Article in the Observer (Politics)

[Sidney1st]

What is it about the degree that you find bizarre? Beyond the fact that it exists of course. And can we call it by it's proper name instead of the propagandised name CM wants to call it? BA Hons Sociology

Sociology is something I've never understood either, but I know enough people who chose it at high school because it was either trendy to do it or perceived to be easy ( not sure that was true though on how easy it was).

Personally it wasn't my thing, but I do often wonder how many people use their sociology qualifications for their actual intended purpose.

[Imploding Turtle]

I tend to let a lot of your guff slide past me, because you're busy running around trying to be cleverer then everyone else, but if it keeps you happy then who am I to argue.

I'm still open to reasonable conversation, but there will be times when I poke you with the verbal stick for the reaction.

By all means poke me, just don't lie about me.

[CrosspoolClarets]

We're all guilty of being too simplistic in our judgements over things like who voted for Brexit and what influenced the vote - the pollsters encourage it with their simplistic variables such as degree or not, social status, age etc.

I commented yesterday that far more variables come into play about the influence of third parties, I do worry about targeted social media messages, especially misleading ones, but I also worry about the establishment twisting reality too, such as the Treasury and the leaders of each and every party in the Brexit vote. I personally believe we are a Eurosceptic nation and we would have voted 60% Leave with no external influences at all feeding us, I think Osbourne's negativity had a big influence, it swayed several of my friends to vote Remain when they were originally the other way.

In the analysis of who voted for Brexit the thing that I notice is that in educational attainment a 22 year old holding a degree is considered superior to a 45 year old like me who doesn't have one (though I'm now a qualified accountant so I suppose I'm not a good example). Right or wrong, experience has probably more influence on voting than intellect, and when I was 22 I had it all to do to even say where each country in Europe was, let alone choose whether to leave the EU. I'd probably have said Remain if I was 22 today without being exposed to a quarter of a century of continual integration since my 22nd birthday (which I have been).

That's why I chuckle when clowns like Clegg say young people wanted to Remain - if every election was only 18-30 year olds we'd live in a socialist paradise so the country would look very different. It would be a very useful experiment (as long as it waits until I've emigrated).

[Sidney1st]

By all means poke me, just don't lie about me.

I don't tend to lie on here.

You do make valid points a lot of the time, when you're not busy implying all leave voters are stupid.
I do actually read what people put, I even go and have a little google if I something gets my attention and I've learnt a lot on various subjects on this forum.

[Imploding Turtle]

Sociology is something I've never understood either, but I know enough people who chose it at high school because it was either trendy to do it or perceived to be easy ( not sure that was true though on how easy it was).

Personally it wasn't my thing, but I do often wonder how many people use their sociology qualifications for their actual intended purpose.

Quite a few, probably. http://sociology.ucdavis.edu/undergradu ... er-options" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When i left school Media Studies was the goto "easy" degree but i've no reason to believe it actually was easy. I'd expect the drop-out rates are higher than other dergees, but i think those who actually go on to gain these degrees deserve as much respect as anyone else with a degree at the same level.

Degrees take a lot of hard work, and you're required to use skills such as sourcing information, fact-checking it, and referencing it in order to acheive them (even in so-called "easy" degrees), which is why degree-educated voters matter in opinion polls, particularly in politics, because they as more likely to use the skills that got them their degree to inform themselves in a non-academic setting than non-degree educated people who may or may not have these skills.

So CM can scoff all he wants at modern degree-holders being included in opinion polls, and DSR can try to bring into question their relevence based on there being more degree educated voters among the young than the old, but that means diddly-squat because neither seem to understand why these people matter to pollsters.

[claretdom]

Travel & Tourism was the in fashion one when I left quickly followed by leisure studies

[ClaretMoffitt]

Quite a few, probably. http://sociology.ucdavis.edu/undergradu ... er-options" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When i left school Media Studies was the goto "easy" degree but i've no reason to believe it actually was easy. I'd expect the drop-out rates are higher than other dergees, but i think those who actually go on to gain these degrees deserve as much respect as anyone else with a degree at the same level.

Degrees take a lot of hard work, and you're required to use skills such as sourcing information, fact-checking it, and referencing it in order to acheive them (even in so-called "easy" degrees), which is why degree-educated voters matter in opinion polls, particularly in politics, because they as more likely to use the skills that got them their degree to inform themselves in a non-academic setting than non-degree educated people who may or may not have these skills.

