Uni Tuition Fees Interest Rates:RPI +3%
Discussion
Directgov said:
For full-time students, interest is charged at the rate of inflation (RPI – Retail Price Index) plus three per cent from the date you take out your loan to the April after you’ve finished studying.
From the April after you leave university you’ll be charged:
the rate of inflation if you earn £21,000 or less
the rate of inflation plus up to three per cent if you earn between £21,000-£41,000
the rate of inflation plus three per cent if you earn over £41,000
Your repayments will be deducted automatically each month from your pay packet.
So, while they're studying (and for almost a year afterwards), everyone pays a commercial rate of interest on their loans. Nice.From the April after you leave university you’ll be charged:
the rate of inflation if you earn £21,000 or less
the rate of inflation plus up to three per cent if you earn between £21,000-£41,000
the rate of inflation plus three per cent if you earn over £41,000
Your repayments will be deducted automatically each month from your pay packet.
No doubt many on here will say that this is a good thing, because it stops numpties going to poly's to study Mickey Mouse degrees at PH user's expense, without realising that it does nothing of the sort.
Numpties can still go to a poly and get a Disneyland Degree without fear of ever paying back a penny if they earn less than £21K at the end of it.
This is pretty s
tty, understandable, but pretty stty:
Assuming RPI at a constant 3% for the sake of illustration:
You do a 3 year degree, you take out a 9k loan, end year 1 you have a 9k loan + RPI(3%) + 3% = £9540.
Start year 2 you take out another 9k, end year two you have another 9k + 6% (9540) plus of course you've racked up a further RPI + 3% on year 1's loan, so that's now £10,112.40. Total £19652.40.
Start year 3, another niner, for year one you owe £10,719.44, year 2 is £10112.40, year 3 is £9540 again.
So total at end of year 3 is £30,371.54
Nice deal for the SLC.
Add in 2 more years for medicine , a further 4 for architecture.
Don't get me wrong, you borrow, you should pay. But the upshot has to be the realistic expectation that all qualified Doctors will head to Aus/ NZ immediately on graduation to avoid having to pay it back, and all architects to go to mainland Europe.
tty, understandable, but pretty stty:Assuming RPI at a constant 3% for the sake of illustration:
You do a 3 year degree, you take out a 9k loan, end year 1 you have a 9k loan + RPI(3%) + 3% = £9540.
Start year 2 you take out another 9k, end year two you have another 9k + 6% (9540) plus of course you've racked up a further RPI + 3% on year 1's loan, so that's now £10,112.40. Total £19652.40.
Start year 3, another niner, for year one you owe £10,719.44, year 2 is £10112.40, year 3 is £9540 again.
So total at end of year 3 is £30,371.54
Nice deal for the SLC.
Add in 2 more years for medicine , a further 4 for architecture.
Don't get me wrong, you borrow, you should pay. But the upshot has to be the realistic expectation that all qualified Doctors will head to Aus/ NZ immediately on graduation to avoid having to pay it back, and all architects to go to mainland Europe.
Esseesse said:
Since the whole tuition fees thing has come about I've often wondered if the real motive is to reduce the number at university. As unpopular as it is to raise loans, I think it's more PC and less controversial than either cutting places or only funding the courses we need.
I think it's basically this. Trimming pointless courses, without the pc hammer hitting homeEsseesse said:
Since the whole tuition fees thing has come about I've often wondered if the real motive is to reduce the number at university. As unpopular as it is to raise loans, I think it's more PC and less controversial than either cutting places or only funding the courses we need.
I think it's basically this. Trimming pointless courses, without the pc hammer hitting homeEsseesse said:
Since the whole tuition fees thing has come about I've often wondered if the real motive is to reduce the number at university. As unpopular as it is to raise loans, I think it's more PC and less controversial than either cutting places or only funding the courses we need.
I think it's basically this. Trimming pointless courses, without the pc hammer hitting homeBing o said:
Esseesse said:
Since the whole tuition fees thing has come about I've often wondered if the real motive is to reduce the number at university. As unpopular as it is to raise loans, I think it's more PC and less controversial than either cutting places or only funding the courses we need.
I think it's basically this. Trimming pointless courses, without the pc hammer hitting homeyoungsyr said:
No doubt many on here will say that this is a good thing, because it stops numpties going to poly's to study Mickey Mouse degrees at PH user's expense, without realising that it does nothing of the sort.
Numpties can still go to a poly and get a Disneyland Degree without fear of ever paying back a penny if they earn less than £21K at the end of it.
Numpties can still go to a poly and get a Disneyland Degree without fear of ever paying back a penny if they earn less than £21K at the end of it.
the main problem here is that the cost to the student of degrees has gone up a lot, the government gets the interest, the universities don't get anymore money.
Everyone is worse off except the taxpayer who doesn't see much a difference anyway because about 20-30 % of the loans will never be repaid.
great!
i'm all for graduates paying for their education, but if it is true that graduates earn more, they already pay more in tax.
Everyone is worse off except the taxpayer who doesn't see much a difference anyway because about 20-30 % of the loans will never be repaid.
great!
i'm all for graduates paying for their education, but if it is true that graduates earn more, they already pay more in tax.
Dangerous2 said:
i'm all for graduates paying for their education, but if it is true that graduates earn more, they already pay more in tax.
Unless they are a slacker with two Es at a level who just wanted to go to uni to do a BS course to get BA after their name, or to put off getting a job.The job market today is full of people with degrees with no job at the end of them. That was a produce of 15 years of funding universities based upon attendance.
Of course, XYZ ex-poly gets the same amount of money whether they poach a student from a traditional uni, or they simply offer a place to someone without the academic standard a degree would traditionally need.
So what do they do? Take the easy money and play the system. So what does the potential student do? Take the free opportunity to do a useless degree.
Who wins? No-one. There are no more jobs for people with Desmonds from XYZ poly than there were for people with 'OK' A-levels. Who pays? The taxpayer.
It needed a shakeup.
The potential student is faced with a choice. It is still a pretty good deal, a one-way bet:
Do you think this degree will earn you an extra £27,000 over the course of your career? If so, you don't lose. If it won't you shouldn't do it.
youngsyr said:
Numpties can still go to a poly and get a Disneyland Degree without fear of ever paying back a penny if they earn less than £21K at the end of it.
Yep... and that's the likely result if they get a degree in the colour purple.Tangeting, if Feckless Fred did a BA in used pencils and ended up getting a job paying £50k PA as a double glazing salesman or started his own ebay business selling turf eventually earning £50k PA from that ie unrelated to Fred's degree, does he have to pay?
Edited by RemainAllHoof on Friday 27th May 21:49
RemainAllHoof said:
youngsyr said:
Numpties can still go to a poly and get a Disneyland Degree without fear of ever paying back a penny if they earn less than £21K at the end of it.
Yep... and that's the likely result if they get a degree in the colour purple.Tangeting, if Feckless Fred did a BA in used pencils and ended up getting a job paying £50k PA as a double glazing salesman or started his own ebay business selling turf eventually earning £50k PA from that ie unrelated to Fred's degree, does he have to pay?
Edited by RemainAllHoof on Friday 27th May 21:49
they need to get rid of the government financing. Don't worry, i'm not some 50+ grumpy reactionary, i'm a student who thinks this.
If there was no government funding, then there would be a downward pressure on tuition fees, simply because no-one has a spare £30,000 just hidden in the sofa cushions. Thus, the fees would be much lower and affordable. A good example of this is the fact that nearly all post-graduate fees are much lower (though still expensive) because the government doesn't fund them.
However, this simply means that, as usual, poorer people lose out because they likely wouldn't be able to afford even these cheaper fees, thus the government would have to step in to help.
that's my thoughts.
If there was no government funding, then there would be a downward pressure on tuition fees, simply because no-one has a spare £30,000 just hidden in the sofa cushions. Thus, the fees would be much lower and affordable. A good example of this is the fact that nearly all post-graduate fees are much lower (though still expensive) because the government doesn't fund them.
However, this simply means that, as usual, poorer people lose out because they likely wouldn't be able to afford even these cheaper fees, thus the government would have to step in to help.
that's my thoughts.
have you seen the cost of fees in the US system?!
I agree with most of Justin P1's post - i too would prefer fewer students educated at university. But I think it is important to increase the funding to the universities that remain. Already, UK universities are very efficient in terms of the quality of education the provide vs the cost of this education. (the best ones, certainly). The same is true in research. But here in the UK we spend about (off the top of my head so possibly slightly wrong here) 1.5 % of GDP on higher education. The figure for the US is 3.5 %...
I agree with most of Justin P1's post - i too would prefer fewer students educated at university. But I think it is important to increase the funding to the universities that remain. Already, UK universities are very efficient in terms of the quality of education the provide vs the cost of this education. (the best ones, certainly). The same is true in research. But here in the UK we spend about (off the top of my head so possibly slightly wrong here) 1.5 % of GDP on higher education. The figure for the US is 3.5 %...
Bring back grants.
The current system is nothing more than a cynical ploy to hide youth unemployment while shuffling the cost of this deceit onto future tax payers and the national debt.
By restricting higher education places to what is actually required we could easily afford it, just like we did in the past for decades.
The current system is nothing more than a cynical ploy to hide youth unemployment while shuffling the cost of this deceit onto future tax payers and the national debt.
By restricting higher education places to what is actually required we could easily afford it, just like we did in the past for decades.
F93 said:
they need to get rid of the government financing. Don't worry, i'm not some 50+ grumpy reactionary, i'm a student who thinks this.
If there was no government funding, then there would be a downward pressure on tuition fees, simply because no-one has a spare £30,000 just hidden in the sofa cushions. Thus, the fees would be much lower and affordable. A good example of this is the fact that nearly all post-graduate fees are much lower (though still expensive) because the government doesn't fund them.
However, this simply means that, as usual, poorer people lose out because they likely wouldn't be able to afford even these cheaper fees, thus the government would have to step in to help.
that's my thoughts.
you're a student and therefore study and seem to understand some of the tuition fees.If there was no government funding, then there would be a downward pressure on tuition fees, simply because no-one has a spare £30,000 just hidden in the sofa cushions. Thus, the fees would be much lower and affordable. A good example of this is the fact that nearly all post-graduate fees are much lower (though still expensive) because the government doesn't fund them.
However, this simply means that, as usual, poorer people lose out because they likely wouldn't be able to afford even these cheaper fees, thus the government would have to step in to help.
that's my thoughts.
How does a poor student lose out on uni because they cant afford the fees, when the fees are not paid back until you finish and get or dont get a job?
Are you studying politics or spin?
cymtriks said:
Bring back grants.
The current system is nothing more than a cynical ploy to hide youth unemployment while shuffling the cost of this deceit onto future tax payers and the national debt.
By restricting higher education places to what is actually required we could easily afford it, just like we did in the past for decades.
Quality not quantity The current system is nothing more than a cynical ploy to hide youth unemployment while shuffling the cost of this deceit onto future tax payers and the national debt.
By restricting higher education places to what is actually required we could easily afford it, just like we did in the past for decades.
The folk serving me in macdonalds don't need a degree
thinfourth2 said:
cymtriks said:
Bring back grants.
The current system is nothing more than a cynical ploy to hide youth unemployment while shuffling the cost of this deceit onto future tax payers and the national debt.
By restricting higher education places to what is actually required we could easily afford it, just like we did in the past for decades.
Quality not quantity The current system is nothing more than a cynical ploy to hide youth unemployment while shuffling the cost of this deceit onto future tax payers and the national debt.
By restricting higher education places to what is actually required we could easily afford it, just like we did in the past for decades.
The folk serving me in macdonalds don't need a degree
Du1point8 said:
you're a student and therefore study and seem to understand some of the tuition fees.
How does a poor student lose out on uni because they cant afford the fees, when the fees are not paid back until you finish and get or dont get a job?
Are you studying politics or spin?
How does a poor student lose out on uni because they cant afford the fees, when the fees are not paid back until you finish and get or dont get a job?
Are you studying politics or spin?
F93 said:
they need to get rid of the government financing. Don't worry, i'm not some 50+ grumpy reactionary, i'm a student who thinks this.
If there was no government funding, then there would be a downward pressure on tuition fees, simply because no-one has a spare £30,000 just hidden in the sofa cushions. Thus, the fees would be much lower and affordable. A good example of this is the fact that nearly all post-graduate fees are much lower (though still expensive) because the government doesn't fund them.
However, this simply means that, as usual, poorer people lose out because they likely wouldn't be able to afford even these cheaper fees, thus the government would have to step in to help.
that's my thoughts.
The clever thing about the fees issue is that prospective students who don't understand the fees payment scheme and are put off due to the notion that they need to cough up £30k upon receiving an offer probably shouldn't be going to university in the first place. Call it a filter... or entry test... if you will.If there was no government funding, then there would be a downward pressure on tuition fees, simply because no-one has a spare £30,000 just hidden in the sofa cushions. Thus, the fees would be much lower and affordable. A good example of this is the fact that nearly all post-graduate fees are much lower (though still expensive) because the government doesn't fund them.
However, this simply means that, as usual, poorer people lose out because they likely wouldn't be able to afford even these cheaper fees, thus the government would have to step in to help.
that's my thoughts.
not looked into it but if solely linked to RPI this is big news
current student loans are 1% above base rate now so 1.5% or rpi whichever is lower
if this is solely linked to RPI then as rpi about 5% that means they are paying 8% interest next year.
Now, if you graduate owing £30k then after a year or two of earning £21k you haven't paid anything back but your debt could be up to £35,000. Now even if inflation falls to say 3% rpi you are still paying 6% interest which is £2k ish per year. Therefore you are going to have to earn a fair bit above 21k just for your outstanding debt not to rise. This could be a ticking timebomb as people could have these debts throughout their working lives and they often could disincentivise work.
current student loans are 1% above base rate now so 1.5% or rpi whichever is lower
if this is solely linked to RPI then as rpi about 5% that means they are paying 8% interest next year.
Now, if you graduate owing £30k then after a year or two of earning £21k you haven't paid anything back but your debt could be up to £35,000. Now even if inflation falls to say 3% rpi you are still paying 6% interest which is £2k ish per year. Therefore you are going to have to earn a fair bit above 21k just for your outstanding debt not to rise. This could be a ticking timebomb as people could have these debts throughout their working lives and they often could disincentivise work.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff