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

[Anonymous]

My 34 ACT, 3.9 UW student got into Edinburgh, St. Andrews, UCL, as well as top ranked US schools - although not Ivies, which were never a consideration because of cost. My DC chose St. Andrews over Edinburgh because it's ranked much higher (in the UK rankings), has a much, much better student satisfaction score, and felt like a community, which was important. Going to university with fancy people with lots of money wasn't a determining factor. Yes, there are rich Americans at St. Andrews, but also at most top-ranked US schools. And honestly, if US employers don't pay attention to universities outside of the top 20 US schools, they will be at a disadvantage when recruiting for an increasingly global workforce.

[Anonymous]

Why is no one talking about University of Glasgow. That is most likely better than St. Andrews and Edinburgh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 34 ACT, 3.9 UW student got into Edinburgh, St. Andrews, UCL, as well as top ranked US schools - although not Ivies, which were never a consideration because of cost. My DC chose St. Andrews over Edinburgh because it's ranked much higher (in the UK rankings), has a much, much better student satisfaction score, and felt like a community, which was important. Going to university with fancy people with lots of money wasn't a determining factor. Yes, there are rich Americans at St. Andrews, but also at most top-ranked US schools. And honestly, if US employers don't pay attention to universities outside of the top 20 US schools, they will be at a disadvantage when recruiting for an increasingly global workforce.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 34 ACT, 3.9 UW student got into Edinburgh, St. Andrews, UCL, as well as top ranked US schools - although not Ivies, which were never a consideration because of cost. My DC chose St. Andrews over Edinburgh because it's ranked much higher (in the UK rankings), has a much, much better student satisfaction score, and felt like a community, which was important. Going to university with fancy people with lots of money wasn't a determining factor. Yes, there are rich Americans at St. Andrews, but also at most top-ranked US schools. And honestly, if US employers don't pay attention to universities outside of the top 20 US schools, they will be at a disadvantage when recruiting for an increasingly global workforce.

It's interesting that most Americans select the same five or six UK schools to apply to. That in and of itself means that an increasing number of Americans have heard of these schools. My DC applied to and got into St Andrews, Edinburgh, Durham, UCL, and Cambridge. DC turned down an Ivy admit for Cambridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is no one talking about University of Glasgow. That is most likely better than St. Andrews and Edinburgh

Huh? Again from someone with seemingly no knowledge of Scottish or UK universities

Glasgow is great, and on par with Edinburgh in terms of rankings, but universally ranked lower than St Andrews on national and subject specific rankings.
That's not to denigrate Glasgow, i'm just trying to reflect the reality that most all Scottish, UK, and international students would choose St Andrews over Glasgow or Edinburgh if they were met the St Andrews standards of entry.

That said, Americans should definitely take a look at Glasgow, it's a great university in a beautiful part of Glasgow. It definitely attracts international students, but serves Scottish and rUK students probably more so than Edi or StA. Lacks the posh vibe too, it won't have as much of the preppy American or UK boarding school crowd. Glasgow is the biggest city and center of art and nightlife in Scotland, there's so many opportunities there. But no, not the same standards of admission/caliber of student body/international recognition as Edinburgh, definitely not the same as St Andrews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 34 ACT, 3.9 UW student got into Edinburgh, St. Andrews, UCL, as well as top ranked US schools - although not Ivies, which were never a consideration because of cost. My DC chose St. Andrews over Edinburgh because it's ranked much higher (in the UK rankings), has a much, much better student satisfaction score, and felt like a community, which was important. Going to university with fancy people with lots of money wasn't a determining factor. Yes, there are rich Americans at St. Andrews, but also at most top-ranked US schools. And honestly, if US employers don't pay attention to universities outside of the top 20 US schools, they will be at a disadvantage when recruiting for an increasingly global workforce.

No. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works. US multi-nationals with satellite offices in foreign countries will recruit for those sites from the local universities. Ie Hague if an outpost in Netherlands. University of Bath for offices outside London. But a Pharma company without a presence in the UK is not going to fly out to the UK to recruit its openings in NJ USA. That’s just dumb. You were doing fine with your response until the last bit when you went hyperbolic with something you clearly don’t have experience with or understand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is no one talking about University of Glasgow. That is most likely better than St. Andrews and Edinburgh

Huh? Again from someone with seemingly no knowledge of Scottish or UK universities

Glasgow is great, and on par with Edinburgh in terms of rankings, but universally ranked lower than St Andrews on national and subject specific rankings.
That's not to denigrate Glasgow, i'm just trying to reflect the reality that most all Scottish, UK, and international students would choose St Andrews over Glasgow or Edinburgh if they were met the St Andrews standards of entry.

That said, Americans should definitely take a look at Glasgow, it's a great university in a beautiful part of Glasgow. It definitely attracts international students, but serves Scottish and rUK students probably more so than Edi or StA. Lacks the posh vibe too, it won't have as much of the preppy American or UK boarding school crowd. Glasgow is the biggest city and center of art and nightlife in Scotland, there's so many opportunities there. But no, not the same standards of admission/caliber of student body/international recognition as Edinburgh, definitely not the same as St Andrews.

My DC applied to Glasgow through the common app because Glasgow offers a very specific major she was interested in. They actually gave her merit money which was a surprise to me. Glasgow has significantly fewer US applications than either St Andrews or Edinburgh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 34 ACT, 3.9 UW student got into Edinburgh, St. Andrews, UCL, as well as top ranked US schools - although not Ivies, which were never a consideration because of cost. My DC chose St. Andrews over Edinburgh because it's ranked much higher (in the UK rankings), has a much, much better student satisfaction score, and felt like a community, which was important. Going to university with fancy people with lots of money wasn't a determining factor. Yes, there are rich Americans at St. Andrews, but also at most top-ranked US schools. And honestly, if US employers don't pay attention to universities outside of the top 20 US schools, they will be at a disadvantage when recruiting for an increasingly global workforce.

No. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works. US multi-nationals with satellite offices in foreign countries will recruit for those sites from the local universities. Ie Hague if an outpost in Netherlands. University of Bath for offices outside London. But a Pharma company without a presence in the UK is not going to fly out to the UK to recruit its openings in NJ USA. That’s just dumb. You were doing fine with your response until the last bit when you went hyperbolic with something you clearly don’t have experience with or understand

Is this the only way to get a job? Seems like there might be other avenues to employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 34 ACT, 3.9 UW student got into Edinburgh, St. Andrews, UCL, as well as top ranked US schools - although not Ivies, which were never a consideration because of cost. My DC chose St. Andrews over Edinburgh because it's ranked much higher (in the UK rankings), has a much, much better student satisfaction score, and felt like a community, which was important. Going to university with fancy people with lots of money wasn't a determining factor. Yes, there are rich Americans at St. Andrews, but also at most top-ranked US schools. And honestly, if US employers don't pay attention to universities outside of the top 20 US schools, they will be at a disadvantage when recruiting for an increasingly global workforce.

No. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works. US multi-nationals with satellite offices in foreign countries will recruit for those sites from the local universities. Ie Hague if an outpost in Netherlands. University of Bath for offices outside London. But a Pharma company without a presence in the UK is not going to fly out to the UK to recruit its openings in NJ USA. That’s just dumb. You were doing fine with your response until the last bit when you went hyperbolic with something you clearly don’t have experience with or understand

Sure, but what the original poster of that comment is trying to convey is that it would be dumb of the companies to not consider quality applications from international universities.

Also as a general comment, it's so provincial to limit your conceptions of your child's career to American companies

It's a globalized world. Kids at schools in the UK can get extended visas after graduation, or get jobs in the country where they went to university. Or work in an international company, or be entrepreneurial in any part of the world.

So no, if your kid can't learn and be independent or adapt and overcome when faced with challenges, going to university abroad is the wrong choice.
But if your kid is competent-- there's plenty of American kids at McGill and St Andrews and the like who can embrace the challenges of international edcuation, and if they so choose, rest on their skills and international experience and adequately market themselves to your pharma company in NJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 34 ACT, 3.9 UW student got into Edinburgh, St. Andrews, UCL, as well as top ranked US schools - although not Ivies, which were never a consideration because of cost. My DC chose St. Andrews over Edinburgh because it's ranked much higher (in the UK rankings), has a much, much better student satisfaction score, and felt like a community, which was important. Going to university with fancy people with lots of money wasn't a determining factor. Yes, there are rich Americans at St. Andrews, but also at most top-ranked US schools. And honestly, if US employers don't pay attention to universities outside of the top 20 US schools, they will be at a disadvantage when recruiting for an increasingly global workforce.

No. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works. US multi-nationals with satellite offices in foreign countries will recruit for those sites from the local universities. Ie Hague if an outpost in Netherlands. University of Bath for offices outside London. But a Pharma company without a presence in the UK is not going to fly out to the UK to recruit its openings in NJ USA. That’s just dumb. You were doing fine with your response until the last bit when you went hyperbolic with something you clearly don’t have experience with or understand

Is this the only way to get a job? Seems like there might be other avenues to employment.

DP but sure, yes, kids can always hustle for a job. There are some parents in this thread who don’t want to hear what is obvious: their kids aren’t getting the boost they hoped from these schools. They’re about as helpful to employment prospects as University of Iowa. And possibly less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 34 ACT, 3.9 UW student got into Edinburgh, St. Andrews, UCL, as well as top ranked US schools - although not Ivies, which were never a consideration because of cost. My DC chose St. Andrews over Edinburgh because it's ranked much higher (in the UK rankings), has a much, much better student satisfaction score, and felt like a community, which was important. Going to university with fancy people with lots of money wasn't a determining factor. Yes, there are rich Americans at St. Andrews, but also at most top-ranked US schools. And honestly, if US employers don't pay attention to universities outside of the top 20 US schools, they will be at a disadvantage when recruiting for an increasingly global workforce.

No. That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of it works. US multi-nationals with satellite offices in foreign countries will recruit for those sites from the local universities. Ie Hague if an outpost in Netherlands. University of Bath for offices outside London. But a Pharma company without a presence in the UK is not going to fly out to the UK to recruit its openings in NJ USA. That’s just dumb. You were doing fine with your response until the last bit when you went hyperbolic with something you clearly don’t have experience with or understand

Is this the only way to get a job? Seems like there might be other avenues to employment.

DP but sure, yes, kids can always hustle for a job. There are some parents in this thread who don’t want to hear what is obvious: their kids aren’t getting the boost they hoped from these schools. They’re about as helpful to employment prospects as University of Iowa. And possibly less.

Huh?

[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?

odd view. Grades and test scores are by far the #1 thing US colleges look for. The problem is that the pool of all those great grades and test scores is larger than the pool so they look to other things. I guess you are refering to the sports people but at most top schools the vast majority of the sports folks are within the grades and the test scores that the college is looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, although this doesn't answer your question, your son should apply to schools in the United States, too--some of which are among the best in the world. Highly selective schools usually place a lot of emphasis on what he's looking for, along with considering other factors. I don't know enough about the admission processes at less selective schools to comment.

Was the whole purpose of this non-responsive comment to slip in the brag at the end?

[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?

odd view. Grades and test scores are by far the #1 thing US colleges look for. The problem is that the pool of all those great grades and test scores is larger than the pool so they look to other things. I guess you are refering to the sports people but at most top schools the vast majority of the sports folks are within the grades and the test scores that the college is looking for.

The number of available seats is comparatively so small because elite American universities intentionally keep it that way to increase their prestige. They can diversify classes all they want, but if schools like HYP etc actually cared about access, they could so easily increase their class sizes and offer the quality programs they offer to many more qualified students. But they don't care abt access, they care about prestige and exclusivity.

UToronto, arguably Canada's top ranked university, has 40,000 undergraduates: because they care about offering seats to the qualified students. You dont have to be an insane competitor in the rat race to get into Canada's top university. Same with McGill and UBC, which have tens of thousands of undergrads. McGill has 30,000 undergrads.

Even Oxford and cambridge are easier to get into relatively to their counterparts in the states, and the standards of admission are much more straightforward. It's less of a rat race. Oxford is opening a new college soon, and both Ox and Cam have built new colleges in recent decades to accommodate new students.

Oxbridge and St Andrews are far from perfect models of access, but even St Andrews, in line with incredible demand from qualified applicants has increased the size of its student body substantially in recent decades.

[Anonymous]

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.