Student loans - do we have to pay it back?

[neeko]

I tought that the reason govts incresed student no's to 50% was so that they could say that youth unemplyment was down, no longer were under 21's dossing around and doing nothing - they were students instead.

oh wait....

[kinboshi]

The problem is that unless there is a way the children of less-wealthy families can get a decent education from primary school all the way through to university, then we end up living in a country where there are the haves and have-nots, and many of those who will benefit from a decent education and be of value to the country will not be able to study as they weren't lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family.

Education should not be reserved for the wealthy.

This.

Universities have too many thick, ignorant students who happened to have wealthy parents, whilst more intelligent kids, who had to endure 10+ years of 'education' in shithole schools don't get there.

Have you ever been to school with the have nots?

Why? Wondered where you was going with that?

Spent 5 years at one of the pretty poor schools in Notts and just think the problem was the have nots not wanting to get there, not the school.

I went to a school with have nots, at a school that did not, and got the grades I did despite the school - not because of it.

When I got to uni it was an eye-opener.  Lots of very privileged people, many who weren't the smartest (but were well-educated), and many who didn't give a toss about studying.  Education in this country is still very heavily skewed towards those fortunate enough to be born into wealthier families.

[Free_Rollin]

Bottom line is that the UK needs graduates and the economic gains from increased productivity affect everybody positively.

Media studies, History, English lit, Latin, greek etc.

why should I have to pay for people to study them?

Not heard this one before...maybe they should be on claiming benifits instead

But they will be after they come out of uni as all their degrees a are pointless. Unless of course they go for a job for which they don't need their degree, in which case.."why am I paying for them" is a valid question. We need more science students, not media studies.
I have no problem paying for people to go to uni but it would have to be a course which actuallyhas some benefits. If the UK is short of scientists we should be encouraging people to stud something in the science area.

If we were short of journalists or other muppets wanting to work in the media we should pay for that, until then I maintain that paying someone 19k to go and do media studies is wasted money. Especially when the budget of every dept is being slashed by approx 25%, I reckon this is an area that we can save a bit of cash on.

Sigh, so many people just see these things at face value.

We need more science students, not media studies.

Why do we need more science students? What will that achieve? So scientists can carry out research? Work on cures for various diseases? But how will scientists be able to publish their findings to relevant audiences without media students?

If the UK is short of scientists we should be encouraging people to stud something in the science area.

This is true. If the UK is short of scientists, then encouragement should be made to allow potential students to discover the vast world of science, and not limit their views to more traditional ideas about science. However, pushing something that a student is not interested in at all, is pointless. In fact, it will cost the public more. I too studied Physics at university, but the reason I went into it, was not for my undying love for Schrödinger's equation. It was in fact because during my gap year, I saw that a couple of managing directors at a bank I interned at, too studied Physics. I, foolishly, tried to follow their footsteps. I wasn't given the appropriate advice from my sixth form, careers advisers, etc, and ended up wasting a couple of years of time and money. So, this leads on to my next point...

I have no problem paying for people to go to uni but it would have to be a course which actually has some benefits.

Not everyone knows what they want to go into at the age of 18. I always aspired for a career in finance, but since I didn't study Economics/Accounting/Business at GCSE/A-level, I thought that the traditional route into finance was not for me. You mention why do people study History/English, etc, but have you realised a great number of students who go into the Law profession come from these typical backgrounds. But you might say, well if they want to go into Law, why not study it in the first place? But like I said earlier, not every kid at 18 knows what he or she wants to go into as a career. So, it's beneficial for these students to study what they enjoy and have a passion for, whether it be English, History, Maths, Physics or even History of Art.

Sorry Boldie btw, not having a go at your or anything, this post is probably more to do with the fact that I am annoyed with myself for wasting a couple of years of my academic life. It's just when people post stuff implying that people should only be studying courses directly related to what they want to do in life at such a young age, annoys me.

As for the rich vs poor debate and education. The government/oxbridge/other organisations can skew and massage all the statistics they like, the truth remains that the education system heavily favours the rich.

[Jon MW]

...

As for the rich vs poor debate and education. The government/oxbridge/other organisations can skew and massage all the statistics they life, the truth remains that the education system heavily favours the rich.

Empirically the greatest single determinant of academic success is class.

But the same evidence suggests it's not because the education system favours the middle and upper classes, it's - er - well it's complicated. But the gist of it is that the middle classes (the biggest by far social group to 'benefit' from the education system) are more likely to value education, make time for it and foster the environment in which the pupils from that background will succeed.

It's not all about attitude though, for example at a practical level more affluent families are more likely to have only one parent working - which has repercussions for success at school - stuff like that might be considered a structural bias against the working class but buggered if anyone can work out how to fix it.


