We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Son dropping out of college-am I still entitled to tax credits
Comments
-
First of all, I'm not railing against anybody. I used my own parents as an example, because it seems to me that parents often have expectations for their children that don't match what the child wants for themselves.
Because often parents can see the pitfalls when children can't. It is not all about expectation but wanting to stop them making a mistake. One of our sons started a course of study of his choice albeit suggested and pushed by the careers advisor at school. As parents we asked him to really think about and suggested he go with his passion(!) He went down the first avenue, withing 18 months he had given up the course. He changed tack to where his heart lay and he has never looked back.Yes, at 16 we do need to re-engage our children if they are leaving school but haven't chosen anything to go to. The best way to do that is give them access to the course, or working opportunity if the want to work and earn while they study, they want to go on.
I don't think anyone is saying differently. The OP is about a young person dropping out and doing nothing.Plenty of 16 year olds apply in good time for their college courses. They might still not get a place. Whose fault is that? The government's.
As a lecturer in a college that is not my experience.If, even if they had access to whatever they wanted to do, they still didn't feel like doing anything, that's different. I don't know any teenagers in that position. Their default position from what I can see is "we know what education we need access to, and we want it now." Indecisiveness is not one of their weaknesses.
I don't think you will see as many as I do, and believe me that is not a true statement. The reality is NEETS do fall into that category by definition.I'm all for people following their passions. I hate working with people bored out of their brains at work. Or people who try to do the absolute minimum because they don't like their jobs but "have to" do them because they can't stand the alternative of changing to a lower paid but more enjoyable job. And I couldn't care less what it pays. Work should be about doing something meaningful for yourself, not just for a mediocre paycheck once a month.
You must be in the minority if you do not care what you are paid.But one thing for sure, if it did only pay £1 an hour, I certainly wouldn't support the current situation, where other taxpayers have to add to the "passionate worker's" income, because their income isn't enough to pay their rent or put food on the table. Thank goodness UC is putting a stop to that wee racket.
So, follow your passion, but if you do and it is low paid, tough. That is contradictory. What you mean is follow your passion if it pays well enough to support you. Which is what I said. Passion and pragmatism don't make good bedfellows in the working world.If the government is prepared to offer courses in a particular discipline, then I expect them to be equally prepared to incentivise employers to take on -and pay - those graduates once they graduate, for at least three years, until they have sufficient experience to be able to stand on their own two feet in terms of getting employment. If they can do it for the NHS, why can't they do it for everything else?
You confuse me, you want incentives in one sphere, but object to other incentives to bolster those who are low paid. Either way it is funded by you and I. None of my sons had problems getting graduate jobs, they had good CV's, did unpaid internships, agency work, and had an employment history by the time they graduated. They didn't need taxpayers bailing them out.0 -
Plenty of 16 year olds apply in good time for their college courses. They might still not get a place. Whose fault is that? The government's.
Not necessarily. They might not be suited to a particular course, the entry might be competitive or there may not be suitable courses in their area as FE is supposed to respond to the demands of employers, just as much as it responds to the needs of students.
If, even if they had access to whatever they wanted to do, they still didn't feel like doing anything, that's different. I don't know any teenagers in that position. Their default position from what I can see is "we know what education we need access to, and we want it now." Indecisiveness is not one of their weaknesses.
Having worked as a lecturer in FE for many years I have to disagree. Obviously some have very clear ideas of what they need (not necessarily relaistic) but many have very little. Many the latter go on to be NEETS.
I'm all for people following their passions. I hate working with people bored out of their brains at work. Or people who try to do the absolute minimum because they don't like their jobs but "have to" do them because they can't stand the alternative of changing to a lower paid but more enjoyable job. And I couldn't care less what it pays. Work should be about doing something meaningful for yourself, not just for a mediocre paycheck once a month. But one thing for sure, if it did only pay £1 an hour, I certainly wouldn't support the current situation, where other taxpayers have to add to the "passionate worker's" income, because their income isn't enough to pay their rent or put food on the table. Thank goodness UC is putting a stop to that wee racket.
