To think university snobbery must stop

[Staceystace]

I was telling a friend about my nephew who is off to University. I said to her he is off to x uni to study English, she said oh I didn’t even realise that was even a uni. She then went on to emphasise how her daughter is off to a top 20 uni, she went on to say how she wouldn’t have gone if it was not a Russell or 1994 group as she does not think it is worth the debt. I just got the vibe she was looking down on my nephews uni. Aibu to think this sort of snobbery about unis is terrible and needs to stop. My nephew is not the most academic, but surely not everyone is capable of going to a russell group.

*tend to choose

The key to addressing widening participation and social mobility is in rasing achievement. Many, many universities work with schools on this.

Of course it's silly and needs to stop.

Everyone knows that some Unis are better than others, just as everyone knows that getting all A*s at A level is better than getting all Cs but people don't need to be snobby about it. As long as University graduates are able to find the right jobs aftewards then it really doesn't matter.

BlaaBlaaBlaa
I agree.
It's why I don't think the approach of 'aww let the poor people have a degree' is really widening participation.
What it does it reinforce the idea that there's top universities and then universities for people like you (I simplify).

Not all newer universities are poor. 2 ex polys near me are pretty good. 1 almost exclusively attracts people who are not really academic and then the vocational course students where the previous institution was amazing.
Other regional city universities (red brick) are really well regarded.

I could probably guess by secondary school where students are more likely to go. Nobody could seriously tell me that one school happens to have an entirely intrinsically brighter cohort.

I don't have much respect for the so called academic courses at university 3. I think they're micky mouse courses. (I do think very highly of their vocational based ones). That doesn't mean I'm against widening participation. I just want meaningful widening participation which is more complex and challenging.

It's not bullshit, Blaa.

Degrees are not created equal, and the lie that degrees from a place called a university increase social mobility is a cruel one that takes advantage of decent people who are the victims of very poor advice.

Of course it makes a difference when that first individual from a family goes to third level. But how much more of a difference would it make if that individual had solid advice about what to apply for, and where? What you study makes a huge amount of difference. It's not all about the clubs or the societies. You can join the clubs and the societies just as easily in a well respected university (or an Institute of Technology) as you can in a poorly regarded one. You will end up better off, and this will be carried on through subsequent generations, if you are not only the first student in your family to go to university but also the first to study civil engineering or medicine or law.

I can categorically say that, providing a person makes the most of their time at university, a degree in any subject from any university is worthwhile. I don't say this flippantly. I say this after years upon years of research into students who attend low to middle ranking and tariff institutions.
www.economist.com/britain/2017/12/09/britain-ignores-social-mobility-at-its-peril
The Economist disagrees with you about social mobility.
Seventy-one per cent of senior judges, 62% of senior officers in the armed forces and 55% of civil service department heads attended private schools, which educate only 7% of the population. In Barnsley only 10% of disadvantaged young people make it to university, compared with 50% of similarly disadvantaged youngsters in Kensington and Chelsea. Only 6% of doctors, 12% of chief executives and 12% of journalists come from working-class backgrounds.

Nottingham Poly was indeed a very fine institution, BlueBug, and many of its courses were the best around.

I find it very shocking that your school (either secondary or 6th form) did not provide third level counselling and that you relied on your peers for such crucial advice.

Social mobility is only possible when prospective students and their families are educated as to the options, the prospects of each option, and the nuts and bolts of applying and getting in. Withholding vital information from students, leaving it the preserve of those already 'in the club' contributes to the perpetuation of inequality and the lack of social mobility that has bedeviled Britain.

Approximately 20% of U.K. jobs are at graduate level and pay so if we send 40% of youngsters to university half of them will not get graduate level jobs. As long as dcs know that studying English literature at Westminster university will probably not get you a graduate level job then at least they’ve gone into it with their eyes open and managed expectations

As as long as taxpayers know at least 50% of tuition fees will never be repayed we can decide whether to support a government who continues to want higher education for 50% of the population

Social mobility is only possible when prospective students and their families are educated as to the options, the prospects of each option, and the nuts and bolts of applying and getting in. Withholding vital information from students, leaving it the preserve of those already 'in the club' contributes to the perpetuation of inequality and the lack of social mobility that has bedeviled Britain.
I agree.
Otherwise it's inviting people to dinner but inviting them for 9pm, giving them your leftovers only to say ' but you were invited to dinner and you did have dinner. You were fed were you not?'.
The system needs breaking down.

Widening participation is complex and challenging. It's never been a case of just letting poor people access HE. There's so much more to it than that. You just need to start looking at contextual data to see that.

The different attainment levels at different schools is also complex. Again, you need to look at contextual data as well as social and cultural capital. Schools which consist of mainly middle class students see better attainment than schools in lower socioeconomic areas.

Reasons for this include the following;
Middle class schools have higher parental engagement, kids have access to more books, parents have usually attended university, have large professional networks which can offer work experience and careers advice , parents can afford tutors ..... Etc, etc,

Schools in lower socioeconomic areas have significantly lower parental engagement, schools often have large proportion of students where English is a second language, parents tend not to have attended university, are debt averse, don't have access to professional networks, often have had a poor educational experience, many pupils don't have appropriate study spaces at home and often have part time jobs from a young age.

