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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is so interesting that uninformed Americans are denigrating St Andrews as a place for rich American kids when the tuition (even including airfare) is less than University of MD. We are considering it for our high stats kid because it is a bargain - great school for less than you pay here.

Uh, uninformed Americans? The most pointed critiques of the school are coming from Brits themselves. The simultaneous combination of intense pretentiousness and mediocrity at St Andrews and among its boosters is a huge turnoff.

I truly have no dog in this fight other than curiosity because my DC attends another UK uni but the various league tables all rank St Andrews very highly. Sometimes prestige is a lagging indicator. Who knows?!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankings_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom

My DC goes to school in the UK. When she decided to apply, we looked at rankings to try to get some idea of what else was out there beyond the most famous universities and did consult rankings. Having heard her perspective as someone in the UK and done a bit of digging myself, the criteria that go into making these rankings are rather misleading. In the Complete University Guide ranking, for example, student satisfaction - based on a survey that is frequently boycotted and not a good representative sample of UK uni students - is weighted higher than any other category, including degree completion and per-pupil allocation of academic funds.

These criteria favor St. Andrews over other universities that are generally considered more prestigious within the UK, such as Imperial, Durham, and so-called "red-brick" unis like Manchester and Birmingham. St. Andrews has a smaller student-to-stall ratio (at 8,000 students, it has one of the smallest student populations in the country), high rates of degree completion, students that tend (at least stereotypically) to come from more affluent backgrounds, and, likely, high degrees of student satisfaction. Still, the fact that the Times rankings put St. Andrews above Oxford or Cambridge would be laughable to most Brits.

That being said, St. Andrews is still a great option for American students, even if it does not have a reputation as being *the* most prestigious university in the UK. It's better-known within the United States than, say, University College London or Imperial (which most British people would say are more "prestigious") thanks to the pub it got from Will and Kate, and because it's within the Scottish system, students are able to study more than one subject, as opposed to the more restrictive and rigid courses within England. Because of the high level of international (and American) students, DC and I found St. Andrews to be quite good at communicating; her application was processed quickly (about two months after applying!) and there was much more frequent correspondence and publicity materials than at any of the others she applied to - it felt much more like an American college than anywhere else, which could be nice for students who feel ambivalent about taking the plunge and going to another university. Additionally, it's in a freaking beautiful part of the world with some stunning architecture. There are far worse places to spend four years and if your DC wants to take some time to study in an ancient place that is beautiful and rich with history, there are few places that offer what St. Andrews can. Combine this with the quick application processing time (being in to at least one school is such a relief) and the relatively lower tuition costs and I see a winner!

Tl;dr, rankings disproportionately favor St. Andrews because of its smaller size and large endowment - just like USNW, etc. But just because it might be overrated doesn't mean it's worth writing off entirely if you're interested in studying abroad for four years at a beautiful university.

[Anonymous]

Vast majority of Americans will have never heard of St Andrews. McGill is familiar and would be viewed as perhaps similar prestige as a Michigan or UCLA or UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St Andrew’s is not an elite school in any way.

depends on what you mean by "elite." This article suggests it's very highly regarded by its students.
https://www.ri5.co.uk/site/news/article/st-andrews-ranked-top-university-in-scotland-and-beats-oxford-to-rank-second-in-the-uk/

As already noted, almost half the students at St Andrews are international. Scottish degrees are generally 4 years while those in England are 3 (English students go to high school for one more year than Scottish students). Therefore, Scottish universities are not considered by a majority of university students in the UK. I think Scottish high school leavers have to complete English A levels before they can go to an English university. So, the students at St Andrews would be primarily Scottish and international. I'm not sure it makes sense to compare English and Scottish universities as though they are the same.

This. St Andrews courts the full pay American student so is considered by academia to be second fiddle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vast majority of Americans will have never heard of St Andrews. McGill is familiar and would be viewed as perhaps similar prestige as a Michigan or UCLA or UVA.

McGill is in the top 3 Canadian colleges. That is way beyond UVA/UCLA & UMich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vast majority of Americans will have never heard of St Andrews. McGill is familiar and would be viewed as perhaps similar prestige as a Michigan or UCLA or UVA.

McGill is in the top 3 Canadian colleges. That is way beyond UVA/UCLA & UMich

You know more people live in California than in Canada, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brit here. The St Andrew obsessed poster here is really off the mark. There are heaps of universities in the UK that are better than St Andrews before they would even come into the conversation. Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, UCL, LSE, KCL, Durham, Edinburgh, Bristol… St Andrews is not even the best uni in Scotland, as Glasgow and Edinburgh, maybe even Aberdeen would be considered before them. St Andrews is not even in the Russell Group!

It would be like some kooky booster trying to convince people that Rutgers was one of the best universities in the US, a superlative destination filled with deeply intellectual and aristocratic students. Please.

In the year 2020 St Andrews is the top choice of applicants to Scottish universities. All of the national rankings place it top in Scotland, and within top 3 of the whole UK

uh, could that possibly be because there are only 15 universities in Scotland, whereas there are 5,000 in America? That’s not an impressive stat you raise. Scotland has had a long, difficult history establishing universities of quality which is why Balliol College at Oxford exists (it’s the Oxford college for smart Scots)

Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vast majority of Americans will have never heard of St Andrews. McGill is familiar and would be viewed as perhaps similar prestige as a Michigan or UCLA or UVA.

