Do Sociopaths deserve full human rights?
For the purposes of this discussion, a sociopath can be defined as a person who persistently has no regards for others' human rights (as agreed on by societal standards). While having knowledge of what society deems to be human rights, a sociopath rejects these completely, viewing the rules as somehow not applying to them, repeatedly harming others and violating their rights whenever they think they can get away with it.
Such is often defined in the psychiatric literature as Antisocial Personality Disorder, and much of this may also apply to related conditions such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder, at least in the most virulent cases who may be termed malignant narcissists. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use "sociopath" throughout.
Nevertheless, a sociopath will demand their own "rights" be respected when this is in their interests, not out of any commitment to human rights or sincere belief in their validity, but purely because this is expedient to them. Note that not all sociopaths are criminals - many rise to a high station in society, such as CEO (the profession with the greatest proportion of sociopaths).
The question is: Do sociopaths themselves deserve full human rights, or would they best be accorded more limited rights?
I argue for the latter, restricting their rights and granting them considerably less rights than non-sociopaths.
The alternative seems to me to be a rather pernicious example of the free rider problem. As I see it, if human rights are to have any meaning, it would be on a contractarian basis, not by any kind of divine decree or by reference to abstract moral principles. Thus rights are grounded in a common agreement between humans.
The problem is that sociopaths are committed to vehemently rejecting any such social contract in practice (while often portraying a mere image to the contrary). Thus, I argue against them unilaterally receiving the same benefits from it as those who follow it.
To pre-empt a possible counter-argument, "they are human too, thus deserve full human rights", I would point out that this kind of human being is void of empathy, sympathy and moral accountability, aspects of humanity which are often central to definitions of what it means to be human. In fact, many non-human animals have considerably more empathy than human sociopaths. Therefore, I would argue that this is a conflation of merely being a member of Homo sapiens with what is regarded as valuable in being human.
Secondly, a possible counter-argument that "they deserve compassion because they are suffering from a psychiatric disorder, thus they shouldn't be denied full human rights", is also something I find fails to convince me. Technically, sociopaths aren't the ones who suffer, it's the "normal" people in their environment who do the suffering - a complete reversal of conventional neurosis or mental illness.
This also avoids the serious issue of discrimination against mental illness - technically, sociopaths are sane. They cannot be cured, since they don't (in my view) have an illness. They just have a complete disregard for others' rights, viewing other humans as mere objects to exploit as a means to their own ends, which is done in a cold, calculating and deliberate manner, as an enduring personality trait - while absolving themselves from accountability. Viewing them as "ill" is misleading, to put it mildly.
Therefore, I would argue that sociopaths do not deserve full human rights, and if they are to be granted rights at all, it would be better if it were on a considerably more limited basis than non-sociopaths.
Such in my view would include - and not limited to - many of the kind of rights which afford protection from harm from others; an assumption of good faith in dealings with others (perhaps including the legal "innocent until proven guilty") given the propensity for relentless pathological lying; the same amount of the right to "basic respect", and so forth.
This may be a somewhat radical conclusion, and its application may even imply promoting a radical shake-up of the current social order; however in light of the facts and basic intuitions which justify the concept of human rights and its applications, in my view this conclusion seems to be justified.
Such is often defined in the psychiatric literature as Antisocial Personality Disorder, and much of this may also apply to related conditions such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder, at least in the most virulent cases who may be termed malignant narcissists. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use "sociopath" throughout.
Nevertheless, a sociopath will demand their own "rights" be respected when this is in their interests, not out of any commitment to human rights or sincere belief in their validity, but purely because this is expedient to them. Note that not all sociopaths are criminals - many rise to a high station in society, such as CEO (the profession with the greatest proportion of sociopaths).
The question is: Do sociopaths themselves deserve full human rights, or would they best be accorded more limited rights?
I argue for the latter, restricting their rights and granting them considerably less rights than non-sociopaths.
The alternative seems to me to be a rather pernicious example of the free rider problem. As I see it, if human rights are to have any meaning, it would be on a contractarian basis, not by any kind of divine decree or by reference to abstract moral principles. Thus rights are grounded in a common agreement between humans.
