Autumn Statement - Postgraduate loans.

The age limit is great. People over 30 should be working in careers by now and although circumstances change and you can lose your job you should have work experience.

It's an idiotic restriction really. The much more fluid labour market of postindustrial UK could really benefit from older people being able to attain higher, specialised degrees.

The age limit is great. People over 30 should be working in careers by now and although circumstances change and you can lose your job you should have work experience. Those under 30 often do not have that work experience and therefore the option of gaining a Masters degree to help them compete within the marketplace is a great thing. The last thing we want is older people taking up Masters courses as a mid career hiatus as that'd come at great cost to the taxpayers in the country.

The last thing we want is older people taking up Masters courses as a mid career hiatus as that'd come at great cost to the taxpayers in the country.

You could equally argue… 'The last thing we want is young people taking up Masters courses because they can't find jobs as that'd come at great cost to the taxpayers in the country' Neither argument would be correct.

How naive.

Younger people are more likely to have lengthier careers as there is more time between their age at the point of taking on the Masters and retirement age. Therefore, they will have more time to pay it back.

Oh I think the terms of Masters loans will make it very clear that they will be paid back.

Anyway, I'll bite…. a mid-career 50 year old who has paid off their mortgage, possibly has some savings and yet still has to work for 20ish more years until retirement is a pretty safe bet for a £10,000 loan.

Younger people are more likely to have lengthier careers as there is more time between their age at the point of taking on the Masters and retirement age. Therefore, they will have more time to pay it back.
Care to elaborate?

Anyway, I'll bite…. a mid-career 50 year old who has paid off their mortgage, possibly has some savings and yet still has to work for 20ish more years until retirement is a pretty safe bet for a £10,000 loan.

And what happens in the case of someone going back to do a degree at the age of 30 (which does happen) and wants to carry on studying?

Then that is just tough luck as was the case with the tuition fees. Anyone could play that card. I could do it myself and ask why I should even be paying fees in the first place considering numerous generations before mine paid nothing at all. The system proposed by Osborne today was the correct one. It is an investment in the young for the future to ensure further economic growth.

If someone wants to go back at 30 and study then they can self fund that Masters degree. The political landscape is changing all the time. I could quite easily do my Masters in 2017 and then in 2020 a new government comes in and announces they're scrapping tuition fees altogether. That's just something people need to come to terms with.

Let me ask you a question. Where would the money come from to fund Masters degrees for people of all ages?

People 50 and above are more likely to die.
People 50 and above are more likely to become seriously ill and be declared unfit to work.

If someone at that stage is wealthy enough then they can self fund. The system is to fund those of the future who possibly can't afford to self fund postgraduate studies. It is not a free ride for everyone.

On the other hand, someone in their mid-fifties with a house, savings, a pension and no mortgage is quite likely to retire comfortably yet not have an income sufficient to trigger the repayment terms of a student loan. I have a friend in this situation who isn't a past graduate and is thus able to undertake an Open University degree purely as a leisure interest exercise at the tax-payer's expense.

… if your friend had attended university at age 18, he wouldn't have paid tuition fees and would have been eligible for the maintenance grant. He could potentially have cost the taxpayer more at that stage. But, a degree back then would have increased his job prospects more than it does today - so he'd have paid more tax throughout his working life and contributed more….

Please don't think I am categorically stating the above as a definitive example, I'm just speculating.

Wow, you're a pessimist!

It's all about having the option - if you need to take the loan (to offset your loss of income for the year) then there should be equal chances at any age. Someone who is wealthy enough probably would self-fund.

I don't think it will include loan, I guess you would have to pay your living costs yourself, either that or the amount you get is what is left when you remove the tuition fees from the 10K. I think what will happen is that the government will restrict the masters to "useful" subjects (these days also called STEM subjects). But we are taking about 40K loans so not everybody will afford the the masters without waiting for a while. I assume a waiting list is gonna happen and people with 1sts will have priority over the forty thousand loans and then people with 2:1 and so on. So people with 2:2s might well never get their loan or they might have to wait a couple of years. This is my opinion of course.

I am a realist.


No. It's all about investing in the young of today so they can be the future of tomorrow. This isn't a scheme to be nice to people and allow them to fulfil their lifelong ambition of doing an MA in Philosophy as a career break, this is to increase competition at the lower end of the market to ensure that youngsters have the right skills for the work place. This is about investment. Your idea sounds lovely in theory but its simply not economically viable.

I wonder how it will impact on how competitive it is to get an offer for a masters. At the moment if you are gonna pay yourself, you are pretty much guaranteed an offer if you have a 2:1...even 2:2 at some unis.

The only bad thing you'd say is that Masters degrees may go the way of undergrads in terms of too many people have them. You've got 52%+ leaving school and doing undergrad now, I'd like to think a Masters degree made me one of the elite, rather than just something everyone had. But the positives of this policy outweigh the negatives.

If someone wants to go back at 30 and study then they can self fund that Masters degree.

interesting point - as i've heard a few people say it - but are you sure the point of educational institutions in any society is to create 'elites' of learning? Or is the point to educate as many people to as a high a level as is possible?