How do Americans view universities abroad such as McGill, St Andrews, or similar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McGill is the bomb.

+1

I'm biased because I did undergrad in Canada, but the University of Toronto and UBC also rank very highly. Plenty of students go from those schools to top graduate and professional programs in the US and globally - I had a great experience and had no difficulty coming back and getting into grad school or finding work. Saved thousands of dollars, too.

[Anonymous]

I'm a professor and I have friends who've been at McGill as well as many other canadian, european, and asian schools. Within academia we all understand where schools generally fall in terms of prestige and research reputation, but the reality is that MOST Americans would be hard pressed even to name the top 1 or 2 schools in ANY country, including Canada. The one exception is probably Oxford and Cambridge. Peking University? What's that? Toronto? Never heard of it. Forget about McGill entirely

[Anonymous]

I work for an international company (non-US based) with offices all over the world. Worked with people from all over. I would take a kid from a top 30 US university over any others any day. That admission process you do not like is what makes people better executives.

Would I hire someone in US that went to one of those places? Sure. But no leg up and maybe a bias outside of DC and NY against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work for an international company (non-US based) with offices all over the world. Worked with people from all over. I would take a kid from a top 30 US university over any others any day. That admission process you do not like is what makes people better executives.

Would I hire someone in US that went to one of those places? Sure. But no leg up and maybe a bias outside of DC and NY against.

You're everything that's wrong with the American undergrad system.

When excellent students get rejected from top universities, you end up hiring from a smaller pool of potentially great candidates. The people who knock on your door are the academically strong students accepted by top schools. You're not seeing, or you're perhaps rejecting, the academically strong that were passed over in favor of someone with an "interesting" profile, because that someone with an interesting profile isn't going to be successful enough to come and apply at your company.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, basically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a professor and I have friends who've been at McGill as well as many other canadian, european, and asian schools. Within academia we all understand where schools generally fall in terms of prestige and research reputation, but the reality is that MOST Americans would be hard pressed even to name the top 1 or 2 schools in ANY country, including Canada. The one exception is probably Oxford and Cambridge. Peking University? What's that? Toronto? Never heard of it. Forget about McGill entirely

So if someone applied to grad school with a degree from a well-known university abroad, you'd give them due consideration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work for an international company (non-US based) with offices all over the world. Worked with people from all over. I would take a kid from a top 30 US university over any others any day. That admission process you do not like is what makes people better executives.

Would I hire someone in US that went to one of those places? Sure. But no leg up and maybe a bias outside of DC and NY against.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As places rich kids who couldn't get into American schools with similar pedigrees can buy their way into (especially St. Andrews, not so much McGill)

1. They're not more expensive than any 60K+ American college, for which a lot of DCUM families are already paying.

2. St Andrews ranks significantly higher than McGill, but McGill is nothing to sneeze at.

3. Stellar academics = admittance. This is a refreshing alternative for students who don't want to be played by American exceptionalism re: extra-curriculars, geographic weight, and being pushed aside for athletes, legacies and kids of big donors.

Full pay won’t help you at any comparable American school, British schools need foreigners paying full freight. Look at people you know who went to at Andrew’s- it’s probably rich kids who had a good time in high school

Those rich and happy kids are also HIGH SCORERS with HIGH GPAs to get into St Andrews.

not really, their requirements are far below comparable US schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As places rich kids who couldn't get into American schools with similar pedigrees can buy their way into (especially St. Andrews, not so much McGill)

1. They're not more expensive than any 60K+ American college, for which a lot of DCUM families are already paying.

2. St Andrews ranks significantly higher than McGill, but McGill is nothing to sneeze at.

3. Stellar academics = admittance. This is a refreshing alternative for students who don't want to be played by American exceptionalism re: extra-curriculars, geographic weight, and being pushed aside for athletes, legacies and kids of big donors.

Full pay won’t help you at any comparable American school, British schools need foreigners paying full freight. Look at people you know who went to at Andrew’s- it’s probably rich kids who had a good time in high school

Those rich and happy kids are also HIGH SCORERS with HIGH GPAs to get into St Andrews.

not really, their requirements are far below comparable US schools

Sorry, the schools you disparage so casually rank much higher in all global rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As places rich kids who couldn't get into American schools with similar pedigrees can buy their way into (especially St. Andrews, not so much McGill)

1. They're not more expensive than any 60K+ American college, for which a lot of DCUM families are already paying.

2. St Andrews ranks significantly higher than McGill, but McGill is nothing to sneeze at.

3. Stellar academics = admittance. This is a refreshing alternative for students who don't want to be played by American exceptionalism re: extra-curriculars, geographic weight, and being pushed aside for athletes, legacies and kids of big donors.

Full pay won’t help you at any comparable American school, British schools need foreigners paying full freight. Look at people you know who went to at Andrew’s- it’s probably rich kids who had a good time in high school

Those rich and happy kids are also HIGH SCORERS with HIGH GPAs to get into St Andrews.

good for them, it has nothing to do with undergraduate education, but good for them

not really, their requirements are far below comparable US schools

Sorry, the schools you disparage so casually rank much higher in all global rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for an international company (non-US based) with offices all over the world. Worked with people from all over. I would take a kid from a top 30 US university over any others any day. That admission process you do not like is what makes people better executives.

Would I hire someone in US that went to one of those places? Sure. But no leg up and maybe a bias outside of DC and NY against.