The problem is that sociopaths are committed to vehemently rejecting any such social contract in practice (while often portraying a mere image to the contrary). Thus, I argue against them unilaterally receiving the same benefits from it as those who follow it.
To pre-empt a possible counter-argument, "they are human too, thus deserve full human rights", I would point out that this kind of human being is void of empathy, sympathy and moral accountability, aspects of humanity which are often central to definitions of what it means to be human. In fact, many non-human animals have considerably more empathy than human sociopaths. Therefore, I would argue that this is a conflation of merely being a member of Homo sapiens with what is regarded as valuable in being human.
Secondly, a possible counter-argument that "they deserve compassion because they are suffering from a psychiatric disorder, thus they shouldn't be denied full human rights", is also something I find fails to convince me. Technically, sociopaths aren't the ones who suffer, it's the "normal" people in their environment who do the suffering - a complete reversal of conventional neurosis or mental illness.
This also avoids the serious issue of discrimination against mental illness - technically, sociopaths are sane. They cannot be cured, since they don't (in my view) have an illness. They just have a complete disregard for others' rights, viewing other humans as mere objects to exploit as a means to their own ends, which is done in a cold, calculating and deliberate manner, as an enduring personality trait - while absolving themselves from accountability. Viewing them as "ill" is misleading, to put it mildly.
Therefore, I would argue that sociopaths do not deserve full human rights, and if they are to be granted rights at all, it would be better if it were on a considerably more limited basis than non-sociopaths.
Such in my view would include - and not limited to - many of the kind of rights which afford protection from harm from others; an assumption of good faith in dealings with others (perhaps including the legal "innocent until proven guilty") given the propensity for relentless pathological lying; the same amount of the right to "basic respect", and so forth.
This may be a somewhat radical conclusion, and its application may even imply promoting a radical shake-up of the current social order; however in light of the facts and basic intuitions which justify the concept of human rights and its applications, in my view this conclusion seems to be justified.
Scroll to see replies
Of course they do.
The vast majority of sociopath and psychopaths for that matter live in a manner most people would notice as not that different and are statistically no more likely to harm or breach another human rights than anyone else.
If you view it as a disorder then they should keep it. Also you should not deny so called 'human rights' on someone's beliefs. The very point of rights is they should apply to all or none.
The vast majority of sociopath and psychopaths for that matter live in a manner most people would notice as not that different and are statistically no more likely to harm or breach another human rights than anyone else.
If you view it as a disorder then they should keep it. Also you should not deny so called 'human rights' on someone's beliefs. The very point of rights is they should apply to all or none.
Original post by DanB1991
Of course they do.
Bald assertion.
Original post by DanB1991
The vast majority of sociopath and psychopaths for that matter live in a manner most people would notice as not that different and are statistically no more likely to harm or breach another human rights than anyone else.
Where do you get your statistics from? Many are good chameleons, sure, but the destruction imposed on others, for reasons from seeking status, to defending their false image from anyone who sees through them, to simple sadistic fun, is quite real and often doesn't jive with the image they seek to portray.
Original post by DanB1991
If you view it as a disorder then they should keep it. Also you should not deny so called 'human rights' on someone's beliefs. The very point of rights is they should apply to all or none.
I wouldn't consider it a disorder in the typical sense. The hallmark of a disorder is the individual with it suffers. With the sociopath, others get to suffer. Medicalising it makes perpetrators out to be victims. Something they are keen on and which works in their favour to the detriment of others.
Rights applying to all or none is clearly not the case when we talk about specialised rights such as women's rights, disabled rights, ethnic minority rights and so forth. I think the exception to rights applying to all should apply to sociopaths. Note that I'm not suggesting denying them all rights (as they would happily do to others), merely restricting and limiting their rights, as an individual who persistently fails to respect the rights of others.
The issue is not with their private beliefs but with their behaviour. There's a difference between critically examining the notion of human rights, and actively treating others as if their rights don't exist. Their mantra is, "You're not entitled to ****." Think you have a right to avoid abuse (physical or psychological), slander, and so forth? Not only do they vehemently disagree, they will do that for fun, like a cat playing with a mouse. In their world, not only do you have no rights, and they have no duty to avoid harming you: they will cross that boundary intentionally, to deliberately transgress socially-agreed rules.
