Students

whyamihere

Rick Chasey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

from what Whyamihere is saying

I bought a house with no help and I feel much better for it than having to go cap in hand to my parents.. yep I'm up to my eyeballs in mortgage debt but that was my choice.

It's only a choice if you can afford to have said debt in the first place.

Which, when it's debt from the student loan company, everyone can.

Look up the repayment methods and rates. Also consider that any that's not paid off after 30 years is wiped.

rick_chasey

whyamihere wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

from what Whyamihere is saying

I bought a house with no help and I feel much better for it than having to go cap in hand to my parents.. yep I'm up to my eyeballs in mortgage debt but that was my choice.

It's only a choice if you can afford to have said debt in the first place.

Which, when it's debt from the student loan company, everyone can.

Look up the repayment methods and rates. Also consider that any that's not paid off after 30 years is wiped.

I have, s'why I paid mine of asap.. The interest was way more than I was led to believe when I took it out.

Also, as a seperate note - student loans company needs to be fundamentally changed. They are unbelievably incompetant, and charge you a fortune in phone bills for it.

Clever Pun

whyamihere wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

from what Whyamihere is saying

I bought a house with no help and I feel much better for it than having to go cap in hand to my parents.. yep I'm up to my eyeballs in mortgage debt but that was my choice.

It's only a choice if you can afford to have said debt in the first place.

Which, when it's debt from the student loan company, everyone can.

Look up the repayment methods and rates. Also consider that any that's not paid off after 30 years is wiped.

as I've said before your wage should be higher having been at uni, so it shouldn't be a problem paying it back.

Clever Pun

Rick Chasey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

from what Whyamihere is saying

I bought a house with no help and I feel much better for it than having to go cap in hand to my parents.. yep I'm up to my eyeballs in mortgage debt but that was my choice.

It's only a choice if you can afford to have said debt in the first place.

but it would have been a lot easier if my parents had lobbed a load of cash into the deposit

Kids today don't even know they're born tsk

rick_chasey

Clever Pun wrote:

as I've said before your wage should be higher having been at uni, so it shouldn't be a problem paying it back.

That's not always the case is it?

And higher than, what, the average?

£30,000 of debt, however it is, before you've earnt anything significant is enough to put a lot of people off - which shouldn't be the case.

Clever Pun

Rick Chasey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

as I've said before your wage should be higher having been at uni, so it shouldn't be a problem paying it back.

That's not always the case is it?

And higher than, what, the average?

£30,000 of debt, however it is, before you've earnt anything significant is enough to put a lot of people off - which shouldn't be the case.

no it's not always going to be the case.. choose your course wisely...

Higher than if you hadn't attended university

it's a fair whack, but not that much in the grand scheme of things for a university graduate.. it's their decision.

Students have always complained about debt since I can remember... save money, drink less beer

rick_chasey

Clever Pun wrote:

no it's not always going to be the case.. choose your course wisely...

That's my point. Why make courses that the market doesn't value only available to those who can afford it?

Just because the market doesn't value it, doesn't mean there is no inherent value....

whyamihere

Rick Chasey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

no it's not always going to be the case.. choose your course wisely...

That's my point. Why make courses that the market doesn't value only available to those who can afford it?

Just because the market doesn't value it, doesn't mean there is no inherent value....

Why should the taxpayer pay for it if it has no economic value?

lost_in_thought

Those who are jumping up and down and remortgaging houses, I strongly suggest you do a bit more research.

I mean, if university teaches you anything, it's that you ought to do thorough research... right?

Or were all those tax 'dollars' wasted?

In other news, university is not the be all and end all of your career. If it's really such a concern, don't go.

rick_chasey

whyamihere wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

no it's not always going to be the case.. choose your course wisely...

That's my point. Why make courses that the market doesn't value only available to those who can afford it?

Just because the market doesn't value it, doesn't mean there is no inherent value....

Why should the taxpayer pay for it if it has no economic value?

Because there is more to society than just economics. Surely the experience of the banking crisis should cast some doubt over the market's ability to measure genuine social value?

The market doesn't know best. I took a history course and now have a job in the city. Who'd have thought that?

alfablue

lost_in_thought wrote:

In other news, university is not the be all and end all of your career. If it's really such a concern, don't go.

Exactly - it was always meant for the privileged - if you aren't then you shouldn't really apply :roll:

lost_in_thought

alfablue wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

In other news, university is not the be all and end all of your career. If it's really such a concern, don't go.

Exactly - it was always meant for the privileged - if you aren't then you shouldn't really apply :roll:

Not sure if that was tongue in cheek or not, but I did go and didn't finish, waste of nearly 2 years for no gain. I'd have been better off going straight in to work.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

alfablue wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

In other news, university is not the be all and end all of your career. If it's really such a concern, don't go.