All of the above has a significant impact on attainment.

The key to addressing widening participation and social mobility is in rasing achievement. Many, many universities work with schools on this

It's planning, and creating third level opportunities that will contribute to the planned development of the economy, not to fulfill the imperative to "let the poor people have a degree" as MaisyPops puts it so eloquently, that makes the difference. And of course, money makes the world go round.

Technical institutions/polytechnics could equally work with all schools on raising achievement, and also on raising consciousness.

Raising achievement when schools in different areas, or private/state have different curricula is an exercise in futility. People criticise the Irish Leaving Cert exam cycle, and it has its faults, but the curriculum is what every student in every secondary school in Ireland studies, whether free or voluntary, and the Central Applications Office system makes applying to your top course choices straightforward.

@math you really don't understand how social mobility, widening participation and HE works. I'm aware of the figures quoted in that article. The UK is failing miserably with regards to social mobility....our careers education and guidance provision is poor and contribute hugely to this failing.

I have written papers and deliver lectures on this topic. I'm actively involved in writing policies and strategies with regards to careers education in schools and colleges in the hope that we can improve this for current and future generations. For the first time in years the government actually seem supportive and have provided some funding. It will take time to embed though.

I have never said all degrees are created equal. Not once. What I have says is no degree is worthless. There's a difference.

Getting to the point - your nephew isn’t the most academic but is going to study for a degree in English? And will - I assume - be getting into around £40,000 worth of debt to do so? I think that’s the real issue here. What is your nephew hoping to get out of this? Does he understand that a degree (even a good one) does not in itself guarantee a job at all let alone a well paid one? He’d be much better to postpone his plans until he has decided exactly what type of career would suit him and then plan a education around that.

A bit of a side thought to where the discussion has headed but note the top ranking university in the world is an 'Institute of Technology'. And the 4th and 7th... maybe we should rebrand some of ours starting with Imperial...

I am sorry, especially to Maisypop
But Ds1, 1st in family is off to University of Lincoln, I think I am it's MN cheerleader (sorry Maisy). It's not even an ex 1992, it only fully opened 2005. It's current 43 in league tables, so 2 behind Liverpool.
These facts are from open and offer's day
It does lots of research, but not the same as Oxford or Cambridge or RG published types. It works with Siemens to develop engineering research. Lots of Agricultural and food research with local farms, food companies and breed societies. Working with local NHS to develop non radioactive cancer treatments. Working with local police, PCC office and criminal/justice sectors on working on crime stats and reduction.
It also has one of only 6 professors paid to work on voter engagement trends in uk and how to engage new young voters.

All above are incorporated into all undergraduates degrees, and they all participate in them during their 3 years.
Ds course has options to study in Holland, Belgium , Finland, Sweden and USA & Canada.
Plus part of year 2 is to get work experience and develop our CV. Third year finals are not written, but verbal in front of a panel, so it's as close to an interview as possible.
It also has a large job and employment skills centre. Which is a core part of the students degree, and gives all students advise on careers and improving their CV and soft skills.
Finally, I bet Maths and many won't approve,
The Student Union is on the Steering committee and has a member on the board of governors. In many of it's schools, the students get to be involved with interviewing new lecturers and professors and their opinions are part of the selection decision.
I think the students are well looked after and their outcomes fore most to the university.
That's by own impression. I never been to Oxford or Cambridge or RG universities, but don't agree with the idea that second tier universities give their students a crap degree and future.

I do wonder if many people in real life who slag off these universities have every actually stepped foot in one.

Licoln asked for high grades of several of DD's peers this year. They are also going to open a medical school there. I think it wants to build its reputation up, but it has to start somewhere.

Lincoln as a city is lovely.

People want everyone to make informed choices based on what income they want and what career they want, that's all. Once you have the information you can make your choice.

As for making groups of people get A and A* not Cs at A level and go to the harder to get in to places the other issue is race. Chinese girls and boys , Indians etc do much better at university entrance than is represented by their percentage in the population. I would say the biggest factor is they work very hard. If we could get some other groups to put the effort in instead of wasting their days on their phones they might do a bit better, but many teenagers are as lazy as sin and always will be so it's like flogging a dead horse at times.

Lincoln as a city is lovely.

It is, and that's surely going to help it attract good students and staff.

I've noticed what might be another type of 'uni snobbery' on some MN threads over the years - what maybe could be called the 'naice uni' effect. Cathedral city vs industrial town type of thing. IIRC there was one 'does where you go matter' type discussion in which a poster said, why would anyone go to Sheffield if they could get a place at Exeter? A bit of metaphorical beating with various rankings hopefully removed their blinkers.

I'd have rolled my eyes. People get caught up in silly nitpicking. In the 80s I went to a Uni that used to be a Poly. Same snobbery back then. I got as good a job/career as several 'Russell Group' friends did. We weren't stressing about it all anyway, it was the parents who couldn't stop the snobbery and one-upmanship. Gave meaning to their lives I guess.

