St Andrews - good university?

Focus08

Really? (and that's leaving rankings aside)

Yes, absolutely. 11 years ago entry requirements and standards were well below Glasgow and Edinburgh- they were BCC for most subjects in the late 1990s, much more comparible to Aberdeen. Much like Exeter was four years ago. Places don't change very quickly- St Andrews is much the same university with the same staff and same facilities as 11 years ago, it's just much higher regarded amongst school leavers. If you look at pure research income and total turnover, Edinburgh is 6th and Glasgow is 8th in the UK and have been for a few decades- traditionally they've been the major research universities north of Yorkshire, although that's not to say the quality of education at St Andrews isn't very good. In 15 years time we'll all still be young in our careers, but the teenagers then could be raving about how great Aberyswyth is and how York is a dump, or whatever. That doesn't really change much.

Reply 23

engart

1

As someone who is about to graduate from St Andrews next week....the whole rent issue is a bit overplayed. If you want to live in one of the three main streets and never walk for more than say 10 minutes, it might be dear but staying around 15-20 mins from the centre isn't so bad. Maybe around £80 a week - and that's for a 2 bed house, so with 3 or 4 people, it'll be nearer £75 (much cheaper than London). Oh, and you'd be studying for an MA for 4 years, not a BA.

Reply 24

Focus08

0404343m

Yes, absolutely. 11 years ago entry requirements and standards were well below Glasgow and Edinburgh- they were BCC for most subjects in the late 1990s, much more comparible to Aberdeen. Much like Exeter was four years ago. Places don't change very quickly- St Andrews is much the same university with the same staff and same facilities as 11 years ago, it's just much higher regarded amongst school leavers. If you look at pure research income and total turnover, Edinburgh is 6th and Glasgow is 8th in the UK and have been for a few decades- traditionally they've been the major research universities north of Yorkshire, although that's not to say the quality of education at St Andrews isn't very good. In 15 years time we'll all still be young in our careers, but the teenagers then could be raving about how great Aberyswyth is and how York is a dump, or whatever. That doesn't really change much.

A university is only as good as it's academics and students. For the top 30 or so, the academics are of a high level, and the gaps aren't that big. That brings us to the students. Regardless of what they were like 11 years ago, it only takes a certain prince to change all that. Now the entry standards are high. The way St Andrews has shot up the rankings causes one positive spiral after another (leading to better and better students applying, as well as attracting better academic simultaneously. These things feed each other). Ultimately it really becomes a top notch uni, even surpassing unis that used to be better than it.

Reply 25

Focus08

A university is only as good as it's academics and students. For the top 30 or so, the academics are of a high level, and the gaps aren't that big. That brings us to the students. Regardless of what they were like 11 years ago, it only takes a certain prince to change all that. Now the entry standards are high. The way St Andrews has shot up the rankings causes one positive spiral after another (leading to better and better students applying, as well as attracting better academic simultaneously. These things feed each other). Ultimately it really becomes a top notch uni, even surpassing unis that used to be better than it.

This is a brilliant, logical argument you've constructed. From someone who's never been to university, let alone been to several to compare the standards of students. The point I made in another thread is this: The Scottish exam system is delivered in such a way that very few students get AAAAA, and this is as high as most can go, as many schools don't teach a full range of advanced highers. Therefore, the top attaining Scots tend to have far less UCAS points than their equivalent English student, and nothing like what the best IB students get. 41 IB points is about 250 UCAS points more than the top higher grade. Ergo, depending on your student mix, you can get very different entry scores. St Andrews doesn't have many Scots, but has a lot of IB students and students from England. Aberdeen is almost wholly Scottish. I don't think 50 UCAS points is anything to write home about. Besides, they're only averages. A university like Glasgow or Edinburgh might well have 8,000 students with a higher average than the entire university of St Andrews, but have twice that with a lower score, thus bringing down the average.

