £90
£30,000 £1,350 £810
£40,000 £2,250 £1,710
£50,000 £3,150 £2,610
As can be seen, under the new system you’re always repaying £540 a year less than the current system (and nothing below £21,000).
So actually, in terms of disposable income, people will be better off. In terms of ability to get a mortgage, as student loans don’t go on credit files and disposable income is increased, it’s actually likely to be a boon not a detriment (countered to some extent by the fact the debt will last longer, see below).
This is just one example of people not understanding how student loans actually work. It’s actually a totally different side of the system that worries me (I’m ignoring the £9,000 cost as that’s more a political than a financial point, so I’ll steer clear from a view within my job role).
Real interest cost:
Student loans are currently linked to inflation, so there’s no real cost (ie, if you borrow enough to buy a shopping trolley’s worth of goods, you repay enough to buy the same, even though the actual cash amount may increase).
Under the new system the interest for many will be over and above inflation. This is simply wrong for me, it encourages our youth to not only get into debt, but into what could be seen as bad debt (see my Stopping students repaying student loans early would be a terrible mistake blog). And there’s a worse impact.
It will take a lot longer to repay:
Actually the real problem with the new £21,000 start point is the opposite of what the woman in the Question Time audience was saying. The problem is people will repay LESS, so it will take much longer to pay off the loan.
Now that wouldn’t be so bad if it were still inflation linked, but with the new interest charges, compounding will mean the cost of these loans is going to escalate massively over the years.
Various explanations of the system cause confusion
The danger of misunderstanding
What scares me silly is the fact the sit-ins, the Government, and others involved in this are trying to subvert explanations of how the system actually works for political gain. That runs the risk of miseducating and scaring an entire generation unnecessarily (there are some things to be scared of, but not the ones we’re frightening people with).
Sadly this isn’t he first time this has happened. In 1998 when income contingent loans were first introduced (that’s the official name for paying proportionately through income tax) it was a massive improvement.
Unfortunately it was introduced at the same time as tuition fees, which stole the headlines, painted everything negatively and meant many never truly understood the system, and the benefits of it. I have met many disadvantaged sixth formers over the years who were scared because they "can’t afford to go", whereas they wouldn’t have needed to pay anything till they left university and only then if they earned enough (and that won’t change).
Our society is in danger of making the same mistake again. The easy solution would be financial education in schools which would help this enormously (see my financial education manifesto). Yet in the short term we need to ensure that whatever the political decision, however palatable or unpalatable people find it, we don’t stop our youth from getting an education out of a misplaced fear.
I’m going to try and have a think about what can be done about this, both on the site and elsewhere (we’ll see if the Minister returns my calls), as it’s too important to our youth to let this pass. Ideas welcomed.
Martin Lewis, who writes the "money saving tips" website has this to say about the whole matter, he says it wont cost as much in the long run, make your own judgement
(I don't know if I am allowed to cut and paste this on, but someone will take it off if it is not allowed)
The argument over student loans could kill the next generation’s education
December 3rd, 2010 by Martin Lewis
The argument over student loans continues
I write as I watch BBC Question Time. It’s petrifying me. While I’ve problems with the proposed changes to student loans, many people’s dreadful misunderstanding of the new system frightens me far more. The current row could fundamentally damage our nation’s future education base…
I think it’s important before I go on that you understand student finance has been a passion of mine since 1991, way before I was a Money Saving Expert. When I first started at Uni, I spent many hours discussing the subject with Prof Nick Barr and Ian Crawford, the academics working to bring the ‘income contingent loan’ system to the UK (it happened 7 years later).
Later, as President (General Secretary) of the LSE students union, I lobbied hard on these issues, even founding the Aldwych Group of students unions – which still exists now – to tackle educational elitism and try and fight for access for all.
In recent years, the site and I have worked with the Government in communicating how student finance really works (see the parents guide to student finance). Yet I’ve never been more worried than I am right now.
Most people simply don’t know how it works.
A typical example was this statement (paraphrasing from memory) made on the programme to the panel.
Woman in audience:
"I don’t think you’ve thought through this at all – when people hit £21,000 they’ll be at the same point when they’re hoping to start relationships and now they won’t be able to afford it because all their money will start going to repay the loans."
Actually the one decent thing in the change is that people will have MORE disposable income than they do under the current system, not less. The new student loan system says you repay 9% of everything you earn over £21,000, rather than the current 9% of everything over £15,000.
