The middle-class whacked yet again...

spire · June 2007

News today is that middle-class kids will graduate with a mind-boggling debt of œ30,000!

Meanwhile students from poor homes will enjoy bursaries and subsidies galore, and students with wealthy parents will simply get the money from Dad and Mum.

Why should middle-class kids be subjected to a higher debt than others with the same degree?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... nts113.xml

Unknown · June 2007

Would you prefer it if students from poor backgrounds weren't given any help ?

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx

Unkraut · June 2007

What we need is for all students to pay for their education through a special tax on their income after graduation, with no parental contribution at all. This would mean that all levels of the population would start out with the same level of debt, for which they would be personally responsible.
This would make everyone equal, which is a cornerstone of Labour policy, so once Labour get elected, they will put this whole sorry mess to rights ....

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Squaggles

Would you prefer it if students from poor backgrounds weren't given any help ?

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The money is paid back after graduation.

Why should a newly qualified doctor from a poor family have less to pay back than a newly qualified doctor from an ordinary family, given their earning power is equal?

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Squaggles

Would you prefer it if students from poor backgrounds weren't given any help ?

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The money is paid back after graduation.

Why should a newly qualified doctor from a poor family have less to pay back than a newly qualified doctor from an ordinary family, given their earning power is equal?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

They shouldn't. The only people who need to worry about debt after leaving university are those that have decided to study "waster" subjects with no intention of getting a good career afterwards.

In my day students used to work while at university, so not sure how they could get into œ30k debt anyway?

QuickDraw · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
Why should middle-class kids be subjected to a higher debt than others with the same degree?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why should any kids be subjected to any debt? The MPs presumably all benefited from free education and indeed maintenance grants and successive governments have been gradually pulling up the ladder. Maybe what you need is to follow the Scottish example. Alex Salmond for prime minister?[}:)]

alan_sherman · June 2007

Maybe we shouldn't have so many people going to university?

Cyclist, public transport passenger, pedestrian, driver, motorcyclist.
I get on OK with myself, so why can't we all get on with each other?

Joe Sacco · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by QuickDraw

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire
Why should middle-class kids be subjected to a higher debt than others with the same degree?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why should any kids be subjected to any debt? The MPs presumably all benefited from free education and indeed maintenance grants and successive governments have been gradually pulling up the ladder. Maybe what you need is to follow the Scottish example. Alex Salmond for prime minister?[}:)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Degrees should be sought to allow you to progress further in the career of your choice. That career will ultimately pay more than a non degree career. You are investing in yourself by getting the degree. If you want to do a waster degree then up to you but at least you are paying for it not me (in taxes)

I would prefer a system that gives people rebates when embarking on a 'proper' job such as doctor, teacher etc,. where the degree is a requirement and the 'artists' would have to pay for their own indulgences.

Unknown · June 2007

Because it would encourage them to actually apply in the first place .

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Squaggles

Would you prefer it if students from poor backgrounds weren't given any help ?

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The money is paid back after graduation.

Why should a newly qualified doctor from a poor family have less to pay back than a newly qualified doctor from an ordinary family, given their earning power is equal?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx

QuickDraw · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

Degrees should be sought to allow you to progress further in the career of your choice. That career will ultimately pay more than a non degree career. You are investing in yourself by getting the degree. If you want to do a waster degree then up to you but at least you are paying for it not me (in taxes)

I would prefer a system that gives people rebates when embarking on a 'proper' job such as doctor, teacher etc,. where the degree is a requirement and the 'artists' would have to pay for their own indulgences.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your argument makes perfect sense but only if you consider education a commodity to be bought and sold like anything else. Why draw the line at Higher education? If you want to study for A-levels then you'll probably earn more than someone who leaves at 16. If you want to study for GCSEs, etc. Why do you have a principle of free education that stops long before a lot of people reach their full potential? And why should the benfits of education only be measured in how much money someone can earn on completion of their degree? Do we really want to see the end of Arts degrees and have England turn into a cultural desert?

david2 · June 2007

Funny notion this waster degree thing.

What exactly is a waster degree?

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Squaggles

Because it would encourage them to actually apply in the first place .

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Squaggles

Would you prefer it if students from poor backgrounds weren't given any help ?

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The money is paid back after graduation.

