What are the traits of the British upper middle class?

University professors are usually the textbook example given for someone who is 'upper-middle-class' The reason is for this has nothing to do with salary. It is based on level of education (I don't know of any other profession with their level of education. Even heart surgeons aren't enrolled as a student for as long a time as that of a future academic), level of workplace autonomy and independence. Once a lecturer teaches his/her required modules they can spend their remaining hours researching whatever strikes their fancy. It is not only levels of education and workplace independence that count but prestige of the occupation. University lecturers are obviously highly respected, otherwise the media would not consult them for their expertise.

Besides, academia was always seen as a profession of choice amongst the non-titled younger siblings of peerage. While older brother inherited the title, the other sons traditionally went on to serve in the Army/Navy, the Church, and academia. And like most upper-class pursuits theyall soon took on upper-middle-class elements to them over the past 200 years.

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.

Am doing a study on class and society and I am stuck on the upper middle class. Although I'd probably think of myself as UMC, as I don't have a title so can't be upper class but I am from a more privileged background than most and have a fairly RP accent, I'm not sure what traits this sub-class has. i.e, income, choice of schooling, education level, career, hobbies, where they live, holiday destinations, accent, etc.
Please help!

Thanks

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.

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?

University professors are usually the textbook example given for someone who is 'upper-middle-class'

Why are you talking about titles and peerages whilst discussing the middle class? It's clearly been established that peerages are part and parcel with the upper classes, specifically hereditary peerages.

The most basic way to discern the upper middle class from the rest of the middle classes is money. The idea of a middle class is only cohesive because this collective claims to like the same broad range of pursuits. These are held as distinct from the working and upper classes, with of course the obvious exceptions. The greatest differences between the upper and lower middle class, are the varying levels of education and expendable income.

With reference to the level of learning required to work in academia, of course its going to be high! That's like describing the amount of doctoring in being a doctor or lawyering in being a lawyer. For the record, a Ph.D takes three years with the vast majority of people passing. To become a chartered accountant takes 3 and a half years of post graduate learning, with only 65% passing in the first year, 45% passing the second and around 55% passing the finals. A medical degree takes 5 years and even then you're not fully qualified. To qualify as a lawyer takes 3 years following the initial degree. Further to this all professions enforce programs of CPD, which require significant levels of research and continued learning to maintain membership of their respective bodies.

The high earning professions are the archetype for upper middle class stereotypes.

You've got this completely wrong, or at least 50 years out of date. Academia, especially humanities academia (and when did scientists ever have social prestige? it's for useless people only) has become the worst sort of rat-race profession, combining low pay, long hours and atrocious job security. I'm sure if you are awarded the Wifflehemmington Chair of Analytical Etymology at Porterhouse you are upper middle class, but implying that is representative of everyone in academia is like implying Philip Clarke is representative of everyone who works at Tesco.

Point 3 Yes, indeed, of course the level of education needed to enter the ranks of academia is high. That was just my point. Just as they are with doctors and lawyers. Hence, that is why these three professions are labelled as upper-middle-class professions.

Look, don't be such a master of the obvious. We shouldn't deal in generalities, of course. But this is a chat room, and we are trying to establish norms, not absolutes. There are no absolutes. I know that. If you think academia has become proletariatised then speak t any doctor or lawyer and they'll tell you the exact same thing is going on in their profession too.

The British class system has nothing to do with education. You've said class tracks education a few times, when even to a bull****ter it should be clear that it is not the case. Are you Chinese or Indian by any chance? Or even French? It's OK if you are, it would just explain the attitude.

Education smacks of trade. The whole point of being higher class is that you don't need to do as much, a second-best to not needing to do anything being that you earn enough to suggest that your time is valuable. While not having a degree at all has become a bit like not brushing your teeth, you'll surely have wiki'd that either Prince Charles or Prince William are likely to be the first British monarch to have a degree. Winston Churchill did not have a degree. Nor did most people in the professions until recently. The professions themselves may carry status, but the process of entering them does not, and a PhD is a solid step backwards.

They usually have bad teeth

I didn't say "proletarianised"; it's not that The Wrong Sort are entering, there are just far more entrants, and the conditions are getting worse. This isn't the case for doctors and lawyers. They're still strictly controlled guild professions. There has been nothing like the 'widening access' movement in medicine or law. And doctors and lawyers have not been shunted into temp contracts on £20k/year.