Working class snobs are the absolute worst

User
The University of Lincoln is actually ex92 and has even older predecessors and a long history of amalgamations, absorption of small colleges and name changes. It has seen many incarnations...

It's a pity the point that polys should not have been scrapped but should instead have gone 'out and proud' has been missed.

What I have says is no degree is worthless.
I think you are wrong. The impact on an individual who finds himself back where he started only with £40k in debt can be devastating. The payoff to the investment in a degree needs to be obvious or the perception of the value of a degree suffers.

People who have no family tradition of going to third level education are not idiots and they resent being patronised with the attitude that any old university degree at all is better than none. Generations of families in the 'non third level' portions of society have managed to keep roofs over heads and food on plates without degrees, and statements implying that a shiny new diploma that costs so much and returns little in tangible terms for the investment of time and money is better than driving a bus or working as a mechanic and paying your own way rub the wrong way.

Taxpayers' money that is currently spent subsidising those courses that are of dubious value would be far better spent reducing class sizes in primary schools in poor areas, improving art and music provision, in outreach programmes to parents and to community groups, providing vastly more pastoral care in both primary and secondary levels, and hiring excellent teachers.

Developing a national curriculum and a top quality cohort of career/HE guidance teachers/counselors are both imo too much to hope for. The Theresa May government is the same one after all that wanted to reintroduce grammar schools, which is exactly the opposite of the widening of participation and upgrading of what all schools provide to students that is needed. The political will to make the changes that are really necessary does not exist. Performing for the benefit of the 'bring back corporal punishment' gallery is all that concerns the current government.

math you really don't understand how social mobility, widening participation and HE works. I'm aware of the figures quoted in that article. The UK is failing miserably with regards to social mobility....our careers education and guidance provision is poor and contribute hugely to this failing.

I know all of that. I posted pretty much exactly what you have just posted, along with the remark that I know diddly squat about how social mobility, widening participation and HE work. I am also familiar with the massive scale and the complexity of all the rest of the barriers to social mobility, not all of which have been mentioned here.

Plus I am very familiar with the impact of the ITs in Ireland both for individuals and for society and economy as a whole.

I ageee Math the system in Ireland is a good model of HE can work well for the benefit of students and employers. It helps that all students follow the same broad curriculum to 18 so their choices are not as limited when it comes to making decisions about further studies. I believe that many IT courses are very much designed with future employment in mind and there is close consultation with industry.

I agree that there is too much emphasis here on the status of a degree and students are being sucked into paying tens of thousands for a degree that does not equip them for the workplace or lead to employment. It is also important to look at value for money in terms of actual content and contact hours as many degrees have so little they would be better served by and OU degree.

It's a pity the point that polys should not have been scrapped but should instead have gone 'out and proud' has been missed.

I agree. Whether they became 'universities' or not, it seems they didn't build on their strengths - but this is, I think, in large part due to the weird and damaging undervaluing of engineering in particular and science in general in the U.K. which existed. The wiki article is worth a read heree*
But I'd like to pull out a section:

In UK culture an engineering, applied science and technological education tended to be looked down upon socially. Industries and activities such as "manufacturing" and "engineering" were perceived to be things of the past, boring and "dirty". This connection to polytechnics did not help their cause in terms of achieving status in the public eye. This attitude and influence led to an expansion of the more popular subjects in the "creative" industries such as fashion, arts and design, media studies, journalism, film studies, and sports management. This social influence caused many polytechnics to change their faculty of "Engineering" to faculty of "Design and Technology"*
*
Whereas:
*
The name polytechnic (École Polytechnique) in continental Europe and the USA (MIT) are viewed and styled as globally elite universities specializing in STEM education where science, engineering and engineers are premier forward looking strategic professions.*

Why? Maybe it was partly a class-ridden thing - did/do private schools promote technical paths? A regional thing ... engineering being identified with the grim north (blighted in some parts by bearing the weight of the Industrial Revolution)? And perhaps also a gender issue - the overdue correction of balance of the sexes going on to higher education preceding any attempt to encourage girls to consider STEM options especially the T and E?

A rose by any other name etc

Thanks maths.
I know history of Lincoln. Comes from the Hull College of Higher Education. Which was old Hull teaching college.
When my uncle went late 1970's the nuns still ran the education training and only local men where accepted. No accomdation for men; it was ladies only.
Hull never got a polytechnic.

Third year finals are not written, but verbal in front of a panel, so it's as close to an interview as possible.

That does make quite a change from finals based on eight or more 3-hour exams.

students loans aren't negatively credit scores so don't show up on your credit report. They don't prevent you getting a mortgage, car loan etc

They do because they are taken into account as part of a lender's affordability criteria. They don't affect your credit rating as such but they certainly reduce the amount you can borrow.

Yes obviously but nothing in my statement is untrue. They don't show up on your credit report, they aren't negatively credit scored and having a student loan will not prevent you from getting a mortgage. It isn't treated as a debt by banks - I know because I asked when I used to deliver student finance talks.