Exactly - it was always meant for the privileged - if you aren't then you shouldn't really apply :roll:

Not sure if that was tongue in cheek or not, but I did go and didn't finish, waste of nearly 2 years for no gain. I'd have been better off going straight in to work.

Yeah because that's the norm for most people who drop out or go straight to work... Especially those who don't get any more qualifications while at work, assuming they can afford it, have the time to do it or are lucky enough to have work pay for it or give them time to do it.

Very rarely have I read something so blindingly short sighted outside of what I write when being deliberately silly...

Jesus, the course of life isn't the same for everyone.

Now where is that emoticon.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

alfablue wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

In other news, university is not the be all and end all of your career. If it's really such a concern, don't go.

Exactly - it was always meant for the privileged - if you aren't then you shouldn't really apply :roll:

Not sure if that was tongue in cheek or not, but I did go and didn't finish, waste of nearly 2 years for no gain. I'd have been better off going straight in to work.

Yeah because that's the norm for most people who drop out or go straight to work... Especially those who don't get any more qualifications while at work, assuming they can afford it, have the time to do it or are lucky enough to have work pay for it or give them time to do it.

Very rarely have I read something so blindingly short sighted outside of what I write when being deliberately silly...

Jesus, the course of life isn't the same for everyone.

Now where is that emoticon.

Breezy up there on your soapbox?

For the record, I have nothing but A-Levels to my name, and it's never been an issue. No other qualifications whatsoever, nothing through work, nowt.

My point was basically that university is not the only way, and if you're not really into what you're studying, or shooting for something specific, why bother? As has been well-documented, it just lands you in a whole lot of (admittedly very affordable) debt.

Not quite sure what offended you so much DDD. Maybe it's just that chip on your shoulder getting out of hand again.

DonDaddyD

"Yes it is quite breezy, why don't you join me, maybe you'll gain a better concept of different people, different lives and that sometimes broad generalisations, unchecked, can often marginalise. Here have a chip it'll keep you warm"

To the point.

Which is my point, still stands. Your sweeping generalisations in the two posts above maybe true for you, and others. It isn't true for everyone.

This isn't of course just about getting a particular job that requires a degree or expects a person of 'graduate calibre' as I gave seen in many job descriptions.There are those who will require HE qualifications and the skills gained to set them apart from a growing competition or to help put aside any number of prejudices that could be applied to them. Yes it still happens.

For the record, I have nothing but A-Levels to my name, and it's never been an issue. No other qualifications whatsoever, nothing through work,

Then you are extremely lucky, talented and naturally skilled. But for a girl who bought a TVR with her first bonus (your words), I find your professional/educational circumstances the exception not the norm.

You cannot impose that generalisation on everyone. That is my point.

My point was basically that university is not the only way, and if you're not really into what you're studying, or shooting for something specific, why bother?

Again the reasoning and experience gained from going will be different for each person. My reasons for going were arguably decidedly different to yours.

The point is that we shouldn't is that we should be encouraging all positive and potential life experiences/potential gains. And £9,000 a year regardless of what you say is more deterrent than encouragement for most.

tailwindhome

L_i_t's point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that university is not the only option and that there are many possible career paths in life and that students should consider these other options before getting into debt to pay for a degree which may not give them any real advantage over spending those 3 or 4 years in the workplace.

Perfectly reasonable and valid I would have thought.

Gazzaputt

National service is the answer.

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

L_i_t's point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that university is not the only option and that there are many possible career paths in life and that students should consider these other options before getting into debt to pay for a degree which may not give them any real advantage over spending those 3 or 4 years in the workplace.

Perfectly reasonable and valid I would have thought.

Absolutely.

One of the key problems was the attempt to get 50% of people into university. All that did was increase costs; devalue a degree (because everyone had them); and disadvantage and disincentivise those who couldn't/didn't go to university.

The reality is that "studying" does not bring out the best in all people (be that A Levels or higher) and that practical experience "teaches" some people better than a classroom. That's not to say they're better or worse, but not everyone is the same, or has the same aptitudes, nor the same wish to study further.

Trades/skills should be applauded and encouraged. Doing David Beckham studies adds precisely zero to anyone's life or bank balance.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

L_i_t's point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that university is not the only option and that there are many possible career paths in life and that students should consider these other options before getting into debt to pay for a degree which may not give them any real advantage over spending those 3 or 4 years in the workplace.

Perfectly reasonable and valid I would have thought.

But that's the point.

Those who are well off will not have to worry about that. It would leave some subjects which aren't necessarily going to lead to a well paid job (though, naturally, there are exceptions) will become subjects that only the elites can afford to study. Studying arts and humanities should not be considered a luxury only the rich can afford.