Holding the Pickwick Chair is like being a top Harley Street surgeon or a QC; being "in academia" is like being a paralegal at a provincial high street solicitors'.

You know, pal, you don't read so well, do you? I mentioned titles and peerages in a historical sense of who the old line higher professions where once available to way back in history. You're purposely trying to build a straw man here by insinuating I meant they play a role in this class as it stands today. Don't cloud the issue and put words in my mouth just to try and score goals. That was point 1.

Point 2. If you want to believe that 'money' is the only major factor which separates the upper-middle-class from the lower-middle-class then you stand alone. I can assure you that a virtual canon of sociological research conducted by the most respected academic authorities on this topic states otherwise. Of course, money plays a role, we'd be denying the truth if wealth and income was completely discounted. However, money is often the by-product of generational accumulation of wealth from people firmly established within the upper-middle-class, as well as the mere professions most of these people hold. The real primary factors which separate the upper-middles from the lower-middles are exactly as I stated before, namely: Level and quality of educational attainment, workplace autonomy and occupational prestige.

Point 3 Yes, indeed, of course the level of education needed to enter the ranks of academia is high. That was just my point. Just as they are with doctors and lawyers. Hence, that is why these three professions are labelled as upper-middle-class professions. And get your facts straight too. The time needed to earn a PH.D. in Britain takes longer than 3 years. First off, in order to earn a Ph.D. you need to acquire a Masters Degree first. This in itself usually takes a year, sometimes a year and a half. And the three years dedicated to pursuing the Ph.D., after the 1 year spent gaining the Masters, is rare indeed. The vast majority of Ph.D.'s take 4 years in addition to the 1 year of Masters tme, thus 5 years of post-graduate study. And by the way, we in Britain are woefully behind the times in training academics. In America not only do they spend 4 years in pursuing a Bachelors degree, they usually need 2 and half years of full time study to earn a Masters. A Ph.D. then entails about 2-3 years of additional course work plus an additional 3-4 years to write the thesis. That's about 9 years of post-graduate education compared to a British Ph.D. + MA which usually tallys up at 5 years of post-graduate study.

Obviously, you are training to be a chartered accountant, and like most middle-class people you can't bear the thought that your profession is considered 'lower-middle-class' by most sociologists, and not the upper-middle-class station you desperately aspire it to be. Sorry, pal, but I don't write the sociological books, I just read them. And by the way, I am not now, nor do I ever aspire to be an academic. I have a job already lined up for me at father's firm in the city, so the sooner I'm out of university life the happier I will be. I just thought it was important that you and the rest of your chartered accountant pals know your place. Now get back to work young fellow.

Point 1: It's hardly a straw man argument if i'm highlighting the incoherent nonsensical nature of your analysis. Re-read your own post if you disagree.

Point 2: Actually most sociologists stratify the middle class according to earnings rather than net assets. This completely refutes your claim that net assets, accumulated over generations define the upper middle class.

"Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, William Thompson, and Joseph Hickey estimate the upper middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population. Using this figure, one may conclude that the American upper middle class consist of professionals making more than $62,500 who commonly reside in households with six figure incomes.[2][14][20][21] Both of these figures are considerably above the national median of $32,000 regarding individual income and $46,000 for households. Many upper middle-class professions feature salaries above $67,348, which was the median household income for a household with two income earners in 2003."

You stated that "The real primary factors which separate the upper-middles from the lower-middles are exactly as I stated before, namely: Level and quality of educational attainment, workplace autonomy and occupational prestige."

Accountants have at least 7 years of tertiary education and operate with complete workplace autonomy (as do most professionals). With regards to the ill-defined occupational prestige, this in an entirely subjective term. Excuse me if I don't take the opinion of some snot nosed condescending gimp that is still in education and has no experience of the real world, as gospel fact.

Point 3. You don't need a masters to do a Ph.D, although admittedly most will have one and most uni's will require one. Secondly, most Ph.Ds take 3 years not 4. Practically all my friends with Ph.Ds have completed them in 3 years or less.

With regard to your ad hominem attack, I actually read law at university (LL.B) followed by a masters (LL.M in Corp. Gov) but yes I am currently doing my ACA in the tax department of a Big 4 firm. You're a condescending student with an easy ride, I'd advise that you don't act above your station. Your wide eyed, yet myopic, analysis betrays your naivety and I don't think your i'll formed opinion counts for much. Keep reading your "sociological books", because I find your analysis wanting.