So CM can scoff all he wants at modern degree-holders being included in opinion polls, and DSR can try to bring into question their relevence based on there being more degree educated voters among the young than the old, but that means diddly-squat because neither seem to understand why these people matter to pollsters.

They don't matter to pollsters, to them it is just data. They matter to bias propaganda rags, politicians and media outlets who want to skewer the information in order to paint a particular narrative. Kind of like;

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/07/if-you-vo ... s-6433145/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/e ... 2d331dac8f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/bre ... just-poor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vo ... ortunities" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


It all helps to paint a narrative or these poor, uneducated, narrow minded thick old racists blocking a progressive, inclusive and open future for a more idealistic, intelligent and well traveled youth.

Hell, I think even I'm starting to hate those god dam old, dumb bigots now.

[Imploding Turtle]

They don't matter to pollsters, to them it is just data. They matter to bias propaganda rags, politicians and media outlets who want to skewer the information in order to paint a particular narrative. Kind of like;

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/07/if-you-vo ... s-6433145/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/e ... 2d331dac8f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/bre ... just-poor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vo ... ortunities" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


It all helps to paint a narrative or these poor, uneducated, narrow minded thick old racists blocking a progressive, inclusive and open future for a more idealistic, intelligent and well traveled youth.

Hell, I think even I'm starting to hate those god dam old, dumb bigots now.

You've used examples of bad journalists mis-using data to prove that the it's the data that is lying, not that they're bad journalists.

Statistics don't lie. It's a myth that they do. It's the people that use them badly who are lying (or wrong).

[ClaretMoffitt]

You've used examples of bad journalists mis-using data to prove that the it's the data that is lying, not that they're bad journalists.

Statistics don't lie. It's a myth that they do. It's the people that use them badly who are lying (or wrong).

Is that not exactly what I just said?

[aggi]

This was an interesting table, particularly that 71% of Leave voters thought that the Internet was a force for ill, maybe they were right!

[Imploding Turtle]

Is that not exactly what I just said?

No. You said the category doesn't matter to pollsters, when it does. You then said it mattered to people who want to skew the findings of an opinion poll and offered no suggestion that you didn't think that these were the only people it mattered to.

The category matters. It allows the the poll reader to understand more about how informed an opinion the people polled is likely to have. Degree-educated voters are more likely to be more informed than only high school educated voters, for example. But you offered no indication that you cared about this. All you seemed to want to do is try to smear all pollsters and all polls as improperly categorising their data, and you did this based on how some news organisations chose to present the opinion poll.

[ClaretMoffitt]

No. You said the category doesn't matter to pollsters, when it does. You then said it mattered to people who want to skew the findings of an opinion poll and offered no suggestion that you didn't think that these were the only people it mattered to.

The category matters. It allows the the poll reader to understand more about how informed an opinion the people polled is likely to have. Degree-educated voters are more likely to be more informed than only high school educated voters, for example. But you offered no indication that you cared about this. All you seemed to want to do is try to smear all pollsters and all polls as improperly categorising their data, and you did this based on how some news organisations chose to present the opinion poll.

I think it's pretty obvious from my point I was never calling the pollsters themselves into question, nor was I questioning the data. My post was simply a rant about the negative perceptions and narratives being spouted by public figures, liberal rags and some politicians. I honestly dont even get what you are ranting about here. Legit.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think it's pretty obvious from my point I was never calling the pollsters themselves into question, nor was I questioning the data. My post was simply a rant about the negative perceptions and narratives being spouted by public figures, liberal rags and some politicians. I honestly dont even get what you are ranting about here. Legit.

Liberal rags? When tabloids skew data is it only the time the ones you disagree with skew it that you care about the misuse of data?

Stop reading tabloids, or at least stop trusting them.

[Paul Waine]

The category matters. It allows the the poll reader to understand more about how informed an opinion the people polled is likely to have. Degree-educated voters are more likely to be more informed than only high school educated voters, for example.

Hi IT, I take a strong objection to your view that a degree educated person is likely to have a more informed opinion on matters that don't pertain to their degree than someone who hasn't got a degree in any subject.

Yes, education is important and beneficial. However, there are many subjects that I know people who haven't got a degree will be better informed about than I might be. Whatever you've studied at college/uni, however good your degree, however good your university does not give that degree educated person a more informed opinion than anyone else.

