Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free to post

Prestige of St Andrews

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    What you've done there, is mistake a balanced answer for 'animosity', because you've trawled through a post where I spent just as much time complimenting St Andrews to find something you didn't like, and then taken the huff. Then, by way of weak comeback, you deduce that I attended Glasgow, and work out I must be biased because it's what, nine places lower in a league table. I don't go about shouting about how I attended Oxford or Yale too, and you haven't had a go at them- why not? Think you're better than one but not the others? 'Quality' is the most debatable thing said so far: having taught hundreds of undergraduates, I can say safely that those who look good on paper sometimes have nothing between the ears. Sometimes they're well-heeled, well educated, three-A students who are at one institution because they ended up at the bottom of their class. I'll give you the name of a couple of St Andrews academics who'll happily tell you that it's a common phenomenon at St Andrews too.

    I have no animosity towards an inanimate object. St Andrews is also a solid brand name, yes (try reading my first sentence again). The problem I have is when people on here suggest that they, the institution, or the students there are somehow more special than a raft of other places because some recent league tables say so, and people would be daft to attend somewhere else, providing it's not Oxford, Cambridge, LSE or Imperial. I'm interested in making sure people apply to the right places for them and pick somewhere where they'll not be miserable. If St Andrews is right for them, terrific. If they're going because they've been told it's very prestigious for reasons we can't put our finger on and nothing much else, then no. Ditto anywhere for that matter.

    No other university has had such an upturn in applications since the 1990s (close to a 400% increase). This was sparked off by some guy called William- plotting applications on a graph shows that if it wasn't him, then there was something else in the air that year that started the avalanche. Prince or no prince? No prince and St Andrews would still be in the 1990s (and in clearing). This certainly does not make it an inferior institution, but it probably knocks your bragging rights, which seem to be more important.
    Alright, let me be more meticulous and attentive this time.

    Though I'm not sure where to begin. Ah, yes, you (briefly) start off (twice) by saying how "excellent" the university is then go on to say how average in reality it is. Can you pick one? Because I think your "nice" paragraph about STA is just a camouflage for your, well, animosity and cantankerousness towards STA.

    I'm not going to take a swipe at Oxford or Yale, because large amount of STA graduates go to these universities as well and vice-versa. I was comparing Glasgow - STA in a way as to suggest simpletons can be found at both, which brings me to my next point,

    I can say safely that those who look good on paper sometimes have nothing between the ears.
    A cliche of massive proportion. You think this applies to STA students only? I know Oxbridge graduates who are the very definition of what you're saying. Yet you're referring to STA specifically. It's hardly fair or apt.
    well off students are unlikely to drop out, fail to get at least a 2:1, be miserable or fail to get a job.
    I find this logic flawed. You keep mentioning "well off" in several of your recent posts regarding STA. So what you're basically trying to convey is - mum and dad are loaded, ergo I my life is roses and butterflies so I will rock my next exam! Here's a counter hypothesis: most of the "well off" students I know, aren't particularly keen on performing well or applying themselves for better academic performance, because they have zero motivation to achieve something.

    And no, no one is suggesting STA is the educational power house on the planet, nor the UK for that matter, but the university is solid and it edges closer to Oxbridge with regards to entry requirements. The "Prince or no Prince" reference attempts to illustrate the fact that an employer will hire a STA graduate, because the applicant will have achieved near perfect results from place where the quality of students is high. He wouldn't give a toss if the prince, the queen or the global warming instigated this or not, neither will the STA student.

    If my memory serves me well, STA were doing somewhat OK even before the prince. 10-15 in the tables. Historically speaking, every university has its ups and downs.

