What are the traits of the British upper middle class?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by sparrowhawk4
This thread has completely baffled me. I fit about half of the descriptions here. Does that make me lower-upper middle class? If that isn't already a thing, it should be 
Ha ha...That's how George Orwell described his station.
The difference between the upper-middle-class and the lower-middle-class lies in educational background and occupation more than anything else.
For instance, while a nurse may be lower-middle-class, a GP is upper-middle-class. A secondary school teacher would be classed as lower-middle-class, but a university lecturer is placed solidly within the upper-middle-class. A manager of a supermarket or a car dealership is typified as lower-middle-class, but a Vice President in charge of Marketing, let's say, at Tesco or Jaguar would be upper-middle-class. A police constable or Sgt., would be classed as lower-middle-class, but Assistant Chief Constable of a county constabulary would be classed as upper-middle-class.
Similarly, someone who earned their degree from a post-1992 former polytechnic would usually be channelled into a vocational course like, say, engineering or accounting, is someone who would most probably be classed as lower-middle-class, whereas a student at Oxford studying History, for instance, is probably being groomed for a high level and high-profile position in academia, the civil service, media, law, or possibly parachuted into a prestigious job in the City, where family friends would assist in giving Junior his break.
Both are 'middle-class', both groups are white-collar, university educated, professionals and managers, but one group has more prestige over the other, and that is usually helped in large measure, some would argue, by the luck of the draw of to whom they were born and where they were raised.
Original post by sydney_watts
Ha ha...That's how George Orwell described his station.
The difference between the upper-middle-class and the lower-middle-class lies in educational background and occupation more than anything else.
For instance, while a nurse may be lower-middle-class, a GP is upper-middle-class. A secondary school teacher would be classed as lower-middle-class, but a university lecturer is placed solidly within the upper-middle-class. A manager of a supermarket or a car dealership is typified as lower-middle-class, but a Vice President in charge of Marketing, let's say, at Tesco or Jaguar would be upper-middle-class. A police constable or Sgt., would be classed as lower-middle-class, but Assistant Chief Constable of a county constabulary would be classed as upper-middle-class.
Similarly, someone who earned their degree from a post-1992 former polytechnic would usually be channelled into a vocational course like, say, engineering or accounting, is someone who would most probably be classed as lower-middle-class, whereas a student at Oxford studying History, for instance, is probably being groomed for a high level and high-profile position in academia, the civil service, media, law, or possibly parachuted into a prestigious job in the City, where family friends would assist in giving Junior his break.
Both are 'middle-class', both groups are white-collar, university educated, professionals and managers, but one group has more prestige over the other, and that is usually helped in large measure, some would argue, by the luck of the draw of to whom they were born and where they were raised.
The difference between the upper-middle-class and the lower-middle-class lies in educational background and occupation more than anything else.
For instance, while a nurse may be lower-middle-class, a GP is upper-middle-class. A secondary school teacher would be classed as lower-middle-class, but a university lecturer is placed solidly within the upper-middle-class. A manager of a supermarket or a car dealership is typified as lower-middle-class, but a Vice President in charge of Marketing, let's say, at Tesco or Jaguar would be upper-middle-class. A police constable or Sgt., would be classed as lower-middle-class, but Assistant Chief Constable of a county constabulary would be classed as upper-middle-class.
Similarly, someone who earned their degree from a post-1992 former polytechnic would usually be channelled into a vocational course like, say, engineering or accounting, is someone who would most probably be classed as lower-middle-class, whereas a student at Oxford studying History, for instance, is probably being groomed for a high level and high-profile position in academia, the civil service, media, law, or possibly parachuted into a prestigious job in the City, where family friends would assist in giving Junior his break.
Both are 'middle-class', both groups are white-collar, university educated, professionals and managers, but one group has more prestige over the other, and that is usually helped in large measure, some would argue, by the luck of the draw of to whom they were born and where they were raised.
Are you stalking me?
Those are my parents jobs...we fit a lot of the stereotypes, I guess. I have several Cambridge educated family members, I row, we go skiing, things like that. On the other hand, the phones the four of us use probably cost less than £20 between them, we have a second hand car, and both me and my bother go to the local state schools in a not very posh part of London 
Original post by Manitude
Most people consider me in this class but I have a Northern accent (grew up a few miles from Liverpool), went to an average state school, go on holiday in a caravan (mostly), my hobbies are playing guitar, historical re-enactment and video games...none of these things strike me as especially stereotypical.
On the other hand, big(ish) house in the country, most people in the family have some form of degree (at normal universities, not really prestigious ones) and my parents earn a decent wage.
On the other hand, big(ish) house in the country, most people in the family have some form of degree (at normal universities, not really prestigious ones) and my parents earn a decent wage.
What makes you think you are in this class?
Middle does not mean average when it comes to class. Middle-class are probably around the top 5-10% in terms of income (although money does not directly dictate class).
Regarding houses size is probably less important than location. 'A big house in the country' could be as little as £500k in some areas, while in expensive parts of the home counties that much may not even buy a bungalow.
Original post by sydney_watts
Remember that while the British upper middle-class and the upper-class are two different kettles of fish, there are some similarities. For instance, Oxbridge and a handful of top tier universities such as Durham, Bristol, UCL, Kings, Imperial, and Exeter are the major universities of choice for both groups. One or two of the Scottish universities might qualify in this category too.
Both groups tend to dominate certain departments, particularly within the arts and humanities. Reading History, of course, immediately comes to mind as the typical top pick amongst the posh. History, English, Philosophy, Art History, French, etc. are normally dominated by affluent people of old-line wealth. Most lecturers in these disciplines, you will find, are usually themselves the sons and daughters of rather wealthy parents. Even in the lesser rated universities this is true to some degree, as many starting lecturers and even those with some reputation within their field will often choose to teach in provincial locations, particularly if these locales are their home base.
The major difference, of course, between the upper-class and the upper-middle-class is that the upper class may choose to work for a living, whereas the upper-middle-class must work for a living in order to maintain their lifestyle. Nevertheless, both are usually educated at the same usual list of public schools and universities. Both are virtually guaranteed secure, well-paid employment upon graduation, generally with the help of extensive family connections, and both have the means to establish themselves independently well before they reach their 30s. Therefore, this element of society reproduces itself from one generation to the next.
The typical upper-middle class girl would come from the Home Counties, most notably Surrey, Berks, or Bucks. Her father might be a barrister in the City and her mother a lecturer of English Literature at a posh university like, say Kings. She would attend an independent all-girls school (some parents would even have the means for her to board) like say, St Swithun's or St Paul's if she is a London girl. She invariable would take a gap year somewhere abroad, but nothing too extravagant, and then once she is through saving the planet she would start reading History at let's say, Magadalen College, Oxford. After graduation with a First she would most probably either go down the route toward academia or get a job with a City firm with the help of her father. Before this age of austerity she probably would have found a high profile career at the BBC or the Foreign Office.
Now, let's compare her to a upper-class girl. Daddy would be a director of a multi-national corporation where he earns millions of pounds a year to 'manage'. Mummy would be engaged in charity work. They would all live happily in a very large manse in the country, let's say Devon, Cornwall, or Gloucester. She would, of course, board at somewhere like St Swithun's or maybe one or two notches up like one of the real expensive boarding schools in Switzerland. Wherever she attends, it is automatically assumed she will board. Only upper-middle-class girls are 'Day Girls'. After graduation would come the Grand Tour around the world. If she does have any smarts she would go on to study Art History at Oxford and just bide her time till some double-barrelled chinless wonder asks for her hand in marriage. At which time she would resume the work free life of her mother, and the chinless wonder husband would take a position in one of the banks in the City.
That is your major differences between these two groups, but as I said in the beginning: there is not a hell of a lot of difference. Nevertheless, you can bet each knows their place and where they fit in.
