Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 A item on the news yesterday said the average university student will earn a 100k more over their lifetime...... But given that the average student will leave with a average debt of nearly 50k.........that's only an extra 50k or in layman's terms an extra 1k a year :-S ........... Glad I aint clever like dem folks :D.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I wonder how those figures compare with those for people who could have gone to university but chose other options but I doubt the statistics are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caddies104 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Glad I didn't, started work at 15yrs old, worked for same Company for 39 years and retired when 54!!! Got out before the Americans took over... Money is not everything,,,,,,holidaying is!! :-D :-D *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 My time in The University of Life together with the School of Hard Knocks and the College of How to Get Up and Get On with Life have served me well over the years. To me it seems simples enough to me - if the UK needs Doctors, Scientists and Engineers reduce the cost to them of their training and if the UK has enough media studies, sociology, and art history graduates increase the cost of their tuition. How hard can it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 pelmetman - 2015-11-07 8:30 AM A item on the news yesterday said the average university student will earn a 100k more over their lifetime...... What on earth is an " average university student " ? Sounds to me like a lot of statisticians have too much time on their hands. My ' impression ' from watching / hearing the news these days is that most students leaving university end up stacking shelves in supermarkets. ;-) Maybe those statisticians left university and couldn't get a job ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 malc d - 2015-11-07 10:30 AM What on earth is an " average university student " ? From what I have seen and understand - average is a term that will adequately describe most of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Makes me wonder for who's benefit a university education is promoted? :-S .......... Seeing as the average student will have to work a lifetime/50 years to receive just another 50k*-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Helps to keep the unemployment rate down ? What would we do with all those misfits and unemployable types with no concept of the real world, and then there are the students as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 pelmetman - 2015-11-07 1:42 PM Makes me wonder for who's benefit a university education is promoted? :-S .......... Seeing as the average student will have to work a lifetime/50 years to receive just another 50k*-) ........ Here you are, Dave. A more detailed report. http://tinyurl.com/qzf7j8s Worth noting that the information is from a source with a interest in encouraging university attendance, and also that they are comparing the outcomes for graduates with those who could have entered university, rather than for graduates with all non-graduates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Brian Kirby - 2015-11-07 3:38 PM they are comparing the outcomes for graduates with those who could have entered university, rather than for graduates with all non-graduates. Does that suggest that for many people a non university career course would serve them better than a degree course - makes you wonder dunnit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Brian Kirby - 2015-11-07 3:38 PM pelmetman - 2015-11-07 1:42 PM Makes me wonder for who's benefit a university education is promoted? :-S .......... Seeing as the average student will have to work a lifetime/50 years to receive just another 50k*-) ........ Here you are, Dave. A more detailed report. http://tinyurl.com/qzf7j8s Worth noting that the information is from a source with a interest in encouraging university attendance, and also that they are comparing the outcomes for graduates with those who could have entered university, rather than for graduates with all non-graduates. £555 per week in 2008 if you had a degree 8-) ............... I was earning more than that in 2004 when I semi retired ;-) ................ I doubt I could afford to be intelligent (lol) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 pelmetman - 2015-11-07 4:31 PM £555 per week in 2008 if you had a degree 8-) ............... I was earning more than that in 2004 when I semi retired ;-) ................ I doubt I could afford to be intelligent (lol) ............ I wasn't earning, or even being paid, £555 a week in 2008 - but then again I had already been retired for nine years so on that basis I too am glad that I'm not intelligent! But I was earning more than that in 1988 and that was the basis for my early retirement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Tracker - 2015-11-07 4:37 PM pelmetman - 2015-11-07 4:31 PM £555 per week in 2008 if you had a degree 8-) ............... I was earning more than that in 2004 when I semi retired ;-) ................ I doubt I could afford to be intelligent (lol) ............ I wasn't earning, or even being paid, £555 a week in 2008 - but then again I had already been retired for nine years so on that basis I too am glad that I'm not intelligent! But I was earning more than that in 1988 and that was the basis for my early retirement! Maybe that's a sign of being intelligent............working full time up to retirement age 8-) .......... Doesn't sound very clever to me :D.......But as my old mate HE used to say, I've given up and gone to seed..........at least I no longer need to suck seed(lol)....