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?

Godessofthunder "These rankings seem to support that quite a few of Mumsnetters “favourite” universities (Durham, St. Andrews, York, Exeter) aren’t exactly world-beating, or even in the second tier behind Oxbridge when one looks only at the UK institutions listed.

Exeter and York are consistently in the top ten for many of their respective departments and this is a fact that's been well known for decades.

Both have won the ST's "University of the Year," and both frequently make the short list. York is extremely highly regarded for English and history. Its chemistry and biology departments make the top ten across most of the tables in most years. To suggest that Exeter or York are in some way sub-par academically, is wrong.

There's nothing wrong with being white, rich and clever. There's an undercurrent on some of these threads that seems to be insinuating that there are innate character flaws in people who happen to be privileged.

If the top universities, mentioned on this thread, are enrolling students who are white, rich and stupid, then that would be a talking point.

There's no evidence of that nowadays, even though that may have been a widely held suspicion about past admissions practices at some places.

As mentioned by another poster, students need to be able to integrate with people that they might not have had much familiarity with before university.

The best jobs will be highly populated by the rich and clever as they have had a head start in life. A prospective employee will have to fit in with these people, as these types will predominate. Otherwise, the student with ingrained prejudices is going to have a hard time getting on and advancing in the workplace.

Being open minded and accepting can get people a long way ahead.

That said: nobody likes a conceited twit, who's oblivious to the leg-ups and unearned privileges that they may have been lucky enough to have had."

Do you happen to be a Conservative Party voter by chance?

Labour voter, since you ask! Dyed-in-the-wool.

@Flyingslipper The bigger issue might be that the least privileged do not apply at all. By and large when you get to work, you need to mix. Some who are less privileged do this very easily. Those who think they won’t, do other jobs. This can hold up social mobility. I’m actually with Kier Starmer on this. When you are interviewed you need confidence to advocate for yourself. You might need conversation to break the ice. You will need to express yourself clearly. Some people find this easy, others do not.

@TizerorFizz I am also guilty of mentioning my STEM DD because it does feel to me that a lot of the higher education threads have quite a bit of law/finance/big 4/London bias, so I think that @thing47 and I like to add a bit of balance.

As I live in the "grim up north" I also happen to know a lot of engineering graduates because there are a lot of those types of job opportunities round here, and many of the universities have industry links.

I agree that if someone was considering Oxbridge for engineering I would wonder why. I honestly don't think that having an engineering degree from Oxbridge carries the same cachet with employers as a humanities degree.

@grass321 are you London/South East based?

@RampantIvy I just don’t see the bias against stem. Other than there are possibly more degrees in other fields overall. Finance/accountancy for many does follow a stem degree of course. Just because students study engineering, doesn’t mean they stay in it. Unfortunately.

I agree Oxbridge is not necessarily where engineers should go! I would say that DH has offices in the North. One big advantage with engineering is that you can earn well in cheaper housing areas. A big advantage. Northern unis and ex polys well represented! What would please DH is more entrepreneurial grads. Not just ones who think a computer does it all!

I don’t have an issue with anyone using their DC as examples. I do have a bigger issue with using a single DC as an example in a huge industry they know little about but then say everyone else should look at one or two elite universities. Often the dc would not get in and should be advised to look at our great unis elsewhere. They are usually told they must do FM. They don’t need to.So using DC is fine but not if it leads to inaccurate info for the majority.

I agree: there’s a lot of focus on very traditional “professions” and corporations on this board. The future of work will require more flexibility and creativity and Law, Accountancy etc. are likely to be hugely disrupted by AI and lose some of the prestige they wield during DCs lives.

My cousin who went there

@lieselotte Pretty close and of course not all Oxbridge grads want much from their degree. So “on a par” is individual for many.

@lieselotte lotte, you need to broaden your horizons. It's a competive world out there.

Believe it or not, I was out with some colleagues last night and one of them went on a rant (completely unprompted) about how "posh" Exeter had been in her experience 20 years ago, and how she felt excluded. I bit my tongue and didn't mention the thread.

My own anecdotal evidence is based on working with students in the UCAS process, on having a DD currently at art school, and a DS who has just finished GCSEs and is currently thinking of Chem Eng. And on my own student experience from the 1990s up until today (still distance learning).

All that I've learned from that mix can be summed up by the simple phrase "horses for courses."

(I worked in a law firm as a holiday job for many years through sixth form and uni, and I really can't see what people see in it, apart from the money, but I know that's just me!)

I agree with horses for courses. I started my lwa degree at 17 and at age 61 now having worked full time in it since 1983 I really do love it, the intellectual challenge, the clients (most of them), the way the law changes every day ( even AI is interesting - I was advising a client yesterday on it and copyright) and the pay. The fact I have been able to work for myself from home since 1994 has been the icing on the top and I hope I can do another 20 years. Everyone likes different things.

I think we lawyers spew out a lot of words so you probably find the MN lawyers just say more than those who aren't lawyers. I have never been against STEM careers and my sibling, father and uncle were/are doctors. It is just none of my children chose those careers.

Interesting post:
" GodessOfThunder · Yesterday 13:28
For me, at least, this thread has illustrated the need to question many of the perceived hierarchies around education and employment that get presented as unassailable truth: which universities are “best”, what employers’ supposed preferences are, which jobs are “high IQ”, A level results, and so on.

Some will resist as their personal self-esteem, for various reasons, is tied up with Durham being, say “second only to Oxbridge”, or Exeter being somehow more prestigious than a bunch of its peers. But for everyone else, doing so opens up more options and opportunity."

I suppose I just go with the free market in a sense - that I want my children to be able to afford life, houses, childcare, food, heating relatively easily as I am sure did my parents and theirs so careers which are higher paid tend to make life easier. My advice to the children was pick work you will enjoy, which is intellectually satisfying and where ultimately if you so choose you might be able to work for yourself.

I have no problem if somenoe wants to go to univesity and then join the police force or be a prison guard (or like my son after university a post man and now a delivery driver). People can make their own choices. However I want teenagers to make informed choices about income and job status etc. My sons' friends I mentioned above going into the City etc they are almost all Asian (Indian origin etc often 1st or 2nd generation) and are in London and went to fee paying school. I would imagine their parents are keen they go into the City careers the parents have or wanted to have, sometimes they have to support family members and for some of them their wife won't necessarily work when children come along so if you are the sole family income higher pay becomes necessary. if we extend that to fee paying day schools more generally I suppose the 20% of parents woh pay fees at sixth form level probably hope their children might pick careers where the children similarly could if they wish choose private schools etc for their own children so that might encourage people into the higher paid careers.

Perhaps pursuing low paid graduate careers is a feature of being privileged and those us like I am with NE coal mining routes (I was brought up in Newcastle etc) do not have the luxury of being able to go into lower paid graduate work or are too close to that poverty to want to take a risk with the lower paid graduate jobs.

However I want teenagers to make informed choices about income and job status etc.

This is very true and I find it difficult to find a balance between wanting the kids to do a job they enjoy and the reality of the lifestyle that is likely to entail.

My older son's dream job would be a personal trainer or working in something related to sport. They had a careers talk at school and the ex-pupil working in sport said he loved his job but the pay was not good. I know there are higher paid jobs but many are not). He wants to see if he can get into management consultancy which is very competitive and my husband spent the first few years of our marriage abroad on projects.

The other son loves engineering but reckons he'd make a lot more money in investment banking. He's right but I know from personal experience that it's very stressful, cut-throat and they own you.

They're both pragmatic choices but I wonder whether it's condemning them to a life of being on the hamster wheel. The money's great but you make a lot of sacrifices in other areas. Houses are expensive where we live but their money could go a lot further if they moved away from London.

Actually @xenia i agree with some of what you have said here. I work in the arts and it’s middle-class young people who are taking up the roles because as you say they have the luxury of being able to take low paid but highly respected jobs. It’s becoming a huge issue. I also see young working-class young people go to universities they are overqualified for various reasons but usually because it’s near home. I mentor a young person and I am trying to direct them to a far better university than the one they’re intending to go to because I know that in the long run this will be much better for them. I know lots of young people who do apprenticeships rather than university not because it’s what they want but because their parents want it (usually parents don’t want them to get into debt).

Completely agree it's about reasonable expectations.

DD would ideally like a room somewhere in a rural small town, a dog, and the opportunity to produce art as a job (either freelance or salaried but preferably working from home). If her ambitions change, then her career path will have to, as well. She's doing what she can to boost her chances, and has just finished a month's paid internship in her field art (rare as hen's teeth).

DS is pretty driven and would love sinking his teeth into knotty engineering problems and keeping up his sport, location pretty unimportant, and his path will be very different to DD's!

I'm first-generation uni and feel satisfied with my own life choices (I'm a teacher and currently working on my fifth degree as a hobby). My own measure of 'social progress' is that I have a more comfortable life than my parents did, and I do hope the same for my DC; but they have different priorities to me, not entirely financial.

and those us like I am with NE coal mining routes (I was brought up in Newcastle etc) do not have the luxury of being able to go into lower paid graduate work or are too close to that poverty to want to take a risk with the lower paid graduate jobs.

Your father was a doctor and you were privately educated. I really don't think you can claim to come from a poor background.

DH, on the other hand, did come from a poor background. His father was a mole catcher and died when DH was four years old. He grew up very poor in a single parent household in a small council house. My late MIL either didn't know what benefits she could claim or whether they even existed. Relatives had to look after the children while MIL did cleaning jobs.

DH grew up hungry to do well and make a lot of money as a result. He is semi retired now but was recognised as being one of the top experts in his field worldwide (a niche engineering field).

I find your "claim" to come from "humble beginnings" an insult to people who have genuinely had to struggle.

@LaDeeDa123 I work in the arts and it’s middle-class young people who are taking up the roles because as you say they have the luxury of being able to take low paid but highly respected jobs. It’s becoming a huge issue.

