Johnny Rich

My friend asked if I knew what ‘nihility’ means. I had to admit it means nothing to me. #weakendpun

In the end Push only took on one of the two trainees and he didn't last long. He dropped out after delivering one talk for Push (accompanied by me as quality assurance). He said getting his head round all the content we expected him to know was too much of a struggle.

20/20 ends

Meanwhile, applicants ended up confused coz EMS speakers were confused, possibly coz EMS wanted them to do the sales job that they thought DfE wanted them to do (whether they actually did or not) and DfE itself also wasn't clear whether it was really a loan, a tax or a contribution. #hunh?

19/20

So DfE decided to spend, IIRC, a million quid on talks to inform students, but at the heart of it was a confusing message that continues to confuse people. Call it mis-selling, if you like. I say it was the system design and terminology that was at fault.

18/20

Willetts said at the time – and since – that they couldn't call it a 'tax' for the technical reason that, um, it wasn't one. Nor could they call it a 'contribution' (which might've been fairer) because everyone would have said, hang on, these look like the same student loans, just 3x larger.

17/20

The real problem was what they were trying to explain. The system had been designed to operate much more like a graduate tax than a conventional loan and he probably would have preferred students to think of them as more like a tax than a debt.

16/20

They were introducing a scheme people would struggle to get their heads around and they wanted young people to explain it to other young people. Getting this kind of outreach right is not easy and neither DfE, Nick Hillman or then minister David Willetts should be criticised for trying.

15/20

I was too distracted by wanting Push to give independent advice, but I believe the Govt's aim was genuine – to explain student loans to students. If so, Push could have done what was wanted by being independent. And if the Govt wasn't genuine, well, then we wouldn't have got the contract.

14/20

I remember talking to @nickhillman.bsky.social a year or two after the DfE talks. I said Push would've done a better job. He asked, why hadn't we bid for it then?

Fair point. We should have. My bad.

13/20

Applicants definitely needed to know about the small print and that it's important, but by being made to feel it matters to understand what they're letting themselves in for and where to find the details, not by being bored in a talk by what most people would find incomprehensible jargon.

12/20

For example, the mobile phone comparison, in terms of relative monthly outgoings was fair. I think even Martin Lewis used it at the time.

I also disagree with Funmi Olufunwa's apparent suggestion that a talk would be the right place to spell out small print about interest calculations.

11/20

I haven't seen the EMS script they used (although the BBC has) and I can't comment on whether it was misleading, but the examples given in the article don't seem egregious to me.

10/20

They found Push's approach very different – not least because we were trying to be independent about the loan system, just telling it like it is. We were there to provide information and advice, but not direction or guidance.

9/20

The 2 EMS speakers I trained struggled with the idea of need to do more than regurgitate a script with a bit of ad libbing as needed. Their EMS role – as they represented it to me – had been to reassure students and promote student loans. Whether that was explicit from EMS or DfE, I can't say.

8/20

You don't have to be an expert, but you do have to know what you know clearly and admit to what you don't know. Then you need to know how and when to refer students to reliable sources to understand their individual circumstances.

7/20

Anyone who's ever delivered outreach in a school knows it matters. You must understand your subject. You'll be asked questions – especially when it comes to anything about money. You can't bluff of bluster.

6/20

I remember being shocked at how confused and just plain wrong they were in their understanding of the new loans system. It might be argued that this wouldn't matter so long as they were sticking to the script that EMS provided them and so long as that script was accurate and fair.

5/20

I remember at least 2 progressed to our training. I led the training personally and had assumed, as they'd already supposed had training to deliver the EMS talks, they'd have at least a good understanding of the new finance system.

Reader, they did not.

4/20

Our recruitment process involves auditions and then training. Most of the EMS speakers failed our auditions. They just weren't good enough communicators. I guess EMS had just recruited as many as possible with limited selectivity.

3/20

At the time @push.co.uk delivered talks in schools about student finance (as it still does) – although NOT any of the government-funded EMS ones. We regularly recruited speakers and got a lot of applicants – perhaps a dozen? – who'd delivered the EMS talks.

2/20

'Misleading' school talks compared student loans to £30 phone contracts Graduates hired to deliver the presentations a decade ago were told to avoid using words like

BBC News has found an interesting angle on the #StudentLoans debate, but… #nuance needed.

The talks were a fair idea, but failed for various reasons. Here's a story about my non-involvement in those talks... 🧵
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

1/20

My forehead was getting larger as my hair fell out, but now I sprinkle little pips on it and it grows back. The packet says it’s for reseeding hairlines. #weakendpun

If the graduate premium is falling, supply-side tinkering won't bring it back Jim Dickinson assembles cross-national evidence showing Britain's shrinking graduate premium is a demand-side problem – and that closing courses won't fix it Jim Dickinson assembles cross-national evi...

This is a brilliant piece by @jimdickinson.bsky.social on Monday about why the graduate premium has been falling (but, I should point out, remains high) and what we should do about it.
He's kind enough to mention my work on this and I've added a comment to explain further. wonkhe.com/blogs/if-the...

Perhaps if it had been, it wouldn’t have led to misguided expectations that it’s a ‘debt’ that most people will pay off or that the interest rate is a measure of usury in the system rather than deliberate progressiveness. This would have been a presentational improvement, but not a real one.

There are many other reasons why a grad tax is a poor option, not least the technical reasons why the current loans system – which operates very like a graduate tax – wasn't called that in the first place.

In other words, most graduate tax arguments work better as an argument for more progressive income tax. Hannah's argument could certainly be seen as an excellent case for wealth taxes.

The counter to that is that graduates earn more as a result of accessing a state-subsidised service (HE), but it strikes me that's an argument for taxing those who actually do earn more rather than all graduates above a modest salary threshold.

There's also a principle at stake around taxing people because of who they are, rather than what they earn or how they chose to spend money. If it's fair to tax people for being graduates, might it not be argued it's fair to tax people who use the NHS more than others or with kids in state schools?

While a grad tax might bring in revenue to the Exchequer to pay for HE, HM Treasury strongly resists any tax hypothecation.

Even if a commitment could be reached to start with that grad taxes would fund HE, such commitments don't usually last until the next budget, let alone a parliament or more.

That's still unfair, but a graduate tax that affects everyone is not necessarily the right solution unless it solves other problems and/or comes without risks.

However, the biggest risk is that it doesn't solve the problem of sustainable HE funding.