Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn; more than predicted


10:05 am - August 25th 2011

by Martin Williams    


      Share on Tumblr

New figures released by the government have revealed that the rise to university tuition fees will cause a £124bn increase in personal debt.

Total student debt will continue to rise until 2047, when it will peak at an estimated £191bn.

This compares to official predictions made before the fees hike, which showed that debt would peak in 2027 at just £67bn.

A forecast of student debt levels was sent to Liberal Conspiracy following a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.

The figures also show that, by the year 2032, an average graduate can expect to have £31,000 of debt after leaving university.

The department explained the forecast saying:

Average fee loans are assumed to be just over £7,500 in 2012/13 and both maintenance and fee loans are assumed to increase in line with inflation every year between then and 2050-51.

However, more than a third of English universities are set to charge the maximum of £9,000 and figures from the Office of Fair Access estimate the average fee to be £8,393 – not £7,500. This could mean that the peak total debt could end up being considerably more than even the official estimates suggest.

The National Union of Students told Liberal Conspiracy

It comes as no surprise that the changes in the higher education funding system will plunge a generation into debt. No matter how the repayment system is constructed or how much some might claim that concern about debt and an incredibly complex system are not a deterrent from university, there is still a very real danger that many young people will be put off.

The headline debt figures are hugely worrying and they are coupled with the fact that the amount of financial support going directly into students’ pocket will actually decrease by 2015. The Government are presiding over a mess of their own creation and it is students that are paying the price.

LC exclusive: Student Debt Forecast


Some figures from this story were released to the Independent on Sunday earlier. Here, we publish the full details from the FOI request.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Martin is a regular contributor, and a freelance journalist. He has written for the Guardian, The Independent, The Sun and The Mirror. He blogs at Access Docs and focuses on FOI and investigative journalism. His own website is here.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


However the amount of debt the “student” holds is pretty irrelevant as an average, given the timeout clause to wipe the debt off at 30 years. It’s not really fair to say that the student has this debt, it’s more accurate to describe that they have an obligation to pay a graduate tax within certain conditions, up to a certain capped amount, during a certain period of time.

The concern with the policy is about public debt, not about student debt, in general terms.

“New figures released by the government have revealed that the rise to university tuition fees will cause a £124bn increase in personal debt.”

The alternative would be for this to be public debt. Much fairer to charge those who benefit. Hopefully it will encourage potential students to consider whether going to university is the right choice.

Fungus – it will be easier to answer ‘yes’ if your parents are affluent and supportive.

4. the a&e charge nurse

[3] spot on Sarah – I have no doubt the financial consequences of higher education will prove a huge mill stone for many ordinary families?

People can dress the debt up in whatever language they like – but any graduate saddled with a £50k financial commitment (who is not from a wealthyish home) will find subsequent life choices significantly curtailed.

Tony introduced this form of debt in ’97 – instead of the mantra, “education, education, education” – perhaps a more appropriate phrase might have been, “debt, debt, debt”?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/943374.stm

5. the a&e charge nurse

[1] “it’s more accurate to describe that they have an obligation to pay a graduate tax”, so why stop at £50k – surely there must be more scope to increase this, err, “graduate tax” (after all it’s only been tripled this time – and presumably will never go down).

Since 16 year olds can enter the work force cannot we not introduce a similar sort of tax for A-level students – this group will presumably do better in the workplace than those who fail to obtain A-levels?

Why should we subsidise A-level students but not degree student?

6. the a&e charge nurse

[1] “it’s more accurate to describe that they have an obligation to pay a graduate tax”, so why stop at £50k – surely there must be more scope to increase this, err, “graduate tax” (after all it’s only been tripled this time – and presumably will never go down).

Since 16 year olds can enter the work force cannot we not introduce a similar sort of tax for A-level students – this group will presumably do better in the workplace than those who fail to obtain A-levels?

Why should the poor old tax payer subsidise the selfish A-level students while degree student have to pay through the nose, sorry, I meant pay a “graduate tax”?

“but any graduate saddled with a £50k financial commitment (who is not from a wealthyish home) will find subsequent life choices significantly curtailed.”

Nonsense.

“Why should we subsidise A-level students but not degree student?”

I’m with you, all HE students should have their education paid for by the state and through general taxation. This latest model does MORE to go down this route, not less, even if certain individuals do end up paying more for their education too.

Agreed. It’s an accounting trick, that’s all. Imagine that the government decides that to fund the services the government provides that allow people to find jobs, allow companies to prosper in a mostly stable economy, provide for basic training, etc. the government will require its residents to take out an “employment support services loan” – say £200,000 a year, from birth, to reflect the direct and indirect value that the government provides to you.

The repayment terms will be straightforward. You will be allowed to keep around £7,500 of income before the government starts collecting. You will then repay
– 20% of the first £35k of income each year
– 40% of the next £115k of income
– 50% of any further income.
If your income falls, or you lose your job, then payments will automatically be reduced or suspended until you get back on your feet. Furthermore, to avoid unnecessarily burdening your next-of-kin, in the event that you die before the loan is repaid, the debt will be written off.

However, because these loan repayments are being taken out of your income, the government will abolish income tax.

On paper, everyone is now several million pounds in debt – figures that make current “graduate debt” look insignificant. In practice, of course, nothing has changed – the “loan repayments” are identical in size to the previous “income tax”. (Unless you’re really super-rich, in which case you can theoretically pay them off, so I don’t actually recommend doing this)

Counting what is effectively a future tax liability in the same category as credit card debt, mortgages, personal loans, etc. – where if you fall behind in payments or default there are actually negative consequences – is entirely misleading. It also means that any actual rise in student debt from credit cards, personal loans, etc. – a rise that one would really need to be concerned about because that could make education unaffordable except for the rich! – will be completely masked by the rise in fake debt.

10. the a&e charge nurse

[7] “Nonsense” – well take a look at a few comments from the States (about the consequences of student debt)
http://misplacededucation.blogspot.com/

The same misery is unfolding here.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/08/25/stratospheric-post-grad-fees-are-creating-a-socially-exclusive-elite/

@Lee Griffin “It’s not really fair to say that the student has this debt”

I’d be surprised to hear a bank manager saying that when it comes time for them to apply for a mortgage….

