Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
9 December 2010
18:4783830When I first went into business the only investment I had to make was to support myself with no income for 3 months while training and commencing initial business activity.
My second business venture required an investment of £2,000 plus having to manage another 3 months without income, while still paying a mortgage 9as I did the first time).
My third business venture also resulted in 3 months of no income and in this case an investment of over £5,000.
I am fortunate as the amounts outlayed are less than many businessmen have to find.
Like the client I had in recently who, at age 25, produced a business plan with which he visited several banks and institutions to borrow £50,000 start-up capital and other funding for his first business. He made no profit at all for the first 12 months and just built up more and more debt. His debt peaked at nearly £150,000 before the profits started to roll in and it is now down to a little under £100,000, 5 years after start-up. He has never been able to take more than £20,000 a year as an income for himself, most of his employees make more than him and that was only last couple of years, before that he was living hand to mouth. This year he should be able to take about £25,000 for himself but matters should improve for him quite quickly after that, unless he decides to raise more capital to expand that is....or if the recession goes into double-dip and hits him harder than the first dip (being a clever chap, he managed to restructure at the right time and was virtually unscathed)
The point is that I and the chap I mentioned have invested our time and money in our futures. We have also taken significant risks with that time and money.
Is that not what students are being asked to do? But with, perhaps, a bit less risk.
The difference is that they do not have to find the capital up front. They will only have to repay it if/when they earn over £21,000 and the less well off will not even have to borrow that and can get grants.
So what is wrong with the student fee system? - nothing at all.
That is why my client considers the protesters a bunch of useless good for nothing layabouts. He has a point.
Looked at this way the policy is fair and reasonable and the protesters should damn well get back to Uni and get on with their studies.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
9 December 2010
19:0783837My daughter`s up the line at the moment doing a 3 year course on fashion and design. She loves what she`s doing, but I do hope she has something at the end of it. So many students going after so few positions. (I mustn`t mention Student Finance England here as this tends to send my blood pressure sky high and it`s not good). The loan and grant are okay, once the paperwork is sorted, until the next term comes round. GGGrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Time to go methinks!
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
9 December 2010
20:1983846Let us not confuse "prospects" with Education. Education is like oxygen and should be as freely available. It is what enables us to develop and grow, to think differently, maybe think around corners and into new avenues. It is what makes us Human, grows our intellect and introduces us to Life. This co-attrition government has demonstrated to the max where it stands and how it wants to filter and reduce access to Real Education. My first-line venom is focussed on the LibDems, but the whole lot are on the cusp of real hatred and a generation of people who will despise them. There is no way back. I long for a real, proper intellectual in Government. Ken Clarke does not make up for all the rest of the seriously limited and disappointing Cons.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
9 December 2010
20:2583847i can see where blue barry is coming from on this one, but there is another aspect.
another area we are short on is in the science field, presently we are importing them and there will be a shortfall due to the clampdown on non eu immigration.
any money spent on the egg heads that are scientifically minded is an important investment in our future, they would not be able to open a business and make an eventual profit like barry's client.
9 December 2010
20:3283849All education benefits the community in some way. It is all an investment - it doesn't have to result in someone earning megabucks to be of value.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
10 December 2010
06:3583869Education does not start at school and end at Uni, it is a life-long thing. Indeed I would suggest that you really start to learn when you are out in the world away from formal education.
When you start a business there is no greater learning curve with massive challenges. These business degrees are a joke when it comes to the real world of business and many of the really successful entrepeneurs get on with no formal education or qualifications at all. In fact a lot of degrees these days are a complete joke.
So I think the comparison stands. This is about making a commitment to your future, you can invest in it through education and get a decent science or other practical degree or start some real learning in the wide world and invest in starting a business.
Bern - Ken Clarke was once a good Chancellor of the Exchequer but as Lord Chancellor the man is a joke. He is THE weak link in the Conservatives in government, making far too many concession to the LDs.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
10 December 2010
09:2483880Once again I find myself agreeing with Barry.
The violence yesterday was from rent-a-mob people; if real students were perpetrating this, then they don't deserve a UNI education - it has nothing whatsoever to do with learning, or paying for that learning, at a UNI.
Whether graduates become successful businessmen/women or go into academia, they won't be paying anything back until they are earning at least £21,000 - what's wrong with that ?
They either are not reading the policy properly or just don't want to. I find their wanton violence, sickening.
Roger
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,706
10 December 2010
11:4083898Good post Barry
Bern equally makes a good point regarding the right to education
I still think that all of this misses the real need which is to fundamentally and radically restructure tertiary education so that it actually delivers what the state and employers needs and genuinely sets young people up for the future.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
10 December 2010
12:2383904Ross, you are right in terms of job skills, but there really is a wider picture relative to simply learning. My husbands first degree, for example, was a joint hons linguistics and philosophy - it opened up his thoughts and contributes to our relationship, his life, his ability to think, hius perceptions of the world - but it has no formal relationship to what he does for a living! These are the kinds of degrees that end up having to justify their existence because they don't necessarily lead to a work qualification, although they might if one pursued teaching or speech related therapy. My field is theology and the classics - no use whatever in the Real World!! But what a loss if we reduced access to this knowledge.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
10 December 2010
12:5483915let's throw another one in the mix, responsible parents stress to their offspring the importance of not getting into debt, rightly so.
even with the easy terms on offer it still means that they have a huge debt hanging over them beiore they even enter the world of work.
