Jeremy Corbyn

[pureclaret]

Nice work!!! ( if it be your will)

[Paul Waine]

I saw this chart here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40511184" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The most startling thing about it is that whilst graduates earn more than none graduates, just as you say, none of the groups in the 25-29 age bracket are earning significantly more than they did in 1993. What I have not been able to find is an attempt to separate cause and association. Did the degree actually increase their earnings, or were they destined to earn more anyway? That is, assuming graduates did indeed do better at school in the first place, would those individuals not have gone on to earn more even if they hadn't done a degree? It should be an easy thing to check - by comparing earnings of none graduates with 'good' GCSE results, against earnings of graduates with the same GCSE results. If anyone has the answer to this I'd be very interested. It might be that the degree per se achieves nothing.

Hi iibyw,

I'd suggest there are two things to consider:

(1) can the person do the job they are doing with or without a degree? If the degree is necessary to perform the job - i.e. the job requires education beyond the level attained at school with A-levels (2) then it is a question of supply and demand. A higher number of graduates (people qualified to do the job) will, all other things being equal, result in lower graduate earnings and a shortage of graduates, relative to the demand, will push graduate earnings upwards.

Would you want to fly in an aircraft that had been designed by people who hadn't got degrees (and more) in "aircraft construction?" Or drive across a bridge that had been designed by people who hadn't got degrees in civil engineering?

Of course, it comes back to the quality of the degree and the need for people with those degree qualifications.

And, when you have a degree you always have a degree: the higher earnings for graduates should continue throughout their career - with the opportunity, but not the certainty, that the earnings gap can grow wider for the 30 year old and beyond.

[JohnMac]

Is Higher Education free in many European Countries because their students actually study hard I wonder?

A lot of the migrant workforce I had as colleagues were well educated, motivated and of course spoke more than one language.

I'm sure a high percentage of our students are serious but unfortunately they are tarnished by those who still think they at infants school but with alcohol instead of milk.

I'm not averse to free education but the entry standard would be much higher as would attending lectures and a cull of 'basket weaving degrees' would be in order.

[Paul Waine]

Is Higher Education free in many European Countries because their students actually study hard I wonder?

A lot of the migrant workforce I had as colleagues were well educated, motivated and of course spoke more than one language.

I'm sure a high percentage of our students are serious but unfortunately they are tarnished by those who still think they at infants school but with alcohol instead of milk.

I'm not averse to free education but the entry standard would be much higher as would attending lectures and a cull of 'basket weaving degrees' would be in order.

Hi JohnMac, is tertiary education free in all European countries? I don't know, but believe it's possible that some charge some fees - though I believe they are relatively modest.

I know Norway uses some of their "oil wealth" to provide free tertiary education - and beyond - to their citizens, at least until they are well into their twenties. Some years ago I interviewed a Norwegian who was studying MBA in UK paid for by Norwegian state (most MBA students fund themselves..). In this case they weren't the best candidate for the role I was looking to fill.

A few European countries still have compulsory military service - I'm sure this also assists their education and attainment.

I once had the opportunity to lead a (energy risk management) class at a university in Paris. All credit to the students that could follow me in English - but I noticed a few who had just turned up to get the credit, and spent the whole time watching videos on their laptops. (Maybe they weren't too good at English)?

I'm sure we will always experience (some of) the better students if they have got the "get up and go" to move to work in another country. True comparisons should be also with the ones who have stayed in their own country.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Rowls]

What I have not been able to find is an attempt to separate cause and association. Did the degree actually increase their earnings, or were they destined to earn more anyway? That is, assuming graduates did indeed do better at school in the first place, would those individuals not have gone on to earn more even if they hadn't done a degree? It should be an easy thing to check - by comparing earnings of none graduates with 'good' GCSE results, against earnings of graduates with the same GCSE results. If anyone has the answer to this I'd be very interested. It might be that the degree per se achieves nothing.

One of the few practical things I learnt at uni was to ask brighter questions.

I seriously doubt you'll be able to get the figures you're looking for here.

