Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really see the point of ema either, it seems an unfair system. It takes into account your parents yearly income but not how many kids they've got!! Kids with parents on £31000 per year with 5 kids might not get anything, yet parents on £30000 with only one kid might!! :mad:
    I personally receive EMA yet still think it's stupid. Why should i receive an incentive to go to school just because my parents earn less?!? It's like Laura is saying, i would go back regardless of ema anyway!
    I only really get EMA anyway cos my parents are divorced, yet technically i receive more money as my parents both have new partners. Its like a consolation prize for having divorced parents. :rolleyes: :mad:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roo16)
    I don't really see the point of ema either, it seems an unfair system. It takes into account your parents yearly income but not how many kids they've got!! Kids with parents on £31000 per year with 5 kids might not get anything, yet parents on £30000 with only one kid might!! :mad:
    I personally receive EMA yet still think it's stupid. Why should i receive an incentive to go to school just because my parents earn less?!? It's like Laura is saying, i would go back regardless of ema anyway!
    I only really get EMA anyway cos my parents are divorced, yet technically i receive more money as my parents both have new partners. Its like a consolation prize for having divorced parents. :rolleyes: :mad:
    I know - EMA is rediculous and lots agree. But, that's Labour for you :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phillipsm)
    I am not whinging about getting, as you put it, "no reward". Good grades and a place at a top, prestigious university, on a top, presitigious course are "reward" enough. You are the one's out for a reward: why do you want more of a reward than good grades? Money does not achieve good grades; it does not prevent disruption in class by unruly pupils and so forth, it doesn't motivate people to work hard, only attend. And by classifying EMA as a "reward" you make more of our case - it should be reserved as a 'prize' for high achieving students. What we are 'whinging' (making a point about) is the unequal, and therefore unfair nature of, the system. For example, most middle class parents can afford to pay for university, or travel to school, or text books, but cumulatively it also hits them hard.
    And how exactly would you know that I'm out for a reward, or anything about me, for that matter, when you don't even know me? That's what I meant when I talked about generalisations. I get good grades, I'll hopefully get a place on a good course at a top university, and that's more than enough reward for me. I didn't ask to get EMA, and nor did anyone else who gets it.

    I agree with you that there should be tighter regulations so that people only get EMA if they work hard, not if they simply turn up. As for disruptive pupils, I really think you're exaggerating the problem. I've never experienced that in any of my classes and my school's just a standard comprehensive in an average area.

    Why should high-achieving pupils get money? The EMA is nothing to do with that; it's designed to provide help and an incentive to students from less well-off backgrounds, not simply those who are clever or go to a good school.

    Nobody is suggesting that all middle-class parents can afford those things, but the fact is, they can afford it more than people who earn less, and since EMA cannot practically be given to everyone, it makes sense to give it to those who need it the most. University is a seperate issue entirely; parents do not pay for it, students do once they've graduated and are earning £15k a year, so that argument is completely irrelevant.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    EMA is the most ridiculous thin ever. I know a couple of people that definately do deserve it, but there are others like myself that deserve it also, as we have to pay for Buses, as the County council are too tight to do so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it depends on if you really need the money or not... if there r 5 kids in ure family or something and you've only got a mum who earns 10K a year then it could go towards the bills at home. The EMA website says you can spend it on what you want.

    I do think they should assess who gets EMA and who doesnt in a different way though, cause if your family earn 30k a year its not much different from earning 29k. :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    But there has to be a cut off somewhere becasue someone earining 31K is not much different to earning 30K and earning 32K is not much different to earning 31K and so on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wednesburywench)
    its a stupid idea, i cant stand it, i dont get it, but my mom n dad cant afford to give me 30 quid a week so i ata struggle with my job n still try and get AAB for uni. They shud give it everyone or not atall, its just to encourage the scroungers on the dole to get their just as scroungy kids back at skool. It doesnt work, they just spend it on getting drunk and clothes. I get nothing and work my arse off. My mate whos daddy bought her a car and insurnace gets 30 quid a week! wheres the sense in that when my mom n dad cant afford to get me a car. Its discrimination and tony blairs full of crap when he says hes getting rid of class, cus an idiotic scheme like that just encourages it. Im livid when my friends get 100 quid bonuses for doing their exams! wat about me iv done mine, i get jack. Its quite annoying for us who dont get it.
    Amen. My centiments exactly!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i just posted this in the politics forum. hopefully it should make everyone think again as to whether it's such a good idea or not. i'm sure this is NOT what EMA was intended for... but that's labour for you... :rolleyes: :