Turning to the article and the new figures being released after the fees hike has gone through, statistical fiascos like this seems to be happening rather a lot of late, notably with the suddenly explicable ‘inexplicable’ rise in DLA claimants used to justify the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, not to mention some extremely odd presumptions in DWP’s figures on how people feel about work and health and the hammering given to DWP by both the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and the UK Statistical Authority over their handling of ESA stats, and then there was UKSA’s intervention on that minor little statistic, the quarterly GNP figures.

Has the Civil Service forgotten how to do stats? Or is their ability to do stats being compromised by political pressure?

DavidG: I’d be surprised to hear a bank manager saying that when it comes time for them to apply for a mortgage….

Well, they should take repayments from it into account when considering net income, in that someone with student loan debt is going to have a marginally lower net salary than someone without, for the same pre-tax salary. Since for someone on a (good!) 30k gross salary, the student loan repayments will be a fairly small (for them) £67.5/month I can’t imagine it affecting their mortgage eligibility much unless the bank manager completely messes up and enters it as if it were a secured loan or credit card balance (or something else where people actually get upset if you don’t pay it back quickly)

Certainly agreed that the government completely and almost certainly deliberately miscalculated the likely fee levels to get it through Parliament. The only odd thing is that there are actually universities [1] charging less than £9k fees for their courses at all, since the market incentives are so completely backwards that it actually makes most sense to ignore price entirely, and only consider course quality.

[1] Open University excepted, since that’s got a rather different market for its courses, and so has good reasons to significantly undercharge – it has to attract people who won’t be eligible for standard student loans.

13. the a&e charge nurse

[11] “someone with student loan debt is going to have a marginally lower net salary than someone without” – so a young adult with a mega-debt can breeze into the property market, and will have no problem paying off their Uni debt as well as securing a deposit and having enough over to actually afford mortgage repayments?
Yes, I’m sure this will be the case for most of our lucky graduates?

By the way, if it’s all so simple why can’t we squeeze a bit more out of them?
This year £9k for tuition fees (plus rent and living expenses) – next year, well why not aim for the stars and make it a round £10k, or even higher – I mean, at what point do even reasonably wealthy families start sweating a bit?

Remember Tony Blair’s prescient promise, “debt, debt, debt”, sorry, I meant “education, education, education” – how right he was.

“I’d be surprised to hear a bank manager saying that when it comes time for them to apply for a mortgage….”

It’s no more relevant as “debt” to a bank manager as how much income tax you pay is. What matters to bank managers is disposable income, hence why the situation with your student loan repayments is taken in to account (if they are even taken in to account)

“I mean, at what point do even reasonably wealthy families start sweating a bit?”

You’ve been sucked in to the Labour/Left rhetoric on this, and it’s just not helpful. The wealthy won’t sweat because the value of the loan is inconsequential compared to the terms of repayment.

You could put it up to 100k, it wouldn’t make any difference on the student if the repayment terms (i.e. a percentage of income paid back each year, wiped out after 30 years, not payable until you earn 21k). Hell, you could put it up to 1 million pounds. It wouldn’t change how much that person is likely to pay off for the 30 year term. The only difference is how long they pay this extra tax (in that barely anyone would pay it off before 30 years if it were that high).

In fact some might argue that it would be a good idea to raise fees even further, that way if the super rich really do want to avoid paying this 30 year tax, they have to pay *more* than the average person would do in that 30 years before their “debt” got written off.

This system of fee funding, as abhorrent as it is from the perspective of HE being a system that SHOULD be paid for by general taxation alone, is no more stopping the poor and helping the wealthy than an income tax on earnings over ~£7k is a barrier to getting work.

@11 – “… someone with student loan debt is going to have a marginally lower net salary than someone without, for the same pre-tax salary.”

I’m not sure I’d call student loan repayments “marginal”.

I was one of the ‘lucky’ ones, who accrued a mere £10,000 in student loan debt when fees were something like £3,200 p.a.

The repayment threshold is £15,000 and the rate 9% so I suffer total deductions from my gross salary of 41% above this amount (20% income tax, 12% national insurance, 9% loan repayments).

This is just 1% lower than the marginal rate paid by, say, an MP (40% income tax + 2% NI = 42%) – most of whom probably got ‘free’ university education anyway – and yes, that extra 9% makes a big difference.

As I said, I’m one of the lucky ones in that I may well have the debt cleared by the time I’m 30. By raising the repayment threshold, increasing the debt burden and charging real rates of interest for the next lot of students, the government has essentially condemned a generation to pay higher rates of tax on average salaries into their 50s.

16. Leon Wolfson

As someone who teaches in the UK university system?

If you pay these fees for anything except Oxbridge, you are already de-facto too stupid to deserve a degree, although it’ll become impossible (it’s already very hard today) to fail a degree. There are far cheaper foreign degrees, of deacent quality and where you will learn a foreign language and have a much better student experience.

17. the a&e charge nurse

[13] “You’ve been sucked in to the Labour/Left rhetoric on this” – nothing to do with left rhetoric (and since Labour introduced tuition fees I’m not sure why you have made reference to them).

Perhaps you need to understand that £50k is REAL money and unfortunately graduates cannot ask for endless bail outs like certain banks, or irresponsible governments.

Life is already hard enough for young people so introducing debt culture as a consequence of aspiration (in the guise of higher education) is a dreadful mistake in my opinion.

If nothing else, those deeply in hock to the state will be far easier to push around?

Argue as much as you like that it is a trifle to pay back £50k (or presumably higher sums in the future) but very few will agree with you – you haven’t forgotten the tuition fee demos already, have you?

@ 16:

“and since Labour introduced tuition fees I’m not sure why you have made reference to them”

Labour may have introduced tuition fees, but they were vocally (and at times almost hysterically) opposed to the increase.

As for the whole “making it harder to get a mortgage” business — student loans are only paid back once you earn over a certain amount, much like income tax. In fact, they are as far as I can see functionally identical to an extra form of income tax (other than the fact that you stop paying it after a certain point, that is). Given this, why would bank managers treat it like a normal loan, rather than just another form of tax? The money has to be raised somehow; if not by student fees, then by higher taxes. Nobody seems to think that higher taxes would make it harder to get a mortgage, so why should higher student loans be any different?

J/14: By raising the repayment threshold, increasing the debt burden and charging real rates of interest for the next lot of students, the government has essentially condemned a generation to pay higher rates of tax on average salaries into their 50s.