With your line of thought it won't be long before you are proposing that people with degrees should get an extra vote compared with those that don't have degrees. (They used to do this with land/property owners and more recently with gender - and in other countries with the colour of the potential voters skin).

I'm arguing this from the point of people of the same age. A lot more people attend uni today than were able to attend 20 and more years ago. I wouldn't assume that someone over 45 who didn't attend university (because there weren't that many places) has not got any less valid an opinion on any subject than someone who is under 25 and just out of uni.

[Damo]

Nothing i've ever said implies I believe either position. But keep spreading lies, it doesn't make you look bad at all.

Yeah you have never said anything of the sort. Ever

[Greenmile]

I've given up actually attempting to educate you but it's nice to know you picked up at least a few snippets of knowledge. Well done.

Something which you evidently learned from me in this thread...

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... &start=100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(see posts 107 & 109)

...so you might want to tone down the arrogance a bit.

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, I take a strong objection to your view that a degree educated person is likely to have a more informed opinion on matters that don't pertain to their degree than someone who hasn't got a degree in any subject.

Yes, education is important and beneficial. However, there are many subjects that I know people who haven't got a degree will be better informed about than I might be. Whatever you've studied at college/uni, however good your degree, however good your university does not give that degree educated person a more informed opinion than anyone else.

With your line of thought it won't be long before you are proposing that people with degrees should get an extra vote compared with those that don't have degrees. (They used to do this with land/property owners and more recently with gender - and in other countries with the colour of the potential voters skin).

I'm arguing this from the point of people of the same age. A lot more people attend uni today than were able to attend 20 and more years ago. I wouldn't assume that someone over 45 who didn't attend university (because there weren't that many places) has not got any less valid an opinion on any subject than someone who is under 25 and just out of uni.

Do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

All else being equal, someone who has demonstrated, in academia, that they are skilled in researching and fact checking information to the level required to gain a degree is more likely to use those skills elsewhere than someone who might even have those skills in the first place.

This is pretty basic probability theory and I'm sure you're smart enough to know that the statement is true. If not then I don't know how to help you.

[Sidney1st]

Are they more likely to trawl through information to see if things are correct?
Yes, there is a higher chance.

Does it mean they're more likely to vote the 'right' way?
Depends on your definition of right.

I know well educated degree carrying people who voted leave....

[Imploding Turtle]

Are they more likely to trawl through information to see if things are correct?
Yes, there is a higher chance.

And that's all I've said.

[Sidney1st]

And that's all I've said.

They could still come to decision you don't agree with though.
Plenty probably did too.

[Paul Waine]

Do you or do you not agree with the following statement:

All else being equal, someone who has demonstrated, in academia, that they are skilled in researching and fact checking information to the level required to gain a degree is more likely to use those skills elsewhere than someone who might even have those skills in the first place.

This is pretty basic probability theory and I'm sure you're smart enough to know that the statement is true. If not then I don't know how to help you.

Hi IT, did you mean to type "someone who might even have those skills in the first place" - or did you miss out the negative, and meant to type "who might not even have those skills in the first place?"

You don't get it do you. Just because someone has gained a degree and has learnt a bit about researching and "fact checking" doesn't mean that that is the only way to gain those skills. There are many other ways people can learn these skills, they aren't exclusively learnt at uni.

And, I know you've said "all else being equal" even though there are a great many variables in all our lives and opportunities.

Are you claiming that a uni educated 25 year old is a better judge of something than a 30 year old who didn't attend uni? Never mind someone of 40 or 50 or 60 or more years of "life experience." I can never agree with this view.

As I've said, our democracy is too precious to allow any view that someone with a degree is necessarily better at voting than someone who hasn't.

Why do you claim that democracy can discriminate by educational qualification - but would no longer suggest that discrimination on so many other grounds is acceptable?

[Imploding Turtle]

They could still come to decision you don't agree with though.
Plenty probably did too.

That's untrue. Of those who voted over 70% of those who hold a degree-level qualification voted to remain.

[Sidney1st]

So 30% didn't vote remain or am I misreading that?
Is 30% not plenty anymore, or doesn't it suit your side of it to consider they are plenty?

Did they get the educational achievements of everyone who voted then?
Was there a little box somewhere you had to tick confirming your supposed level of intelligence before you voted?

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, did you mean to type "someone who might even have those skills in the first place" - or did you miss out the negative, and meant to type "who might not even have those skills in the first place?"

