Tell me about St Andrews in Scotland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree that all omnibus rankings are cr@p?

Yes, they can give you at best a very rough idea of competitiveness, at worst can be downright misleading. Sadly you need to put the work in and see if the university is a good fit for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lol...US News the gold standard...okey dokey

+1

[Anonymous]

On USNWR Dartmouth is ranked #320, Brown is ranked #153.. yet UC San Diego is ranked #21 and UNC is ranked #47...

The reason St Andrews is ranked highly on the UK rankings yet poorly on the global rankings is because global rankings place a larger emphasis on publications/graduate programs. St Andrews has very few postgraduates its main focus is undergraduate studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On USNWR Dartmouth is ranked #320, Brown is ranked #153.. yet UC San Diego is ranked #21 and UNC is ranked #47...

The reason St Andrews is ranked highly on the UK rankings yet poorly on the global rankings is because global rankings place a larger emphasis on publications/graduate programs. St Andrews has very few postgraduates its main focus is undergraduate studies.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The disgruntled parents on this thread are comical and uninformed.

St Andrews is consistently top 3 in the UK for graduate prospectus and student satisfaction across multiple rankings. Bottom line: students are getting good outcomes and lauding their university experience. What else do you need?

Actual prestige. My kid is at Oxford and says students there think St. Andrews and its machine to glomb onto American students and their American dollars is embarrassing to higher ed there. It's viewed there somewhat like Northeastern is here by serious academics.

Oxford is 46% international for undergraduates because Oxford also wants extra money!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The disgruntled parents on this thread are comical and uninformed.

St Andrews is consistently top 3 in the UK for graduate prospectus and student satisfaction across multiple rankings. Bottom line: students are getting good outcomes and lauding their university experience. What else do you need?

Actual prestige. My kid is at Oxford and says students there think St. Andrews and its machine to glomb onto American students and their American dollars is embarrassing to higher ed there. It's viewed there somewhat like Northeastern is here by serious academics.

Oxford is 46% international for undergraduates because Oxford also wants extra money!

Oxford has been around for 900 years. It needs nothing. Have you seen the land the colleges own? the art collections? the wine collections? get real

[Anonymous]

Nobody is saying that St Andrews is better than Oxford.. relax...

This forum is filled with uninformed opinions it's honestly embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Follow the rules=graduate on time without problems.

Right because we all know that 18-21 year olds always follow the rules.

British students are usually a year older and significantly more mature than Americans

Where on earth did you get this assumption from? Unless they've done a gap year, they're the exact same age as U.S. students.

England and Scotland have different systems. England is 13 years of school (thru upper 6th form) then 3 years at an English university.

Scottish system is the model for the US, 12 years of school from grade 1 and then 4 years of a Scottish university.

"British" really is incoherent in this narrow context.

The US also has 13 years of schooling if you include kindergarten. In England, they call kindergarten year 1 so the equivalent of the US grade 12 is the English year 13. My DD is a teacher at a public school (US definition) in London. She confirmed this for me when I was confused.

If one is counting K, which now is called "reception year" in many English schools, not usually called "year 1", then England normally has 14 years of school.

It is still 1 more pre-college school year in England than is typical in the US. An upper 6th form student in England usually is 19 or almost 19 yo, vice most US HS seniors being 18 or almost 18 yo.

As noted earlier, the Scottish education system is different.

Completely wrong. Reception is before year 1 which is the equivalent of kindergarten. English kids have the same number of years of school as in the US. They are at school from age 5 to 18. Colleges offer three year degrees. In Scotland, high school finishes at 17. They have one year less at school than in England or the US, but universities offer four year degree programs with the first year being more of a foundation course (unlike England where it is immediately specialized).

In England children start school at age FOUR

In DC they start school at THREE. It doesn’t change the fact that high school finishes at 18 in both the US and the UK. And as someone who went to school in the UK I can tell you categorically that both the UK and the US have the same number of years of school. Before kindergarten or year one is not relevant. Multiple British people have corrected you in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The disgruntled parents on this thread are comical and uninformed.

St Andrews is consistently top 3 in the UK for graduate prospectus and student satisfaction across multiple rankings. Bottom line: students are getting good outcomes and lauding their university experience. What else do you need?

Actual prestige. My kid is at Oxford and says students there think St. Andrews and its machine to glomb onto American students and their American dollars is embarrassing to higher ed there. It's viewed there somewhat like Northeastern is here by serious academics.

Oxford is 46% international for undergraduates because Oxford also wants extra money!

Oxford has been around for 900 years. It needs nothing. Have you seen the land the colleges own? the art collections? the wine collections? get real

+1. What everyone here is missing is that St Andrews needs the American dollar because the Scots attend free (not the situation at Oxbridge). So, in 1984, St Andrews started sending recruiters to the US. Today, there are more than ten full-time recruiters in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The disgruntled parents on this thread are comical and uninformed.

St Andrews is consistently top 3 in the UK for graduate prospectus and student satisfaction across multiple rankings. Bottom line: students are getting good outcomes and lauding their university experience. What else do you need?

St. Andrews's endowment is only 142 million USD????
Actual prestige. My kid is at Oxford and says students there think St. Andrews and its machine to glomb onto American students and their American dollars is embarrassing to higher ed there. It's viewed there somewhat like Northeastern is here by serious academics.

Oxford is 46% international for undergraduates because Oxford also wants extra money!

Oxford has been around for 900 years. It needs nothing. Have you seen the land the colleges own? the art collections? the wine collections? get real

+1. What everyone here is missing is that St Andrews needs the American dollar because the Scots attend free (not the situation at Oxbridge). So, in 1984, St Andrews started sending recruiters to the US. Today, there are more than ten full-time recruiters in America.

[Anonymous]

St. Andrews's endowment is only 142 million USD?!?

[Anonymous]

St Andrews endowment is relatively low because its a small school with a very small number of postgrads.

[Anonymous]

1 billion is standard for mid-high level schools in the US

[Mambojambo2024]

What does endowment has to do with this? Comparing endowments of UK and US schools are meaningless…unless of course you are saying LSE or Imperial’s 250M endowment means they are 10x worse than Baylor at $2.5B? Get real….

[Anonymous]

Mambojambo2024 wrote:What does endowment has to do with this? Comparing endowments of UK and US schools are meaningless…unless of course you are saying LSE or Imperial’s 250M endowment means they are 10x worse than Baylor at $2.5B? Get real….

+1