[joshvm]

University funding varies wildly in the UK and it mostly correlates with ranking, at least the 'higher-up' universities generally have more disposal income to give to researchers. Unfortunately, it's a vicious circle because it's the difference between "you can go to this conference" or "we'll pay the article fee" and "we have no money, sorry". Allowing researchers those sorts of freedoms means you tend to get better researchers who can pump out more research with higher visibility.

Oxford University owns pretty much the entire historic town centre, so they're sitting on a lot of assets that aren't obviously visible (beyond the colleges).

UK universities have generally very good staff benefits. 30-35 days of leave is not uncommon, on top of public holidays and the usual academia "if nobody notices" flexitime attitude. Pay is probably a little better than the US when you compare cost of living. The US has notoriously poor PhD and Postdoc salaries and several big universities have had strike action against them. Don't confuse US institutional endowment with what trickles down to researchers.

The US does have per-diem though, which is a fantastic source of beer money when traveling. UK universities are almost always penny-pinchers for staff expenses.

[rcarr]

> University funding varies wildly in the UK and it mostly correlates with ranking, at least the 'higher-up' universities generally have more disposal income to give to researchers.

This is how the entirety of the UK works. All the funding goes to London, everywhere else gets nothing. All the laws are written to benefit the landlord and investor classes, everyone else gets nothing etc. Little recognition that the entire nation is meant to be one big tribe, barely any redistribution or attempts to raise up the failing parts. In my opinion, the ruling classes have never really abandoned their colonial mindset, and now their overseas power has waned they treat the rest of the UK as a colony of the City and Westminster.

[boygobbo]

"London’s thriving economy generates a £26.5bn surplus that is recycled by the government to provide financial help to Britain’s less well-off regions, according to an official breakdown of the public finances."

and

"Every Londoner provided £3,070 more in tax revenues than they received in public spending, while people living in the south-east ran a surplus of £1,670 per head."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-d...

[rcarr]

Yeah, because rather than investing money in other areas, all of it goes to London. It is a self perpetuating cycle. The government could take steps and provide incentives to move industries out of London like politics, media, marketing, law, IT or finance but it rarely does so.

And that “thriving economy” is in large part to the £125 billion pounds of dirty money that is flowing through London every year, not to mention selling half of the housing stock to dodgy oligarchs. It’s a crooked city.

https://www.ft.com/video/d3bafb94-9dbd-4c1e-8016-8cd8331960f...

[gmt2027]

I completely agree about the colonial mindset and an inherent bias towards self-perpetuating elitism in the UK.

[rcarr]

I’m in the process of getting rid of all my stuff and so I’m in the process of shredding old school work and it’s mad how much of is centred on the royal family, the UK military and the romans. The indoctrination starts early.

[Symbiote]

The National Curriculum (applies in England and Wales) for history:

> aims to ensure that all pupils:

> - know and understand the history of these islands as a coherent, chronological narrative, from the earliest times to the present day: how people’s lives have shaped this nation and how Britain has influenced and been influenced by the wider world

> - know and understand significant aspects of the history of the wider world: the nature of ancient civilisations; the expansion and dissolution of empires; characteristic features of past non-European societies; achievements and follies of mankind

You should have covered from the stone age right through to "Britain’s place in the world since 1945". The Romans, military and royal family are part of that.

None of that says you must approve of Roman Britain, the military or the royal family.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curricul...

[rcarr]

I can only speak for my experience but there was little discussion of events elsewhere in Europe, let alone the rest of the world, with the exception of very significant events involving the UK military such as the world wars or the withdrawal from India and even they were told from a very UK centric viewpoint.

Quite frankly, I think learning about say the conquistadors, the Ottoman Empire, the Portuguese empire, asian history etc and how that has gone on to shape the world we have today would probably be of more use than the amount of time spent dissecting the personalities of past monarchs.