One might call it a … graduate tax? Just like NUS and the Left and the rest were proposing, perhaps? (Actually, the government scheme makes poorer graduates pay less – and richer graduates pay more – than the NUS proposals, which is all sorts of wrong)

“on average salaries”

Given that the median salary is less than £21k at the moment, someone on an actually average salary will be making no repayments at all, and the size of the loan then becomes irrelevant. (They can be like the trainee vicars I met who knew that their student loan was free money since they would never be earning enough to exceed the repayment threshold)

Maybe we should call it a “graduate bet”. The government bets you that getting a degree will let you earn more money than half the country does. If it’s right, you pay it a small part of that money. If it’s wrong, you get your degree for free. Sounds good to me.

Leon Wolfson/15: There are far cheaper foreign degrees

I hear they expect you to actually pay the fees for those, though, as opposed to some of the fees. If it’s not too inconvenient. Maybe.

a&e/16: Perhaps you need to understand that £50k is REAL money and unfortunately graduates cannot ask for endless bail outs like certain banks, or irresponsible governments.

“Whatever you haven’t paid after 30 years gets written off without penalty” sounds like one excellent “bail out” to me. I wish I could get a mortgage on those terms, and I bet the government wishes it could get people to lend it money on those terms, too!

Meanwhile, the future income tax liability of someone earning median wage for 40 years will be around £260k. Also REAL money. Not generally considered a reason to abolish income tax, or a super-huge burden that will put people off going to work because how will they ever afford that much.

you haven’t forgotten the tuition fee demos already, have you?

Of course not. They were mistaken then, too.

I quite confidently predict that the student application numbers in 2013 will be higher than those in 2010 (2011 and 2012 excluded because applicant panic has meant that the deferral rates for those years are going to be odd)

“One might call it a … graduate tax? Just like NUS and the Left and the rest were proposing, perhaps?”

Call it whatever you like. I think Labour’s proposals (and those of the NUS) were utter wank, but that doesn’t invalidate my point. Graduates earning the median income (ONS data April 2010 – median gross weekly earnings: £499 = £25,948 p.a.) will pay a marginal rate of ‘tax’ just 1% lower than all sorts of tossers earning up to £100K.

What’s the new threshold? £23K? And am I right in thinking it’s not index-linked, so in real terms it actually falls each year CPI / RPI > 0%? How many people do you think will be earning under £23K in today’s terms, in 20 years?

Are the loans made by private companies or the government? Does the government back the loans in any way? I’m asking because this is an awful lot of money someone is finding from somewhere, and if it’s government money then isn’t it the taxpayer who’s the fall guy for any defaults?

I’d like to know how they analyse the likelihood of people defaulting or never passing the repayment threshold.

22. Charlieman

@OP, Martin Williams: “However, more than a third of English universities are set to charge the maximum of £9,000 and figures from the Office of Fair Access estimate the average fee to be £8,393 – not £7,500.”

The average level of fees may be an unforeseen consequence of the government decision to require universities to provide bursaries to students from poorer family backgrounds. I am not opposed to bursaries but I can see a problem created by setting targets.

If the target for a course is one or two students on a bursary, it is appealing to university administrators to boost that number to two or three. It allows the university to boast that it is not elitist and guarantees that every course has a few poorer students. However, universities do not receive more grant for paying more bursaries; they fund the extra bursaries by increasing fees for courses, thus raising the average.

A further factor that increases fees are bursaries paid to high achieving A Level students. Universities that have not fully established themselves in UK or world rankings say that they will offer a nice sum (£2,000 per year, I have heard mentioned) to students who achieve two subject relevant A Levels at Grade A. That’s another upwards notch for average fees, which is more likely to benefit students from more privileged backgrounds.


My compliments to cim and Lee for their robust defence of the new loan system. The system is a very clever way to collect modest, appropriate fees from graduates who do not become rich and to collect up to £27,000 from graduates who get rich. Nationals from other EU countries pay the same fees as home students, but they will have to pay it up front, no loans for them. Unless their country has a student funding mechanism that is as civilised as the new loan system, they’ll pay the full whack, irrespective of circumstances, up to £27,000.

No student funding system is perfect (I have made my criticisms), but much of the alleged analysis concentrates on UK graduates paying back £27,000 which is a minority case. If you analyse the majority of graduates or the minority on low wages, loan fee payback is not onerous.

23. the a&e charge nurse

[18] “I quite confidently predict that the student application numbers in 2013 will be higher than those in 2010 (2011 and 2012 excluded because applicant panic has meant that the deferral rates for those years are going to be odd)” – yes, a sign of how desperate things are these, especially given the influx of labour from the EU.

As LW says [15] “If you pay these fees for anything except Oxbridge, you are already de-facto too stupid to deserve a degree” – I assume he means by this that the balance between the status of a degree and the economic benefits have dwindled to such a degree that a sigificant proportion of those who enter university will, in time, regret ever having done so (because of the financial albatross hanging round their neck for decades).

Perhaps this unfortunate cohort will be comforted by the fact that others borrowers face even greater levels of personal debt, and will try to overlook the fact that until Blair’s obsession with market solutions England was able to educate people to degree level without saddling them with crippling debt.

By the way did you know that an English student attending Edinburgh university has to pay tuition fees while a student from Scotland does not?

I assume like Lee Griffin you favour charging for education as soon as students are old enough to enter the work place (given the advantages associated with A-levels)

24. Charlieman

@20. Cherub: “Are the loans made by private companies or the government? Does the government back the loans in any way? I’m asking because this is an awful lot of money someone is finding from somewhere, and if it’s government money then isn’t it the taxpayer who’s the fall guy for any defaults?”

In practice, it is a government loan. The loan is designed for “default”. In an ideal world, every graduate would be in a financial position to pay back a fee loan over twenty or thirty years. The loan system works on reality, acknowledging that some graduates will earn modest incomes during their working lives, and payback works accordingly. If a graduate salary is £30,000 per year (inflation adjusted), the individual will pay off some of the loan but not all of it. At a cut off point in time, the loan is written off and the government pays the outstanding loan.

The important thing to understand is that graduates are not required to pay back fee loans if they don’t earn enough. The payback system for student loans is designed around the idea of “default” by many, possibly the majority. I put “default” in quotes, because student loans are not a conventional financial transaction.

