Raise The School Leaving Age?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

The problem will be the reduction of jobs available to uneducated persons- there wont be jobs for them to do

Why?
Where are all the jobs for 'your' uneducated people going to go.
I say 'your' because I did not like the term "jobs available to uneducated persons"

[SamF]

Originally Posted by blazey

And alot of people who do need it dont actually get it. To be honest, every single student in england could be forced to work part time to get money to fund their education, except those of course with disabilities that are very limited to work, but why should they if the money is there? One day they are more likely to have a job due to having more qualifications, and they will be tax payers and pay it all back, so its hardly unjust to give students money.

Why should some get it and others not ? Why do the people who's parents pay the least get the most ?

If your argument, as it seems to be, is that they will become tax payers in the end and therefore will pay it back, what makes the students who come from a background with a low work ethic more worthy of someone who will earn their keep ? If anything it is those that already have the part time jobs should be the first to receive the money, as they have shown the drive to get a job in the first place, meaning its more likely they will get a job after graduation, and therefore will be more likely to be paying tax/more tax in their future lives.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by SamF

If your argument, as it seems to be, is that they will become tax payers in the end and therefore will pay it back, what makes the students who come from a background with a low work ethic more worthy of someone who will earn their keep ? If anything it is those that already have the part time jobs should be the first to receive the money, as they have shown the drive to get a job in the first place, meaning its more likely they will get a job after graduation, and therefore will be more likely to be paying tax/more tax in their future lives.

Very well said.

Why should those who work hard to provide for there families get shafted while the idle ones get everything. A simple example would be prescription charges. Why should I pay shed loads in tax towards the NHS and still have to pay for prescriptions while the professional Tricia and Jerry Springer watchers get them for free?

[blazey]

Originally Posted by SamF

Why should some get it and others not ? Why do the people who's parents pay the least get the most ?

If your argument, as it seems to be, is that they will become tax payers in the end and therefore will pay it back, what makes the students who come from a background with a low work ethic more worthy of someone who will earn their keep ? If anything it is those that already have the part time jobs should be the first to receive the money, as they have shown the drive to get a job in the first place, meaning its more likely they will get a job after graduation, and therefore will be more likely to be paying tax/more tax in their future lives.

The theory is that the parents who can work can support their child to ensure they dont become unemployed, where as unemployed parents have very little means of supporting their children through education and are more likely to become unemployed themselves once they leave school.

I have friends who's parents earn too much money to be eligible for certain funds but they could really do with the funds, which is what i said in the first sentence in response to you. Just because someone is from a parentage with bad work ethic doesn't mean that they should be taken away the ability to fund their education too. Some peoples parents dont give a damn about whether they get a college/uni education or not, so why should those students be made to suffer just because some conservative people think that its wrong to provide equal oppurtunities for all, because thats basically what you are saying. Fair enough if you seemed more bothered about those from better off families not getting funding, but your making it sound very bitter to those 16yrs olds wanting to go to college and hoping for £30.

The idea the government have is that those earning £30,000+ will have gained some education themselves, and will understand that it is important to fund their child if they want the to be successful. People who dont work also want their children to do well but simply dont earn enough in the governments eyes to make a significant contribution, and so the government provide funds for those students. Its hardly unfair, it just excludes some criteria such as parents who earn £30000 but have for example 8 children, which is the type of family my friend was from, and she didnt get a penny, and obviously £30000 between 10 people doesnt go very far.

[blazey]

I think some people are blaming the parents rather than thinking about the child of these families who do actually want to further their education and get decent jobs. Why should someone have a difficult time gaining an education just because people are condemning their parents?

Everyone deserves an equal chance at education, and if £30 a week is what is needed to do that then I believe that is fair, but then how many of you have actually been subjected to having to depend on money because your parents simply cant afford all the materials you need?

[SamF]

Just because someone is from a parentage with bad work ethic doesn't mean that they should be taken away the ability to fund their education too. Some peoples parents dont give a damn about whether they get a college/uni education or not, so why should those students be made to suffer just because some conservative people think that its wrong to provide equal oppurtunities for all, because thats basically what you are saying.
Fair enough if you seemed more bothered about those from better off families not getting funding, but your making it sound very bitter to those 16yrs olds wanting to go to college and hoping for £30.

Exactly. Equal opportunities. Why should I have to pay £25k when others get it for free ?

It is me that will have to work my arse off to get a degree and me who will have to deal the paying for the thing. My parents don't come into it, and they shouldn't do. It is going to be my name on the paper at the end of the day, not theirs, even if they could afford to help in anyway, they shouldn't have to.