10 December 2010
13:0183918Absolutely - and all that guff about not paying it back until they are earning over £21k is nonsense- salaries rise incrementally, and the debt remains whenever one starts to pay it back. The principle sucks.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
10 December 2010
14:1783923It that right, Howard?
I have to disagree.
There is 'good debt' and 'bad debt'.
You can borrow as an investment and that is 'good debt'. That includes the purchase of a home, the setting up of a business or for training or education.
Bad debt for instance is where you borrow to buy the latest electronic wizardry or to cover living costs.
It is important to teach children the difference and to be responsible about borrowing, not to avoid it.
10 December 2010
16:4183935BarryW, I am afraid I have to own up to a weakness for Ken Clarke - I just rather enjoy listening to him in debate. My bad!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
10 December 2010
17:1683944Oh Bern - he is entertaining as a debater but it is sad that on social issues he is no better than any Labour leftie...
10 December 2010
17:3383951I think we will put it down to my guilty pleasures............and I will studiously avoid your gentle jibe at lefties!!!
Guest 694- Registered: 22 Mar 2010
- Posts: 778
10 December 2010
23:3084021hmm... well lets see what i think about this...
yes it is a debt but its what i consider a hidden debt, i dont pay it back til i am earning enough, its just like national insurance, you dont notice it coming out when you are earning as it never goes into your account to be taken back out...
i did get a nice letter from the Student Loan Company this year asking what exactly I was using to support myself, I responded with ask the DWP and Inland revenue how i was... as they are the two agencies who control the information and can provide that data to them...
they werent amused (i personally thought it was a good response! Would have highlighted rather a few issues!!) and then i had to provide evidence that my husband was earning pennies and supporting me
Luckily I have a job, but like Barry its an investment in my future and the income isnt to their liking but I have at least paid my NI for the year and will make a contribution to my student loan at the end of the year if i can financially do it..
I havent been watching or following the arguement very well, but maybe it will make universities more competitive, as some students wont be able to afford them, or it will make them more elitist with only the more wealthy able to afford it.
I was lucky whilst at Uni my mum and Dad helped with the tuition fees otherwise this would have also gone on to the eventual debt i have, but as i said before.. i dont count it as a normal debt!!
Students need to make the decision that is good for them, however, i dont think that all the riots that are going on are actually reflective of general opinion.. i have a few friends still at uni and they arent that fussed, and some friends who teach and they are finding that most students arent that interested at all.
11 December 2010
16:4984088No one has yet responded properly to the idea posed by me that actually at 18 the students are adults and parental income should not be means tested in relation to fees/charges/rippoffs.
Guest 694- Registered: 22 Mar 2010
- Posts: 778
11 December 2010
22:3084157Bern in an ideal world we shouldnt, but lets be honest, at 26 i still very much rely on my parents for help in all manner of ways and one day when i eventually try to buy a house i cant imagine i would be able to do it without them
Guest 650- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 542
12 December 2010
09:0384177It does seem unfair that parental income is taken into consideration when a person supposedly adult intends to go to university. On the other hand, it's realistic, in that most parents will contribute towards their child's undergraduate and even post-graduate career. There are quite a few parents who can afford to do so as well, and not miss the £1s.
However, there are parents who really can't, or students whose parents have nothing to do with them. For them there is extra help, such as bursaries from the universities, etc. (Though it should be said that even so, those just on a loan and a baursary usually struggle.)
Regarding student loans, it is the case that young people enter working life with a large amount of debt. It isn't inconsequential; it's considered when going for a mortage or other credit for example, and desp[ite the fact that terms seem easy in comparison with some other loans, it nevertheless can and does cause stress when there's an inability to pay anything off at all - and each year the statement comes through with bigger amounts on it. There's the worrying thought that terms could be changed retrospectively, There are also discussions about penalties for paying off early, and while I'm no financial guru, that suggests to me there's a little more agenda in there than merely providing support for students at university, while they aren't earning full-time (many students do have part-time jobs.) All that's before we start thinking about the further education some professionals will need before qualification, and how that's funded.
The greater part of a student loan goes on paying not tuition, but accommodation. That's my particular bugbear, that students are required to pay so much for this, whether university or privately-supplied. That, in a way, brings me on to another thought.
Anyway, I'd be inclined to suggest that before anyone can attend a higher education course, a prerequisite should be having worked a couple of years. There would be a number of advantages to this; earning (where possible, saving) saving money to help fund the course, gaining experience and a few life-skills, maybe discovering that university isn't for you after all.
There are, furthermore, a heap of degree-coutes now that could be studied without attending full-time university. With sufficient discipline it's possible to keep a full-time job and still gain a degree. There are also work-sponsored degrees.
Perhaps tuition fees, loans, etc, aren't really the issue - merely a crack that's showing that the whole system underneath needs a thorough re-thinking.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
12 December 2010
10:2584189True Maggie, most of the current cost of further education goes on accommodation and basic living costs. You raise some good points and as I always maintain not everyone should go to university.
A year or so of work would be a good thing, I even think some kind of national service would be good (not necessarily military) to engage all people with society. However I'm sure this would just reinforce the status quo of rich people getting better work placements in this period, ultimately making them more appealing to universities. Determinism strikes again.
The bottom line is cost and we can say goodbye to many professionals and innovators under this new policy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/only-a-quarter-of-all-graduates-will-pay-off-loans-2158168.html