From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Education Maintenance Allowance article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Bribe? 2 Article needs cleanup 3 Minor changes 4 Article Bias

[edit] Bribe?

"EMA can be seen as a bribe to stay on, and the money given out is supposed to be spent on essential school items. However, the money gets fed straight to the students' bank accounts, which they can spend on whatever they like."

It's not actually supposed to be spent on any specific thing, the government does stress that EMA can be spent on anything the student wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schizmatic (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 March 2006

[edit] Article needs cleanup

The article seems to be a list of general grievances with UK student funding rather than specifically on the EMA. Possibly needs cleanup and removal of bias?

Yes, unless something is sourced, it can be removed. Skinnyweed 19:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to update this section and remove the criticism that it 'discriminates against the Nuclear family' - this is the case for every cash benefit / benefit in kind that is dependent on benefit unit income. Its difficult to overcome.

[edit] Minor changes

I noticed a couple of things that needed changing:

• The top income amount was slightly wrong.
• Bonuses aren't necessarily awarded for academic progress, it's entirely at the discretion of the learning provider.
• EMA isn't for students studying "after GCSEs in England or Standard Grades in Scotland", this gives the impression these qualifications are necessary to receive it when they are not.
• From this year onwards, EMA is also available for those undertaking unpaid work-based learning.

--JordR 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Bias

This article seems to be quite biased against ema, and doesnt speak to much of the benefits of the ema system. I recieve ema at the moment and believe it is a very good system and has encouraged me to aim for 100% attendance rather than missing days off college for no reason.

I have removed the one highlighted POV statement, will have a look for more now SGGH 12:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged it so that neutrality can be discussed. GJAF 11:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have posted another benefit (the third paragraph). FrankPalmerWhite 22:30, 01 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously as a recipient of this benefit you are going to be biased in favour of it. It is truly open to widescale abuse, as is demonstrative in my local education establishments. 81.152.134.85 (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Equally, as someone who has witnessed it being "open to widescale abuse ... in [your] local education establishments", you are obviously going to be biased against it. It works both ways, and just as the drawbacks of EMA cannot be denied, the benefits most certainly cannot either. _TalkIslander 02:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)