Why should a newly qualified doctor from a poor family have less to pay back than a newly qualified doctor from an ordinary family, given their earning power is equal?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Let me make it clear I think everything possible should be done to encourage working class kids to aim as high as possible.

What I am worried about here is that middle class kids are going to be deterred!

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by david2

Funny notion this waster degree thing.

What exactly is a waster degree?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Media studies, for one.

david2 · June 2007

But those subjects coverd by media studies are major contributors to our economy these days. Jobs in the media are often quite lucrative. In what way is it a waster degree?

Mister Paul · June 2007

Psychology anyone?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Unkraut · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Psychology anyone?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If you think psychology is useful, you need your head examining. [;)]

Archcp · June 2007

And where does archaeology stand? Waste of time? Where do you draw the line on what careers are valuable? Suppose I do an archaeology degree, but go on to teach? Is it suddenly more valuable than if I become an archaeologist?

There was a time when you could be a perfectly good archaeologist without a degree, using natural skill, hard work and experience. Nowadays, to get above a certain level, it seems you have to have a degree apparently - although frankly a lot of well qualified graduates probably have less common sense, less experience, and possibly less innate skill than a good non-graduate digger. So the degree has become a 'requirement', although actually, a lot of what is required could be learnt on the job by anyone with a practical turn of mind. And what about the people who do the subject because it's interesting, and then go on to get some other job which demands 'a degree, any degree'.

I'm all for less people going to university, and for them not to go until after at least a year out, doing a real job or voluntary work, so as to weed out some of the ones who just go because it's like, what you do, innit?

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.

marinyork · June 2007

I'm not sure I agree with the headline figures. Usually the average debt over time approaches the maximum that you can lend out for a 3 year course outside London. This would mean that it'd be œ4500 + œ3000 for 3 years which would make it about œ22500. It's still mightily disturbing though.

One of the oddest things about the student loans system is the official student loan repayment calculator. Alan Johnson and Bill Rammell have said several times that by their figures it'd take 11 years to payback student loans on average. If you visit the student loans calculator and put in the vastly inflated graduate starting salary fiddled figure of bluechip companies which the government reckon is the average graduate starting salary (it isn't) then one comes to some very different figures. That's for the loan system I'm on. For the new decimator fees...

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Arch

And where does archaeology stand? Waste of time? Where do you draw the line on what careers are valuable? Suppose I do an archaeology degree, but go on to teach? Is it suddenly more valuable than if I become an archaeologist?

There was a time when you could be a perfectly good archaeologist without a degree, using natural skill, hard work and experience. Nowadays, to get above a certain level, it seems you have to have a degree apparently - although frankly a lot of well qualified graduates probably have less common sense, less experience, and possibly less innate skill than a good non-graduate digger. So the degree has become a 'requirement', although actually, a lot of what is required could be learnt on the job by anyone with a practical turn of mind. And what about the people who do the subject because it's interesting, and then go on to get some other job which demands 'a degree, any degree'.

I'm all for less people going to university, and for them not to go until after at least a year out, doing a real job or voluntary work, so as to weed out some of the ones who just go because it's like, what you do, innit?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hear hear [:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

nickwill · June 2007

People should be selected to go to university on merit.
A student from a poor home and a student from a middle class home should have identical career prospects if the selection has been made totally on merit. Therefore there is no justification for one student having to incur debt, while another is subsidised. Once a person becomes 18, the financial status of parents should be of no relevance.
In all other respects. an 18 year old is regarded as an independant adult!
I think there is a strong argument for fewer universities and fewer degree courses in order to maintain standards. Fewer, properly funded students on high level academic courses would provide better value for money, and give employers a better idea of who the educated elite are.
I don't believe that degrees should merely be about training for work. A decent society values education for its own sake, and for its civilising effect.

You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

marinyork · June 2007

The idea of a waster degree is misleading. There are plenty of waster degrees but it is not necessarily the subject that is the waster, it is the people who are the wasters in that it is the number of people doing them that is the issue. I have no problem at all some people doing Psychology, History, Sports Studies, Media Studies any course. I don't even have problems in large numbers of people doing them, it is when people in a year become 150, 200, 300 and that starts happening at most universities and growing maybe at 10, 20% every year nationally.

cookiemonstercp · June 2007

I'm about to study Zoology at Aberdeen University in September. I don't think that it's a waster degree, and I got my place through merit and having the proper qualifications, and as I don't come from a middle class background, why shouldn't I get some extra help in paying for my studies. I'm returning as a mature student almost 20 years since leaving school, and through my taxes, I've more than paid for my Higher education, why shouldn't I get some of those contributions back?

