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

[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.

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?

Neither. I look at the data, that's all. It's incontrovertible. And I note that anyone who gets offended at the thought that their country's colleges aren't as hot as they imagined, and accuses the other of having the same nationalist bias, is not going to be appear very credible.

[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.

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?

Neither. I look at the data, that's all. It's incontrovertible. And I note that anyone who gets offended at the thought that their country's colleges aren't as hot as they imagined, and accuses the other of having the same nationalist bias, is not going to be appear very credible.

What's the "data"? This has nothing to do with nationalism. Hopkins and the like are well-known and respected names, with budgets and research output magnitudes greater than the aforementioned schools.

[Anonymous]

Oxbridge or bust. Maybe Imperial or LSE too.

[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

and yet UVA us send a Rhodes, a Marshall, several Fulbrights and seven other students to Oxford who got in on their own merit there this year. And has sent 55 Rhodes scholars there. and yet you claim UVA “for all intents and purposes is unknown outside the US”. Right-o.

[Anonymous]

I’ve taught at a couple of universities, lived in many countries and have family in Europe and Asia.

It’s true that most universities are unknown outside their own country. UVA, UMD, Georgetown, etc, are all part of that majority. It doesn’t mean they’re bad! But the average admissions person, let alone the average person, can’t be expected to know the thousands of higher ed institutions everywhere in the world.

The PP above doesn’t understand that students from all countries are accepted to universities all over the world, but it doesn’t mean their high schools or undergrad institutions are “well known”, above other institutions. They just apply general criteria of admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
American colleges, with their strange insistence on "holistic" admissions, are not very appealing to my teen, who wants to focus on academics and go somewhere that admits based on that.
Universities abroad place much greater importance on grades and test scores than those in the US.

However, if my teen looks for a job or applies to grad school in the US (it would likely be grad school for him), how will hiring managers or admissions officers view those universities?

All American schools focus on academics. How do you know that universities abroad place much greater importance on grades and test scores? This post is so ignorant.

[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

This just shows that Americans in general are ignorant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
American colleges, with their strange insistence on "holistic" admissions, are not very appealing to my teen, who wants to focus on academics and go somewhere that admits based on that.
Universities abroad place much greater importance on grades and test scores than those in the US.

However, if my teen looks for a job or applies to grad school in the US (it would likely be grad school for him), how will hiring managers or admissions officers view those universities?

All American schools focus on academics. How do you know that universities abroad place much greater importance on grades and test scores? This post is so ignorant.

It's you that are ignorant. Just browse a few threads here about applicants with stellar academies are rejected from good colleges.

[Anonymous]

I am increasingly seeing kids of friends choosing the international route. Typically it’s because they don’t want their child to experience the ringer of the US college search. Personally, I believe the degree os more valuable from a US school. A semester or year’s study abroad can fill the need for global perspective.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it would cause your kid too much trouble. The procedure is certainly going to be less in most companies but it will be a big hurdle. Unless he insists on going around telling everyone that McGill is the Harvard of Canada, if they know about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it would cause your kid too much trouble. The procedure is certainly going to be less in most companies but it will be a big hurdle. Unless he insists on going around telling everyone that McGill is the Harvard of Canada, if they know about it.

This is what it is. McGill would maybe be a top 30 school if it was in the U.S. (and that's being generous) but American parents who send their kids there love to pretend it's some crowning achievement. I hear "Harvard of Canada" all the time and can't help but feel sad for these parents.

Same, to a lesser extent, for schools like St Andrews and Edinburgh. Sure, they're good UK schools, but why try to put them on a pedestal above our own universities?

People with even an inkling of familiarity with academia know that America is the undisputed top dog for higher education. There's a reason why scholars from around the world are clamoring to get into the top-tier U.S. universities. The research output, infrastructure, support, resources, and $$$ are significantly better at U.S. universities. This trickles down to affect the overall quality of the school and the students these schools are ultimately able to attract. America deserves to get dumped on for a lot of things, but its universities are not it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
American colleges, with their strange insistence on "holistic" admissions, are not very appealing to my teen, who wants to focus on academics and go somewhere that admits based on that.
Universities abroad place much greater importance on grades and test scores than those in the US.

However, if my teen looks for a job or applies to grad school in the US (it would likely be grad school for him), how will hiring managers or admissions officers view those universities?

All American schools focus on academics. How do you know that universities abroad place much greater importance on grades and test scores? This post is so ignorant.

You don’t understand.

At most unis abroad, you are GUARANTEED acceptance above a certain (usually very high) gpa and/or AP exam score and/or SAT or ACT score. Canada uses GPA + SAT/ACT; UK uses AP scores (most unis want to see 5 APs with as many related to your chosen field as possible and scores of 5s, perhaps a couple of 4s). Oxbridge asks for writing samples, gives their own exam + academic interview on top of that.
They don’t care about ECs, and most don’t ask for personal essays.

[Anonymous]

We don’t view them. We are American.

[Anonymous]

Schools like McGill and St. Andrews are seen as a clear step below the top ranked (think top 30-40 or so) schools. I'm sure you can still get a decent education at them, but I'm a little baffled as to why people seem convinced they'd give you a leg up in the job market stateside. I'm a hiring manager. It's not.

If DC wants to stay abroad or live in those countries for the mid- to long-term, go for it. Otherwise, staying in America is the wiser choice.

[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.

NP. What "other reasons?" Reasons like having parents who went there or made a huge donation or hired a criminal like Rick Singer or had their kid waste years becoming elite in an irrelevant idiotic niche sport for posh people like fencing? If that is how you're picking people who are good employees, your company culture is set up for something all right, but merit ain't it and you've probably twisted the process so much you actually have no idea what you might be missing. And before you cite "international company with offices all over" at me again as if it makes you some final authority, there are well-run companies like that and there are poorly-run companies like that. Deutsche Bank, for example.