Thanks for a thoughtful piece. I’m not sure I agree with all of it, not least because people attend university for more than just a chance to enhance their incomes (cultural enrichment and pursuing research interests are good examples). However, I fully agree the Plan 2 interest rates are a scandal and they should be reset to inflation.
I do have one question though - can you really get into university in the UK if you’ve “failed your A levels” as you write? I thought there are minimum requirements of at least two passes at A levels?
Thank you - and I think one can disagree on the uni expansion point while still agreeing on Plan 2 interest rates!
Re your question, yes, minimum entry requirements were removed some time ago and you can now be admitted at 18, and get loan funding, with no qualifications at all, or with purely vocational qualifications. I would also say though that university should not generally be for those with just two Es or similar (of course, there should be second chances, ability to retake, the OU, for those who actually had potential but underperformed - but not just here's the loan, come on in).
Thanks. I suppose it is up to individual universities to determine their admissions criteria, and flexibility is warranted for those with no qualifications but strong professional experience for example, but allowing school leavers who have just failed their A levels access to student loans does seem a bit mad to me unless there are very compelling extenuating circumstances.
You can certainly go to university with vocational qualifications. Triple Distinction in a Level 3 Diploma is the same points as 3 x A grades at A-Level and plenty of universities make points offers. However, if you "fail your A-Levels" you have 0 points and (apart from the Open University, which has never had entry qualifications for most of it's courses) that's not the same thing.
The requirement to have passed two A-Levels to access state funding was abolished in 1980. You can have failed your A-Levels, have 0 tariff points, and still be admitted to university and access loan funding.
However, the paragraph we're discussing is just as valid if you replace 'failed their A-Levels' with 'got a D and an E at A-Level' or 'got a Level 2 BTEC'. It's no kindness to push young people without strong academic qualifications to university and load them up with debt.
How many people each year, sit A-Levels, get all U's, and then go to university (with SFE support)?
I'm not arguing against your thesis. I'm just saying that "failing your A-Levels" and going to university anyway isn't afaik a thing. Happy to be corrected on this, though.
If you'd said "got a D and an E" then I wouldn't be quibbling (<DDD is about 5% of entrants) but Jon was asking specifically about school leavers who had failed their A-Levels.
I'm going to query BTEC Level 2 as well. Are you saying people without Level 3 qualifications are going to university?
Make the university liable for student debt not repaid because the Mickey Mouse degree they supplied did not enable its holder to increase their earnings sufficiently.
Or just close down the useless ones. There will probably be some agreement on which the 50% worst performing institutions are.
The second graph doesn't seem to match the text around it. You appear to have a graph for someone with a debt that always accrues slower as their income rises, when your text describes someone with such a high debt that their debt goes faster for a period.
Ah, that is meant to be the graph for a graduate with a typical loan of £55,000. I've added a caption to make this clear and also moved the confusing paragraph to below the graph, instead of above it.
Brilliant breakdown of the Sisyphean trap built into Plan 2. The calculation showing grads need £66k just to keep pace with interst really lays bare how broken the system is. I've watched friends stuck in exactly this situaiton where they're making solid career progress but their debt just keeps climbing. What gets overlooked is the behavioral impact too, people delaying major life decisions knowing they're locked into what's effectively a 9% higher tax rate for decades.
Thanks for a thoughtful piece. I’m not sure I agree with all of it, not least because people attend university for more than just a chance to enhance their incomes (cultural enrichment and pursuing research interests are good examples). However, I fully agree the Plan 2 interest rates are a scandal and they should be reset to inflation.
I do have one question though - can you really get into university in the UK if you’ve “failed your A levels” as you write? I thought there are minimum requirements of at least two passes at A levels?
Thank you - and I think one can disagree on the uni expansion point while still agreeing on Plan 2 interest rates!
Re your question, yes, minimum entry requirements were removed some time ago and you can now be admitted at 18, and get loan funding, with no qualifications at all, or with purely vocational qualifications. I would also say though that university should not generally be for those with just two Es or similar (of course, there should be second chances, ability to retake, the OU, for those who actually had potential but underperformed - but not just here's the loan, come on in).
Thanks. I suppose it is up to individual universities to determine their admissions criteria, and flexibility is warranted for those with no qualifications but strong professional experience for example, but allowing school leavers who have just failed their A levels access to student loans does seem a bit mad to me unless there are very compelling extenuating circumstances.
You can certainly go to university with vocational qualifications. Triple Distinction in a Level 3 Diploma is the same points as 3 x A grades at A-Level and plenty of universities make points offers. However, if you "fail your A-Levels" you have 0 points and (apart from the Open University, which has never had entry qualifications for most of it's courses) that's not the same thing.
The requirement to have passed two A-Levels to access state funding was abolished in 1980. You can have failed your A-Levels, have 0 tariff points, and still be admitted to university and access loan funding.
However, the paragraph we're discussing is just as valid if you replace 'failed their A-Levels' with 'got a D and an E at A-Level' or 'got a Level 2 BTEC'. It's no kindness to push young people without strong academic qualifications to university and load them up with debt.
How many people each year, sit A-Levels, get all U's, and then go to university (with SFE support)?
I'm not arguing against your thesis. I'm just saying that "failing your A-Levels" and going to university anyway isn't afaik a thing. Happy to be corrected on this, though.
If you'd said "got a D and an E" then I wouldn't be quibbling (<DDD is about 5% of entrants) but Jon was asking specifically about school leavers who had failed their A-Levels.
I'm going to query BTEC Level 2 as well. Are you saying people without Level 3 qualifications are going to university?
Here's an idea.
Make the university liable for student debt not repaid because the Mickey Mouse degree they supplied did not enable its holder to increase their earnings sufficiently.
Or just close down the useless ones. There will probably be some agreement on which the 50% worst performing institutions are.
The second graph doesn't seem to match the text around it. You appear to have a graph for someone with a debt that always accrues slower as their income rises, when your text describes someone with such a high debt that their debt goes faster for a period.
Ah, that is meant to be the graph for a graduate with a typical loan of £55,000. I've added a caption to make this clear and also moved the confusing paragraph to below the graph, instead of above it.
Brilliant breakdown of the Sisyphean trap built into Plan 2. The calculation showing grads need £66k just to keep pace with interst really lays bare how broken the system is. I've watched friends stuck in exactly this situaiton where they're making solid career progress but their debt just keeps climbing. What gets overlooked is the behavioral impact too, people delaying major life decisions knowing they're locked into what's effectively a 9% higher tax rate for decades.
Absolutely!