@10. David G: “@Lee Griffin “It’s not really fair to say that the student has this debt”

I’d be surprised to hear a bank manager saying that when it comes time for them to apply for a mortgage…”

I’d welcome a comment from accountancy experts about this. My presumption is that payback on a university fee loan is treated in the same way as, say, child support maintenance; it reduces your net income, and that you get a loan on anticipated net income.

Further to that, would possession of a fee loan be regarded as a red mark by credit rating agencies?

25. Charlieman

@15. Leon Wolfson: “If you pay these fees for anything except Oxbridge, you are already de-facto too stupid to deserve a degree…”

Come on, Leon. Are you really suggesting that bright physicists and engineers skip Imperial College? That bright economists skip the LSE? Those two examples are cliches, but over a couple of minutes looking at the prospectuses of UK universities we’d find hundreds of courses that are best studied outside of Oxbridge and where the foreign alternative is Very Expensive.

26. the a&e charge nurse

Hey, remember this – even poor old Nick Clegg seems to be confused when it comes to tuition fees?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_AMABsBNgw&feature=related

“Perhaps you need to understand that £50k is REAL money and unfortunately graduates cannot ask for endless bail outs like certain banks, or irresponsible governments.”

It’s not real money though, it’s potentially real money. It may not turn out to be £50k, it may even turn out to be more than £50k (and this is where my only real objection to the scheme outside my general objection to anything other than HE being funded entirely through general taxation) due to interest charges. The student is bailed out the moment 30 years has passed, I’d not be surprised if we have all kinds of controversy in the future when wealthy students set up their own businesses in such a way that they really minimise their student loan repayments.

You can call it “real money” because it’s a number on a piece of paper, but in practical terms, in every day terms, it is not.

Let’s say you are a student that goes on to earn £21k, you don’t earn more than the country’s wage inflation…you are a model “average income earner”. You never pay anything back. Ever. Say you’re more successful…you will be charged for the benefits your degree has given you.

Would you have commanded that 35k salary without a degree? If you would have then that is a shame, and a part of the problem with our HE system and the way we are forced to choose such defined paths so early in life. But if you’ve been bumped even just £1k or £2k above what you could have got without a degree you are better off despite also being in “debt”.

This is why debt is such a bad term, it’s nearer to “investment” or “taxable circumstances”. If you could earn £23k as starting rather than £19k (two completely plucked from the air figures) due to going to university and getting a degree, you are £4k better off. Take off the student repayments and that is still *better off* as the repayment rate is not 100% or higher.

“Graduates earning the median income (ONS data April 2010 – median gross weekly earnings: £499 = £25,948 p.a.) will pay a marginal rate of ‘tax’ just 1% lower than all sorts of tossers earning up to £100K.”

\No they won’t. 20% plus 9% is 39%, and those earning up to £100k pay 50%.

Also, this is a real value of £450 a year, pre-tax. A drop of 2% on their real salary. Factored in to the facts that we do know about how much more a graduate can demand over his or her lifetime (which is more likely as you go above the median salary, not less) that is still a good investment for the student, to the tune of £2k a year or there abouts if we’re being quite general. (http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/do-graduates-earn-100000-more-than-non-graduates/3477).

“And am I right in thinking it’s not index-linked”

No, it is linked to wage inflation.

“I assume like Lee Griffin you favour charging for education as soon as students are old enough to enter the work place ”

I’ve been quite clear that I favour all education to be free and paid for by the state, or at least most education including all undergraduate Higher Education. But if the choice was to remain with the old system which both didn’t provide enough money to HE and meant those earning een significantly below average wage would be struck with a bill, or this system whereby those that can’t afford it easily don’t have to pay it back, and the HE system gets a funding boost it desperately needs….I’ll take the latter for the time being.

“\No they won’t. 20% plus 9% is 39%, and those earning up to £100k pay 50%.”

Ignore this brain fart, re-read over and don’t know why I made this mistake.

29. the a&e charge nurse

[27] “You can call it “real money” because it’s a number on a piece of paper, but in practical terms, in every day terms, it is not” – I am now beginning to feel that I am living in a parallel universe.

Lets imagine a graduate is not one of the 20% unable to find work after leaving Uni. There are well over half a million applicants this year so I guess there must be around 100,000 unable to get work – a mixed blessing, perhaps in the current climate?

But let’s imagine a graduate is lucky enough to secure a job and is earning say £30k.
According to the student loan repayment calculator repayments amount to £112.50 per month – are you saying this money is not real?
http://www.118student.co.uk/finance/loan-calculator.html

Now when I last looked utility bills, transport costs, etc were not going down and I would imagine that >£100 is a sizable chunk of money to lose for any young person who is trying to make their way in the world?
Certainly for anybody living in the SE the prospect of home ownership (without other serious assets) will now be something of a pipe dream for many, or even most graduates.

I also find it very interesting that the joint leader of the country is shouting down tuition fees on Tuesday, yet by Wednesday has adopted a diametrically opposed point of view – how can any other utterance by this man be taken seriously after such a volte-face – these are are the sort of political figures that would not look out of place on ‘Animal Farm’.

I assume you are appalled Scottish students are not being saddled with comparable levels of debt to their English counterparts? – this insult can only be exacerbated by the fact English students pay tuition fees in Scotland while Scottish students are lucky enough to be educated in a system that mirrored England’s until Tony and his crew realised the exciting possibilities associated with long term debt culture?

All we need is the correct linguistic approach to persuade the next generation of students that a debt is not really a debt?

30. the a&e charge nurse

[27] “You can call it “real money” because it’s a number on a piece of paper, but in practical terms, in every day terms, it is not” – I am now beginning to feel that I am living in a parallel universe.

Lets imagine a graduate is not one of the 20% unable to find work after leaving Uni. There are well over half a million applicants this year so I guess there must be around 100,000 unable to get work – a mixed blessing, perhaps in the current climate?

But let’s imagine a graduate is lucky enough to secure a job and is earning say £30k.
According to the student loan repayment calculator repayments amount to £112.50 per month – are you saying this money is not real?

Now when I last looked utility bills, transport costs, etc were not going down and I would imagine that >£100 is a sizable chunk of money to lose for any young person who is trying to make their way in the world?
Certainly for anybody living in the SE the prospect of home ownership (without other serious assets) will now be something of a pipe dream for many, or even most graduates.

I also find it very interesting that the joint leader of the country is shouting down tuition fees on Tuesday, yet by Wednesday has adopted a diametrically opposed point of view – how can any other utterance by this man be taken seriously after such a volte-face – these are are the sort of political figures that would not look out of place on ‘Animal Farm’.

