UKC

Hi all,

Might be of interest to some of you - I was looking at the Martin Lewis piece on student loan myths (link below) and I found this:

"After 30 years, any and all remaining debt is wiped

You stop owing either when you've cleared the debt, or when 30 years (from the April after graduation) have passed, whichever comes first. If you never get a job earning over the threshold, it means you won't have repaid a penny. 

It's one reason those who are near retirement, who don't have a degree and want one, find it very appealing as unless they've a huge pension, they know they'll never have to repay."

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-chang...

Even if you did have a huge pension, the chances of repaying a substantial chunk would be negligible. I'm on the old system (3k/year fees), earn a decent wage (I'm a lecturer) and it will still take me 37.5 years to pay my loan off at the current rate I'm paying. If you're 60, and "pay" 9k/year in fees alone you WILL die before paying any of it off.

The system is ridiculous. 

Edit: 37.5 years for me precludes a) interest, b) the cut off and c) my salary changing. Simplistic, but illustrates my point.

It's certainly ridiculous. It's a graduate tax in all but name, with a superfluous extra bureaucracy and an opportunity for a monopoly company to cream some money off the top. 

This is so obviously wrong, it should be the other way round - if you get a well paid job then the debt should be wiped out (due to higher tax revenue you are effectively paying it back)

if you don’t get a job then you should be forced to pay it back (although not sure how this would work in reality as no job would mean no income to pay it back with)

So if you can afford to pay your debt it is written off for you, if you cant afford to pay it then you must pay up (whilst still paying taxes to subsidise the high earners written off debt)? 

if someone wants to be educated fear of debt should not get in the way.

I don't understand your logic at all. Are you assuming that anyone who doesn't get a job after getting a degree is some kind of malingerer? And what about those on low incomes post-degree, who don't normally pay anything back either? 

'You stop owing either when you've cleared the debt, or when 30 years (from the April after graduation) have passed'

What happens if you drop out after 2 years, and never graduate?

Serious question.

I think you just repay in the usual way (or not...). 

...Not to mention the implied assumption that the single measure of worth of your education being your income. Jobs in the arts, for example, being notoriously low paid in general. 

I think you have answered your own question 

jobs in art a low paid for a reason

as a capitalistic society we do measure our worth with income.

If you can’t get a job after doing a degree then why did you do the degree in the first place?

Isnt the main point of further education to enable you to get a better paid job?

The whole thing seems to have become a bit ridiculous. Years ago only the best went to University and we were happy to pay for it through taxation because it was money well spent and not a fortune. Blair seemed to want everyone to go, which on the surface, seems laudable but also flawed. We seem to have all these graduates yet a not very productive economy. Also the £9k was meant to be the upper limit wasn't it? i.e for Oxbridge or other aspirational red bricks with a great pedigree in certain subjects. Somehow, all courses have been able to charge £9k without the students being able to vote with their wallets because it's their only option to not miss out on higher education . The market is not competitve

I'm struggling to see how any government can promise to wipe out student debt because we send too many kids to uni these days, it would cost a fortune and the results are clearly not really worth it judging by UK productivity (as one term of reference) 

Do we need a change of culture? Should we restrict access based on merit and scrap student loans? Should companies re assess how they hire looking for a range of skills other than a degree (when I left school, an English and Maths O level pass was the benchmark for getting in the door of most normal jobs)? Ramp up apprenticeships? Or does the current system just need a few tweaks to become more effective for the future workers of our country? (offering courses with zero tuition fees in core skills ..nursing/STEM for example?)

The point of further education is to educate. whether you choose to use what you learn to earn money is up to the individual but there is nothing wrong with education for educations sake.

Sadly the entire schooling system is currently geared up to selling preparation for an unlimited number of high paid job opportunities (newsflash 90% of these jobs don't exist and often don't really require a degree anyway).

No.

You are penalised if you don't get a well paid job because you pay off at a much slower rate and therefore pay much more punitive interest. If you never work or never reach the threshold for paying back then you are equally ok but the people in the 'middle' are screwed

You might but I know my job is less valuable to society than a nurse despite what our pay packets might say. Student loans exacerbate this iniquity 

“> Isnt the main point of further education to enable you to get a better paid job?

