Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aakachii)
    Loughborough. Jack Wills/A&F/Ralph Lauren. American Football/Rowing. (Every sport basically) Haha #cockfest
    Loughborough has a surprisingly varied type of student, from the rahs to the nerds. But yeah, anywhere that takes sport seriously (Bath too) will have a high amount of rah types.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cobbler)
    Oohh! Very contraversial.That must explain Prince William and Harry, not to mention all those Made in Chelsea types! Still i suppose there are exceptions to every rule.
    i'll be just as controversial shall I? Oxford and Cambridge are private institutions. They are dependant on contributions from rich Alumni. Maybe if they increase the proportion of poor, unfortunate state school students in their fine establishments it might affect this? If they have students without connections to help them into big business or politics etc, they might not keep the reputation of supplying the British cabinet that they have?
    Are you saying that if more comprehensive pupils applied, more would get in? That would completely negate your point about private school applicants getting in because they are better educated wouldn't it?
    As for your point about black students at Oxbridge. I saw the grand total of one when I spent four days at Oxford having my interviews.
    You are right about state schools not preparing their students for Oxbridge. What I'd like to see is a specialist in every state school. Someone who knows all the ins and outs, all the requirements. Someone who can interview coach the way that private school students are.
    BTW, it's a little rude to tell people they have no idea what they are talking about just because they don't agree with you. We all have our life experiences and they all help to form our outlooks. The fact that you have a positive experience of the whole process is great. I don't.
    Honestly you really are being ridiculous. It's ironic that you criticised me for committing the fallacy of giving an example of a small sample of people and using that to make a point even though you have made the same mistake on two occasions! I didn't say that every rich person is there on account of higher intelligence, but I think it's a fair assumption that intelligence plays some role in success and therefore richer people are likely to be more intelligent ON AVERAGE, though not necessarily by a large amount. People just reject this view outright because it sounds harsh but it is a perfectly logical theory.

    Also, your alumni argument just isn't borne out by evidence. You haven't offered any reasonable rebuttal to the point that people from different backgrounds are accepted in proportion to the numbers that apply, which implies a meritocratic admissions process.

    Also, the point I made about more comprehensive students applying is not negated by my argument that private school students are more educated when applying. If more comprehensively educated students applied, more would get in. There is no doubt about that. However, this does not apply that they would be as proportionally successful as private school students. Hypothetically, if 7% of applications were from private school applicants and 93% were from non-private schools, for example, you might get 10% private school students (I'm not claiming you would, it's just an example). So there would be more comprehensively educated students but privately educated students would be overrepresented on account of their superior education (and maybe intelligence, although that is much more debatable). Thus, my point is not negated.

    Haha so you saw one black student. Yet AGAIN you have committed the fallacy you criticised me for about using your own experience based on a small sample to make a point. But since you did, I'll tell you that I know lots of black students, and am personally friends with 3 at Cambridge. Also, you've already been given a probable reason why blacks are under-represented. You didn't counter it.

    As for your final argument, I agree completely.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cobbler)
    Are you saying that private school students are naturally better than state school students then?
    Well, yes. As a result of how the percentage of 'dumb' people at private schools (or at least grammar/public schools) is much lower, that very much is the case, if you were to pit the average student of the two types of institution together.

    Private schools firstly filter out truly dumb people. The parents bothered to send their kids there are just being proactive and actually doing something for their kids; that have their best interests in mind. That is a smart move by their parents, indicating an intelligence... Maybe a family intelligence. This is all of course within their means... What is more, these parents have of course got to be successful. Excluding that family inheritance BS, most of these financially successful parents (household income over £90k after tax on both incomes say) themselves went to good universities and got top or good jobs. They had the natural capability and intelligence to get there in the end, or were tolerant and smart enough to overcome educational and socioeconomic barriers and did direct themselves towards money. That takes a certain level of intelligence and good genes from the parents, and thus their children may be likelier to be smart too. Think of private schools as a filtered agglomeration of good genes.

