Category Archives: young people

Tuition Fees and Maintenance Loans – 10 Myths debunked

“It is more from carelessness about truth than from intentional lying, that there is so much falsehood in the world.”  Dr Johnson

Lots of  people are being frightened by scary estimations of student debt and their impact on the future life of graduates. 

Many of these claims are simply not true.The people who promulgate these myths seem to be doing so either from genuine ignorance – or deliberately, to serve party-political aims.  The full picture is much more complex and less frightening.

There is much to argue that the current system is an equitable way of ensuring that the larger proportion of UK young people are able to get to  university  on merit rather than parental wealth. This will be for the first time!

I was a university graduate under the old system where 10% of the population were given a pretty easy ride through a university system funded by the other  90% of the population.

Since then, I have just seen one family member through a university education under the ‘old system’ of tuition fees and loans and parental support  that the last Labour government introduced. I am just about to see another through the ‘new’ (Coalition) system of tuition fees and loans.

Although I was deeply sceptical as to this new system having any merits – I’ve discovered there are many positive benefits for the students and their families. These are being overlooked in a lot of party-political in-fighting between pople who are neither students nor families of students.

MYTH 1: ‘Upfront’ payments mean that only the rich can afford to think of university

Untrue. No upfront money is required from anyone. As long as you register for a loan, the Student Loan Company automatically pays the tuition fees and gives you a maintenance loan to help with living costs.

MYTH 2: Tuition fees leave all students with a debt of £50,000

Untrue.  Firstly, these estimations always conflate tuition fee loans and  maintenance loans. Maintenance loans are optional but a very good way of preventing this cost falling in the shoulders of poorer parents –  as in the past. It also stops poorer students having to take on casual jobs to support themselves while in education, as again was often the case.  Secondly, these estimations are based n the highest possible tuition fees charged.

MYTH 3 : .An inevitable debt  of  £50,000 and more is a terrifying burden and disincentive for poorer students and leaves education in the hands of the rich.

Untrue. For a start, that estimation of a £50,000  debt are based on 3x the highest amount borrowed – All students with a family income below £46,000 are entitled to unrepayable grants for some part of the loans, plus additional bursaries etc depending on how much less than £46,000 the family income is.   Grants and bursaries, unlike loans, do not get repaid, so the poorer the student/student’s family are, the less of a loan they will have to repay. The most generous grants, bursaries and other incentives are directed at students from families with incomes of £26,000 and under – particularly helpful to the students who come from the UK’s 2m single parent families (more likely to be earning the £24,000 median income for a single person)

MYTH 4 : Tuition fees supported by longterm loans are a completely retrograde  way of providing higher education

Untrue.   Firstly, the new system opens up financial support to part-time students for the first time. These, often forgotten in political grandstanding, make up 40% of all undergraduates and had to pay fees upfront, being not entitled to student loans. Many were unable to study or had to give up their studies midway.  These will now be eligible for tuition fee loans on exactly the same basis as full-time students.

Secondly, Courses will need to be worth the cost – and lets be honest this has not always been the case in recent years.  This system will encourage universities to be  responsible to the students for the quality of education provided.

Thirdly, these solid systems of financial support for poorer students constitutes a reasoned attempt to reverse literally generations of educational inequality. Quality higher education needs to be available for all who will benefit! The UK has had a very poor record in educating  our poor and smart young people.

 MYTH 5: Repayment, particularly of the largest sums will be a millstone of debt around the necks of the newly qualified

Untrue. If two friends graduate and earn £23,000 they will both have to pay back the same amount each month, even if one friend has a bigger student loan. And You don’t repay it until you’re actually earning.  The maths of this makes very good sense. If you are doing a degree ‘for love’ and don’t expect to earn much you’llrepay little or nothing.

 MYTH 6:  Everyone always had free higher education in  Britain

Untrue.  For 50 years we were relying on paying for an ‘upper 10%’ who got a university education via the taxpayer,  90% of whom didn’t get a university education. This was deeply divisive. But if we, the people of Britain, want more people to go to university (and we want 50%),  we need to find some way of paying for this. This is why the last Labour government first instituted tuition fees and then tripled them, at a time when the country was supposedly prosperous. It is preposterous that they now forget this.

We need also to look at our priorities. How about pitting the cost of tuition fees against, for example, the cheapest cost for a car, petrol, tax, insurance for a student-aged young person?