Why has everything in this country got to be based on what the middle classes want? What about the rest of us? Do we not count? If there are middle/upper class families who can help support their kids, then why not. It will then release more taxpayers cash for talented kids from poorer backgrounds who were very much discriminated against by Universities for many years.

We do need to have a look at what degrees are being offered by some, not all, Universities IMO as the amount of money being spent on them whilst Science and Maths depts are closing is a scandal and we wonder why we are lagging behind the rest of the world in R+D for example.

If I had a baby elephant it would keep my baby giraffe company.

Morrisette · June 2007

Well my degree may have been a waster degree, Communication Studies followed by a Publishing PGDip. However, I wouldn't have got near any editorial work without studying for it first (and doing unpaid work experience in publishing houses). Entry level jobs in publishing are paid very badly, my first job in the industry (which required applicants to have a degree) had a salary of 12 grand a year (in 2001).

The government's figures for an 'average graduate starting salary' are totally ridiculous, I don't know where they come from. Mr Morrisette was a trainee solicitor in the same period - national minimum trainee salary is 14 grand. We're (a little) better off now, but far from the 'raking it in, no problems paying off thousands in loans' picture.

Unkraut · June 2007

CM - 'If there are middle/upper class families who can help support their kids, then why not...'

Because this means that those who pay their way by hard graft may end up subsidising those who don't bother, meaning there is an incentive to rely on the state. This is always the unintended curse of welfarism, though I am certainly not against giving help where it is genuinely needed.

Congratulations on starting your course. I finally made it to university as an 'OAP student' of 33, and thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact I think you can get more out of it as a mature student than if you simply go a 18 to avoid work for another three or four years.

Who knows, you might end up knowing more about baby elephants than Arch. [:D]

marinyork · June 2007

Zoology isn't a waster subject as it's a science subject [:D]. What Maths departments closing (apart from Hull)?

Good for you for going back. See very few mature students.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by david2

But those subjects coverd by media studies are major contributors to our economy these days. Jobs in the media are often quite lucrative. In what way is it a waster degree?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This is my industry and I can tell you the last thing we look for is a media studies degree - it carries no weight whatsoever.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Psychology anyone?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Seconded.

Truly another waster degree. Carries no weight with medical profession.

Psychiatry is the real degree in this area.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by marinyork

The idea of a waster degree is misleading. There are plenty of waster degrees but it is not necessarily the subject that is the waster, it is the people who are the wasters in that it is the number of people doing them that is the issue. I have no problem at all some people doing Psychology, History, Sports Studies, Media Studies any course. I don't even have problems in large numbers of people doing them, it is when people in a year become 150, 200, 300 and that starts happening at most universities and growing maybe at 10, 20% every year nationally.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I accept these points. (More or less![:)])

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by marinyork

I'm not sure I agree with the headline figures. Usually the average debt over time approaches the maximum that you can lend out for a 3 year course outside London. This would mean that it'd be œ4500 + œ3000 for 3 years which would make it about œ22500. It's still mightily disturbing though.

One of the oddest things about the student loans system is the official student loan repayment calculator. Alan Johnson and Bill Rammell have said several times that by their figures it'd take 11 years to payback student loans on average. If you visit the student loans calculator and put in the vastly inflated graduate starting salary fiddled figure of bluechip companies which the government reckon is the average graduate starting salary (it isn't) then one comes to some very different figures. That's for the loan system I'm on. For the new decimator fees...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Just about the minimum a student can live on is œ7000. Fees are œ3000. Total œ10000 pa, so œ30000 for 3 years.

Unknown · June 2007

I don't think you have much idea about how little money some people in this country live on Spire .

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Squaggles

I don't think you have much idea about how little money some people in this country live on Spire .

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So œ7k is living the high life is it?

Remember most students can't claim benefits. The poor you are presumably alluding to have benefits that take them way higher than œ7k!!

A lot of students are in desperate financial trouble.

The middle-class whacked yet again...

Comments

Categories