    but it probably knocks your bragging rights, which seem to be more important
    Animosity continued... The only "bragging rights" here are, again, the entry requirements. The university has managed to become selective in recruiting high quality students. That's what employers see, that's what students and peers see.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prickler)
    I am a student of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews. The University and its environment holds about as much interest as a spindle fashioned from excrement on a Fixie bicycle. There is an indubitable dearth of innovation (with the exception of a recently established course in Harry Potter studies, which is compatible with it's retrograde image to American eyes). It is a place to regurgitate knowledge that has already been assessed, and recited by death and to death's pet rat. The professors simply ingeminate the work of the Greats. I am a working-class lass from a school of dirt. I worked my ass off to pay for the opportunity to sit my exams because I attended a 'vocational' school. Entrance to St Andrews university was unprecedented! The culture shock drowned me. There are so many vacuous, wealthy people who pay hundreds of pounds to have their essays proof-read. I am relinquishing the home-county culture of rah rah girls for Glasgow where I can obtain pizza crunch, some dry mirth and originality.
    Can I just say that I enjoyed your use of "ingeminate". Makes fewer public appearances than the word deserves.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warlock)
    Animosity continued... The only "bragging rights" here are, again, the entry requirements. The university has managed to become selective in recruiting high quality students. That's what employers see, that's what students and peers see.
    This is you being meticulous? You could have fooled me.

    You've misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying St Andrews is the only university with good students on paper and little between the ears (the point was a general one about good students on paper, not St Andrews), I'm saying that it's far from immune to these problems, despite what those banging on about the entry requirements are saying. I'm trying to inject some realism into the debate, not take a swipe at St Andrews (although I'll happily challenge those that whip out entry requirements and rankings as 'proof' of status). To reiterate: It's a fine university, it just isn't quite as fine as you think. That the St Andrews offer holder says otherwise (I was one for MA, MLitt and PhD, by the way) is hardly surprising. Check the statistics for educational attainment amongst the top social classes against the bottom (HESA publish them), and check the comparisons between private and state schools (Telegraph ran an article on it). You are three times more likely get 3As and much less likely to drop out or be unemployed regardless of the university you attend based on your school and social class. St Andrews has more of these students than virtually any other, and ranks much much higher than Liverpool, which has the Russell Group's highest proportion of 'poorer' students. You have a hypothesis, nothing else.

    I know of no St Andrews students at Harvard or Yale. I know of five Glasgow students (three and two respectively), and I think I know just about all of them that studied at some point in Scotland, because there aren't many of us (five total in Yale that I know of, perhaps more at Harvard). Don't kid yourself. It has no more claim on entry to Ivy League schools than other top universities- in other words, not very much and most of us will still get rejected. Which, as I've also argued, there are more than just five or six of. Twenty six, with St Andrews much closer to the rest than Oxford or Cambridge, is far more accurate.

    You are correct, historically St Andrews was lower- typically around 15-20 (17 in 1998, 18 in 1997), but far from bad. Again, that's missing my point. I can only assume you've been blinded by fury that I've not said only said nice things that you're ignoring them and assuming I have an agenda. I'd say it's far more likely the undecided offer holder who has mentioned rankings and prestige frequently, is the one with the issue. Feel free to live in your world though, and I'll live in mine.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    I know of no St Andrews students at Harvard or Yale. I know of five Glasgow students, and I think I know just about all of them that studied at some point in Scotland, because there aren't many of us (five total in Yale that I know of, perhaps more at Harvard). Don't kid yourself. It has no more claim on entry to Ivy League schools than other top universities- in other words, not very much and most of us will still get rejected. Which, as I've also argued, there are more than just five or six of. Twenty six, with St Andrews much closer to the rest than Oxford or Cambridge, is far more accurate.
    I know quite a few people who've studied at both Harvard and St Andrews. I know fewer who've studied at both Yale and St Andrews, but this is likely due to the fact that I have far more interaction with Harvard people. Also, it might be because Yale isn't particularly well known for graduate study so it's less likely that St Andrews undergraduate alumni would go there. If your point is that some of the best universities in the US don't often share students with St Andrews, then I'd have to disagree. Albeit a purely anecdotal example, I went to a top 5 university in the US and then did graduate work at St Andrews. The decision was not at all viewed as strange by my friends/colleagues and I met plenty of people from other elite US universities studying at St Andrews.

