The Student Room Group

Best Scottish University?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by DJKL
But pro rata to population, two world class in Scotland roughly equates to twenty world class in England and five good to fifty good in England. I suspect you will be hard pressed to find 20 world class universities in England , you might find fifty good universities in England but some would be of no better calibre than Stirling, Dundee and Heriot Watt so that will raise the comparable tarriff to eighty.Accordingly I think we have every right to be proud of our Universities

Its also good to remember that we had four universities when England only had two, Durham is so nouveau. :smile:


Tad harsh to put HW on a level with Stirling and Dundee.
I think it's even harder to give a "Best Scottish University" than it is for unis in England, as I find the quality of the education given is more dependent on the course in Scotland than it is at other unis. For example, someone above said "Oh, that's quite insulting comparing HW to Dundee!" While I think Dundee is one of the better unis for medicine in Scotland.

Original post by alexs2602
"many very good".... sorry, maybe we haven't different definitions of many. 5, iirc, is not many. Get over it, you have some, but not enough that you should really risk applying to only unis in Scotland.... well, at least on the old tuition fee system - the new system doesn't apply to me, hence I don't care. Also "quite a few considered 'world-class'" - St Andrews and Edinburgh? Glasgow is good, not quite world class. 2 is not quite a few. No shame in admitting it, stop being so arrogant. On the old tuition fee system tuition fees didn't really account for as much as people made out really - I spend more on accommodation(inc food). Well, that's(While some English universities may be a better choice.... more.) a vague statement isn't it? I appreciate the distance from home argument a bit.... if you have the choice(like I do) but you don't; not really. You have the Scottish unis and then the nearest good unis are Durham then... Newcastle, right(I'm asking because of my geographical knowledge)? That's only two more unis... oh sorry, 'quite a few' more unis by your definition.

I won't hesitate to admit that Scotland has good unis but Scottish people seem to have this over-inflated sense of how good they actually are, and are too stubborn to admit that they don't have as many good unis as they'd like to have.


Christ mate, calm down. Scotland has a population that is 2/13ths of England and Wales. Scotland has a tiny population and the number of good unis is relatively high for that population. Glasgow, Edinburgh, St. Andrews, Dundee,are 4 unis in Scotland I'd call good. Even stretch to say Strathclyde.
This is 4/15 universities in Scotland. England has, what? 80 universities? I'm sure you can do the logic and work out why you seem to have "so many" good universities.

No one's coming in and singing the praises of how much better Scotland is for England. You're just getting butt-hurt because you think your unis are better and no one is saying how good they are. Don't be such a snob, what do you expect in a thread asking about Scottish universities? :rolleyes:

I'm applying to 5 Scottish unis, although I'm perfectly qualified to compete for the top unis in England, including Oxbridge, I simply can't afford to study outside of Scotland.
So I suggest you come off your high horse. Not a single person has said that Scottish unis are better than English ones. Are we not allowed to think our universities are relatively good? Sure, we can't hold a light to Oxbridge, Imperial, King's, Warwick...does that make 13/15 unis in Scotland crap?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by DJKL
But pro rata to population, two world class in Scotland roughly equates to twenty world class in England and five good to fifty good in England. I suspect you will be hard pressed to find 20 world class universities in England , you might find fifty good universities in England but some would be of no better calibre than Stirling, Dundee and Heriot Watt so that will raise the comparable tarriff to eighty.Accordingly I think we have every right to be proud of our Universities

Its also good to remember that we had four universities when England only had two, Durham is so nouveau. :smile:

Don't know about that - I can think of a fairly solid 15 world class unis without even looking at a list of unis, from the ones I considered last year.

That's arguable, the history regarding universities is controversial. Nice try though, if I'd been someone else you might have succeeded in convincing me.
Original post by Hype en Ecosse
I think it's even harder to give a "Best Scottish University" than it is for unis in England, as I find the quality of the education given is more dependent on the course in Scotland than it is at other unis. For example, someone above said "Oh, that's quite insulting comparing HW to Dundee!" While I think Dundee is one of the better unis for medicine in Scotland.



Christ mate, calm down. Scotland has a population that is 2/13ths of England and Wales. Scotland has a tiny population and the number of good unis is relatively high for that population. Glasgow, Edinburgh, St. Andrews, Dundee,are 4 unis in Scotland I'd call good. Even stretch to say Strathclyde.
This is 4/15 universities in Scotland. England has, what? 80 universities? I'm sure you can do the logic and work out why you seem to have "so many" good universities.