No.”

Why should I (the tax payer) fund your education (by giving you a low interest loan that you may not have to pay back), if we arn’t going to get anything back? (In terms of extra tax revenue or a significant contribution to society)

I've always wondered how the debt is collected if one is educated in UK then works abroad.

SLC tend to ask what you're up to if you're not paying back automatically as part of PAYE (at least they did whislt I was doing my PhD). A few changes of address overseas though??

You might, I don't.

Because education has a value of it's own, suppose you educate a woman who never works after graduating, but then passes that knowledge on to her children and encourages them into higher education and better paid jobs! Does that not benefit society?

You seem to have a very narrow view point.

The bigger issue is overseas students returning home after graduating. Unless they take steps to voluntarily arrange payments, it is very difficult to get anything from them (no permanent uk address, no NI number etc etc).

The amount outstanding from students is absolutely eye-watering (£105bn at Mar 18), and because of some accounting slipperiness (basically not taking account of likely bad debts) doesn't appear as a cost to the exchequer until its written off. So whatever you see as "the deficit", add £105bn to it. 

So stay at home mum, (why not dad?), is going to pass on the knowledge gained in his degree in biomedical science to the rugrats?

I'm being somewhat facetious as I agree education is extremely important. However we need to get away from this ridiculous notion that not attending some pointless course at a former poly means you are 'uneducated'.

Probably 90% of 'graduate' roles could be done, (and used to be done), by someone with a couple of GCSEs. The £105 billion of unrecovered fees mentioned above would have been better spend on improving basic education up to the age of 16.

Not necessarily. Apart from the broader social benefits of a better educated population it might be to follow a vocation, to do something you always wanted to do.

You can't blame Britain's unproductive economy on a surfeit of graduates. Labour hoarding (keeping on unproductive workers), low/misguided investment, dominance of the service sector (low value/ low scope for productivity improvement), and a focus on cheap labour are all more likely factors. 

And let's not forget that the contribution of arts, literature and music to society. Things don't always have to be quantified in monetary terms.

Your view is unbelievably narrow. You might not think it now, but if you lived in a world where the only thing that mattered was money, I reckon that even you would find it incredibly shit. For a start, no one would be going rock climbing (or if they did, it would be in some shite, sanitised, commercial setting where every last drop of adventure had been squeezed out in favour of profit).

As for who should pay for university - for me it depends how the benefits are distributed. I really see no reason that the state should pay for the training of people who go on to earn loads, e.g. lawyers, medics, engineers, etc. In many cases, employers can pay for this training, as they'll benefit, and/or the individuals  can pay it back once they're earning. On the the hand, those that train to do jobs that we really want done, and don't pay that well e.g. teachers and nurses, we probably need to chip in for the training or we won't have enough and we want to incentivise talented people to do these things.

There's lots of learning that we benefit from enormously as a society but, like climbing, aren't catered for by the market - the arts, basically. If we as individuals want music and theatre and visual arts and literature and philosophy to form part of the fabric of the society we live in, we need to fund it.

And perhaps those who don't want these things, and don't want to pay for them, can set up some kind of independent state in a massive warehouse complex in the Midlands and then slowly rot in their own joyless soul-crushing free-market hell.

I'm not sure that the debt always is collected. I seem to recall reading that there are a large number of defaulting workers abroad.

“Not necessarily. Apart from the broader social benefits of a better educated population it might be to follow a vocation, to do something you always wanted to do”

ok - but please explain why I should pay for someone else to “follow a vocation”

Because vocations are often things like nursing, medicine, social care, that kind of thing. 

If you are going to get a better job and pay more taxes then yes, go to uni and get a degree so you can become a nurse or whatever.

but is comes at a cost - you need to repay the lone back. If you don’t want that cost then don’t go to uni

I'm not. I'm asking why are we producing all these graduates and not seeing any benefit from a productivity basis. They are not the cause, but equally, evidentally not the solution...(I did state it was just one metric amongst many that can be taken)

I think it far better not to offer student loans for courses that are evidenced as having a low enhancement to lifetime earning potential, and that are not of clear societal benefit.

