Why are people on TSR snobby about Redbricks Unis?

How can you tell that the people you met were clever?

So why does TSR tend to put these universities down

You can usually tell by talking to people

You have to take into account why they're on here in the first place; they have to care enough about their education and care enough to research what a good university is (and want to go to one), to come and post on here. By default that makes them not a normal sample of everyone who goes to school in this country, so collectively their views are generally going to be snobby about university reputation.

You can't, actions indicate cleverness like inventing the wheel, making huge profits off investments or nailing an attractive female Your impression of someone talking to you isn't. See, this is why some clever people are snobs about the students who went to the universities you mentioned.

You can usually tell by talking to people

lol thats funny. of course you can't mate

I always thought the original 6 Redbrick Universities were usually considered to be respectable institutions for people who are high achieving, and/or for people who didn't get into Oxbridge. I always perceived them as being big brand names in academia, having existed as universities for a long time and having lots of history attached to them. They also tend to do excellently in Global League Tables - which, although might not be perfect measures of 'academic excellence', they do tend to rate universities which people have 'heard about' very highly. I know that doesn't indicate 'reputation', but I would've thought this is a good securer of long-term reputation because at least they remain globally recognised, as opposed to certain universities which go through phases where they suddenly shoot up the UK rankings and become the 'next best alternative to Oxbridge', but don't necessarily stay that way.

I went to one of these original civic Redbricks, most people I met there were clever/well educated, an awful lot seemed to had come from grammar/private schools, and quite a lot were Oxbridge rejects. The student body was almost exclusively middle-class/new money. In other words, I gathered it was a pretty sought-after institution, and I'm very proud to have gone there, considering I went to an ordinary comp and had personal problems which affected my studies.

So why does TSR tend to put these universities down, and put so much more emphasis on UCL/Durham/St Andrews, and even 60s universities like Warwick/Bath/Exeter/York? Is it partly because of the fact that (Bristol aside) they're in big cities which are often perceived as being 'rough', whereas the others are in nice touristy towns? How does location infer 'academic reputation'?

dunno... real snob season starts after the exam results come out and everyone decides to turn around and take an enormous dump on all their backup choices.

I always thought the original 6 Redbrick Universities were usually considered to be respectable institutions for people who are high achieving, and/or for people who didn't get into Oxbridge. I always perceived them as being big brand names in academia, having existed as universities for a long time and having lots of history attached to them. They also tend to do excellently in Global League Tables - which, although might not be perfect measures of 'academic excellence', they do tend to rate universities which people have 'heard about' very highly. I know that doesn't indicate 'reputation', but I would've thought this is a good securer of long-term reputation because at least they remain globally recognised, as opposed to certain universities which go through phases where they suddenly shoot up the UK rankings and become the 'next best alternative to Oxbridge', but don't necessarily stay that way.

I went to one of these original civic Redbricks, most people I met there were clever/well educated, an awful lot seemed to had come from grammar/private schools, and quite a lot were Oxbridge rejects. The student body was almost exclusively middle-class/new money. In other words, I gathered it was a pretty sought-after institution, and I'm very proud to have gone there, considering I went to an ordinary comp and had personal problems which affected my studies.

So why does TSR tend to put these universities down, and put so much more emphasis on UCL/Durham/St Andrews, and even 60s universities like Warwick/Bath/Exeter/York? Is it partly because of the fact that (Bristol aside) they're in big cities which are often perceived as being 'rough', whereas the others are in nice touristy towns? How does location infer 'academic reputation'?

I like your smug faces

The bottom line on TSR is this mentality: Victorian Redbricks have lots of beautiful architecture and global recognition - but none of that matters. 60s universities have basic buildings, are in small towns with not much going on, are relatively unheard of outside the UK, their reputation is influenced by newspapers more than anything else - but none of that matters.

So why does TSR tend to put these universities down, and put so much more emphasis on UCL/Durham/St Andrews, and even 60s universities like Warwick/Bath/Exeter/York? Is it partly because of the fact that (Bristol aside) they're in big cities which are often perceived as being 'rough', whereas the others are in nice touristy towns? How does location infer 'academic reputation'?

Because TSR has an overwhelmingly high focus on career sectors that traditionally recruit from these universities - all the wannabe bankers, lawyers, consultants etc gravitate to this site.

But mostly, it has to do with popularity. The universities you've named are "in fashion" and are seen as selective/prestigious because everyone with solid grades wants to apply to them which in turn creates even more competition. Similarly, TSR tends to skew middle to upper middle class private/grammar educated - looking at the destinations of those from said backgrounds, you'd come to realise that they congregate in the same "familiar" unis. These are where their older friends had applied to and where there's a history of people from their schools going to.

Size has to a lot to do with it too. The redbricks are some of the largest institutions in the UK and keeping such a high level of competition whilst maintaining their size poses quite difficult (hence why several have dipped into clearing/adjustment to make up for it or are more flexible about missing conditions).

In reality though, the redbricks and all the hip, popular universities are all great.

Posted from TSR Mobile

TBF a lot of wannabe bankers planning to do economics at a well regarded university will have Nottingham or Bristol as an option of one of their 5. The others, not so much.

Sure, but I find it overwhelming the extent to which everyone on TSR, thread after thread, makes out that places like UCL/Durham/St Andrews etc. are so much better than most of the Redbricks, when in reality (and more importantly, with employers), it's only Oxbridge and probably LSE/Imperial that are. Yet it's the Redbricks - the historic, grand multi-faculty universities with stunning architecture and lots of character - things that snobs love - that always seem to be at the brunt of jokes on TSR threads comparing the best universities. Why? Maybe the 2008 financial crisis has made kids these days more anxious and elitist. I've noticed people don't seem to do this as much on older threads.

Another thing people here obsess about is entry tariffs. Entry tariffs reflect a current university's current popularity rather than long-term reputation, especially since these can change drastically each year - look at how high York used to be, and how low Exeter was, and where they are now). I don't see how just because places like Bath/Exeter/Warwick currently attract more students with around 480+ UCAS points, it means they're somehow harder to get in to and lead to better career prospects than places with 420-430 (equal to A*A*A*), when the grade requirements, and much more crucially, the level of education you'd receive and the career prospects are almost exactly the same.

It's more the case that those unis I've mentioned are where certain groups of people with 480-500 UCAS points happen to choose to go to (largely because newspapers, and in turn people on TSR, tell them to - it just shows you can make anything popular with money and influence, including places with ugly architecture in rubbish locations). I don't see how that objectively makes those universities 'superior' compared to others that still require mostly As at A-Level, yet loads of people on TSR uncritically believe they are. It's really weird.