Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Label)
    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.
    How naive.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EffigyWellington)
    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.

    (Original post by Blue Label)
    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.
    Opposing views right here!

    I would argue that everyone should have one chance at Masters funding, at whatever age they choose to do so. If you want to take that up straight after undergraduate, in order to enhance your job prospects then that's great. If you are lucky enough to find a job after your Bachelor's degree but later want to return to study, that should be fine as well.


    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jantaculum)
    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.
    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.
    (Original post by hmm_what?)
    How naive.
    Care to elaborate?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Label)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jantaculum)
    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.
    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.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Blue Label)
    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?
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jantaculum)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Slowbro93)
    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?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Blue Label)
    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?
    Well from what I've seen, the new loan is essentially a nicer version of the Career Development Loan that is already on offer. Personally I think they should offer the loan on a case by case basis.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Label)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    I like this discussion point! I'm thinking it through… 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. Basically in favour of promoting equality and stating 'good for him!' though
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jantaculum)
    … 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.
    All of that is correct. A degree taken now doesn't increase his job prospects at all as he is retired and will not return to work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jantaculum)
    Wow, you're a pessimist!
    I am a realist.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    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.
    The restricted subjects was actually the recommendation from the 'think tank' so it appears they have rejected this. It seems much more likely to me that these loans will be restricted on the basis of income, possibly moreso than current undergraduate loans, especially since self funding tends to give the advantage to the middle class.

    ..

    Just had a look and it seems the money spinner for the government is that your postgraduate earnings are 14% higher than somebody with a Bachelors which are in turn higher than average anyway. So more income tax.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blue Label)
    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'm not convinced that a Masters will provide you with those professional skills and make you more employable, actually, if a three-year Bachelors has failed to do so. I also think that 'investing in the young of today' has got this country into a LOT of financial difficulty.

    But we're not going to agree so I'm going to provide an alternative suggestion. I have seen young people get their Bachelors degree, get a few years of experience under their belts, and then return to study for their Masters. In my opinion this is a pretty powerful combination - they can approach the Masters with confidence that they know what they are doing in their careers, and are at a prime place to be able to move forward for senior-level promotions. That is the sort of person that I think these loans should be targeted at, even if they happen to have hit 31.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The idea is a terrific one in principle. What I find unfair is that some people on a four year joint undergrad and masters already get their masters funded, but somebody who was doing a separate 3 year undergrad then a one year masters is can not.

    At the moment, a Masters is really only for the rich, as most people won't get funding. You can get career development loans but it is more risky than a student loan.

    There are a few issues, the under 30 rule is harsh, as for undergrad you can get funding at any age, should have been the same. Also the £10k rule is harsh. A Masters at some of the top universities can cost 10k+ alone just for the course, which leaves you without funding for accommodation.

    So it is a good start, and probably a policy to suit economic times, but I'd like to see it expanded by future governments.

    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airfairy)
    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.
    This is interesting. Would you say this is the case at all universities? I wouldn't have thought the sort of Oxbridge/UCL/LSE/Durham type universities you are guaranteed a place with any 2:1 from any uni? Otherwise why would anyone do a postgraduate qualification at some of the newer universities? I was told the top unis are still very competitive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eboracum)
    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.
    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?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Blue Label)
    If someone wants to go back at 30 and study then they can self fund that Masters degree.
    Why should I? For various reasons relating to ill health, I won't graduate until I am 29 - I didn't choose to go to university late, it just happened. I may want to do a master's and if I do, I should be able to do one when I want and not be forced into doing it straight away.

    I would prefer that there was no time-limit on a postgraduate loan, but if there has to be one, it would be much fairer to say that everyone is entitled to a loan within 10 years of graduating from their first degree.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh_Dickson)
    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?
    I mean the UK Government would probably argue that in order to increase our standing in competition with other countries, we as you say, need to educate as many as possible. But this of course undervalues degrees if everybody has them. I just wonder if it would be better to go the other way, actually try and make fewer people go to university, get it so fewer people have UK degrees which would increase their standing.

    If I'm honest though it depends on your position. If I'm a UK Cabinet Minister, you want a policy like this, but if I'm a current undergrad aspiring masters student possibly I want to get ahead.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.