Trust me on this one, Oxford and Cambridge, and to an extent LSE and Imperial, take the real outliers- the ones that are verging on genius. 75% of students at Oxford are no different really to 75% of students at Glasgow, St Andrews or Manchester- it's just the former has 25% of really exceptional ones and the latter have a weaker tail of students. I have massive amounts of respect for some St Andrews academics- I had an unconditional, funded, PhD offer there in history- and I know a good number of the students. But I don't think there's really anything to pick between them and another dozen or two universities. You'll need AAB or better to get into Glasgow, Edinburgh or St Andrews this year for most subjects, and none of the three are in clearing. If you're small and fashionable, then you'll get a boost. It's not guaranteed to last though- Edinburgh was 4th at one point in one table, Nottingham 6th- both have been outside of the top 20- entry has bounced by over 50 points from their high to low. 15 years is not a long time- although to 18 year olds it might seem it.

Reply 26

Sambo2

10

not one of these threads again... In terms of my own subject I would say it has changed quite a lot with a new £45m school and centres for research coupled to a vastly modernised course and a three year BSc hons and a new MRes, it is a very different school than it was ten years ago.. I could give other example but I think it is perhaps unfair to suggest that all the improvement in opinion is purely arbitrary, in my experience (in medicine) at least some of it is deserved.

Reply 27

I don't think the difference is purely arbitrary, no, and nor do I have anything against St Andrews either- I love the place. However, lots of universities have spent lots of money in the last decade- Glasgow has part of a new vet school and a new medical school, Edinburgh has an entire new vet school, Aberdeen has a new library and sports village on the way, Dundee has an extension to the library- heck, even UWS has a new 70m campus in Ayr due for completion in just over a year. The point is, St Andrews has always been excellent, but I'm really not convinced it's now so much better relative to the other main universities in Scotland than it was just over a decade ago. It certainly wouldn't stop me going though- I just wouldn't be under any false pretences.

Reply 28

ChemistBoy

0404343m

St Andrews is much the same university with the same staff and same facilities as 11 years ago

I'd have to say that, in this case, I don't agree with that statement. St Andrews has changed markedly over the last 11 years. The university has expanded significantly, new infrastructure has been built (both in terms of academic departments and halls of residence) and the staff have changed quite a lot (the chemistry department, for example, has changed is staff massively since I was an undergraduate). There are major developments under way too. The increased popularity over the last decade has had a marked effect on the University and when I visited there recently it was very different.

Reply 29

ChemistBoy

I'd have to say that, in this case, I don't agree with that statement. St Andrews has changed markedly over the last 11 years. The university has expanded significantly, new infrastructure has been built (both in terms of academic departments and halls of residence) and the staff have changed quite a lot (the chemistry department, for example, has changed is staff massively since I was an undergraduate). There are major developments under way too. The increased popularity over the last decade has had a marked effect on the University and when I visited there recently it was very different.

I think though, that some new buildings and new staff does not mean that the university has changed entirely. I'd be willing to bet that three in every four buildings, staff members, and probably 90% of the underlying structure of the university and degrees remains identical to the late 1990s. Like I've said, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh have significant new buildings, new staff, new halls of residence and new degrees, but only one, St Andrews, has really totally shot up in people's estimation relative to the others. So the only way, if we are to argue that that's wholly deserved, to explain this is by suggesting that the new staff and buildings are somehow of a vastly, vastly, superior quality to the projects undertaken for the same or often more money elsewhere. We're talking about places that spend tens of millions on facilities annually, and have hundreds of staff with long publications lists and long-standing reputations. I have more than a superficial knowledge of a few departments at Aberdeen and St Andrews (although not a whole lot more) and I'd say strongly that there's nothing St Andrews does that I see that Aberdeen doesn't, in any way. 99% of TSR, having never been to even see either, will automatically think one is miles better than the other now, but I'm not sure they would have 12 years ago.