You don't get it do you. Just because someone has gained a degree and has learnt a bit about researching and "fact checking" doesn't mean that that is the only way to gain those skills. There are many other ways people can learn these skills, they aren't exclusively learnt at uni.

...

Yes, there should be a 'not' there. The fact that you understood what I was trying to say there means what followed is even more baffling, because that sentence refuses your assertion that I'm saying it's not possible to learn those skills without a degree.

What on earth have I said that has led you to the conclusion that I don't think it's possible to acquire those skills without a degree? No fair reading of anything I've said should lead you to such a conclusion.

[Sidney1st]

Probably your insistence that those with degrees will have better research abilities therefore they will have voted the way you think is the better way.

[Imploding Turtle]

So 30% didn't vote remain or am I misreading that?
Is 30% not plenty anymore, or doesn't it suit your side of it to consider they are plenty?

Did they get the educational achievements of everyone who voted then?
Was there a little box somewhere you had to tick confirming your supposed level of intelligence before you voted?

I misread your post.

[Imploding Turtle]

Are you claiming that a uni educated 25 year old is a better judge of something than a 30 year old who didn't attend uni? Never mind someone of 40 or 50 or 60 or more years of "life experience." I can never agree with this view.

As I've said, our democracy is too precious to allow any view that someone with a degree is necessarily better at voting than someone who hasn't.

Why do you claim that democracy can discriminate by educational qualification - but would no longer suggest that discrimination on so many other grounds is acceptable?

I don't mean to come across as a dick with this post but I'm going to.

I recommend you stop trying to read beyond what I've actually said. Certainly not while you keep getting even that wrong because my post wasn't about who is or isn't a better judge of anything. It was about who is more likely to be better informed. This means nothing more than exactly that. I'm not saying that stupid people didn't vote remain, I'm not saying uneducated people can't be well informed. I'm not saying well informed people only voted remain. I meant exactly what I said so please stop starting questions with "are you saying..." and then asking if I'm saying something I quite clearly didn't say, because the answer will probably be no.

[Imploding Turtle]

Probably your insistence that those with degrees will have better research abilities therefore they will have voted the way you think is the better way.

Is this you poking me again with a post you know isn't true?

[Sidney1st]

You keep making the point that people with degrees are better at researching information.

You've also made the point that better educated people voted the same way you happen to think is the right way.

You can see how I came up with my comment can't you?

[Paul Waine]

I don't mean to come across as a dick with this post but I'm going to.

I recommend you stop trying to read beyond what I've actually said. Certainly not while you keep getting even that wrong because my post wasn't about who is or isn't a better judge of anything. It was about who is more likely to be better informed. This means nothing more than exactly that. I'm not saying that stupid people didn't vote remain, I'm not saying uneducated people can't be well informed. I'm not saying well informed people only voted remain. I meant exactly what I said so please stop starting questions with "are you saying..." and then asking if I'm saying something I quite clearly didn't say, because the answer will probably be no.

OK, so who is more likely to be better informed, a 25 year old who has been to uni and got a degree or someone who has lived a few more years and has a lot more life experience?

I'm not saying anyone who voted was "stupid." I'm happy that both "in" and "out" votes were equally in the quality of the information the voters had and equal in their educational capabilities and there ability to understand what they were voting for (or against).

And, as for "are you saying" please see your post when you said (I paraphrase) "I missed out not."

No insults. No name calling. Thank you.

[Hipper]

What the OP's article is claiming (along with the Panorama programme about Facebook) is that an organisation can collect a lot of data about individuals from their internet activities and then using some algorithm determine aspects of their decision making behaviour. They can then target such individuals and influence their decisions. In the political arena, this means affecting their choice of vote.

What the article did not do is prove this works. It did not find any individual that admitted that they voted a particular way because of some internet input they received.

It reminds me of the advertising industry that makes claims to influence our behaviour. They do of course but can they affect our choices predictably. From what I've read about the advertising industry they don't really know what they are doing but they are doing something.

[Spiral]

Hipper, I think there's a graver concern over the way in which micro-targeting can theoretically facilitate the proliferation of demonstrably fake news stories as witnessed in the US election and the flaws in the designs of social media that oftentimes mean these stories go unchallenged. I don't think it's unreasonable to have concerns that extend beyond advertisements.

