5 ms·

The state of student loans in the US don't really seem like a warning sign for student loans in the UK, which work so differently I'd almost argue they should b

by ZoFreX 11y ago

The state of student loans in the US don't really seem like a warning sign for student loans in the UK, which work so differently I'd almost argue they should be called something other than a 'loan'. What's more it wasn't really a profit move (the universities don't make any more money) as much as a who should pay move. If you want to draw parallels between the situation in the US & Canada and the situation in the UK, I would point you at the Conservative government's attempt to stifle education on global warming, and the cosy relationship between the government and corporations, particularly the banks.

pricechild 11y ago
> What's more it wasn't really a profit move (the universities don't make any more money) as much as a who should pay move. I was aware of that argument at the time, but has it panned out that way? I wouldn't be surprised at figures showing either direction. e.g. 1. The initial loan/funding is still from "the government" so from day zero, the government is most likely paying 3x the amount. It'll be years before each student pays this back and until then, "the government" is hardest hit? 2. With the push to send more to university, there'll be more students this year than e.g. 4 years ago. Did projections hold up? At £27k/head it doesn't take a large % increase to make a considerable difference & I wouldn't be surprised to hear that universities have far larger incomes than the past or projected. 3. And then you get into the issue of whether the majority will ever manage to pay off these loans... will we 'all' end up paying for anyway in the end to cover the deficit...? Would it've been cheaper just to tax us to begin with before letting interest acrue?
mercer 11y ago
It could be seen as a political profit move though. I've once heard someone describe the whole university system (or what it's becoming) as a clever way to hide unemployment. Even better, you're making the unemployed themselves pay (loans) for the privilege of not being technically unemployed!

by ZoFreX 11y ago

pricechild 11y ago

> What's more it wasn't really a profit move (the universities don't make any more money) as much as a who should pay move. I was aware of that argument at the time, but has it panned out that way? I wouldn't be surprised at figures showing either direction. e.g. 1. The initial loan/funding is still from "the government" so from day zero, the government is most likely paying 3x the amount. It'll be years before each student pays this back and until then, "the government" is hardest hit? 2. With the push to send more to university, there'll be more students this year than e.g. 4 years ago. Did projections hold up? At £27k/head it doesn't take a large % increase to make a considerable difference & I wouldn't be surprised to hear that universities have far larger incomes than the past or projected. 3. And then you get into the issue of whether the majority will ever manage to pay off these loans... will we 'all' end up paying for anyway in the end to cover the deficit...? Would it've been cheaper just to tax us to begin with before letting interest acrue?

mercer 11y ago

It could be seen as a political profit move though. I've once heard someone describe the whole university system (or what it's becoming) as a clever way to hide unemployment. Even better, you're making the unemployed themselves pay (loans) for the privilege of not being technically unemployed!