Why do students complain about 'chavs' when...

To be honest, I disagree. I don't see the working class as downtrodden minorities, I see them as people who may just have less money (then again there are rich members of the working class such as Alan Sugar as class is also based on interests). May I ask which part of the country you are from?

I am not convinced that classism is 'rife', can you give some examples please? If it is 'rife' it is often coming from the other end.

Poorer people poking fun at wealthier people. I'm yet to meet a wealthy person who intentionally hates the poor and tries to make their lives harder. If you're referring to people calling someone a chav, it's probably because they're behaving or speaking a certain way (i.e. poor grammar) which are choices. I don't think it's because of their socioeconomic group (i.e. lacking money or living in a poor area) because people usually judge each other on mannerisms).

The massive hike in tuition fees meaning that it is even harder for the working classes to go to university.

This may seem the case but is really not at all. Assuming those in the working classes are also in jobs that are not as well paid as those in other classes, and are therefore earning under £25k/yr, they will be given loads of money - grants (which they never have to pay back) and even bursaries from some universities on top of the full loan. Honestly, people whose families earn less money often seem better off at uni than those whose families earn more.

The only issue with the tuition fees hike is debt after earning your degree and getting a job. Even then, the percentage of earnings actually being lost to pay back the debt is tiny.

A lot of students are like this, certainly. Doesn't make chavs any better though.

The students who act like it ARE chavs too


Posted from TSR Mobile

You do realise the systems at most universities now means that they get smaller bursaries (ie money towards living costs which is what is most needed) and instead get grants - money of their tuition (which is money they could load at zero interest anyway). It makes going to uni very difficult, and one person I know has had to take out a bank load to fund it.

They seemed better off at the lower fees stage where bursaries were available. Bristol and a host of other high ranking universities have scrapped bursaries since then.

Rubbish - one of my housemates gets around £3,000 loan, £3,500 grant, £1,000 bursary from the uni and £2,000 knocked off the cost of his accommodation




Posted from TSR Mobile

The students who act like it ARE chavs too


Posted from TSR Mobile

Birmingham, however I studied at Bristol and Leeds. So have lived in the Midlands South and North. Plus most of my Dads family live in Wales. Why is that relevant?

My examples off the top of my head are: The best universities taking more students from the top 5 schools in the country than over 2000 others combined.

The massive hike in tuition fees meaning that it is even harder for the working classes to go to university.

Low workers rights.

Demonisation of those on benefits, making them out to be scroungers.

Hiking taxes which hit the poor harder than the rich ie the ones that aren't income based (VAT)

Here is some reading which points out some issues:
Not saying I 100% agree with this paper but it is a basis for further reading.
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/WhoCaresAboutTheWhiteWorkingClass-2009.pdf

Of course it often isn't intentional, it is so institutionalised in many public school educated people that they don't even realise what they are doing. But the vast majority of people I was at uni with looked down on the working class.

It is not your choice to have poor grammar if you have no choice but go to a crap school, or if your parents aren't encouraging, or if you have to be that way to fit in amongst your peers.

It doesn't make you any less of a person, god knows my brother has the worst grammar in the world and he is a lovely kid (and he didn't even have any of these setbacks, he just genuinely doesn't get English).

It is negative stereotypes which an alarming number of middle class students associate with that socioeconomic group. I have been commanded a lot of times while driving to 'run them over, rid the world of another chav, they are no good to anyone' just based on what someone is wearing. My home city is subject to a lot of hate from my peers due to its industrial working class history.

Which University? Not all have done it but I was involved in a big failed campaign at Bristol to prevent them scrapping bursaries.

I wouldn't say all, but 'chav' and 'student' aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I am from the South, so I was just curious as to which part of the country you from. In my experience I knew working class students from school. What I am about to say is only from my own experiences, so I accept that it is not reflective throughout the country, but it is unlikely to be an isolated case either. I felt that the students from low-income families often created their own problems. They became involved in drinking from early ages, some became teenage mothers or fathered children during their teenage years, a number engaged in petty fights (e.g. tensions with 'rival' gangs). On the other hand, some students from low-income families were well-behaved and did well at school. So poor behaviour during education is a personal choice to make.

Secondary school results then determine whether you can stay at sixth-form, college and ultimately enter university. Some of these students were very fortunate, they received EMA (which I didn't agree with due to the abuse it resulted in), but they were not grateful. I noticed they didn't take their A-levels very seriously. Now some of them have part-time jobs, which is a good result for them if they are not the academic type. However, if they then complain about staying in low paid jobs, I won't feel so sympathetic because at least at 16 years + you are beyond the immaturity and know how to behave in an academic setting.