I assume you are appalled Scottish students are not being saddled with comparable levels of debt to their English counterparts? – this insult can only be exacerbated by the fact English students pay tuition fees in Scotland while Scottish students are lucky enough to be educated in a system that mirrored England’s until Tony and his crew realised the exciting possibilities associated with long term debt culture?

All we need is the correct linguistic approach to persuade the next generation of students that a debt is not really a debt?

a&e/29: But let’s imagine a graduate is lucky enough to secure a job and is earning say £30k. According to the student loan repayment calculator repayments amount to £112.50 per month – are you saying this money is not real?

That’s on the old 9% over £15k threshold. On the 2012-onwards 9% over £21k threshold, they’d only repay £67.50 a month.

So the new plan gives them an extra £45 a month (in real money) immediately compared with a graduate on the same salary under the current scheme. That’s definitely real money.

Our current graduate will have a loan debt of around £21k for a 3 year course. At £112.50 a month, this will take about 15 years to repay (assuming their income stays constant in real terms)

Our new graduate will have a theoretical loan debt of around £40k for the same course (assuming £9k fees), plus some irrelevant interest. At £67.50 a month (again, assuming constant real income), they will repay £24k of this over 30 years, with the remainder being written off.

So – the fees have tripled, and the amount repaid by the graduate over 30 years … goes up by £3k, or £100 extra a year – £8 a month – on average. Furthermore, for the first 15 years, the new graduate pays less each month.

For a four year course, the old graduate will have about £28k in debt, and the new graduate around £53k. Old graduate will be making repayments at £112.50 a month for just under 20 years. New graduate will still be making repayments of £67.50 for 30 years, and then the rest gets written off as before. The new graduate will actually repay less money in total than the old graduate, and have more money each month for the first 20(ish) years after graduation.

Furthermore, the extra £13k of “debt” for the new graduate results in … £0.00 extra repayments. That “debt” is not “real money” because its existence does not affect the graduate’s finances at all. Indeed, a graduate of a 3-year course at a university with only £4.5k fees will repay exactly the same amount total and per month as a graduate of a 4-year course with £9k fees, provided that their average real earnings are around £30k for the next 30 years.

“are you saying this money is not real?”

I’m saying it’s a tax liability, but then you’ve shifted the goalposts now. Only a moron would be saying it isn’t a payment to be made, that there is a financial consequence of this whole thing… but will that person earning £30k (which I assume wouldn’t be a starting salary for the vast majority) pay off the full £50k you’re talking about? No! So to talk of £50k as “real money” is ridiculous, especially as the only people that will be in a position of paying back everything they owe (excluding interest) will be very comfortable middle-income earners at least.

I’m not saying it’s ideal, as I caveat every time, but it isn’t the situation of having “subsequent life choices significantly curtailed” as you tried to claim at the beginning of this thread, either.

“Now when I last looked utility bills, transport costs, etc were not going down and I would imagine that >£100 is a sizable chunk of money to lose for any young person who is trying to make their way in the world?”

There is a very rough trend that someone who is able to do work without a degree in a sector will earn 25% less than someone with a degree. You say £100pm is a large chunk to lose, I say £300pm is a lot to gain (highest starting salary for graduates where you could get a job without a degree is nearer £25-26k).

The student loan is an investment in your future, and if it doesn’t pay off then you don’t even have to pay it off. It’s a phenomenally good deal as far as “getting in to debt” goes.

“Certainly for anybody living in the SE the prospect of home ownership (without other serious assets) will now be something of a pipe dream for many, or even most graduates.”

The prospect is already a pipe dream, high paying job or not. But, thankfully, those with a degree will be in a much better position to save for a deposit. And since repayments are almost never the factor in someone not getting a mortgage, and this loan doesn’t count as a debt to mortgage managers. Arguably the fact that they (and their parents) don’t have to pump >£5k in to HE up front means those wanting to get on the housing ladder have much better prospects than half a decade ago.

“I also find it very interesting that the joint leader of the country is shouting down tuition fees on Tuesday, yet by Wednesday has adopted a diametrically opposed point of view”

Interesting? The Lib Dems have played a blinder as far as I’m concerned. They’ve made HE free for those that don’t take the benefit from it, they have moved the burden that is on students currently further towards those who are more wealthy, and increased the amount of debt free courses that have to be provided to the currently poor. They’ve got a situation where the debt build up is going to be massive over the course of 30 years, and there will be an ideological battle set that either states that universities have to go fully in to a market model with students paying 100% of their education as a TRUE debt, or that the state finally accepts that (with HE economic and delivery reform) they have to fund HE through general taxation.

He said one day that he was against tutition fees, the next he has helped craft a system which is fairer on students than the last system under the pressure of a Tory government that would fully marketise the HE system if they had the chance.

Interesting is how he and the Lib Dems managed to achieved such a big damn win on this one under the circumstances.

“I assume you are appalled Scottish students are not being saddled with comparable levels of debt to their English counterparts?”

I don’t care much either way, Scotland has it’s own model, and those from outside of Scotland that wish to study up there will have all the facts in advance. I don’t much complain about how much those choosing to go study in America have to pay either, how other countries wish to run their higher education is their business.

33. the a&e charge nurse

[30] “New graduate will still be making repayments of £67.50 for 30 years, and then the rest gets written off as before” – think about it cim – not that long ago Uni students did not have to pay ANY tuition fees, until Tony and his marketeer friends decided that long term hoc (PFI’s, tuition fees, etc) were the answer to all our problems.

If £50k is not real money why did Tony not introduce such charges from day 1, hell why not £100k as either you or LG might have suggested?

The simple answer is that unpopular measures can be ushered in with less resistance if done incrementally (as the covert and gradual privatisation of the NHS demonstrates).

Nobody would have stood for £50k in 1997 but now the principle has become established why not chance your arm by tripling charges?
Perhaps in order to soften this blow (tripling of fees) repayments will start at a modest level (one way to avert more pesky student demonstrations, I suppose) but once the principle is established repayment regimes will (in time) will become far less friendly, such is the unwritten rule of incremental increases.

It sounds almost quaint saying, ahh, but today monthly repayments are a mere 67 quid (even though this financial commitment lasts far longer than most so called life sentences) but the principle of incremental increase virtually guarantees that rather like tuition fees themselves a tripling of repayment may be just round the corner, or whenever the UK economy is next squeezed.

