University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:40 pm  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urses.html How can two E's at A level be adequate to enable entry to any meaningful university course in law or architecture? The country has gone mad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urses.html How can two E's at A level be adequate to enable entry to any meaningful university course in law or architecture? The country has gone mad.

Re: University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:24 pm  

This is widespread. You can ring up half-decent universities during clearing and get in with grades well below the normal offer.

Likewise, universities will accept pretty much anyone onto a masters degree, regardless of their previous degree grade.

It's a fraud on the system, and the student themselves. I really don't think someone with E grades at A level and a 2:2 law degree from Leeds Met is likely to go on and qualify as a solicitor or barrister.

Not worth funding these sort of people through university. They just use it as a 3 year pissup.

Re: University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:43 pm  

1. Its what happens when you cut the universities completely adrift of state funding, of course they are bound to accept anyone with the credentials to get a student loan or pay cash, of course they are.

2. Ultimately we aren't "funding people through university", they are borrowing money, which has to be paid back, up to £40k for some of them.

[DaveO]

Re: University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:06 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

1. Its what happens when you cut the universities completely adrift of state funding, of course they are bound to accept anyone with the credentials to get a student loan or pay cash, of course they are.

2. Ultimately we aren't "funding people through university", they are borrowing money, which has to be paid back, up to £40k for some of them.

And the interest on that loan compounds. The rate for loans this year has been set at a rate of 6.6%. That means if you got the £9K loan plus borrow a further £4K for the subsistence loan for three years you would have to earn £33K a year on day one after graduation just to meet the interests payments.

That is you would not be paying down any capital on the loan even earning £33K a year. You would be paying £90 a month out of your salary and would not be paying down the loan.

Anyone on less than £33K a year would see their debt increasing not decreasing.

Of course the government never highlighted this when it went on its propaganda offensive when they came up with this stupid idea. No, instead they said (and keep saying), parents don't have to pay, students don't have to pay until they graduate and its all right and proper that "postmen" (or whoever) on low wages should not have pay taxes toward undergraduate education when in fact the amount they did pay was a pittance anyway.

How the hell the Lib Dems went from abolishing fees to this ludicrous system I will never know.

Re: University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:21 pm  

And therein lies one of the many problems. Most people who leave university with cack degrees are simply not going to earn over the £33K required to make any meaningful payback on their loans.

I think the loans are written off after 25 years.

[DaveO]

Re: University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:26 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

And therein lies the problem. Most people who leave university are simply not going to earn over the £33K required to make any meaningful payback on their loans.

I think the loans are written off after 25 years.

It's 30 so this is basically a graduate tax not a loan.

What is more those do go onto very well paid jobs will actually pay the loan down which means they will end up paying less for their university education than someone who ends up on a middle income.

Re: University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:43 pm  

DaveO wrote:

It's 30 so this is basically a graduate tax not a loan.

Fair point.

Ultimately though, it is only right that those who receive the benefit of the education pay for it.

Re: University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:49 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

Fair point.

Ultimately though, it is only right that those who receive the benefit of the education pay for it.

In a lot of the "professions" its the employers who are actually the main beneficiaries of university education, for free.

Re: University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:03 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

In a lot of the "professions" its the employers who are actually the main beneficiaries of university education, for free.

And that is why many of them sponsor people through uni.

Re: University entry : Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:29 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Of course the government never highlighted this when it went on its propaganda offensive when they came up with this stupid idea. No, instead they said (and keep saying), parents don't have to pay, students don't have to pay until they graduate and its all right and proper that "postmen" (or whoever) on low wages should not have pay taxes toward undergraduate education when in fact the amount they did pay was a pittance anyway.

Indeed. Labour have a lot to answer for on this.

The Video Ref wrote:

Ultimately though, it is only right that those who receive the benefit of the education pay for it.

Yup. And as everyone benefits...