Turn on thread page Beta
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito: :dito:
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    i see support is building....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JaDaAu)
    That is where you are wrong, i can speak out against it, i am not claiming that there are any statistics to back up my point, since at the moment there are no useful statistics to back any point in this arguement. But, from all the evidence i have heard from people on here and people i know, i have reached the conclusions that i have stated on here.
    Yes that is a fantastically accurate source to backup your claim, not at all biased or generalising.

    And yes i do realise that university applications are down because of top up fees, there is no need to sound like a patronising idiot, but how can someone possibly claim EMA is making more people go to uni, when overall there is a decrease in applications, no matter what the cause of this decrease is. To try and argue such a point would be foolish in the extreme.
    I never said that EMA would encourage people to go to Uni. I drew the comparison to show that money is a factor for some people when continuing education, thus EMA may be necassary to help some people continue their studies.

    You have over generalised the situation immensely, you seem to think there is some clear cut boundary between the so called 'working class' and 'middle class'. If you are going to use such terms, then could we please have your definition of them, there is no point saying my arguement is invalid for not providing statistics when you cannot do the same.
    I did not say your argument was invalid, I said neither side could use statistics to back up their point, but using individual examples (particularly from people posting in this topic who are mostly opposed to EMA and are therefore drastically biased) is equally foolish. For the case of this argument I was considering the class boundary so clear cut as to define the difference between those eligible for EMA and those not.

    You are very naive when it comes to all this.
    And you call me patronising Try to have some respect for my points rather than just degrading me personally. It's so middle class of you :rolleyes: (Joke by the way before you jump to conclusions).

    Just for the record I reiterate that the current EMA system is fairly stupid. The means test is terribly organised and the bonuses are unnecassary. I also recognise the scheme is partly motivated to make Labour's education record look nice and shiny. But I maintain that there is a need for some people to recieve financial assistece to continue their education to prevent a social divide between the rich and poor.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Laika)
    people posting in this topic who are mostly opposed to EMA and are therefore drastically biased
    ???????? isn't this forum about our opinions:confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alispam)
    ???????? isn't this forum about our opinions:confused:
    Of course. I was noting that he was using evidence provided on this forum in formulating his opinion. As most people here seem to be opposed to EMA, their accounts and anecdotes of problems with the system are going to be inherently biased, and shouldn't be treated as an accurate representation of EMA as a whole. Your opinions towards the scheme are just as valid as anyone's, but when formulating an opinion on a matter, it is best not to draw all your evidence from one small slice of a population which all share one particular mindset.

    Capiche? :cool:
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Capiche!:cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Yes that is a fantastically accurate source to backup your claim, not at all biased or generalising.
    well put it this way, i have at least provided some sort of evidence to back up my claim, which is more that can be said for you and your arguement. It is not biased, i didn't only ask people i knew got EMA and didn't need it, i just asked some people who i knew got EMA, a small sample granted, but it's one sample more than you have provided.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Yes that is a fantastically accurate source to backup your claim, not at all biased or generalising.


    I never said that EMA would encourage people to go to Uni. I drew the comparison to show that money is a factor for some people when continuing education, thus EMA may be necassary to help some people continue their studies.


    I did not say your argument was invalid, I said neither side could use statistics to back up their point, but using individual examples (particularly from people posting in this topic who are mostly opposed to EMA and are therefore drastically biased) is equally foolish. For the case of this argument I was considering the class boundary so clear cut as to define the difference between those eligible for EMA and those not.


    And you call me patronising Try to have some respect for my points rather than just degrading me personally. It's so middle class of you :rolleyes: (Joke by the way before you jump to conclusions).

    Just for the record I reiterate that the current EMA system is fairly stupid. The means test is terribly organised and the bonuses are unnecassary. I also recognise the scheme is partly motivated to make Labour's education record look nice and shiny. But I maintain that there is a need for some people to recieve financial assistece to continue their education to prevent a social divide between the rich and poor.

    Is it just me or is it hilarious when people manage to contradict themselves in just a couple of posts :stupid:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JaDaAu)
    Is it just me or is it hilarious when people manage to contradict themselves in just a couple of posts :stupid:
    Maybe you'd like to point out the contradictions or address the points my post made? I suppose instead you'd rather avoid that and simply insult me. Well done for making your argument look convincing.

    well put it this way, i have at least provided some sort of evidence to back up my claim, which is more that can be said for you and your arguement. It is not biased, i didn't only ask people i knew got EMA and didn't need it, i just asked some people who i knew got EMA, a small sample granted, but it's one sample more than you have provided.
    I can readily think of several examples of people exploiting the system, just as have been listed here. There was one girl at my college who managed to swindle the full £30 because her Dad was self employed and they somehow managed to tone down his declarable income. I recognise there is problems with the system as I have already said many times.

    However I can also recognise that in principle, I agree with EMA. I could reel off some examples of people I know who wouldn't have continued their education had it not been for the financial support EMA gave them. But what would be the point? It doesn't prove anything, it is one example out of thousands of people in the country. All it would do would come off as a stupid generalisation.