I think there could be a sector wide mis-selling scandal brewing over institutions encouraging rather un-astute teenagers to sign up to courses that saddle them with student-loan debt and don’t empower them with matching employability.  Especially for median students who get hit the hardest under a highly regressive graduate tax masquerading as a loan to keep the gaping financial hole off the governments balance sheet...

Some of is purely chose a degree to learn... 

The last time I checked - particularly as applicable to EU students who have access to our loan system - the answer could be summarised as “if they want to repay we will take the money from them”...  I’d seen figures bandied about of about 50% engagement with repayment if I recall correctly.

I'm pretty sure all of us in 6th form saw Uni as a way of avoiding having to get a job

There is also the issue of making certain professions "graduate level". Back in t'day, a nurse went to nursing college / teaching hospital to learn his/her trade. It is now a degree level course, with associated loan; the cost of training is no longer borne entirely by the NHS, but by the individual. Note that as payments do not start until earnings pass £25k per year (for new graduates, and the rate of interest charged means that the balance will not reduce until earnings pass approx £34.5k pa, it is hugely unlikely that a nurses loan will be paid back anytime soon. 

The current forecast for repayment levels is approx 65.5%, so of the £105bn outstanding, the SLC expect to write off some £36bn. This will of course increase as interest gets added to the loan......

Do you also believe that people should have to pay fees to attend secondary school? Primary school? Etc?

Remember that tertiary education here used to be free; fees are a recent invention.

Education has an intrinsic worth; and educated people benefit society. It's not all about money.

“Do you also believe that people should have to pay fees to attend secondary school? Primary school? Etc?”

 A basic education should be paid for by the parents to enable their children to be able to live an Independant life when the time comes to leave home.

I do pay “fees” for my children to attend school - every month I give a substantial sum of money to the government and the county council to educate my children

Pointless hair-splitting: how does one define 'basic education'?

(It's 'independent' btw. Were you asleep during basic spelling? Sorry - cheap shot.)

As it happens, I don't have kids. But I also give a substantial sum of money every month to educate others' kids, including yours. That's how society works. As I said: it's not just about money, or personal profit and loss. Thank Christ!

Exactly.   The situation in England is the worst of all possible systems.   If government want a market system to regulate access to education and to fund it with debt then they need to have a proper market where there is incentive to get value for money and universities need to compete on price.   Which means students have to expect that the debt will need to be repaid. 

If government believe in education for education's sake then education should be free but costs should be controlled by limiting the number of places available with competition for places based on exam results and selectivity about which courses and departments are funded.

Debt which doesn't need to be repaid is just nonsense.  

Good point about contributing and not having kids - and you also contribute to my child allowance, so thanks for that

Perhaps what it really boils down to is we need to change the general attitude that you won’t get a proper job unless you go to uni - and if you do go to uni and don’t get a job then someone else will pay for it.

You're welcome.

You seem to confuse 'general attitude' with what you personally think.

 >The current forecast for repayment levels is approx 65.5%, so of the £105bn outstanding, the SLC expect to write off some £36bn. This will of course increase as interest gets added to the loan...... <

I don't know if that figure takes into account that a student might be paying a very healthy annual amount as interest back to the state/state's agent for 30 years without reducing the debt itself.

It does. The £105bn is the total outstanding balance as at 31st Mar 18, so comprises principal and interest accrued. Interestingly (in a sad, accountant sort of way) the total is increasing at about £10bn pa and is expected to reach £450bn by 2050. That is a frightening number, as at current recovery rates, that is a write off of >£150bn, nearly 4 times the cost of purchasing RBS shares.......

Exactly. Its only such an attractive option to a (shortsighted) government as its (like PFI) for the duration of the payback period off the official government borrowing balance sheet. The impact on future governments who have to pay this off when it goes back on the balance sheet, will be terrible. It might even end up more expensive than just continuing to give everyone free University education.

On only the best going to Uni, thats not been the case for ages. The huge majority of middle class kids go now so that must include large numbers of below average potential. Even in my day (early 80s) most public school kids went to Uni so a good bit  more than half of the upper middle clases who chose to pay.