    does anyone else think that EMA should at least be abolished or seriously reformed? i go to a private school and i'm sick of my friends spending their £120 a month on clothes, alcohol and petrol. because my parents have committed the dreadful crime of being:

    a) still married and in the same household
    b) earning a decent wage

    i get no such help from the state and actually have to go out and *work* in job, which pays me less than i would get if i was on full EMA. my friends get about £200 or more if you include the income from their saturday jobs. incase you are wondering how my friends at a private school are entitled to all this money:

    1)EMA is calculated on income per household (ie.who you live with)
    2)their parents are divorced, so they live with their mothers (who earn very little or nothing at all) and so are entitled to recieve thge full amount.

    the TOTAL income for one of my friends, who recieves the full amount is £100k once you take the sum of her mother and father's salaries. her father pays for everything else, school fees, a car for her birthday, etc. etc. she even got a £100 bonus at christmas for full attendance at school and good grades (er sorry, with straight A*s, from a private school and middle class home, was truancy ever likely to be a huge problem?)

    is this fair? what was the govenrment thinking anyway? that people would spend it on educational resources, books etc etc. out of ALL the people i know on EMA, (those at state schools as well) not one of them spends it on anything to do with their education. one of them doesn't even bother getting a job, she just lives off her EMA.

    surely there must be a better way?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    its just to encourage the scroungers on the dole to get their just as scroungy kids back at skool.
    1) Just because someone is a "scrounger" doesn't necessarly mean their kids are too.
    2) Not everyone who gets EMA is a "scrounger" or kid of a "scrounger".
    3) Those "scroungers" would get the SAME AMOUNT in benefits if they stayed at home. I'd much rather the taxpayers money went to someone who AT LEAST made the effort to go to school/college rather than someone who just slept 'till 12 and watched TV all day.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ant87)
    i just posted this in the politics forum. hopefully it should make everyone think again as to whether it's such a good idea or not. i'm sure this is NOT what EMA was intended for... but that's labour for you... :rolleyes: :

    does anyone else think that EMA should at least be abolished or seriously reformed? i go to a private school and i'm sick of my friends spending their £120 a month on clothes, alcohol and petrol. because my parents have committed the dreadful crime of being:

    a) still married and in the same household
    b) earning a decent wage

    i get no such help from the state and actually have to go out and *work* in job, which pays me less than i would get if i was on full EMA. my friends get about £200 or more if you include the income from their saturday jobs. incase you are wondering how my friends at a private school are entitled to all this money:

    1)EMA is calculated on income per household (ie.who you live with)
    2)their parents are divorced, so they live with their mothers (who earn very little or nothing at all) and so are entitled to recieve thge full amount.

    the TOTAL income for one of my friends, who recieves the full amount is £100k once you take the sum of her mother and father's salaries. her father pays for everything else, school fees, a car for her birthday, etc. etc. she even got a £100 bonus at christmas for full attendance at school and good grades (er sorry, with straight A*s, from a private school and middle class home, was truancy ever likely to be a huge problem?)

    is this fair? what was the govenrment thinking anyway? that people would spend it on educational resources, books etc etc. out of ALL the people i know on EMA, (those at state schools as well) not one of them spends it on anything to do with their education. one of them doesn't even bother getting a job, she just lives off her EMA.

    surely there must be a better way?
    I don't think it should be abolsihed, but I do think it should be reformed because at the moment, it's too easy to get it. It should be based on effort and grades as well as attendance, and they should take into account your total income from both parents. By the way, my parents are still together in the same house and earn a fairly decent wage and I get EMA, so your experiences aren't always the case, but I appreciate it does happen quite a lot.

    With the money I get from EMA, I either spend it on things I need for school or put it towards uni, but I know I'm an isolated case. The thing is though, rhere are no rules saying what it has to be spent on; it's completely up to you. It was designed not judt to help with the cost of studying, but mainly as an incentive to encourage people from less well-off backgrounds to stay on at school.