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Tracker - 2015-11-07 4:02 PM Brian Kirby - 2015-11-07 3:38 PM they are comparing the outcomes for graduates with those who could have entered university, rather than for graduates with all non-graduates. Does that suggest that for many people a non university career course would serve them better than a degree course - makes you wonder dunnit! I don't think it does. Remember, these are averages, so there is wide variation underpinning them. I think all they are saying is that looking at lifetime earnings (at whatever base year), those who entered university and graduate are better off (to the extents quoted) than those with equal academic attainments (i.e. A level grades) who didn't enter university. So, even taking Dave's example, the difference between the one and the other, even allowing for the debt of the fees, is still the price of a half-decent motorhome. It doesn't mean that someone with no A levels and poor grades at GCSE can't become rich, nor that everyone with an Honours degree from Oxbridge will become rich. Just that, on average, the graduate will be better off at retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Brian Kirby - 2015-11-07 5:32 PM I don't think it does. Remember, these are averages....... ...and in this case, averages and statistics only serve to confuse (as they often do). Whilst students may currently exit university with large (loan) debts, a significant proportion of these debts will never be paid off (I believe the last estimate was well North of 60%!!). This is because they are clawed back in proportion to earnings, and any outstanding is written off after a given (admittedly long) period. People earning only average (that word again) amounts are unlikely to pay back a significant proportion over their working life, and anyone continually earning not a lot below average may well pay nothing at all! I think the system was muddle-headed when put in place, and we would probably have been better maintaining lower tuition fees and a higher proportion of grant (to much the same effect on the treasury). It does, however, put in question the use of these statistics to evaluate the (personal) financial value of going to university. I have put two children through University under the loan system (the second, rather expensively in his last year as I type). In expectation that they would earn above average, and in cognisance of the (now) extortionate interest rates for the loans should one qualify to repay them, I have largely funded them myself (being lucky enough to be able to) in order to avoid future large repayments for them. For number 1, who graduated with a decent degree, and has a job with a salary that means she is repaying the small amount of loan she took on fairly quickly, this was already obviously a good choice. For number 2, having fallen foul of the huge increase in tuition fees, if he continues as is it will prove to have been an even better investment. I can't help feeling a little miffed about those who will be given the opportunity to repay nothing at all of very large amounts of loan debt, nor indeed can I help feeling sorry for those who make a success of their degree and career, but whose parents weren't lucky enough to afford to give them a largely debt-free start in their working lives. The system is broke! (and so, nearly, am I ;-) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Brian Kirby - 2015-11-07 5:32 PM Tracker - 2015-11-07 4:02 PM Brian Kirby - 2015-11-07 3:38 PM they are comparing the outcomes for graduates with those who could have entered university, rather than for graduates with all non-graduates. Does that suggest that for many people a non university career course would serve them better than a degree course - makes you wonder dunnit! I don't think it does. Remember, these are averages, so there is wide variation underpinning them. . Which is slowly getting to the point ;-) .........As I understand "Averages"......If the average student can expect to earn just 50k more after a life times toil 8-) ..........and accepting there will be a few who go on and earn much more than the average ;-) ............But they'll be a lot more that'll earn a lot less, and as Robin has already alluded to will not ever pay off their debts *-) ........... So who's going to benefit from this education propaganda?.............The education industry >:-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek pringle Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Hi all, Like lots of people I believe the university fees should be banned. If we are short of people in the Sciences then we should not only educate them for free but should give them a grant at a rate that that will support them properly whilst they study. Before student loans lots of students already left uni with debts due to the grants not being sufficient. I agree with Tracker in the sense that if we have too many people studying 'arty farty' subjects then these numbers should be reduced or grant based differences. I remember when my son was at uni doing his Engineering degree he was fully occupied with lessons and studies yet people studying some other subjects only had to attend a small number of lectures per week and were left with lots of free time, these subjects could be condensed and done over a much shorter period than 3/4 yrs IMO. If the payback is a guarantee that these graduates will commit to staying and working in this country for a given number of years I would agree with that.Also if they do go on to earn more then they will pay more taxes etc. If Companies [according to the Tories] have suddenly seen the light and want to pay all their employees higher salaries and take on more apprentices, then more sponsorship of students should be included in this agenda. cheers derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 pelmetman - 2015-11-07 6:19 PM Which is slowly getting to the point ;-) .........As I understand "Averages"......If the average student can expect to earn just 50k more after a life times toil 8-) ..........and accepting there will be a few who go on and earn much more than the average ;-) ............But they'll be a lot more that'll earn a lot less, and as Robin has already alluded to will not ever pay off their debts *-) ........... So who's going to benefit from this education propaganda?.............The education industry >:-) ....... ...well, I agree about the Education sector morphing into "big business" (though, my historical experience is that it was ever thus, just less of it, and on a more subtle basis :-| ) I think, however, you have lost the gist of