It is possible for anybody aged 16 to get into college, it's free. The loans are there for anybody who gets the A levels to get into university. Anyone who is willing to work for it can get a degree, your parents could earn nothing, you could get no grants and still get a degree, you'll be stuck with the huge debts yes, but things cost it's a fact of life. My point is that not getting EMA will not stop you reaching higher education, no matter what your background.

The idea the government have is that those earning £30,000+ will have gained some education themselves, and will understand that it is important to fund their child if they want the to be successful. People who dont work also want their children to do well but simply dont earn enough in the governments eyes to make a significant contribution, and so the government provide funds for those students. Its hardly unfair, it just excludes some criteria such as parents who earn £30000 but have for example 8 children, which is the type of family my friend was from, and she didnt get a penny, and obviously £30000 between 10 people doesnt go very far.

Again, why should parents come into this, at the age of 18 your legally independent, it is you that wants the degree, and it should be you that pays for it, if your parents are rich and can pay for it, lucky you, but if the government started paying for everything rich kids can get from their parents there would be a lot more Range Rovers on the road.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by SamF

Exactly. Equal opportunities. Why should I have to pay £25k when others get it for free ?

It is me that will have to work my arse off to get a degree and me who will have to deal the paying for the thing. My parents don't come into it, and they shouldn't do. It is going to be my name on the paper at the end of the day, not theirs, even if they could afford to help in anyway, they shouldn't have to.

It is possible for anybody aged 16 to get into college, it's free. The loans are there for anybody who gets the A levels to get into university. Anyone who is willing to work for it can get a degree, your parents could earn nothing, you could get no grants and still get a degree, you'll be stuck with the huge debts yes, but things cost it's a fact of life. My point is that not getting EMA will not stop you reaching higher education, no matter what your background.



Again, why should parents come into this, at the age of 18 your legally independent, it is you that wants the degree, and it should be you that pays for it, if your parents are rich and can pay for it, lucky you, but if the government started paying for everything rich kids can get from their parents there would be a lot more Range Rovers on the road.

I'm from a low income family and I get £2000 a year free, which wouldnt amount to £25000 after 3 yrs of the same payments. I wouldnt have got through college without EMA and I had a job when I could manage one, and I know many people who wouldnt be here at Uni aswell without any funding whatsoever.
I will leave the education system with MORE than 25k debt and I'm from a low income single parent family, so I'm not going to complain about my right to financial help when I am going to be leaving here with just as much, if not more debt than alot of students.

[SamF]

Originally Posted by blazey

I'm from a low income family and I get £2000 a year free, which wouldnt amount to £25000 after 3 yrs of the same payments. I wouldnt have got through college without EMA and I had a job when I could manage one, and I know many people who wouldnt be here at Uni aswell without any funding whatsoever.
I will leave the education system with MORE than 25k debt and I'm from a low income single parent family, so I'm not going to complain about my right to financial help when I am going to be leaving here with just as much, if not more debt than alot of students.

Law students are in the minority, spending a much longer time in the education system. If you look at it as a general "student" rather than law student what would your opinion be ? A side note being that not even a college education is needed to become a solicitor if you take the legal exec route.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by SamF

Law students are in the minority, spending a much longer time in the education system. If you look at it as a general "student" rather than law student what would your opinion be ? A side note being that not even a college education is needed to become a solicitor if you take the legal exec route.

And who in their right mind would want to become a solicitor Also if you check the figures for the exams you still have to take when going through the none uni route, you would still accumulate at least £10000 debt, as I remember being told that one exam alone (The LPC i believe, costs on average £7000).

Law students are not in a minority when you consider that alot of the health profession, social services and business students spend more than 3yrs at university, just to name few of many subjects that now require more than just a degree to get a decent job. Also the number of law students is very high, and jobs are competitive, and those taking the exec route have to be particularly talented to get anywhere decent, so its more of a matter of time or money with the solicitors route.

However, I still think its relevant to point out that I am one of these low income students from 'bad work ethic families' or whatever your exact words where, and I still have to leave with a huge amount of debt just like everyone else. I have to pay for my fee's, my accomodation etc, so talking about degrees and the cost to anyone really has no relevance when it comes to social class and employment, as nobody is exempt from fee's as much as some people might like to believe, so the 'low income crowd' are of no significant advantage at university.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by blazey

Everyone deserves an equal chance at education, and if £30 a week is what is needed to do that then I believe that is fair, but then how many of you have actually been subjected to having to depend on money because your parents simply cant afford all the materials you need?

I had to earn my living at the same time as trying to further my education. It wasn't easy.

My daughter isn't entitled to EMA but we are far from rich with money to throw away.

It isn't a fair system but that's life - life isn't fair.

