Autumn Statement - Postgraduate loans. Watch

Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 years ago
#61
(Original post by Snufkin)
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.
And even fairer if there wasn't a loan but a grant. Even fairer if the grant could cover all your uni related expenses. Even fairer if the grant could cover your first 6 months after graduation. You could keep on adding stuff.

But the world is not fair. Money is not infinite. Things are given and things are given back in exchange. Not everyone can choose when to go to uni or having rich parents. It just happens. For some people a degree is more than enough to do all the stuff they want to do in life. Others work and save. Others have rich parents. But here today UK residents have the opportunity to do an undergraduate degree and today in this economy, the salary gap between undergrad degree holders and non-degree holders is likely to be bigger than the gap between postgrad degree holders and undergrad degree holders. It seems fair that any action taken is mostly aimed to close the bigger gap than closing the second gap.

You know, kids are still failing secondary school. Postgraduate degrees are not the biggest priority and thus don't get the biggest money splash.
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 years ago
#62
(Original post by Josh_Dickson)
That's one angle on it. Can totally see from an individual point of view why the people who have these qualifications would want to be in a minority. However from a macro lens I don't think the argument in favour of mass education is limited to an economic interest; what effects do you think having an educated population brings upon other areas of society?

Does having a critically aware and engaged (the two don't always go hand in hand mind you ) electorate, for instance, reduces the chance of a self-serving government manipulating its way into power with subterfuge?
Does having an intelligent population help with issues like crime and punishment? How about things like Jury duty? Anyone seen the film 12 Angry Men? I'm sure anyone listening to the episode Serial - and the episode where they interview members of the Jury - at the moment will have a thought on this...
Question is are those things worth all the money needed to educate most of the population to such a high level? Even if they are highly educated, if a society gets an excess of graduates in a variety subjects it might struggle to fill technical roles that are as important as the graduate roles. A society a population whole made of undergrad holders will collapse in weeks if there are no bin men to collect the rubbish, electricians to check electrical installations and public transport vehicle drivers to transport the population. As much as this might be against my interests, I think more funding into highly demanded sectors at both graduate and apprencetiship level would be more beneficial for the country as a whole rather than just funding university education and under-funding apprenticeships and leaving employers without a big enough amount of a skilled workforce.
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 years ago
#63
(Original post by Good bloke)
My assertion is that one needs a certain level of intelligence before some kinds or levels of education can be effective. I exemplied this by reference to dogs (an extreme example, to make the point - you could use human examples too), which have intelligence, but not enough to benefit from or to make education effective.



Many people, indeed, probably a majority of people, couldn't be taught it.



Partially. It's more about the difference between knowledge and skills.
I think you have some rather good points. A human can do arithmetic given the right education. We haven't seen any evidence so far to let us believe that a dog can do it given a particular method of education. Thus this mean that dogs cannot do arithmetic? No, it doesn't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nevertheless, I and most people would be highly esceptical of any claims regarding a dog doing arithmetic.

Now back to humans. At some point, intelligence is innate, there we agree. But at some point, given no brain damage or abnormally adverse neurodevelopmental conditions, we have evidence to believe that all humans can learn arithmetic given the appropriate educational method. However, we also suspect, that regardless of the absence of brain damage or abnormally adverse neurodevelopmental conditions, the majority of humans humans are not likely to learn stuff we consider "highly intellectual/abstract" like Nobel Prize-worthy intellectual activity. Now this can be contested of course, but there seems to be a strong correlation between Nobel Prize winners, abnormally high academic performance and hard work. This is a correlation not a causal link.

But we can be very sure that if Einstein was born in an African war-ridden country, he would have been highly unlikely to make the discoveries that got a Nobel Prize. But any of his German classmates that received similar education and who might had been similarly hard working did not win any Nobel Prize. What does this say about innate intelligence in the population? It says some interesting things. First, in an ideal environment where all non-biological differences are equal across individuals, there will always be some people that are more intelligent than others. Second, sometimes some of this differences are amplified or reduced due to other factors (see wealth, upbringing, type of education, etc).

Back to our point. Making Nobel Prize-worthy intellectual activities alone does not run a society. You need a variety of human activities to keep a society going. And guess, what, a society can do very well without being made exclusively of Einsteins. A nice example of this are Scandinavian countries. Now this is up to interpretation but as powerful as the US is, it seems to have some serious internal problems (see health and gun crime) despite the high number of Nobel Prize winners.