FWIW, this forum is great for politics precisely because you hear a tonne of different points of view. I only wish that people didn't use the 'foe' function. A few days ago someone (cant remember who) was called a troll by someone else (can't remember who) despite the post being fairly reasonable-at least I thought so, told they were foe'd and that they shouldn't respond. It's childish. It's basically burying your head in the sand.

[Sidney1st]

That probably involved KRBFC on one side Spiral.

I think someone mentioned KRBFC was a troll and they'd been foe'd.

[dsr]

Right, I've done some sums now.

The proportion of the people who have degrees is heavily skewed towards the young. Stats based on the proportion of people who went to university or similar in 2007, 1997, 1987 etc:

2007 - 38% = 3.2 million people
1997 - 33% = 2.8 million people
1987 - 15% = 1.3 million people
1977 - 13% = 1.1 million people
1967 - 11% = 0.9 million people
1957 - 5% = 0.4 million people

Percentages come from quora.com. The millions of people are the number of people in 6 more or less equally sized groups of the electorate, who have degrees. The year is their approximate date they were at university to the nearest 5 years. Total 9.7 million people with degrees.

And the Brexit voting by age group:

18-24 - 75% Remain
25-49 - 56% Remain
50-65 - 44% Remain
66 + - 39% Remain.

Source - New Statesman.

So here's the sum:
young ones - 3.2m degree educated x 75% = 2.4 million vote Remain
youngish - 2.8m x 56% = 1.57 million vote remain
next group - 1.3m x 56% = 0.73 million vote remain
then 1.1m x 44% = 0.48 million vote remain
then 0.9m x 44% = 0.40 million vote remain
and the oldies 0.4m x 39% = 0.16 million vote remain

Add up the totals, and that makes 5.74 million people with degrees voting remian, if they all vote exactly in accordance with the rest of their age group. That's 5.74m out of 9.7m, or 59%.

So we look at how many did vote Remain - source, BBC, quoting a poll by Lord Ashcroft. He had 57% of graduates voted Remain. That's pretty close to what we would expect, if they all voted in the same proportion as non-graduates of the same age. These figures are obviously approximate, but they also fit what we would intuitively expect. It means the majority of graduates voted Remain because they were young, and young people voted Remain. It does not mean the majority of intelligent people voted Remain.

As I said earlier in the thread, it would be equally possible to prove that people that can run 100 yards in 15 seconds were more likely to vote Remain. Not because they can run, but because they are young. Graduates voted Remain, not because they are clever, but because they are young.

[brigante]

You've forgotten to account for voter turnout by age group. I believe turnout was significantly higher in higher age bands, which undermines your analysis.

[dsr]

You've forgotten to account for voter turnout by age group. I believe turnout was significantly higher in higher age bands, which undermines your analysis.

I couldn't find any reliable source for that. Sky came out with a survey showing under 30's only turned out to about 35%, but that was shot down later and they backtracked a bit by saying that was a poll of intentions, not an exit poll. I think in the end the margin wasn't all that great, but I'd welcome any actual numbers.

[Spiral]

I've just seen this posted on Reddit. (Forgive me for re-posting from a social media bubble-I'm aware it undermines my point about bubbles.)



It perhaps underscores the point I was making a while ago about certain parts of the electorate being whipped into a fervour about that which they previously had little knowledge or interest. Ipsos MORI is a credible polling source. More credible than my anecdotal evidence.

*I'm aware 'importance' doesn't necessarily equate to 'vote leave'; many remain voters undoubtedly viewed being a part of the EU as being important in the months leading up to the referendum and the graph doesn't chart voter intentions, but what is indisputable is the players involved in making this an issue worthy of a referendum (Farage and his associates mentioned in the article) did so from a 'leave' platform.

[Imploding Turtle]

You keep making the point that people with degrees are better at researching information.

You've also made the point that better educated people voted the same way you happen to think is the right way.

You can see how I came up with my comment can't you?

I didn't say that at all. The only way you could have come up with your comment is if you're trolling, or don't understand English.

Someone with a degree is more likely to use their research skills to inform themselves than someone who doesn't have a degree. This is not the same as " people with degrees are better at researching information". I've been really ******* careful about making this point so that people can't read it and twist what i'm saying into something else in order to criticise me, but you've done a great job of doing that anyway.

If you and Paul can't read my posts without imagining i'm saying something other than what is in my post then you should save us all some time and ignore my posts.

