I have no dc of university age, but i've been wondering, its been a few good yrs now since all poly's were upgraded to Uni's. Does anyone think that we might be seeing the emergence of a few climbing up the hierarchy ladder of status, maybe even entering Russell Group in future ? Oxford Brooke's in particular seems to be coming up a lot with youngsters who couldn't get into Oxford or Cambridge.
Even if RG is not on the card's which ex poly's would you say are higly rated at the moment ?
What a strange and antiquated view. One thing that has struck me about my DDs and their peers is that they are not remotely interested in the idea of marriage or children, and certainly would not make any life decisions based on finding a man, of any description. Even those sorts of girls who are known as "Sloanes" are a very different animal to the ones in my day, who admittedly went for wealthy upper class men like heat seeking missiles, now they are bleached blonde, slightly orange and just as prone to falling out of nightclubs and sleeping around as their Newcastle and Cardiff peers, just with a posher accent.
And now that there are equal numbers of the sexes at universities including Oxbridge it can't be such a meat market anyway. The 1 girl for every 10 boys was a magnet for all those attending crappy secretarial colleges back in the 70s but now anyone forking out for that sort of thing would have much less chance of finding a husband, or getting a job...............
I want to be wrong. Women earn more than men up to age 30 in the UK and 60% of UK graduates are female. Yet even under 30 those higher earning women still tend to marry men who earn a bit more, are a bit older, are a bit better educated. I am hoping that will change. As it has not changed yet by the time it comes to age 32 who gives up work to make babies, if any of them do, then the lower earner - women because she earns less gives up work. It is one of the main reasons women continue to do badly at work over age of 30. Hopefully it will change.
Xenia, As I have said before - and I am only playing this game at all because my view stems for a conviction as deep seated, as focused, and in many ways immovable as your own - the question of who earned more did not come into the equation when deciding who stayed at home with our children.
I will reiterate - I stayed at home with my children (not babies, children: tbh I would cheerfully have handed over my 3 month olds to anyone, but from 9 months to 5, that's a different story) because of a deep-rooted conviction that I was absolutely the right person to be their primary carer. Money was equal for either of us, but I was the right person.