Education Maintenance Allowance

[Ian]

So maybe we should just drop it now; I'm getting tired of arguing this all by myself. No fair, I'm outnumbered!

Don't worry. I think a number of the americans would have helped, had they understood what was going on.

the shocking public transport system

It's really not as bad as everyone says (well in places, but we have to be optimists eh?)

[Max]

Max, I'll try not to be offended since I hope you weren't being personally insulting there, but it is kind of difficult.

I just get very frustrated when people refuse to see things rationally.

You opened a can of worms by mentioning private schools, since as you can see, I have pretty strong feelings on those and I couldn't help having a rant, although originally I hadn't planned on including them in my argument for EMA.

Well, I'm pretty bitter about them too, which is why I was so annoyed by having it implied that my view somehow condoned them.

Ian, I would rather not drive really and be environmentally friendly, but with the shocking public transport system... well, that's a whole other issue anyway.

Gah, my dad cycled over nine miles to work every weekday for about eleven years, you can't possibly argue that paying for your driving lessons is a reasonable expenditure of public funds because you don't have another option... Also, I hope you see the irony: perhaps the public transport system would be a little less shocking if all the money diverted to EMA was put into improving it, eh?

[hollytamale]

although I am an american and "I'm not there" it seems this whole EMA debate is very similar to the welfare program debates in the U.S. I'm NOT saying that EMA is the same as welfare but the arguments remind me of it.
Some people are worthy of receiving this government money, they truly may benefit from it and become "better citizens" or whatever...but then there's going to be a lot of bad apples who simply abuse the program and make the taxpayers angry. Perhaps for even the majority it's unnecessary. The problem is with determining who deserves the help and who doesn't-and that is basically impossible.

[Jamie]

It's supposed to be an incentive for people to attend sixth form.

Last week my friend who receives it went in for one day, sat through two lessons, and got paid £30 for it.

[Ian]

It's supposed to be an incentive for people to attend sixth form.

Last week my friend who receives it went in for one day, sat through two lessons, and got paid £30 for it.

The government stopped paying child benefits for me and my sister to my mum for a while, because they claimed (as she is foreign) that she had no proof of our existence, and was stealing their money. Needless to say, her showing up at the benefits office with our British passports and birth certificates just about convinced them...

The entire benefits system is flawed. It is necessary. But it needs to be changed.

[Jez]

Wow, and now this gets a whole thread to itself.

Max, I'll try not to be offended since I hope you weren't being personally insulting there, but it is kind of difficult.

I just get very frustrated when people refuse to see things rationally.

Clearly. But I get the impression that you think your view is the only rational one - what makes my viewpoint not rational?

You opened a can of worms by mentioning private schools, since as you can see, I have pretty strong feelings on those and I couldn't help having a rant, although originally I hadn't planned on including them in my argument for EMA.

Well, I'm pretty bitter about them too, which is why I was so annoyed by having it implied that my view somehow condoned them.

Fine, then I guess we agree to some extent about private schools. However, it seemed to me that you wanted to take private schools out of the whole equation in your argument - didn't you say something about within the context of the state school system? But you can't really look at EMA just within the context of the state school system because people do or do not receive EMA whether they go to a state school or a private school - therefore the whole system has to be taken into account.

Ian, I would rather not drive really and be environmentally friendly, but with the shocking public transport system... well, that's a whole other issue anyway.

Gah, my dad cycled over nine miles to work every weekday for about eleven years, you can't possibly argue that paying for your driving lessons is a reasonable expenditure of public funds because you don't have another option... Also, I hope you see the irony: perhaps the public transport system would be a little less shocking if all the money diverted to EMA was put into improving it, eh?

Yes, I see what you are saying but I still think there are other government schemes which are less beneficial than EMA, so it would be better if the money going on them be diverted to public transport etc. I don't want to go any further into this because I am largely ignorant of the country's budget and how much is spent on what.

And if anyone wants proof that this discussion will probably go in circles, take a look at this: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t120744.html As you might expect, there are mixed views on the whole issue.