Both groups tend to dominate certain departments, particularly within the arts and humanities. Reading History, of course, immediately comes to mind as the typical top pick amongst the posh. History, English, Philosophy, Art History, French, etc. are normally dominated by affluent people of old-line wealth. Most lecturers in these disciplines, you will find, are usually themselves the sons and daughters of rather wealthy parents. Even in the lesser rated universities this is true to some degree, as many starting lecturers and even those with some reputation within their field will often choose to teach in provincial locations, particularly if these locales are their home base.
The major difference, of course, between the upper-class and the upper-middle-class is that the upper class may choose to work for a living, whereas the upper-middle-class must work for a living in order to maintain their lifestyle. Nevertheless, both are usually educated at the same usual list of public schools and universities. Both are virtually guaranteed secure, well-paid employment upon graduation, generally with the help of extensive family connections, and both have the means to establish themselves independently well before they reach their 30s. Therefore, this element of society reproduces itself from one generation to the next.
The typical upper-middle class girl would come from the Home Counties, most notably Surrey, Berks, or Bucks. Her father might be a barrister in the City and her mother a lecturer of English Literature at a posh university like, say Kings. She would attend an independent all-girls school (some parents would even have the means for her to board) like say, St Swithun's or St Paul's if she is a London girl. She invariable would take a gap year somewhere abroad, but nothing too extravagant, and then once she is through saving the planet she would start reading History at let's say, Magadalen College, Oxford. After graduation with a First she would most probably either go down the route toward academia or get a job with a City firm with the help of her father. Before this age of austerity she probably would have found a high profile career at the BBC or the Foreign Office.
Now, let's compare her to a upper-class girl. Daddy would be a director of a multi-national corporation where he earns millions of pounds a year to 'manage'. Mummy would be engaged in charity work. They would all live happily in a very large manse in the country, let's say Devon, Cornwall, or Gloucester. She would, of course, board at somewhere like St Swithun's or maybe one or two notches up like one of the real expensive boarding schools in Switzerland. Wherever she attends, it is automatically assumed she will board. Only upper-middle-class girls are 'Day Girls'. After graduation would come the Grand Tour around the world. If she does have any smarts she would go on to study Art History at Oxford and just bide her time till some double-barrelled chinless wonder asks for her hand in marriage. At which time she would resume the work free life of her mother, and the chinless wonder husband would take a position in one of the banks in the City.
That is your major differences between these two groups, but as I said in the beginning: there is not a hell of a lot of difference. Nevertheless, you can bet each knows their place and where they fit in.
upper class (in the G.B.) is royal family / titles.
on a side issue, I find the obsession with social class in this country very cringe-worthy. there are always going to be people who speak nicely, who have wealthier parents and spend their time in a certain way. the over-analysis suggests that there is an issue that needs resolving, but it's just a fact of life.
there was a documentary a few years ago titled "Class in the UK" and at the end someone was right to say that you can pinpoint which class someone belongs to from the moment they open their mouths. He finished by saying that not only does this not happen in other countries, but hardly anyone else really cares.
Original post by Ripper-Roo
upper class (in the G.B.) is royal family / titles.
on a side issue, I find the obsession with social class in this country very cringe-worthy. there are always going to be people who speak nicely, who have wealthier parents and spend their time in a certain way. the over-analysis suggests that there is an issue that needs resolving, but it's just a fact of life.
there was a documentary a few years ago titled "Class in the UK" and at the end someone was right to say that you can pinpoint which class someone belongs to from the moment they open their mouths. He finished by saying that not only does this not happen in other countries, but hardly anyone else really cares.
on a side issue, I find the obsession with social class in this country very cringe-worthy. there are always going to be people who speak nicely, who have wealthier parents and spend their time in a certain way. the over-analysis suggests that there is an issue that needs resolving, but it's just a fact of life.
there was a documentary a few years ago titled "Class in the UK" and at the end someone was right to say that you can pinpoint which class someone belongs to from the moment they open their mouths. He finished by saying that not only does this not happen in other countries, but hardly anyone else really cares.
