Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by natalie-marie)
    Another thing that really annoys me is that people from lower income backgrounds can get money to go to Uni and not have to pay at all.
    Natalie
    Intill after uni when there looking at 12k+ Debt! Im freaking out already and im only in my first year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanzing)
    Intill after uni when there looking at 12k+ Debt! Im freaking out already and im only in my first year.
    Only 12K, I'm looking at 24K atleast. Low income families get bursaries rather than loans but why? We are going to be at in the same position at the end of it if our parents don't pay, so how come do those on low incomes don't have pay half of it back?!?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanzing)
    Intill after uni when there looking at 12k+ Debt! Im freaking out already and im only in my first year.
    I can get a loan, but people from lower income backgrounds actually get it paid for them through various bursaries that nothing but their parents' income qualifies them for. I can't get these bursaries because my parents (who aren't and certainly couldn't afford to pay for my education) get more that about 30k.

    NM
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by natalie-marie)
    I can get a loan, but people from lower income backgrounds actually get it paid for them through various bursaries that nothing but their parents' income qualifies them for. I can't get these bursaries because my parents (who aren't and certainly couldn't afford to pay for my education) get more that about 30k.

    NM
    I wouldnt say everything paid for, I mean My parents earn around 15K combined, I get my tution fees paid and a grant of 1k, But I still need the loan in order to live for the year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's really fair that they discriminate on basis of income alone. I mean, my parents earn significantly above the threshold but they also have 5 kids..And at least 3 of them will be at uni. together. Without grants and bursaries, we're all going to have to work part-time, take out loans, defer payment, etc..and end up in way more debt that people who do qualify for EMA and are actually better off than us especially if they have only 1-2 kids in the family as theoretically, they can spend more money on each of the kids than my parents can on each of us, if that makes sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marshmallow_mayhem)
    I don't think it's really fair that they discriminate on basis of income alone. I mean, my parents earn significantly above the threshold but they also have 5 kids..And at least 3 of them will be at uni. together. Without grants and bursaries, we're all going to have to work part-time, take out loans, defer payment, etc..and end up in way more debt that people who do qualify for EMA and are actually better off than us especially if they have only 1-2 kids in the family as theoretically, they can spend more money on each of the kids than my parents can on each of us, if that makes sense.
    Could you not argue though that their actions brought those children into the world and they made the choice to have 5 and not the standard 2 and therefore they not the state should support the up bringing of these extra family members. It could they be argued that you parents should have thought about the consequences of those cold winter nights and whether they could fully support these additional children.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, but it's not fair to punish the children for it.

    And my parents are morally opposed to birth control.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marshmallow_mayhem)
    Yes, but it's not fair to punish the children for it.

    And my parents are morally opposed to birth control.
    Not really an excuse is it, there are other ways than birth control if they can't support kids - DON'T DO IT lol

    But if you are going to argue that parents who earn more are responsible for their children shouldn't you therefore extend this to them being socially responsible with family size.

    They punish mine for earning too much, why not punish yours for not failing to use contraception. :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JBacon)
    They punish mine for earning too much
    In a nutshell!

    NM
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    EMA is ridiculously unfair. It penalises those whose parents work, and earn a living (like mine). One friend of mine just uses his EMA for phone credit, anyway. It's feckin' stupid. It really persists me off, because I'm skint and I'd do anything for that £30.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JBacon)
    Could you not argue though that their actions brought those children into the world and they made the choice to have 5 and not the standard 2 and therefore they not the state should support the up bringing of these extra family members. It could be argued that your parents should have thought about the consequences of those cold winter nights and whether they could fully support these additional children.