Look at the real impact of that:
Earnings Annual Repayments now Annual Repayments under proposals
£15,000 Nothing Nothing
£16,000 £90 Nothing
£21,000 £540 Nothing
£22,000 £630 £90
£30,000 £1,350 £810
£40,000 £2,250 £1,710
£50,000 £3,150 £2,610
As can be seen, under the new system you’re always repaying £540 a year less than the current system (and nothing below £21,000).
So actually, in terms of disposable income, people will be better off. In terms of ability to get a mortgage, as student loans don’t go on credit files and disposable income is increased, it’s actually likely to be a boon not a detriment (countered to some extent by the fact the debt will last longer, see below).
This is just one example of people not understanding how student loans actually work. It’s actually a totally different side of the system that worries me (I’m ignoring the £9,000 cost as that’s more a political than a financial point, so I’ll steer clear from a view within my job role).
Real interest cost:
Student loans are currently linked to inflation, so there’s no real cost (ie, if you borrow enough to buy a shopping trolley’s worth of goods, you repay enough to buy the same, even though the actual cash amount may increase).
Under the new system the interest for many will be over and above inflation. This is simply wrong for me, it encourages our youth to not only get into debt, but into what could be seen as bad debt (see my Stopping students repaying student loans early would be a terrible mistake blog). And there’s a worse impact.
It will take a lot longer to repay:
Actually the real problem with the new £21,000 start point is the opposite of what the woman in the Question Time audience was saying. The problem is people will repay LESS, so it will take much longer to pay off the loan.
Now that wouldn’t be so bad if it were still inflation linked, but with the new interest charges, compounding will mean the cost of these loans is going to escalate massively over the years.
Various explanations of the system cause confusion
The danger of misunderstanding
What scares me silly is the fact the sit-ins, the Government, and others involved in this are trying to subvert explanations of how the system actually works for political gain. That runs the risk of miseducating and scaring an entire generation unnecessarily (there are some things to be scared of, but not the ones we’re frightening people with).
Sadly this isn’t he first time this has happened. In 1998 when income contingent loans were first introduced (that’s the official name for paying proportionately through income tax) it was a massive improvement.
Unfortunately it was introduced at the same time as tuition fees, which stole the headlines, painted everything negatively and meant many never truly understood the system, and the benefits of it. I have met many disadvantaged sixth formers over the years who were scared because they "can’t afford to go", whereas they wouldn’t have needed to pay anything till they left university and only then if they earned enough (and that won’t change).
Our society is in danger of making the same mistake again. The easy solution would be financial education in schools which would help this enormously (see my financial education manifesto). Yet in the short term we need to ensure that whatever the political decision, however palatable or unpalatable people find it, we don’t stop our youth from getting an education out of a misplaced fear.
I’m going to try and have a think about what can be done about this, both on the site and elsewhere (we’ll see if the Minister returns my calls), as it’s too important to our youth to let this pass. Ideas welcomed.
Re: Student protests
Mick
I know the poorest students will get part of their fees paid and that they only have to start repaying loans once their earnings get above a certain point. The problem is there aren't that many well paid jobs for todays students out there.
I have a degree and Ph.D. in Chemistry obtained in the days of proper student grants and 15 years experience in the chemical industry. I am supposedly one of those people who should be in a well paid job. I was made redundant 3 yrs ago and luckily got a job via one of my contacts in the chemical industry working for a small university spin out company. I did however take a £5k pay cut, lost my final salary pension, private health cover and various other perks and have had to relocate at my own expense. Salary wise I am a good way below paying tax at 40%.
I have kept my eyes open for other jobs and there are very few around and those that I do see are either short term contracts, very highly specialised, very poor pay or all three. When I was made redundant I saw and advert for a graduate chemist to work in a QC lab offering £9.5k! That is ridiculous. Employers think they are doing graduates a favour by paying them just below the level that would necessitate them to start paying back their student loan. The number of graduates has flooded the market, increasing competition and keeping pay levels down in smaller companies (we cant all work for Glaxo/Pfizer).
The high tech industries, such as Big Pharma, outsourced their production to the Far East. On seeing how cheap Scientists/Engineers were to employ in China they are now starting to build large research centres in the Far East. This further reduces the number of jobs available in the UK, increases competiton and keeps the wages down. An example of this is one of my friends, who along with approx 1000 other staff will lose his job at Astra Zeneca in Loughborough. Another friend has been on a succesion of poorly paid short term contracts since losing his job last October and is currently having to commute from Manchester to North Wales every day. I was told by a Chinese customer a few years ago that PhD chemists in China were paid the same per annum as a chemist here is paid a month. You can't compete with labour costs that are 10% of your own! In addition, I was told that more chemists graduate from the main university in Beijing than in the whole UK. Frightening when you realise how many other large cities there are in China with massive universities.