No one's coming in and singing the praises of how much better Scotland is for England. You're just getting butt-hurt because you think your unis are better and no one is saying how good they are. Don't be such a snob, what do you expect in a thread asking about Scottish universities? :rolleyes:

I'm applying to 5 Scottish unis, although I'm perfectly qualified to compete for the top unis in England, including Oxbridge, I simply can't afford to study outside of Scotland.
So I suggest you come off your high horse. Not a single person has said that Scottish unis are better than English ones. Are we not allowed to think our universities are relatively good? Sure, we can't hold a light to Oxbridge, Imperial, King's, Warwick...does that make 13/15 unis in Scotland crap?

No, I was pissed off because I've received nothing but hassle from arrogant Scots who won't accept the truth that they should consider more than Scottish unis when applying. You do make a fair point but my point was for the 5 UCAS choices you get it's not a very wise decision to fill those with purely Scottish unis, at least if you're reasonably to very smart. From a educational standpoint you don't want to restrict yourself based on location and £10k. Say you apply to St Andrews, Edin, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen. But you could have applied to about 45 +/-5 English/Welsh universities in that range academically. Which seems a total waste, especially if you're smart enough to go to Oxbridge, or even you'd only really want to go to St Andrews or Edin. What if you fail to get an offer from one of those or two but you might have got an offer from a English or Welsh equivalent? I'm all about maximising your academic potential so maximising your chance of getting into a uni on the same academic level would be a better decision than applying to unis from approx 10th to 50th.

What did I expect? I don't know, realism? I doubt you even know how this thread started. The OP was an international student who seemed to be falling into the trap of only applying to Scottish unis. Then the thread developed into a ****storm and it went a bit far from the point of the thread. I only merely attempted to inform the OP that there were other universities worth considering.

Which is why I mentioned the old fee system. In England's defence - that was still a stupid decision. The very best English universities will still pay for their high tuition fees in the long run, and short run for that matter. Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL, LSE, some others depending on subject. Actually a lot have suggested that they think Scottish unis are better than English ones in their decisions. I didn't say they weren't good anyway, if you'd read all my posts, which I doubt you have, you'd have noticed I said there are good Scottish unis but it seemed silly for Scottish students not to consider English universities(under the old fee system) just because if they study in Scotland it's free. Dohohohoho, Kings? Please, it's not that great. Not for my subject anyway, I'd go for UCL over Kings. Then again I guess Kings is approximately as good as St Andrews.

EDIT: One thing I think we have established is a poor ability to read amongst Scottish people, at the very least.

I also realise this was a rambling post but I really don't care to tidy it up.
(edited 12 years ago)
St Andrews and Edinburgh probably have best reputation but you should pick the one most suited to you as going to a place you hate which is highly regarded, getting unhappy and dropping out or getting a third will probably look worse than going somewhere slightly less well-respected and getting a first - at least then people can't put "upper limits" on your ability.
Reply 85
Original post by alexs2602
It depends on your intelligence - generally speaking there are a few good Scottish unis then it goes downhill. What this really means is you ignore a lot of unis that academically would be great for you so should you get rejected by one or more of the better ones or God forbid miss your offer by a whisker you'll be left to go to a uni which isn't as good as you deserve whereas you could have got offers from a number of unis throughout the UK that are just as good as StAndrews or Edinburgh due to selection criteria or leniency.


Edinburgh
Glasgow
St. Andrews
Heriot Watt
Strathclyde
Aberdeen
Dundee
Stirling

All of the above universities are by and large good in their entire range of subjects. That's more than a few. The others have their strong points too.

Original post by alexs2602
What I really hope is you don't apply to only Scottish unis based on money.


Why? Faced with the choice of paying £27,000 for your education or getting it for free I think it's obvious which option is more enticing.
Reply 86
Original post by Tams80
"O, you go to St. Andrews! Pr..." (at this point I usually cut them off and tell them to talk about something else :angry::colone:).


Prat? Prick? Oh, prestigious, sorry. :p:

Original post by Aristotle's' Disciple
Whoa, dude... I rate you. I mean Stirling is by no means bad, but it WAS St. Andrews?! :O


Yeah, who would pass up the offer of being stuck in an insignificant town surrounded by insufferable young conservatives burning effigies of Barack Obama, intolerable aristocrats wearing chinos and blazers, drunken cocaine snorting Surrey sluts, ignorant Americans who see Braveheart as an accurate historical documentary and bloody tourists?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by alexs2602
No, I was pissed off because I've received nothing but hassle from arrogant Scots who won't accept the truth that they should consider more than Scottish unis when applying.