[Max]

Clearly. But I get the impression that you think your view is the only rational one - what makes my viewpoint not rational?

No, I think rational views are rational and irrational ones are irrational irrespective of to whom they belong; however, in a disagreement like this between two people it is necessarily the case that one party (or both) is (or are) being irrational. You are the irrational party here because your refusal to accept that an inefficient, unfair, and inferior use of public funds shouldn't be discontinued, is based essentially on the grounds that you like your £10 a week too much and don't want to admit it's ethically dubious. By the way, I'm not passing judgement on you for taking the money: I'd certainly have any amount of money the government was stupid enough to give me; life's too singular and unrewarding and society too futile to worry about any ~*bullpineapples*~ imaginary 'greater good'.

However, it seemed to me that you wanted to take private schools out of the whole equation in your argument - didn't you say something about within the context of the state school system? But you can't really look at EMA just within the context of the state school system because people do or do not receive EMA whether they go to a state school or a private school - therefore the whole system has to be taken into account.

...People in private schools receive EMA? Surely a negligible amount, and in any case surely you realise that that just makes the distinction between state and private even more irrelevant to the question of EMA.

Yes, I see what you are saying but I still think there are other government schemes which are less beneficial than EMA, so it would be better if the money going on them be diverted to public transport etc.

True, but that's ethically neither here not there because there are still countless schemes more beneficial than EMA which would certainly absorb all the money that goes into both EMA and the schemes even worse than EMA.

[hollytamale]

It's supposed to be an incentive for people to attend sixth form.

Last week my friend who receives it went in for one day, sat through two lessons, and got paid £30 for it.

Why do they need an incentive? And how much are these driving lesson people are talking about? We had driver's education at school for a one time fee of about $30, and if you pass it and have good grades in school then you get a discount on your car insurance.

[Jez]

Clearly. But I get the impression that you think your view is the only rational one - what makes my viewpoint not rational?

No, I think rational views are rational and irrational ones are irrational irrespective of to whom they belong; however, in a disagreement like this between two people it is necessarily the case that one party (or both) is (or are) being irrational. You are the irrational party here because your refusal to accept that an inefficient, unfair, and inferior use of public funds shouldn't be discontinued, is based essentially on the grounds that you like your £10 a week too much and don't want to admit it's ethically dubious. By the way, I'm not passing judgement on you for taking the money: I'd certainly have any amount of money the government was stupid enough to give me; life's too singular and unrewarding and society too futile to worry about any ~*Bullpineapples*~ imaginary 'greater good'.

Your reasons for calling me irrational are essentially only your opinion. My opinion and your opinion are both valid. My reasoning and your reasoning are both generally valid. Therefore I do not see why it is necessarily the case that one party must be being irrational - if only it were that easy! You seem to be labouring under the delusion that there is a right and wrong answer here, when in fact EMA is a very grey area which has its advantages and disadvantages. When trying to balance it out, people will come to different answers.

My opinion isn't based solely on the grounds that I like my £10 a week too much. I'm sure you will also find that there are some people in favour of EMA who aren't eligible for it and therefore this argument cannot apply to them.

...People in private schools receive EMA? Surely a negligible amount, and in any case surely you realise that that just makes the distinction between state and private even more irrelevant to the question of EMA.

I guess there may be a few people in private schools who got there via a scholarship or something and receive EMA. I don't actually know, but that's not the point. Private schools are relevant to the EMA issue because it applies to them too, and people who are already at an advantage financially speaking get a further advantage by going to a private school. And so I feel it is fair that people who are at a financial disadvantage get an advantage through EMA - thus putting them on a more equal footing with both state school and private school students.

I will stop going on about private schools if you like since it's boring me now; it's a sidetrack argument more than anything else.

Yes, I see what you are saying but I still think there are other government schemes which are less beneficial than EMA, so it would be better if the money going on them be diverted to public transport etc.