If money isn't a motivating factor for you, you're in a very small minority. Research shows that money is the second most imprtant influence on a young person's career choice, after their parents.
If the government is prepared to offer courses in a particular discipline, then I expect them to be equally prepared to incentivise employers to take on -and pay - those graduates once they graduate, for at least three years, until they have sufficient experience to be able to stand on their own two feet in terms of getting employment. If they can do it for the NHS, why can't they do it for everything else?
The government doesn't put on courses, colleges and universities do. In vocational education/training these are linked to the needs of business and industry, not the other way round.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "if they can do it for the NHS" because enormous numbers of Nursing graduates are without work and this is the same for |physiotherapy and mifwifery as well.0 -
What I'm not so into is parents whose children deserve a gap year not wanting their children to languish and relax for a short time in their lives before they resume their education. 13 years in an institution like school deserves a break, imho, no matter how well or otherwise the child did.
Do you think though, that that gap year should involve doing nothing?
I get that, after 13 years of education, some children may need a break from it but doing nothing doesn't seem right and it's not something I would want my girls to consider.There is something delicious about writing the first words of a story. You never quite know where they'll take you - Beatrix Potter0 -
First of all, I'm not railing against anybody. I used my own parents as an example, because it seems to me that parents often have expectations for their children that don't match what the child wants for themselves.
Yes, at 16 we do need to re-engage our children if they are leaving school but haven't chosen anything to go to. The best way to do that is give them access to the course, or working opportunity if the want to work and earn while they study, they want to go on.
Plenty of 16 year olds apply in good time for their college courses. They might still not get a place. Whose fault is that? The government's.
If, even if they had access to whatever they wanted to do, they still didn't feel like doing anything, that's different. I don't know any teenagers in that position. Their default position from what I can see is "we know what education we need access to, and we want it now." Indecisiveness is not one of their weaknesses.
I'm all for people following their passions. I hate working with people bored out of their brains at work. Or people who try to do the absolute minimum because they don't like their jobs but "have to" do them because they can't stand the alternative of changing to a lower paid but more enjoyable job. And I couldn't care less what it pays. Work should be about doing something meaningful for yourself, not just for a mediocre paycheck once a month. But one thing for sure, if it did only pay £1 an hour, I certainly wouldn't support the current situation, where other taxpayers have to add to the "passionate worker's" income, because their income isn't enough to pay their rent or put food on the table. Thank goodness UC is putting a stop to that wee racket.
If the government is prepared to offer courses in a particular discipline, then I expect them to be equally prepared to incentivise employers to take on -and pay - those graduates once they graduate, for at least three years, until they have sufficient experience to be able to stand on their own two feet in terms of getting employment. If they can do it for the NHS, why can't they do it for everything else?Do you think though, that that gap year should involve doing nothing?
I get that, after 13 years of education, some children may need a break from it but doing nothing doesn't seem right and it's not something I would want my girls to consider.
Gap years are usually only considered valuable if the student has spent the time productively, otherwise universities and employers are going to look at the period very negatively.0 -
Gap years are usually only considered valuable if the student has spent the time productively, otherwise universities and employers are going to look at the period very negatively.
I agree.
I cannot imagine just letting my girls sit at home doing nothing, just watching TV, or playing their games consoles, or :eek::eek: sat on facebook.
I would be disappointed if they chose that.
If they couldn't secure a college place, training or employment, we would continue with home ed until they had. An idle mind is not good for the soul
There is something delicious about writing the first words of a story. You never quite know where they'll take you - Beatrix Potter0 -
The government doesn't put on courses, colleges and universities do. In vocational education/training these are linked to the needs of business and industry, not the other way round.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "if they can do it for the NHS" because enormous numbers of Nursing graduates are without work and this is the same for |physiotherapy and mifwifery as well.