    I don't have a part-time job either, but that's because all I need to spend money on is school stuff and sometimes birthday presents for people and my EMA covers that. Unless people go out drinking every night, why would they really need a lot of money?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    1) Just because someone is a "scrounger" doesn't necessarly mean their kids are too.
    2) Not everyone who gets EMA is a "scrounger" or kid of a "scrounger".
    3) Those "scroungers" would get the SAME AMOUNT in benefits if they stayed at home. I'd much rather the taxpayers money went to someone who AT LEAST made the effort to go to school/college rather than someone who just slept 'till 12 and watched TV all day.
    Excellent post.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I hope not to get EMA because i hope to be at Uni next year.

    (Original post by kellywood_5)
    And how exactly would you know that I'm out for a reward, or anything about me, for that matter, when you don't even know me? That's what I meant when I talked about generalisations. I get good grades, I'll hopefully get a place on a good course at a top university, and that's more than enough reward for me. I didn't ask to get EMA, and nor did anyone else who gets it.
    You mentioned EMA being a reward, no one else. And the fact that you did seems to sum up this debate in its entirety.

    I agree with you that there should be tighter regulations so that people only get EMA if they work hard, not if they simply turn up. As for disruptive pupils, I really think you're exaggerating the problem. I've never experienced that in any of my classes and my school's just a standard comprehensive in an average area.
    Just one student in a school, who receives EMA and is disruptive, is enough to question the validity of the whole system. Because no doubt there will be many others like him. Generalisations are often apt.

    Why should high-achieving pupils get money? The EMA is nothing to do with that; it's designed to provide help and an incentive to students from less well-off backgrounds, not simply those who are clever or go to a good school.
    High achieving doesn't necessarily equate to "rich" or "well off". Only those with the potential to excel at A-Levels should be given EMA, otherwise it is a waste of money and they really should just go on vocational training courses. Its just as ludicrous an idea as 50% of the population going to university! (helped somewhat by 'upgrading' polytechnics).

    Nobody is suggesting that all middle-class parents can afford those things, but the fact is, they can afford it more than people who earn less, and since EMA cannot practically be given to everyone, it makes sense to give it to those who need it the most. University is a seperate issue entirely; parents do not pay for it, students do once they've graduated and are earning £15k a year, so that argument is completely irrelevant.
    Why should we fund not only your education, but your expenses too? The university argument is not irreleveant; again, you mentioned in your post that you might save EMA towards university costs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phillipsm)
    You mentioned EMA being a reward, no one else. And the fact that you did seems to sum up this debate in its entirety.



    Just one student in a school, who receives EMA and is disruptive, is enough to question the validity of the whole system. Because no doubt there will be many others like him. Generalisations are often apt.



    High achieving doesn't necessarily equate to "rich" or "well off". Only those with the potential to excel at A-Levels should be given EMA, otherwise it is a waste of money and they really should just go on vocational training courses. Its just as ludicrous an idea as 50% of the population going to university! (helped somewhat by 'upgrading' polytechnics).



    Why should we fund not only your education, but your expenses too? The university argument is not irreleveant; again, you mentioned in your post that you might save EMA towards university costs.
    Now that was an excellent post.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phillipsm)
    You mentioned EMA being a reward, no one else. And the fact that you did seems to sum up this debate in its entirety.
    You and others have repeatedly mentioned the fact that no student could possibly need up to £30 a week for expenses, therefore if it's not designed purely to cover expenses, it's common sense that it must aslo be an incentive.

    (Original post by phillipsm)
    Just one student in a school, who receives EMA and is disruptive, is enough to question the validity of the whole system. Because no doubt there will be many others like him. Generalisations are often apt.
    That's a ridiculous thing to say. How can you possibly justify abolising an entire system and denying many deserving people EMA just because a few people abuse it? Look at how many benefits cheats there are; does that mean we should scrap benefits entirely? Whatever the system, there'll always be a few who abuse it. It's inevitable.

