What are the traits of the British upper middle class?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by sydney_watts
Every bit of sense I have inside me says don't argue with a fool, but I can't rid myself of the pleasure of knocking you and your over-inflated ego on your ass - ONCE AGAIN!
All right, now listen-up you wannabe Robert Jay QC. Here 't is.
Your Point 1 - It most certainly was a ridiculous attempt by you to cloud the issue with a straw-man argument. YOU read YOUR idiotic dribble again! In fact, it was a classic textbook use of the straw-man fallacy. Surely, even you must recognise this stupid blunder on your part.
Your Point 2 - Once again, we are discussing the BRITISH class system, not the American class system. Please do not try to back up your wrong argument by quoting the wrong sources. These sociologists are Americans and they are discussing the American system of social stratification, where money and income designate class position much more than primogenitorial, educational or social factors. This does not occur in Britain, and if you ever ventured out of your bean counters office and hobnobbed socially with the rich me who's money you count and hide you'd realise this, son. By the way, we are in Britain, you know.
Your dismissal of one aspect cited as being purely 'subjective' is blatantly ridiculous. May I remind you that the whole notion of class stratification is a subjective topic in the first place. E.P. Thompson said class is not something you can define, per se, it is a mutually expressed feeling amongst groups who share similar socio-economic experiences and thus similar socio-economic concerns. Now if that isn't subjective I don't know what else is. This isn't accounting, boy, so quit looking for infallible truths. And it isn't law either, kiddo, so don't try and pull a high-handed attitude on me, ****heel, because I will be forced to make you look foolish in public all over again.
Your Point 3 - Once again you are incorrect. Yes, you do require a Masters degree before any British....Ah, there's that word again...University will admit you into a Ph.D. programme. And I don't know what East London diploma mill your chums have received their doctorates from, but the VAST majority of British Ph.D. students at Russell Group universities take the full 4 years allotted, which of course, is in addition to their 1 and half year of Master's study.
Don't bother me again, son. I don't have time for miserable grubby accounting clerks striving to actually possess the money they count for more important men than themselves. Remember, this isn't America. Money doesn't by class.
All right, now listen-up you wannabe Robert Jay QC. Here 't is.
Your Point 1 - It most certainly was a ridiculous attempt by you to cloud the issue with a straw-man argument. YOU read YOUR idiotic dribble again! In fact, it was a classic textbook use of the straw-man fallacy. Surely, even you must recognise this stupid blunder on your part.
Your Point 2 - Once again, we are discussing the BRITISH class system, not the American class system. Please do not try to back up your wrong argument by quoting the wrong sources. These sociologists are Americans and they are discussing the American system of social stratification, where money and income designate class position much more than primogenitorial, educational or social factors. This does not occur in Britain, and if you ever ventured out of your bean counters office and hobnobbed socially with the rich me who's money you count and hide you'd realise this, son. By the way, we are in Britain, you know.
Your dismissal of one aspect cited as being purely 'subjective' is blatantly ridiculous. May I remind you that the whole notion of class stratification is a subjective topic in the first place. E.P. Thompson said class is not something you can define, per se, it is a mutually expressed feeling amongst groups who share similar socio-economic experiences and thus similar socio-economic concerns. Now if that isn't subjective I don't know what else is. This isn't accounting, boy, so quit looking for infallible truths. And it isn't law either, kiddo, so don't try and pull a high-handed attitude on me, ****heel, because I will be forced to make you look foolish in public all over again.
Your Point 3 - Once again you are incorrect. Yes, you do require a Masters degree before any British....Ah, there's that word again...University will admit you into a Ph.D. programme. And I don't know what East London diploma mill your chums have received their doctorates from, but the VAST majority of British Ph.D. students at Russell Group universities take the full 4 years allotted, which of course, is in addition to their 1 and half year of Master's study.
Don't bother me again, son. I don't have time for miserable grubby accounting clerks striving to actually possess the money they count for more important men than themselves. Remember, this isn't America. Money doesn't by class.
My over inflated ego? You must be living in a bubble, you are totally arrogant and condescending with absolutely no ability to understand a nuanced point of information.
Point 1- You've added no new information and therefore my original argument stands without adjustment. Your point on the aristocratic influence is completely incorrect and off topic, no further explanation is required.
Point 2 - You're absolutely right in that we are discussing the British class system but the basic point remains un-corrupted insofar as that the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets. Furthermore beyond challenging my sources, you have yet to provide a single source referencing these "sociological books" which refer to Chartered Accounting as being a lower middle class profession. Once again you resort to petty ad hominen attacks, serving in no way to reinforce your nonsensical arguments.You are by your own admission still a student, yet you pretend to understand the dynamics of the business world. Your simplistic absolutist analysis betrays your overwhelming lack of experience and understanding.
The level of irony in the following paragraph is ridiculous. You rightfully repeat my point that class system analysis and definitions are subjective, yet you make an absolute and definitive assertion that Chartered Accounting is a lower middle class profession. You are refuting your own point! Chartered accountants span the breadth of the middle classes as do lawyers. To call me a bean counter, despite working in the Big 4 is like calling a city lawyer an ambulance chaser. High street lawyers working on probate, conveyancing and petty civil matters are not in the same class as Magic/Silver Circle commercial lawyers. But yet again you insist on making sweeping erroneous generalizations. Big 4 firms barely do any private client work, but you're belief that we manage rich peoples financial affairs. This, once again, betrays your level of inexperience and lack of knowledge on the matter. The two most recent projects I've worked on, were the special liquidation of an Irish state owned bank and the group restructure of a multi-billion pound pharmaceutical company. The saying "empty vessels make the most noise" springs to mind. Furthermore EP Thomsons quote, reflects my position much more accurately than yours.
Point 3 - Is just plainly wrong, I myself and the individuals to which I refer, studied at Russel Group universities. Some institutions allow you to progress straight to a PhD if you got a first in your undergraduate degree and complete an optional research project within your degree. Everyone I know who has completed their PhDs (from Russel Group Uni's) did so in 3 years or less. With regards to Masters degrees, 90% in my LL.M class completed their masters within 1 calendar year.
In response to your summation, referring to me as a "grubby accounting clerk", is petty and childish. Your attitude is truly repulsive. Referring to an accountant as an accounting clerk is like calling a solicitor a legal secretary. But this reflects what I've come to expect for your previous infantile posts. Your attitude is appalling and your approach to debate is juvenile. I can honestly say that I don't know you, but what I take from your posts is that you are an overcompensating bitter little child who will probably die a virgin by virtue of your condescending demeanor and delusions of grandeur. Your arguments were poorly constructed and full of contradictions, but in all honesty I found your attitude to be much worse.
Original post by englishrose_18
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
Well, they tend to follow cricket and rugby instead of football, go on holiday to Asia, Australia and North America instead of Spain, more likely to drink alcohol at home and with lunch, tend to go to public schools instead of comps, etc etc. Oh and middle-class girls tend to be sassy and competitive and funny, less girlish than working class females.
The middle-class (as in the propertied middle-class, what you would call upper-middle... as opposed to the salaried middle-class) are so different to working class in their accent, manner of dress, outlook, holiday destinations and sports that they might as well be from a different country.
Original post by GR3YFOXXX
My over inflated ego? You must be living in a bubble, you are totally arrogant and condescending with absolutely no ability to understand a nuanced point of information.
Point 1- You've added no new information and therefore my original argument stands without adjustment. Your point on the aristocratic influence is completely incorrect and off topic, no further explanation is required.
Point 2 - You're absolutely right in that we are discussing the British class system but the basic point remains un-corrupted insofar as that the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets. Furthermore beyond challenging my sources, you have yet to provide a single source referencing these "sociological books" which refer to Chartered Accounting as being a lower middle class profession. Once again you resort to petty ad hominen attacks, serving in no way to reinforce your nonsensical arguments.You are by your own admission still a student, yet you pretend to understand the dynamics of the business world. Your simplistic absolutist analysis betrays your overwhelming lack of experience and understanding.
The level of irony in the following paragraph is ridiculous. You rightfully repeat my point that class system analysis and definitions are subjective, yet you make an absolute and definitive assertion that Chartered Accounting is a lower middle class profession. You are refuting your own point! Chartered accountants span the breadth of the middle classes as do lawyers. To call me a bean counter, despite working in the Big 4 is like calling a city lawyer an ambulance chaser. High street lawyers working on probate, conveyancing and petty civil matters are not in the same class as Magic/Silver Circle commercial lawyers. But yet again you insist on making sweeping erroneous generalizations. Big 4 firms barely do any private client work, but you're belief that we manage rich peoples financial affairs. This, once again, betrays your level of inexperience and lack of knowledge on the matter. The two most recent projects I've worked on, were the special liquidation of an Irish state owned bank and the group restructure of a multi-billion pound pharmaceutical company. The saying "empty vessels make the most noise" springs to mind. Furthermore EP Thomsons quote, reflects my position much more accurately than yours.
Point 3 - Is just plainly wrong, I myself and the individuals to which I refer, studied at Russel Group universities. Some institutions allow you to progress straight to a PhD if you got a first in your undergraduate degree and complete an optional research project within your degree. Everyone I know who has completed their PhDs (from Russel Group Uni's) did so in 3 years or less. With regards to Masters degrees, 90% in my LL.M class completed their masters within 1 calendar year.
In response to your summation, referring to me as a "grubby accounting clerk", is petty and childish. Your attitude is truly repulsive. Referring to an accountant as an accounting clerk is like calling a solicitor a legal secretary. But this reflects what I've come to expect for your previous infantile posts. Your attitude is appalling and your approach to debate is juvenile. I can honestly say that I don't know you, but what I take from your posts is that you are an overcompensating bitter little child who will probably die a virgin by virtue of your condescending demeanor and delusions of grandeur. Your arguments were poorly constructed and full of contradictions, but in all honesty I found your attitude to be much worse.
Point 1- You've added no new information and therefore my original argument stands without adjustment. Your point on the aristocratic influence is completely incorrect and off topic, no further explanation is required.