I read an article last year where it claimed that students from low-income Asian families did better than white working-class students. Firstly, they have the same amount of money, so secondly, it is their attitude which sets them apart. The choice to be poorly behaved or bunk lessons are personal choices. If it's their environment 'dictating' to them, then surely the parents should take the blame? Not society or the government who just want to get on with their own lives.

I have gone off on a tangent, but I really don't believe that 'low income' is an excuse when the are more important factors such as responsibility, choice and attitude.

If they get the grades then they get the grades. There isn't a bias against poor achieving state schools. I would agree that there should be more done to encourage bright poorer students, but I trust that most of them by the ages of 17 will realise their potential and try very hard in their A-levels. This does not warrant intervention such as quotas or requiring higher grades from top schools, people deserve equal treatment.

I don't think you're right. An article released in the summer claimed that there was a decline in the number of applications from middle income students. Working class students receive generous grants and loans to help them. Conversely, my flat-mate said her parents collectively earn above the threshold, but she doesn't receive much help from them, and had to fund it through part-time work before coming here in September.

I need to look more into this one, but I don't think workers are exploited.

The recent changes to child and housing benefits are fair. 'Demonising' them would be removing the help completely. The vast majority of people are annoyed when people either fraudulently claim benefits, or choose it as a way of life. I support it as a safety-net, but there is no way benefits should pay more than work. Now that would be demonising the workers.

It may be 'institutionalised' only through the differences in interests. It's not malicious. People won't get on with everyone, so those with similar groundings are more likely to stick together.

1. Parents don't have any excuse. If they have children they should look after them. Teaching them how to speak properly (i.e. just basic grammar) may cost a few £s on books - which can even be bought cheaply from charity shops - but the effort is more than the cost. So if they're not willing to make the effort, I regret to say it but it's probably best that they shouldn't make such commitments to having children. All of those problems should not be inflicted through the state.

2. Peer pressure affects everyone, all from different backgrounds. If the child knows how to speak properly, but chooses not to, then you cannot really say that they are hard done by. They choose and the parents choose which social circles they are in. Through experience the child is most affected by peer pressure from years 7-10, after that it is deemed silly to not speak properly. By the way, I do know students from low-income families and their grammar is good. On other hand, some from higher income families swear a lot, do not pronounce words very well, etc. so a lot of it is down to parental influence.

In the abscence of good parental influence there should be role-models. So instead of them sneering at someone who dresses well and behaves well, they should try to improve themselves based on a similar ground. My school had a scheme where businesses invested into it and they held sessions, some produced good results, sadly some students did not appreciate it.

I agree that it doesn't make someone less of a person, but for the purposes of mixing with strangers or job interviews it does pay to speak at least at a minimal standard.

Oh, lighten up! Those comments are merely jokes. I have made similar comments in the past, I don't actually mean it. They may have been rude or offish, so I guess it's immature of me but oh well. It may be annoying on a regular basis, but you don't need to make statements that working class people are downtrodden.

Moreover, how often do you hear a working class person refer to upper middle class people such as the PM as 'toffs' (there has been a recent discussion on TSR triggered from an aticle in the Daily Telegraph that higher income children are bullied). It works both ways. In which case I don't really like class-ism from either side but people are judged based on their behaviour and attributes. So if someone is called a chav it may be deserved (if they're anti-social etc). Nobody ever says that all poor people are chavs, if they do they're just stupid.

I've said it before, but people are individuals and it's silly to say that:
Working class = downtrodden
Middle to upper middle to upper classes = privileged
as everyone experiences different forms of hardship, it is just the way they deal with it that matters. People may conflict due to different issues but it's not malicious or based on an inherent dislike for working class people.

University of the West of England, Bristol


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah UWE, along with most polys kept the bursary scheme. That was a big part of our campaign. Many of the top Unis scrapped them in favour of lowering fees because they are elitist morons.

Well that's partially true I suppose but it looks like Oxford still have financial support schemes in place:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/feesandfunding/ugcurrent/oob/

And Cambridge

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/cambridgebursary/2012/index.html

And LSE

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/intranet/students/moneyMatters/financialSupport/ScholarshipsLSE/UGApp/UgAppHome/LSEBursarySchemes.aspx#DynamicJumpMenuManager_1_Anchor_1

And BRISTOL

http://www.bris.ac.uk/studentfunding/financial-help/uob-bursary/index.html

Unless you meant bursaries for living and not fee reductions etc of course - then I suppose you're right but fee reduction still helps surely?


Posted from TSR Mobile