York, Durham, Exeter

[GodessOfThunder]

These universities seem feature in a disproportionate amount of discussion on Mumsnet as institutions commenters see as desirable for their DC to attend. Obviously they are well regarded universities, but why do they attract more discussion here than other Russell group universities, especially those in northern and midlands post-industrial cities such as Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, Nottingham and Birmingham?

A few possible reasons were suggested by DH:

• They enjoy an undue level of perceived prestige due to being in smaller old cities/towns like Oxbridge
• The Mumsnet user base is skewed towards the SE and biased against post-industrial cities. Mumsnetters are less likely to be familiar with them and hold “grim up north” perceptions.
• There is a “showing off” factor in starting threads and commenting that DC has applied for, or attends, these institutions - the same goes for the “Oxbridge support” threads, the like of which you never see for red bricks.

Does anyone agree, or are there other explanatory factors?

I've seen all these universities talked over time and time again on MN - apart from Surrey. No one ever talks about Surrey or seems to mention it in either a positive or negative way. I hadn't even hears of Surrey until recently and I've lived in the South West/East all my life. Is it just poor marketing? Have they just recently raced up to the top 20 unis? Is it because they were a polytech or something not long ago? I couldn't ever imagine someone trying to argue that a degree from Surrey was 'better' or even as good as most of the 7 below them. Is there a reason that Surrey just seems so unpopular?

Have to say, I've seen loads of people recommend it recently! (Including me, on two separate threads, and DinkyDaisy always raves about it.)

It's a plate glass by the way and has been a uni since the mid 60s!

There was something on the news the other day about how Surrey, until now, has only been able to accept international students for its medical degree, but now has funding to extend this to U.K. students as of next year (I think that's what they were saying). Perhaps this is also the case with some other subjects?

What is 'plate glass' Piggywaspushed?

The 60s campus unis - Warwick, York, Stirling , Sussex, Kent, Exeter(I think), Bath amongst others

Oh, and UEA is a classic one!

Apparently, Surrey is not 'official plateglass'...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_glass_university

I'm sure the York contingent will instantly recognise the picture in the link!

to be fair to Exeter it received its Royal Charter in the '50s (1950s that is; its not by any stretch an ancient uni))

the original 7 were UEA, Essex, Kent, Lancaster, Sussex, Stirling, Warwick;

although a host of others also received their charter in the 60s including Surrey and Bath, as well as the likes of Newcastle, Loughborough; Keele; Aston; Bradford......

You missed York !

Technically, Stirling isn't because it's Scottish. But it is.

oops, wrongly included Stirling. How could I have missed York.😕York, definitely one of the original seven. Stirling not so, rather one of the many others conferred in the 60s.

I think Surrey is an odd inclusion. It’s offers are usually very competitive. However as @boys3 research might show, it could be full of well off Surrey based students! I know it as a safe, easy enough to get into, decent university. Better than Exeter and Bristol, possibly not when it comes to employability. Like most places some courses are strong others less so.

Two friends kids went to Surrey, it was their second choice but they loved it

Saw a reference up thread to Keele. Am surprised to see so little mention on it on Mn - excellent Uni with highly employable graduates.

There are some Unis that seemed to have disappeared under the radar since I applied. Keele is one also Essex, Kingston, Middlesex

@Brintons - had forgotten about Kingston. A school friend went there and did a really interesting degree in International Trade

I was going to say the same. Back in the day Oxbridge and Durham were still top. York was the Exeter of the time. Everyone wanted York.
Keele, Sussex, Kingston were popular choices that you never hear about now.

Well this thread has moved on but it's Exeter.
And, being from a London state school, the perception that it will be full of public school rich kids was the thing that put DC off before we visited. The students we met were from a wide range of ethnicities and representative of the UK as a whole and all were state school educated (they were heavily questioned by other people - one did say there were a lot of students from Surrey there though we didn't meet any!) - whether that reflects a uni attempt to change perceptions or whether those are the students who needed the income from open days, I don't know. But it definitely made DC feel more comfortable than expected and the fantastic course won the day in the end. I just hope that DC does feel at home when they get there.