Point 2 - You're absolutely right in that we are discussing the British class system but the basic point remains un-corrupted insofar as that the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets. Furthermore beyond challenging my sources, you have yet to provide a single source referencing these "sociological books" which refer to Chartered Accounting as being a lower middle class profession. Once again you resort to petty ad hominen attacks, serving in no way to reinforce your nonsensical arguments.You are by your own admission still a student, yet you pretend to understand the dynamics of the business world. Your simplistic absolutist analysis betrays your overwhelming lack of experience and understanding.
The level of irony in the following paragraph is ridiculous. You rightfully repeat my point that class system analysis and definitions are subjective, yet you make an absolute and definitive assertion that Chartered Accounting is a lower middle class profession. You are refuting your own point! Chartered accountants span the breadth of the middle classes as do lawyers. To call me a bean counter, despite working in the Big 4 is like calling a city lawyer an ambulance chaser. High street lawyers working on probate, conveyancing and petty civil matters are not in the same class as Magic/Silver Circle commercial lawyers. But yet again you insist on making sweeping erroneous generalizations. Big 4 firms barely do any private client work, but you're belief that we manage rich peoples financial affairs. This, once again, betrays your level of inexperience and lack of knowledge on the matter. The two most recent projects I've worked on, were the special liquidation of an Irish state owned bank and the group restructure of a multi-billion pound pharmaceutical company. The saying "empty vessels make the most noise" springs to mind. Furthermore EP Thomsons quote, reflects my position much more accurately than yours.
Point 3 - Is just plainly wrong, I myself and the individuals to which I refer, studied at Russel Group universities. Some institutions allow you to progress straight to a PhD if you got a first in your undergraduate degree and complete an optional research project within your degree. Everyone I know who has completed their PhDs (from Russel Group Uni's) did so in 3 years or less. With regards to Masters degrees, 90% in my LL.M class completed their masters within 1 calendar year.
In response to your summation, referring to me as a "grubby accounting clerk", is petty and childish. Your attitude is truly repulsive. Referring to an accountant as an accounting clerk is like calling a solicitor a legal secretary. But this reflects what I've come to expect for your previous infantile posts. Your attitude is appalling and your approach to debate is juvenile. I can honestly say that I don't know you, but what I take from your posts is that you are an overcompensating bitter little child who will probably die a virgin by virtue of your condescending demeanor and delusions of grandeur. Your arguments were poorly constructed and full of contradictions, but in all honesty I found your attitude to be much worse.
Here we go again. More egomaniacal dribble from the bean counting Irishman. And yes, once again, more changing of his stupid argument from one post to the next. First off, *******, don't take that tone with me. Know your place, you bog trotting piss-ant. Just a word of advice, friend. Guys loose teeth with talk like that in pubs. You'd better learn some manners real quick if you want to keep yours, boy. Because the next guy you lip off to like that might not be hundreds of miles away, and you won't always have the cover of anonymity.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time pointing out the errors of your mixed-up logic, but I can't stand the thought of some big-headed, arrogant, jerk like you thinking you just bamboozled me by altering words you said in previous statements in order to try and fit them into your current argument. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I will do just enough to give you the public humiliation you deserve. Alright, pay attention, stupid.
You said in you latest post: 'Point 2 - You're absolutely right in that we are discussing the British class system but the basic point remains un-corrupted insofar as that the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets'.
You have got to get this notion out of your head. We are discussing class, in the British class system sense of the term. We are not talking about income or level of office within a profession. Those two ideas are something else all together different from class. You are Irish, so I don't really expect you to understand something as nuanced as British structures of social stratification, but you must at least ry if you wish to integrate into British society. What you seem to be hung-up on is an American concept of class, where income is the key indicator of which class one belongs to. In this country we use assets, mainly cultural and familial collateral, as well as occupation to designate which class one belongs. Lottery winners can be millionaires, but that doesn't make them upper-class. A relatively uneducated man may own several profitable lap-dancing clubs, but that does not make him upper-middle-class. Nevertheless, the high street lawyer would generally be considered upper-middle class, even if he just started out in the profession. Presumably he would have been educated to a high degree level, he would have attended a university of some reputation, and his parents were also from this same class. However, even if they weren't, he most likely would still be regarded as upper-middle-class.
I said in a previous post: '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 they all soon took on upper-middle-class elements to them over the past 200 years.'
Clearly, I am speaking in the past tense, and therefore talking about the formation of this sub-class of the upper-middle-class though history. I am not muddling this concept into a contemporary narrative.
Nevertheless, you clearly tried to tear my thoughts down through the old trick of building a straw man. You said in a previous post: '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.'
Sorry, stupid, that's a straw man you built. So much for your credibility, Mr. Lawyer turned Accountant.
Let's see, what else did a dumb, loud-mouth, jerk like you say? Oh hear's one. You said in your latest idiotic rant: 'Point 2 - ' the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets.'
Yet in a previous post you gave this mixed message: 'The greatest differences between the upper and lower middle class, are the varying levels of education and expendable income.
Which is it, stupid? In one paragraph of a previous post you say income is the sole determinant, yet in another sentence in the latest post you also decide to include educational attainment. Sounds to me you're all mixed-up, *******. You better get your head out of your rich bosses ass, and start paying attention to a little thing called logic.
You also said in your previous post: 'Is just plainly wrong, I myself and the individuals to which I refer, studied at Russel Group universities. Some institutions allow you to progress straight to a PhD if you got a first in your undergraduate degree and complete an optional research project within your degree. Everyone I know who has completed their PhDs (from Russel Group Uni's) did so in 3 years or less. With regards to Masters degrees, 90% in my LL.M class completed their masters within 1 calendar year.'
This is such a ludicrous lie, I'm not even going to waste more time than I have to in addressing such nonsense. Everyone you know 'has completed their Ph.D's in 3 years or less', huh? That is a lie. Plain and simple, Mr Lawyer turned Accountant, you're full of ****. You are lying through your teeth, since this is just an impossible feat.
Oh, here's another one of your pearls of wisdom. You accused me of having 'absolutely no ability to understand a nuanced point of information' and with reference to my mention of E.P. Thompson's assertion on class formation, you said, 'Furthermore EP Thomsons quote, reflects my position much more accurately than yours.' You are the one who is going completely against your original argument by agreeing with Thompson (as if you even know who E. P. Thompson is), not me. I have been the one saying all along that class formation is highly nuanced and subjective. You are the wannabe nouveau riche simpleton who is making the sweeping statement that class determination is done on income and accumulated wealth alone. Except, of course, for the one time when you waffled, and said education plays a role too. I said in my original post that an accountant is a typical example of a lower-middle-class profession, and I stand by that comment. Regardless of how much money the top handful in that profession earn, the profession in itself is still a textbook example of a lower-middle-class profession. Again, not carved in stone, but a typical accountant is a member of the lower-middle-class. And this is because the job does not reflect the social prestige, the amount of education needed to enter its ranks, the level of autonomy and independence, etc., etc. Now just admit it, pal. It is this statement alone which is driving you and your king-sized ego nuts, isn't it? What's the matter, did the other kids pick on you at school when you were younger? So now you got to massage your fragile ego by telling everyone how important you are, and how much money yo earn?
Listen up you rock-head. Don't ever write on any of my messages again. You are nothing but a money grubbing, aspirational, bean counter and that's all you'll ever be. Deal with it. I'd love to find out the real reason you were forced to leave the legal profession. And by the way, what's a 'big shot lawyer turned accountant' like you doing on a website dedicated to students? Don't come on a website for students shooting your mouth off, thinking we're all going to drop to our knees and worship you because you graduated and have a job. Big deal, *******.
Original post by sydney_watts
Here we go again. More egomaniacal dribble from the bean counting Irishman. And yes, once again, more changing of his stupid argument from one post to the next. First off, *******, don't take that tone with me. Know your place, you bog trotting piss-ant. Just a word of advice, friend. Guys loose teeth with talk like that in pubs. You'd better learn some manners real quick if you want to keep yours, boy. Because the next guy you lip off to like that might not be hundreds of miles away, and you won't always have the cover of anonymity.
GFX: lol
I don't know why I'm wasting my time pointing out the errors of your mixed-up logic, but I can't stand the thought of some big-headed, arrogant, jerk like you thinking you just bamboozled me by altering words you said in previous statements in order to try and fit them into your current argument. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I will do just enough to give you the public humiliation you deserve. Alright, pay attention, stupid.
GFX: Not much here to address but insults, boo!
You said in you latest post: 'Point 2 - You're absolutely right in that we are discussing the British class system but the basic point remains un-corrupted insofar as that the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets'.
You have got to get this notion out of your head. We are discussing class, in the British class system sense of the term. We are not talking about income or level of office within a profession. Those two ideas are something else all together different from class. You are Irish, so I don't really expect you to understand something as nuanced as British structures of social stratification, but you must at least ry if you wish to integrate into British society.
GFX: A bit of racism here, how very classy. Secondly, I'm from the North of Ireland, I don't wan't or need to "integrate" into your idea British society.
What you seem to be hung-up on is an American concept of class, where income is the key indicator of which class one belongs to. In this country we use assets, mainly cultural and familial collateral, as well as occupation to designate which class one belongs. Lottery winners can be millionaires, but that doesn't make them upper-class. A relatively uneducated man may own several profitable lap-dancing clubs, but that does not make him upper-middle-class.
GFX: I agree with this
Nevertheless, the high street lawyer would generally be considered upper-middle class, even if he just started out in the profession.
GFX: I completely disagree with this. High-street Lawyers would be lower middle class, or middle-middle class. High-street lawyers on average, earn far too little. Work in the less respected areas of legal practice; personal injury, petty criminal, etc. Are less specialised in their knowledge, more a jack of all trades and master of none.
Presumably he would have been educated to a high degree level, he would have attended a university of some reputation, and his parents were also from this same class. However, even if they weren't, he most likely would still be regarded as upper-middle-class.
GFX: Not true at all, a lot of high-street lawyers studied at less reputable universities. Many of my classmates (@ a Russel Group law school) came from lower middle class or working class families.
I said in a previous post: '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 they all soon took on upper-middle-class elements to them over the past 200 years.'
