Education versus money

It is currently estimated that 61% of today’s undergraduates will repay their loans (up from 27% before the recent changes). That’s not great imo. I wouldn’t call graduates in some subjects ‘well educated’.

GSM I am familiar with the data you provided. Does this explain which percentage of graduates do not repay their loan? I repeat, three of my four children are on a modest income, but are paying or have paid their loans. And I would also refer to my previous post about a healthy society. A well educated cohort of thinkers/ workers/ voters is a good thing, is it not?

V3ra

^Media studies, Art, Drama, Fashion, Animal Care, many more, you are highly unlikely to get graduate work in any of those.^

My son studied Drama (which was theatre studies rather than stage acting). He thoroughly enjoyed his three years at university, he is quite happy to be paying his loan back, and it gave him the required degree-level entry qualification for his chosen career.
His vocational training was on the job and involved a lot of in-depth learning.
Having a degree demonstrated the ability to study at the required level, the subject itself was irrelevant.

Yes, and this is true of many people who are educated in the Arts. They are often the ones running children's stage schools, dancing classes, poetry appreciation or art groups, so they not only pay their loans and tax on their income, but also contribute by helping others to fulfil their potential or pursue their interests.

People are welcome to follow their hearts and/or go to university ‘for the experience’ if they pay for it Doodledog. I suppose that, not having a degree, you would consider that I don’t have a rounded education, just a training.

Glorianny

I wonder would anyone expect someone to pay back the cost of their education from the age of 5-18? If not why expect them to repay from 18 upwards. They may get a brilliantly paid job. They may decide they want to do something which offers a service but pays less. Why would anyone then say they were wasting taxpayers money. Education should never be about financial gain.

That is a great point. I hadn't thought about it that way before. I suppose the idea that a literate workforce is better than an illiterate one would have been behind the Education Act in the first place, rather than a desire to allow individuals to fulfil their potential; but even so, I can't imagine many people arguing that we should only educate those who intend to work for X years after leaving school.

Media studies, Art, Drama, Fashion, Animal Care, many more, you are highly unlikely to get graduate work in any of those.

My son studied Drama (which was theatre studies rather than stage acting). He thoroughly enjoyed his three years at university, he is quite happy to be paying his loan back, and it gave him the required degree-level entry qualification for his chosen career.
His vocational training was on the job and involved a lot of in-depth learning.
Having a degree demonstrated the ability to study at the required level, the subject itself was irrelevant.

Thing is, surely education today is lifelong. People start degrees in their teens, twenties, thirties, forties, 70s.. although by then I hope they've retired. You can learn to be an accountant on the job - without going the 'uni at 18' route.

dogsmother

Absolutely agree with GSD. The government shouldn’t be funding education to a level that doesn’t provide a return the state rather than the individual. I would love to see from the age of 16 more vocational options being considered and
less emphasis on university being the be all and end all.

Well, if you are happy with only those who can afford it having a rounded education, with what amounts to training for everyone else, that is the way forward.

I'm not saying that university is the 'be all and end all', just that IMO it should be available to all who want it, and that people (as in everyone) should be able to follow their hearts when it comes to choosing what to study, rather than restricting that choice to those with money.

Germanshepherdsmum

See below for current repayment thresholds. Indeed, some will never repay their loans.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/student-loans-a-guide-to-terms-and-conditions/student-loans-a-guide-to-terms-and-conditions-2023-to-2024#:~:text=You%27ll%20only%20start%20making,is%20over%20the%20threshold%20again.

Women that have employment breaks and often work part time are unlikely to pay loans off, there is no incentive to pay off early either because interest rate is very low, after 25 yrs it expires.

Not really growstuff, his degree is a perfect foundation for his work as a derivatives specialist, working for banks and funds.

Germanshepherdsmum

See below for current repayment thresholds. Indeed, some will never repay their loans.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/student-loans-a-guide-to-terms-and-conditions/student-loans-a-guide-to-terms-and-conditions-2023-to-2024#:~:text=You%27ll%20only%20start%20making,is%20over%20the%20threshold%20again.

How many of those will be females who take a career break, work part-time or have spouses who earn enough so they don't have to work for a living?

I wonder would anyone expect someone to pay back the cost of their education from the age of 5-18? If not why expect them to repay from 18 upwards. They may get a brilliantly paid job. They may decide they want to do something which offers a service but pays less. Why would anyone then say they were wasting taxpayers money. Education should never be about financial gain.