But someone is making a lot of money out of it, and we're paying for it.

SLC / SFE employ well over 1,000 in Darlington (including Mrs W).

There is also the sale of the debt. Every so often, the government sell off some debt to various financial institutions, who make a margin on it.

But? The making of money is part and parcel of the 'smaller state' ideology. Just look at what college education costs the US state and citizens, let alone heathcare.

When Tories say 'smaller state' what they mean is 'more financial services' and a larger slice of the pie for us and our pals in the city.

Who says we're not seeing any benefit? Have you got any data to support this? Productivity might be even lower without those graduates.

I think we're both in a similar situation. I despair at this attitude sometimes.

You need to consider healthcare. Many jobs such as Nurses and Paramedics now study to degree level pre-registration. The wages are OK but definitely not maximum tax revenue stuff. I think you could certainly add teachers into this as well.

For me it isn't just the specific higher education issue but more the wider attitude of begrudging tax money spent on anything for which no personal benefit is perceived. As a household, even with me currently retraining and two kids at state schools, we pay more into the system than we take out. The list of governmental services and safety nets we've never, or only minimally accessed, is long and varied. We're happy to pay because what we get back is the privilege of living in a country where the basic underlying principle is that we look after each other, regardless of colour, creed or political preference. Without this basic principle we'd all soon be living in a country with a quality of life comparable with that currently being enjoyed by the residents of downtown Mogadishu.

This is an important point to note for those who blame the entire mess on an ideological drive to increase the proportion of people going to uni. (Not something you've said, I realise, just replying to you because you mentioned nurses who are a good example.)

Nursing doesn't require a degree now because some crusading socialist decided that it would be nice if more people had certificates. Nursing requires a degree because the role has changed almost completely since it used to be taught differently. It's a much more complex job, requiring a higher degree of training. In fact, the whole medical field is almost unrecognisable compared with a few decades ago. Everything about it is more complex and requires people with better training at every level.

I also think the recent decision not to pay student nurses for their work on the wards is an absolute scandal. If you get any care in hospital and keep your eyes peeled, you'll notice that student nurses actually do a lot of genuine work, not just shadowing somebody else. Anyway, that's not my main point.

Medicine is hardly the only field that has become more complex. Those bemoaning the fact that you apparently used to be able to walk into almost any job with decent O-levels aren't recognising that the jobs have changed. Employers don't ask for degrees because they're snobs. It would be cheaper to employ someone with no degree so if they're asking for one it's because they think that level of education is necessary (either directly or as a sign of the necessary capacity).

I would agree that the government might need to do more to guide the mix of degrees studied but simply asking to turn back the clock to a time when tiny numbers went to uni doesn't recognise the world we live in now. Nor does it take into account the world of the future where automation will continue to raise the threshold where you can be replaced by a computer and/or robot.

I recognise the employment and economic activity in SLC but the same investment in other more productive areas of the economy would result in employment of more people and improve the UK economic prospects a lot more. The whole student loan system seems to be very different from what was sold to us all: pay back rates are much lower than predicted (leaving serious risks, given the much larger than predicted write-off for the future governments/tax payers), the system amounts to a highly regressive form of taxation (rich kids pay the least and lower paid professionals take the biggest hit); the effects on part-time and mature students and vocational education has been truely dreadful; and uptakes for disadvataged kids remains disappointing. The so called market in Universities didn't happen: in fact most have enjoyed a feeding frenzy with huge building investment (mostly the risky debt fuelled kind) and spiralling senior staff salaries whilst investment in and casualisation of those delivering material to fee paying students has become worse; as has advertising (who would have thought University marketing claims would result in breaches of advertising standards     https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45590413    ). I find large amounts of off balance sheet government debt very worrying and hence something that needs controlling much better... did we learn nothing from the PFI debacle?

This highlights the scathing recent Lord's report

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44433569

Direct links to the reports:

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/e...

"Labour hoarding (keeping on unproductive workers), low/misguided investment, dominance of the service sector (low value/ low scope for productivity improvement), and a focus on cheap labour are all more likely factors."