I fail to see how they are entitled to the same degree of rights themselves as those who actually respect others' rights.
Original post by DanB1991
Actually quick notes I think your talking about psychopaths... not sociopaths, sociopaths can have things such as remorse, guilt etc but in certain contexts. Psychopaths tend to lack them altogether.
The distinction is somewhat disputed, obviously I'm not talking about mild cases here. Sociopaths do have remorse of a sort, only it's more on the lines of "I regret getting caught, I should have been more cunning." Often more like annoyance. The same for when someone sees through their veneer.
I do have some first-hand experience with people with such traits, too. I'm not naive about them. What we are talking about are the human equivalent of lions. Lions are kept in cages to protect people from being harmed by them. I suggest restrictions are put on the liberty of sociopaths for that reason, as part of their proposed curtailing of rights, including those smart enough to avoid prison who nevertheless wreak a trail of destruction on the lives of others.
Compassion over justice is the wrong approach when dealing with predatory humans, in my view. Woefully misguided.
Yes.. Assuming the socio-paths in question are humans.
The point of human rights is that they are for all humans.
The point of human rights is that they are for all humans.
There is actualy quite a lot of sci-fi out there that deals with this question. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep being an example.
Eddit: I thought op meant psychopaths.
Eddit: I thought op meant psychopaths.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Mequa
Lots of words..
You argue with 'abstract moral principles' when it suits you - when you talk about 'central definitions of what it means to be human'.
Attempting to eradicate characteristics which could undoubtedly sometimes be considered strengths - advantages - is a bad idea. It'd weaken the human race whose rights or principles or whatever you are trying to protect.
There is no morally, socially or scientifically defensible position in your argument.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
There is actualy quite a lot of sci-fi out there that deals with this question. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep being an example.
Eddit: I thought op meant psychopaths.
Eddit: I thought op meant psychopaths.
You can substitute psychopaths, much the same applies. Some make a distinction between the two, other times the two terms are used interchangeably. The DSM seems to prefer Antisocial Personality Disorder as an umbrella term for both.
I would certainly argue that they are less than human. Humans are highly social animals. Sociopaths are antisocial, and cannot bond except as a means to achieve dominance. They can get with competition but not cooperation, and often trample on everyone else in their climb to the top. That makes them a liability for all concerned. Almost like a different species entirely, wolves in sheep's clothing.
Whatever strengths they may have does not imply they should best be given free reign, with some so-called inalienable right of liberty. Think how advantageous it would be for everyone else if their liberty were restrained. To them that includes the liberty to harm and abuse others whenever they think they can get away with it.
In short, I don't buy into a dogmatic notion of the same degree of rights belonging to everyone else necessarily applying to sociopaths too merely because they are human. I'd jump on any dogmatic assumptions and premises behind that stance.
Mostly they would have the same rights but you are correct to some extent. There are certain circumstances where you do lose your rights. Eg if you are to be detained under section to treat a mental illness or if you arrested for criminal activity. Personality disorders are certainly highly prevalent in both groups.
Original post by Mequa
I suggest restrictions are put on the liberty of sociopaths for that reason, as part of their proposed curtailing of rights, including those smart enough to avoid prison who nevertheless wreak a trail of destruction on the lives of others.
Compassion over justice is the wrong approach when dealing with predatory humans, in my view. Woefully misguided.
Compassion over justice is the wrong approach when dealing with predatory humans, in my view. Woefully misguided.
How do you plan to identify all of these sociopaths? Will you force every child to go through some kind of test once a year until they start displaying symptoms (seeing as APD can only be officially diagnosed after age 18)? Where is the cut-off point? How do you impose these restricted rights? Do you keep a catalogue of sociopaths? Do you imprison or confine them? Why not just cull them altogether, if they aren't human in your eyes?
Original post by Revenged
Mostly they would have the same rights but you are correct to some extent. There are certain circumstances where you do lose your rights. Eg if you are to be detained under section to treat a mental illness or if you arrested for criminal activity. Personality disorders are certainly highly prevalent in both groups.
Yes, imprisoning an individual is indeed to restrict that individual's right to liberty. I don't see people clamoring that serial killers should be allowed to go free. This is much the same principle, only does not imply locking up or killing sociopaths (that would be a straw man rebuttal).