So intelligence of the innate type does not seem to ve necessarily useful in massive amounts. Now regarding, setting an arbitrary limit and saying that you need innate intelligence to pass the limit, it is a cultural idea widespread in the West. It might not necessarily be false but the problem is that it lowers the actual capability of individuals. This capability is called resilience and this seems to be what separates western countries and asian countries in international comparisons of cognitive abilities. The idea is that some Asian countries are so hell-bent in inculcating resilience to their children that they end up surpassing the average western child. Some claim that this widepsread difference in cognitive performance is evidence of a genetic intellectual gift in some Asian countries but I personally believe that that claim is tautological. In my opinion, the differences between West and East regarding cognitive abilities is far less clear than it is claimed to be and the differences seen are merely a result of East countries setting the sky as a limit and madly pushing their childs to be the next Einstein while the West classifies children based on some tests and assigns different limits and performance expectations to a child depending on the group the child belongs to.

End point: there are some things that innately high-intelligent people with loads of resilience and will power can do than individuals with equal amounts of resilience and will power cannot do. What this difference is don't know but we know some things that fall inside this difference (but we know that it has to do with a form of creativity). So saying what people of average intelligence can or cannot do is as harmful as telling someone that they should make a breakthrough Nobel-worthy scientific discovery within the next 3 years. Highly damaging.
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 years ago
#64
(Original post by Josh_Dickson)
again, this is a self-concerned way of viewing it - viewing education as a means to an end as opposed to something that should be available to as many people as possible because it makes society better.
It is not clear whether having most of the education educated at any level beyond undergraduate level does actually make society better. We know that it does devalue degrees and that's it. But we suspect that having apprenticeships might help to massage a market saturated with graduates.At the end of the day, it is not about having a highly educated workforce but a workforce skilled in a range of areas.
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#65
Report 4 years ago
#65
(Original post by Snufkin)
That is still a rather big advantage.
Being born with wealthy parents is a rather big advantage. As things stand, there will be someone unhappy whether the age bar is raised to x years (x+1 year old graduates will complain) or abolished (taxpayers will complain).
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 years ago
#66
(Original post by Airfairy)
Well, I would guess that it is harder at the higher ranking unis, yes. But I wouldn't say it is anywhere near as hard to get onto a masters at Oxbridge, for example, than an undergrad course.

I know someone from my uni who has gone on to do a masters at LSE, self funded, and she just walked into it. Yet she wouldn't have had a chance at getting on an undergrad programme at LSE.




Can I just clarify...at the moment, the CDL isn't the easiest to get is it? I mean, you have to make a case for how it will help your career?

Have we confirmed if the new tuition fee loan will be like this, or will it be more like undergrad where you can have it for anything without making a case?
This is like the old days. When people like Stephen Fry walked in to a top uni without having to get extra experience and top grades to get to have an interview. I think that says a lot about how open higher education has changed how/if students get into a particular uni,
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 years ago
#67
(Original post by QHF)
It depends on the course. The numbers for Oxford are available online and I just did some very rough-and-ready work with a calculator. The overall offer rate for postgraduate courses is around 23%, while the offer rate for undergraduate courses is about 19%. But both of those percentages hide a great deal of variation: for undergraduate courses you have things like a 42% offer rate for materials science and a 7% offer rate for economics and management. It's significantly 'easier' (if you think offer rate is a good proxy for that, which I'm not entirely sure about) to get in to study materials science at undergraduate level than it is to get in to study a taught masters in English, but significantly 'harder' to get in to do an E&M undergraduate degree.

At present departments over-offer on the understanding that some candidates will get offers they prefer elsewhere and others would like to accept but won't be able to afford to accept. This second factor, money, is less of a factor at undergraduate thanks to student loans. If loans for taught masters courses come in it will be interesting to see how that changes the offer and acceptance statistics. Though £10,000 doesn't sound like very much for programmes which have tuition fees at the higher end of the range.
I don't think the loan is meant to be comprehensive like undergrad loans are.
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 years ago
#68
(Original post by Good bloke)
No. Education takes advantage of intelligence, to a significant degree. Almost all people can (and, of course, should) be taught to read and write but far fewer people have the intellectual capacity to learn the science involved in sending a rocket to Mars and spending the money on attempting to do so would be both futile and a waste. Intelligence definitely seems to have a genetic linkage.




