What can you tell me about St. Andrew's?

[Anonymous]

Middlebury is a college. St Andrews is a university. Talk to kids at UCLA and ask them if they know the name of their “advisor”.

[Anonymous]

St Andrews has about 5,000 students. Middlebury is a closer match to St Andrews than UCLA. But ok- let’s ask UCLA families if they would have chosen UCLA if it had an unforgiving academic UK style syllabus vs -let’s say- Northwestern? What’s the upside? The town is so pretty, and the prospect of going abroad is so exciting, these details fall by the wayside sometimes.

[Anonymous]

If you have more opportunities for your work to be graded and evaluated, it offers a different approach to mastery in a subject. Sure - lots of European undergraduate programs are this way. That’s my point. But we are talking about St Andrews which is recruiting heaps of Americans to help pay their bills. Americans who have been raised in a different academic environment. Not saying better or worse. Different. And you absolutely do lose points toward your final grade for skipping classes at “serious” universities, so attendance could in theory make or break a final grade.

[Anonymous]

Colgate is a University!

[Anonymous]

St Andrews does not offer an engineering degree fwiw

[Anonymous]

Are European degrees from their “serious” schools actually more impressive than those from comparable schools in the States, because their approach favors those who ace just two tests? Europe doesn’t seem like a hotbed of innovation lately- isn’t tourism their biggest industry at this point? Consider whether the American approach, which doesn't give up on students as easily, might be right for your kid. Some kids do fine in either environment.

[Anonymous]

does any college really count attendance? that's new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are European degrees from their “serious” schools actually more impressive than those from comparable schools in the States, because their approach favors those who ace just two tests? Europe doesn’t seem like a hotbed of innovation lately- isn’t tourism their biggest industry at this point? Consider whether the American approach, which doesn't give up on students as easily, might be right for your kid. Some kids do fine in either environment.

eh, we have the covid vaccine and ozempic bcs of European innovation. which matters to me!

[Anonymous]

Vaccinated AND skinny? Interestingly the covid vaccine isn’t available in the UK to those under the age of 75 this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:does any college really count attendance? that's new.

Look up “student attendance” on Harvard’s website, for example. If you aren’t there, your grade suffers. So much hand holding! Lol

[Anonymous]

Harvard and St Andrews are not comparable, btw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the relevance is that no college really supports kids with medical issues. My niece had a medical issue that was botched at a T5 school - but then again, what do we expect really? Schools are not hospitals. There are medical services outside the campus walls. Even my sister told my niece, do not bother with a health center for REAL ISSUES. That's for condoms and flu vaccines.

So while I'm sympathetic to issues at St Andrews, I dont think it's unique to that one school.

[b]And yet, their new mission statement says they are. They also require students to use their student services center if they are hoping to get a medical excuse from a class. Parents are out of the loop a thousand miles away. GPAs head south quickly of you only have two grades for the entire semester. The American University system is more flexible and progressive.

Colleges like St. Andrews can say anything they want. Mission statements are worthless. You have to dig deep to find out the truth. The PP above who said you can't transfer back easily is spot on because there is no concept of a core currciulum at british schools like there is in America. we take it for granted that your kid is usually going to get a "liberal arts education or at least have a required foundational set of classes. That is not true in the British system. It's assumed that you already have that (and generally British students do have that by the time they reach this level) so you are studying only the subject you've proposed to read on from that point forward.

Keep hearing this bolded canard, and it is simply untrue. The last 2 years of high school, college-bound Brits take 3 subjects; US high school kids take 10. Most Brits don’t even take a foreign language past what would be US tenth grade — let alone four years of science in high school. Brits specialize in college because they have already specialized in high school — not because they have already done a core, but precisely because they have never done one.

I thought British students did 13 years of high school, taking 10 subjects for their GCSEs in the third last year and then 3 or 4 A levels in the final two. Sounds like they do take a broad range of subjects and then specialise. Frankly, I think this system works great for kids who have strong interests or know what they want to do. They develop much deeper skills. Not so great for the all-rounder who isn’t sure though. But guess it’s a good thing American high schoolers take a foreign language past year 10 but I know very few Americans who can speak a foreign language well do not sure there’s a huge benefit. Similarly, what’s the benefit of doing four years of science if that’s not where your abilities or interests lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are European degrees from their “serious” schools actually more impressive than those from comparable schools in the States, because their approach favors those who ace just two tests? Europe doesn’t seem like a hotbed of innovation lately- isn’t tourism their biggest industry at this point? Consider whether the American approach, which doesn't give up on students as easily, might be right for your kid. Some kids do fine in either environment.

Tourism is the biggest industry? Might be good to go a bit of reading before you post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My friend is a tenured professor there. Has been for a while.

I've seen her change from a snarky, critical thinker into someone who parrots the academic liberal party lines on all things gender and colonial. While I don't disagree with the heart of her opinions (I think we're mostly all against homophobia and invading other nations), the way she's become the kind of person who constantly centers oppression in trauma in every single conversation about anything is distressing. And it makes her impossible to talk to. In her eyes, just by virtue of me being American, (so is she) I'm a jingoist oppressor, probably to the right of Trump. Oh, but she hates Biden too, etc. You know the type.

And don't get me started on how she talks about Scottish nationalism. (She's not Scottish.) If you think Americans are bad, wait til she brings up the English. (She's not English.)

This is interesting. I know two women like this—one a professor here in DC and another an educator in nyc. Very strange to see these transformations— agree with the above completely that I don’t disagree with the sentiment but weird that they have been almost brainwashed to discuss everything in those specific terms.

[Anonymous]

Maybe it’s American imports?