Students' Spending Review: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I got an email from my MP (apparently he thought of me when this was announced, no doubt because I've been pestering him so much about the ELQ policy) - he said it is just tuition fee loans for second-degree students. I'm curious to see how they're going to define 'science'.

Another good point:

Equivalent or Lower Qualification bar – The government will enable people to retrain in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics by removing the restriction on accessing tuition fee loans for a second degree in these subjects from 2017-18.

However, I'm not sure if this means fully accessing loans i.e. maintenance as-well as tuition fee? Unless this is their idea to allow people to retrain in previously NHS funded areas as-well as many more?

I got an email from my MP (apparently he thought of me when this was announced, no doubt because I've been pestering him so much about the ELQ policy) - he said it is just tuition fee loans for second-degree students. I'm curious to see how they're going to define 'science'.

Yeah - it'll be interesting to see how someone can afford to do this, unless they already have a huge amount of savings or some form of secure flexible/part-time job to support themselves.

Or lucky enough to live with their parents.

I think the text is explicit enough. You can only apply for tuition fee loans. I guess this is ideal if you live with your parents.

I suspect this much.

Re: the definition of science, I bet it will just be chemistry, biology and physics (and any science in the middle of them like biochemistry, biomedical science, medical physics and the like) thus excluding all the social sciences.

How did you get to know your MP?

Re: the definition of science, I bet it will just be chemistry, biology and physics (and any science in the middle of them like biochemistry, biomedical science, medical physics and the like) thus excluding all the social sciences.

But what about all the other sciences? Geology, geophysics, oceanography, physical geography, psychology, neuroscience, human sciences, biological anthropology, sport science, deaf studies, pharmacy, statistical science, zoology, immunology and veterinary science to name a few. And what about joint-hons degrees, would you get funding for 'BSc Biology and Latin' for instance?

The ugly:

- Retrospectively freezing the rate of loan repayment until 2021.

Just to be clear, I am just speculating.
The way I see it, only those subjects that have some (high?) component of the three previously mentioned sciences (so called "hard" sciences) or a STEM component will get funding. And I think joint-degrees with a non-STEM component will not get funded.
As I said, this is just speculation but seeing how trendy the STEM hype is I think that the restrictions will be along those lines.

Why is this considered a negative?

Explain to me why it should be a positive.

By paying back at a lower threshold you will start paying back your student loan earlier and more per month. Overall you will pay the debt back faster, accrue less interest on the debt and pay less back in total.

The threshold should be a safety net, the minimum required to live off. It's not a case of the higher the threshold the better. The new London living wage has been decided to be £9.15 per hour which comes out to an annual salary of £16,653. A current threshold of £21,000 is more than generous.

Lol at you trying to spin paying more money back each year as a positive.

1) It is better for the graduates. You may be paying more per year, but because of savings on the interest you will accrue (your student loan debt will be growing at RPI +3%), you pay less back overall. Can you really not see how that is a positive? Would you rather pay back £20 for 5 years, or £30 for 4 years?

2) It is better for the UK. Surprisingly, the student loan given is actually supposed to be paid back. I am sure you have heard of the UK's huge yearly budget deficit and growing debt and additional revenue for the government will help this.

3) You may be slightly worse off each year in the short run but I have already shown how the threshold will not cause people to live below the living wage in the most expensive part of the country and therefore the payments are manageable. In the long run you will be better off.

It is better for the Treasury but no-one else - well maybe high earners, but certainly not normal people.

Your whole argument seems to rest on the assumption that everyone pays back their loan, so if you pay it back faster you are better off in the long run. In fact many people won't ever repay their loan in full, freezing the repayment threshold will only result in these people paying more each month but still not paying the debt off. The Government is effectively trying to squeeze as much money out of low-medium income graduates before the 30 year term runs out. And you think that is a good thing?

No, you are right. We should raise the threshold so everyone pays back less. That way even less people will pay back their debt. There will be no downsides. Yay free money!!!

The public sector works for us. But we must contribute to the public sector.

That seems unlikely, do the student loans people really have time to research individual degrees to see how much 'hard' science it has? Perhaps they may just say all BSc degrees = science.

You scoff, but that is the system the Government came up with. People took out loans because the Government assured them they would only repay small amounts over a long period of time. David Willets himself said that most people wouldn't repay the debt. I remember him using that as an argument for why the fee hike was fair. No matter what way you try and spin this, it is unfair.

3) You may be slightly worse off each year in the short run but I have already shown how the threshold will not cause people to live below the living wage in the most expensive part of the country and therefore the payments are manageable. In the long run you will be better off.