    I don't think it's wise to lump together all Ivy League universities when making these sorts of comparisons. St Andrews might not have much in common with Harvard--a giant, multi-faculty research institution. However, it is very similar to Dartmouth and Brown in size, scope, emphasis on teaching, and selectivity.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    I wouldn't say the W&M collaboration means all that much- other major universities have similar such exchanges and partnerships. To use the example of another university mentioned on this thread:

    http://www.gla.ac.uk/about/internati...biauniversity/

    http://sanford.duke.edu/undergraduate/abroad/

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~english/pr...fsp/index.html

    (these are different from normal study abroad programmes in the sense that it's an agreement specifically between the universities for collaboration and sending students both ways. To use your own words: this wouldn't happen "with a university that was vastly different in terms of academic quality or prestige")

    ...anyway, these aren't really all that rare. W&M/St A are just going a bit further by taking a total of two years out of four rather than one at the partner institution.
    Also, I think you're mischaracterizing the St Andrews/W&M program a bit. The links you've provided show examples where universities have established partnerships in research and faculty/student exchange. These partnerships do go beyond your run of the mill study abroad, student exchange programs. St Andrews has these sorts of agreements with UCLA, Berkeley, Cornell, Emory, Georgetown, and others (apparently one is in the works with Harvard, since the current Vice Principal left a deanship there to take the job at St Andrews).

    The St Andrews/W&M program goes far beyond these examples. Students on the International Honours track actually graduate from both St Andrews and W&M. They receive a unique degree certificate and are considered alumni of both institutions, with all the privileges this implies. It's great because graduates form substantial professional/social networks (and find career opportunities) on both sides of the Atlantic. St Andrews and W&M have been strategic partners for a long time and from talking to people involved in developing the International Honours program, it's clear that each institution thinks highly of the other.

    See: http://www.wm.edu/admission/undergra...-programme.php

    See: http://www.wm.edu/as/undergraduate/c...rews/index.php

    See: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/WM%20Brochure-1.pdf
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    What you've done there, is mistake a balanced answer for 'animosity', because you've trawled through a post where I spent just as much time complimenting St Andrews to find something you didn't like, and then taken the huff. Then, by way of weak comeback, you deduce that I attended Glasgow, and work out I must be biased because it's what, nine places lower in a league table. I don't go about shouting about how I attended Oxford or Yale too, and you haven't had a go at them- why not? Think you're better than one but not the others? 'Quality' is the most debatable thing said so far: having taught hundreds of undergraduates, I can say safely that those who look good on paper sometimes have nothing between the ears. Sometimes they're well-heeled, well educated, three-A students who are at one institution because they ended up at the bottom of their class. I'll give you the name of a couple of St Andrews academics who'll happily tell you that it's a common phenomenon at St Andrews too.

    I have no animosity towards an inanimate object. St Andrews is also a solid brand name, yes (try reading my first sentence again). The problem I have is when people on here suggest that they, the institution, or the students there are somehow more special than a raft of other places because some recent league tables say so, and people would be daft to attend somewhere else, providing it's not Oxford, Cambridge, LSE or Imperial. I'm interested in making sure people apply to the right places for them and pick somewhere where they'll not be miserable. If St Andrews is right for them, terrific. If they're going because they've been told it's very prestigious for reasons we can't put our finger on and nothing much else, then no. Ditto anywhere for that matter.

    No other university has had such an upturn in applications since the 1990s (close to a 400% increase). This was sparked off by some guy called William- plotting applications on a graph shows that if it wasn't him, then there was something else in the air that year that started the avalanche. Prince or no prince? No prince and St Andrews would still be in the 1990s (and in clearing). This certainly does not make it an inferior institution, but it probably knocks your bragging rights, which seem to be more important.
    0404:

    So can you "quantify" your view of St Andrews' prestige for me from an American standpoint. If a kid walks into a job interview at a bank in London with a St Andrews degree, what American schools would that employer consider the St Andrews degree to be equivalent to? Is it a Dartmouth? Is it a Vanderbilt? Is it an Emory? Is it a Georgetown? Is it a Boston College?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    This is you being meticulous? You could have fooled me.
    I said I was going to be more meticulous, I didn't say I was going to write a journal on everything you say.

    (Original post by 0404343m)
    You've misunderstood my argument.
    Au contraire, I understood your argument just fine, but you utilised a 'generalistic' concept applied to a singular university in your bid to foreground how St Andrews graduates are "not so clever". Nothing that even the best of the marquee universities are mired with the good on paper, nothing between the years syndrome. Making an example of STA is speaks of animosity to me, because you've referenced it with the "quality" of students.

