My kid took St Andrews over Kenyon, Hamilton, BC, Vassar, and Middlebury. He would have taken Williams but didn't get in.

We're full pay. After accepted students days, I think he was sold on St Andews, but he asked if he could keep the saved money if he took St Andrews. We said sure. So that made it very easy for him.

He grew up in nyc and wants to live here as an adult. That saved money is a pretty decent down payment on a 1bedroom here, which is what he'd like to do with it. Or maybe grad school.

Anonymous wrote:kids at our HS this year picked st Andrews over vended and another picked McGill over Northwestern. Both money decisions.

McGill over Northwestern? Yikes

I am the poster who said that Saint Andrews wasn’t all that selective and was reported and deleted for daring to say that lol. I don’t want to say too much, but I do know a family where all of the kids went to Saint Andrews from the DMV. They were smart kids but not superstars. None was accepted top schools. Denied in state UVA etc. So I do have more than just the theoretical knowledge about this.

Anonymous wrote:The folks commentating about admissions rates don't seem to understand how admissions work at universities abroad. It's entirely major dependent. And you literally can't apply to the major if you don't have the minimum GPA and test scores. For McGill engineering, for instance, the current ACT minimum score for US applicants is 33, which is the 98th percentile. People with lower scores aren't even considered and don't count in the rejection stats. Whereas, if you apply to Education or Arts, you will be considered with a 29. But in both cases, if you don't have the numbers, you are not even in the consideration pile.

Or they understand it and have pointed out multiple times that the minimums at some of these places aren’t that high, and not all of them have major-specific minimums that are higher. Note that what you described is more applicable to McGill than St Andrews, which is test optional and which has only a handful of degree-specific minimums.

DCUM is funny because it views high rejection rates as inherently good, and when something doesn’t have a high rejection rate but people want it to (because they crave exclusivity in all things), they twist themselves into knots to convince everyone that it is super-secretly highly selective. They are both good schools. If your kid likes them, that’s great! That’s all that matters.

Anonymous wrote:The folks commentating about admissions rates don't seem to understand how admissions work at universities abroad. It's entirely major dependent. And you literally can't apply to the major if you don't have the minimum GPA and test scores. For McGill engineering, for instance, the current ACT minimum score for US applicants is 33, which is the 98th percentile. People with lower scores aren't even considered and don't count in the rejection stats. Whereas, if you apply to Education or Arts, you will be considered with a 29. But in both cases, if you don't have the numbers, you are not even in the consideration pile.

+1

As someone else previously observed it is largely futile to talk with a great dane about Shakespeare.

The folks commentating about admissions rates don't seem to understand how admissions work at universities abroad. It's entirely major dependent. And you literally can't apply to the major if you don't have the minimum GPA and test scores. For McGill engineering, for instance, the current ACT minimum score for US applicants is 33, which is the 98th percentile. People with lower scores aren't even considered and don't count in the rejection stats. Whereas, if you apply to Education or Arts, you will be considered with a 29. But in both cases, if you don't have the numbers, you are not even in the consideration pile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted on the long St Andrew’s thread the patently obviously true fact that it’s not real selective for USA students and is a haven for boarding school and private school kids who can’t get into top USA privates. I apparently offended folks by saying this and my post was reported and deleted.

I also posted in the long UStA thread and agreed with you that a lot of the US kids I know of (mine included) are boarding school & private school kids. She may or may not have gotten into “top USA privates” but didn’t apply as they weren’t compelling to her. UStA was. So, I think it’s also self selective for US kids, at least to a certain degree.

Can’t believe your post was reported, that’s ridiculous.

I agree. Definitely self selection. At our boarding school, 3 kids applied to St Andrews. 2 got in. 1 (mine) is attending. My kid had a 1480 SAT (35 ACT) and a 3.8/4 UW gpa. He was accepted at UCLA, UCSD, USC, NYU and chose St Andrews. The 3 kids that applied from our school all had similar stats. So sure, 66.6% admissions from our school, but the self selection is obvious….

