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![]()
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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
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.
Anonymous wrote:McGill is the bomb.