Here we go again. WRONG. Upper class does not form a 1:1 relationship with the titled. The problem is history - people assume that the Downton Abbey lot were the historic upper class and look around for people now who match that mythical view of the limits of upperclassdom. It wasn't even true then. There were plenty of big business people, upper culturati and the non-titled friends and outer relatives of the uppers who qualified.
The boundary between 'upper middle class' and 'upper class' is hard to define, but there are some key markers from the past that have become fuzzy. For example, one of the key differences in the past was that upper middle class people worked for a living, typically in one of the high professions. Today however, many 'upper class' people do paid jobs. Even Prince William has had a proper technically qualified job that is hard to do and requires complete attention and commitment.
However, some things are still clear:
* Upper class does not equal wealthy. It does generally include wealth, but some very wealthy people are probably not upper class. See Sugar, Alan.
* Upper class traditionally included a large set of distinct manners, including accent, particular activities such as hunting and the ownership of very large country properties as well as town houses in affluent areas. Some of these have been partially colonised by other classes and of course the country mansion on a grand scale has declined to the modest country manor.
* Upper class circles have always included (and still include) leading artists, politicians, writers, cultural figures (media people nowadays) and some very upwardly mobile business people. (See Branson, Richard.) The children of very wealthy business people of recent wealth are generally able to enter the upper class easily now, whereas this would once have been very difficult.
* Some very precise distinctions of school, accent, family links and wealth still separate upper class from upper middle class, but this is getting difficult to separate.
* There is still a largeish 'upper class' who do not earn a living - those living off trust funds and investments - who are not titled or aristocratic. They are typically the heirs of family wealth who have been educated at good schools and universities and who mingle with other upper class people.
I hope this finally sees off the fantasy that the upper class are some kind of tiny group of the titled aristocracy.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Here we go again. WRONG. Upper class does not form a 1:1 relationship with the titled. The problem is history - people assume that the Downton Abbey lot were the historic upper class and look around for people now who match that mythical view of the limits of upperclassdom. It wasn't even true then. There were plenty of big business people, upper culturati and the non-titled friends and outer relatives of the uppers who qualified.
The boundary between 'upper middle class' and 'upper class' is hard to define, but there are some key markers from the past that have become fuzzy. For example, one of the key differences in the past was that upper middle class people worked for a living, typically in one of the high professions. Today however, many 'upper class' people do paid jobs. Even Prince William has had a proper technically qualified job that is hard to do and requires complete attention and commitment.
However, some things are still clear:
* Upper class does not equal wealthy. It does generally include wealth, but some very wealthy people are probably not upper class. See Sugar, Alan.
* Upper class traditionally included a large set of distinct manners, including accent, particular activities such as hunting and the ownership of very large country properties as well as town houses in affluent areas. Some of these have been partially colonised by other classes and of course the country mansion on a grand scale has declined to the modest country manor.
* Upper class circles have always included (and still include) leading artists, politicians, writers, cultural figures (media people nowadays) and some very upwardly mobile business people. (See Branson, Richard.) The children of very wealthy business people of recent wealth are generally able to enter the upper class easily now, whereas this would once have been very difficult.
* Some very precise distinctions of school, accent, family links and wealth still separate upper class from upper middle class, but this is getting difficult to separate.
* There is still a largeish 'upper class' who do not earn a living - those living off trust funds and investments - who are not titled or aristocratic. They are typically the heirs of family wealth who have been educated at good schools and universities and who mingle with other upper class people.
I hope this finally sees off the fantasy that the upper class are some kind of tiny group of the titled aristocracy.
The boundary between 'upper middle class' and 'upper class' is hard to define, but there are some key markers from the past that have become fuzzy. For example, one of the key differences in the past was that upper middle class people worked for a living, typically in one of the high professions. Today however, many 'upper class' people do paid jobs. Even Prince William has had a proper technically qualified job that is hard to do and requires complete attention and commitment.
However, some things are still clear:
* Upper class does not equal wealthy. It does generally include wealth, but some very wealthy people are probably not upper class. See Sugar, Alan.
