Why are people on TSR snobby about Redbricks Unis?

No one cares, whether you can or can't is a minor irrelevancy compared the main point of the thread. Don't go off on tangents in an attempt deviate from the point, which is that a lot of people on TSR unfairly disregard Redbricks and display worrying levels of praise towards the so-called 'top 10', when in reality most Redbricks are just as good as most of those - it's just that newspapers have influenced you into thinking otherwise.

It's a minority on here not "everyone".

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.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Fair enough, you're probably right. Tbh I'm not a regular TSR user so I wouldn't know. But it seems like that when reading the 'what are the top 10 UK uni' threads - people always mention the exact same universities - never any of the Redbricks, except occasionally Bristol and sometimes Nottingham - and it goes uncontested, as though it's a fact.

I find it confusing, personally I was always under the impression that the Redbricks were generally considered the next best thing after Oxbridge/Imperial, in the broad scheme of higher education anyway, as multi-faculty institutions rather than for specific subjects... before discovering TSR.

Unfortunately TSR does has a reputation of being snobby and elitist. There are other online forums which scathingly hate this place.

well what do you regard as the top 10 universities then?

I'd say Oxbridge and the top London ones are in the top 4. After that there's about 15-20 universities which I'd say are roughly equal but excel in different areas (including all the Redbricks).

But for some reason TSR has an obsession with limiting this number to exactly 10. What's so significant about 10?

What I find confusing is that there were still loads of upper-middle class kids where I went to (and it wasn't Bristol) - half of everyone I met seemed to be affluent/rich and grammar/private school-educated (quite a lot were even public school educated). Most people weren't stereotypically 'posh' though (some were), but it was still overwhelmingly 'new money' middle/upper class.

I didn't come across many wannabe bankers though. I guess the fact TSR is full of these sorts of people makes it even more biased and less of a reliable source (since that's just one career path, that not even most affluent kids are necessarily interested in). But still, I'm very surprised it isn't one of the universities "in fashion" among places like TSR.

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.

I imagine it's just because top 10 sounds better and it's more conventional in society to do lists in 10.

But even among TSR, the top 10 universities which are frequently named (Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial/UCL/St Andrews/Durham/Warwick/Edinburgh/Bristol/King's etc.) - it's not a definitive top 10 and people may name one university to be in a top 10 and another would disagree. It's all just opinions and there's not much which can be done to control the opinion of others. It's unlikely that the opinion of strangers on the internet will ever have an actual impact on your life, so as long as you're happy at your university, just ignore them

Yeah, because most decent universities tend to skew middle class to upper middle class. But there are no doubt more of these sorts at the universities you've pointed out.

Check this list out: https://thetab.com/uk/2017/02/03/find-out-how-many-people-at-your-uni-went-to-private-school-31904

That's just private, if you include grammar there's even more of a difference.

My uni is actually lower than what I'd imagine it would be, based on my personal experience. But it has a big undergraduate population so that's still an awful lot of people.

I wouldn't say the majority of people I met were privately educated, but I didn't meet that many people who seemed to be from ordinary comprehensives either. I'm guessing a substantial majority of non-private school kids either went to grammars or 'top' state schools/Catholic schools. People like me who didn't go to particularly good schools were definitely in the minority.

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'?

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.

But it's just a number. It doesn't mean anything.

I accept Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial as being in a class of their own, since they are genuinely hard to get into. I just find it fascinating how those underlined consistently get mentioned, as though it's a given that they're also in another separate golden tier of their own. I was never informed about this when I was in 6th form. Have I made a mistake not applying to go to those? Whereas the Redbricks (except Bristol) don't get as much mention. What is this even based on?

The pattern I'm noticing is that 'good' universities in Northern England and the West Midlands are slightly less favoured for some reason (except for the ones in small touristy towns).

I know it doesn't impact my life, but a lot of people read this site and I wouldn't be surprised if many come away with confusion or even bruised self-esteem, after finding out that their uni which required AAA and a lot of hard work to get into apparently isn't regarded as a 'top' uni like those. It's bad misinformation.

Exactly, it's just an arbitrary number - so why are you so worked up over it?

Well, what's to say that those other universities aren't hard to get into? Those other universities have (relatively) low offer rates and typically have 480+ UCAS points students. I mean, when I applied for my uni choices, our university counselor did tell us about certain universities we should be considering/aiming for alongside Oxbridge so maybe it's just your school. No, you have not made a mistake by applying to those universities - as I said before, do not let random folk on TSR bring you down (it's also not healthy to have your self-worth linked so tightly to the university you attend).

It's based on a myriad of factors probably: selectivity (as I mentioned above), high proportion of privately educated students (as someone above me linked), history (most of the top 10 named by TSR were universities in the early 1900s), league tables, targeted by elite professions/employers, noteworthy alumni etc.

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 think that by you saying the original 6 redbrick unis don't deserve any sort of criticism/mockery as all other unis do is in itself snobbery dont you think?

UCL, Warwick, Bath etc etc have in many ways overtaken the red bricks in some aspects. No one goes to oxbridge purely from their history, they remain as the best institutions for education today whereas the redbricks like Leeds have somewhat lost their edge.

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

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'?