Judging from the response - I assume
1) British photographers are uneducated (academically speaking).
2) British photographers don't want well-educated colleagues.
3) British photographers are generally speaking not on the net.

In response, one has to say that you have missunderstood British Universities. On the whole they were a pretty elitiest establishment, doing what they wanted - and doing it rather well. Then along came the Tory government, and made all the colleges into polytechnics, and then made all the polytechnics into universities, and told the old universities to do lots of other courses, and takin in more students.

Photography interesting as it may be to you or me wasn't a real suject and so universities didn't do it, like they didn't do 'creative writing', other 'non-subjects'. The old polys and colleges did course is in this kind of thing.

Basically Universities did only non-vocational (except medicine & civil-engineering) courses. Polys and Colleges did mainly vocational courses.

Note I use the past tense. The whole system is undergoing radical changes from the unfair elitiest system to an expensive lowest commom denominator system.

Thus:

1 most photographers are either non-old-university educated, or educated in something non-vocational.

2 who cares about letters, it the quality of the picture that counts

3 New Universitis ( the old Polys and colleges) are not as not as well represented on the net as old Universities. And "arts" people are less well represented than science.