    (Original post by phillipsm)
    High achieving doesn't necessarily equate to "rich" or "well off". Only those with the potential to excel at A-Levels should be given EMA, otherwise it is a waste of money and they really should just go on vocational training courses. Its just as ludicrous an idea as 50% of the population going to university! (helped somewhat by 'upgrading' polytechnics).
    Another ridiculous statement. So you think if someone can't get straight As at A-level, they shouldn't bother doing them and they should just get a job instead? If everyone got As, what would be the point of having a 5-point grading system? I agree EMA should be linked to effort as well as attendance, but some people can't get As no matter how hard they try. That doesn't mean they don't deserve EMA; in my opinion, they deserve it more than those who manage to get As but do very little work. It would also be a complete waste of money giving it to people who are already rich and don't need it just because they happen to get good grades.

    (Original post by phillipsm)
    Why should we fund not only your education, but your expenses too? The university argument is not irreleveant; again, you mentioned in your post that you might save EMA towards university costs.
    Yes, which is a perfectly valid thing to do because the money will go towards my education, which is what you're saying EMA should be used for. What's your point?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    kellywood_5 makes some good points.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by veryrandom)
    kellywood_5 makes some good points.
    Thank you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the whole point of the EMA was so that people from poorer backgrounds can gain some financial independence so that they aren't forced to work after school; something which can be quite degrading on achievement. I don't really see any problem with it, our school encouraged as many people to take forms just to see if they could apply for it or not. It has a valid purpose to encourage those that might otherwise go straight into work that doesn't fulfill their potential, and to allow them to concentrate on their schoolwork so what's wrong with it. All I'm sensing here is a load of bitterness from those not eligible questioning why they can't get it. I think you've just got to face it, in this (some would say flawed) society, those that are richer are going to pay more tax and get less back. Those saying that only those that excel should get it, well most that excel at school are normally independent workers that have goals and strive to achieve them. The EMA isn't aimed at them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't read all the replies left (17 pages worth!) but all I can say is that I think EMA is a good idea but it is assessed wrongly.

    My family were on state benefits for 6 years because my parents split up and my mum had personal reasons why she couldn't work. For those of you without experience, Income Support is very difficult to live on - for example, I had to miss school trips everyone else was going on, and we we never went on holiday.

    A few months ago, my mum's partner moved into our house so we came of Income Support. Now our household income has gone up, past the £30,000 max for EMA. However, my mum's partner has 4 children already so he has to financially support those 4 kids, as well as my 2 sisters and myself - 7 kids all under 18! My mum still does not work (for reasons I said before). Therefore, we are still not very 'well off' -

    Can anyone appreciate why I HATE the way they assess whether you get EMA or not? I will still have to get a job because I need to pay for my books and stationary - I live in the South East and as it's a 'rich area' for most people, there are a lot of compulsory school trips I'll have to pay for, subscriptions like £40 common room fee and so on - all trying to pay for driving lessons/car and save for uni!

    Anyone in a smiliar situation?

    MissSurfer
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MissSurfer)
    I haven't read all the replies left (17 pages worth!) but all I can say is that I think EMA is a good idea but it is assessed wrongly.

    My family were on state benefits for 6 years because my parents split up and my mum had personal reasons why she couldn't work. For those of you without experience, Income Support is very difficult to live on - for example, I had to miss school trips everyone else was going on, and we we never went on holiday.

    A few months ago, my mum's partner moved into our house so we came of Income Support. Now our household income has gone up, past the £30,000 max for EMA. However, my mum's partner has 4 children already so he has to financially support those 4 kids, as well as my 2 sisters and myself - 7 kids all under 18! My mum still does not work (for reasons I said before). Therefore, we are still not very 'well off' -

    Can anyone appreciate why I HATE the way they assess whether you get EMA or not? I will still have to get a job because I need to pay for my books and stationary - I live in the South East and as it's a 'rich area' for most people, there are a lot of compulsory school trips I'll have to pay for, subscriptions like £40 common room fee and so on - all trying to pay for driving lessons/car and save for uni!

    Anyone in a smiliar situation?

    MissSurfer
    I think they should definitely take into account the number of children, since obviously if you were an only child, your mum and her partner would be better equipped to support you and pay for the things you need.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,380

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. Keele University
    General Open Day Undergraduate
    Sun, 19 Aug '18
  2. University of Melbourne
    Open Day Undergraduate
    Sun, 19 Aug '18
  3. Sheffield Hallam University
    City Campus Undergraduate
    Tue, 21 Aug '18
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.