This is much better, because I don't have to wiki even a little bit of it
Although technically I haven't looked at anything to do with it (outside of newspapers) for 6 or 7 years so it could be all out of date

[Free_Rollin]

...

As for the rich vs poor debate and education. The government/oxbridge/other organisations can skew and massage all the statistics they life, the truth remains that the education system heavily favours the rich.

Empirically the greatest single determinant of academic success is class.

But the same evidence suggests it's not because the education system favours the middle and upper classes, it's - er - well it's complicated. But the gist of it is that the middle classes (the biggest by far social group to 'benefit' from the education system) are more likely to value education, make time for it and foster the environment in which the pupils from that background will succeed.

It's not all about attitude though, for example at a practical level more affluent families are more likely to have only one parent working - which has repercussions for success at school - stuff like that might be considered a structural bias against the working class but buggered if anyone can work out how to fix it.


This is much better, because I don't have to wiki even a little bit of it
Although technically I haven't looked at anything to do with it (outside of newspapers) for 6 or 7 years so it could be all out of date

But doesn't defining class become a whole new arguement in it self? How do we define social classes? Also, isn't this typically a direct correlation to wealth?

I would also say a lot more people nowadays would call themselves middle class, even when their status doesn't typically comply with such a definition?

I think saying that middles class value education more so than others, is probably true. However, again, it's probably only true because it is only accessible and a useful tool for them at the time. How are some people going to value something, they truly haven't been able to experience or even know what it is? Secondly, do middle class really value education in itself, or do they value the fact it is a tool that will enable them to succeed in life in terms of status and money? I for one only saw it as a stepping stone to allow me where I want to be in life say 10 years from now, hence why I was studying a subject I had to no passion for. Now, I probably see things a bit differently.

[Sighmuns]

Bottom line is that the UK needs graduates and the economic gains from increased productivity affect everybody positively.

Media studies, History, English lit, Latin, greek etc.

why should I have to pay for people to study them?

Not heard this one before...maybe they should be on claiming benifits instead

But they will be after they come out of uni as all their degrees a are pointless. Unless of course they go for a job for which they don't need their degree, in which case.."why am I paying for them" is a valid question. We need more science students, not media studies.
I have no problem paying for people to go to uni but it would have to be a course which actuallyhas some benefits. If the UK is short of scientists we should be encouraging people to stud something in the science area.

If we were short of journalists or other muppets wanting to work in the media we should pay for that, until then I maintain that paying someone 19k to go and do media studies is wasted money. Especially when the budget of every dept is being slashed by approx 25%, I reckon this is an area that we can save a bit of cash on.

Sigh, so many people just see these things at face value.

We need more science students, not media studies.

Why do we need more science students? What will that achieve? So scientists can carry out research? Work on cures for various diseases? But how will scientists be able to publish their findings to relevant audiences without media students?

If the UK is short of scientists we should be encouraging people to stud something in the science area.

This is true. If the UK is short of scientists, then encouragement should be made to allow potential students to discover the vast world of science, and not limit their views to more traditional ideas about science. However, pushing something that a student is not interested in at all, is pointless. In fact, it will cost the public more. I too studied Physics at university, but the reason I went into it, was not for my undying love for Schrödinger's equation. It was in fact because during my gap year, I saw that a couple of managing directors at a bank I interned at, too studied Physics. I, foolishly, tried to follow their footsteps. I wasn't given the appropriate advice from my sixth form, careers advisers, etc, and ended up wasting a couple of years of time and money. So, this leads on to my next point...

I have no problem paying for people to go to uni but it would have to be a course which actually has some benefits.

Not everyone knows what they want to go into at the age of 18. I always aspired for a career in finance, but since I didn't study Economics/Accounting/Business at GCSE/A-level, I thought that the traditional route into finance was not for me. You mention why do people study History/English, etc, but have you realised a great number of students who go into the Law profession come from these typical backgrounds. But you might say, well if they want to go into Law, why not study it in the first place? But like I said earlier, not every kid at 18 knows what he or she wants to go into as a career. So, it's beneficial for these students to study what they enjoy and have a passion for, whether it be English, History, Maths, Physics or even History of Art.

Sorry Boldie btw, not having a go at your or anything, this post is probably more to do with the fact that I am annoyed with myself for wasting a couple of years of my academic life. It's just when people post stuff implying that people should only be studying courses directly related to what they want to do in life at such a young age, annoys me.

As for the rich vs poor debate and education. The government/oxbridge/other organisations can skew and massage all the statistics they like, the truth remains that the education system heavily favours the rich.

Good post.

[Jon MW]

...

But doesn't defining class become a whole new arguement in it self? How do we define social classes? Also, isn't this typically a direct correlation to wealth?

I would also say a lot more people nowadays would call themselves middle class, even when their status doesn't typically comply with such a definition?