I am still of the opinion that student numbers should be reduced and that people should get to university based on their academic ability and that the state should pay for tuition and maintenance. The country needs doctors, dentists, teachers, engineers etc. and should therefore pay for their training otherwise these professions would end up being restricted to only those people who could afford pay for their education, not those who had the ability to do the job the best. The thought of having a £40k debt would certainly have put me and my brothers (a Civil Servant and a Teacher) off attending university.
I thought the students could have been more selective in their targets, but I guess the Banks, Tory HQ and the Lib Dem HQ were surrounded by Police. I would also like to see them having a go at companies such as Vodafone and News Corporation who avoid paying their dues and individuals such as Phillip Green who dodge paying their full taxes. I thought the weekend campaign against Top Shop was a brilliant idea.
I know the poorest students will get part of their fees paid and that they only have to start repaying loans once their earnings get above a certain point. The problem is there aren't that many well paid jobs for todays students out there.
I have a degree and Ph.D. in Chemistry obtained in the days of proper student grants and 15 years experience in the chemical industry. I am supposedly one of those people who should be in a well paid job. I was made redundant 3 yrs ago and luckily got a job via one of my contacts in the chemical industry working for a small university spin out company. I did however take a £5k pay cut, lost my final salary pension, private health cover and various other perks and have had to relocate at my own expense. Salary wise I am a good way below paying tax at 40%.
I have kept my eyes open for other jobs and there are very few around and those that I do see are either short term contracts, very highly specialised, very poor pay or all three. When I was made redundant I saw and advert for a graduate chemist to work in a QC lab offering £9.5k! That is ridiculous. Employers think they are doing graduates a favour by paying them just below the level that would necessitate them to start paying back their student loan. The number of graduates has flooded the market, increasing competition and keeping pay levels down in smaller companies (we cant all work for Glaxo/Pfizer).
The high tech industries, such as Big Pharma, outsourced their production to the Far East. On seeing how cheap Scientists/Engineers were to employ in China they are now starting to build large research centres in the Far East. This further reduces the number of jobs available in the UK, increases competiton and keeps the wages down. An example of this is one of my friends, who along with approx 1000 other staff will lose his job at Astra Zeneca in Loughborough. Another friend has been on a succesion of poorly paid short term contracts since losing his job last October and is currently having to commute from Manchester to North Wales every day. I was told by a Chinese customer a few years ago that PhD chemists in China were paid the same per annum as a chemist here is paid a month. You can't compete with labour costs that are 10% of your own! In addition, I was told that more chemists graduate from the main university in Beijing than in the whole UK. Frightening when you realise how many other large cities there are in China with massive universities.
I am still of the opinion that student numbers should be reduced and that people should get to university based on their academic ability and that the state should pay for tuition and maintenance. The country needs doctors, dentists, teachers, engineers etc. and should therefore pay for their training otherwise these professions would end up being restricted to only those people who could afford pay for their education, not those who had the ability to do the job the best. The thought of having a £40k debt would certainly have put me and my brothers (a Civil Servant and a Teacher) off attending university.
I thought the students could have been more selective in their targets, but I guess the Banks, Tory HQ and the Lib Dem HQ were surrounded by Police. I would also like to see them having a go at companies such as Vodafone and News Corporation who avoid paying their dues and individuals such as Phillip Green who dodge paying their full taxes. I thought the weekend campaign against Top Shop was a brilliant idea.
Re: Student protests
Glad to see you found a new job Doc, I've been with the same company over 40 years, ready to be pensioned off.
As you say, moving jobs overseas is not the way to make the British workforce feel wanted * the influx of foreign labour (See the Heinz thread for a similar senario)
Not good anyway round.
Students on obscure courses keep the Dole queue figures down
As an added interest, on the article with the money saving tips, someone from Wales has written in and said that people from Wales do not have to abide by the student loan ruling thanks to the Welsh Assembly, how true that is I don't know but good luck to them
Power to the People
As you say, moving jobs overseas is not the way to make the British workforce feel wanted * the influx of foreign labour (See the Heinz thread for a similar senario)
Not good anyway round.
Students on obscure courses keep the Dole queue figures down
As an added interest, on the article with the money saving tips, someone from Wales has written in and said that people from Wales do not have to abide by the student loan ruling thanks to the Welsh Assembly, how true that is I don't know but good luck to them
Power to the People
-
ancientnloyal
- Posts: 14389
- Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:33 pm
- Location: Howe Bridge
- Contact:
Re: Student protests
Although I disagree with what the coalition government have scarped through parliament and the maximum £9,000 tuition fees the behaviour of the students was absolutely terrible yesterday. I don't see why they have to blame the Police for their violence. My dad has been in riots and got injured in them (as an officer) they don't go out simply to wreak havoc on the protesters.
Idiots these 'students' are.
Plus, good news that the Lib Dems were split in half yesterday... not long until a collapsed government
Idiots these 'students' are.
Plus, good news that the Lib Dems were split in half yesterday... not long until a collapsed government
https://www.ancientandloyal.com/
James Slevin
Ces Mountford
And the “kind of rugby player you’d want to be in your dreams” James Leytham
Should be in the Wigan Warriors Hall
Of Fame
James Slevin
Ces Mountford
And the “kind of rugby player you’d want to be in your dreams” James Leytham
Should be in the Wigan Warriors Hall
Of Fame
-
Kittwazzer
- Posts: 11307
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:31 pm
Re: Student protests
Wrong as it may be,I must confess to some amusement at Thursday night's events.
Thousands of working class students took to the streets of London to protest about the crippling cost of Higher Education. Then, out of the blue, a £1m Rolls Royce tootles up containing a couple of 60 somethings who have never needed to do a hands turn in their entire priveleged lives.
What the bloody hell did they think would happen? Did they expect a Del Boy moment?
And I wonder if Charlie Gilmour had 'Dark Side of the Moon on his iPod when he trashed the Cenotaph?
“The Lunatics are on the Grass!!!”
Thousands of working class students took to the streets of London to protest about the crippling cost of Higher Education. Then, out of the blue, a £1m Rolls Royce tootles up containing a couple of 60 somethings who have never needed to do a hands turn in their entire priveleged lives.
What the bloody hell did they think would happen? Did they expect a Del Boy moment?
And I wonder if Charlie Gilmour had 'Dark Side of the Moon on his iPod when he trashed the Cenotaph?
“The Lunatics are on the Grass!!!”
-
platt-warrior
- Posts: 1940
- Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:33 pm
Re: Student protests
What planet are you on? or are you on "the grass" :eusa17:Kittwazzer wrote:Wrong as it may be,I must confess to some amusement at Thursday night's events.
Thousands of working class students took to the streets of London to protest about the crippling cost of Higher Education.
And I wonder if Charlie Gilmour had 'Dark Side of the Moon on his iPod when he trashed the Cenotaph?
“The Lunatics are on the Grass!!!”
-
Kittwazzer
- Posts: 11307
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:31 pm
Re: Student protests
Another brick!platt-warrior wrote:What planet are you on? or are you on "the grass" :eusa17:Kittwazzer wrote:Wrong as it may be,I must confess to some amusement at Thursday night's events.
Thousands of working class students took to the streets of London to protest about the crippling cost of Higher Education.
And I wonder if Charlie Gilmour had 'Dark Side of the Moon on his iPod when he trashed the Cenotaph?
“The Lunatics are on the Grass!!!”
Re: Student protests
Can't see the video for some reason but if its the footage of Jody McIntyre getting dragged from his wheelchair (or 'appearing' to be dragged according to BBC News) then having looked at this from all sides it makes my blood boil. He's clearly an activist and professional demonstrator who probably goes to every demonstration going regardless of what the issue is and judging by the interview he did he's very shrewd and probably knows how to play the system to his benefit. But, and this is a big but, we need to remember THIS IS NOT A CRIME.
In my head I'd considered that maybe he'd somehow intimidated the police or refused to move out of the way to force the police to do something to get the rest of the protesters arrested but what could he have POSSIBLY done to warrant the action the police took and since when has dragging someone across the floor been the preferred method of moving someone?
How is this going to do anything but get protestors more angry when the police's role is to meant to be protecting the public and keeping the situation as calm as possible. With this incident and the reports of kettling and refusing to let protestors leave it seems that some of the police have forgotten this and I can only see it getting worse because they will be given more freedom by this right wing government.
In my head I'd considered that maybe he'd somehow intimidated the police or refused to move out of the way to force the police to do something to get the rest of the protesters arrested but what could he have POSSIBLY done to warrant the action the police took and since when has dragging someone across the floor been the preferred method of moving someone?
How is this going to do anything but get protestors more angry when the police's role is to meant to be protecting the public and keeping the situation as calm as possible. With this incident and the reports of kettling and refusing to let protestors leave it seems that some of the police have forgotten this and I can only see it getting worse because they will be given more freedom by this right wing government.
Gareth Thomas before his first game: "You wanna spend 10 mins getting smashed up by these guys..Big dudes here.."
Re: Student protests
i think that the people who have had FREE higher education should get out on the streets and support the students.