    This isn't about individual circumstances, it's about recognising that SOME people NEED some financial support in post 16 education. Do you think that free school dinners in secondary school and concessionary bus fares for under 16 year olds should be gotten rid of? Because when you turn 16 you lose those priveleges, but the money for the child doesn't magically spring up in their parents bank account to support a kid into their 12th and 13th year. Without EMA, some people just couldn't afford to go to college and would be forced straight into the workplace. If you can't recognise that problems like this exist for low income families, then you are severly disillusioned.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Maybe you'd like to point out the contradictions or address the points my post made? I suppose instead you'd rather avoid that and simply insult me. Well done for making your argument look convincing.


    I can readily think of several examples of people exploiting the system, just as have been listed here. There was one girl at my college who managed to swindle the full £30 because her Dad was self employed and they somehow managed to tone down his declarable income. I recognise there is problems with the system as I have already said many times.

    However I can also recognise that in principle, I agree with EMA. I could reel off some examples of people I know who wouldn't have continued their education had it not been for the financial support EMA gave them. But what would be the point? It doesn't prove anything, it is one example out of thousands of people in the country. All it would do would come off as a stupid generalisation.

    This isn't about individual circumstances, it's about recognising that SOME people NEED some financial support in post 16 education. Do you think that free school dinners in secondary school and concessionary bus fares for under 16 year olds should be gotten rid of? Because when you turn 16 you lose those priveleges, but the money for the child doesn't magically spring up in their parents bank account to support a kid into their 12th and 13th year. Without EMA, some people just couldn't afford to go to college and would be forced straight into the workplace. If you can't recognise that problems like this exist for low income families, then you are severly disillusioned.

    Well i haven't heard a single example of someone who has needed EMA to carry on their education and you seem reluctant to provide an example. It would prove something, it would prove that there is at least one person EMA is helped when so far i do not know of such an example, and it would counter the 'bias', as you call it, of this thread. One example in thousands isn't a lot, but it's more than one.

    And i have pointed out the contradictions in your posts, the bits of your posts i've quoted i.e. pretty much everything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I get the EMA, but i don't think it's fair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JaDaAu)
    Well i haven't heard a single example of someone who has needed EMA to carry on their education and you seem reluctant to provide an example. It would prove something, it would prove that there is at least one person EMA is helped when so far i do not know of such an example, and it would counter the 'bias', as you call it, of this thread. One example in thousands isn't a lot, but it's more than one.

    And i have pointed out the contradictions in your posts, the bits of your posts i've quoted i.e. pretty much everything.
    :hello:

    umm yea, i really do need to receive EMA, given that i have only 1 parent who works full time to support me and my brother, she doesn't earn that much anyway.

    £15 a week goes to helping out with the bills for internet, and the food etc.

    £5 is saved.

    the rest goes towards equipment (which ok i admit isn't that frequent) andfood for the week (which usually costs £10 anyway).


    and any extra money (work) goes towards going out/alcohol etc. :rolleyes:


    so i guess thats 1 example...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the fact that it is awarded based on household income, means middle class children, who live with their mothers (who either don't work, or are in very low paid jobs), but still recieve financial support from their fathers (who earn £90k + p/a), are still eligible to claim. they spend the money on alcohol and clothes. they even attend private school. you would have thought this very fact would be enough to indicate that they had a another steady form of income, in addition to their household income, therefore making them uneligible. it doesn't.

    it does happen - i know several people in this situation.

    when you start paying taxes, this is where a lot of the money goes.

    think about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    umm yea, i really do need to receive EMA, given that i have only 1 parent who works full time to support me and my brother, she doesn't earn that much anyway.

    £15 a week goes to helping out with the bills for internet, and the food etc.

    £5 is saved.

    the rest goes towards equipment (which ok i admit isn't that frequent) andfood for the week (which usually costs £10 anyway).


    and any extra money (work) goes towards going out/alcohol etc.
    Still cna't see quite why you deserve it. If money was that much of an issue you wouldn't be paying £15 for the internet and if you needed for educational purposes would either use your schools or have a pay as you gto dail up and not waste time and money on TSR. And there where is your job, if money was that much of an issue you would be working part-time(like many of those not receiving EMA). And thirdly if money was that much of an issue every little helps and that extra wouldnt be spend on alcohol but rather saved or used productivly.

    so i guess thats 1 example...
    I think not...like many examples on here
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JaDaAu)
    Well i haven't heard a single example of someone who has needed EMA to carry on their education and you seem reluctant to provide an example. It would prove something, it would prove that there is at least one person EMA is helped when so far i do not know of such an example, and it would counter the 'bias', as you call it, of this thread. One example in thousands isn't a lot, but it's more than one.

    And i have pointed out the contradictions in your posts, the bits of your posts i've quoted i.e. pretty much everything.
    Well someone has provided an example in this thread (above), and I know several people who attended my college who were in a similar situation.