GFX: You seem to be repeating yourself, whilst maintaining the incorrect assumptions. You imply that the eldest brother is upper-class, whilst the younger untitled brother becomes upper-middle class. Your point is nonsensical, advocating that two brothers with identical backgrounds are of differing class
Clearly, I am speaking in the past tense, and therefore talking about the formation of this sub-class of the upper-middle-class though history. I am not muddling this concept into a contemporary narrative.
Nevertheless, you clearly tried to tear my thoughts down through the old trick of building a straw man. You said in a previous post: '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.'
Sorry, stupid, that's a straw man you built. So much for your credibility, Mr. Lawyer turned Accountant.
GFX: see above for why this is nonsense
Let's see, what else did a dumb, loud-mouth, jerk like you say? Oh hear's one. You said in your latest idiotic rant: 'Point 2 - ' the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets.'
Yet in a previous post you gave this mixed message: 'The greatest differences between the upper and lower middle class, are the varying levels of education and expendable income.
Which is it, stupid? In one paragraph of a previous post you say income is the sole determinant, yet in another sentence in the latest post you also decide to include educational attainment. Sounds to me you're all mixed-up, *******. You better get your head out of your rich bosses ass, and start paying attention to a little thing called logic.
GFX: I didn't ever say one factor was the sole determinant in establishing what part of a defunct class system you are a member of, but again you have a habit of talking things out of context. I'll explain this time with an example so you can try to understand. We'll use the lawyers you're so fond of.
By having a degree, and being professionally qualified the lawyer is middle class. He has a higher level of education than most factory workers and more expendable income than the working classes (on average). Then we begin to stratify the lawyers within the middle class. The high-street lawyer in a regional location actually earns a contextually low salary c£28,000. This is not enough to grant him access to the upper-middle class. Lawyer 2 is a solicitor in a city firm, he was actually a classmate of lawyer 1. He has the same education as lawyer 1 but earns c£95,000. He is described as upper-middle class. The only distinction here, is salary. Simples.
You also said in your previous post: 'Is just plainly wrong, I myself and the individuals to which I refer, studied at Russel Group universities. Some institutions allow you to progress straight to a PhD if you got a first in your undergraduate degree and complete an optional research project within your degree. Everyone I know who has completed their PhDs (from Russel Group Uni's) did so in 3 years or less. With regards to Masters degrees, 90% in my LL.M class completed their masters within 1 calendar year.'
This is such a ludicrous lie, I'm not even going to waste more time than I have to in addressing such nonsense. Everyone you know 'has completed their Ph.D's in 3 years or less', huh? That is a lie. Plain and simple, Mr Lawyer turned Accountant, you're full of ****. You are lying through your teeth, since this is just an impossible feat.
GFX: How is it a lie?, How is it "impossible?" You've added nothing to your argument and simply called me a liar. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum will know at least one person who completed their PhD in the three years allocated. Plus most PhD funding stipends are actually given over three years. *Sigh*
Oh, here's another one of your pearls of wisdom. You accused me of having 'absolutely no ability to understand a nuanced point of information' and with reference to my mention of E.P. Thompson's assertion on class formation, you said, 'Furthermore EP Thomsons quote, reflects my position much more accurately than yours.' You are the one who is going completely against your original argument by agreeing with Thompson (as if you even know who E. P. Thompson is), not me. I have been the one saying all along that class formation is highly nuanced and subjective. You are the wannabe nouveau riche simpleton who is making the sweeping statement that class determination is done on income and accumulated wealth alone. Except, of course, for the one time when you waffled, and said education plays a role too. I said in my original post that an accountant is a typical example of a lower-middle-class profession, and I stand by that comment. Regardless of how much money the top handful in that profession earn, the profession in itself is still a textbook example of a lower-middle-class profession. Again, not carved in stone, but a typical accountant is a member of the lower-middle-class.
GFX: You just said that being an accountant is lower middle class without providing a reference for this "textbook example". Furthermore, it is not the top handful of accountants that earn good money. The average salary of a newly qualified ACA is £40-55k, and that's at around 24-26 years old.
And this is because the job does not reflect the social prestigeGFX: what exactly is this diaphanous claim of social prestige?", the amount of education needed to enter its ranks
GFX: Actually it takes longer to qualify as an accountant than a lawyer. To qualify as a lawyer, you do your LL.B (3 years), then the LPC (1 academic year) then a two year training contract. To qualify as a chartered accountant, you have to do your degree (3/4 years) then the CAP 1's (1 year) CAP 2's (1 year) FAEs (1 year) and you must accrue three years of experience. The academic element of qualifying as a lawyer lasts for around four years, the academic element of qualifying as an accountant lasts for at least six years. ,
the level of autonomy and independence, etc., etc.
GFX: The level of autonomy and independence is exactly the same, so nil points
Now just admit it, pal. It is this statement alone which is driving you and your king-sized ego nuts, isn't it? What's the matter, did the other kids pick on you at school when you were younger? So now you got to massage your fragile ego by telling everyone how important you are, and how much money yo earn?
GFX: sorry, I only seek to educate a bigoted little keyboard warrior.
Listen up you rock-head. Don't ever write on any of my messages again. You are nothing but a money grubbing, aspirational, bean counter and that's all you'll ever be.
GFX: Awh diddums, hold on while I collect these toys that you insist on throwing out of the pram
Deal with it. I'd love to find out the real reason you were forced to leave the legal profession.
GFX: What makes you think I was forced to leave? There are 5 people from my law class in my firm, three of which got firsts. A lot of people leave law after finishing their LL.Bs. Again this highlights your ignorance but by this stage I've given up attempting to educate a pretentious little know it all such as yourself. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink
And by the way, what's a 'big shot lawyer turned accountant' like you doing on a website dedicated to students? Don't come on a website for students shooting your mouth off, thinking we're all going to drop to our knees and worship you because you graduated and have a job. Big deal,
GFX: I come here because I'm in the final year of my professional exams and there is a pretty good community of professionals in the careers section
*******.
GFX: lol
I don't know why I'm wasting my time pointing out the errors of your mixed-up logic, but I can't stand the thought of some big-headed, arrogant, jerk like you thinking you just bamboozled me by altering words you said in previous statements in order to try and fit them into your current argument. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I will do just enough to give you the public humiliation you deserve. Alright, pay attention, stupid.
GFX: Not much here to address but insults, boo!
You said in you latest post: 'Point 2 - You're absolutely right in that we are discussing the British class system but the basic point remains un-corrupted insofar as that the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets'.
You have got to get this notion out of your head. We are discussing class, in the British class system sense of the term. We are not talking about income or level of office within a profession. Those two ideas are something else all together different from class. You are Irish, so I don't really expect you to understand something as nuanced as British structures of social stratification, but you must at least ry if you wish to integrate into British society.
GFX: A bit of racism here, how very classy. Secondly, I'm from the North of Ireland, I don't wan't or need to "integrate" into your idea British society.
What you seem to be hung-up on is an American concept of class, where income is the key indicator of which class one belongs to. In this country we use assets, mainly cultural and familial collateral, as well as occupation to designate which class one belongs. Lottery winners can be millionaires, but that doesn't make them upper-class. A relatively uneducated man may own several profitable lap-dancing clubs, but that does not make him upper-middle-class.
GFX: I agree with this
Nevertheless, the high street lawyer would generally be considered upper-middle class, even if he just started out in the profession.
GFX: I completely disagree with this. High-street Lawyers would be lower middle class, or middle-middle class. High-street lawyers on average, earn far too little. Work in the less respected areas of legal practice; personal injury, petty criminal, etc. Are less specialised in their knowledge, more a jack of all trades and master of none.
Presumably he would have been educated to a high degree level, he would have attended a university of some reputation, and his parents were also from this same class. However, even if they weren't, he most likely would still be regarded as upper-middle-class.
GFX: Not true at all, a lot of high-street lawyers studied at less reputable universities. Many of my classmates (@ a Russel Group law school) came from lower middle class or working class families.
I said in a previous post: '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 they all soon took on upper-middle-class elements to them over the past 200 years.'
GFX: You seem to be repeating yourself, whilst maintaining the incorrect assumptions. You imply that the eldest brother is upper-class, whilst the younger untitled brother becomes upper-middle class. Your point is nonsensical, advocating that two brothers with identical backgrounds are of differing class
Clearly, I am speaking in the past tense, and therefore talking about the formation of this sub-class of the upper-middle-class though history. I am not muddling this concept into a contemporary narrative.
Nevertheless, you clearly tried to tear my thoughts down through the old trick of building a straw man. You said in a previous post: '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.'
Sorry, stupid, that's a straw man you built. So much for your credibility, Mr. Lawyer turned Accountant.
GFX: see above for why this is nonsense
Let's see, what else did a dumb, loud-mouth, jerk like you say? Oh hear's one. You said in your latest idiotic rant: 'Point 2 - ' the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets.'
Yet in a previous post you gave this mixed message: 'The greatest differences between the upper and lower middle class, are the varying levels of education and expendable income.
Which is it, stupid? In one paragraph of a previous post you say income is the sole determinant, yet in another sentence in the latest post you also decide to include educational attainment. Sounds to me you're all mixed-up, *******. You better get your head out of your rich bosses ass, and start paying attention to a little thing called logic.
GFX: I didn't ever say one factor was the sole determinant in establishing what part of a defunct class system you are a member of, but again you have a habit of talking things out of context. I'll explain this time with an example so you can try to understand. We'll use the lawyers you're so fond of.
By having a degree, and being professionally qualified the lawyer is middle class. He has a higher level of education than most factory workers and more expendable income than the working classes (on average). Then we begin to stratify the lawyers within the middle class. The high-street lawyer in a regional location actually earns a contextually low salary c£28,000. This is not enough to grant him access to the upper-middle class. Lawyer 2 is a solicitor in a city firm, he was actually a classmate of lawyer 1. He has the same education as lawyer 1 but earns c£95,000. He is described as upper-middle class. The only distinction here, is salary. Simples.
You also said in your previous post: 'Is just plainly wrong, I myself and the individuals to which I refer, studied at Russel Group universities. Some institutions allow you to progress straight to a PhD if you got a first in your undergraduate degree and complete an optional research project within your degree. Everyone I know who has completed their PhDs (from Russel Group Uni's) did so in 3 years or less. With regards to Masters degrees, 90% in my LL.M class completed their masters within 1 calendar year.'