my mathematical argument(s). I can probably demonstrate best by over-simplifying, and making a few general assumptions. If 60% of student debt is not repaid, let's assume the simplest cut and say that's because 60% of the recipients of loans never earn more than the repayment threshold (which is somewhat below the average wage). Accordingly, 40% of the recipients would pay all of theirs back, and thus would be earning above the threshold. And, if the average lifetime increase per person across the whole is £100k, the majority of the amount providing this average is going to be focussed on this 40% group who are repaying. If we assume all of it is, then (to maintain the £100K average) each individual in the 40% is going to be £250K up over their lifetime, netted to £200k if we subtract the debt repayment. This looks an awful lot better (for the 40%) than the figures you postulate. If we now consider the 60%, then it is difficult (considered as a group, not individuals) to see them as net losers either - they won't pay a penny back for three year's of tuition and subsistence, and many will have had a whale of a time. Of course, if considered at an individual level, rather than as a group, there will be significantly different questions to ask, but that's the problem with statistics and averages. :-| As far as I can see, the only loser is the taxpayer. Students can either educate or enjoy themselves (or occasionally, both) at negligible net cost, The Government can keep a perpetual 2M+ off the unemployment statistics (that word again), The commercial institutions underpinning the student debt are guaranteed their profits from the students or the underpinning of "default" by the taxpayer, and "Big Education" can prosper and flourish. IMO. it's still "broke". :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Robinhood - 2015-11-08 10:21 AM IMO. it's still "broke". :-S Agreed, ignoring the statistics.......the real question is why the education industry in collusion with big business has been allowed to empire build, and pass the buck onto the tax payer? *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 pelmetman - 2015-11-08 10:34 AM Robinhood - 2015-11-08 10:21 AM IMO. it's still "broke". :-S Agreed, ignoring the statistics.......the real question is why the education industry in collusion with big business has been allowed to empire build, and pass the buck onto the tax payer? *-) .......... Because as a politician it would seem to be easier and more politically expedient to simply go along with a flawed system than to risk the wrath of a lynch mob formed alliance of teachers, unions and media which might well mean the loss of the next election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 pelmetman - 2015-11-08 10:34 AM .......the real question is why the education industry in collusion with big business has been allowed to empire build, That's already been answered - it's to keep the unemployment figures down. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will H Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I tried to talk my grandson into me paying off his loan ... Oh no says he it will spoil my credit rating. It does seem that paying off loans are the accepted future way of life. I don't understand it, just pleased not to be involved. I know who's the better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 pelmetman - 2015-11-08 10:34 AM Robinhood - 2015-11-08 10:21 AM IMO. it's still "broke". :-S Agreed, ignoring the statistics.......the real question is why the education industry in collusion with big business has been allowed to empire build, and pass the buck onto the tax payer? *-) .......... Simple answer, I think, is political dogma. Someone (guess who?) decided, in the interests of egalitarianism, that "everyone" should go to university. Silly idea, but there you go. So, polytechnics were converted into universities. Instant rise in headline numbers attending universities. Then some other people (guess who?) decided that higher education as a whole was costing too much, and tinkered with the levels of grants, then introduced tuition fees, and ultimately, sharply increased the tuition fees. What we presently have, IMO, is nuts, and doesn't serve us well. Personally, I'd like to see a return to technical colleges, polytechnics, and universities, to train and educate their respective natural constituencies as appropriate to their abilities. However, I'm now digressing as well. :-D The original point was whether, on average (various ways of calculating that, as well :-)), a student would be better off over his/her lifetime by gaining a degree than those of his/her peers (but note, only his/her peers) who forgo the university route and instead and go into work straight from school. The answer, it seems, is yes. So, does everyone gain in this way? No. But, overall, they are likely to emerge better off. What actually happens to each individual will be result of life's chances, as it was for all of us. People want (generalisation :-), but it seems most do) to achieve the best outcomes in their lives that they can: those life chances again. We all need people who are well educated and trained for whatever occupation/s they enter, because we rely on their competences when we buy the goods or services they produce. Sometimes we see their competence or lack thereof clearly, sometimes it is less obvious. But, however obvious it may be on a day-to-day basis, we need "clever" academics just as much as we need anyone else, in whatever sphere they work. When you turn on a light, you need everyone from Faraday and Edison to the cleaner in the factory that made the switch. Don't dismiss the cleaner, but don't dismiss the Faradays and Edisons either. We do need universities - and the graduates they produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 The course to go for now is a degree in warehouse management so that we can seemlessly store and distribute all the goods that are now made in other countries. It's the long term future for the U.K. ;-) ( For forum readers under 50 - " distribution " is what is now known as " logistical solutions " ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.