Durham vs St Andrews vs Manchester

They are more prestigious and rigorous than most courses, with almost all students going into lucrative careers £40k plus within the first few years post qualifying.

Don't Edinburgh say they prefer to look at your application and background as a whole when selecting, rather than on just grades?

That is what they all say, but from the rumours I heard, they essentially offer almost all Americans who get over that cut off. I have to rephrase this a bit it is not just 1800 its actually minimum 600 in all sections which is harder to achieve of course since most people who achieve the 600 minimum are going to have a higher SAT score than 1800. 2 APs at 4 are not too difficult to achieve.

SAT score of 1800 (600 minimum in Critical Reading, Mathematics and Writing) plus two APs at Grade 4;


UCAS tariff also shows this, Edinburgh may look at your background as a whole but then again so would St Andrews, they have similar admissions policies.

St Andrews is still ranked 3rd, 3rd, 4th in the 3 UK rankings and around 100th in the world on average.

Edinburgh offers it but not as much, St Andrews is more international, higher entry tariff has much higher student satisfaction etc. For example, St Andrews asks for 2000+ on the SAT from American students while Edinburgh asks for 1800+, there is a difference.

Its also a smaller university so it attracts students who want to study in a smaller town, its a different university experience for sure.

That is what they all say, but from the rumours I heard, they essentially offer almost all Americans who get over that cut off. I have to rephrase this a bit it is not just 1800 its actually minimum 600 in all sections which is harder to achieve of course since most people who achieve the 600 minimum are going to have a higher SAT score than 1800. 2 APs at 4 are not too difficult to achieve.

SAT score of 1800 (600 minimum in Critical Reading, Mathematics and Writing) plus two APs at Grade 4;


UCAS tariff also shows this, Edinburgh may look at your background as a whole but then again so would St Andrews, they have similar admissions policies.

St Andrews is still ranked 3rd, 3rd, 4th in the 3 UK rankings and around 100th in the world on average.

StA rejects plenty of American applicants with SATs below 2000 nowadays. A friend's D was denied admissions with 2140 SATs and top 5% in her class. She, however, got into Cornell, Dartmouth, William & Mary, UVa and Duke. She went to Dartmouth.

Another friend's D enrolled in W&M last SY so she can spend 2 years at StA under the joint degree program. https://www.wm.edu/as/undergraduate/curriculum/special/standrews/

But isn't the catch that St Andrews only offer a few places each year, resulting in fierce competition for the few hundred places available? A great way to weed out weaker students, but nevertheless it doesn't help if only a small quantity of students arrive there. Look at Oxbridge, they bring in many times more students that are brighter.

What if Edinburgh decided to do away with weaker courses and only select as many students as St Andrews each year for the sake of selectivity and perceived prestige? I think they'd be ridiculed for being so narrow minded. A university's job is to teach undergrads, post grads, carry out research, and to provide a service to businesses and the economy. Bringing in bright students is only a small part of what makes a university prestigious.

But isn't the catch that St Andrews only offer a few places each year, resulting in fierce competition for the few hundred places available? A great way to weed out weaker students, but nevertheless it doesn't help if only a small quantity of students arrive there. Look at Oxbridge, they bring in many times more students that are brighter.

What if Edinburgh decided to do away with weaker courses and only select as many students as St Andrews each year for the sake of selectivity and perceived prestige? I think they'd be ridiculed for being so narrow minded. A university's job is to teach undergrads, post grads, carry out research, and to provide a service to businesses and the economy. Bringing in bright students is only a small part of what makes a university prestigious.

The elite students usually prefer to be in a "small" community. That's when they feel "exclusive".

The top universities for undergraduate education in America do have a small undergrad student body, similar to St Andrews' 6k undergrad student population. HYPSM all have very small student population at the undergraduate level. The Ivies, in general, too, except Cornell which has an undergrad population of about 14k. That I think was what made them the least attractive, least exclusive, least prestigious Ivy school.

The elite students usually prefer to be in a "small" community. That's when they feel "exclusive".

The top universities for undergraduate education in America do have a small undergrad student body, similar to St Andrews' 6k undergrad student population. HYPSM all have very small student population at the undergraduate level. The Ivies, in general, too, except Cornell which has an undergrad population of about 14k. That I think was what made them the least attractive, least exclusive, least prestigious Ivy school.

I don't think Edinburgh is less attractive by offering more places, they still boast an average tariff of 480+ for a student body of 24,000, which is very impressive. Likewise, UCL is getting bigger all the time, and remains a top 5 UK university.

Ever wonder why most jobs don't care what you studied, just your degree classification? Because for most jobs its not important.

+1. LSE has 4k undergrads, if it wanted to it could probably expand, but if it did, it wouldn't be as prestigious and its name wouldn't represent as much to employers.

They are more prestigious and rigorous than most courses, with almost all students going into lucrative careers £40k plus within the first few years post qualifying.

How is pharmacy etc prestigious and rigorous.
Academic subjects such as chemistry/physics/maths are prestigious.

I am told it is a hard course, and many people with good grades still seem to struggle and even fail the course. Job prospects are also very good upon graduation. The course is also a great route into GEM and Dentistry.

No one was saying Edinburgh is unattractive, a 480+ average tariff is amazing, but it is still less than the 520+ at St Andrews. It still is less attractive than St Andrews because it offered more places.

If you only took the top 10,000 applicants and turned down the rest of the students, Edinburgh's average tariff might be as high or high.

Actually biomed/and pure science courses are better routes into GEM.
And they're actually not that difficult compared to actually pure science degrees which are extremely tough. With pharmacy/Optometry the course is pretty easy plus in terms of the jobs at least they produce WAY to many graduates. The pharmacy job market is horrible, Its literally sitting on a time bomb. Optom is becoming that way also.

My point being is that the degrees themselves arent actually academic/prestigious in most eyes however it shouldnt stop you doing what you want to do in life. But you should note pharmacy/optom arent magic degrees which magically get you a job after graduating on a 40k salary. Doesn't work like that. So if you're wanting to study pharm/optom for them reasons you might want to think again.

I don't think Edinburgh is less attractive by offering more places, they still boast an average tariff of 480+ for a student body of 24,000, which is very impressive. Likewise, UCL is getting bigger all the time, and remains a top 5 UK university. Manchester is probably the only university I would say is too big at present, but the extra income has boosted their World ranking, and in time they may well trim the fat and start being more selective.

I don't agree with most of what you said. I am aware the job market is more competitive for these professions than in previous years, but prospects are still very good, and salaries rise to £40k plus within a few years of qualifying.