That can best be answered by asking you to imagine that you are the father of a pre-pubescent girl. Would you rather she received sex education or sex training?
Indeed far less people have that capacity but I would argue whether it is "far" or "slightly". There seems to be some evidence suggesting that a lot of this so called intelligence just boils down to hard work rather than innate talent. Of course, I would agree that to make Nobel-worth discoveries, this innate talent is needed in many cases in addition to hard work. My point is that innate intelligence is like Higher Maths (the stuff at an above A levels Maths involving things like calculus, integrals, limits, functions, etc), it is overrated. inb4 criticisms on the maths claim, my reasoning is that a lot of the stuff humans do does not require innate intelligence/Higher Maths. Instead, it is only a small (but important nonetheless) portion of the stuff humans do that requires what we call "natural talents" or "innate intelligence". Summary: innate intelligence exists but is overrated and for most of our endeavours it might even not be needed (even though having it would be handy).
0
reply
somethingbeautiful
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#69
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#69
(Original post by Jantaculum)
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.
That is basically me that you have described there. This may sound odd but I'm actually glad that these loans weren't around when I graduated 2 years ago. At first I felt a bit cheated out of something good because I could have done my MA by now had these loans existed but I remember the types of MAs I was looking at back then and they would have been utterly useless.

My undergrad is academic/non-vocational but the MA that I have a place for is vocational and I would not be able to get past the application process for professional posts without the MA. So the couple of years that I've spent in the 'real world' have given me perspective and an understanding of what will actually help my career move along. I fear that these loans could lead to young and naive Arts/Humanities grads extending their studies by one more year in something that will not help them after graduation in terms of employment and then once they're in the real world they won't be able to take a more vocational Masters to rectify the issue unless they can self fund.

Young people need advice regarding what qualifications are actually useful in terms of employability or else these loans will just be further debts that certain students will never be earning enough to pay back. As it stands, on my current wages, I haven't even begun repaying my UG degree loans and if tuition loans had been available and I'd done an MA in my UG subject I'm certain that I'd never have payed back either.

(Original post by Juichiro)
My bet is that since it is a new thing it will only be tuition fees. Still pretty awesome if you ask me.



Bursaries are only for selected universities and only 10K students will receive them as opposed to 40K for the 2016 postgraduate loans.

Do you have any info/sources on which universities have been selected to receive bursary funding? I've read practically every news source and can't find any details regarding this - I'm not sure whether it's even worth telephoning my university to ask them because they might not know yet if it's all still up in the air.

Also, does anyone know if it's possible to defer an MA twice? It's not particularly what I want to do, in fact I really don't want to, but it's playing on my mind right now. If I don't get a bursary for 2015 then I'm going to struggle through the MA financially, but if I defer for 2016 I'd have 10k plus my current savings. I just really don't want to waste another year or lose my place on the MA...plus fees might (probably will) go up again.
1
reply
SmaugTheTerrible
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 years ago
#70
(Original post by Josh_Dickson)
again, this is a self-concerned way of viewing it - viewing education as a means to an end as opposed to something that should be available to as many people as possible because it makes society better.
I understand your point of view but at masters level, its not about educating society as much anymore. Its about pursuing personal interests in niche fields.

An undergraduate education is more than satisfactory and rigorous enough to allow for a intellectual society. These loans will result in a hoard of applicants that want nothing other than to have a masters degree on their CV for the sake of it because 'thats just the thing to do'.

Give it 10/15 years and we will be a sorry state with regards to employment for masters students. Yes, in some ideal world the purpose of education may not be employment, but in the real world, for all intents and purposes, it is.

I'm concerned (as selfish as it might seem) that there will be a flux of applicants in 2016 and it will result in a devaluation of the masters a couple years later.
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 years ago
#71
(Original post by somethingbeautiful)
That is basically me that you have described there. This may sound odd but I'm actually glad that these loans weren't around when I graduated 2 years ago. At first I felt a bit cheated out of something good because I could have done my MA by now had these loans existed but I remember the types of MAs I was looking at back then and they would have been utterly useless.

My undergrad is academic/non-vocational but the MA that I have a place for is vocational and I would not be able to get past the application process for professional posts without the MA. So the couple of years that I've spent in the 'real world' have given me perspective and an understanding of what will actually help my career move along. I fear that these loans could lead to young and naive Arts/Humanities grads extending their studies by one more year in something that will not help them after graduation in terms of employment and then once they're in the real world they won't be able to take a more vocational Masters to rectify the issue unless they can self fund.

Young people need advice regarding what qualifications are actually useful in terms of employability or else these loans will just be further debts that certain students will never be earning enough to pay back. As it stands, on my current wages, I haven't even begun repaying my UG degree loans and if tuition loans had been available and I'd done an MA in my UG subject I'm certain that I'd never have payed back either.