* Upper class traditionally included a large set of distinct manners, including accent, particular activities such as hunting and the ownership of very large country properties as well as town houses in affluent areas. Some of these have been partially colonised by other classes and of course the country mansion on a grand scale has declined to the modest country manor.
* Upper class circles have always included (and still include) leading artists, politicians, writers, cultural figures (media people nowadays) and some very upwardly mobile business people. (See Branson, Richard.) The children of very wealthy business people of recent wealth are generally able to enter the upper class easily now, whereas this would once have been very difficult.
* Some very precise distinctions of school, accent, family links and wealth still separate upper class from upper middle class, but this is getting difficult to separate.
* There is still a largeish 'upper class' who do not earn a living - those living off trust funds and investments - who are not titled or aristocratic. They are typically the heirs of family wealth who have been educated at good schools and universities and who mingle with other upper class people.
I hope this finally sees off the fantasy that the upper class are some kind of tiny group of the titled aristocracy.
I see you've ruled Alan Sugar out as being upper class, so what you're saying is that because he's working class, he can never be deemed upper class. I'd agree, so to be an upper class business man, in your view to clear this up, you'd need to be at least middle or upper middle class to be an upper class business man?
In your opinion how important a role is wealth or is it just the culture of people to determine whether they are upper class or upper middle class?
Also, what do you mean by 'accent'? There are a few wealthy businessmen (or any other occupation) who don't speak with RP or Queen's English, whilst those in working class can.
I still don't buy into your argument, surely those people you see as upper class are 'just' upper middle class.
Anywaaay, I've gone on far too much about something I don't consider significant (perhaps in the UK where there is a monarchy, but other countries there are wealthier people, just not this obsession with it).
Original post by RibenaRockstar
Where they live: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaconsfield
Well someone has negged you, as they always do on TSR, but I actually live there
Original post by the bear
They are white;
The older males tend to be called Geoffrey
The older females tend to be called Amelia
The older males work in the Civil Service
The older females do not work or if they do it is Good Work for charities
Their children are called Giles and Electra
They live in the Home Counties ( excluding Essex of course )
They have a labrador called Timmy
They have an amusing cottage in Normandy ( not the Dordogne of course )
....
They are white;
The older males tend to be called Geoffrey
The older females tend to be called Amelia
The older males work in the Civil Service
The older females do not work or if they do it is Good Work for charities
Their children are called Giles and Electra
They live in the Home Counties ( excluding Essex of course )
They have a labrador called Timmy
They have an amusing cottage in Normandy ( not the Dordogne of course )
....
Do you count Jewish origin as an ethnic group into white?
I'm not familiar with neither of these names
Actually we tend to work in the private sector as it is vastly more profitable than anything the public sector could offer. Would you count civil service as upper middle by any standards? I would argue they are classical middle-middle classes, next to lawyers and doctors.
The remaining points are frequently proving to be stereotypically accurate
Original post by sparrowhawk4
Are you stalking me? Those are my parents jobs...we fit a lot of the stereotypes, I guess. I have several Cambridge educated family members, I row, we go skiing, things like that. On the other hand, the phones the four of us use probably cost less than £20 between them, we have a second hand car, and both me and my bother go to the local state schools in a not very posh part of London
Those are my parents jobs...we fit a lot of the stereotypes, I guess. I have several Cambridge educated family members, I row, we go skiing, things like that. On the other hand, the phones the four of us use probably cost less than £20 between them, we have a second hand car, and both me and my bother go to the local state schools in a not very posh part of London The only person on this thread who isn't a bull****ter.
Original post by InvestmentBankin
Well someone has negged you, as they always do on TSR, but I actually live there
Me too
Original post by sydney_watts
Ha ha...That's how George Orwell described his station.
The difference between the upper-middle-class and the lower-middle-class lies in educational background and occupation more than anything else.