This is your definition of the UK's issue with low productivity. Without doubt, students going to Uni and getting high quality education which turns into R&D into innovative industries will benefit UK productivity. How many are doing that? How many do we need to be doing that?

I'm absolutely sure that the Universities will say that more graduates will boost UK productivity, they are just businesses who need students after all. But what is doubtful to me is the wisdom of everyone going to Uni to gain any sort of degree of varying usefulness, into a job market as you describe above, all in debt. 

I wasn't trying to suggest that having a huge payroll / headcount at SLC / SFE was a good thing; its possibly more efficient than having a grants dept at each uni as we had previously. I am very much against, as are you, the financial trickery employed to keep the costs out of our deficit / national debt figures; if I tried this in the private company that employs me i would be simply not allowed to do it; we are required to provide for potential liabilitites when they are recognised, not wait until the very last possible moment, and as there is pretty decent evidence that well over 30% of student debt will never be collected, then this proportion should be provided for at the point of issuing the debt. Including future interest amounts.

I m also against the selling off of debt at below book value in order to plug this hole. As the institutions to whom this debt is now assigned are hamstrung by the rules around repayment, they will require some form of income / return in order to make it worthwhile, so this also depresses the price the debt was sold off at. 

Meanwhile, as you say, all uni's are charging the max fee whether they think they need it or not. Many uni's simply have no idea what to do with the money. hence the proliferation of buildings etc

You may infer from this I am not in favour of the current system of funding further education........ 

"hose bemoaning the fact that you apparently used to be able to walk into almost any job with decent O-levels aren't recognising that the jobs have changed. Employers don't ask for degrees because they're snobs. It would be cheaper to employ someone with no degree so if they're asking for one it's because they think that level of education is necessary (either directly or as a sign of the necessary capacity)."

I disagree with this. Sure jobs have changed, but so has education. My seven year old can work her way around an ipad way better than I can. I work in finance. Loads of colleagues have degrees in subjects not relating in anyway to their day to day role. They were trained to do the job on the job. On the trading floors I have worked on, lots of the older people >40 would be classed as poorly educated. Brilliant at their jobs though and moved with the technology changes no problem. 

I'm not arguing that gaining a degree is in anyway bad, of course not. And I am also not disagreeing with you on nursing because I honestly have no idea how "ward ready" they need to be on day one. But it's certainly not required for many jobs. Just a bright person with a keeness to get on and earn some money IMO.  

I can understand your scepticism but I'd just like to see the evidence that increased numbers of graduates haven't made a contribution. 

I think you're assessing the value of a degree too narrowly. Any qualification you gain, at any level, has value in:

• The application of specific skills/knowledge on the curriculum
• The evidence it provides of your general or specialised cognitive ability
• The evidence it provides of your ability to work hard
• What it teaches you about how to learn
• How the process of learning enhances your thinking skills

I think you're focussing on the first of those bullet points and ignoring the others. If somebody gets a physics degree and goes to work with you in finance, that doesn't mean the physics degree was pointless. They might be learning job-specific skills using maths that was already covered at A-level but it's difficult to say that the less-easily-defined general thinking skills they gained from their degree aren't coming in useful.

It's actually much worse than that in terms of all those buildings. Some gold rated TEF institutions, flying high on Guardian league tables due to NSS data, really believe that is their UK teaching ranking and have invested heavily for infrastructure and non teaching staff using significant amounts of borrowed money or by issuing bonds. If their plans prove to be much too ambitious, what are really basically good 'below average to above average' institutions on say the Times rankings may be the most likely to go bankrupt (rather than those stuggling at the bottom of league tables). I think the risks are high as: the near future for UK government and fee based  HE funding looks very uncertain; the debt is rarely increasing front line staff quality or student facing numbers; I don't believe european research funding will be anything like fully replaced; TEF and NSS data seems very unreliable to me in determining real teaching quality (the RSS view on this:    https://www.statslife.org.uk/news/3812-rss-concern-over-statistically-inade... ) and if improvements are made in staitistical validity there could be big ranking shifts;  overseas student numbers may be set to decline (whilst they remain in the UK immigration statistics in an increasingly international competive market in English language taught courses, and with the influence of brexit).