Yes, it's true that colleges and universities choose the courses they want to offer, but they have limited funds to work with. hence some colleges up here in Scotland cutting the part time courses they offer in favour of full time courses because they get better funding deals through offering full time places.
I would prefer that colleges and universities were given enough funding and flexibility to enable them, in any one year, to offer sufficient places in a course that could be filled by those who applied for the course and had the necessary prerequisites to be able to do the course.
What I meant with the NHS is that a doctor, having graduated, then gets three years of paid work - not as a free intern but as a paid member of staff - to do their on the job training. Work that is guaranteeed. Yes, I realise that thereafter some doctors are unable to find placements. IF they can do that for doctors though, why not also for nurses?
Instead we have the ludicrous situation where we have turned out nurses with barely any on the job training, whom the hospitals shum employing in favour of nurses who come from overseas but have experience. What a daft situation.0 -
Because often parents can see the pitfalls when children can't. It is not all about expectation but wanting to stop them making a mistake. One of our sons started a course of study of his choice albeit suggested and pushed by the careers advisor at school. As parents we asked him to really think about and suggested he go with his passion(!) He went down the first avenue, withing 18 months he had given up the course. He changed tack to where his heart lay and he has never looked back.
Following his passion. More power him.As a lecturer in a college that is not my experience.
I don't think you will see as many as I do, and believe me that is not a true statement. The reality is NEETS do fall into that category by definition.
So if a 16 year old applies for college, for the course they go on, has the necessary prerequisites to do the course but doesn['t get a place, because 40 people applied for a course that only offered 20 places, please explain to me how the 16 year old is at fault. Surely it is up to colleges to arrange their resources so they can meet demand, and for governments to fund them sufficiently to enable them to do so?
Beyond having enough money to meet my family's needs, I wouldn't sacrifice doing what I was passionate about for more money, no.You must be in the minority if you do not care what you are paid.
So, follow your passion, but if you do and it is low paid, tough. That is contradictory. What you mean is follow your passion if it pays well enough to support you. Which is what I said. Passion and pragmatism don't make good bedfellows in the working world.
There would be plenty of people following their passion, be it painting, writing, growing orchids, inventing stuff, and making some sort of living out of it. If it earns the FT NMW, fine. At the moment that's a wage that can result in qualifying for benefits, but, at the rate we are overspending, maybe one day that will be deemed enough to live on without resorting to benefits.
If however, the passion earns them 50p an hour when there is work available that pays £6.19 an hour, do I think other people should top up that income? No.
Yes, that's true. I support funding for education, including part funding for employers that take on graduates so they can get paid, rather than unpaid, internships. Only graduates from families well enough off to support them can afford to take unpaid internships. Why should those graduates have a head start when compared to graduates from not so well off families?You confuse me, you want incentives in one sphere, but object to other incentives to bolster those who are low paid. Either way it is funded by you and I. None of my sons had problems getting graduate jobs, they had good CV's, did unpaid internships, agency work, and had an employment history by the time they graduated. They didn't need taxpayers bailing them out.
Maybe that was the problem for that geology graduate who had to give up her relevant unpaid position at the museum to do an irrelevant Poundland job unpaid. Had she come from well off parents, she maybe could have stayed working within her field.
For the low paid? If a person works for the mininum wage, and, if the government of the day deems this not enough to live on, I have no problem with supplementing it. In a family with two children where both parents earn this full time minimum wage, this could work out at around £5k per annum in our area, so no WTC, but maybe some childcare costs and housing costs maybe covered if the people were renting/using childcare.
If you want to work at your passion, but you can only make an income equivalent to 50p an hour, that's your choice and I respect it. But I would only be prepared to offer support at the level you would get if you were earning the NMW. The current situation, where you can get maximum benefits, (in our area that would be somewhere around £20k per annum) seems to me to be unsustainable.