So far you have failed to provide any reason why they should. It's pretty clear why many don't: why pay 27K in England for something you can get for free in Scotland? And also consider that a lot of Scottish schools do not have adequate provisions for teaching enough advanced highers to even get into an English university.
Reply 88
Original post by foxo
Yeah, who would pass up the offer of being stuck in an insignificant town surrounded by insufferable young conservatives burning effigies of Barack Obama, intolerable aristocrats wearing chinos and blazers, drunken cocaine snorting Surrey sluts, ignorant Americans who see Braveheart as an accurate historical documentary and bloody tourists?


Sounds like it'd be fun for a weekend visit though. :wink:


Original post by Smack
So far you have failed to provide any reason why they should. It's pretty clear why many don't: why pay 27K in England for something you can get for free in Scotland? And also consider that a lot of Scottish schools do not have adequate provisions for teaching enough advanced highers to even get into an English university.


I'm no great authority on education, but I'd be very disturbed in there was even a single secondary school in Scotland that did not even have the technical ability to put you through courses and examinations that would be required to get into Oxford or Cambridge. If there are such schools, then that is obscene - that's not simply a matter of quality of teaching, which I suppose we all accept varies within the state sector, but an actual lack of standard provision.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by L i b
Sounds like it'd be fun for a weekend visit though. :wink:

I'm no great authority on education, but I'd be very disturbed in there was even a single secondary school in Scotland that did not even have the technical ability to put you through courses and examinations that would be required to get into Oxford or Cambridge. If there are such schools, then that is obscene - that's not simply a matter of quality of teaching, which I suppose we all accept varies within the state sector, but an actual lack of standard provision.


Trust me, it is. Went there for a flatwarming with a friend of the holding it. Straaaaaange night :tongue:

As for your second point, trust me, there are plenty of schools which do not have the capability of allowing students to do three Advanced Highers. Many have to move school up where I'm from just to take Advanced maths and physics etc subjects you'd think would be ubiquitous.
Reply 90
Original post by GingerGoat
As for your second point, trust me, there are plenty of schools which do not have the capability of allowing students to do three Advanced Highers. Many have to move school up where I'm from just to take Advanced maths and physics etc subjects you'd think would be ubiquitous.


I would hope not. That said, when I was at school, the Advanced Higher system was still relatively young. Of the SQA qualifications, Highers were still considered the main route to university entry, and I knew several people who received conditional offers specifically excluding Advanced Higher marks.
Original post by L i b
I'm no great authority on education, but I'd be very disturbed in there was even a single secondary school in Scotland that did not even have the technical ability to put you through courses and examinations that would be required to get into Oxford or Cambridge. If there are such schools, then that is obscene - that's not simply a matter of quality of teaching, which I suppose we all accept varies within the state sector, but an actual lack of standard provision.


I know that my school, when I was there at least, fluctuated in what advanced highers it could offer based on what staff it had. During my time it could offer STEM subjects but not enough humanities, if I remember correctly. And whilst it was overall quite a poor school with many underachieving pupils, there are far worse in the really deprived areas of the cities I'd imagine.

And often the advanced highers it did "offer", it wasn't actually able to provide any teaching whatsoever for. That was the case for the advanced higher I chose; after half a year of absolutely no teaching, merely being told to read a small book, and being stuck in with another class doing a totally different subject I dropped it. But I'll spare you the sob story...

Given the school's achievement level it probably wasn't worth their time running advanced highers. It was more concerned with getting people to pass their standard grades so they could go straight into work or do intermediate 2s or highers in fifth year.
Reply 92
Original post by Smack
I know that my school, when I was there at least, fluctuated in what advanced highers it could offer based on what staff it had. During my time it could offer STEM subjects but not enough humanities, if I remember correctly. And whilst it was overall quite a poor school with many underachieving pupils, there are far worse in the really deprived areas of the cities I'd imagine.

And often the advanced highers it did "offer", it wasn't actually able to provide any teaching whatsoever for. That was the case for the advanced higher I chose; after half a year of absolutely no teaching, merely being told to read a small book, and being stuck in with another class doing a totally different subject I dropped it. But I'll spare you the sob story...