The issue here is whether individuals who have zero respect for other peoples' dignity, deserve the same respect for their own dignity as others for which this is not the case. I would argue against that. They do not deserve the same level of respect for their own dignity as non-sociopaths.
As for an example of how this would be implemented: Suppose an organisation wishes to prevent those with clear evidence of sociopathic traits from holding positions of leadership, and make this policy. A sociopath decides to sue them claiming "unjust discrimination", claiming that his or her sociopathy and inability to genuinely respect the rights and dignity of others should not be discriminated against in making him or her a leader with power over others in the organisation, claiming his or her "personality disorder" shouldn't be discriminated against.
In other cases, such discrimination would be unacceptable; however in this instance, I'd argue that the claim should be overruled. The same rights do not apply as to a non-sociopath in such an instance. Why should they? Discrimination against sociopathic traits in looking for a leadership position would be entirely reasonable when a leader is expected to genuinely respect the dignity and rights of those subservient to them, and the serious dangers of the superficial charm, false bravado, "looking good on paper" and manipulativeness of those with sociopathic traits are taken into account. The sociopath has no right to play the victim in such a case, given their agenda is to do such to conceal their own victimiser status.
The rights of non-sociopaths are quite simply more important, when a sociopath gains a position of power. The latter is going to find it too tempting to demand his or her own rights while denying those of others.
So no, I cannot accept equal rights for sociopaths merely because "they are human too". For everyone else, sure.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Mequa
You can substitute psychopaths, much the same applies. Some make a distinction between the two, other times the two terms are used interchangeably. The DSM seems to prefer Antisocial Personality Disorder as an umbrella term for both.
I would certainly argue that they are less than human. Humans are highly social animals. Sociopaths are antisocial, and cannot bond except as a means to achieve dominance. They can get with competition but not cooperation, and often trample on everyone else in their climb to the top. That makes them a liability for all concerned. Almost like a different species entirely, wolves in sheep's clothing.
Whatever strengths they may have does not imply they should best be given free reign, with some so-called inalienable right of liberty. Think how advantageous it would be for everyone else if their liberty were restrained. To them that includes the liberty to harm and abuse others whenever they think they can get away with it.
In short, I don't buy into a dogmatic notion of the same degree of rights belonging to everyone else necessarily applying to sociopaths too merely because they are human. I'd jump on any dogmatic assumptions and premises behind that stance.
I would certainly argue that they are less than human. Humans are highly social animals. Sociopaths are antisocial, and cannot bond except as a means to achieve dominance. They can get with competition but not cooperation, and often trample on everyone else in their climb to the top. That makes them a liability for all concerned. Almost like a different species entirely, wolves in sheep's clothing.
Whatever strengths they may have does not imply they should best be given free reign, with some so-called inalienable right of liberty. Think how advantageous it would be for everyone else if their liberty were restrained. To them that includes the liberty to harm and abuse others whenever they think they can get away with it.
In short, I don't buy into a dogmatic notion of the same degree of rights belonging to everyone else necessarily applying to sociopaths too merely because they are human. I'd jump on any dogmatic assumptions and premises behind that stance.
Your using the wrong term then... and no they are not interchangeable if you use the term sociopath..
If you want an overarching or interchangeable term use Psychopath or Antisocial Personality Disorder. If you use sociopath your using a term that is used solely to show a difference between different groups.
Put very simply a Psychopath may recognize someone's rights but not care. A sociopath will not recognize those rights in the first place (but may however respect them anyway).
The difference being a Psychopath has no remorse in virtually any manner. When they are calm they are no harm to anyone, it's how they manage anger that can be a problem. Around 1% of the entire population are classed as Psychopaths, and while they make up 15% of the prison population the vast majority do not commit crime or harm people.
A sociopath many not understand society, not recognize society rules, may be self centered. However around 4% of the population are sociopaths. Odds are if you know a reasonable amount of people a few of them will be classified as a sociopaths.
Someone who cheats repeatedly on their partner may (and some have been) classified as sociopaths if they believe that the rules concerning having a single partner applies to them.