    I fail to see how I contradicted myself. You seem to just be throwing out wild generalisations without actually putting any thought into the idea behind EMA.

    Still cna't see quite why you deserve it. If money was that much of an issue you wouldn't be paying £15 for the internet and if you needed for educational purposes would either use your schools or have a pay as you gto dail up and not waste time and money on TSR. And there where is your job, if money was that much of an issue you would be working part-time(like many of those not receiving EMA). And thirdly if money was that much of an issue every little helps and that extra wouldnt be spend on alcohol but rather saved or used productivly
    I think the person you quoted said that the money for alchohol and luxuries comes from working part time, that renders your point moot. And perhaps if you had a shred of humanity you might acknowledge that people from poorer families are entitled to at least some standard of living above the poverty line. Do you think it is fair that some people can breeze through a private school and University on their parent's expenses whilst some people have to be constantly saving their money and spending every penny they own on education or as you put it 'used productively'? The very fact that you can't really draw a distinction between that just shows your complete lack of compassion and comprehension for people in a worse off position than you are.

    Apparently people who are opposed to the idea behind EMA/benefits in general believe it is fitting to punish children because their parents don't have a huge income, and force them to work their way up to the standard of everyone else. Congratulations.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Laika)
    You seem to just be throwing out wild generalisations without actually putting any thought into the idea behind EMA.
    The problem isn't (in a perfect world) the idea behind EMA, its the idiot(s) that designed a system that had sooo many loop holes it was nothing but a hole...

    Yes in an ideal world money shouldn't affect your education - in that case all private/public schools should be demolished (which i'm not saying shouldn't happen) - but in an ideal world all children are little angels and all classes are well behaved and hence evryone gets a decent education (and we all know that's never going to happen)...

    The problem is there are sooo many holes in thes system that as i said before those that often deserve it don't get it whilst those that use the holes in the system do - its not their fault its the fault of the people who deigned the system.

    I'm not against those who need the money getting it, but wouldn't it be better if the £100 bonuses were scrapped (this creates a two tier system where some people are rewarded for working whilst others are not...) and the system was tightening and people who needed the money got more than £30 a week whilst those who were fiddling their income got nothing.

    I have several friends on EMA who all have sky, DVD players, ipods etc at home yet i have none of those and i do not get EMA, yes my parents earn more than the limit but is it really fair for them to make over £300 on bonuses alone whilst their paying £XX a month to watch sky?? Do i feal bitter towards a government that does not reward me for working harder than the people its paying £300? Do i want to pay my taxes so people whose parents are sitting at home on benefit watching sky can get £300???? over my dead body....

    Yes this doesn't apply to everyone but to a large number. The system needs tightning up.

    P.S. think what could happen if all the millions spent on EMA went to the NHS (it wouldn't cure the problem but it would help.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alispam)
    The problem isn't (in a perfect world) the idea behind EMA, its the idiot(s) that designed a system that had sooo many loop holes it was nothing but a hole...
    Well I agree with that. It does have a lot of problems. It was just reading this thread I got the impression it wasn't the problems with the current design but the actual concept itself which people disliked.

    Yes in an ideal world money shouldn't affect your education - in that case all private/public schools should be demolished (which i'm not saying shouldn't happen)
    Yes please

    The problem is there are sooo many holes in thes system that as i said before those that often deserve it don't get it whilst those that use the holes in the system do - its not their fault its the fault of the people who deigned the system.
    Indeed.

    If the means test was tightened up and the bonuses were scrapped though we might have a more worthwhile system.

    As for the NHS thing, well I think there's a lot of misspent money in this countries budget and EMA isn't the biggest criminal amongst them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Well someone has provided an example in this thread (above), and I know several people who attended my college who were in a similar situation.

    I fail to see how I contradicted myself. You seem to just be throwing out wild generalisations without actually putting any thought into the idea behind EMA.

    Apparently people who are opposed to the idea behind EMA/benefits in general believe it is fitting to punish children because their parents don't have a huge income, and force them to work their way up to the standard of everyone else. Congratulations.
    Yes, congratulations we finally have an example, wasn't too difficult was it?

    You are the person throwing out wild generalisations (i do suggest you look that word up as you seem to be using it out of context for absolutely no reason in every single post), you have defined people as either working class or middle class, probably one of the largest generalisations you can possibly make.

    And yes, of course we all think children should be punished for their parents having a low income, how clever of you to realise that was what we really thought....... :stupid:
    Now who's making wild generalisations, claiming everyone against EMA seems to think this.
    Congratulations.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that EMA is unfair i mean some people who i know that get it dont even turn into 6th form yet they still get it they got the bonus as well even though your meant to have over 92% attendence. I mean i work hard every weekend to get less than most EMA receivers get n evry1 i know who gets EMA do not use it to go towards their studies its either used to by themselves drugs or alcohol so somehow it dont seem fair really
 
 
 

University open days

  • Southampton Solent University
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Sun, 18 Nov '18
  • University of Bradford
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    All Faculties Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

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.