If just one person making handmade cards/selling on Ebay/cleaning windows/repairing cars etc can make the FT NMW in profits, what's wrong with expecting the rest to be able to do the same? Is it really that hard, to make £220 a week in business?0 -
Yes, it's true that colleges and universities choose the courses they want to offer, but they have limited funds to work with. hence some colleges up here in Scotland cutting the part time courses they offer in favour of full time courses because they get better funding deals through offering full time places.
I would prefer that colleges and universities were given enough funding and flexibility to enable them, in any one year, to offer sufficient places in a course that could be filled by those who applied for the course and had the necessary prerequisites to be able to do the course.
What I meant with the NHS is that a doctor, having graduated, then gets three years of paid work - not as a free intern but as a paid member of staff - to do their on the job training. Work that is guaranteeed. Yes, I realise that thereafter some doctors are unable to find placements. IF they can do that for doctors though, why not also for nurses?
Instead we have the ludicrous situation where we have turned out nurses with barely any on the job training, whom the hospitals shum employing in favour of nurses who come from overseas but have experience. What a daft situation.
But what happens to the 40 odd plumbers or hairdressers that leave college 2 years later without a hope in hell of finding work because these career areas are oversubscribed? What happens to the existing plumbers and hairdressers who may see their income driven down because of the excessive competition? You seem to totally ignore this aspect of vocational training and see it only from the point of allowing kids to do whatever they want in a quite irresponsible manner.
NB
The Foundation Programme for new Medicine graduates is two years rather then three and is currently oversubscribed by nearly 300, although the government have said that they intend to guarantee places.0 -
Yes, it's true that colleges and universities choose the courses they want to offer, but they have limited funds to work with. hence some colleges up here in Scotland cutting the part time courses they offer in favour of full time courses because they get better funding deals through offering full time places.
I would prefer that colleges and universities were given enough funding and flexibility to enable them, in any one year, to offer sufficient places in a course that could be filled by those who applied for the course and had the necessary prerequisites to be able to do the course.
What I meant with the NHS is that a doctor, having graduated, then gets three years of paid work - not as a free intern but as a paid member of staff - to do their on the job training. Work that is guaranteeed. Yes, I realise that thereafter some doctors are unable to find placements. IF they can do that for doctors though, why not also for nurses?
Instead we have the ludicrous situation where we have turned out nurses with barely any on the job training, whom the hospitals shum employing in favour of nurses who come from overseas but have experience. What a daft situation.
In my experience, we've turned out nurses who see themselves as graduates first and foremost.
Too many see themselves as above a 'carer' when, years ago, caring was what brought most people to the profession.
21 year olds with a degree but no life experience and an over inflated ego do not make good nurses.
In this area at least, you can tell who will get a job quickly long before they leave university.
There is some excellent nurses out there but overall I'd say the profession is in crisis.0 -
But what happens to the 40 odd plumbers or hairdressers that leave college 2 years later without a hope in hell of finding work because these career areas are oversubscribed? What happens to the existing plumbers and hairdressers who may see their income driven down because of the excessive competition? You seem to totally ignore this aspect of vocational training and see it only from the point of allowing kids to do whatever they want in a quite irresponsible manner.
NB
The Foundation Programme for new Medicine graduates is two years rather then three and is currently oversubscribed by nearly 300, although the government have said that they intend to guarantee places.
That's quite a big issue. Should we offer education to young people if we already have "enough" plumbers and don't want to drive the wages down of those who are already in the trade?
To me, if we can open our borders to the rest of Europe and employ plumbers that come across as migrants to Britain, we can certainly - and should - offer the equivalent education to our own children.
Even if we didn't have open borders, is it really a valid defence of the current, relatively speaking, lack of education opportunities for young people (when I went to uni everyone who wanted a place could get one, and you got paid a grant to go. I certainly didn't come out with any tuition fees debt!) to say that we shouldn't offer someone the education they want because other people now working don't want the competition?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards