What unis have the poshest students?

Which makes it more accurate, so now I'm wondering why you didn't use the most current one.

Ok so I was 1 year behind your data, but you have to accept these things fluctuate year on year. In 2013 Notts fell from 30.5% to 29% of the first years from the combined 22400 undergraduates from private schools. I believe Cambridge had a record intake of state school kids in 2013.

Anyway, the point is Notts is targeted by the private schools, it is just that level of university. The campus, and the courses, attract some of the best students who are not quite good enough for Oxbridge or don't want to go there regardless. I know I didn't think about Oxbridge even though I was encouraged to apply. Notts seemed just fine to me, if somewhat rowdy and over the top in halls.

Yeah, a lot of private schools within/near Nottingham are encouraged mostly due to their connection with it and the high employment rates. But now, it seems that that connection is more influential to state school than private schools.

Cambridge, Notts and Birmingham are among the few who have worked really hard to get more kids from deprived backgrounds into their unis, and they should be commended for it. St Andrews still thinks it is posher than Oxford, and has done nothing to attract poorer students there.

I think if you studied at Notts or Birmingham, you would get an idea pretty quick that almost everyone is from a privileged background. Spoilt brats.

From my experience from Notts after continuously going there to do extra studying, seeing one of my mentor (who is a student there) and his friends and also interacting with other students I disagree that "everyone is from a privileged background", though there are many who wear the posh brands. A lot of them are actually far more privileged than you think.

Cambridge, Notts and Birmingham are among the few who have worked really hard to get more kids from deprived backgrounds into their unis, and they should be commended for it. St Andrews still thinks it is posher than Oxford, and has done nothing to attract poorer students there.

I think if you studied at Notts or Birmingham, you would get an idea pretty quick that almost everyone is from a privileged background. Spoilt brats.

Lol what? Nottingham and Birmingham people seemed perfectly down to earth when I visited them both respectively. A very large majority of both universities are state school entries.

The stats are very clear, Notts has year on year around 30% of students from the private sector, Durham and St Andrews and 40%. You can't judge these things on face value! I met many people as a student at Notts who behaved poorly and looked like state school kids, yet were boarding school educated.

St Andrews still thinks it is posher than Oxford, and has done nothing to attract poorer students there.

How do you know this?

Could it perhaps be that St Andrews isn't a particularly enticing university for people from lower backgrounds? From my experience of being at a secondary school with a large amount of said people, it wasn't on many people's radars. Those on the higher end of the grade scale preferred Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow. Many were interested in courses that St Andrews doesn't even do; e.g. engineering, law, and various health sciences. This can't be held against St Andrews - with its limited size, subject offering and location, it's never going to attract as many applicants from poorer backgrounds as the big city universities.

How do you know this?

Could it perhaps be that St Andrews isn't a particularly enticing university for people from lower backgrounds? From my experience of being at a secondary school with a large amount of said people, it wasn't on many people's radars. Those on the higher end of the grade scale preferred Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow. Many were interested in courses that St Andrews doesn't even do; e.g. engineering, law, and various health sciences. This can't be held against St Andrews - with its limited size, subject offering and location, it's never going to attract as many applicants from poorer backgrounds as the big city universities.

Are such universities as the Scottish ones (St Andrews and Edinburgh in particular) actually GOOD though? For someone career orientated - and excluding the idea of starting a business - would going to one of these universities for a course like economics ACTUALLY be good enough for a good/high-paying job (80k-ish and above)? Will they make you 'rich' (salary-wise; to be truly rich you've got to be an investor or entrepreneur, and I sure as hell will at least be investing a lot in the stock market in the future. Got to read books on investment and educate myself properly in it first, but I already know certain things).

Or is it that those that go to these universities are already rich ('posh') and have contacts and so on, which means the fact that they aren't at what I think is a TOP Russell Group uni doesn't really matter for them?

In other words, are universities at this sort of tier good for social mobility?

Posted from TSR Mobile

You have to get your own job. By the time you're in the £80,000 region no-one will be interested in what university you attended.

I'm just saying there are plenty of jobs you can get, even excluding the City, that pay you about that much. Actuary, (more senior) accountancy, lots of jobs in finance, management consultancy etc, and loads of people get to this pay level by their early 30s. So, what would anyone suggest to get there? When you say "by the time", I really hope you're not implying you'd be in your 40s and upwards. SO many people get to what really isn't even that high a level of pay in London (near £80k) by 33 or so. You don't need 20 years of experience, do you? It's more like 10 years, 15 absolute maximum (meaning 33/34/35 or so).

Posted from TSR Mobile

You have to get your own job. By the time you're in the £80,000 region no-one will be interested in what university you attended.

In some cases yes, but in a lot of cases the university reputation does matter even many years later. But by then it is added eye candy, something to brag about to seniors on who they are hiring as the next big thing in their department. You still need to have built up considerable experience of delivering in the corporate world. In other words, the university reputation facet shrinks, and the facet of proven successes in business grows considerably in importance.

Manchester tops the graduate employers' league table, with Nottingham in the top 5 regularly. Some of the poshest universities like St Andrews and Durham don't do so well, but they have a smaller student body and therefore less graduate hires than Nottingham, Leeds and Manchester.

I'm just saying there are plenty of jobs you can get, even excluding the City, that pay you about that much. Actuary, (more senior) accountancy, lots of jobs in finance, management consultancy etc, and loads of people get to this pay level by their early 30s. So, what would anyone suggest to get there? When you say "by the time", I really hope you're not implying you'd be in your 40s and upwards. SO many people get to what really isn't even that high a level of pay in London (near £80k) by 33 or so. You don't need 20 years of experience, do you? It's more like 10 years, 15 absolute maximum (meaning 33/34/35 or so).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Which companies in their right mind are going to give two hoots where someone graduated from many years later, when there's usually far better differentiators available?

In what sense does Manchester top the graduate employer's league table? If you're referring to the league table ranking universities based on the %age in employment 6 months after graduation, that's also something no-one with two brain cells gives any number of hoots about