Anonymous wrote:I think more smart kids will be choosing these schools due to US formerly top schools bending over for Trump.

YES!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:I posted on the long St Andrew’s thread the patently obviously true fact that it’s not real selective for USA students and is a haven for boarding school and private school kids who can’t get into top USA privates. I apparently offended folks by saying this and my post was reported and deleted.

I also posted in the long UStA thread and agreed with you that a lot of the US kids I know of (mine included) are boarding school & private school kids. She may or may not have gotten into “top USA privates” but didn’t apply as they weren’t compelling to her. UStA was. So, I think it’s also self selective for US kids, at least to a certain degree.

Can’t believe your post was reported, that’s ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:My kid chose ST Andrews over Emory. It's a fantastic school and 1/2 the cost. It gets more selective every year. It is easier for full pay Americans than for UK students where it is the equivalent in difficulty of getting into Cornell or Dartmouth. The admission rate is not comparable to US schools because as has been mentioned you apply to your major and they have SAT score cutoffs which means kids below a certain level are not applying.

This gets repeated here a lot but it isn’t really true. They are test optional so even if you get below their “minimum” of 1320 you can still apply and be accepted.

Anonymous wrote:My take is this.

No matter how good these schools are in their countries. They admit US students with much higher acceptance rates. There will always be a question mark associated with this individual.

Np. You people obsessed with admit rates are kinda sad. I guess this is why so many Us schools market and market to get kids to apply.

My American dc is at McGill and chose it over schools they were admitted to with much lower acceptance rates (in one case, 7 -9%). Why? Because they liked the school, the program and Montreal. The academics are strong, and it is a challenging school that pushes students. So far, the reception to McGill from hiring managers in the US has been positive, and they had two internships this summer. My co hires from McGill and they are known to produce extremely capable employees.

I’m not sure why anyone would fuss over something as frequently gamed as ‘acceptance rates’.

Anonymous wrote:Both schools have relatively high admissions rates. Over 45%!

Unlike American colleges, you can’t apply without the right high stats

My kid chose ST Andrews over Emory. It's a fantastic school and 1/2 the cost. It gets more selective every year. It is easier for full pay Americans than for UK students where it is the equivalent in difficulty of getting into Cornell or Dartmouth. The admission rate is not comparable to US schools because as has been mentioned you apply to your major and they have SAT score cutoffs which means kids below a certain level are not applying.

Anonymous wrote:McGill is in a different league for US recruiters. St Andrew’s has quickly developed a reputation for rich American kids who didn’t get into a top 50 in the US.

Not true at all- on the contrary St Andrews is quickly developing a reputation as an alternative for American kids (usually rich) who were also accepted to top 15-20 schools. How do I know this? I went to St Andrews and was also accepted to a T10 university in the US. My classmates from the US were also accepted to prestigious US schools (Columbia, Dartmouth, Penn, etc.) There were also US students who probably didn't get into a T20-30 university, but ended up at St Andrews.

Both McGill and St Andrews are easier to gain acceptance if you are a US student, however, that does not suggest the prestige, graduate prospectus/outcomes, and academic caliber are lower. Both schools need more US students for funding. St Andrews has the highest entry requirements if you are a UK student- as a result the student population is strong.

Competitive firms in east coast cities (DC, NYC, Boston) view St Andrews favorably. How do I know this? Myself and my friends have spoken to countless firms and recruiters when we were looking for a job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: Magill -- great school, but it will be facing severe funding challenges in the next few years. The Quebec gov't switched its funding mechanism for universities in the province to privilege French-language schools.

Magill's funding has been decimated. I'm not sure how they'll handle it and whether they will recover.

It's McGill, not Magill.

Of course, you are right. But McGill is in for financial pain too:

https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2025/02/mcgill-announces-45-million-in-budget-cuts-for-the-upcoming-academic-year/