For instance, while a nurse may be lower-middle-class, a GP is upper-middle-class. A secondary school teacher would be classed as lower-middle-class, but a university lecturer is placed solidly within the upper-middle-class. A manager of a supermarket or a car dealership is typified as lower-middle-class, but a Vice President in charge of Marketing, let's say, at Tesco or Jaguar would be upper-middle-class. A police constable or Sgt., would be classed as lower-middle-class, but Assistant Chief Constable of a county constabulary would be classed as upper-middle-class.
Similarly, someone who earned their degree from a post-1992 former polytechnic would usually be channelled into a vocational course like, say, engineering or accounting, is someone who would most probably be classed as lower-middle-class, whereas a student at Oxford studying History, for instance, is probably being groomed for a high level and high-profile position in academia, the civil service, media, law, or possibly parachuted into a prestigious job in the City, where family friends would assist in giving Junior his break.
Both are 'middle-class', both groups are white-collar, university educated, professionals and managers, but one group has more prestige over the other, and that is usually helped in large measure, some would argue, by the luck of the draw of to whom they were born and where they were raised.
The difference between the upper-middle-class and the lower-middle-class lies in educational background and occupation more than anything else.
For instance, while a nurse may be lower-middle-class, a GP is upper-middle-class. A secondary school teacher would be classed as lower-middle-class, but a university lecturer is placed solidly within the upper-middle-class. A manager of a supermarket or a car dealership is typified as lower-middle-class, but a Vice President in charge of Marketing, let's say, at Tesco or Jaguar would be upper-middle-class. A police constable or Sgt., would be classed as lower-middle-class, but Assistant Chief Constable of a county constabulary would be classed as upper-middle-class.
Similarly, someone who earned their degree from a post-1992 former polytechnic would usually be channelled into a vocational course like, say, engineering or accounting, is someone who would most probably be classed as lower-middle-class, whereas a student at Oxford studying History, for instance, is probably being groomed for a high level and high-profile position in academia, the civil service, media, law, or possibly parachuted into a prestigious job in the City, where family friends would assist in giving Junior his break.
Both are 'middle-class', both groups are white-collar, university educated, professionals and managers, but one group has more prestige over the other, and that is usually helped in large measure, some would argue, by the luck of the draw of to whom they were born and where they were raised.
How is accounting or engineering lower middle class professions?
There is significant gradation between top level jobs in any profession. Accounting or Engineering jobs have the same level of stratification as legal roles. Most accountants will earn more than high street lawyers/ criminal barristers. Partners & Directors in the Big 4 earn ridiculous amounts. Most bank CEOs are chartered accountants as are most FTSE 100 CEOs & CFOs. It takes 7 years to qualify as a Chartered accountant in Ireland and most of my colleagues (at a big 4 firm, working in tax) are ex-lawyers who studied at very prestigious Universities. With lawyers there is also serious stratification, top commercial sets and city/magic/silver circle solicitors will earn a lot more than anyone working in smaller regional offices. The same applies to engineers, petroleum or aerospace engineers earn a ridiculous amount straight out of Uni. A mate of mine got a job with Rolls Royce earning £30k in Derby, straight out of Uni. To call accounting and Engineering lower middle class professions is ridiculous.
Furthermore, Medicine, Law, Dentistry, Engineering, Accounting, Architecture etc are all vocational degrees/courses.
Shop at Waitrose, drive Porsche Cayennes and play tennis
Original post by GR3YFOXXX
How is accounting or engineering lower middle class professions?
There is significant gradation between top level jobs in any profession. Accounting or Engineering jobs have the same level of stratification as legal roles. Most accountants will earn more than high street lawyers/ criminal barristers. Partners & Directors in the Big 4 earn ridiculous amounts. Most bank CEOs are chartered accountants as are most FTSE 100 CEOs & CFOs. It takes 7 years to qualify as a Chartered accountant in Ireland and most of my colleagues (at a big 4 firm, working in tax) are ex-lawyers who studied at very prestigious Universities. With lawyers there is also serious stratification, top commercial sets and city/magic/silver circle solicitors will earn a lot more than anyone working in smaller regional offices. The same applies to engineers, petroleum or aerospace engineers earn a ridiculous amount straight out of Uni. A mate of mine got a job with Rolls Royce earning £30k in Derby, straight out of Uni. To call accounting and Engineering lower middle class professions is ridiculous.