[Paul Waine]

The other thing is that taking on business debt isn't usually attached to the individual - more usually a limited company. If it goes bust, the business owner can walk away from the business debt - even avoiding personal bankruptcy. If you pick a degree that doesn't work out, or you fail your degree (the equivalent of your business going bust), the debts are still attached to you - you can't just walk away (until 30 years has passed). In fact, with student loan debt, even if you are personally declared bankrupt, it's virtually impossible to be discharged from your student loan. So I would conclude that the playing field for business debt v student debt is not a level one.

Hi iibyw,

Firstly, I agree with you, a degree is not a guarantee of a "cushy life." Equally, the absence of a degree is not a barrier to a "cushy life."

I've got to correct you on your views of business loans. When you start a business you may chose to incorporate and have "limited liability" protection. However, if you go to any back and ask for a loan the first thing they will ask is what security can you provide for the loan. And, the only security most people have are their own personal assets including the equity, if any, in their family home. So, to get a bank loan you have to give the bank first charge over your personal assets. If you aren't able to do this, then "no loan."

And, you are right that you can't declare bankruptcy to "walk away" from a university loan. There were a few graduates, when fees were first introduced, who'd built up their uni debts (even when fees were more modest) and then tried to "walk away" by declaring themselves bankrupt. So, the government had to change the law and you cannot now be discharged from uni fees loan debts by declaring bankruptcy.

It's only when businesses have built up a track record/reputation for successful business, alongside substantial assets in the business, that the business can raise corporate loans which don't require recourse to the business owners' personal assets.

[If it be your will]

.

[Rowls]

students are saddled for 30 years if it goes wrong, they can't just 'start again'.

Students are adults. Regardless of whether you believe student loans are the correct way to finance higher education, we all know the system. Students need to take responsibility for what they are getting into. It's as simple as that.

"It goes wrong" is a childish phrase without any agency. It's like when a child has broken something and tries to tell you simply that "it broke".

If "it" goes wrong then "it" is the student's responsibility.

[If it be your will]

.

[Rowls]

Yeah because you're such an adult poster who never gets dragged down.

Post as you please but the point I made is a valid criticism of the language you used to shy away from making students accountable for their agreed students debts.

FWIW I've never been in favour of student loans but wiping them would be extraordinarily expensive.

We'd be better off having far fewer youngsters wasting time on lower-end degrees and re-starting paying grants or properly subsidized loans to the brightest 10-20% to go to university. Universities are too often nothing more than drug-infested holiday camps for young adults to delay their entry into the jobs market and the real world.

[Paul Waine]

Okay, I get that Paul Waine, but the question was 'if we wipe student debts, should we not also wipe business debts?' What you are describing is a circumstance where the person hasn't got an overall debt, though. They've merely gambled their assets on a business. Yes, they lose their assets if it goes wrong, and they have to start again. But students are saddled for 30 years if it goes wrong, they can't just 'start again'. I was just making two points to show student debts and business debts are very difficult to compare and equate. Applying a rule to one doesn't necessarily mean the same rule can be seamlessly applied elsewhere. That there is a whole different arena at work when it comes to student and business debt.

Yes, I know the original question - and I posted yesterday that if we want equivalent treatment between people who go to uni and people who don't go to uni then we could think of both as being provided a "voucher" (to use another poster's phrase) or grant towards "getting started in life." One might use their voucher towards their uni degree, another might use their voucher to do an apprenticeship and another might use their voucher to assist in starting a business. A voucher in all case would be egalitarian.

Of course, in this case, there would be a voucher, so no debt to be repaid or cancelled afterwards.

I fear you misunderstand how a business loan relationship works between the owner of the business and the bank(s) lending the money. The bank won't provide the loan without the business owner guaranteeing the debt. So, if the business is unsuccessful and the owner cannot repay the debt from the business, then the owner must repay the debt from the other assets the owner has.

I guess you can see that if a prospective business owner doesn't have any other assets, then they will not be able to get a loan and they won't be able to start the business.

So, yes, business debts and student debts are very different. Student debts are provided to all who get offered a place at uni, there is a repayment schedule, contingent on earnings - and anything not repaid after 30 years (or whatever the cancellation rules are) the balance no longer needs to be repaid.

Business debt - you only get if (1) you've got a viable business idea, one that has a good opportunity to repay the loan, (2) the owners' put some money into the business, which takes the first risk and provides a cushion to the lender(s) and (3) you can provide additional and adequate security to the lender(s).