As I said before, just because a job isn't well paid, or a subject doesn't bring in a large tax revenue because the market doesn't rate it, doesn't mean it doesn't add real value to society.

We know the market is poor at measuring the value of something to society as a whole.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

L_i_t's point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that university is not the only option and that there are many possible career paths in life and that students should consider these other options before getting into debt to pay for a degree which may not give them any real advantage over spending those 3 or 4 years in the workplace.

Perfectly reasonable and valid I would have thought.

But that's the point.

Those who are well off will not have to worry about that. It would leave some subjects which aren't necessarily going to lead to a well paid job (though, naturally, there are exceptions) will become subjects that only the elites can afford to study. Studying arts and humanities should not be considered a luxury only the rich can afford.

As I said before, just because a job isn't well paid, or a subject doesn't bring in a large tax revenue because the market doesn't rate it, doesn't mean it doesn't add real value to society.

We know the market is poor at measuring the value of something to society as a whole.

+1

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

L_i_t's point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that university is not the only option and that there are many possible career paths in life and that students should consider these other options before getting into debt to pay for a degree which may not give them any real advantage over spending those 3 or 4 years in the workplace.

Perfectly reasonable and valid I would have thought.

But that's the point.

Those who are well off will not have to worry about that. It would leave some subjects which aren't necessarily going to lead to a well paid job (though, naturally, there are exceptions) will become subjects that only the elites can afford to study. Studying arts and humanities should not be considered a luxury only the rich can afford.

As I said before, just because a job isn't well paid, or a subject doesn't bring in a large tax revenue because the market doesn't rate it, doesn't mean it doesn't add real value to society.

We know the market is poor at measuring the value of something to society as a whole.

I think you need to reconsider LiT and TWH's points again.

It's not that some subjects are more "worthy" or valuable than others - it's that anyone entering university should consider whether it is in fact right for them - whether it's free, £1 or £1m. For some people they would be better off not going in terms of gaining useful, practical experience. The fact that there is an added debt burden should also be taken into consideration.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

I think you need to reconsider LiT and TWH's points again.

It's not that some subjects are more "worthy" or valuable than others - it's that anyone entering university should consider whether it is in fact right for them - whether it's free, £1 or £1m. For some people they would be better off not going in terms of gaining useful, practical experience. The fact that there is an added debt burden should also be taken into consideration.

That's plainly not the case. We know that the market values some degrees over others - indeed, many people gripe that they are paying for people's degrees that are worth nothing and that won't be paid back through in taxes on futuer earnings.

Say you're a talented historian, from a poor background. Studying history may be right for you, but if you're from a family that has been on the bread-line and you have little or no support, the idea of £9,000 a year plus living costs, plus the interest accumulated on that debt could easily be enough to put you off - especially since being a professional historian earns you very little money with which to pay off that debt. In that situation - everyone loses out - the said person for not being given the opportunity for higher education, and society misses out on a talented trained historian.

gtvlusso

Okay - Here's My pennys worth:

I am a "FAILED" student.....

I studied at Cambridge, Reading Uni and Rutgers (In the USA). I do not have a degree because I was a drunken dopehead......

I wasted allot of time and money (your money and my money) to acheive b*ll*x all. I was too young and did not know what I wanted.

I studied English Literature, Fine Art and Journalism/Law. After coming back from the States, I worked as a cabling guy on a building site, then became a computer engineer and it snowballed into a career in IT/Telecoms.....

My Last job was looking over around 400 UK staff as a "Head of".....I now look over about 40 staff internationally as a "Head of" - new/better job!!

I only have 'A' levels....

For some people University comes around too quickly and they have a bit of growing up and self learning to do - me!. For some people academia is simply beyond them and they should not be pushed down the Uni route - the annihilation of the old Poly Technics was a travesty.....I see that now when I recruit "students"...we have non students who simply are better candidates and more motivated.....

I have friends that went to less well known Uni's and got rubbish degrees in b*gger all.....they are still doing okay. Allot of them joined the Police! But, they would probably have been better off going to a Poly and learning a skill or simply going straight to work.

Uni is not right for everyone! However, the previous government pushed us into this mess.

On Fee's:

I believe that the fees are only payable when you are employed and earning over certain limits. Whats wrong with that? Surely it stops f*ckwits like me attempting Uni, failing miserably, and costing you tax payers a fortune?! Then deciding on a complete change of direction.....

Hopefully it also stops these b*ll*x degrees from second rate Universities.

I would like to think that when kids leave school, they now really look closely at what they want to do and the financial impact of it on society - i.e. fees raises that awareness. To be honest, I am now saving frantically for schooling and Uni - I know my kids will need the cash then. I hope that they take the time (even a year or so out) to find out who they are and where they want to go - make an informed choice and bear in mind their imprint or impact on society.

