EMA withdrawall

savemoney

moromir thanks for your post above

I heard about them trying to save money, and out source there work.

moromir

savemoney wrote: »

moromir thanks for your post above

I heard about them trying to save money, and out source there work.

Thats the bottom line of their intentions, the result of which unfortunately is a few hundred forensic scientists *with experience* going for the same jobs as graduates. Bearing in mind FS are often called to be expert witnesses, experience is extremely important when establishing credability and so its very desirable to employers (above a graduate).

I think the short version of what I was trying to say was although its three years away - she needs to be prepared for the fact that the jobs are few and far between in this very specialised industry and she might do well to consider a broader degree and at least then be able to get some practical working lab experience that she can then use to get herself into the specific industry she wants.

But if she does go down the the route of studying forensic science - I might still have a few textbooks I'd be more than happy to send her if I can find them in storage. Whilst I'm on the subject - if you're anywhere near Cambridge - they used to have these massive warehouse booksales where everything was £1-2, I picked up some excellent general Chem textbooks as well as some ridiculously specialised ones (water purification etc) which all ended up being worth their weight in gold when I needed to source information. Definitely recommended if you can get to one of their sales, usually on a Saturday.

(Sorry for thread hijacking, I'm done!)

silvercar

When EMA was first introduced I swallowed the line that it was needed to encourage people to stay at school, that without it people would be forced tog et a job, that they couldn't afford train fares or books. But this applies to all students who don't work! Then the line was that those whose parents earned more could afford to buy clothes for their children, could afford the petrol to take them to college, could subsidise them with pocket money. So I thought it made sense.

Then I saw what happened in practice, that the money went on socialising and buying the latest gear because the parents of EMA recipients got CTC and WTC because their children stayed on at school, so they were happy for the kids to spend EMA on what they liked.

Lets face it £30 a week is not enough to persuade someone to stay at school if a job was beckoning. So its money for nothing.

Triker

Bottom line is there are always going to be parents who actively sabotage their offspring in FE, whether they get extra government money or not.

There are always going to be those who manage to milk the system for everything because they are allowed to.

There are those who don't believe the world owes them a living and have the drive and tenacity to make their own luck and money to achieve what they want or have used what is given to aid them on their educational journey.

There are those who haven't yet felt the reality of being out of education/training or work for a period of time and have the bank of Mum and Dad dry up.


None of us and our offspring have the luxury of sitting here waiting for something to happen....
the emergence over the next decade of young, driven people coming from the new rich of India and China.

Quoted from an article in the Sunday Times this weekend....


...the global middleclass is skilling up at a phenomenal rate....

In future, well educated youngsters from Epsom and Northumberland will vie not only with each other for uni places and jobs, but with similarly hyper-coached offspring from aspirational parents in China and Vietnam.


Just food for thought I guess, nothing in life is guaranteed.

Triker

silvercar wrote: »

When EMA was first introduced I swallowed the line that it was needed to encourage people to stay at school, that without it people would be forced tog et a job, that they couldn't afford train fares or books. But this applies to all students who don't work! Then the line was that those whose parents earned more could afford to buy clothes for their children, could afford the petrol to take them to college, could subsidise them with pocket money. So I thought it made sense.

Then I saw what happened in practice, that the money went on socialising and buying the latest gear because the parents of EMA recipients got CTC and WTC because their children stayed on at school, so they were happy for the kids to spend EMA on what they liked.

Lets face it £30 a week is not enough to persuade someone to stay at school if a job was beckoning. So its money for nothing.

Absolutely...my DD1 didn't qualify for EMA and we don't receive any benefits other than child benefit...the beauty of earning just over the threshold of whatever the limit is.

I gave my daughter £30 weekly as her version of EMA because I felt the system was so bluddy unfair.

silvercar

I gave my daughter £30 weekly as her version of EMA because I felt the system was so bluddy unfair.

Lots of people can't or don't consider that they should have that much disposable money at 16. My son had no food or clothes to buy, no transport costs to pay, he wasn't required to chip in to the family budget in any way and I paid his mobile and driving lessons; I didn't think £30 a week was necessary for his social life. My argument was that those on EMA should be using it to pay for some thing that I paid for him rather than being able to afford everything that I paid and have £30 a week extra.

vaporate

I never got EMA in my days but I still think it's wrong to take it away.

Getting spare work is not guaranteed, more so in todays job market. Plus parents may pressure their kids to get a job instead of further education as they may be financially poor. IF they can get a job in this country.

Big mistake in my book.

Triker

silvercar wrote: »

Lots of people can't or don't consider that they should have that much disposable money at 16. My son had no food or clothes to buy, no transport costs to pay, he wasn't required to chip in to the family budget in any way and I paid his mobile and driving lessons; I didn't think £30 a week was necessary for his social life. My argument was that those on EMA should be using it to pay for some thing that I paid for him rather than being able to afford everything that I paid and have £30 a week extra.

Well the £30.00 I gave her was for busfares, anything required for college and dinner money if she chose not to take a packed lunch.

It would have totalled that anyway if I'd have funded it, this way she taught herself some budgeting skills along the way.

silvercar

vaporate wrote: »

I never got EMA in my days but I still think it's wrong to take it away.

Getting spare work is not guaranteed, more so in todays job market. Plus parents may pressure their kids to get a job instead of further education as they may be financially poor. IF they can get a job in this country.

Big mistake in my book.

The parents who pressurise their kids to leave education are not going to be persuaded not to do so for £30 a week, when employment at min wage will give them over £200.

vaporate

£30 a week could pay for bus fare, and one or two books tops.

It does happen. I was slightly pressured myself, albeit EMA was not around then. It, ironically, came out 1 year later.