Another example of how unfair life is - some people who need medicines to stay alive get free prescriptions because their medical conditions are on a government list. My father needed numerous tablets but as his condition did not come under any of the headings he had to pay for everything. Why? If he'd stopped taking his tablets he'd have dropped dead.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I had to earn my living at the same time as trying to further my education. It wasn't easy.

My daughter isn't entitled to EMA but we are far from rich with money to throw away.

It isn't a fair system but that's life - life isn't fair.

Another example of how unfair life is - some people who need medicines to stay alive get free prescriptions because their medical conditions are on a government list. My father needed numerous tablets but as his condition did not come under any of the headings he had to pay for everything. Why? If he'd stopped taking his tablets he'd have dropped dead.

Yes there was a little girl in the paper the other week, 6yrs old, who'd raised £8000 for her dad to have cancer treatment that wasn't funded by NHS.
I think the NHS funding is a little different that education funding, in the sense that, with educational funding they dont weigh up your chances of success, and unfortunatly with health, if its a medication they dont subscribe and you aren't likely to survive, then they cut the funds going to you in alot of cases.
Its not just the case of whether its on a list, its also whether the illness is past a certain point as well, as with that little girls dad, who apparently is doing really well on the medicine he's had to pay for.

I think I've heard in some cases that if NHS dont fund the medicine, but you pay for it yourself and do really well on it, then you can make an appeal for the funds.

The way I see this, is that I put down a third of the income on those EMA forms, so if those who are earning that are saying they struggle to live off 3 times my families income, and pay for bus fare and equipment for their children up to the costs of £30 a week tops, then their priorities clearly aren't right. Maybe its the fact that your running the car? We dont have a car in my household so I guess if people on low income can cope without that then aot of you could probably save oney by not having one, save on road tax and whatever and then buy a yearly bus pass or whatever save the environment

[blazey]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

It isn't a fair system but that's life - life isn't fair.

If its ok to not be fair on those who have low income then why can't it just not be fair on those with higher income for once then Its good that your father had the money to afford that treatment even if he had to make the rest of the family suffer a bit, because in this day and age with cancer drugs at £8000 for two months treatment, most people would have no choice but to just die.

[Ianto.W.]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I had to earn my living at the same time as trying to further my education. It wasn't easy.

My daughter isn't entitled to EMA but we are far from rich with money to throw away.

It isn't a fair system but that's life - life isn't fair.

Another example of how unfair life is - some people who need medicines to stay alive get free prescriptions because their medical conditions are on a government list. My father needed numerous tablets but as his condition did not come under any of the headings he had to pay for everything. Why? If he'd stopped taking his tablets he'd have dropped dead.

Good point Willow, in my day if you were 'working classes' it was work as well or you do not go, no computers etc, just expensive fountain pen's hours of longhand essays, no cutting and pasting out of text books, candles when the electricity ran out. As Mc milllan said in the early 60s"You aint never had it so good" some backsides are cleaned easyer than others.
As for the tablets Willow my comisserations I have personal exprrience in this field, although I have had the very best of treatment when it was required and dealt with admirably.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

Good point Willow, in my day if you were 'working classes' it was work as well or you do not go, no computers etc, just expensive fountain pen's hours of longhand essays, no cutting and pasting out of text books, candles when the electricity ran out. As Mc milllan said in the early 60s"You aint never had it so good" some backsides are cleaned easyer than others.
As for the tablets Willow my comisserations I have personal exprrience in this field, although I have had the very best of treatment when it was required and dealt with admirably.

Law is very old fashioned still and we still have to read out of huge dusty volumes of cases, and if we plagiarise then we are likely to never have a legal career, just as it was when you were young. Alot of subjects are much simpler now, for example there are degrees in film, media, sociology etc, which are undoubtedly easier, but it seems a few people are mistaken about how much students from low income families have to pay towards education compared to those with higher income. The difference isnt all that significant at all.

Why is it that older people believe young people dont study as hard and earn their education simply because there is more money to support them and more technology?

[Jae Swift]

Originally Posted by blazey

Law is very old fashioned still and we still have to read out of huge dusty volumes of cases, and if we plagiarise then we are likely to never have a legal career, just as it was when you were young. Alot of subjects are much simpler now, for example there are degrees in film, media, sociology etc, which are undoubtedly easier, but it seems a few people are mistaken about how much students from low income families have to pay towards education compared to those with higher income. The difference isnt all that significant at all.

Why is it that older people believe young people dont study as hard and earn their education simply because there is more money to support them and more technology?

Old people think younger people are "silly little yobs that do nothing. All they do is mug people, it was much different 'back in the day'"