    Simply, frankly, sadly and unfortunately, there are many more uneducated first or second generation immigrants in state schools (in terms of English standards, culture and knowledge/awareness-wise). That explains why 'less' state school students go to top universities.

    Include the bright private and state school children ONLY, and then you'll most likely see little or no 'bias'. I admit, there are some forms of corruption at Oxbridge in extreme cases. I know someone who knows someone who said they got into Oxford with BCE as their final grades cos they had a relationship with the admissions person. However, I can only imagine this being the case in extremely isolated scenarios.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Exeter and Bristol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by universal_set)
    OP: There are always mixed students in every university but I think LSE has the highest proportion of rich students.
    I go to LSE and can confirm there's a lot of rich people at LSE, mostly sons/daughters of big name politicians and CEO's abroad. The difference between Durham or whatever though is that most of these people are actually rich and don't need to flaunt it with garbage like Abercrombie. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is wearing Abercrombie they're probably not rich, and they're definitely not posh. Well off middle class sure, but not rich. Truly posh people will not touch Abercrombie with a 10 foot pole because it screams cheap and desperate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -=|Jay|=-)
    Newcastle was full of them.
    I have heard this a few times now. But why would this be the case, given that Newcastle is at best a Top 15-20 university, and has been for a very long time? Is it a good 3rd choice university for those who don't get into UCL, Durham, Bristol, Warwick, Edinburgh, Nottingham etc? It has never struck me as a really strong university like UCL, for example. Newcastle is quite a rough city too, despite the great nightlife. And the accent is the worst in the UK. It is a cruiserweight within the ranks of the Russell Group. The others I mentioned above are heavyweights in the Russell Group.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mansun)
    I have heard this a few times now. But why would this be the case, given that Newcastle is at best a Top 15-20 university, and has been for a very long time? Is it a good 3rd choice university for those who don't get into UCL, Durham, Bristol, Warwick, Edinburgh, Nottingham etc? It has never struck me as a really strong university like UCL, for example. Newcastle is quite a rough city too, despite the great nightlife. And the accent is the worst in the UK. It is a cruiserweight within the ranks of the Russell Group. The others I mentioned above are heavyweights in the Russell Group.
    Newcastle being a top 15-20 university (rather good in itself!) doesn't mean that there would be less posh/rah students than a top 10 university, say - such as Imperial. A lot of posh/rah types go to universities where they know there'll be other types like that and Newcastle has an established reputation for being populated by these types and this is why lots of people like that apply; as with Edinburgh, St Andrews, etc. Nottingham isn't that good, it's on the same level as Newcastle I would say (as with most league tables). In fact, in the most recent langue tables Newcastle was actually placed above Edinburgh. It isn't a "rough" city, from my experience it's very friendly. Durham is in a pretty economically deprived area, doesn't stop it being populated by posh people. And if you're talking about Rough then Nottingham would be right up there too! The accent thing is a matter of personal preference, yet you say it with such certainty as fact. I can think of several worse accents, the Birmingham accent or Glaswegian accent? It's a good social life and a good degree so clearly it's going to be popular with lots of people. Newcastle is my second choice, St Andrews being my first, and I picked it as my second over Edinburgh and Manchester.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Mansun)
    And the accent is the worst in the UK.

    It is the BEST accent in the UK.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Salford obviously
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien_Dalgaard)
    Durham posh preppies who are burthurt over their oxford rejection :yep:

    You gotta love the preppies, they play rugby, go sailing every weekend wear sweatshirts, and they have these cool barrelled surnames like Chauncey-Hamilton or Montague-Douglas-Scott

    And they are so rah. They think the world is theirs since they live off their sugar daddy (Actual daddy's money) and sport Abercrombie & Fitch.

    Also every preppy girl think that they look like Serena van der Woodsen whereas they are more like the girls that you vote as NOT on hotornot.com

    For reference those who knew TSR user "Consumed by Stuff" his mother couldn't keep her legs closed - and guess where she went Newcastle xx
    Chauncey-Hamilton.. nearly busted a rib laughing!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Some of the threads on here are a complete and utter joke. 'Which professions pay more than 50k' and 'Which Unis are the poshest' shouldn't you lot not be feeding mummy's ponies or something?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gabriel96)
    Nottingham isn't that good, it's on the same level as Newcastle I would say (as with most league tables). In fact, in the most recent langue tables Newcastle was actually placed above Edinburgh.
    You don't really know what you are talking about do you? Nottingham was a solid top 10 ranking university in the 90s and early 00s in almost all media league tables (for what they are worth). They decided to double the student body gradually from 2000 onwards to generate more revenue, which is why it fell in the rankings. The money has been spent on TWO striking campuses in China & Malaysia which are as good as the ones they have in the UK, making it a global powerhouse. Nottingham also added a new Vet School to add to the Medical and Pharmacy Schools.

    The RAE league table (formerly the table used by the Financial Times I believe to rank universities) is probably the only league table to actually have any substance for measuring the quality of a university compared to it's peers. But Notts actually climbed from 14th to 7th in the latest RAE government backed assessments on research strength (no sign of Newcastke in the top 10 there). The media league tables just don't represent any real criteria for capturing the diversity of different universities, of which the Vice Chancellor of UCL recently said. Even Loughborough and Lancaster sometimes rank ahead of Nottingham in some league tables (the Times & Sunday Times), thanks in part to the student satisfaction survey (no bias there), but anyone with some knowledge of Unis will tell you they are not even on the same planet as Unis in the Russell Group, they simply don't contribute to enough world class research or Nobel prize winners to be taken seriously.

    The Trent Building at main campus for Nottingham University, is there a campus building that can topple it (Oxbridge aside, though only the best Oxbridge buildings shade it)? Maybe the main building at Cardiff is as good, Edinburgh too. Royal Holloway has a grand palace, but not the grand campus and lake to go with it like Nottingham has.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gabriel96)
    I always considered Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol, Newcastle, St Andrews and Edinburgh to be the big ones with rah and posh types but would places like University of Hertfordshire be up there too because of where it is although it isn't a top uni? I went to a "posh" public school (don't hate me ) and the standards where people applied to were Newcastle, Bristol and Leeds.

    Please. I live in Hertfordshire. The uni is full of chavs.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cobbler)
    Oh! You know two whole black people studying medicine at Oxbridge? That despite they make up 14% of the country's population? My!
    14% is all non-white populations, not just black. At Oxford that proportion is 24%.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mansun)
    You don't really know what you are talking about do you? Nottingham was a solid top 10 ranking university in the 90s and early 00s in almost all media league tables (for what they are worth). They decided to double the student body gradually from 2000 onwards to generate more revenue, which is why it fell in the rankings. The money has been spent on TWO striking campuses in China & Malaysia which are as good as the ones they have in the UK, making it a global powerhouse. Nottingham also added a new Vet School to add to the Medical and Pharmacy Schools.

    The RAE league table (formerly the table used by the Financial Times I believe to rank universities) is probably the only league table to actually have any substance for measuring the quality of a university compared to it's peers. But Notts actually climbed from 14th to 7th in the latest RAE government backed assessments on research strength (no sign of Newcastke in the top 10 there). The media league tables just don't represent any real criteria for capturing the diversity of different universities, which the Vice Chancellor of UCL recently said of media league tables. Even Loughborough and Lancaster sometimes rank ahead of Nottingham in some league tables (the Times & Sunday Times), thanks in part to the student satisfaction survey (no bias there), but anyone with some knowledge of Unis will tell you they are not even on the same planet as Unis in the Russell Group, they simply don't contribute to enough world class research or the nobel prize winners to be taken seriously.