Do you have any info/sources on which universities have been selected to receive bursary funding? I've read practically every news source and can't find any details regarding this - I'm not sure whether it's even worth telephoning my university to ask them because they might not know yet if it's all still up in the air.

Also, does anyone know if it's possible to defer an MA twice? It's not particularly what I want to do, in fact I really don't want to, but it's playing on my mind right now. If I don't get a bursary for 2015 then I'm going to struggle through the MA financially, but if I defer for 2016 I'd have 10k plus my current savings. I just really don't want to waste another year or lose my place on the MA...plus fees might (probably will) go up again.
Note:

1. Realise that this is above all a pre-election political strategy which may or may not happen regardless of who gets the power in the elections.

2. In 2016, forty thousand 10K loans will be released for any subject in a taught masters for under 30s. There will be obviously a sizeable amount of people wanting to get these loans. Thus competition for the precious loans will ensue. It is most certain that all those who want to get one of the loans will not get it. In other words, you should not count on the assumption that you will get a loan because you might not get it.

If you can make your way through the MA struggling but without debts, it seems that in your particular situation it might be better. But best contact your uni to see if they will allow you to defer.
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#72
Report 4 years ago
#72
(Original post by somethingbeautiful)
That is basically me that you have described there. This may sound odd but I'm actually glad that these loans weren't around when I graduated 2 years ago. At first I felt a bit cheated out of something good because I could have done my MA by now had these loans existed but I remember the types of MAs I was looking at back then and they would have been utterly useless.

My undergrad is academic/non-vocational but the MA that I have a place for is vocational and I would not be able to get past the application process for professional posts without the MA. So the couple of years that I've spent in the 'real world' have given me perspective and an understanding of what will actually help my career move along. I fear that these loans could lead to young and naive Arts/Humanities grads extending their studies by one more year in something that will not help them after graduation in terms of employment and then once they're in the real world they won't be able to take a more vocational Masters to rectify the issue unless they can self fund.

Young people need advice regarding what qualifications are actually useful in terms of employability or else these loans will just be further debts that certain students will never be earning enough to pay back. As it stands, on my current wages, I haven't even begun repaying my UG degree loans and if tuition loans had been available and I'd done an MA in my UG subject I'm certain that I'd never have payed back either.

Do you have any info/sources on which universities have been selected to receive bursary funding? I've read practically every news source and can't find any details regarding this - I'm not sure whether it's even worth telephoning my university to ask them because they might not know yet if it's all still up in the air.

Also, does anyone know if it's possible to defer an MA twice? It's not particularly what I want to do, in fact I really don't want to, but it's playing on my mind right now. If I don't get a bursary for 2015 then I'm going to struggle through the MA financially, but if I defer for 2016 I'd have 10k plus my current savings. I just really don't want to waste another year or lose my place on the MA...plus fees might (probably will) go up again.
I think the loans should be aimed to STEM masters because they seem to be in high demand. I don't think unis have been named yet for the loans but I think unis must have been selected for the pilot (the 10K bursaries).
0
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 years ago
#73
(Original post by SmaugTheTerrible)
I understand your point of view but at masters level, its not about educating society as much anymore. Its about pursuing personal interests in niche fields.

An undergraduate education is more than satisfactory and rigorous enough to allow for a intellectual society. These loans will result in a hoard of applicants that want nothing other than to have a masters degree on their CV for the sake of it because 'thats just the thing to do'.

Give it 10/15 years and we will be a sorry state with regards to employment for masters students. Yes, in some ideal world the purpose of education may not be employment, but in the real world, for all intents and purposes, it is.

I'm concerned (as selfish as it might seem) that there will be a flux of applicants in 2016 and it will result in a devaluation of the masters a couple years later.
That's easy to rectify. Restrict the loans to masters on fields in demand.
0
reply
somethingbeautiful
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#74
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#74
(Original post by Juichiro)
Note:

1. Realise that this is above all a pre-election political strategy which may or may not happen regardless of who gets the power in the elections.

2. In 2016, forty thousand 10K loans will be released for any subject in a taught masters for under 30s. There will be obviously a sizeable amount of people wanting to get these loans. Thus competition for the precious loans will ensue. It is most certain that all those who want to get one of the loans will not get it. In other words, you should not count on the assumption that you will get a loan because you might not get it.