Incidentally, I am not surprised to hear LG say he has no view on the situation in Scotland, which, when the argument suits, becomes a remote entity with no bearing on what else is going on in the UK.

My guess is that the already socially divisive elements of University education will not be ameliorated by burgeoning tuition fees and life long repayment schemes – well the die is already cast – we will just have to see how it all plays out?

a&e: If £50k is not real money why did Tony not introduce such charges from day 1, hell why not £100k as either you or LG might have suggested?

Because there’s no point in charging such high fees under this system. Most graduates won’t repay anywhere near all of a £50k debt – so the government through general taxation will pay for the writeoff. Raise it to £100k and all you do is add another £50k of general taxation writeoff, and there are easier ways to give £50k per student to universities.

And the original fees introduced in 1998 were up-front fees, which quite obviously couldn’t have been put at high levels. The change in 2003 was only able to increase them to £3k because it was a taxation-style fee rather than an up-front fee.

once the principle is established repayment regimes will (in time) will become far less friendly

Well, the repayment arrangements for existing debt can’t be changed. Not even if the economy is a mess and the government needs some money. That’s a big advantage to the graduate of doing it this way (compared with paying through traditional taxation, which of course governments can and do raise when they need the money)

It sounds almost quaint saying, ahh, but today monthly repayments are a mere 67 quid

Your arguments about a slippery slope are fair enough, but even more effective when applied to income tax (or indeed any tax).

Monthly payments on a £20k, £30k and £50k gross salary:
Student loan: £0, £68, £218
Income Tax: £209, £375, £834

Maximum Duration of payments:
Student loan: 30 years, after graduation only
Income Tax: unlimited, including before graduation

Maximum Size of payments:
Student loan: variable limit, almost certainly well under £60k in practice
Income Tax: unlimited, almost certainly over £250k in practice

Scope for future increases:
Student loan: future governments cannot change your payment levels at all
Income tax: future governments can change your payment levels arbitrarily

Who pays:
Student loan: graduates
Income tax: graduates, non-graduates, and people who’ve never even seen a university

35. Leon Wolfson

@19 – There are finance agreements available, of course, within the EU. It varies by country, but still ends up far, far cheaper.

@21 – It’s pure government debt, basically. The taxpayer is laying out for this. It won’t be cheaper either in the short or long run than the existing system, which is already extortionately expensive compared to civilised countries

@24 – Student loans since 1998 do NOT affect your credit rating, they’re a payslip deduction rather than credit per the ratings agencies. Pre-1998 loan non-payment can be reported to them.

@31 – “this loan doesn’t count as a debt to mortgage managers”

Untrue. This has changed since 2008, it’s now counted against your income.

Moreover, a salary premium of, say, £25,000 over your working lifetime counts for little if you end up paying £30k+ in repayments. All you’ve done is wasted three years of your life.

“The simple answer is that unpopular measures can be ushered in with less resistance if done incrementally (as the covert and gradual privatisation of the NHS demonstrates).”

Unpopular doesn’t always mean “actually bad”, as this case shows. Both changes to the university fees system has enabled a better ease of access for aspirational poor, and has increased the amount that wealthier students (or earners that are graduates) pay compared to those that are poorer.

What is wrong here, with the unpopularity, is purely a lack of understanding of what’s actually happening.

“Untrue. This has changed since 2008, it’s now counted against your income.”

I didn’t say it wasn’t taken in to account, I said it wasn’t counted as debt, i.e with regards to credit checks and such.

“Moreover, a salary premium of, say, £25,000 over your working lifetime counts for little if you end up paying £30k+ in repayments. All you’ve done is wasted three years of your life.”

All studies we have show the salary premium is, on average, £100k, or possibly even higher. My guess would be that if you don’t make more than your loan amount over your lifetime while still having to pay it back (i.e. being in employment) then it’s less about your getting a loan and education, and more about your lack of desire/willpower/ability to climb the ladder in your profession.

“Nobody would have stood for £50k in 1997 but now the principle has become established why not chance your arm by tripling charges?”

They wouldn’t have stood for it in 1997 because it was a different system, with a lower threshold of repayment, and a true life-long (until retirement) term. This is a different and fairer system

“but the principle of incremental increase virtually guarantees that rather like tuition fees themselves a tripling of repayment may be just round the corner, or whenever the UK economy is next squeezed.”

We’ll have to wait and see, won’t we. The transfer of a marginal tax rate from 41% inc NI to 59% for someone on less than £45k seems to me to be one of those things that will become unpopular because it is actually bad, rather than because it just sounds like it’s bad if you don’t really think about it, and therefore untenable as a policy.

“Incidentally, I am not surprised to hear LG say he has no view on the situation in Scotland, which, when the argument suits, becomes a remote entity with no bearing on what else is going on in the UK.”

It doesn’t have a bearing on the UK, they’re financially independent on this issue. If they choose that only Scottish students can benefit from the money set aside for Scottish affairs then tbh I’m inclined to agree with them. But I don’t care what they decide, they’re independent on this issue.

37. Leon Wolfson

@35 –

“All studies we have show the salary premium is, on average, £100k, or possibly even higher”

This is massively skewed by a relatively small number of people in the city who earn massive amounts of money. The median is well under half that.

And yes, stand by and do nothing while the University system is utterly devastated (which is already well under way), along with England’s future prospects. How smart.

38. the a&e charge nurse

Thanks for your posts cim & Lee – I will mull them over.

For me one of the factors at the heart of this issue is the question of trust.

When I hear reasonable principled people argue that a particular idea is a good thing then obviously it would be crazy not to consider the points being made – I’m sure we can all agree on this point?

Even so we must always bear in mind the gap between the rhetoric and reality which, even with the best will in the world, cannot always be quantified – look at the extraordinary changes over the last 30 years (the time frame for debt repayment), nobody can say with much confidence where we will be 30 years in the future, a time when today’s students will still be paying back loan fees.

But what worries me most is the unspoken agenda that education like other public services must be turned over to the market – I don’t expect the likes of D-Cam to say as much but I can’t help thinking that in time we will witness a greater social divide when it comes to access to HE, and this set against a background of cultural inequality when it comes to entry, especially into the more prestigious institutions

So why should we trust the likes of Nick Clegg? – doesn’t the footage (above) amply demonstrate that some of our politicians are quite easily capable of saying black one day then white the next, even on important matters of principle (even though Clegg has already bemoaned the lack of working class students getting into Uni).

In other words I cannot take what Clegg & Co say at face value and instead try to fathom out what political gain is envisaged whenever they take a line on a particular policy.
As I say, my belief is that the coalition are keen to develop a market in education, and over time, once the new financial infrastructure is in place I think this will become more apparent – the starting point is to get students used to the idea that they must pay for education, costs will be significant, and the repayment time scale may take decades.

39. the a&e charge nurse

[36] “All studies we have show the salary premium is, on average, £100k, or possibly even higher” – “This is massively skewed by a relatively small number of people in the city who earn massive amounts of money. The median is well under half that”.

Oh, you beat me to it – in any event the studies referred to must have been conducted when fees were not quite so wagnerian.

But even if there was a more even distribution of salaries (which there isn’t) almost half of that premium will now be lost to debt repayment.

“My guess would be that if you don’t make more than your loan amount over your lifetime while still having to pay it back (i.e. being in employment) then it’s less about your getting a loan and education, and more about your lack of desire/willpower/ability to climb the ladder in your profession.”

So which of ‘lack of desire/willpower/ability’ would disability fall under? Even if someone with a disability can get into work, which is a big enough ‘if’ to start with, they may then find themselves left behind in the race for promotion because they lack the physical resources to put in the hours that others do, or they may be seen as ‘not a team player’ because they physically can’t join in with many team activities, or because their team mates won’t bond with them because of their own prejudices around disability, they can lose out simply because of unthinking management prejudice, and when the time comes for pay reviews they will often find themselves inexplicably getting less than their peers. The result is a career that generates substantially less income than that of a non-disabled peer through no fault of the disabled person, and this experience of employment is very common for disabled people.

Maybe a little more thought before being quite so sweeping with your condemnation?

Charlieman,

I’d welcome a comment from accountancy experts about this. My presumption is that payback on a university fee loan is treated in the same way as, say, child support maintenance; it reduces your net income, and that you get a loan on anticipated net income.

I can speak from personal experience here – when I got my mortgage, I clarified that my student loan was not counted as debt – the bank clerk (?worker/operative?) happily explained that I did not owe that in the eyes of the bank, because it was linked to earnings not to a repayment schedule. As I wasn’t paying it then (creative accountancy when self employed (or not earning enough anyway…)) it was hardly an issue.

“Maybe a little more thought before being quite so sweeping with your condemnation?”

If a disabled person is in work and letting their employers trample all over them in the quite unfair and possibly actionable way you describe, I would DEFINITELY call that a lack of willpower.

“But even if there was a more even distribution of salaries (which there isn’t) almost half of that premium will now be lost to debt repayment.”

No, it won’t. The only people that will lose half the average premium will likely be earning a higher premium anyway.

“the starting point is to get students used to the idea that they must pay for education”

If their aim is to convince students they’re paying for their education, then funding it via a taxation model that guarantees a fair proportion, if not most, won’t even pay the full amount, instead; then good luck to them.

“If a disabled person is in work and letting their employers trample all over them in the quite unfair and possibly actionable way you describe, I would DEFINITELY call that a lack of willpower.”

Wow, you really don’t know when to stop, do you?

Many disabled people are barely scraping by physically and/or mentally in the workplace, fighting for their rights has a real chance of pushing them into a tailspin of worsening symptoms, they also know that they have little chance of finding a new position, and these two factors together mean that they have to put up with levels of unfairness other people would rightly find intolerable. This may mean that they have to tolerate problems with the behaviour of colleagues in order to preserve what acceptance they do have (been there, done that). It also means that they have to weigh the benefit of challenging their management against the potential cost to their career, and the cost may require physical and mental resources they simply don’t have available because of the nature of their disability.

Even if they want to take on their management, their local union reps will usually turn out to be clueless about disability law, and at times as bad as management in terms of open disablism. Meanwhile the tribunal system is heavily weighted against them in terms of time allowed for complaints, 3 months minus a day from the incident, which means that trying to use the internal grievance system, most people’s first resort if pushed into action, will almost inevitably mean the right to a tribunal timing out; and even more heavily weighted against them in terms of resources (physical, mental, financial and legal). The tribunal system allows behaviour from management legal teams, claiming that the employee is not really disabled is a standard tactic, that would be considered a hate crime if it occurred in the street, while attempts to delay and otherwise pressure the employee into giving up are also standard parts of the playbook.

You really seem not to understand quite how physically and mentally debilitating living with disability can be, the single best essay for helping people understand the impact of disability is The Spoon Theory, which deals directly with this. See http://butyoudontlooksick.com/navigation/BYDLS-TheSpoonTheory.pdf

If you only ever read one piece about disability, make it this one.

45. Leon Wolfson

@41 – Because they have the choice of being thrown back onto benefits, yay! I mean, it’s not like we’re in a bad recession and disabled people face widespread prejudice or anything, making it even harder for them to consider quitting jobs even in the face of abuse.

@37 – The long-term costs are likely to be higher for the tax payer as well. I’m also expecting them to start “thinking” about charges for the 16-18 old age bracket soon…

46. the a&e charge nurse

[44] “I’m also expecting them to start “thinking” about charges for the 16-18 old age bracket soon” – if A-level students earn a penny more than those without such qualifications then logic demands they pay for any financial advantage.

I’m sure this book keeping mentality can be applied to other public services as well, after all, consumption of such services is hardly equal.

Having read this very interesting discussion thread(*) I’m worried about what happens in 30 years. It seems that the story will go something like this:

2011: The government starts paying large sums of money to universities. Most of this money goes into top management salaries and pointless “prestige” projects such as fancy new buildings, rather than into teaching or research (sadly this is just the way things are going in the university sector). However, this doesn’t count as government debt because the money is owed back to the government by individual students.

2031: The first students begin to hit the 30-year mark. Most have only repaid a fraction of their loans and the rest is written off, suddenly becoming government debt. This potentially puts a huge burden on the government of the time.

It seems the charitable interpretation of all this is that the government is gambling that the economic situation in 30 years’ time will be better than it is now, so the debt will be less of a problem then. This might be a reasonable expectation, but it’s still a gamble. The uncharitable interpretation is that they’re planting a ticking time bomb that won’t explode until long after their careers are over and their memoirs written.