    The Trent Building at main campus for Nottingham University, is there a campus building that can topple it (Oxbridge aside, though only the best Oxbridge buildings shade it)? Maybe the main building at Cardiff is as good, Edinburgh too. Royal Holloway has a grand palace, but not the grand campus and lake to go with it like Nottingham has.
    You strike me as being one of these conceited and arrogant people who only thinks what they say is right. That's a nice history lesson on Nottingham, but it really has nothing to do with the present! You can't just use one university ranking to prove your point. Your interpretation over how universities are ranked is fine for you, but for everyone else who uses a number of current league tables to judge universities then Newcastle is still pretty much the same as Nottingham (including entry standards). In fact, I know loads of people who got offers/applied/was going to apply to Nottingham and put other universities over it that you would probably deem to be lower, mostly Newcastle or Leeds. You seem to have a massive superiority complex with Nottingham that obviously seems justified to you. Are you at all involved with Nottingham? I personally, and I think this opinion represents a lot of people, am not attracted by Nottingham's campus at all! I don't like to be in the green-belt, I'd much rather a city campus.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gabriel96)
    You can't just use one university ranking to prove your point.
    If there is a fairer and more reputable method to assess a University other than the status and quality of research it provides, as assessed by the government backed RAE, then I would use it. There isn't any media league table out there that can capture the diversity of different universities, as pointed out by Malcolm Grant (Vice Chancellor of UCL), who correctly said you could draw up infinite amounts of data to rank universities and yet come no nearer to deciding which is better.

    If you are stupid enough to choose Loughborough ahead of Nottingham based on a flawed media league table, that is your tough luck. It is a shame some students fall for this kind of scam, but they at least can drop out or transfer, or do postgraduate courses elsewhere when they realise their mistake. One of my friends chose Politics at Lancaster after reading a newspaper league table which placed Lancaster near the top 10. He didn't get a graduate job for many years after he graduated with a 2.1.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    What do u think is the most popular subject taken at university from those you class as Posh?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mansun)
    If there is a fairer and more reputable method to assess a University other than the status and quality of research it provides, as assessed by the government backed RAE, then I would use it. There isn't any media league table out there that can capture the diversity of different universities, as pointed out by Malcolm Grant (Vice Chancellor of UCL), who correctly said you could draw up infinite amounts of data to rank universities and yet come no nearer to deciding which is better.

    If you are stupid enough to choose Loughborough ahead of Nottingham based on a flawed media league table, that is your tough luck. It is a shame some students fall for this kind of scam, but they at least can drop out or transfer, or do postgraduate courses elsewhere when they realise their mistake. One of my friends chose Politics at Lancaster after reading a newspaper league table which placed Lancaster near the top 10. He didn't get a graduate job for many years after he graduated with a 2.1.
    I wish you would address all my points, not just the odd one and go onto a rant. By all means use it, but all I'm saying is that in the VAST majority of league tables published Newcastle comes in a similar rank to Nottingham (from memory it's usually a little higher in most). If you're going by entry standards, surely that's a good way to asses the quality of the university? Newcastle and Nottingham are almost identical - 437 and 439 UCAS points retrospectively and it's been this way for a long time, yes? It's not always about which university is "better" as such, it's usual about which ones offers the experience which the applicant wants. Lots of people would choose Loughborough ahead of Nottingham because it offers a different experience. Personally, I do think Nottingham is much better and would go with it rather than Loughborough any day, but not for others. I hate to be mean, and I don't try to be, but Nottingham isn't exactly a top of the range university, although it did used to be, but rather a really good one, just as Newcastle is. You didn't say if your associated with the university which, if you were, might perhaps explain things a bit better. I mean this in the least offensive way possible and pershaps I'm wrong but going by the way you snapped at Newcastle (with an apparent bitterness), it seem to me that just because Nottingham isn't mentioned a lot for having posh/rah students now you decided to try put down the university which you see as "lower" which does have a significant number of these types of student. I COULD BE WRONG THOUGH.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GeschichteJunge)
    What do u think is the most popular subject taken at university from those you class as Posh?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    History of Art.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gabriel96)
    History of Art.

    Kate Middleton's degree choice! But of course, she didn't come from a posh background, did she?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.