True, but that's ethically neither here not there because there are still countless schemes more beneficial than EMA which would certainly absorb all the money that goes into both EMA and the schemes even worse than EMA

I suppose you therefore think it would be a good idea to purge all the less beneficial schemes and put that money into more beneficial ones. But you still have to draw a line somewhere, and I personally believe EMA is one of the more beneficial ones. It could however do with some improvement. It hasn't been running for very long and the system needs tweaking to make it better. I believe this is preferable to abandoning it altogether.

[Will]

It's supposed to be an incentive for people to attend sixth form.

Last week my friend who receives it went in for one day, sat through two lessons, and got paid £30 for it.

Why do they need an incentive? And how much are these driving lesson people are talking about? We had driver's education at school for a one time fee of about $30, and if you pass it and have good grades in school then you get a discount on your car insurance.

Driving lessons here cost around $50 a go for each lesson (usually lasting around an hour) and you need to do about 20 before you can pass the test.

[Max]

Your reasons for calling me irrational are essentially only your opinion.

Obviously everything I say is essentially just my opinion. However, my opinion of you and your irrationality is accurate.

My opinion and your opinion are both valid. My reasoning and your reasoning are both generally valid.

No, that is utter, utter bollocks: only correct opinions are valid and only rational reasoning is valid. How can you all spout such utter ~*iguana*~? Really? Do you think at all? Are you seriously suggesting that Galileo, after developing the opinion, through a combination of empirical observation and rational thought, that the Earth, in fact, orbited the Sun and not vice versa, the Church's opinion that, in fact, the converse is true, was 'equally valid'? Of course it ~*iguana*~ wasn't, and this applies to all opinions - all we have are our opinions, which we form more or less objectively, and the more objective they are the more they will correspond with objective truth, and therefore the more valid they will be. (And thus, more objective reasoning is also more valid.)

I am perennially staggered by just how many people are duped by this infantile, moronic, obnoxious, infantile, infantile 'all opinions are equally valid' bollocks. You may have noticed it gets me VERY IRATE.

Therefore I do not see why it is necessarily the case that one party must be being irrational - if only it were that easy! You seem to be labouring under the delusion that there is a right and wrong answer here,

HA. Labouring under a delusion, am I?

when in fact EMA is a very grey area which has its advantages and disadvantages. When trying to balance it out, people will come to different answers.

And many of them, like you, will be mistaken.

My opinion isn't based solely on the grounds that I like my £10 a week too much. I'm sure you will also find that there are some people in favour of EMA who aren't eligible for it and therefore this argument cannot apply to them.

Naturally: the prejudices that can lead humans into even one particular false opinion are innumerable.

Private schools are relevant to the EMA issue because it applies to them too,

It applies to them, if it does, in precisely the same way so the distinction is irrelevant.

I suppose you therefore think it would be a good idea to purge all the less beneficial schemes and put that money into more beneficial ones. But you still have to draw a line somewhere, and I personally believe EMA is one of the more beneficial ones. It could however do with some improvement. It hasn't been running for very long and the system needs tweaking to make it better. I believe this is preferable to abandoning it altogether.

People sacrifice their personal autonomy so that you can have these things: you have no right to pick and choose ones which happen to appeal to you (in large part because you're benefitting from it yourself, no doubt). You prove yourself that it's an utter bloody misuse of money: using it to enable you to put another filthy, foul car into operation, entirely unnecessarily. Think beyond yourself and your silly little notions of what you have a right to have from other people, if just for a moment.

[Jez]

Your reasons for calling me irrational are essentially only your opinion.

Obviously everything I say is essentially just my opinion. However, my opinion of you and your irrationality is accurate.

In other words, you are saying that your opinion is fact. In some areas, of course, that will be true. In other areas, it won't. Here, it isn't.

My opinion and your opinion are both valid. My reasoning and your reasoning are both generally valid.

No, that is utter, utter bollocks: only correct opinions are valid and only rational reasoning is valid. How can you all spout such utter ~*iguana*~-wittery? Really? Do you think at all? Are you seriously suggesting that Galileo, after developing the opinion, through a combination of empirical observation and rational thought, that the Earth, in fact, orbited the Sun and not vice versa, the Church's opinion that, in fact, the converse is true, was 'equally valid'? Of course it ~*iguana*~ wasn't, and this applies to all opinions - all we have are our opinions, which we form more or less objectively, and the more objective they are the more they will correspond with objective truth, and therefore the more valid they will be. (And thus, more objective reasoning is also more valid.)