Jaxjacky

The people I know, with both a healthy work/life balance and disposable income are the self employed in trades.
Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, roofers, decorators and gas engineers, those in their early 60’s work part time, many have family members now learning the trade, none of them have had mortgages for some years and a few have holiday homes.
The only multi millionaire I know was a used car dealer, who still dabbles, but his son now fronts the business.
None of them have degrees, they are, or were getting up in the morning to do something they enjoyed, little commuting and plenty of work. No degrees.

How many of those tradespeople are females?

Germanshepherdsmum

I think the A&F degree at Oxford is now offered at their Said Business School, which wasn’t the case when my son was considering applying.

Exactly! He changed his mind and ended up doing something different - just like my friend!

The people I know, with both a healthy work/life balance and disposable income are the self employed in trades.
Plumbers, electricians, carpenters, roofers, decorators and gas engineers, those in their early 60’s work part time, many have family members now learning the trade, none of them have had mortgages for some years and a few have holiday homes.
The only multi millionaire I know was a used car dealer, who still dabbles, but his son now fronts the business.
None of them have degrees, they are, or were getting up in the morning to do something they enjoyed, little commuting and plenty of work. No degrees.

See below for current repayment thresholds. Indeed, some will never repay their loans.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/student-loans-a-guide-to-terms-and-conditions/student-loans-a-guide-to-terms-and-conditions-2023-to-2024#:~:text=You%27ll%20only%20start%20making,is%20over%20the%20threshold%20again.

GSM - is it your understanding that people earning more modest salaries don't pay back their student loan? Only one of my children is a high paid earner ( the one with the lower level of award) but all of them have paid, or are repaying the money.
One of my daughters has returned to study a PhD but that has been funded by the government if the country in which she now lives, as they wish to use her findings ( and those of her colleagues) to underpin legislation ‐ quite an interesting concept !

Oxford does, through its Said Business School. When my son was considering university courses A&F was run directly by the university. I remember reading the syllabus with him.

And it’s fine by you for that to be funded by the taxpayer and the money never repaid because the graduate never earns enough to start repaying (eg the receptionist and part time worker above, who may never reach the repayment threshold)/30 years elapse/they reach 65?

Germanshepherdsmum

The title of his course was Accounting (not Accountancy) and Finance. He had no intention of becoming an accountant. His initial intention was to go into investment banking but he decided to become a finance lawyer instead. A degree which was relevant to more than one well paid career path.

I know LSE runs such a course at undergraduate level. Oxford doesn't. Its finance and business courses are at postgraduate level and were set up relatively recently (over the last 40 or so years) in response to the increasing number of MBAs in the US.

Hear Hear, growstuff. In response to the original question, quite possibly not.
However, there's more to life than how much money you make, and there's more to a healthy society than just it's GDP, surely?

Plus, rightly or wrongly, there are numerous graduate entry routes into good careers that don't specify a subject (civil service being the first to spring to mind, but including teaching, various management schemes and so on).

Doodledog Exactly! My daughter has a degree in history and economics and an MA in history, even though she knew it would never lead to making loads of money. She never wanted to study anything else. She got a Civil Service Fast Stream place and is now an HR manager and is making loads of money.

Doodledog

Katie59

And I know personally graduates in those subjects, they were accepted with minimal qualifications and have never done anything other than low wage jobs
Bums on seats

I'm sure we all know people who have done little with their talents, as well as those who have risen to the top from an inauspicious start. Neither proves a thing.

I honestly have no idea which metrics could usefully be used to measure how far other people have wasted their time and money. They don't all start from the same point, so benchmarks are difficult, and whether the cost was worth it or not depends on what they get out of the course.

For what anecdotes are worth, I know someone with an MA in Creative Writing. It cost a lot and she hasn't made a penny from it, but she loved doing it and uses the skills she gained to enhance her spare time, running classes and attending workshops etc. Who can tell her that it was a waste of time or money? That's for her to decide, surely?

The return on education can't and shouldn't always be measured in financial terms. Learning is part of being human and I would argue that humanity itself develops as a result of communal and widespread learning.

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s fine if she, rather than the taxpayer, funded her course Doodledog. Now that the taxpayer funds a degree course in the expectation of repayment, is it unreasonable to say that people studying subjects which are unlikely to lead to a job which will enable them to repay their loans are wasting taxpayers’ money?

Now the repayment terms have been changed, the vast majority of student loans will be repaid at some point.

Absolutely agree with GSD. The government shouldn’t be funding education to a level that doesn’t provide a return the state rather than the individual. I would love to see from the age of 16 more vocational options being considered and
less emphasis on university being the be all and end all.