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/borrowers-will-universities-d...

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/03/06/2199103/universities-and-the-allure-...

https://theconversation.com/why-uk-universities-are-returning-to-the-public...

Only if it's privatised, this could all have been done by the state, but it wasn't. Who's suggesting we need "smaller state" ideology?

I don't disagree that a decent Uni degree does offer a reasonable expectation of those qualities in a person. What I disagree with is that without it, an employer is gambling with the candidates ability to perform those skills if their interview and selection process is thorough AND because I don't think a University is the arbiter of providing critical thinking, training and learning. A decent company can provide all of this in a challenging role for young people. With the added benefit of possibly a slightly lower salary for a 16- 18 year old living at home with zero debt. 

It's just a point of view. I will be interested to see how much my views change when my own children approach the end of school

You really havent noticed who supports that ?

Mrs Ridge, (recently retired Nurse), would beg to differ.

Although many nursing graduates are extremely good, she found that there's a widespread lack of basic anatomy and biochemistry, total reliance on technology to do basic obs and an attitude that they're above having to interact with patients when the graduates arrive on the wards.

As you say Nursing is a complex job that requires a high degree of training . Whatever a nursing degree is supposed to supply it certainly isn't (in Mrs Ridge's opinion) training, nor does it seem to provide much in the way of academic education.

This isn't having a go at the graduates. There are some very impressive new nurses coming through, but they're paying through the nose for a not particularly good degree. They'd have been better served by on the job training and CPD.

We need to move away from the snobbery that only graduates are capable of critical thinking, problem solving, have better cognitive skills and can 'work hard'. Non grads aren't lobotomised on leaving school, all the supposed graduate 'skills' can be acquired without spending a few grand a year on courses that are of little benefit to the student.

If you're receiving child benefit then I don't think you really fall into the "substantial sum" category, and come across more in the "whining tax payer" bracket. £50k year means you contribute £1k/year. That is below the value of £education spend / population let alone the amount required by a family of 4. The point being education is not about personal income - it is about the good of society as a whole.

There are problems with the way university seduction is paid for, the benefit for the students and the impact on them financially, but it isn't solved by treating the whole thing as simply about earning more.

Just out of interest how are you planning to finance your own kids through university?

Philip I think you need to have a rethink on your post - I have been paying tax for a long time before my kids started going to school and I will be paying tax a long time after that have finished school.

As for my personal circumstances - from you calculations it looks like your assumption is that only 1 parent is working/paying tax - this is not correct.

As a couple, you can earn upto £119,999 and still receive child benefit.

“Just out of interest how are you planning to finance your own kids through university?”

1. Am I supposed to be financing them?

2. Why do you assume they will go to uni?

So do we admire actors, footballers, film makers, artists etc because they earn a lot of money or because they entertain us and improve the quality of our lives? I think your argument is flawed

I can’t think of anyone who is admired by the masses that went to uni at the tax payers expense and now doesn’t earn enough money to pay of there student loan - so I don’t really see the relevance of your post - please enlighten me

How do you know this? What if only 1 person who wouldn't have gone to university, does and discovers a cure for cancer, or a way to save £106bn from the NHS bill. You seem very sure it's a waste of money.

Correct, but you pay a lot less tax than 1 person on £120k. On £50k you pay £8k tax on £120k you pay £40k, 5 times as much for less than twice the net take home.

Taking the education costs dividing by population of that age multiply by 13 years, and divide over 40 years of working means £2300 per child per year per couple.

So 1 couple, on £50k /year for 40 years with 1 child cover it.

It's shocking in a way. The UK median salary is so far from the break even on tax vs benefit of living in the UK. 

Valid points. However the current system actively discourages academically able people from a poor background from attending uni due to their attitude to ending up with a huge level of personal debt.

As a double whammy, it also prevents people with really good practical skills, work ethic and  interest in 'hands on' roles from becoming nurses, paramedics and even policemen due to the requirement to sit through lectures rather than getting involved in the real meaty and interesting stuff from day one.

Tertiary education in it's present form is selling pretty much everyone short, from the 'consumers' to the taxpayer.

Can't argue with that...

...but I'm not sure about this. Would you really want a novice involved in involved in 'the real meaty and interesting stuff from day one'? I don't think that's going to happen whatever training approach is adopted. 

There's a huge amount of variation across the sector so generalisations like this are risky. 

But you'll lose it in income tax if you earn more than £60000.

You're right, I expressed that clumsily. I think there's a need for a route into professional roles that don't involve what is perceived as sitting in classroom for three years. Some of the most switched on people I've worked with have started as apprentices or technicians, found they have an aptitude and enthusiasm for a subject and have gone on to do degrees, MSCs etc.

Very true, although a number of people I've spoken to are very concerned that a degree no longer gives them confidence about the abilities of a job candidate. Graduates can be anything from absolutely superb to thicker than a whale omelette.

Good grief do I have to spell it out?

You said and I quote:

"jobs in art a[re] low paid for a reason

as a capitalistic society we do measure our worth with income."

So that would make some drug lords more worthy than The Dali Llama.

And as I see it jobs in art tend to pay more than some poor sod on the till at Tescos. Unless you are saying that check out staff are less worthy than JK Rowling or Damien Hurst?

It's worth mentioning that healthcare degrees really are not sitting in a classroom for 3-5 years then BOOM you're a registered professional let loose on patients when you're completely clueless. Most professional regulators will require a significant number of supervised placement hours and the ability to demonstrate you re competent before you're allowed to register with them. Then many will expect close supervision postgrad.

I do appreciate that, but Mrs Ridge's experience, (which I accept is purely anecdotal), is that that after the 3 years there's still a massive training burden, in some cases almost starting from scratch with very basic stuff.

That's not the fault of the graduates, but they don't seem to be benefiting much for the investment in time and money they've put into the degree.

I think a lot of it is purely down to how large the scope of practice is for many health professionals. For example, check out the standards of proficiency now required of paramedics (especially sections 13 and 14). 

https://www.hcpc-uk.org/assets/documents/1000051CStandards_of_Proficiency_P...

This is for a profession that only went from a 2 year DipHe to a BSc requirement this year. The qualification gives you the bones of a knowledge base but experience is required to flesh it out. Talk to any honest newly qualified doctor about how confident they are in their skills.

Sorry I was generalising about all artists. Some artists are better than others - the ones that stuggle to make a living at it usually mean they are not very good at it, or arn’t very good at marketing.

A drug lord is more worthy than the Dali Llama, if you are a drug addict - but I’m struggle to see how this is relevant to this discussion.

You are making the mistake of just looking at one tax in isolation, whilst income tax is progressive, NI is much less so and most other taxes aren’t at all. Lots of tax is on consumption.

I agree with you re-artists though I guess it also applies to non-artists too (I think of all those people who open a shop or start a business that fails). It has long been a belief of mine that art schools should include lessons on running a business.

With the Dali Llama I was trying to illustrate that we don't always measure worth by income. That other things come into play

Good point about the Dali Llama, but I’m willing to bet he didn’t go to uni and take out a student loan with the expection that someone else will pay it back!

May be not but when I was growing up plenty of people got student grants that they weren't required to pay off.

Part of the problem is that people are pushed a university eduction as an absolute must for future employment. I have lived my life without a university education and never felt disadvantaged by it.

“I have lived my life without a university education and never felt disadvantaged by it.”

me too

Ditto, although I would probably have reached peak earnings quicker.

The problem seems to be that there aren't enough 'graduate level' jobs for the number of graduates, so the entry level jobs you went into with a couple of 'O' levels and did day release ONC/HNC now require you to pay for your own training for a couple of years before you even start the job.

Sadly it has become a self fulfilling prophesy, in many cases you do need a degree for future employment, just to get the entry level position.

That's not my point. It wasn't about tax fairness but that simply "paying some tax" hardly qualified you to dictate who should get what. I rather despise the attitude that 'ive paid tax all my life...' which is usually followed by some bigoted / racist or otherwise small minded attitude.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/university-bankrupt-i...

Imagine the effect on the students in and graduates of that institution and the thousands of staff employed; the wasted areas of strength and good quality facility. Where are the protections HEFCE used to provide?