I was reading the following[0, 1, 2, 3] news articles about the coming changes to the education loans. It looks like the government has started moving in the direction on what I have been proposing for few years now[4]. Except that I want the education system to be loan-free i.e. equity-based rather than loan-based.

A healthy debate is required on this topic to resolve this ever popping-up issue of student debt, otherwise the tax payers are ultimately going to foot the bills for not only falling education standards and unemployment, but also for the astronomical rise in unpaid student loans(expected to be 75% of more than half a trillion pounds by 2050).

[0] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/student-loan-repayments-25000-b984321.html

[1] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/fail-gsce-english-maths-blocked-from-student-loans-b984061.html (this one is really a bad policy, not just for working class, but for any class. What policy makers don’t understand is that every student is different. [Here is Khan Academy founder Salman Khan explaining it aptly.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MTRxRO5SRA)

[2] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-geoff-barton-english-alevels-gcse-b984320.html

[3] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/univerity-students-pay-back-loans-sooner-for-longer-b984209.html

[4] https://loan-free-ed.neocities.org

5 comments

  1. I agree a debate is needed. My view is that restricting numbers by academic qualification instead of finance is better. I am supportive of having to gain a GSCE or equivalent in Maths and English, to gain a place.

  2. The reason it’s so much money is because it’s a scam, the real cost of higher education is a small fraction of what students are ‘charged’.

    That is what needs to be fixed.

  3. The real problem is STEM students subsidising the education of those doing soft degrees such as drama, art etc who will never come close to the repayment threshold as there degree doesn’t actually add much to society.

  4. The thing that’s always overlooked in this debate is that if you want to restrict or reduce the number at university, you have to offer equally good alternatives.

    Not everyone is academic, and not everyone should go down the traditional academic pathway (A-levels and then university). But if you’re going to say that people shouldn’t (or can’t) go down that route, there needs to be a proper alternative, which gets the same funding, the same attention, and the same respect.

    All of the alternatives that have been tried (GNVQs, BTechs, T-Levels, apprenticeships, etc) have always been under-resourced, under-funded, and seen as second rate. Until they’re seen as equivalent, and until there is a proper alternative to a degree to check the box that many companies (stupidly) require, there is always going to be huge pressure for people to go to University even if it’s not the right thing for them – because the alternative is locking them out of many jobs, and potentially limiting their career options for the rest of their life.

  5. “The plans will include a suggestion that students who do not get 2 Es at A level or equivalent or at least a Grade 4 pass in English and Maths at GCSE are barred from getting a student loan, a DfE spokesperson said”

    The thing I don’t understand is, if getting two E’s at A-Level shouldn’t be a pre-requisite for going to university, why even have A-Levels?

    Why not just let people start on degree level courses after GCSE, if A-Levels aren’t some kind of pre-requisite learning stepping stone.

Leave a Reply