Reply 30

la_banane_verte

0404343m

structure of the [...] degrees remains identical to the late 1990s.

A lecturer I had last semester was doing exam revision with us, and gave us a past paper, saying "This is the paper I sat when I was an undergraduate here, back in 1999". So yes, some of the stuff remains the same, a lot of it is different. For instance I believe St Andrews is one of only three Scottish universities to offer the MMath programme (the others being Heriott-Watt and Strathclyde).

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your overall point, I don't feel I have enough information to make a proper judgement so I'll refrain.

Reply 31

la_banane_verte

A lecturer I had last semester was doing exam revision with us, and gave us a past paper, saying "This is the paper I sat when I was an undergraduate here, back in 1999". So yes, some of the stuff remains the same, a lot of it is different. For instance I believe St Andrews is one of only three Scottish universities to offer the MMath programme (the others being Heriott-Watt and Strathclyde).

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with your overall point, I don't feel I have enough information to make a proper judgement so I'll refrain.

Fair enough. Well, the MMath is not really any different to the MSci in Maths that's offered at Glasgow or Edinburgh- it's a new naming convention that's gained more prominence in recent years. Some stick to MSci for the undergrad masters in Science subjects, others do MChem, MPhys etc- I'm not sure that means anything.

ChemistBoy is right- of course, there's been extensive new developments, but the vast majority remains unchanged. The exact same is true of the rivals in Scotland. My point is not that St Andrews is bad or inferior to anywhere, more than we're adopting a very short-term view by thinking somewhere is super-prestigious on the basis of 12 years. Anyone over the age of 35 (so, 18 in 1992) will have went to university before league tables. They're still young. In terms of entry alone, St Andrews was lower than its rivals in the late 90s and is now higher- but we're splitting hairs on/around AAB or AAAB or whatever. This might not last though, so my point is that you should choose based on other things- otherwise when you're in your 30s and a couple of arbitrary things have happened to make Cardiff the most prestigious university ever ever ever, then you'll feel a bit daft at picking somewhere based on a loose notion of temporary reputational levels rather than where you feel you'll be able to excel. Thankfully, that's only a problem for the minority.

Reply 32

la_banane_verte

0404343m

Fair enough. Well, the MMath is not really any different to the MSci in Maths that's offered at Glasgow or Edinburgh- it's a new naming convention that's gained more prominence in recent years. Some stick to MSci for the undergrad masters in Science subjects, others do MChem, MPhys etc- I'm not sure that means anything.

I have to correct myself here, Edinburgh do now have an MMath - they didn't have either MSci or MMath when I applied, but that was a while ago now!

Reply 33

la_banane_verte

I have to correct myself here, Edinburgh do now have an MMath - they didn't have either MSci or MMath when I applied, but that was a while ago now!

I see. Glasgow had an MSci when I first looked at the place in 2003, I know that much. Here is the structure: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/statistics/undergraduate/programmes/msci-statsmathsappliedpuremaths/

That's for MScis in Stats/Applied/Pure or a joint degree between them. Entry is ABB for the five-year MSci at A-Level or AAA to include maths and further maths to do it in four. But anyway, entry can bump up or down a grade or two depending on fashionability. My cousin went to Strathclyde for Chemistry in 1994, and he has the 1998 St Andrews PG/UG prospectus- entry was BCC/BBC at A-Level back then, and as you've mentioned, the past papers that are being sat and level of exams are really very similar.

Reply 34

la_banane_verte

0404343m

But anyway, entry can bump up or down a grade or two depending on fashionability.

Absolutely. The prospectus when I applied had my course at ABB, I was offered AAB and the standard offer is AAA. And I can't say the course has changed any since I started it.

Reply 35

Bucky!

8

You say that St Andrews haven't offered 'new degrees', but if something's not broken, why fix it?

I'm willing to bet Oxbridge offer the same degrees they did 10 years ago (except in subjects that change VERY rapidly, like Computer Science)

Reply 36