Kingston still very much on the radar for Art/Design courses, too!

Under the radar on MN English and Welsh unis (post-‘92 aside), at least in my experience:

Keele, Reading, Surrey, Kingston, Brunel, Queen Mary, Swansea, Bangor, Leicester, Aston, Bradford, Portsmouth, Salford

QMU is RG. It’s not really under the radar. Kingston snd Portsmouth we’re definitely polys. Maybe others? I know people who went to all these unis but all now work in local government. I think they are all fairly middle of the road that mn parents don’t write about much. There was a Keele lecturer on here years ago. Keele is a nowehere type place. Reading and Kingston get the London crowd. Others are in cities and Bangor is remote for many. Everyone has their reasons for choosing where they go but exam predictions count. Lots of these are insurance territory for many posters here I think.

Also when 40% of a uni has privately educated Dc why do visiting prospective students think a university is “full
of public school rich kids”? Basic maths would indicate that’s rubbish. Plus, why are people who have had a different education, snd whose parents might have more money than yours, to be avoided? It’s ridiculous to think university is all about people like you. Surely all Dc should be encouraged to think all students might be worth knowing? I’m pleased Exeter turned up trumps. It has a high grammar school contingent who are also wealthy! So are other young people against them
too? Where does it stop?

"Plus, why are people who have had a different education, snd whose parents might have more money than yours, to be avoided? It’s ridiculous to think university is all about people like you. Surely all Dc should be encouraged to think all students might be worth knowing?"

Odd how this argument is never applied the other way round and (at least based on MN posts) wealthy, southern, often privately educated DC continue to flock to Durham, Exeter, Bristol (even going so far as to live in specific halls dominated by wealthy, southern, often privately educated DC) etc, with no condemnation or derision about them not widening their social circle.

When 40% of a uni has privately educated Dc why do visiting prospective students think a university is “full
of public school rich kids”?

If 40% of a university’s student body were privately educated, that would be nearly 6x the proportion they consist of the population at large. So, attending it would be a rather poor experience in terms of social/educational/economic diversity. I think “full” is just used as a figure of speech.

Why are people who have had a different education, snd whose parents might have more money than yours, to be avoided?

I think it’s understandable to avoid some situations where the privately schooled are present present in too great a proportion. For instance, if conversations about boarding schools, skiing, horses, rugger and other niche wealthy sports aren’t your bag. Most students likely want a mix of the immediately relatable and the new. It’s wearing when too great a proportion of the people you meet don’t share enough common ground. The reverse is also no doubt true: the privately schooled like to cluster at, say, Exeter.

I I know people who went to all these unis but all now work in local government. know people who went to all these unis but all now work in local government.

Why the “but”? What should they rather be doing?

Kingston snd Portsmouth we’re definitely polys.

My bad.

One of mine is at Exeter. She's privately educated. She has a huge group of friends and she says she doesn't know if any of them went to private school - she doesn't think so. Grammar mostly. And she's as rah as they come, so if she's managed to swerve other rahs it must be quite easy 😄

Bad? No. Just a comment. I went to a poly.

The absolutely stupid idea that being in a majority will cause issue for you is wholly ludicrous! As is thinking the 18% attending private 6th forms have horses and tell about “rugger”. What century are you in?! Most people we’ve met sling didn’t go to private schools. Many people like a week away skiing.

@ElectricToothbrush The privately educated are always the minority. Everywhere. So by definition they are widening who they socialise with! Also who says 18% of students are not worth knowing? What a stupid inward looking society we are. How ludicrous to think that school segregates us forever. It clearly doesn’t, unless we allow it to. All students should try to choose the best uni, but not choose based on who might, and might not, be there. It’s utterly juvenile. As if loads have horses! The trumped up reasons to dislike others is unbelievable.