If you can make your way through the MA struggling but without debts, it seems that in your particular situation it might be better. But best contact your uni to see if they will allow you to defer.
Thank you for your response, it's given me something to think about.
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 years ago
#75
Non-targetted funding would be a bad idea- most humanities/social science graduates aren't even going to repay their undergraduate loans, so giving them more free money is just silly. I can understand funding STEM Masters degrees which have decent career prospects, but the humanities/etc really shouldn't be getting extra subsidies since there is basically zero probability of these degrees increasing a graduate's income potential to the point where they can actually repay the loans.

A good compromise would be refusing to fund students taking Masters degrees where the university can't prouduce statistics showing that the average graduates go on to earn £45k+ (say) in mid-career, which is around the point where people actually repay their undergraduate loans.

The other point is that cheap credit usually inflates prices - all those Masters degrees which currently cost £6k will be up to £9k if easy loans become available.
0
reply
Smack
  • Volunteer Team
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 years ago
#76
I'm not sure who this benefits. There already exist integrated masters degrees, which I understand were primarily created in order to allow students to study to masters level whilst paying undergrad level fees. In "in demand" fields we should be encouraging employers and business to pay for further learning. I'm not sure we should be further subsiding students in not-so-in-demand fields to take on more debt for qualifications that are unlikely to help their careers a particularly large amount.

I think this reeks of a pre-election strategy to try and get students on the side of the government, a government which isn't particularly popular amongst students. See: the under 30 rule for these loans.
0
reply
poohat
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#77
Report 4 years ago
#77
(Original post by Smack)
I'm not sure who this benefits. There already exist integrated masters degrees, which I understand were primarily created in order to allow students to study to masters level whilst paying undergrad level fees. .
Its not clear that these degrees are sensible. They are decent preparation for a PhD, but its not obvious why the majority of undergrads benefit from 4 vs 3 year degrees. Also, they miss three of the main reasons for doing a Masters - career changing, overriding a 2:2 or low 2:1, and getting into a more prestigious university if your undergrad degree was from somewhere that wasnt great.
0
reply
Smack
  • Volunteer Team
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#78
Report 4 years ago
#78
(Original post by poohat)
Its not clear that these degrees are sensible. They are decent preparation for a PhD, but its not obvious why the majority of undergrads benefit from 4 vs 3 year degrees. Also, they miss three of the main reasons for doing a Masters - career changing, overriding a 2:2 or low 2:1, and getting into a more prestigious university if your undergrad degree was from somewhere that wasnt great.
I did one, an MEng, mainly for the accreditation and the fact that it's now almost the de facto requirement for a job. But you're right; I don't think the majority of students will benefit from the extra year. In fact I don't think many people really will benefit from a masters degree, other than keeping with ever increasing qualification inflation.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report 4 years ago
#79
(Original post by Smack)
I'm not sure who this benefits. There already exist integrated masters degrees, which I understand were primarily created in order to allow students to study to masters level whilst paying undergrad level fees. In "in demand" fields we should be encouraging employers and business to pay for further learning. I'm not sure we should be further subsiding students in not-so-in-demand fields to take on more debt for qualifications that are unlikely to help their careers a particularly large amount.

I think this reeks of a pre-election strategy to try and get students on the side of the government, a government which isn't particularly popular amongst students. See: the under 30 rule for these loans.
The reasons for doing i suspect are the falling postgraduate numbers (this will obviously stop that), the fact that postgraduates on average earn 14% more than somebody with a Bachelors and that only around 7% are expected to not pay the loan back. Being through student finance and restricted in number it will presumably be heavily means tested so that those 40,000 end up going to the lowest incomes rather than any subject or university restriction. It will likely i think benefit the first few years of graduates that come through before we end up with similar undergraduate saturation of the labour market.

I'd do an Economics Masters if i can get this finance though i agree it's electioneering from the coalition.
0
reply
Mathmatician
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#80
Report 4 years ago
#80
Will this really help anyone?
Courses at top unis cost more than 10 grand and that is without living costs. Also the reason they introduced these loans was because a huge decrease in the number of people in post graduate study due to already being in debt due to 9000 fees at undergraduate. People do not want to get into more debt.

As a side note, I am so glad I am applying to start next year before the introduction of loans, less competition Hopefully more people will defer
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • University of the Arts London
    Open day: MA Footwear and MA Fashion Artefact Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (179)
39.43%
No - but I will (25)
5.51%
No - I don't want to (32)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (218)
48.02%

Watched Threads

View All