There are some things that we can say are true objectively - of course I'm not denying that, or that it is a fact that the Earth orbits the sun etc etc. But correct opinions only apply when it is a factual matter we are talking about. Our views on EMA are purely opinion - where is this factual, objective standard that shows that EMA is right or wrong? You can't claim that your opinion on EMA is right in the same way that you claim the Earth goes around the sun - discussing whether EMA is right or wrong is not an empirical matter, it essentially boils down to opinions.

I am perennially staggered by just how many people are duped by this infantile, moronic, obnoxious, infantile, infantile 'all opinions are equally valid' bollocks. You may have noticed it gets me VERY IRATE.

Yes, I have noticed. We also seem to have gone beyond the issue here. I find this subject interesting, of whether there can be a 'correct' opinion concerning such issues as morality, aesthetics etc. Now, I presume you are going for the objectivist view from what you are saying. But even if I agreed with that, it wouldn't necessarily mean that you are the one who is right on the EMA issue. You believe I am the one who is mistaken. But you could easily be wrong.

It would be nice, of course, if we could find out the right answer to this, if there is one, but it's difficult to see how that could happen. What evidence could prove who is right, when the people with differing opinions both give their own reasons for them? How can we decide which is right, when we are both biased by our own particular viewpoints?

[Dante]

What evidence could prove who is right, when the people with differing opinions both give their own reasons for them? How can we decide which is right, when we are both biased by our own particular viewpoints?

For this argument, there is a right answer. Don't take this the wrong way, but for all I can see in the Topic Review box, Max has been backing up his arguments whereas you've just being saying things like 'We'll have to agree to disagree', and on the whole given very evasive answers.

In fact, you've all but admitted that EMA is a ridiculous waste of money. Come on - you know the money would be better spent on something else, you know that half the people it goes to don't need it, you've admitted the stuff you spend it on is pretty superfluous...

I would prefer that those public funds wasted on useless things be instead used to improve the school system/transport system etc. But I really don't know enough about politics and economics to say more than that.

That's irrelevant - none of us are saying those things (whatever they are) aren't more or less wasteful than EMA, we're just saying EMA is one of them, and therefore a waste.

[Jez]

For this argument, there is a right answer. Don't take this the wrong way, but for all I can see in the Topic Review box, Max has been backing up his arguments whereas you've just being saying things like 'We'll have to agree to disagree', and on the whole given very evasive answers.

I've been saying things like that because I was hoping to stop the argument before it got abusive and I was tired of defending it all by myself... Earlier I have given reasons for my view and so on. For example:

The Government wants to encourage people from poorer families to attend college and university, so that they can have a better job in the future. But if you come from a poorer family, you might be discouraged from going to college or university (univeristy in particular) because of the high costs involved. So EMA is paid out to provide some financial relief, and this means cash is less of a barrier for families with poor incomes. So they are more likely to go to college or university.

I don't want to keep repeating myself.

In fact, you've all but admitted that EMA is a ridiculous waste of money. Come on - you know the money would be better spent on something else, you know that half the people it goes to don't need it, you've admitted the stuff you spend it on is pretty superfluous...

What people spend their EMA on is largely irrelevant. That's not the point, as illustrated by what I've said before. Some people will abuse the system, but that's unavoidable... And I've already said all this.

That's irrelevant - none of us are saying those things (whatever they are) aren't more or less wasteful than EMA, we're just saying EMA is one of them, and therefore a waste

I'm not sure I quite get you here. I know you're saying EMA is a waste.

I know Max will just disagree with what I replied to his post. I know you will disagree with me. I accept that. So can we just stop it now, huh? Can I have some rest? Nothing new is really being said here anyway...