I remember seeing a heartbreaking documentary while studying A level Psychology (admittedly not the highest qualification). One woman who was a psychopath had never harmed anyone, had been married and had children. She explained it as she simply lacks any feeling of empathy or emotion. She knew she loved her children but then explained she had never experienced it and while she knew she was upset she didn't know how to convey it or what it really felt like. In effect psychopaths tend to act as robots in day to day life.
Another man in this documentary who was involved in a cycle-car accident where he experienced a concussion. While before he was normal afterwards he was classified as a Psychopath and stated he now had very few emotions. Again he had never harmed anyone.
I don't think anyone chooses to be a sociopath or psychopath.
Original post by DanB1991
Put very simply a Psychopath may recognize someone's rights but not care. A sociopath will not recognize those rights in the first place (but may however respect them anyway).
This usage is far from universal and is disputed in the psychiatric literature, however going by your definition I'd substitute "psychopath".
Original post by DanB1991
I don't think anyone chooses to be a sociopath or psychopath.
Choice doesn't necessarily apply here. I don't think anyone chooses to have a sexual attraction to children either, however those who do are routinely condemned, whether or not they act on those unchosen urges.
Note that in this discussion on sociopaths/psychopaths, the issue is on those who act on that aspect of their nature in terms of harming others, not on those who decide to withdraw from society who are already curtailing their own rights/liberties.
I don't agree with overly medicalising a disposition to harm others and violate their rights. They are not ill, they are not suffering. If they are like robots, they would best be put to use in a way which they can be made useful for society, while curtailing their liberty to harm others and violate their rights. This applies both to personal and professional relationships. Not by giving them the exact same rights as non-psychopaths, which in my view is hopelessly naive.
Neither does this require an authoritarian State to implement. Rather, everyone who is relevantly involved could recognise their restricted rights and be granted the right to act on that, not have the demand placed on them that they grant them the exact same level of rights as non-psychopaths.
Yes, they are humans.
I think you need to define what human rights is to let us better understand your position.
I think you need to define what human rights is to let us better understand your position.
Original post by Mequa
This usage is far from universal and is disputed in the psychiatric literature, however going by your definition I'd substitute "psychopath".
Choice doesn't necessarily apply here. I don't think anyone chooses to have a sexual attraction to children either, however those who do are routinely condemned, whether or not they act on those un-chosen urges.
Note that in this discussion on sociopaths/psychopaths, the issue is on those who act on that aspect of their nature in terms of harming others, not on those who decide to withdraw from society who are already curtailing their own rights/liberties.
I don't agree with overly medicalising a disposition to harm others and violate their rights. They are not ill, they are not suffering. If they are like robots, they would best be put to use in a way which they can be made useful for society, while curtailing their liberty to harm others and violate their rights. This applies both to personal and professional relationships. Not by giving them the exact same rights as non-psychopaths, which in my view is hopelessly naive.
Neither does this require an authoritarian State to implement. Rather, everyone who is relevantly involved could recognise their restricted rights and be granted the right to act on that, not have the demand placed on them that they grant them the exact same level of rights as non-psychopaths.
Choice doesn't necessarily apply here. I don't think anyone chooses to have a sexual attraction to children either, however those who do are routinely condemned, whether or not they act on those un-chosen urges.
Note that in this discussion on sociopaths/psychopaths, the issue is on those who act on that aspect of their nature in terms of harming others, not on those who decide to withdraw from society who are already curtailing their own rights/liberties.
I don't agree with overly medicalising a disposition to harm others and violate their rights. They are not ill, they are not suffering. If they are like robots, they would best be put to use in a way which they can be made useful for society, while curtailing their liberty to harm others and violate their rights. This applies both to personal and professional relationships. Not by giving them the exact same rights as non-psychopaths, which in my view is hopelessly naive.
Neither does this require an authoritarian State to implement. Rather, everyone who is relevantly involved could recognise their restricted rights and be granted the right to act on that, not have the demand placed on them that they grant them the exact same level of rights as non-psychopaths.
What particular rights would you restrict?
If you can't choose to be a psychopath then is it not a disorder? Pedophilia at the end of a day is still a disorder. Whether both groups act illegally is another matter. To an extent both groups already have certain rights restricted (as in those who act completely within the law).