    Rather than negative rep me for this suggestions perhaps you could present a reasoned argument to counter it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Girl_Anachronism)
    It penalises those whose parents work, and earn a living (like mine).
    I think you'll find that a majorty of EMA recievers parents work and earn a living. Unfortunately not all us can live up to the jobless sterotypes!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marshmallow_mayhem)
    Yes, but it's not fair to punish the children for it..
    But the other way to think about it, if measures were taken in order to take in account more of the funding for larger families wouldnt those who choose to have smaller families be punished? Its already speculated enough that society encourages bigger families in order to get more benefits.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see it as fair cause your parents can be just over the limit and yet have like 4 kids - in that instance you'd lose out. I agree with the notion to a degree but I don't see how in some cases people on £10 a week are seen as 'less advantaged' to people who are just over the threshold. Finally, the idea of some to 'go to college and do 2 ASs cause I can get £30 a week for doing nothing' I think is still there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm in year 12, and haven't recieved EMA this year - but due to my parents splitting up I will get it next year, and have to say I think it's going to be really useful. I work abourt 3/4 shifts a week at the moment, but with EMA won't need to and hence have more time for my ALevels. The system its decided on may not be entirely fair, but I think as a reward method it works. The temptation to miss lessons in 6th form is pretty high, and I think next year the thought of losing £30 because I'm too lazy to go, will certainly keep me going to all my lessons....

    (Original post by marshmallow_mayhem)
    I don't think it's really fair that they discriminate on basis of income alone. I mean, my parents earn significantly above the threshold but they also have 5 kids..And at least 3 of them will be at uni. together.
    I'm sure in the forms for loan applications/bursaries etc for university (don't know about EMA so its fairly off topic!), other dependents of your parents are taken into consideration (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!) so it wouldn't affect you greatly.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by in-between-dreams)
    I'm sure in the forms for loan applications/bursaries etc for university (don't know about EMA so its fairly off topic!), other dependents of your parents are taken into consideration (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!) so it wouldn't affect you greatly.
    Yep, they are.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Originally posted by JBacon
    Could you not argue though that their actions brought those children into the world and they made the choice to have 5 and not the standard 2 and therefore they not the state should support the up bringing of these extra family members. It could they be argued that you parents should have thought about the consequences of those cold winter nights and whether they could fully support these additional children.
    aaaaah, sounds like the arguments used in the 19th century when deciding to bring in the New Poor Law Amendment Act 1834.

    Sorry that was random but I can see the usefulness of the scheme but then again I think the government should stop trying to boast about how many people are now in higher education and instead make people want to stay there because its what they want. They should also do more to alleviate the problems that end with people in situations whereby they can't afford to send their children to school after GCSEs instead of paying out money to people so they can buy iPods etc.

    I don't get EMA and although my parent's income is above the threshold, I don't get £30 a week! I get £50 a month and I'm meant to buy everything I need with it, which includes clothes. I've literally had to beg my mum to take me shopping this weekend for new clothes, last time she took me was last summer and that was for summer stuff like bikini and skirts etc.

    The system isn't designed so that those who would go into higher education but can't because they're poor now can. The system is designed to encourage more people into higher education, so its essentially a bribe to continue with your education and I think thats wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by belle_27)
    aaaaah, sounds like the arguments used in the 19th century when deciding to bring in the New Poor Law Amendment Act 1834.
    Thank you for this fascinating observation . But does anyone not agree that parents should act responsibly when it comes to family size. Personally i would like to see child allowance capped at 3 children. (2 Perfect, 3, Opps another popped out, 4 I think someone wanted something to pop out), there just isnt the need for the government to support large families, it shouldnt be for the tax payer to do so.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JBacon)
    Thank you for this fascinating observation . But does anyone not agree that parents should act responsibly when it comes to family size. Personally i would like to see child allowance capped at 3 children. (2 Perfect, 3, Opps another popped out, 4 I think someone wanted something to pop out), there just isnt the need for the government to support large families, it shouldnt be for the tax payer to do so.
    I agree with that. If you want lots of children, it should be down to you to support them financially, not the taxpayer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Get a job damn it, I had to and countless others before you. I really hate the fact that I'm paying tax to fund things like this, it's crazy.
 
 
 

University open days

  • University of East Anglia
    UEA Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 23 Nov '18
  • Norwich University of the Arts
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Fri, 23 Nov '18
  • Edge Hill University
    All Faculties Undergraduate
    Sat, 24 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.