 MYTH 7 : People never forget a party who breaks a pledge over tuition fees.

Untrue.  How many readers remember how often Labour broke pledges on tuition fees during the last government? 

Personally I think any breaking of pledges is disgraceful, but it’s not something where other parties have any right to be sanctimonious. Tuition fees were introduced by Labour after pledging they wouldn’t – and at a time of supposed economic prosperity. These fees were more than tripled by Labour during the course of the administration, even though they pledged they wouldn’t.

When the financial situation got bad and Labour realised current levels of support for university education were unsustainable they commissioned  the Browne report  but cynically put off making its findings public and so having to act on it  till after last (2010) election so as not to get their electoral chances tarnished by: the need to raise tuition fees.

MYTH 8 :  Increased tuition fees will result in higher monthly repayments of loans for graduates

Untrue.The repayments  don’t start until the graduate earns over £21,000 (as opposed to £15,000 under Labour), and will at that point be £515 a year lower than they were under Labour:

Monthly payment for graduate from salary after they get work

Graduate Salary

Graduate annual repayment

up to 2012

Graduate monthly pay packet reduction it’s equivalent to

Graduate annual repayment

2012 on

Graduate monthly pay packet reduction it’s equivalent to

£15,000

Nothing

Nothing

Nothing

Nothing

£16,000

£18

£1.50

Nothing

Nothing

£21,000

£470

£39

Nothing

Nothing

£22,000

£560

£46.50

£90

£7.50

£30,000

£1,280

£106.50

£810

£67.50

£40,000

£2,180

£181.50

£1,710

£142.50

£50,000

£3,080

£256.50

£2,610

£217.50

MYTH 9 : Tuition fees will leave the poorer student jugglimng jobs to survive

Untrue – The new tuition fee/student loan system comes with automatic large grants for poorer students which are non-repayable.  All full time students from families with an income (this year at) under £42,600  get maintenance GRANTS which never need repaying. As the total cost of student loans includes the full living expenses for the student for all but those from very affluent families. This means that students can devote all their time to study rather than having to work to support themselves, and that their parents do not have to  worry and scrape together money they cannot really afford  to contribute to their children’s support.Universities also offer bursaries and fee waivers to poorer students

MYTH 10:  Student loans for tuition fees/maintenance will leave this generation of students with unmanageable debt

Untrue. The independent Money Saving Expert says “No, student finance is like a graduate tax, not a loan”

  • It’s repaid through the income tax system
  • You only repay it if you earn over a certain amount
  • The amount repaid increases with earnings
  • It does not go on credit files
  • Debt collectors will not chase for it
  • Bigger borrowing doesn’t increase repayments
  • Many people will continue to repay  in small amounts for the majority of their working life.

This is in return for getting an education which will fit you for a more highly paid future.

You can get more interesting unbiased info without spin from the Money Saving Expert

 

SCC: where does their “Interest” lie?

 At their last Cabinet meeting SCC’s Tories revealed that they had underspent a total of £13.1m in the last financial year. Much of this money is going into the already large reserves (now standing at £158m).

Yes, you heard me right.

At a time of huge financial stress when we need to make best use of every penny, they quite unnecessarily took more than £13m from our hard-pressed services and entrusted it to the banks

They must be the last people left in the country who have any faith left in bankers.

And they put their trust in the banking system at a time when public money is desperately needed to support the local economy. When the community is reeling under the impact of lost public services .

The Conservative administration has told us they’ve cut these services because they were unaffordable. This is how they have justified the huge damage that they have inflicted on Suffolk’s public transport – by tellling us that  “you can’t spend a pound more than once,”(as the Cabinet member responsible has told us rather more than once).

Now it seems clear that the Cabinet just doesn’t want to spend some of these (our) pounds at all.

We live in a time where belt-tightening may be unavoidable, but it is clear that the Conservatives’ cutting has been overly-enthusiastic.  The money they have put into low-interest reserves could better be spent on restoring such valued and socially valuable services as the eXplore youth travel Card, our closed Household Waste Recycling Centres, the Bury Road Park and Ride, many axed bus routes, and those essential and valued walk-in Youth clubs (so useful for those who cannot afford subscription activities) as well as improving the bus pass conditions for Suffolk elderly and disabled.

These were all services that my colleagues and I argued to reinstate at Budget time, but it fell on deaf ears.  More than deaf ears – as I recall, the Leader suggested our budget had been ‘scribbled on the back of a fag packet.’