Yes, that is also true. DD is very keen that she pay her own way in the world after uni, but she has the comfort of knowing there's a "safety net" if things go wrong, and that she has savings to live off for a while if an unpaid internship is needed at some point (and, if not, to use as a house deposit). That is certainly privilege, and we're very aware of it.

I work in the arts and it’s middle-class young people who are taking up the roles because as you say they have the luxury of being able to take low paid but highly respected jobs

That makes sense. Unfortunately DD's health issues mean that she is unable to pursue a career that would take over her life with ridiculous working hours.

She has CFS/ME, and just about managed to work 36 hours over four days. She is also studying for pharmacy qualifications. It takes a lot out of her.

horses for courses. Power of choice for a student comes from their grades. So for many, Durham or Exeter (for certain degrees like English) won’t be an option. ‘Horses for courses’ also applies to where academics choose to live and work and this may align more closely to what parents are attracted to. And of course those academics who are most highly regarded have also the most power of choice.

Mmm. I was talking to a mum I used to work for. Her family are well off ,white, very establishment and very nice. We both have children ( she’s got twins) who started their first year of Uni. She was very proud to tell me hers had both gone to Exeter and clearly I was meant to be impressed . She knew nothing about Warwick didn’t even know it wasn’t in Warwick despite being top 10/11 in most surveys.

Its just not cool. Same as dentistry pays well but isn’t as cool as someone in the city or media on the same money.

I’m surprised she didn’t know Warwick. I live in London with ambitious, clued up parents. Warwick is very much on the radar. Whether, maths, stem, econ, it’s seen as an aspirational choice.

Ramp, I agree I was not in poverty as a child. However that ethos in a family of only just being one generation from poverty DOES have an impact. My mother was brought up in a rented house like this one. People at my wedding were coal miners etc. So yes my parents were the ones due to grammar schools and a fairly high IQ to come out of poverty but I think it takes few generations for the views, lifestyle, past to be erased.

Plenty of well off Dc at Warwick. She’s kidding you. She knows Warwick. All stem Dc know Warwick! Exeter is a follow on from boarding. Or those who aspire to boarding! It’s like a familiar woolly jumper. Warwick is not as cosy but plenty still love it.

Actually @TizerorFizz most times I mention DD2 is in the context of it being possible to go on and get top academic qualifications despite attending a poor Secondary Modern school. All her friendship group (who wanted to) also went on to university. I'd like to think I do this in the spirit of encouragement and reassurance for people concerned about the school their DC(s) are going to… What field she's in is not really relevant, and my other 2 DCs are in completely different careers.

I couldn't care less what profession anyone is in, or their DCs. What I object to is posters providing incorrect or incomplete information, and implying something is universally the case when it quite obviously is not. The poster you refer to frequently posts that A level grades matter to graduates; as long as they do so, I am going to respond that that is only the case for law and a few other specific professions. For many others it simply is not true.

@thing47 Ok. But how many professions do you actually know?

I do think people should go to the best place for their course, if that is somewhere they would be happy living for 3/4 years. And best place for the course does not necessarily mean top ranked. No point going to the top ranked for English lit if you have a passion for Chaucer and early English and the focus of the course is on eg post 1700 literature.
My DD is looking at Arabic so there isn’t much choice particularly as she doesn’t want to be in London (or oxford, where she lives). She is interested less in literature and Islam than she is on politics, anthropology, IR, political economy and wants the best real-life language acquisition possible (ie not language acquisition to translate medieval documents which is valid but not her bag. For that she should go to oxford).
For what she wants, Exeter is head and shoulders above anywhere else in the UK. Cambridge has the faculty of AMES which lumps Middle eastern languages in with Chinese and Japanese studies, but has only about 12 dedicated Arabic / Persian staff and very little choice of modules. It borrows courses from the politics dept. Similarly Durham has about 8 Arabic staff (if you ignore retired emeritus professors), most of whom are language teachers and the rest have a literature or film focus. Exeter has 60 staff teaching only Arabic/Persian/Middle Eastern courses in a truly multidisciplinary way, with a large number of visiting lecturers and 100 PhD students. Massive dedicated building, well funded from the Gulf, every student gets £6000 scholarship over 4 years - and comes out with a masters not a BA like in all the other English Arabic courses- there really is no comparison in my opinion.
You can get to Exeter with lower grades than Cambridge but it seems to me the only advantage Cambridge has over Exeter is that some people will be impressed by the name. The fact that Exeter is middle class and aspirational is utterly irrelevant so far as I and DD are concerned.

I found the same when looking at Sheffield v Edinburgh for landscape architecture for DD1. Edinburgh - faintly depressing department, bleak studios albeit with a nice view of the castle, no evidence of much interesting work on the walls and an uninspiring prof who said the department had no involvement in choosing its students “we get what central admissions sends us” vs Sheffield - lively dept with huge light active working studios, brilliant end of year show with piles of business cards left by visiting practices interested in offering students jobs, big name profs maintaining famous professional practices, and the department interviewed and chose every student personally. You needed higher grades to get into Edinburgh but Sheffield was the better course in every way.

So make your own choices but take all stereotypes with a pinch of salt and question o everything - and look closely at what the course is really like and what the current students really say about it, is my view.