I do. The way it was designed structurally, as I understand it, was that it was for people who were working and who lost a job, whereas I think what was trying to be expressed was that it was for people if they lost a job. For many students, the way the job market works, particularly for law school, is that they have a job that they have not yet begun. With the timing of the pandemic being right as they were about to graduate into the labour market, often with huge amounts of debt, they lost their jobs but didn't qualify. School wasn't over when this pandemic started really impacting the economy.
There's a lot of frustration on that end, which I understand. I do think the intent was for people whose employment was impacted by COVID-19. They are no longer students, and have lost the jobs they thought they had, but they are still only eligible for the lower student amount.