Given the school's achievement level it probably wasn't worth their time running advanced highers. It was more concerned with getting people to pass their standard grades so they could go straight into work or do intermediate 2s or highers in fifth year.


Is it generally the feeling that universities are looking more for AHs nowadays as entry requirements then?
Original post by L i b
Is it generally the feeling that universities are looking more for AHs nowadays as entry requirements then?


English ones are.


In my opinion, Scottish education needs an overhaul from the roots. At the 15-18 level, it should move from the "rah-rah" level that higher provides across a number of subjects to a much deeper level across fewer subjects, because simply put, it sets up better for the future.

I'd prefer to see the higher abolished, 2 year AH become the norm.
Original post by L i b
Is it generally the feeling that universities are looking more for AHs nowadays as entry requirements then?


English ones, to my knowledge, have always required them in order so that Scottish students come in with the same level of knowledge as A-level students.

I'm not aware of any Scottish university at the moment that requires or even prefers AHs, although I could be wrong as it was four years ago when I applied to university, and the whole process was very much an afterthought for me.

Mr Dangermouse
In my opinion, Scottish education needs an overhaul from the roots. At the 15-18 level, it should move from the "rah-rah" level that higher provides across a number of subjects to a much deeper level across fewer subjects, because simply put, it sets up better for the future.

I'd prefer to see the higher abolished, 2 year AH become the norm.


I think that the only reason you think like that is because such a move would better suit Scottish pupils for English universities. Beyond that, there is no reason for such a change; it will have an absolutely negligible impact in the future beyond university admissions, and it would also have an effect on Scottish universities as there'd be no need for four year degrees any more.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 95
I think this order:

Edinburgh
St Andrews
Glasgow
Heriot Watt
Strathclyde
Dundee
Aberdeen
Stirling

:biggrin: All of the above are great universities anyway so does it really matter?!
Reply 96
Original post by Smack
English ones, to my knowledge, have always required them in order so that Scottish students come in with the same level of knowledge as A-level students.


Nah, definitely not - all the people I knew in the early/mid-2000s who went to English universities did so mainly on the back of Highers, with - at most - two AHs. This included Oxbridge.

I think that the only reason you think like that is because such a move would better suit Scottish pupils for English universities. Beyond that, there is no reason for such a change; it will have an absolutely negligible impact in the future beyond university admissions, and it would also have an effect on Scottish universities as there'd be no need for four year degrees any more.


There probably isn't much of a need for them at the moment.
Original post by L i b
Nah, definitely not - all the people I knew in the early/mid-2000s who went to English universities did so mainly on the back of Highers, with - at most - two AHs. This included Oxbridge.


My school never sent anyone to Oxbridge in my time there, but from what I've heard (primarily from TSR, so make of that what you will), Oxford and Cambridge are some of the few English universities to understand the Scottish education system and thus make appropriate offers to students, which in many cases may include only two AHs. I'm sure I've heard an example of Kent having higher entry requirements than Cambridge for some subjects in terms of advanced highers!
Yeah Oxford PPE only requires AA at Advanced Higher but presumably they'll be looking for five highers on top of that.
Original post by foxo
Edinburgh
Glasgow
St. Andrews
Heriot Watt
Strathclyde
Aberdeen
Dundee
Stirling

All of the above universities are by and large good in their entire range of subjects. That's more than a few. The others have their strong points too.



Why? Faced with the choice of paying £27,000 for your education or getting it for free I think it's obvious which option is more enticing.

And yet more proof of my earlier statement that Scots can't read. I said under the OLD fee system. You've got a few too many in that list up there(I wouldnt consider Stirling, Strathclyde, Dundee or even Aberdeen an option if I were applying again. Although I might let Aberdeen and Dundee get in purely because they're good for other people).

Original post by Smack
So far you have failed to provide any reason why they should. It's pretty clear why many don't: why pay 27K in England for something you can get for free in Scotland? And also consider that a lot of Scottish schools do not have adequate provisions for teaching enough advanced highers to even get into an English university.

I've provided plenty, for the old tuition fee system - it's what I'm on and I can't really empathise with those who are the new one because I won't have to pay for it. That just goes to show English unis are more rigorous for their admissions, I guess. For the new system though; there's plenty of reason to go to the elite English unis and still pay tuition fees. Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, Imperial, Bristol, Warwick, Bath still pay for themselves in my eyes even with £27k to pay, and there are others too - depends on subject ofc.



Haters gonna hate!

Quick Reply

Latest