[Dante]

I've been saying things like that because I was hoping to stop the argument before it got abusive and I was tired of defending it all by myself... Earlier I have given reasons for my view and so on. For example:

The Government wants to encourage people from poorer families to attend college and university, so that they can have a better job in the future. But if you come from a poorer family, you might be discouraged from going to college or university (univeristy in particular) because of the high costs involved. So EMA is paid out to provide some financial relief, and this means cash is less of a barrier for families with poor incomes. So they are more likely to go to college or university.

I don't want to keep repeating myself.

Which we, in turn, have replied to...

What people spend their EMA on is largely irrelevant. That's not the point, as illustrated by what I've said before.

When you phrase it like that, no. But it's about what people need and what they don't. At college or uni, as I've said, people are much more likely to need financial relief. At sixth form, only exceptional cases do.

Some people will abuse the system, but that's unavoidable... And I've already said all this.

Yes, but it's not a case of people abusing the system. It's not like people are being deliberately lazy, yet make a living on benefits or something like that. It's like, the system is designed to be abused, almost. It's got such a massive design flaw in that undeserving people are getting it. That, at least, is what I'm opposed to. And I still don't think just handing people money based on their income is the best way to go about things. There can be financial aid of some kind, sure, just not ~*iguana*~ EMA.

Like Max said, though, I'm not really judging anyone who's receiving EMA money. I know I wouldn't be complaining if I was getting it, but I'd still know it was a stupid idea.

I'm not sure I quite get you here. I know you're saying EMA is a waste.

You were trying to defend EMA by saying that other government schemes are just as/more wasteful than EMA. I'm saying, perhaps they are, but that doesn't change the fact that EMA is still wasteful as well.

I know Max will just disagree with what I replied to his post. I know you will disagree with me. I accept that. So can we just stop it now, huh?

Never! Its got its own thread now. It would be wrong not to bring this to an end.

[Max]

In other words, you are saying that your opinion is fact. In some areas, of course, that will be true. In other areas, it won't. Here, it isn't.

There isn't some magical distinction between opinions of fact and opinions of... opinion. They are all views formed more or less objectively: views which can more or less be stated as if they were objective fact.

There are some things that we can say are true objectively - of course I'm not denying that, or that it is a fact that the Earth orbits the sun etc etc. But correct opinions only apply when it is a factual matter we are talking about. Our views on EMA are purely opinion - where is this factual, objective standard that shows that EMA is right or wrong? You can't claim that your opinion on EMA is right in the same way that you claim the Earth goes around the sun - discussing whether EMA is right or wrong is not an empirical matter, it essentially boils down to opinions.

No. Opinions on things external to oneself, like EMA, necessarily involve experience, and therefore must be derived more or less from objective reality: the more wholly and truly derived, the more correct the opinion will be.

For this debate to be one 'purely of opinion', EMA would have to be pure fantasy with no implications for the real world or relevance to real principles. But it isn't: it is a real thing with real consequences and a real ethical standing. It is just more complex than whether or not the Earth orbits the sun: if you are confused by that complexity to such an extent that you have to delude yourself with the infantile fallacy that it must be a completely different kind of question altogether, one purely of 'equally valid opinions', then you have only your own stupidity, ignorance and intellectual cowardice to blame. It is still a matter of fact whether ultimately it is wasteful or ultimately it isn't.

it wouldn't necessarily mean that you are the one who is right on the EMA issue. You believe I am the one who is mistaken. But you could easily be wrong.

As Dante has gone on to remark, I have demonstrated that my view has been formed from a rational survey of the real-world role played by EMA and of the principles involved: therefore it is immensely more likely that I am right than it is that you are.

It would be nice, of course, if we could find out the right answer to this, if there is one, but it's difficult to see how that could happen. What evidence could prove who is right, when the people with differing opinions both give their own reasons for them? How can we decide which is right, when we are both biased by our own particular viewpoints?

By suppressing our own biases and prejudices and viewing the debate objectively and from both sides, as I have done, and as you have not. This is, incidentally, why you have refused to concede that you are, in fact, wrong about EMA, despite being thrashed on all points.

[Peter]

This thread has strayed outside its original purpose and is accordingly locked.