(*) well, it was interesting up until the point where Lee Griffin made an offensive remark about disabled people. The rest of your comments have been very reasonable, but I think you should apologise for that one. I have a disabled friend who is going through that experience and I can assure you the problem is not a lack of willpower on her part. Blaming the victim is not appropriate.

ndv/47: Potentially, yes. (Pickily, since it’s 30 years after graduation, rather than 30 years after the start of the course, the first write-offs will I think be in 2035)

However, one of the interesting advantages of this accounting trick is that the debt bundles can be sold off to private investors in exchange for cash (as has been done before, a few times, with the existing loans). So the government gets a reasonable amount of cash up-front, and the private investors assume the risk of underpayments rising significantly.

The gap between the expected value of the loan repayments and the actual value of the loan still has to be paid by the government out of general taxation [1] – and everyone (predictably) charging £9k fees has made that gap larger than expected (honest, guv). But it’s being paid within a few years of the date the loan was taken out, so it’s not too bad for predictability.

[1] Note that this happens anyway now, in effect, since the government covers the non-fee parts of the cost of teaching out of general taxation. So it’s not as big a net impact as it might appear.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions http://t.co/Jq9fjbC

  2. tracy e

    Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions http://t.co/Jq9fjbC

  3. Stephen Baker

    Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions http://t.co/Jq9fjbC

  4. sunny hundal

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  5. Derek Bryant

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  6. Stew Wilson

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  7. William Cass

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  8. sunny hundal

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  9. Jamie

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  10. Tasha

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  11. Steve

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  12. Wesley Rykalski

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  13. Michael Curry

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  14. Hebah Aboud

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  15. Chris

    Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions http://t.co/Jq9fjbC

  16. Matt Jeffs

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  17. jane ambrose

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  18. Kiran Parveen

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  19. Angela Pateman

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  20. Ben L

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  21. Matt Blackall

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  22. Aisha Sheikh

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  23. Dazzlemist

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  24. HouseOfTwitsLab

    RT @sunny_hundal Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/u90DeFa

  25. House Of Twits

    RT @sunny_hundal Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/eAgcyuu

  26. Andy Lockhart

    Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions http://t.co/Jq9fjbC

  27. Chris Linthwaite

    RT @sunny_hundal Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/u90DeFa

  28. Subverses

    'By 2032, average graduates can expect to have £31,000 debt after leaving university' – that's how much I have NOW! http://t.co/m88olKv

  29. Nizam Uddin

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  30. CHAIRMAN MIAO

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  31. Jonathan Davis

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  32. Scott Redding

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  33. James Leppard

    RT @sunny_hundal Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/eAgcyuu

  34. Joluni

    Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/YI34A7Q via @libcon

  35. Ashley Harnett

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions http://t.co/gKW2Yiq

  36. Sam Conway

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  37. Derek Deighton

    RT @sunny_hundal: Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/Gt5s75I

  38. keep

    @ashleyharnett RT @libcon: Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions http://t.co/hFCcdy1 EACH????

  39. Sir A McFlafferty

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  40. Chris Horner

    Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions http://t.co/Jq9fjbC

  41. Calm Confusion

    Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/UBXiham via @libcon

  42. Alfred Camp

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  43. Martin

    My first Liberal Conspiracy article – http://t.co/U1dmqIW

  44. Tara B

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  45. phil dilks

    @libcon reveals Govt figs show student debt to rise by £200 billion MORE than previous predictions. Staggering betrayal http://t.co/hA746mN

  46. Joshuwahwah

    @libcon reveals Govt figs show student debt to rise by £200 billion MORE than previous predictions. Staggering betrayal http://t.co/hA746mN

  47. Ed Brown

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  48. Save the EHRC

    RT @sunny_hundal Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/u90DeFa

  49. Barbara Spence

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  50. Conscious Objector

    Revealed: Student debt to rise to nearly £200bn, higher than earlier predictions http://t.co/Jq9fjbC

  51. Lee Bosher

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  52. Sarah Sachs-Eldridge

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  53. Grant Clarke

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  54. DPWF

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  55. Dave Nellist

    Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  56. Martin

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  57. Sue Davies

    RT @sunny_hundal Govt estimated student debt would peak at £67bn by 2027. Now they admit it might be nearly £200bn…! http://t.co/eAgcyuu

  58. Paul Cardin

    EXCLUSIVE: Figures released to @libcon by the govt show they badly under-estimated predictions of student debt http://t.co/bQsyiNr

  59. TenPercent

    Student debt rise to nearly £200bn http://t.co/V3JIyZn <this was game plan, markets need new bubbles, student debt obliges, BA in serfdom

  60. Gareth Jones

    http://t.co/LHWEDit #Studentdebt to rise to nearly £200bn; more than predicted #uk #education

  61. Revealed: Student debt to rise too nearly £200bn; more than predicted « AccessDocs

    […] An article I wrote for Liberal Conspiracy, which was published yesterday: […]

  62. Default Movie

    http://t.co/LHWEDit #Studentdebt to rise to nearly £200bn; more than predicted #uk #education

  63. Why Osborne’s plans to relax employment laws will hurt UK growth | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] worried about the future, overwhelmed by personal debt (which will get worse thanks to govt policy) and worried about rising […]

  64. sunny hundal

    Don't forget, govt also expects student debt to rise hugely in coming decades thanks to tuition fees http://t.co/ms4tEv6N

  65. Jane

    Don't forget, govt also expects student debt to rise hugely in coming decades thanks to tuition fees http://t.co/ms4tEv6N

  66. Mehdi Hasan

    Don't forget, govt also expects student debt to rise hugely in coming decades thanks to tuition fees http://t.co/ms4tEv6N

  67. Liz Disley

    Don't forget, govt also expects student debt to rise hugely in coming decades thanks to tuition fees http://t.co/ms4tEv6N

  68. catherine buca

    Don't forget, govt also expects student debt to rise hugely in coming decades thanks to tuition fees http://t.co/ms4tEv6N

  69. Fiona McMahon

    Don't forget, govt also expects student debt to rise hugely in coming decades thanks to tuition fees http://t.co/ms4tEv6N

  70. Tony Dowling

    Don't forget, govt also expects student debt to rise hugely in coming decades thanks to tuition fees http://t.co/ms4tEv6N

  71. Pauline

    Don't forget, govt also expects student debt to rise hugely in coming decades thanks to tuition fees http://t.co/ms4tEv6N





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.