Perhaps it is now, but it was not always the case. At the dawn of age of reason you would have certainly needed to be independently wealthy (upper class) in order to pursue purely intellectual activities. For a time, anti-intellectualism was perhaps not as prevalent within the working class. Education was seen as a way to better ones self, people tended allotment gardens and took part in sports and cultural activities like workplace brass bands. Maybe they succeeded and their descendants are now middle class. The reality though, is largely defeat as was alluded to in this thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16272553

"Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class"

"There’s been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won"

What I've seen (and mentioned in another comment) is that the upper classes view "education" to mean private liberal arts school, not math/computers/science. I think those are viewed as too hard to pursue if you don't have to and populated by non-rich people. That's definitely a generalization and not always the case but I've seen it a lot.

I notice a sort of cognitive dissonance with them though. It's undeniable that technology is powerful and many of the richest people in the world got there through tech. I don't think "old money" has quite digested what that means to them and it generally causes discomfort.

> What I've seen (and mentioned in another comment) is that the upper classes view "education" to mean private liberal arts school, not math/computers/science. I think those are viewed as too hard to pursue if you don't have to and populated by non-rich people.

I don't think that it's about the difficulty of math/computers/science; it's about the goal of the degree. A liberal arts degree is not a vocational credential: it means that one has been taught to think (literally, the 'liberal arts' are those studies useful to a free man, not an employee). If you have a math or chemistry degree, that can still be upper-class so long as you're not intending to make your money in math or chemistry; it's when you had to study a subject so that you can afford to live that you mark yourself as not upper class.

You’re correct about gaining an education that has nothing to do with employment as a signaling device. Your comment touches on my other point though. Regardless of employment options, “thinking” in the 21st century means STEM. Not knowing how to program is similar to not knowing how to read. I do think there’s a natural aptitude required to do STEM that has no relation to class. I think that’s why we see a lot of anti-tech commentary from institutions that have traditionally branded liberal arts as the only way to “think”.

As far as I understand it, the intellectuals among the upper class were always viewed as geeks/nerds. The overwhelming majority preferred to hunt, chase skirt, fight in wars or tournaments etc. It was so because the landed gentry were descendants of actual knights/warlords who, through force, amassed the land that was later passed through generations. These people were not unlike jocks of today and like them, they looked down on "nerds" who were into intelectual pursuits.

Yes written by a liberal arts guardian journo who totally ignores that fact that elements of the working class did look down on other members of the working class.

I have certainly heard that having one set of grandparents from the working class Gran started in service and Granddad was a coalminer then a buss driver.