Yes - the fees hike was too much too soon. It should have been in stages to lessen the impact (look at fuel price hikes as an example of acceptance).

In a very very selfish way - I hope that by paying for my kids Uni education I am making up for my Uni waste.....Not sure though!?!

Greg T

Rick Chasey wrote:

Say you're a talented historian, from a poor background. Studying history may be right for you, but if you're family has been on the bread-line and you have little or no support, the idea of £9,000 a year plus living costs, plus the interest accumulated on that debt could easily be enough to put you off - especially since being a professional historian earns you very little money with which to pay off that debt.

In that situation - everyone loses out - the said person for not being given the opportunity for higher education, and society misses out on a talented trained historian.

No they don't.

The "historian" becomes a Builder / Enginner / Mechanic and earns more money, pays off his debts, society gains a Builder / Enginner / Mechanic but misses out on a historian. That's no great loss.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

L_i_t's point (correct me if I'm wrong) is that university is not the only option and that there are many possible career paths in life and that students should consider these other options before getting into debt to pay for a degree which may not give them any real advantage over spending those 3 or 4 years in the workplace.

Perfectly reasonable and valid I would have thought.

I'll make my point more clearly then.

Not everyone goes to University to gain a qualification to do a specific career but the very fact that they have a credible degree, in some ways, aids them when looking for a job. Again I cite job descriptios asking for 'degree calibre'.

Some people decide their career path while at Uni.

Each person who goes, may go for different reasons.

There are also those whose A-levels aren't enough to set them apart from others.

There are those who may find themselves subject to prejudices and a degree helps to eliminate that.

It is an experience that should be encouraged, not forced. The proposed increase does more to deter, IMO.

I would also argue there are more with just A-levels whose careers are hindered by not having a degree for those who cannot afford.

I don't think the message that should be sent out is "you don't need a degree". It's too broad a generalisation, there are many cases where you do need a degree or having one give you an advantage.

The reality is that those that don't have a degree and have succeeded are often a minority.

rick_chasey

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Say you're a talented historian, from a poor background. Studying history may be right for you, but if you're family has been on the bread-line and you have little or no support, the idea of £9,000 a year plus living costs, plus the interest accumulated on that debt could easily be enough to put you off - especially since being a professional historian earns you very little money with which to pay off that debt.

In that situation - everyone loses out - the said person for not being given the opportunity for higher education, and society misses out on a talented trained historian.

No they don't.

The "historian" becomes a Builder / Enginner / Mechanic and earns more money, pays off his debts, society gains a Builder / Enginner / Mechanic but misses out on a historian. That's no great loss.

I guess that's where we differ. I'd say that using someone's talents, even if it means earning less cash is more value than someone ignoring that talent. Furthermore,as I've said before, you're confining subjects like the arts and humanties to luxuries for the rich.

There's more to life then making cash, and there is more value to add to society then just making cash.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Say you're a talented historian, from a poor background. Studying history may be right for you, but if you're family has been on the bread-line and you have little or no support, the idea of £9,000 a year plus living costs, plus the interest accumulated on that debt could easily be enough to put you off - especially since being a professional historian earns you very little money with which to pay off that debt.

In that situation - everyone loses out - the said person for not being given the opportunity for higher education, and society misses out on a talented trained historian.

No they don't.

The "historian" becomes a Builder / Enginner / Mechanic and earns more money, pays off his debts, society gains a Builder / Enginner / Mechanic but misses out on a historian. That's no great loss.

I guess that's where we differ. I'd say that using someone's talents, even if it means earning less cash is more value than someone ignoring that talent. Furthermore,as I've said before, you're confining subjects like the arts and humanties to luxuries for the rich.

There's more to life then making cash, and there is more value to add to society then just making cash.

Except someone, somwehere has to pay foe that degree. It's naiieve in the extreme to ignore the "cash" issue.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

.....

There's more to life then making cash, and there is more value to add to society then just making cash.

I agree totally.

We work to live, not live to work.

If money is the goal, then we have lost society & it becomes a very hostile nfriendly world

gtvlusso

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

.....

There's more to life then making cash, and there is more value to add to society then just making cash.

I agree totally.

We work to live, not live to work.

If money is the goal, then we have lost society & it becomes a very hostile nfriendly world

Say's a Solicitor......

:-)

spen666

gtvlusso wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

.....

There's more to life then making cash, and there is more value to add to society then just making cash.

I agree totally.

We work to live, not live to work.

If money is the goal, then we have lost society & it becomes a very hostile nfriendly world

Say's a Solicitor......

:-)

and?

Have you seen how little a solicitor doing legally aided criminal work earns?

Far less than you'd imagine