I think saying that middles class value education more so than others, is probably true. However, again, it's probably only true because it is only accessible and a useful tool for them at the time. How are some people going to value something, they truly haven't been able to experience or even know what it is? Secondly, do middle class really value education in itself, or do they value the fact it is a tool that will enable them to succeed in life in terms of status and money? I for one only saw it as a stepping stone to allow me where I want to be in life say 10 years from now, hence why I was studying a subject I had to no passion for. Now, I probably see things a bit differently.

It was like a whole week we talked and wrote about this, way too  much detail for me to remember go in to

Simple classifications of class based on occupation and income - as used by economists
Isn't saying they value it because of what they can gain from it almost a tautology? There's an element of the pursuit of knowledge is worthwhile in itself but primarily the reason it's valued doesn't seem to be pertinent to the outcome.

And sociologically you could probably ascribe the 19th century working class to not valuing education as they had no experience of it's benefit, but I think you can't really generalise over too wide a group nowadays as the notion of upward mobility has been so entrenched by now. Even if you don't aspire to it - there isn't that much of a demographic who isn't at least aware of it.

[DMorgan]

Empirically the greatest single determinant of academic success is class.

Probably true but its close - parents level of education is also a huge determinant. In most of the empirical research that I've looked at from Labour Economics modules, household income and class are interchangeable.

In saying that, both of my parents left school at 16, I've just graduated and my sister goes to uni this September

Variance can be a bitch

[kinboshi]

Bottom line is that the UK needs graduates and the economic gains from increased productivity affect everybody positively.

Media studies, History, English lit, Latin, greek etc.

why should I have to pay for people to study them?

Not heard this one before...maybe they should be on claiming benifits instead

But they will be after they come out of uni as all their degrees a are pointless. Unless of course they go for a job for which they don't need their degree, in which case.."why am I paying for them" is a valid question. We need more science students, not media studies.
I have no problem paying for people to go to uni but it would have to be a course which actuallyhas some benefits. If the UK is short of scientists we should be encouraging people to stud something in the science area.

If we were short of journalists or other muppets wanting to work in the media we should pay for that, until then I maintain that paying someone 19k to go and do media studies is wasted money. Especially when the budget of every dept is being slashed by approx 25%, I reckon this is an area that we can save a bit of cash on.

Sigh, so many people just see these things at face value.

We need more science students, not media studies.

Why do we need more science students? What will that achieve? So scientists can carry out research? Work on cures for various diseases? But how will scientists be able to publish their findings to relevant audiences without media students?

If the UK is short of scientists we should be encouraging people to stud something in the science area.

This is true. If the UK is short of scientists, then encouragement should be made to allow potential students to discover the vast world of science, and not limit their views to more traditional ideas about science. However, pushing something that a student is not interested in at all, is pointless. In fact, it will cost the public more. I too studied Physics at university, but the reason I went into it, was not for my undying love for Schrödinger's equation. It was in fact because during my gap year, I saw that a couple of managing directors at a bank I interned at, too studied Physics. I, foolishly, tried to follow their footsteps. I wasn't given the appropriate advice from my sixth form, careers advisers, etc, and ended up wasting a couple of years of time and money. So, this leads on to my next point...

I have no problem paying for people to go to uni but it would have to be a course which actually has some benefits.

Not everyone knows what they want to go into at the age of 18. I always aspired for a career in finance, but since I didn't study Economics/Accounting/Business at GCSE/A-level, I thought that the traditional route into finance was not for me. You mention why do people study History/English, etc, but have you realised a great number of students who go into the Law profession come from these typical backgrounds. But you might say, well if they want to go into Law, why not study it in the first place? But like I said earlier, not every kid at 18 knows what he or she wants to go into as a career. So, it's beneficial for these students to study what they enjoy and have a passion for, whether it be English, History, Maths, Physics or even History of Art.

Sorry Boldie btw, not having a go at your or anything, this post is probably more to do with the fact that I am annoyed with myself for wasting a couple of years of my academic life. It's just when people post stuff implying that people should only be studying courses directly related to what they want to do in life at such a young age, annoys me.

As for the rich vs poor debate and education. The government/oxbridge/other organisations can skew and massage all the statistics they like, the truth remains that the education system heavily favours the rich.

Science reporting in the media is pretty appalling on the whole, especially outside the specialist publications and sites.

Mainstream media does not do science very well at all.

[boldie]

Bottom line is that the UK needs graduates and the economic gains from increased productivity affect everybody positively.

Media studies, History, English lit, Latin, greek etc.

why should I have to pay for people to study them?

Not heard this one before...maybe they should be on claiming benifits instead :)Everybody can go to uni and some people that do go are simply not cut out for it. there is nothing wr ong with that but that's just the way it is.

