While some people can learn in a remote setting, especially for secondary qualifications, embracing it wholesale is a mistake. Moreover, under the Government plans even the Open University is having to charge large amounts for their courses – £5000 per year.

The figure of 100k is disingenuous. It’s heavily skewed by people who go into the city and earn very , already attracts higher tax rates AND is a very low premium compared to other countries. Most people who do degrees under this regime will LOWER their lifetime earnings.

See here http://oyc.yale.edu/courses

Thank you for your comments. Just a couple of points:
LordBlagger: It is the unsecured nature of the debit which is worrying and the default rate. The sub-prime lending itself was not that large in $s it was that it was seen as credit worthy when they were not. Leveraging of that debt coupled with the differing financial instruments they can be wrapped into means that this debt can be a ticking time bomb – that is what 2008 financial crisis taught us.

Whether the debt needs to be paid is not the point was not the point I was making here. It is that putting a debt of £50,000 on a 21 year old is something that aside from morally wrong is also financially dangerous for a society. Indeed Government, if it was long term in its aspect would take on the cost of educating a person in the knowledge that the benefit that would accrue to them will out way the payment over a lifetime. To illustrate; Vince Cable said that a graduate would on earn £100,000 more in a lifetime, how much extra tax to the government would that be? That function of government used to be called “social responsibility”, something I hope we learn again soon!

Thanks again for your comment

Ranjit