Education versus money

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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’.

But isn't the point that it is the system which is at fault. Why shouldn't education be properly funded to provide a well educated population up to, and beyond if necessary, a first degree? Why were student grants abolished in favour of a more clumsy loan system which costs more to administer? It was of course a purely political move to make out that higher education is something elitist.
Funny how some subjects are denigrated. I suppose it depends on what you call educated. We could for example go back to when novels were considered unsuitable reading matter, which would cut out most Eng Lit degrees.

One qualified plumber growstuff one daughter in the painting and decorating business training with her Dad, p/t college.

Golly GSM - " not well educated " - ouch.
Is the corollary to this that folk who didn't go to university are well educated, or is it that you think most of us aren't .

I have already said that I didn’t go to university, though I had the offer of a place at Cambridge. People with low A level grades who go to a third rate university and study an airy fairy subject I don’t consider well educated.

Which brings us to the question of ..what is well educated? You can have knowledge of your particular field of work but are you well educated. Is knowledge and intelligence different? Know ledge may be the tool but intelligence is how to use it. Well educated, hmm that's a hard question

Education has plenty of money so much is being wasted on in appropriate higher education and too much attention on what the student fancies, rather than what the nation needs. We should train more skilled workers not graduates who don’t use their qualifications.

Some of the least ‘educated’ people even if highly intelligent are those who specialise early in one specific subject and pursue that to the exclusion of others, because they often don’t have a broad general knowledge. Well educated is not to do with IQ, degree or profession, it’s about having a knowledge and understanding of a broad range of subjects. I always think quizzes are very revealing.