Technically speaking in the UK you are allowed to do what you want as long as it does not break the law. Are you asking for specific laws to oppress such groups? Are you asking for certain Rights given under EU law be taken away?
If your saying they should simply be treated in a different manner and considerations given, then yes. I cannot see how any of the 18 articles under the EU charter on human rights should not apply to Psychopaths/sociopaths.
Are you arguing because they do not recognize a persons right to life we should take theirs away? Even if they never act on it?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Mequa
For the purposes of this discussion, a sociopath can be defined as a person who persistently has no regards for others' human rights (as agreed on by societal standards). While having knowledge of what society deems to be human rights, a sociopath rejects these completely, viewing the rules as somehow not applying to them, repeatedly harming others and violating their rights whenever they think they can get away with it.
................
This may be a somewhat radical conclusion, and its application may even imply promoting a radical shake-up of the current social order; however in light of the facts and basic intuitions which justify the concept of human rights and its applications, in my view this conclusion seems to be justified.
................
This may be a somewhat radical conclusion, and its application may even imply promoting a radical shake-up of the current social order; however in light of the facts and basic intuitions which justify the concept of human rights and its applications, in my view this conclusion seems to be justified.
Extremely well said OP. I agree with every word. There's little more to add. I have been thinking of making a thread like this for ages; I remember having a week long battle with William Turtle arguing that psychopaths should be heavily monitored and/or locked up. He just wouldn't buy it.
These people who keep saying "sociopaths are humans who deserve rights too!" really are not getting it. Sociopaths are social predators who almost invariably leave a path of destruction throughout their lives - how anyone could still argue that these animals should be let loose in society is very much beyond me. They need to pick up a book on socio/psycho - pathy instead of sitting in their comfy chair preaching all this liberal-liberty nonsense.
Natural rights are nonsense on stilts. All rights are granted by humans, for humans, and have the sole purpose of preserving the liberty and safety of human society. Sociopaths do not fit with that model, and thus should be eliminated from it. No questions asked.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
there is no conclusive test for personality disorders - many psychiatrist would disagree with the diagnosis in the same person. one might say they have a personality traits but are no mental disorder, another may classify them as having a personality disorder, another may say such traits are secondary to another mental illness. without a conclusive test you cannot restrict rights to someone as you have no knowledge of their future intentions and you cannot restrict rights without reason on the potential they can cause harm.
that said there is a distinct group of people that do cause harm with psychopathic/sociopathic personality disorders. that they are treated more strictly against the law - especially someone who has committed violent, predatory crimes on innocent people and do not even pretend to have remorse in a court. often this is seen in psychopathic personality disorders and they would be treated much more heavily by a jury. the condemnation and restriction of rights will only come after the crime. not all psychopaths or sociopaths are dysfunctional criminals and many are high flyers and that function well in society and not commit crimes and i think most are something in between the two. you cannot condemn everyone with restriction of rights.
that said there is a distinct group of people that do cause harm with psychopathic/sociopathic personality disorders. that they are treated more strictly against the law - especially someone who has committed violent, predatory crimes on innocent people and do not even pretend to have remorse in a court. often this is seen in psychopathic personality disorders and they would be treated much more heavily by a jury. the condemnation and restriction of rights will only come after the crime. not all psychopaths or sociopaths are dysfunctional criminals and many are high flyers and that function well in society and not commit crimes and i think most are something in between the two. you cannot condemn everyone with restriction of rights.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
BA (hons) Philosophy at University of London/OU student finance queryLast reply 1 minute ago
BTEC H/S Care Unit 4: Enquiries into Current Research in Health and Social CareLast reply 2 minutes ago
Latest time to apply for the means tested part of the maintance loanPosted 8 minutes ago
Dissertation survey https://forms.gle/GUYmoXv6ssRJumjH7Last reply 8 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 11 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
Student Finance applications for Part Time studentsLast reply 16 minutes ago
LSE Economic history departmentLast reply 20 minutes ago
Sevenoaks vs Godolphin and LatymerLast reply 22 minutes ago
Can anyone Manchester think of any green spaces less likely to be dogsTrending
Last reply 52 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 hour ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 52 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 hour ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