[vinrogue]

Oh heck, I have tried to understand all this and found myself wondering if people with a Degree are as implied more able to research information to come to a conclusion on a topic, what proportion of Labour voters/supporters have degrees and what proportion of Tory voters/supporters have degrees is it 50/50? Where is this debate taking us?

I nailed my educational achievements as leaving school with a 25 yard swimming certificate from Nelson Baths.

[Sidney1st]

I didn't say that at all. The only way you could have come up with your comment is if you're trolling, or don't understand English.

Someone with a degree is more likely to use their research skills to inform themselves than someone who doesn't have a degree. This is not the same as " people with degrees are better at researching information". I've been really ******* careful about making this point so that people can't read it and twist what i'm saying into something else in order to criticise me, but you've done a great job of doing that anyway.

If you and Paul can't read my posts without imagining i'm saying something other than what is in my post then you should save us all some time and ignore my posts.

So a person with a degree is more likely to use their skills to research?
So the 30% of voting graduates who voted leave, did they use their skills or not?
Did the 70% who voted to stay use their skills or not?

You don't really know if Degree holding people actually used their skills, you're suggesting they were more likely, but it's not guaranteed.

I don't have a degree, so I'm aware you probably think I'm stupid or of lower intelligence than someone with a degree, but I think you're making some leaps of faith assuming its more likely a person with a degree went off and investigated everything before voting last year.

[Imploding Turtle]

So a person with a degree is more likely to use their skills to research?

Yes, because they're more likely to have them since we know that they do. How is this difficult to grasp?

[Sidney1st]

Yes, because they're more likely to have them since we know that they do. How is this difficult to grasp?

Thanks for ignoring the rest of it though.

I'm guessing the 30% who voted leave didn't use their research skills to your liking?

[Imploding Turtle]

Thanks for ignoring the rest of it though.

I'm guessing the 30% who voted leave didn't use their research skills to your liking?

To my liking? No. But that doesn't mean they didn't make an informed decision or that their decision was wrong.
I'll ask again, what the **** about this is difficult to understand? Why are you trying to find something objectionable about my opinion when there so obviously (to anyone who isn't a salty little trigger-kitten) isn't anything objectionable?

[Sidney1st]

To my liking? No. But that doesn't mean they didn't make an informed decision or that their decision was wrong.
I'll ask again, what the **** about this is difficult to understand? Why are you trying to find something objectionable about my opinion when there so obviously (to anyone who isn't a salty little trigger-kitten) isn't anything objectionable?

I just object to you pretty much labelling people without a degree as uninformed, because I think it makes you look like an arrogant dick.

Which part of that are you struggling with?

Degree's are pretty much meaningless unless it's being used for the job it was intended for.

It doesn't necessarily make them better at research, it means they've studied to pass an exam.
The majority of people have studied to pass an exam and had to do basic research at school/college for GCES's, A-levels and various non-degree college courses.
You haven't factored that in though, you're just busy waving the degree angle of it, whilst looking like a bit of a helmet.

[Damo]

There are many factors why somebody with a degree would more likely vote remain. For example, they may have spent more time with European people who have chosen the UK to study. They may have spent more time in European countries while studying. There are many degrees that factor European culture (European nursing etc). The idea that someone with a degree is more to have researched the outcome of their vote, and is therefore more informed, or more intelligent than someone without a degree is laughable. Especially considering some of the degrees on offer 6 or 7 years ago.
It's like saying Millionaires are more likely to vote Tory because they have a better understanding of the future or they have a better work ethic.

[Imploding Turtle]

I just object to you pretty much labelling people without a degree as uninformed, because I think it makes you look like an arrogant dick.

OK. object to it all you like but i didn't do that. So kindly go **** yourself.

It doesn't necessarily make them better at research, it means they've studied to pass an exam.

No. It means much more than just studying to pass an exam. I think with most degrees exams make up a minority of your final grade.

[brigante]

"Someone with a degree is more likely to use their research skills to inform themselves than someone who doesn't have a degree."

This is just conjecture and wrongly assumes people without degrees haven't done other things in life that require or motivate research or understand the value of such.

For what it's worth, I think a number of people who voted leave were pretty intelligent and were equally capable of research but, in my opinion, were happy to vote on the basis of emotion and nostalgia rather than rationality and research. I'd also suggest that their current position in life and where they live was a greater influence over their desire to research than was the level of their education in many instances (and those things aren't necessarily correlated).

[Imploding Turtle]