Furthermore, Medicine, Law, Dentistry, Engineering, Accounting, Architecture etc are all vocational degrees/courses.
There is significant gradation between top level jobs in any profession. Accounting or Engineering jobs have the same level of stratification as legal roles. Most accountants will earn more than high street lawyers/ criminal barristers. Partners & Directors in the Big 4 earn ridiculous amounts. Most bank CEOs are chartered accountants as are most FTSE 100 CEOs & CFOs. It takes 7 years to qualify as a Chartered accountant in Ireland and most of my colleagues (at a big 4 firm, working in tax) are ex-lawyers who studied at very prestigious Universities. With lawyers there is also serious stratification, top commercial sets and city/magic/silver circle solicitors will earn a lot more than anyone working in smaller regional offices. The same applies to engineers, petroleum or aerospace engineers earn a ridiculous amount straight out of Uni. A mate of mine got a job with Rolls Royce earning £30k in Derby, straight out of Uni. To call accounting and Engineering lower middle class professions is ridiculous.
Furthermore, Medicine, Law, Dentistry, Engineering, Accounting, Architecture etc are all vocational degrees/courses.
This engineering at a crap university is the same as engineering at a good one as long as its an accredited university, and you get a 2:1 or above.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by chappers-94
This engineering at a crap university is the same as engineering at a good one as long as its an accredited university, and you get a 2:1 or above.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
what?
Original post by gloriamundi
The only person on this thread who isn't a bull****ter.
Why thank you
Original post by GR3YFOXXX
what?
Well differential calculus isn't going to be easier just because it's being taught at a worse university, basically, to become chartered as an engineer it has an across the board curriculum, doing it at a worse university does not make it easier to get a 2:1/1st. It's like nursing or medicine.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by chappers-94
Well differential calculus isn't going to be easier just because it's being taught at a worse university, basically, to become chartered as an engineer it has an across the board curriculum, doing it at a worse university does not make it easier to get a 2:1/1st. It's like nursing or medicine.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Who's talking about Engineering at a crap University?
Original post by GR3YFOXXX
Who's talking about Engineering at a crap University?
The guy you quoted said doing engineering at a crap university is lower middle class, it's utter nonsense. I know people who went to places like LSBU for engineering got a 1st in chemical engineering and got a 28k salary straight out.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by chappers-94
The guy you quoted said doing engineering at a crap university is lower middle class, it's utter nonsense.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Ah, OK. Because you quoted me I thought you were referring to my post, my bad.
Original post by chappers-94
The guy you quoted said doing engineering at a crap university is lower middle class, it's utter nonsense. I know people who went to places like LSBU for engineering got a 1st in chemical engineering and got a 28k salary straight out.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think this shows the complex nature of the system. You won't be accepted by the existing upper middles for doing that, however much money you earn.
Doesn't mean engineering is a bad thing to do of course.
Maybe if you started your own company making gaudy, overpriced domestic appliances you'd be alright?
Original post by InvestmentBankin
Well someone has negged you, as they always do on TSR, but I actually live there
Do you count Jewish origin as an ethnic group into white?
I'm not familiar with neither of these names
Actually we tend to work in the private sector as it is vastly more profitable than anything the public sector could offer. Would you count civil service as upper middle by any standards? I would argue they are classical middle-middle classes, next to lawyers and doctors.
The remaining points are frequently proving to be stereotypically accurate
Do you count Jewish origin as an ethnic group into white?
I'm not familiar with neither of these names
Actually we tend to work in the private sector as it is vastly more profitable than anything the public sector could offer. Would you count civil service as upper middle by any standards? I would argue they are classical middle-middle classes, next to lawyers and doctors.
The remaining points are frequently proving to be stereotypically accurate
Jewish is most likely white, unless from maybe Ethiopia ?
The upper grades of the Civil Service are pure Upper Middle Class.
Anyone who is obsessed with money is disqualified from being UMC.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
