Graduates 'could pay back double their student loans'

Yeah really don't see what all the fuss is about.... take out a loan, don't pay it back for 25 years (staggered i.e. paying back much less in the earlier years when the debt is at it's biggest), end up paying double what you borrowed - well no **** Sherlock, same principle as pretty much any other loan then.

What I'd find more galling would be if anyone had the bare-faced cheek to suggest that people should be able to borrow £39 grand over such a long period, earn loads of cash and NOT be paying back a significantly increased amount.

edit: I mean for chrissakes, if you look at the spreadsheet for the 25year/£83k example, the person will have earnt OVER ONE POINT EIGHT MILLION! to date in order to have paid back that £83k, they will literally be laughing all the way to the bank (yes, I know that a £142k/year salary won't look so flash in 25 years time, but the point is that relative to the total amount of debt repaid, their earnings are pretty huge. It's all well and good saying ZOMG ZOMG £83k repaid on £39k but that £83k is less than a year's NET (not gross) wage by the time they hit that mark. And yes, some of that £83k will have been repaid in earlier years, meaning it is worth more in real terms, but by that logic, the £39k they borrowed in the first place was worth a lot more in real terms as well.

I dunno, the way I read this situation is that students seem to have a much greater chance of getting some debt written off, what with a £21k threshold, low rate of repayment, being allowed to borrow a lot more money etc etc. Under the old system with £15k threshold to still have debt left after 25 years you'd have to be earning a fairly low salary over that period, whereas this new system is basically saying "here's a big wad of cash, don't worry about it, either some of it will get written off, or you'll be earning so much cash that it will have been worth it".
 
Last edited:
The problem is labour built up the myth that everyone needs to go university with it's "education, education, education" drive, just so unemployment numbers would go down as they wouldn't be counted in overall figures. And all we've ended up with is, people coming out of 3/4 years optional education, upto their eyeballs in debt, with what to show from it, but a degree in performing arts, music, and fashion design etc. etc. only for them to go into a job that doesn't even need a degree level of education, and one where they would have had better experience if they had learned their subject by vocational means whilst in employment.
 
It is also more than possible to work and pay your way through a university degree.

I bombed out of my first degree after 2 years as I hated it. Spent a few years working during which I earned enough to pay back some small ammount of the 11k debt i had amassed in those 2 wasted years.

I decided I wanted to go back and try something else and because I already wasted 2 years I was required to fund it myself. So i took all the loans i could and got a job. Work enough to pay living expenses and tuition fees so the loan is surplus to requirements. It sits earning intrest which will go towards paying back some of the previous loans I already have.

I admit some degrees such as medicine it will not be possible to work while studying but for the majority of degrees it is easily possible. Just takes a bit of discipline and hard work.

Nothing in this world is free. Especially student loans!
 
matt_fsr said:
Given the truly appalling standard of reporting by the BBC over the Fukushima incident happening at the moment, this is no great surprise.

Makes me wonder how much utter rubbish they actually write, and pass off as 'journalism'
Click to expand...
I was aghast watching Breakfast this morning. They had David Willetts on and the presenters were being really, really retarded. Even he was bemused.
 
edscdk said:
i imagine that assumes someone earning 50k a year will still only want to pay the minimum amout back each month - which would be silly?
Click to expand...

Why would that be silly - its likely the cheapest loan you'll ever get - paying back any more than you have to is likely to be silly.
 
meghatronic said:
False.

Do people not read anymore?
Click to expand...

Why false?

Surely it depends on the country you emigrate to. We couldn't get a guy who took part in the great train robbery sent back from Brazil - you reckon the UK govt would do any better pursuing someone who owes them a few thousand.
 
I wish the media would decide one way or the other:

a) awww poor iccle abused students
b) god damn hippy students stealing our monies/jerbs/anything

As a student myself I find the reporting of this whole saga completely abhorrent, and misrepresentative of most people I knows opinions, imho anyway.
 
Where do people get these "written off after 25 years" facts from? I was told that was a myth...?

As far as I'm concerned they can make uni as expensive as they like. If fewer go to Uni it makes my degree worth more :D

/selfishism
 
Gilly said:
...at which point she'll benefit from being at University, and therefore the cash paid will be worth it.



/bangs head on desk
Click to expand...

The fundamental point here is that less people will choose to go to university, meaning we'll have a less educated population, meaning that we will be less able, as a rule, to compete globally, meaning that there will be less money within the population, meaning that people will spend less, meaning that the government will get less money in as taxes.


The values of having an educated population have been known for centuries - otherwise we wouldn't even bother with free schooling. Reducing the education level seems to be for short term gain, yet long term loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom