An open letter to all prospective students

[Caversham]

With the government warning that graduates may take until they are 36
to clear college debts prospective students should be taking a long
hard look at their decision to continue in full-time education.

One of England's strongest points is the quality and diversity of its
post-school educational opportunities. Many employers will pay for
workers to attend part-time courses. There is also an enormous range of
part-time and distance learning opportunities, exemplified by, nut not
limited to, the excellent Open University.

Peers who choose to "learn while they earn" will not only have the
advantage of 4 years of earning as opposed to debt accumulation, they
will also enjoy real-world experience, and have the chance to get a
foot on the rapidly-disappearing-out-of-reach porperty ladder.

Not only that but in the rapidly changing information society much of
what will be learned in year 1 will already be outdated by graduation.

With the nation already creaking under the burden of uncontrolled
consumer debt the last thing we need is close to half the population
starting their working lives owing many thousands of pounds that will
take years and years to clear.

So, unless you have a scholarship, employer sponsorship, or a rich &
generous mummy and daddy, think again before enrolment.

Caversham

[Robert de Vincy]

[Crossposting removed]

Post by Caversham
With the government warning that graduates may take until they are 36
to clear college debts prospective students should be taking a long
hard look at their decision to continue in full-time education.
One of England's strongest points is the quality and diversity of its
post-school educational opportunities. Many employers will pay for
workers to attend part-time courses. There is also an enormous range of
part-time and distance learning opportunities, exemplified by, nut not
limited to, the excellent Open University.
Peers who choose to "learn while they earn" will not only have the
advantage of 4 years of earning as opposed to debt accumulation, they
will also enjoy real-world experience, and have the chance to get a
foot on the rapidly-disappearing-out-of-reach porperty ladder.
Not only that but in the rapidly changing information society much of
what will be learned in year 1 will already be outdated by graduation.
With the nation already creaking under the burden of uncontrolled
consumer debt the last thing we need is close to half the population
starting their working lives owing many thousands of pounds that will
take years and years to clear.
So, unless you have a scholarship, employer sponsorship, or a rich &
generous mummy and daddy, think again before enrolment.

Let me guess... you're thinking about applying to a popular Cambridge
college next year and you want to eliminate some of the competition?

[Gaurav Sharma]

Post by Caversham
With the government warning that graduates may take until they are 36
to clear college debts prospective students should be taking a long
hard look at their decision to continue in full-time education.
One of England's strongest points is the quality and diversity of its
post-school educational opportunities. Many employers will pay for
workers to attend part-time courses. There is also an enormous range of
part-time and distance learning opportunities, exemplified by, nut not
limited to, the excellent Open University.
Peers who choose to "learn while they earn" will not only have the
advantage of 4 years of earning as opposed to debt accumulation, they
will also enjoy real-world experience, and have the chance to get a
foot on the rapidly-disappearing-out-of-reach porperty ladder.
Not only that but in the rapidly changing information society much of
what will be learned in year 1 will already be outdated by graduation.
With the nation already creaking under the burden of uncontrolled
consumer debt the last thing we need is close to half the population
starting their working lives owing many thousands of pounds that will
take years and years to clear.
So, unless you have a scholarship, employer sponsorship, or a rich &
generous mummy and daddy, think again before enrolment.
Caversham

The student loan interest rate is effectively zero.
Those not earning enough don't have to pay it.
Those who are earning plenty hardly notice it's there.

You can start with nothing, take a 3 year loan and graduate without trouble,
making friends and gaining much insight on the world in the process. The
education system in the UK is one of it's best assets.

If you, at 18, know exactly what you're doing and have a plan, that's great.
Or if you decide to have a family and need to support it, then again your
suggestion is justifiable. It seems like you mean it in a more general
sense though, in which case your assumptions are largely subjective and
ill-founded.

[John Porcella]

Post by Gaurav Sharma
The student loan interest rate is effectively zero.
Those not earning enough don't have to pay it.
Those who are earning plenty hardly notice it's there.

This leaves a problem for those in the middle!

Post by Gaurav Sharma
You can start with nothing, take a 3 year loan and graduate without trouble,
making friends and gaining much insight on the world in the process. The
education system in the UK is one of it's best assets.

Did this education fail you?

Post by Gaurav Sharma
If you, at 18, know exactly what you're doing and have a plan, that's great.
Or if you decide to have a family and need to support it, then again your
suggestion is justifiable. It seems like you mean it in a more general
sense though, in which case your assumptions are largely subjective and
ill-founded.

Maybe his/her assumptions are, but it makes for a better argument from you
if you were to point out what is merely subjective opinion and
"ill-founded". Your statement is too broad brush and without examples can
be ignored too easily, though I feel that you are likely to be generally
correct.

[T.]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Gaurav Sharma
The student loan interest rate is effectively zero.
Those not earning enough don't have to pay it.
Those who are earning plenty hardly notice it's there.

This leaves a problem for those in the middle!

That's their fault in the fist place (generally speaking, nothing
personal against you).

If you earn hard, then it's quite silly to spend hard as well.

[John Porcella]

Post by Caversham
With the government warning that graduates may take until they are 36
to clear college debts prospective students should be taking a long
hard look at their decision to continue in full-time education.

Assuming that the above fact is true, this is most interesting. By making a
whole tranche of the population feel as though they have debts that need
repaying, the state makes a whole generation committed to working hard and
keeping their noses clean; this is one way that the state can keep people
compliant and quiet.

It helps too that it takes the burden of some of the cost of this education
off the state, and hence the general taxpayer, and onto the individuals who
will benefit from that eduation.

Post by Caversham
One of England's strongest points is the quality and diversity of its
post-school educational opportunities. Many employers will pay for
workers to attend part-time courses.

But then again, many will not. In fact, my experience of teaching adults is
that the majority will not.

There is also an enormous range of

Post by Caversham
part-time and distance learning opportunities, exemplified by, nut not
limited to, the excellent Open University.
Peers who choose to "learn while they earn" will not only have the
advantage of 4 years of earning as opposed to debt accumulation, they
will also enjoy real-world experience, and have the chance to get a
foot on the rapidly-disappearing-out-of-reach porperty ladder.

If it is out of reach, then, by definition, they will not be able to get a
foot on that ladder. Anyway, if you are so against one sort of debt, then
why do you appear to want to recommend another (i.e. mortgage debts, rather
than student debts)? I agree with you to a small extent about "real world
experience", though I suspect that the reality is that this experience will
likely be quite poor! Why? If the worker is young and is not a graduate,
the pay is likely to be relatively minimal, and not that special in terms of
quality of experience. Furthermore, we are both assuming that such a person
can find any work of worth, since so many 'A' level jobs are now done by
graduates; hence not having a degree can be a real limiting factor.

Post by Caversham
Not only that but in the rapidly changing information society much of
what will be learned in year 1 will already be outdated by graduation.

You are making what might be a false assumption, that the degree course is
vocationally relevant. For instance, somebody studying history is not
likely to find much of what they learn in their first year likely to change
radically, ever.

Post by Caversham
With the nation already creaking under the burden of uncontrolled
consumer debt

It is controlled! The lenders decide whether to lend or not.

the last thing we need is close to half the population

Post by Caversham
starting their working lives owing many thousands of pounds that will
take years and years to clear.

The point is that the government want this situation since it saves the
general taxpayer money and makes for a dependent, and more committed and
compliant, population.

Post by Caversham
So, unless you have a scholarship, employer sponsorship, or a rich &
generous mummy and daddy, think again before enrolment.

Nothing wrong with thinking hard about whether a degree is the right road to
go down.

[K. Edgcombe]

Post by Caversham
With the government warning that graduates may take until they are 36
to clear college debts prospective students should be taking a long
hard look at their decision to continue in full-time education.

...

Post by Caversham
So, unless you have a scholarship, employer sponsorship, or a rich &
generous mummy and daddy, think again before enrolment.

It might be of interest to point out that at some Universities (of which
Cambridge is one), students from the poorest backgrounds will be significantly
better off (both during the course and by emerging with lower debts) than their
predecessors starting this year. And those in turn are better off since the
new grant came in, by #3,000 for a 3-year course.

The Press has done a great disservice to possible candidates from poor
backgrounds by suggesting that they will be worse off under the new regime.
I hold no brief for the present Government's approach to student funding, but
the 2006 entrant to Cambridge from this background will be in total
about #6,000 *better* off than the 2001 entrant.

At the other end of the scale (parental income over about #45,000) the
corresponding figure is about #5,000 worse off (that's the same for any
University charging the full #3,000 in 2006).

The real crunch comes in the middle, of course.

And none of this contradicts the proposition that people should think hard
whether they want to go to University at all. It would be best to do that hard
thinking with some knowledge of the facts rather than Press scaremongering.

Katy

[hugh pearce]

Post by Caversham
With the government warning that graduates may take until they are 36
to clear college debts prospective students should be taking a long
hard look at their decision to continue in full-time education.
Caversham

If you've got any idea what you want to do at 16/18 and it isnt one of the
few professions that require 'tickets' to get in or your not an acedemic
high flyer, your better doing a vocational course like a HNC or similar part
time route, like the remaining non-uni 90% did 30 years for these jobs in
pre mass uni days and then you can do a vocational MA/MBA/MSc or similar
post grad qual at a new uni or OU in a vocational field (Most are at new
uni's) part time over a few years when you have experience under your belt.

[T.]

Post by Caversham
With the government warning that graduates may take until they are 36
to clear college debts prospective students should be taking a long
hard look at their decision to continue in full-time education.
One of England's strongest points is the quality and diversity of its
post-school educational opportunities. Many employers will pay for
workers to attend part-time courses. There is also an enormous range of
part-time and distance learning opportunities, exemplified by, nut not
limited to, the excellent Open University.
Peers who choose to "learn while they earn" will not only have the
advantage of 4 years of earning as opposed to debt accumulation, they
will also enjoy real-world experience, and have the chance to get a
foot on the rapidly-disappearing-out-of-reach porperty ladder.
Not only that but in the rapidly changing information society much of
what will be learned in year 1 will already be outdated by graduation.
With the nation already creaking under the burden of uncontrolled
consumer debt the last thing we need is close to half the population
starting their working lives owing many thousands of pounds that will
take years and years to clear.
So, unless you have a scholarship, employer sponsorship, or a rich &
generous mummy and daddy, think again before enrolment.

Uni has *so* much more to offer than just the degree. It is worth it on
that basis. Of course, everyone needs to make their own choice though on
what is best for them (or what they THINK is best for them).

I, personally, "woke up" quite early. I have enough money saved (from
work) and other plans that basically pay for my 4 years at uni + loads
more to do whatever with. It can be done, school's just teach everything
about personal finance wrong.