23, back from travelling, and can't afford a house in London

Herzlos

But *why* are they choosing to live there? It can't be because it's the most expensive. Otherwise everyone would want to live in Dubai or Monaco.

westernpromise

Malthusian wrote: »

Your entire argument, on the other hand, is argument to the masses.

No, because people who pay London prices don't just passively believe in something. They pony up actual money. This is known as "demand", expressed as price, by which measure London is the most desirable region of the country to live in.

If other areas are more desirable, why is this not reflected in property prices? Answer: sometimes it is.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-64729105.html

You can kid yourself all you like that you live in a wonderful place that's great because it's got a Co-Op (shopping to compare with Chelsea!), a Zizzi (fine dining!) and a kids' playground (Regent's Park!). Feel free. The fact is, though, that if these were such great places to live, the price would have been bid up accordingly. As I've noted before, the fact that you can't afford somewhere doesn't mean it's horrible.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

But *why* are they choosing to live there? It can't be because it's the most expensive. Otherwise everyone would want to live in Dubai or Monaco.

Why do you expect to be able to understand why people want to live in London? If you honestly do not get why people would rather live in London than in Burnley, if you are inequipped to understand what draws people to the capital of Europe, then to explain it to you would be like trying to explain calculus to a dog.

Herzlos

When did London become the capital of Europe?

I admitted I don't entirely get it, having visited London, and I'm just asking what it's appeal is. Since you seem to reluctant to answer it sounds like you don't actually know, either, and are just suffering from a serious lack of imagination. What's keeping you in London instead of buying a small castle in Wales?

westernpromise

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

westernpromise, as an Oxbridge graduate you have fallen into the trap of assuming all other UK universities are rubbish.

No, this is just lazy redbrick non-thinking on your part.

The Russell Group are all pretty good, and in fact there about 5 times as many people who get the minimum grades required for Oxbridge as there are places there. The fact is, though, that Cambridge entrants have the highest UCAS scores of any undergraduates. They're better.

I too studied English Lit, and as a straight A student was actually advised NOT to apply to Oxbridge, but to consider a more modern course at a red brick.

Which was laughably bad advice, no doubt given you by some envy monkey who didn't get in and thus doesn't want anyone else to do so. Alternatively, you were seen as someone who could get an A in the A Level, but would be exposed by the interview and the CCE as not being sufficiently well read, which you can't fake. Or your other A Level choices weren't useful. Or you were the sort of person who needs to be top of a class of people with BBB and who couldn't hack being bottom of a class of people with A1A1A. There are lots of possible reasons, but these don't prove your redbrick was better than Oxbridge would have been.

The brightest girl in my year chose to do Medicine at Nottingham, as at the time it was the best rated med school in the country.

Rubbish, all UK medical schools are about equal and getting in to read medicine is about the same too. This guff gets trotted out all the time by people who've persuaded themselves that Hull has a really good law school or that the teaching at Keele is really good. I met someone once who'd done English literature at Crewe and Alsager Poly. She'd spend the entire 3 years on the 20th century novel, but had read fewer of them than I had, didn't know what a Leavisite was. She thought Crewe and Alsager Poly was every bit the equal of Oxbridge too, as you do.

Where there are top universities, there are good jobs, where salaries go much further than in London (where the university I work at has a serious problem in retaining good young academics due to housing costs). Liverpool has one of the country's top equine hospitals, and also a world leading tropical medicine centre. Manchester is the place for graphene research. Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield and Newcastle are popular red brick destinations for all subjects. Why be a lab technician at UCL and pay London travel and housing costs, when you could do it in a city where your wages go so much further?

People who've been to redbricks are always convinced that in fact they are much smarter and their redbrick much better than the best universities in the world. Which is fine; it's just that nobody shares that view.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

When did London become the capital of Europe?

I admitted I don't entirely get it, having visited London, and I'm just asking what it's appeal is. Since you seem to reluctant to answer it sounds like you don't actually know, either, and are just suffering from a serious lack of imagination. What's keeping you in London instead of buying a small castle in Wales?

"Now, Fido, today we're going to look at how to calculate the area under a curve."
"Woof!"

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

"Now, Fido, today we're going to look at how to calculate the area under a curve."
"Woof!"

Condescending (which isn't surprising) but not helpful. I'm you're pretending to be better than me then you'll need actually articulate your point.

Say I've just retired, £1m cash burning a hole in my pocket. Why would I chose London?

GunJack

Herzlos wrote: »

But *why* are they choosing to live there? (London).

Some of it's snobbery, misguided belief the streets are paved with gold, they've been sold a dream by someone, they really don't understand how bad it is there, it's a "multicultural paradise" or some other such guff,how expensive it is, etc., etc.

There are many reasons why people choose London, but I'm not convinced at all that most of those reasons are actually valid...

GunJack

Herzlos wrote: »

Say I've just retired, £1m cash burning a hole in my pocket. Why would I chose London?

I for one (well, and my wife for another) wouldn't...

Out,_Vile_Jelly

westernpromise wrote: »

No, this is just lazy redbrick non-thinking on your part.

I wasn't advised that an English Lit degree at a redbrick would be "better"; obviously any degree from Oxbridge has more oomph on a CV. We were told to look at the syllabus and compare the options available, and think about what we actually wanted to study, and what type of university experience we wanted. I chose my northern scum-pit as it had more on modern American fiction which I was into at the time. Another factor was that I desperately wanted to live in a big faraway city after growing up in the sticks. Four people from my small, rural state school 6th Form went to Oxbridge, but the star student definitely chose Nottingham over Oxbridge for specific reasons (consultant before she was 30).

I work at one of the UK's top rated universities and can assure you I'm aware of the differences between institutions. Our current problem is mid-career academics leaving London for less prestigious universities (usually in Germany), where their salaries allow them to buy large family homes that are much closer to work.

Three years studying the subtle complexity of human character in one of the world's most expressive languages doesn't seem to have left you with much understanding of life choices that aren't exactly the same as your own.