You're everything that's wrong with the American undergrad system.

When excellent students get rejected from top universities, you end up hiring from a smaller pool of potentially great candidates. The people who knock on your door are the academically strong students accepted by top schools. You're not seeing, or you're perhaps rejecting, the academically strong that were passed over in favor of someone with an "interesting" profile, because that someone with an interesting profile isn't going to be successful enough to come and apply at your company.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, basically.

You are only correct if you think getting good grades = good employee. I don’t think that is necessarily true. Some of the reasons the other kid is l”interesting” are the qualities that will make that kid excel in a workplace later—or maybe start their own business. Grades and test scores really aren’t everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for an international company (non-US based) with offices all over the world. Worked with people from all over. I would take a kid from a top 30 US university over any others any day. That admission process you do not like is what makes people better executives.

Would I hire someone in US that went to one of those places? Sure. But no leg up and maybe a bias outside of DC and NY against.

You're everything that's wrong with the American undergrad system.

When excellent students get rejected from top universities, you end up hiring from a smaller pool of potentially great candidates. The people who knock on your door are the academically strong students accepted by top schools. You're not seeing, or you're perhaps rejecting, the academically strong that were passed over in favor of someone with an "interesting" profile, because that someone with an interesting profile isn't going to be successful enough to come and apply at your company.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, basically.

You are only correct if you think getting good grades = good employee. I don’t think that is necessarily true. Some of the reasons the other kid is l”interesting” are the qualities that will make that kid excel in a workplace later—or maybe start their own business. Grades and test scores really aren’t everything.

You're correct that a few students with lower grades or test scores but high emotional IQ or soft skills can also be successful, but in recent years, US colleges have gone completely overboard in depressing the importance of grades and test scores. This elevates and benefits those who are admitted on soft skills, and gives them a chance, but it leaves out in the cold excellent students who people like you might be unwilling to consider just because they got the short straw during college admissions.

So where we differ is that you trust admissions officers to make the decision for you, and I most certainly do not. Admissions officers aren't the gods you think they are. Most of them are quite young with a very narrow, inexperienced, world view. They do not have students' best interests at heart. They work for the university, to boost its ranking and therefore endowment, donations and research funding, via yield protection and various other more or less ethical measures. It's not the pure, clean, business you think it is, that delivers the best candidates to your door.

Please stay aware of this when assessing candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As places rich kids who couldn't get into American schools with similar pedigrees can buy their way into (especially St. Andrews, not so much McGill)

1. They're not more expensive than any 60K+ American college, for which a lot of DCUM families are already paying.

2. St Andrews ranks significantly higher than McGill, but McGill is nothing to sneeze at.

3. Stellar academics = admittance. This is a refreshing alternative for students who don't want to be played by American exceptionalism re: extra-curriculars, geographic weight, and being pushed aside for athletes, legacies and kids of big donors.

Actually the relative place of McGill and St Andrews depends on which global ranking you use. Bottom line: they’re both excellent, and have a worldwide reputation that none of the MD, VA or DC colleges have - with the exception of Johns Hopkins, also at around the same place in global rankings.

It’s funny that posters here fight over UVA, which to all intents and purposes is unknown outside the US

[Anonymous]

They (Americans) generally won't know very much about those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for an international company (non-US based) with offices all over the world. Worked with people from all over. I would take a kid from a top 30 US university over any others any day. That admission process you do not like is what makes people better executives.

Would I hire someone in US that went to one of those places? Sure. But no leg up and maybe a bias outside of DC and NY against.

You're everything that's wrong with the American undergrad system.

When excellent students get rejected from top universities, you end up hiring from a smaller pool of potentially great candidates. The people who knock on your door are the academically strong students accepted by top schools. You're not seeing, or you're perhaps rejecting, the academically strong that were passed over in favor of someone with an "interesting" profile, because that someone with an interesting profile isn't going to be successful enough to come and apply at your company.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, basically.

PP here. I don't run the American undergrad system. I am a consumer. And I have 20 years of seeing college graduates going through executive training programs. I prefer kids from US colleges. I said top 30 above but it is broader than that. LACs also. Great regionals as well. More well rounder students in the US. Sorry if that does not fit your belief. Do we hire people from UK universities in Europe, sure. Are there great people in our company from them, sure. You get a better product out of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As places rich kids who couldn't get into American schools with similar pedigrees can buy their way into (especially St. Andrews, not so much McGill)

1. They're not more expensive than any 60K+ American college, for which a lot of DCUM families are already paying.

2. St Andrews ranks significantly higher than McGill, but McGill is nothing to sneeze at.

3. Stellar academics = admittance. This is a refreshing alternative for students who don't want to be played by American exceptionalism re: extra-curriculars, geographic weight, and being pushed aside for athletes, legacies and kids of big donors.

Actually the relative place of McGill and St Andrews depends on which global ranking you use. Bottom line: they’re both excellent, and have a worldwide reputation that none of the MD, VA or DC colleges have - with the exception of Johns Hopkins, also at around the same place in global rankings.

It’s funny that posters here fight over UVA, which to all intents and purposes is unknown outside the US

Actually LOL if you think McGill and St Andrews have more of a "worldwide reputation" than the schools you're trying to belittle. I don't even like JHU but to even suggest that those two schools have a similar reputation or prestige as Hopkins is delusional. Are you Canadian or British?