This is such a ludicrous lie, I'm not even going to waste more time than I have to in addressing such nonsense. Everyone you know 'has completed their Ph.D's in 3 years or less', huh? That is a lie. Plain and simple, Mr Lawyer turned Accountant, you're full of ****. You are lying through your teeth, since this is just an impossible feat.
GFX: How is it a lie?, How is it "impossible?" You've added nothing to your argument and simply called me a liar. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum will know at least one person who completed their PhD in the three years allocated. Plus most PhD funding stipends are actually given over three years. *Sigh*
Oh, here's another one of your pearls of wisdom. You accused me of having 'absolutely no ability to understand a nuanced point of information' and with reference to my mention of E.P. Thompson's assertion on class formation, you said, 'Furthermore EP Thomsons quote, reflects my position much more accurately than yours.' You are the one who is going completely against your original argument by agreeing with Thompson (as if you even know who E. P. Thompson is), not me. I have been the one saying all along that class formation is highly nuanced and subjective. You are the wannabe nouveau riche simpleton who is making the sweeping statement that class determination is done on income and accumulated wealth alone. Except, of course, for the one time when you waffled, and said education plays a role too. I said in my original post that an accountant is a typical example of a lower-middle-class profession, and I stand by that comment. Regardless of how much money the top handful in that profession earn, the profession in itself is still a textbook example of a lower-middle-class profession. Again, not carved in stone, but a typical accountant is a member of the lower-middle-class.
GFX: You just said that being an accountant is lower middle class without providing a reference for this "textbook example". Furthermore, it is not the top handful of accountants that earn good money. The average salary of a newly qualified ACA is £40-55k, and that's at around 24-26 years old.
And this is because the job does not reflect the social prestigeGFX: what exactly is this diaphanous claim of social prestige?", the amount of education needed to enter its ranks
GFX: Actually it takes longer to qualify as an accountant than a lawyer. To qualify as a lawyer, you do your LL.B (3 years), then the LPC (1 academic year) then a two year training contract. To qualify as a chartered accountant, you have to do your degree (3/4 years) then the CAP 1's (1 year) CAP 2's (1 year) FAEs (1 year) and you must accrue three years of experience. The academic element of qualifying as a lawyer lasts for around four years, the academic element of qualifying as an accountant lasts for at least six years. ,
the level of autonomy and independence, etc., etc.
GFX: The level of autonomy and independence is exactly the same, so nil points
Now just admit it, pal. It is this statement alone which is driving you and your king-sized ego nuts, isn't it? What's the matter, did the other kids pick on you at school when you were younger? So now you got to massage your fragile ego by telling everyone how important you are, and how much money yo earn?
GFX: sorry, I only seek to educate a bigoted little keyboard warrior.
Listen up you rock-head. Don't ever write on any of my messages again. You are nothing but a money grubbing, aspirational, bean counter and that's all you'll ever be.
GFX: Awh diddums, hold on while I collect these toys that you insist on throwing out of the pram
Deal with it. I'd love to find out the real reason you were forced to leave the legal profession.
GFX: What makes you think I was forced to leave? There are 5 people from my law class in my firm, three of which got firsts. A lot of people leave law after finishing their LL.Bs. Again this highlights your ignorance but by this stage I've given up attempting to educate a pretentious little know it all such as yourself. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink
And by the way, what's a 'big shot lawyer turned accountant' like you doing on a website dedicated to students? Don't come on a website for students shooting your mouth off, thinking we're all going to drop to our knees and worship you because you graduated and have a job. Big deal,
GFX: I come here because I'm in the final year of my professional exams and there is a pretty good community of professionals in the careers section
*******.
This really is my last post as I've had enough of trying to "debate" with a petulant child. Please see above in bold my responses, this is because you appear to struggle with coherent thought when faced with a body of text. As for your comments about knocking teeth out (lol), excuse me if I don't heed the vacuous threats of a student keyboard warrior.
end/
Original post by GR3YFOXXX
This really is my last post as I've had enough of trying to "debate" with a petulant child. Please see above in bold my responses, this is because you appear to struggle with coherent thought when faced with a body of text. As for your comments about knocking teeth out (lol), excuse me if I don't heed the vacuous threats of a student keyboard warrior.
end/
end/
You said in you latest post: 'Point 2 - You're absolutely right in that we are discussing the British class system but the basic point remains un-corrupted insofar as that the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets'.
You have got to get this notion out of your head. We are discussing class, in the British class system sense of the term. We are not talking about income or level of office within a profession. Those two ideas are something else all together different from class. You are Irish, so I don't really expect you to understand something as nuanced as British structures of social stratification, but you must at least ry if you wish to integrate into British society.
GFX: A bit of racism here, how very classy. Secondly, I'm from the North of Ireland, I don't wan't or need to "integrate" into your idea British society.
Racism? Oh, you really are fishing, aren't you? I don't see anything I said that could be taken as anything remotely racist. First off, I was merely assuming that you, as a foreigner (I wrongly assumed...I didn't know you lived in Londonderry, I thought you were down in the Republic), weren't in a position to understand the intricacies of the British class system. And by the way, when did the Irish people become a different race? Not only that, but the last time I was in Dublin and Cork I was impressed by how multi-racial Ireland has become. One other thing, Physical anthropologists have determined through DNA research that the the majority of the native inhabitants of both Ireland and Britain share the same strain of DNA; consequently, there isn't much difference between the Caucasian elements of both islands, so any verbal attack against somebody from Ireland by a British person would be just that, an ethnic slur. It would hardly constitute racism. No wonder why you've been disbarred.
Nevertheless, the high street lawyer would generally be considered upper-middle class, even if he just started out in the profession.
GFX: I completely disagree with this. High-street Lawyers would be lower middle class, or middle-middle class. High-street lawyers on average, earn far too little. Work in the less respected areas of legal practice; personal injury, petty criminal, etc. Are less specialised in their knowledge, more a jack of all trades and master of none.
There's no point of trying to educate you on this any further. You are obviously a very stubborn man who refuses to admit you are wrong about something that any Sociology student learns in their first year of studies. I am not going to waste anymore of my time trying to educate an ignoramus. Nevertheless, I can assure you that your thoughts on social stratification within the British class system are incorrect. And no, I am not going to list every academic who authored scholarly research in this field. I don't have the time. You're the lawyer, you look it up. I completed that module a long time ago.
I said in a previous post: '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 they all soon took on upper-middle-class elements to them over the past 200 years.'
GFX: You seem to be repeating yourself, whilst maintaining the incorrect assumptions. You imply that the eldest brother is upper-class, whilst the younger untitled brother becomes upper-middle class. Your point is nonsensical, advocating that two brothers with identical backgrounds are of differing class
Christ almighty, will you give up on this? You lost this argument! Deal with it and move on. I know you are (were) an @sshole lawyer by trade, so you are trained to be a wod twisting snake, but do that petty @ass bullsh)t on somebody else's time, not mine. Briefly, I'll say it again. What British society generally perceive to be upper-middle-class professions, unlike accounting, had their origins in the opportunities that were left open to the younger sons of the upper-class. After the Great Reform Bill of 1832, etc., middle-class people had greater access to education and political power and many moved into these professions, and hence, an upper-middle-class was formed. You keep trying to twist my words around with this, and most irritating of all is you put other words in my mouth, which I didn't say in order to build a straw man. This is a cheap weasel lawyer trick. Don't try and pull it on me again, sh]theel.
GFX: I didn't ever say one factor was the sole determinant in establishing what part of a defunct class system you are a member of, but again you have a habit of talking things out of context. I'll explain this time with an example so you can try to understand. We'll use the lawyers you're so fond of.
By having a degree, and being professionally qualified the lawyer is middle class. He has a higher level of education than most factory workers and more expendable income than the working classes (on average). Then we begin to stratify the lawyers within the middle class. The high-street lawyer in a regional location actually earns a contextually low salary c£28,000. This is not enough to grant him access to the upper-middle class. Lawyer 2 is a solicitor in a city firm, he was actually a classmate of lawyer 1. He has the same education as lawyer 1 but earns c£95,000. He is described as upper-middle class. The only distinction here, is salary. Simples.
You just are not getting this. Salary has almost nothing to do with what determines who is upper-middle-class and who is lower-middle-class (There is no such thing as this category you describe as middle-middle-class. They're all 'middle-class' - it's just happens that one is higher up ths social ladder than the other.). By virtue of being a lawyer alone, this makes that person upper-middle-class., whether they earn £28,000 or £98,000. If one lawyer earns £98,000 and the other £28,000 then that just makes the £98,000 lawer richer, wealthier, more affluent...whatever you want to call it, but it doesn't make the richer upper-middle-class and the poorer, lower-middle-class. I am not wasting any more breath on trying to teach you the basic principles of the British class system.
GFX: How is it a lie?, How is it "impossible?" You've added nothing to your argument and simply called me a liar. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum will know at least one person who completed their PhD in the three years allocated. Plus most PhD funding stipends are actually given over three years. *Sigh*
How is it a lie? Because it is! You said 'virtually everyone of your friends finished their Ph.D. in 3 years or LESS.' It is virtually impossible within the British university system to earn a Ph.D. in LESS than 3 years. And as for your assertion that virtually all of your friends doing this, my reply to that is you must not have any friends - which from reading your previous posts, I can say is highly probable. The other option is you are lying (Far be it from a lawyer to ever lie, huh?).
GFX: You just said that being an accountant is lower middle class without providing a reference for this "textbook example". Furthermore, it is not the top handful of accountants that earn good money. The average salary of a newly qualified ACA is £40-55k, and that's at around 24-26 years old.
I'm not digging out my sociology books, you're the lawyer turned accountant who, judging by your hundreds, if not thousands of posts here on TSR, has ample amounts of free time. And by the way, for a guy so pickyune about providing sources for every assertion made, you are far short of supplying references for all the 'facts' you claim.
GFX: what exactly is this diaphanous claim of social prestige?"