Businesses may also issue bonds, which, of course, is debt. The bond enabling the debt to be traded between different lenders - in the same way as shares are traded between different equity owners.

[Mala591]

Info. for Paul Waine

3 years at university = minus £27,000 (paid for by the student)

3 years apprenticeship = plus £30,000 (paid by the employer to the apprentice)

A difference of £57,000. Hardly fair is it?

[If it be your will]

.

[pureclaret]

Mala591, Some apprenticeships or in fact some company's who pay for exam fees, courses that employees go on want the money paid back if you leave that company within 3 to 5yrs of completion of the courses etc. So in actual fact you may have to borrow money to leave the company, or pay out of savings.

My argument over business loans v University loans is a bit simplistic but I believe it is the choice in most cases of an adult deciding to go to University or start a business. My point is that I think it is unfair that University loans being wiped out by Labour (not by people working labour).
Where as some one who decided in the years since University required payments decided to borrow/use savings to start there own business does not get there loan / savings back especially if the business venture failed through things beyond the control of that individual.
As far as i am concerned both have invested in themselves just that one side of the people who have invested in themselves feel aggrieved that they have a debt.
I do feel the interest rate is to high and that a lot of the people who got Uni, possibly, do not understand what they have taken on. But that is the fault of the University/ student union.

[Paul Waine]

Info. for Paul Waine

3 years at university = minus £27,000 (paid for by the student)

3 years apprenticeship = plus £30,000 (paid by the employer to the apprentice)

A difference of £57,000. Hardly fair is it?

Hi Mala, 3 years at uni £27,000 plus the loan for living expenses - = a lot more than £27,000, maybe closer to £50,000.

3 years apprenticeship, agree 3 years x earnings paid by employer.

But, then take into account the higher earnings that uni graduates make - on average.

I agree that uni fees are too high at £9,000 per year - even though they don't go anywhere near covering the costs of some subjects. And, I agree that the interest rate is too high. But, I also feel that the degrees should be "more meaningful" and a stepping stone to building a career - and, I've no problem with the idea that a degree isn't for everyone. Hence my support for proposal that all youngsters should be given the same financial support to "get started in life" with a voucher/grant that they can use to provide financial support to whatever steps they take.

So, fairness with the financial support - and not just fairness for the one's who are lucky enough to go to uni.

[Paul Waine]

I think what you've successfully achieved is to expose my bias towards education. I appreciate my education enormously, and I love to see others pursuing an education, whatever their perceived academic ability. I believe education is the key to nearly everything, on so many levels. I'm eternally grateful to every single citizen that funded my (entirely free) education. As a direct result of my education, I inadvertently find myself relatively well-off, and as such I would be absolutely delighted to fund the next generation to pursue an education just like I did, in whatever field they see fit. What I see, though, is two generations reaping the same benefits I did, acquiring their incomes, their assets, and their pensions, and then pulling up the ladder, leaving the generation below us on low wages, massive student debts, and lifelong renting. It's blatantly unfair. We have to act.

I also appreciate there are other methods to live your life. I know how devastating it is when a business goes bust. But I also see those few enormously successful businesses doing everything they possibly can (including lobbying, political donations and threats) in order to avoid paying the taxes required to help the next generation of small business owners.

As someone who has benefited financially from education, I'm obliged to forfeit a significant sum to educate others. Businesses that have benefited from our country should do likewise for new businesses. All mixed together. At the moment the situation is all wrong, and deep down I think we all know it.

I'm fully alongside you with your "bias towards education." But, I disagree that everyone should attend university, whether they want to or not, and whether they have the academic capabilities or otherwise to be able to gain a (worthwhile) degree. "Prizes for everyone" is no prize at all, there are always distinctions in life and these cannot be eliminate by pretence at achieving degree standards. Much better to gain/demonstrate other skills and build success based on these other skills.

I don't agree with your generational comments. Less than 5% of my generation (over 60s) went to university. I recall someone saying recently something about the 95%. And, although the percentage has grown for succeeding generations, it is still only a small minority of each generational cohort.

And, on pensions - I refer you to the article by John Ralfe (spelling?) in yesterday's Times.