The problem I have with OP is that, effectively, he has said "I will pay back the loan when I can afford to" and is now trying to weasle out of it by saying "But the money I make now doesn't count"

But they will be after they come out of uni as all their degrees a are pointless. Unless of course they go for a job for which they don't need their degree, in which case.."why am I paying for them" is a valid question. We need more science students, not media studies.
I have no problem paying for people to go to uni but it would have to be a course which actuallyhas some benefits. If the UK is short of scientists we should be encouraging people to stud something in the science area.

If we were short of journalists or other muppets wanting to work in the media we should pay for that, until then I maintain that paying someone 19k to go and do media studies is wasted money. Especially when the budget of every dept is being slashed by approx 25%, I reckon this is an area that we can save a bit of cash on.

Sigh, so many people just see these things at face value.

We need more science students, not media studies.

Why do we need more science students? What will that achieve? So scientists can carry out research? Work on cures for various diseases? But how will scientists be able to publish their findings to relevant audiences without media students?

If the UK is short of scientists we should be encouraging people to stud something in the science area.

This is true. If the UK is short of scientists, then encouragement should be made to allow potential students to discover the vast world of science, and not limit their views to more traditional ideas about science. However, pushing something that a student is not interested in at all, is pointless. In fact, it will cost the public more. I too studied Physics at university, but the reason I went into it, was not for my undying love for Schrödinger's equation. It was in fact because during my gap year, I saw that a couple of managing directors at a bank I interned at, too studied Physics. I, foolishly, tried to follow their footsteps. I wasn't given the appropriate advice from my sixth form, careers advisers, etc, and ended up wasting a couple of years of time and money. So, this leads on to my next point...

I have no problem paying for people to go to uni but it would have to be a course which actually has some benefits.

Not everyone knows what they want to go into at the age of 18. I always aspired for a career in finance, but since I didn't study Economics/Accounting/Business at GCSE/A-level, I thought that the traditional route into finance was not for me. You mention why do people study History/English, etc, but have you realised a great number of students who go into the Law profession come from these typical backgrounds. But you might say, well if they want to go into Law, why not study it in the first place? But like I said earlier, not every kid at 18 knows what he or she wants to go into as a career. So, it's beneficial for these students to study what they enjoy and have a passion for, whether it be English, History, Maths, Physics or even History of Art.

Sorry Boldie btw, not having a go at your or anything, this post is probably more to do with the fact that I am annoyed with myself for wasting a couple of years of my academic life. It's just when people post stuff implying that people should only be studying courses directly related to what they want to do in life at such a young age, annoys me.

As for the rich vs poor debate and education. The government/oxbridge/other organisations can skew and massage all the statistics they like, the truth remains that the education system heavily favours the rich.

Sorry can't quote bits and pieces because, for some reason, a long post on Blonde is tricky to work with on my internet explorer (I can't see what I type )

you are right of course in that 18 YOs should not be held responsible for what they want to study as they can have no idea. I did Consumer Studies (don't ask me what it means, I still don't know) for my first degree and it was a waste of time IMO. Then I went to work and a few years later went to study International Economic Relations (T'was a bit of fun, not a field I am actually working in but the Dutch govt was paying for it under the terms of my work contract  so "why not?").
A complete overhaul of the system would be good IMO (Have people go to uni after working for a few years), but this is always going to be tricky and never going to happen.

TBH, I don't mind what people study, (As long as it's not something ridiculous) if people want to better themselves that can only be a good thing. I do think Univerisities should not be accessible to all. By that I don't mean from a class/money perspective but from a "Are you smart enough?" angle.
Uni isn't for everybody and it shouldn't be. Univerisities should only focus on the best and brightest and not on the masses. Therefore setting targets of "50% of all kids should go to uni" is simply ridiculous IMO. (And there is still no excuse for media studies). Obv class will always be important, there will always be "haves and have nots". The rich will always have access to better healthcare, education etc. They will also be able to drive nicer cars and buy bigger houses. Nothing that will ever be done can change this and it's not that big of a problem really. We should make education free for the clever kids but we can't do that until we decide that not everyone from an average background can go to uni, simply because they are not all smart enough to go.

The problem I have with OP is that he said "I will pay back when I can" when he took out the loan and is now weasling out of it by saying "But the money I make now doesn't count". It's like he doesn't see the link between his debt not being paid off and some other student having bigger debts as the cost of going to uni goes up because people are not paying off their debts. Talk to your granny with her state pension and explain that "Well, one of the reasons your pension is shit is because I can't be arsed paying back the £19k I borrowed".
That's the part that bothers me really.

[mondatoo]

Uni's are a joke,any mug can get in*















*No I never went,I didn't get the grades 

[MANTIS01]

I think it's a good idea to get into the habit of paying debts back when you can rather than we you have to.