There are plenty of online sources from leading authorities which give the results of numerous surveys regarding the amount of prestige the British public ascribe to certain occupations. Trust me on this one, university lecturers are usually only 2nd to GP's. Accountants are near the bottom of the pack. Look it up.
GFX: Actually it takes longer to qualify as an accountant than a lawyer. To qualify as a lawyer, you do your LL.B (3 years), then the LPC (1 academic year) then a two year training contract. To qualify as a chartered accountant, you have to do your degree (3/4 years) then the CAP 1's (1 year) CAP 2's (1 year) FAEs (1 year) and you must accrue three years of experience. The academic element of qualifying as a lawyer lasts for around four years, the academic element of qualifying as an accountant lasts for at least six years. ,
All you did here was provided me with numerous acronyms, which to a lay person like me are virtually meaningless. Nothing you said demonstrates actual postgraduate classroom training in a university. For all I know this alphabet soup is merely a glorified apprenticeship ritual. Even Mens' Room Attendants must serve an apprenticeship.
GFX: The level of autonomy and independence is exactly the same, so nil points
Once again, Walter Mitty, you are dreaming. An academic has a great deal more independence than an accountant. Unless the accountant is the owner or partner in his firm he has a regular schedule he must attend to for the entire length of his/her working day. Once an academic is through giving heir lectures the remainder of the day is theirs to choose. They can decide what to research and when to research. The same amount of independence and autionomy can equally be shown in the working life of a lawyer or a doctor. They control their own destiny far more than a ledger counter chained to his desk. Hence, one of the reasons why they are classed as upper-middle-class, while an accountant is generally regarded to be of a lower order.
GFX: I come here because I'm in the final year of my professional exams and there is a pretty good community of professionals in the careers section
You previously accused me of levelling numerous ad hominem attacks while you seem to think it is fine to throw insults at me and everyone else. Yes, I've been browsing through your volumes of previous posts to not only me but others here in TSR, and I have come to the conclusion you are either an irksome troll or you're just some day-dreaming wannabe, a loser, with a terrible personality disorder who is neither a lawyer nor an accountant. First off, where do you find the hours and hours of free time it must take to write all of these responses and threads? Surely, somebody working in a top 4 circle jerk accounting firm or who practices at the bar would not have nearly enough free time to pen even 10% of the thousands of messages you have posted here on TSR.
And the boasting and bragging! My God, I wanted to vomit when I was reading some of your earlier posts. I can bench press a thousand stone....I was the smartest lad in my class....Women adore me......I can run the 100 withn Olympic Time Trial standards....the list goes on, Londonderry. Initially I wanted to punch your teeth out, but now I feel sorry for you. And if you are just a trouble making troll who come on here just to stir it up, then shame on me for biting. But if you are this pitiful boasting loser, then, Londonderry, you need help.
Original post by sydney_watts
You said in you latest post: 'Point 2 - You're absolutely right in that we are discussing the British class system but the basic point remains un-corrupted insofar as that the upper middle class is defined by earnings rather than net assets'.
You have got to get this notion out of your head. We are discussing class, in the British class system sense of the term. We are not talking about income or level of office within a profession. Those two ideas are something else all together different from class. You are Irish, so I don't really expect you to understand something as nuanced as British structures of social stratification, but you must at least ry if you wish to integrate into British society.
GFX: A bit of racism here, how very classy. Secondly, I'm from the North of Ireland, I don't wan't or need to "integrate" into your idea British society.
Racism? Oh, you really are fishing, aren't you? I don't see anything I said that could be taken as anything remotely racist. First off, I was merely assuming that you, as a foreigner (I wrongly assumed...I didn't know you lived in Londonderry, I thought you were down in the Republic), weren't in a position to understand the intricacies of the British class system. And by the way, when did the Irish people become a different race? Not only that, but the last time I was in Dublin and Cork I was impressed by how multi-racial Ireland has become. One other thing, Physical anthropologists have determined through DNA research that the the majority of the native inhabitants of both Ireland and Britain share the same strain of DNA; consequently, there isn't much difference between the Caucasian elements of both islands, so any verbal attack against somebody from Ireland by a British person would be just that, an ethnic slur. It would hardly constitute racism. No wonder why you've been disbarred.
Nevertheless, the high street lawyer would generally be considered upper-middle class, even if he just started out in the profession.
GFX: I completely disagree with this. High-street Lawyers would be lower middle class, or middle-middle class. High-street lawyers on average, earn far too little. Work in the less respected areas of legal practice; personal injury, petty criminal, etc. Are less specialised in their knowledge, more a jack of all trades and master of none.
There's no point of trying to educate you on this any further. You are obviously a very stubborn man who refuses to admit you are wrong about something that any Sociology student learns in their first year of studies. I am not going to waste anymore of my time trying to educate an ignoramus. Nevertheless, I can assure you that your thoughts on social stratification within the British class system are incorrect. And no, I am not going to list every academic who authored scholarly research in this field. I don't have the time. You're the lawyer, you look it up. I completed that module a long time ago.
I said in a previous post: '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 they all soon took on upper-middle-class elements to them over the past 200 years.'
GFX: You seem to be repeating yourself, whilst maintaining the incorrect assumptions. You imply that the eldest brother is upper-class, whilst the younger untitled brother becomes upper-middle class. Your point is nonsensical, advocating that two brothers with identical backgrounds are of differing class
Christ almighty, will you give up on this? You lost this argument! Deal with it and move on. I know you are (were) an @sshole lawyer by trade, so you are trained to be a wod twisting snake, but do that petty @ass bullsh)t on somebody else's time, not mine. Briefly, I'll say it again. What British society generally perceive to be upper-middle-class professions, unlike accounting, had their origins in the opportunities that were left open to the younger sons of the upper-class. After the Great Reform Bill of 1832, etc., middle-class people had greater access to education and political power and many moved into these professions, and hence, an upper-middle-class was formed. You keep trying to twist my words around with this, and most irritating of all is you put other words in my mouth, which I didn't say in order to build a straw man. This is a cheap weasel lawyer trick. Don't try and pull it on me again, sh]theel.
GFX: I didn't ever say one factor was the sole determinant in establishing what part of a defunct class system you are a member of, but again you have a habit of talking things out of context. I'll explain this time with an example so you can try to understand. We'll use the lawyers you're so fond of.
By having a degree, and being professionally qualified the lawyer is middle class. He has a higher level of education than most factory workers and more expendable income than the working classes (on average). Then we begin to stratify the lawyers within the middle class. The high-street lawyer in a regional location actually earns a contextually low salary c£28,000. This is not enough to grant him access to the upper-middle class. Lawyer 2 is a solicitor in a city firm, he was actually a classmate of lawyer 1. He has the same education as lawyer 1 but earns c£95,000. He is described as upper-middle class. The only distinction here, is salary. Simples.
You just are not getting this. Salary has almost nothing to do with what determines who is upper-middle-class and who is lower-middle-class (There is no such thing as this category you describe as middle-middle-class. They're all 'middle-class' - it's just happens that one is higher up ths social ladder than the other.). By virtue of being a lawyer alone, this makes that person upper-middle-class., whether they earn £28,000 or £98,000. If one lawyer earns £98,000 and the other £28,000 then that just makes the £98,000 lawer richer, wealthier, more affluent...whatever you want to call it, but it doesn't make the richer upper-middle-class and the poorer, lower-middle-class. I am not wasting any more breath on trying to teach you the basic principles of the British class system.
GFX: How is it a lie?, How is it "impossible?" You've added nothing to your argument and simply called me a liar. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum will know at least one person who completed their PhD in the three years allocated. Plus most PhD funding stipends are actually given over three years. *Sigh*
How is it a lie? Because it is! You said 'virtually everyone of your friends finished their Ph.D. in 3 years or LESS.' It is virtually impossible within the British university system to earn a Ph.D. in LESS than 3 years. And as for your assertion that virtually all of your friends doing this, my reply to that is you must not have any friends - which from reading your previous posts, I can say is highly probable. The other option is you are lying (Far be it from a lawyer to ever lie, huh?).
GFX: You just said that being an accountant is lower middle class without providing a reference for this "textbook example". Furthermore, it is not the top handful of accountants that earn good money. The average salary of a newly qualified ACA is £40-55k, and that's at around 24-26 years old.
I'm not digging out my sociology books, you're the lawyer turned accountant who, judging by your hundreds, if not thousands of posts here on TSR, has ample amounts of free time. And by the way, for a guy so pickyune about providing sources for every assertion made, you are far short of supplying references for all the 'facts' you claim.
GFX: what exactly is this diaphanous claim of social prestige?"
There are plenty of online sources from leading authorities which give the results of numerous surveys regarding the amount of prestige the British public ascribe to certain occupations. Trust me on this one, university lecturers are usually only 2nd to GP's. Accountants are near the bottom of the pack. Look it up.
GFX: Actually it takes longer to qualify as an accountant than a lawyer. To qualify as a lawyer, you do your LL.B (3 years), then the LPC (1 academic year) then a two year training contract. To qualify as a chartered accountant, you have to do your degree (3/4 years) then the CAP 1's (1 year) CAP 2's (1 year) FAEs (1 year) and you must accrue three years of experience. The academic element of qualifying as a lawyer lasts for around four years, the academic element of qualifying as an accountant lasts for at least six years. ,
All you did here was provided me with numerous acronyms, which to a lay person like me are virtually meaningless. Nothing you said demonstrates actual postgraduate classroom training in a university. For all I know this alphabet soup is merely a glorified apprenticeship ritual. Even Mens' Room Attendants must serve an apprenticeship.
GFX: The level of autonomy and independence is exactly the same, so nil points
Once again, Walter Mitty, you are dreaming. An academic has a great deal more independence than an accountant. Unless the accountant is the owner or partner in his firm he has a regular schedule he must attend to for the entire length of his/her working day. Once an academic is through giving heir lectures the remainder of the day is theirs to choose. They can decide what to research and when to research. The same amount of independence and autionomy can equally be shown in the working life of a lawyer or a doctor. They control their own destiny far more than a ledger counter chained to his desk. Hence, one of the reasons why they are classed as upper-middle-class, while an accountant is generally regarded to be of a lower order.
GFX: I come here because I'm in the final year of my professional exams and there is a pretty good community of professionals in the careers section
You previously accused me of levelling numerous ad hominem attacks while you seem to think it is fine to throw insults at me and everyone else. Yes, I've been browsing through your volumes of previous posts to not only me but others here in TSR, and I have come to the conclusion you are either an irksome troll or you're just some day-dreaming wannabe, a loser, with a terrible personality disorder who is neither a lawyer nor an accountant. First off, where do you find the hours and hours of free time it must take to write all of these responses and threads? Surely, somebody working in a top 4 circle jerk accounting firm or who practices at the bar would not have nearly enough free time to pen even 10% of the thousands of messages you have posted here on TSR.
And the boasting and bragging! My God, I wanted to vomit when I was reading some of your earlier posts. I can bench press a thousand stone....I was the smartest lad in my class....Women adore me......I can run the 100 withn Olympic Time Trial standards....the list goes on, Londonderry. Initially I wanted to punch your teeth out, but now I feel sorry for you. And if you are just a trouble making troll who come on here just to stir it up, then shame on me for biting. But if you are this pitiful boasting loser, then, Londonderry, you need help.
You have got to get this notion out of your head. We are discussing class, in the British class system sense of the term. We are not talking about income or level of office within a profession. Those two ideas are something else all together different from class. You are Irish, so I don't really expect you to understand something as nuanced as British structures of social stratification, but you must at least ry if you wish to integrate into British society.
GFX: A bit of racism here, how very classy. Secondly, I'm from the North of Ireland, I don't wan't or need to "integrate" into your idea British society.
Racism? Oh, you really are fishing, aren't you? I don't see anything I said that could be taken as anything remotely racist. First off, I was merely assuming that you, as a foreigner (I wrongly assumed...I didn't know you lived in Londonderry, I thought you were down in the Republic), weren't in a position to understand the intricacies of the British class system. And by the way, when did the Irish people become a different race? Not only that, but the last time I was in Dublin and Cork I was impressed by how multi-racial Ireland has become. One other thing, Physical anthropologists have determined through DNA research that the the majority of the native inhabitants of both Ireland and Britain share the same strain of DNA; consequently, there isn't much difference between the Caucasian elements of both islands, so any verbal attack against somebody from Ireland by a British person would be just that, an ethnic slur. It would hardly constitute racism. No wonder why you've been disbarred.
Nevertheless, the high street lawyer would generally be considered upper-middle class, even if he just started out in the profession.
GFX: I completely disagree with this. High-street Lawyers would be lower middle class, or middle-middle class. High-street lawyers on average, earn far too little. Work in the less respected areas of legal practice; personal injury, petty criminal, etc. Are less specialised in their knowledge, more a jack of all trades and master of none.
There's no point of trying to educate you on this any further. You are obviously a very stubborn man who refuses to admit you are wrong about something that any Sociology student learns in their first year of studies. I am not going to waste anymore of my time trying to educate an ignoramus. Nevertheless, I can assure you that your thoughts on social stratification within the British class system are incorrect. And no, I am not going to list every academic who authored scholarly research in this field. I don't have the time. You're the lawyer, you look it up. I completed that module a long time ago.
I said in a previous post: '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 they all soon took on upper-middle-class elements to them over the past 200 years.'
GFX: You seem to be repeating yourself, whilst maintaining the incorrect assumptions. You imply that the eldest brother is upper-class, whilst the younger untitled brother becomes upper-middle class. Your point is nonsensical, advocating that two brothers with identical backgrounds are of differing class
Christ almighty, will you give up on this? You lost this argument! Deal with it and move on. I know you are (were) an @sshole lawyer by trade, so you are trained to be a wod twisting snake, but do that petty @ass bullsh)t on somebody else's time, not mine. Briefly, I'll say it again. What British society generally perceive to be upper-middle-class professions, unlike accounting, had their origins in the opportunities that were left open to the younger sons of the upper-class. After the Great Reform Bill of 1832, etc., middle-class people had greater access to education and political power and many moved into these professions, and hence, an upper-middle-class was formed. You keep trying to twist my words around with this, and most irritating of all is you put other words in my mouth, which I didn't say in order to build a straw man. This is a cheap weasel lawyer trick. Don't try and pull it on me again, sh]theel.
GFX: I didn't ever say one factor was the sole determinant in establishing what part of a defunct class system you are a member of, but again you have a habit of talking things out of context. I'll explain this time with an example so you can try to understand. We'll use the lawyers you're so fond of.
By having a degree, and being professionally qualified the lawyer is middle class. He has a higher level of education than most factory workers and more expendable income than the working classes (on average). Then we begin to stratify the lawyers within the middle class. The high-street lawyer in a regional location actually earns a contextually low salary c£28,000. This is not enough to grant him access to the upper-middle class. Lawyer 2 is a solicitor in a city firm, he was actually a classmate of lawyer 1. He has the same education as lawyer 1 but earns c£95,000. He is described as upper-middle class. The only distinction here, is salary. Simples.
You just are not getting this. Salary has almost nothing to do with what determines who is upper-middle-class and who is lower-middle-class (There is no such thing as this category you describe as middle-middle-class. They're all 'middle-class' - it's just happens that one is higher up ths social ladder than the other.). By virtue of being a lawyer alone, this makes that person upper-middle-class., whether they earn £28,000 or £98,000. If one lawyer earns £98,000 and the other £28,000 then that just makes the £98,000 lawer richer, wealthier, more affluent...whatever you want to call it, but it doesn't make the richer upper-middle-class and the poorer, lower-middle-class. I am not wasting any more breath on trying to teach you the basic principles of the British class system.
GFX: How is it a lie?, How is it "impossible?" You've added nothing to your argument and simply called me a liar. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum will know at least one person who completed their PhD in the three years allocated. Plus most PhD funding stipends are actually given over three years. *Sigh*
How is it a lie? Because it is! You said 'virtually everyone of your friends finished their Ph.D. in 3 years or LESS.' It is virtually impossible within the British university system to earn a Ph.D. in LESS than 3 years. And as for your assertion that virtually all of your friends doing this, my reply to that is you must not have any friends - which from reading your previous posts, I can say is highly probable. The other option is you are lying (Far be it from a lawyer to ever lie, huh?).
GFX: You just said that being an accountant is lower middle class without providing a reference for this "textbook example". Furthermore, it is not the top handful of accountants that earn good money. The average salary of a newly qualified ACA is £40-55k, and that's at around 24-26 years old.
I'm not digging out my sociology books, you're the lawyer turned accountant who, judging by your hundreds, if not thousands of posts here on TSR, has ample amounts of free time. And by the way, for a guy so pickyune about providing sources for every assertion made, you are far short of supplying references for all the 'facts' you claim.
GFX: what exactly is this diaphanous claim of social prestige?"
There are plenty of online sources from leading authorities which give the results of numerous surveys regarding the amount of prestige the British public ascribe to certain occupations. Trust me on this one, university lecturers are usually only 2nd to GP's. Accountants are near the bottom of the pack. Look it up.
GFX: Actually it takes longer to qualify as an accountant than a lawyer. To qualify as a lawyer, you do your LL.B (3 years), then the LPC (1 academic year) then a two year training contract. To qualify as a chartered accountant, you have to do your degree (3/4 years) then the CAP 1's (1 year) CAP 2's (1 year) FAEs (1 year) and you must accrue three years of experience. The academic element of qualifying as a lawyer lasts for around four years, the academic element of qualifying as an accountant lasts for at least six years. ,
All you did here was provided me with numerous acronyms, which to a lay person like me are virtually meaningless. Nothing you said demonstrates actual postgraduate classroom training in a university. For all I know this alphabet soup is merely a glorified apprenticeship ritual. Even Mens' Room Attendants must serve an apprenticeship.
GFX: The level of autonomy and independence is exactly the same, so nil points
Once again, Walter Mitty, you are dreaming. An academic has a great deal more independence than an accountant. Unless the accountant is the owner or partner in his firm he has a regular schedule he must attend to for the entire length of his/her working day. Once an academic is through giving heir lectures the remainder of the day is theirs to choose. They can decide what to research and when to research. The same amount of independence and autionomy can equally be shown in the working life of a lawyer or a doctor. They control their own destiny far more than a ledger counter chained to his desk. Hence, one of the reasons why they are classed as upper-middle-class, while an accountant is generally regarded to be of a lower order.
GFX: I come here because I'm in the final year of my professional exams and there is a pretty good community of professionals in the careers section
You previously accused me of levelling numerous ad hominem attacks while you seem to think it is fine to throw insults at me and everyone else. Yes, I've been browsing through your volumes of previous posts to not only me but others here in TSR, and I have come to the conclusion you are either an irksome troll or you're just some day-dreaming wannabe, a loser, with a terrible personality disorder who is neither a lawyer nor an accountant. First off, where do you find the hours and hours of free time it must take to write all of these responses and threads? Surely, somebody working in a top 4 circle jerk accounting firm or who practices at the bar would not have nearly enough free time to pen even 10% of the thousands of messages you have posted here on TSR.
And the boasting and bragging! My God, I wanted to vomit when I was reading some of your earlier posts. I can bench press a thousand stone....I was the smartest lad in my class....Women adore me......I can run the 100 withn Olympic Time Trial standards....the list goes on, Londonderry. Initially I wanted to punch your teeth out, but now I feel sorry for you. And if you are just a trouble making troll who come on here just to stir it up, then shame on me for biting. But if you are this pitiful boasting loser, then, Londonderry, you need help.
I wasn't going to respond to this but I just thought I'd let you know how flattered I was when I read how you researched my prior posts. #winning #stinkofjealousy
But I will also point out a couple of facts;
The reason I have time to post thousands of posts (actually less than 700 over 6 years) is because of my high level of workplace autonomy.
Professional training for Chartered Accountants and Lawyers are both provided by professional bodies and not Universities. The Institute of Chartered Accountants England and Wales/Scotland/ Ireland and BPP/CoL/ Law Society/ Institute of Professional Legal Studies.
For the record, the UN defines racism as including ethnic and sectarian discrimination.