McGill is in the top 3 Canadian colleges. That is way beyond UVA/UCLA & UMich

Tell me you’re joking.

[Anonymous]

At our "Big 3" the kids who matriculate at the UK schools have a lot of $, not a lot of IQ, and heap scorn upon holistic admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I earned my master's degree from LSE and find that it works well for this city and my field (policy). That said, most of my friends and family who don't work in policy had never heard of it and were very skeptical about my decision to study there. I don't regret it at all! I think I received an excellent education there and I think it has given me an edge in my career because I had an education that was international in focus. My kids are young now but I already plan to get them thinking beyond U.S.-based institutions once they're older. Universities abroad are often less expensive, you can use U.S. federal loans there, and you can find just as good an education. (Plus, many U.K.-based bachelor's programs are three years instead of four!)

And see, I don't know where or what 'LSE' is.

DP. Honestly, that's just ignorance.

Nope nope nope.

^^gotta google it to understand. Kinda like 'HYP' being a DCUM-thing. Outside the DC and northeast, people don't talk this way. In the real world, that is.

Good lord. LSE is its actual name like MIT. Not a a DCUM thing. Who didn't know that Mick Jagger went there?

Seriously, LSE is the london school of economics, LSE is an acronym widely known among the educated. And it's known for far more than mick jagger. Countless world leaders and nobel prize winners have studied there

And I still contend that most won't know that LSE stands for London School of Economics. My IL went there but noone in the family referred to it as LSE. Maybe didn't want to sound pretentious (?). And to say that everyone knows that Mick Jagger went there - are you a Brit? Because who knows that?? I love the Rolling Stones but knowing where (or IF) Mick Jagger went to college is far down the line of caring. DCUM continues in its bubble...

If people here don't know what LSE is, when it is one of THE TOP schools in the UK, then we are basically proving the point that UK schools just don't rate to most Americans. St. Andrews included - it just doesn't matter much.

I don’t think it is that big of a deal to go to LSE. I got in and my grades were very good but not stellar. I turned it down because I got merit money from a US school and money was an issue for my family.

Me too. I got in but turned it down because I got a full scholarship from a small US liberal arts college

[Anonymous]

My Scottish friend always denigrates St Andrew’s. He says Glasgow is much better

[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.

I was a “high stat” kid myself but as someone who has run hiring panels for about 40 staff members I would definitely agree with the above.

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:Vast majority of Americans will have never heard of St Andrews. McGill is familiar and would be viewed as perhaps similar prestige as a Michigan or UCLA or UVA.

McGill is in the top 3 Canadian colleges. That is way beyond UVA/UCLA & UMich

You know more people live in California than in Canada, right?

50% of California residents have no formal education and do not speak English.

So yeah, I know that. And more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My Scottish friend always denigrates St Andrew’s. He says Glasgow is much better

Edinburgh is a quality university. Glasgow is a poor 2nd. St. Andrews is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vast majority of Americans will have never heard of St Andrews. McGill is familiar and would be viewed as perhaps similar prestige as a Michigan or UCLA or UVA.

McGill is in the top 3 Canadian colleges. That is way beyond UVA/UCLA & UMich

You know more people live in California than in Canada, right?

50% of California residents have no formal education and do not speak English.

So yeah, I know that. And more.

I think you've just shown exactly what you "know."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Andrews gives zero boost. Even UVA and heck Penn State has more pull in some parts of America than St. Andrews does on a resume. The average American guy on the street, and hence the average hiring manager, wouldn’t be able to place it on a map.

Penn State? Come on, you're just a troll

Lmao St Andrews grads just are not working in like... supply chain management in suburban Pennsylvania... or other areas or fields where hiring managers don't know abt one of the top universities in the UK. St Andrews grads have international, cosmopolitan backgrounds, and opt for NYC, London, other global cities. The top fields that St Andrews grads go into are consulting and financial sector.

It's cliche, but choosing a college is about finding the right fit. Penn State isn't normally a dream school, but could be a great fit for those from PA wanting in-state tuition, rah rah types into college sports, those doing engineering/CS etc. St Andrews is a choice for a student who's a bit more refined, sophisticated, independent. StA is the opposite of a frat school

I agree with this. My step kid went to St Andrews. I rolled my eyes hard all through high school - someone upthread mentioned "overly tutored" kids and my step kid fell very neatly into that cohort. Went to a very liberal private school, was always given extensions, allowed to retake exams etc.

All that being said, St Andrews turned out to be the perfect place for them. My step kid grew SO much - is a much more compassionate and well-rounded person and is doing well now with a job in the UK, much more independent than I ever expected them to be at this age. So - I was wrong about pretty much everything, from high school to college (thankfully my opinion didnt matter!).

That’s all well and good for you privileged step-kud but it dies not mean St Andrews is an elite school. It’s a Scottish college that is skimming full freight dollars off of Americans and other wealthy intercontinentals.