Better than on the front of a paying-in slip, Cllr Bee!

Suffolk County’s Conservatives would much rather invest our money in banks than in the people of Suffolk – preferring to build up capital than to build social capital.

 

No room for the next generation?

Recently I’ve been worried about  the Woodbridge Youth Centre  and all those who use it. And now I’m  sharing both information and my own concerns about this situation.

The Centre houses a number of spectacularly useful and important groups for young people, including Just 42 – the only open access youth group in 400 square miles of Suffolk Coastal;  provides  rehearsal room for the Company of 4,  offers meeting places for various groups;  and is the only place between Leiston and Felixstowe which can provide meeting space for children and young people in a safe, non-school setting. Already, the centre is used for  something like 170 different meetings a month of one sort and another.

However,  if you look at it cynically,  the Woodbridge Youth Centre’s  Kingston Field site is also one of the last pieces of prime development land in Woodbridge. My concerns were aroused when I was told that a three-year lease promised a year ago to one of the groups that used it had failed to materialise. I then discovered that decisions about the future of the WYC appeared to be occurring without any traceable reference to any elected member at County, District or Town level.

It was as if some of the council officers involved were acting as entrepreneurs rather than caretakers. And suspiciously as if they  had forgotten that they did not own the land, and were supposed to be administering the site on behalf of the people of Woodbridge. Having first raised the matter with the County Council  in May, I eventually got an email telling me that indeed, the group in question

 were offered a three year lease. However, it became apparent that there was a need to look at the bigger long-term future of the building and occupants following the start of the Our Place discussions… The intention is to continue to renew the annual licence, while the options are considered.

I didn’t think that this covered the issue completely, not least because I discovered that there seems to have been an unilateral decison made as to the  best usage of the site : the development of yet more sheltered housing for old people. ( As if there isn’t really quite a lot of this in Woodbridge already!). And because, after a whole year  this other (again unilateral) decision to downgrade a 3 year lease to an annual licence  had not been mentioned to anyone until I  started making a fuss. And because I have been representing Woodbridge since before the inception of the ‘Our Place’ scheme and I had never been party to any discussions on the subject!

I am therefore raising  the following wider concerns on behalf of the councillors and residents of Woodbridge:

a)  “it became apparent that there was a need to look at the bigger long-term future of the building and occupants”  As this sentence is in the passive  – a timehonoured way for bureaucrats to avoid telling anyone who said what, when and why to whom –  I have asked who it was to whom “it become apparent’?   I know, it was  not to me, nor to the building’s occupants, nor to the Town Council, nor to the residents of Woodbridge.

So far I have had no answer.

b) “There appears to be a lack of space in Woodbridge generally.” I have asked for this remark  to be disambiguated, so that everyone can be clear whose lack of space is being referred to.  Past conversations and emails suggest that it doesn’t refer to the young people of Woodbridge –  the group who really do lack space in Woodbridge. Rather it  refers to the amount of  sheltered, and care provision in Woodbridge. If this is the case, it is  not true.  There are already 660+ units offering such to the elderly people in Woodbridge – and that excludes those who prefer to live in  standard housing!
Just to remind you, there are 7500 people in Woodbridge, and because of the amount of sheltered housing  already,  3000 of these are in the ‘grandparent’ age group.  Many of these  have contacted me with concerns about the extreme lack of facilities there are for young people – particularly those people who grew up here and raised their own children in past decades!

c)  The email mentioned “the start of the Our Place discussions” ( which supposedly consist of ‘officers working alongside elected members to develop local service solutions‘.) Yet any discussions as to the “bigger long-term future‘  clearly took place without the presence or knowledge of me, and as far as I know, of any other elected member. The start of these particular Our Place discussuons must have occurred quite a long time ago, bearing in mind the lease has been witheld without any reason for a full year

In conclusion  – and because localism is about joint decision-making from the start – I have asked SCC  to approach no organisation with any proposition whatsoever  without having discussed in advance the various available options  for the site  with all the stakeholders.  That is – at the very least – myself (as County Councillor), the members of Woodbridge Town Council, the current occupants, and representatives of other youth stakeholders within Woodbridge.

I have shared my concerns with the town council, and they are very supportive, and I’ve convened a meeting of all the youth groups  this Friday.

We all need to make sure that our town’s youngest generation  does n’t get marginalised and forgotten. After all, they will be supporting us one day!