I've come to the conclusion that you make ridiculous assertions based on no knowledge whatsoever. A little learning is a most dangerous thing. This debate has run it's course, you've established nothing but your own ignorance.
A lot of the upper classes don't have titles either, so that just shows you, you don't know much. You are confusing the Peerage with the aristocracy. First find your correct terminology and then ask the question.
-Detached House (4 bedrooms+) in Home Counties - especially Surrey/Berks/Bucks
-One or both parents are high professionals, small business owners or top managers
-Money or serious cultural capital in family for at least 3 or 4 generations
-Children attend private, fee-paying schools - preferably boarding schools
-One or both parents have degrees in addition to a BA or BS (eg. MA, MS, MBA, PhD)
-Parents drive a 4 door saloon, preferably German made
-Summer home in Provence, Tuscany or Cornwall
-Winter skiing holidays in France, Switzerland or America
-Boys have names like Sebastian, Jeremy or Piers.....Girls named Jemima, Arabella, Henrietta
-Double-barrelled surname
-Kids dressed in Jack Wills/Parents attired in Boden
-Children have assigned, forced hobbies like clarinet, violin, ballet
-Show Horses and riding - especially for the girls/Polo for the boys
-Sailing
-Rowing
-Gap year
-Extensive foreign travel
-One or both parents are high professionals, small business owners or top managers
-Money or serious cultural capital in family for at least 3 or 4 generations
-Children attend private, fee-paying schools - preferably boarding schools
-One or both parents have degrees in addition to a BA or BS (eg. MA, MS, MBA, PhD)
-Parents drive a 4 door saloon, preferably German made
-Summer home in Provence, Tuscany or Cornwall
-Winter skiing holidays in France, Switzerland or America
-Boys have names like Sebastian, Jeremy or Piers.....Girls named Jemima, Arabella, Henrietta
-Double-barrelled surname
-Kids dressed in Jack Wills/Parents attired in Boden
-Children have assigned, forced hobbies like clarinet, violin, ballet
-Show Horses and riding - especially for the girls/Polo for the boys
-Sailing
-Rowing
-Gap year
-Extensive foreign travel
Original post by Dodge-Slant-6
-Detached House (4 bedrooms+) in Home Counties - especially Surrey/Berks/Bucks
-One or both parents are high professionals, small business owners or top managers
-Money or serious cultural capital in family for at least 3 or 4 generations
-Children attend private, fee-paying schools - preferably boarding schools
-One or both parents have degrees in addition to a BA or BS (eg. MA, MS, MBA, PhD)
-Parents drive a 4 door saloon, preferably German made
-Summer home in Provence, Tuscany or Cornwall
-Winter skiing holidays in France, Switzerland or America
-Boys have names like Sebastian, Jeremy or Piers.....Girls named Jemima, Arabella, Henrietta
-Double-barrelled surname
-Kids dressed in Jack Wills/Parents attired in Boden
-Children have assigned, forced hobbies like clarinet, violin, ballet
-Show Horses and riding - especially for the girls/Polo for the boys
-Sailing
-Rowing
-Gap year
-Extensive foreign travel
-One or both parents are high professionals, small business owners or top managers
-Money or serious cultural capital in family for at least 3 or 4 generations
-Children attend private, fee-paying schools - preferably boarding schools
-One or both parents have degrees in addition to a BA or BS (eg. MA, MS, MBA, PhD)
-Parents drive a 4 door saloon, preferably German made
-Summer home in Provence, Tuscany or Cornwall
-Winter skiing holidays in France, Switzerland or America
-Boys have names like Sebastian, Jeremy or Piers.....Girls named Jemima, Arabella, Henrietta
-Double-barrelled surname
-Kids dressed in Jack Wills/Parents attired in Boden
-Children have assigned, forced hobbies like clarinet, violin, ballet
-Show Horses and riding - especially for the girls/Polo for the boys
-Sailing
-Rowing
-Gap year
-Extensive foreign travel
Agreed
Posted from TSR Mobile
Despite the appearance of homogeneity, the upper middle class is basically made up of two entirely different tribes.
Tribe #1 is the managerial class. These are the people who hold top level executive positions in business and finance. If they are not higher echelon managers, then they are entrepreneurs who own their own small businesses. If they are the very top CEO's CFO's or owners of large scale businesses then they would be classed as upper class, not upper middle class. However, the upper middle class managers tend to vote Conservative, live further afield from central London in the more secluded semi-rural areas of the Home Counties outside the M25. They read the Times, the FT and the Telegraph. They tend to prefer Sky News over the BBC. They also tend to be greater consumers of material and luxury items over Tribe #2.
Tribe #2 is the professional class. The professional classes are highly educated people who carry much cultural capital. They are employed in the learned professions such as doctors, barristers, solicitors, university lecturers, fine artists, writers, architects, engineers, etc. They are mostly engaged in careers which provide consulting and specialised knowledge. Their jobs usually offer much autonomy, which gives them a breadth of freedom most other jobs do not enjoy. They tend to vote Liberal-Democrat and Green. However, for all their liberality on social issues they can also be very conservative and cautious on economic issues. Nevertheless, many vote Labour too, particularly those employed within the public sector. They tend to read the Guardian and the Independent. They watch news televised on the BBC overwhelmingly more than on SKY. They tend to live in more urban environments and the inner suburbs of the major cities. They also tend to reside in picturesque and quaint market, cathedral and university towns. If they do own cars then they are usually more fuel efficient than luxurious. And while most of these people descend from moneyed families of Tribe #1, they tend to forego materialism for more aesthetic pursuits. They are usually on the cutting edge of political movements and social trends. Indeed, trendiness and being seen as 'hip' is important with this tribe.
Tribe #1 is the managerial class. These are the people who hold top level executive positions in business and finance. If they are not higher echelon managers, then they are entrepreneurs who own their own small businesses. If they are the very top CEO's CFO's or owners of large scale businesses then they would be classed as upper class, not upper middle class. However, the upper middle class managers tend to vote Conservative, live further afield from central London in the more secluded semi-rural areas of the Home Counties outside the M25. They read the Times, the FT and the Telegraph. They tend to prefer Sky News over the BBC. They also tend to be greater consumers of material and luxury items over Tribe #2.
Tribe #2 is the professional class. The professional classes are highly educated people who carry much cultural capital. They are employed in the learned professions such as doctors, barristers, solicitors, university lecturers, fine artists, writers, architects, engineers, etc. They are mostly engaged in careers which provide consulting and specialised knowledge. Their jobs usually offer much autonomy, which gives them a breadth of freedom most other jobs do not enjoy. They tend to vote Liberal-Democrat and Green. However, for all their liberality on social issues they can also be very conservative and cautious on economic issues. Nevertheless, many vote Labour too, particularly those employed within the public sector. They tend to read the Guardian and the Independent. They watch news televised on the BBC overwhelmingly more than on SKY. They tend to live in more urban environments and the inner suburbs of the major cities. They also tend to reside in picturesque and quaint market, cathedral and university towns. If they do own cars then they are usually more fuel efficient than luxurious. And while most of these people descend from moneyed families of Tribe #1, they tend to forego materialism for more aesthetic pursuits. They are usually on the cutting edge of political movements and social trends. Indeed, trendiness and being seen as 'hip' is important with this tribe.
Where would someone who's parents worked for their money go.
I am not working class by any means, my mum and dad sent me to private school because they thought I was a complete slacker and wouldn't bother at my local state school.
But my mum and dad are both from working class backgrounds, neither have a degree and only just managed to put me through school.
I would say I am middle class, however I wouldn't say upper middle, also my friends are mostly what would be considered "working class" anyway, partly because my school was full of kids who were spoilt and posh and I couldn't stand them.
I am not working class by any means, my mum and dad sent me to private school because they thought I was a complete slacker and wouldn't bother at my local state school.
But my mum and dad are both from working class backgrounds, neither have a degree and only just managed to put me through school.
I would say I am middle class, however I wouldn't say upper middle, also my friends are mostly what would be considered "working class" anyway, partly because my school was full of kids who were spoilt and posh and I couldn't stand them.
Original post by Dodge-Slant-6
-Detached House (4 bedrooms+) in Home Counties - especially Surrey/Berks/Bucks
-One or both parents are high professionals, small business owners or top managers
-Money or serious cultural capital in family for at least 3 or 4 generations
-Children attend private, fee-paying schools - preferably boarding schools
-One or both parents have degrees in addition to a BA or BS (eg. MA, MS, MBA, PhD)
-Parents drive a 4 door saloon, preferably German made
-Summer home in Provence, Tuscany or Cornwall
-Winter skiing holidays in France, Switzerland or America
-Boys have names like Sebastian, Jeremy or Piers.....Girls named Jemima, Arabella, Henrietta
-Double-barrelled surname
-Kids dressed in Jack Wills/Parents attired in Boden
-Children have assigned, forced hobbies like clarinet, violin, ballet
-Show Horses and riding - especially for the girls/Polo for the boys
-Sailing
-Rowing
-Gap year
-Extensive foreign travel
-One or both parents are high professionals, small business owners or top managers
-Money or serious cultural capital in family for at least 3 or 4 generations
-Children attend private, fee-paying schools - preferably boarding schools
-One or both parents have degrees in addition to a BA or BS (eg. MA, MS, MBA, PhD)
-Parents drive a 4 door saloon, preferably German made
-Summer home in Provence, Tuscany or Cornwall
-Winter skiing holidays in France, Switzerland or America
-Boys have names like Sebastian, Jeremy or Piers.....Girls named Jemima, Arabella, Henrietta
-Double-barrelled surname
-Kids dressed in Jack Wills/Parents attired in Boden
-Children have assigned, forced hobbies like clarinet, violin, ballet
-Show Horses and riding - especially for the girls/Polo for the boys
-Sailing
-Rowing
-Gap year
-Extensive foreign travel
Haha spot on. They shop at waitrose :P
Original post by Drunken Bard
Where would someone who's parents worked for their money go.
I am not working class by any means, my mum and dad sent me to private school because they thought I was a complete slacker and wouldn't bother at my local state school.
But my mum and dad are both from working class backgrounds, neither have a degree and only just managed to put me through school.
I would say I am middle class, however I wouldn't say upper middle, also my friends are mostly what would be considered "working class" anyway, partly because my school was full of kids who were spoilt and posh and I couldn't stand them.
I am not working class by any means, my mum and dad sent me to private school because they thought I was a complete slacker and wouldn't bother at my local state school.
But my mum and dad are both from working class backgrounds, neither have a degree and only just managed to put me through school.
I would say I am middle class, however I wouldn't say upper middle, also my friends are mostly what would be considered "working class" anyway, partly because my school was full of kids who were spoilt and posh and I couldn't stand them.
From what you say, I'd agree you are probably middle, maybe even lower-middle-class. Upper middle-class people are usually in the top 10-20% of income earners. Plus the vast majority of upper-middle-class people have had monetary and/or cultural capital in their families for several generations before they were born. Most people our age would not have first hand stories of poverty in the family from grandparents or even great-grandparents if you ever been lucky enough to have known one of your more distant ancestors.
Original post by sydney_watts
Remember that while the British upper middle-class and the upper-class are two different kettles of fish, there are some similarities. For instance, Oxbridge and a handful of top tier universities such as Durham, Bristol, UCL, Kings, Imperial, and Exeter are the major universities of choice for both groups. One or two of the Scottish universities might qualify in this category too.
Both groups tend to dominate certain departments, particularly within the arts and humanities. Reading History, of course, immediately comes to mind as the typical top pick amongst the posh. History, English, Philosophy, Art History, French, etc. are normally dominated by affluent people of old-line wealth. Most lecturers in these disciplines, you will find, are usually themselves the sons and daughters of rather wealthy parents. Even in the lesser rated universities this is true to some degree, as many starting lecturers and even those with some reputation within their field will often choose to teach in provincial locations, particularly if these locales are their home base.
The major difference, of course, between the upper-class and the upper-middle-class is that the upper class may choose to work for a living, whereas the upper-middle-class must work for a living in order to maintain their lifestyle. Nevertheless, both are usually educated at the same usual list of public schools and universities. Both are virtually guaranteed secure, well-paid employment upon graduation, generally with the help of extensive family connections, and both have the means to establish themselves independently well before they reach their 30s. Therefore, this element of society reproduces itself from one generation to the next.
The typical upper-middle class girl would come from the Home Counties, most notably Surrey, Berks, or Bucks. Her father might be a barrister in the City and her mother a lecturer of English Literature at a posh university like, say Kings. She would attend an independent all-girls school (some parents would even have the means for her to board) like say, St Swithun's or St Paul's if she is a London girl. She invariable would take a gap year somewhere abroad, but nothing too extravagant, and then once she is through saving the planet she would start reading History at let's say, Magadalen College, Oxford. After graduation with a First she would most probably either go down the route toward academia or get a job with a City firm with the help of her father. Before this age of austerity she probably would have found a high profile career at the BBC or the Foreign Office.
Now, let's compare her to a upper-class girl. Daddy would be a director of a multi-national corporation where he earns millions of pounds a year to 'manage'. Mummy would be engaged in charity work. They would all live happily in a very large manse in the country, let's say Devon, Cornwall, or Gloucester. She would, of course, board at somewhere like St Swithun's or maybe one or two notches up like one of the real expensive boarding schools in Switzerland. Wherever she attends, it is automatically assumed she will board. Only upper-middle-class girls are 'Day Girls'. After graduation would come the Grand Tour around the world. If she does have any smarts she would go on to study Art History at Oxford and just bide her time till some double-barrelled chinless wonder asks for her hand in marriage. At which time she would resume the work free life of her mother, and the chinless wonder husband would take a position in one of the banks in the City.
That is your major differences between these two groups, but as I said in the beginning: there is not a hell of a lot of difference. Nevertheless, you can bet each knows their place and where they fit in.
Both groups tend to dominate certain departments, particularly within the arts and humanities. Reading History, of course, immediately comes to mind as the typical top pick amongst the posh. History, English, Philosophy, Art History, French, etc. are normally dominated by affluent people of old-line wealth. Most lecturers in these disciplines, you will find, are usually themselves the sons and daughters of rather wealthy parents. Even in the lesser rated universities this is true to some degree, as many starting lecturers and even those with some reputation within their field will often choose to teach in provincial locations, particularly if these locales are their home base.
The major difference, of course, between the upper-class and the upper-middle-class is that the upper class may choose to work for a living, whereas the upper-middle-class must work for a living in order to maintain their lifestyle. Nevertheless, both are usually educated at the same usual list of public schools and universities. Both are virtually guaranteed secure, well-paid employment upon graduation, generally with the help of extensive family connections, and both have the means to establish themselves independently well before they reach their 30s. Therefore, this element of society reproduces itself from one generation to the next.
The typical upper-middle class girl would come from the Home Counties, most notably Surrey, Berks, or Bucks. Her father might be a barrister in the City and her mother a lecturer of English Literature at a posh university like, say Kings. She would attend an independent all-girls school (some parents would even have the means for her to board) like say, St Swithun's or St Paul's if she is a London girl. She invariable would take a gap year somewhere abroad, but nothing too extravagant, and then once she is through saving the planet she would start reading History at let's say, Magadalen College, Oxford. After graduation with a First she would most probably either go down the route toward academia or get a job with a City firm with the help of her father. Before this age of austerity she probably would have found a high profile career at the BBC or the Foreign Office.
Now, let's compare her to a upper-class girl. Daddy would be a director of a multi-national corporation where he earns millions of pounds a year to 'manage'. Mummy would be engaged in charity work. They would all live happily in a very large manse in the country, let's say Devon, Cornwall, or Gloucester. She would, of course, board at somewhere like St Swithun's or maybe one or two notches up like one of the real expensive boarding schools in Switzerland. Wherever she attends, it is automatically assumed she will board. Only upper-middle-class girls are 'Day Girls'. After graduation would come the Grand Tour around the world. If she does have any smarts she would go on to study Art History at Oxford and just bide her time till some double-barrelled chinless wonder asks for her hand in marriage. At which time she would resume the work free life of her mother, and the chinless wonder husband would take a position in one of the banks in the City.
That is your major differences between these two groups, but as I said in the beginning: there is not a hell of a lot of difference. Nevertheless, you can bet each knows their place and where they fit in.
What about York?
Original post by the bear
They are white;
The older males tend to be called Geoffrey
The older females tend to be called Amelia
The older males work in the Civil Service
The older females do not work or if they do it is Good Work for charities
Their children are called Giles and Electra
They live in the Home Counties ( excluding Essex of course )
They have a labrador called Timmy
They have an amusing cottage in Normandy ( not the Dordogne of course )
....
The older males tend to be called Geoffrey
The older females tend to be called Amelia
The older males work in the Civil Service
The older females do not work or if they do it is Good Work for charities
Their children are called Giles and Electra
They live in the Home Counties ( excluding Essex of course )
They have a labrador called Timmy
They have an amusing cottage in Normandy ( not the Dordogne of course )
....
the kids got to eton and either cambridge, oxbridge or oxford
alcohol abuse and depression.
secretly they want to be top of the ladder but years of long hours and an fulfilling marriage alongside living their failed dreams through their kids have left them in a state. Usually spend most their time abusing the working class or welfare claimants even though the latter may still be happier.
secretly they want to be top of the ladder but years of long hours and an fulfilling marriage alongside living their failed dreams through their kids have left them in a state. Usually spend most their time abusing the working class or welfare claimants even though the latter may still be happier.
The British upper-middle-class are not as wealthy as they once were, as housing costs and private school fees have skyrocketed from when their parents were their age. They also work far longer hours than their parents generation. They have to live much further outside of London than the houses they were raised in. Consequently, their daily commutes are often more than an hour long train journey each way from the outer edges of the Home Counties into London Waterloo, King's Cross, St Pancreas, etc.
Original post by Dodge-Slant-6
The British upper-middle-class are not as wealthy as they once were, as housing costs and private school fees have skyrocketed from when their parents were their age. They also work far longer hours than their parents generation. They have to live much further outside of London than the houses they were raised in. Consequently, their daily commutes are often more than an hour long train journey each way from the outer edges of the Home Counties into London Waterloo, King's Cross, St Pancreas, etc.
Basically, daily life for the British upper-middle-class has gotten much harder for them over the last 30 years, as it has for nearly every other class, except the top 1%.
Original post by Dodge-Slant-6
Tribe #2 is the professional class. The professional classes are highly educated people who carry much cultural capital. They are employed in the learned professions such as doctors, barristers, solicitors, university lecturers, fine artists, writers, architects, engineers, etc. They are mostly engaged in careers which provide consulting and specialised knowledge. Their jobs usually offer much autonomy, which gives them a breadth of freedom most other jobs do not enjoy. They tend to vote Liberal-Democrat and Green. However, for all their liberality on social issues they can also be very conservative and cautious on economic issues. Nevertheless, many vote Labour too, particularly those employed within the public sector. They tend to read the Guardian and the Independent. They watch news televised on the BBC overwhelmingly more than on SKY. They tend to live in more urban environments and the inner suburbs of the major cities. They also tend to reside in picturesque and quaint market, cathedral and university towns. If they do own cars then they are usually more fuel efficient than luxurious. And while most of these people descend from moneyed families of Tribe #1, they tend to forego materialism for more aesthetic pursuits. They are usually on the cutting edge of political movements and social trends. Indeed, trendiness and being seen as 'hip' is important with this tribe.
I agree with much of this but I completely disagree with the stuff on champagne socialists voting for the bloody green party. Engineers will never vote for the green party. Most of the people you are referring to are champagne socialists who live in London and enjoy cultural pursuits, send their children to top notch state/grammar and they dare admit private schools. Many work for charities and are paid by the charities a notable salary for 'charitable work', whilst many others are journalists and lawyers. They might not care what much about cars but they still go skiing, spend a fortune on 'gourmet food' and own million pound houses. Equally they are rather obnoxious and do not know about the 'average' person - think white van man. They feel that they are socially and intellectually superior to every one else as a socialist/liberal and live in the 'westminster sphere', supporting central politics and the BBC.
Made in Chelsea (yes necromance :P)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