    On your "well off" students remarks. Wake up please. St Andrews is hardly the only university accused of luring the rich whilst neglecting the poorer. It's even worse in the US with the best universities where the ivies student population is predominantly from a wealthy background. Should we right them off now? Cambridge & Oxford are hardly any different where ~95% of all students are white. Universities like Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Bristol also have low intake of poorer applicants. Yet again example is being made of St Andrews.

    (Original post by 0404343m)
    I know of no St Andrews students at Harvard or Yale. I know of five Glasgow students, and I think I know just about all of them that studied at some point in Scotland, because there aren't many of us (five total in Yale that I know of, perhaps more at Harvard). Don't kid yourself. It has no more claim on entry to Ivy League schools than other top universities- in other words, not very much and most of us will still get rejected. Which, as I've also argued, there are more than just five or six of. Twenty six, with St Andrews much closer to the rest than Oxford or Cambridge, is far more accurate.
    This is the part where I'm being meticulous. Just because you don't know of any graduates, doesn't mean they don't exist. Below is only an excerpt of huge list of people from the Ivy League with St Andrews ties. The majority of them are Ivy Leaguers who've come to St Andrews for postgraduate studies. They must be one of those "not so clever" Ivy Leaguers to join St Andrews, right? Yeah sorry to disappoint.


    Yale
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/tobiasragoczy
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/edward-nanno/4b/47b/939
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/carolyn-fratto/3b/a54/628
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/shawna-benston/7/16a/7b2
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/financialadvisor1
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/gavin-witt/8/0/aa
    http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/douglas-gibson/2b/ab2/44b
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-olmstead/38/350/943
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kate-gilbert/b/639/2aa
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/christin...cia/18/320/619
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/katherin...ncer/6/5a2/531
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/catherine-yin/5/a45/1aa

    Columbia
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/christina-tucker/19/9a5/15
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/catherine-yin/5/a45/1aa
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/matthias-pfaff/4b/390/ba6
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jennifer-parker/27/952/82a
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sarah-as...mons/6/2a9/bb5

    Harvard
    http://uk.linkedin.com/in/barrygardiner
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/pat-watt/4/32b/ab1
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jennifer-parker/27/952/82a
    http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/james-calvert/30/388/1a5
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/fernando...z-eddy/7/656/8
    http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/jonathan-skakel/14/128/703
    http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/rosie-barrett/b/596/387
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/fiona-hill/35/bba/884

    Princeton
    http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/nick-kordowski/31/614/1b1
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kate-groninger/25/689/30
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michele-mason/6/702/350
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/beth-akers/5/540/51b
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/byronmattingly

    (Original post by 0404343m)
    You are correct, historically St Andrews was lower
    Stop twisting my words I said "Historically speaking, every university has its ups and downs.". You're again pointing the finger at St Andrews, specifically!

    (Original post by 0404343m)
    although I'll happily challenge those that whip out entry requirements and rankings as 'proof' of status
    I don't much care for league tables or 'prestige', because these are subjective. The entry requirements are something else entirely. So I fail to see how someone with Oxford, LSE, Imperial, UCL, Warwick credentials is "clever', but if he goes to St Andrews, not so much considering the admissions criteria is about the same.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Hello,

    I will offer yet more anecdotes. Dartmouth has been mentioned several times in this discussion. I worked at Dartmouth before joining St Andrews, and I would say that the two are directly comparable. In some areas St Andrews is much better, e.g., contact time. And in other areas Dartmouth is much better, e.g., facilities; it's hard to compete with a university with its own skiway, although the town of St Andrews does have seven golf courses! But in most areas, e.g., breadth and quality of courses, opportunities for students, employment rates, or the quality of students, I would say that the two are more or less the same.

    Whether this comparable quality translates to comparable "prestige" is something that I am unable to assess. But if you can somehow equate "prestige" and "reputation", then I will provide more anecdotes. My degrees are from Cambridge and UCL. When I worked in the US and discussed my academic background, most people had heard of Cambridge, although some asked if I actually meant Harvard or MIT. Practically no-one had heard of UCL, and most people thought that I meant UCLA. This was rather surprising to me at first, since UCL is quite well-known in the UK. Similarly, when I was returning to the UK, I applied to what many British students would perceive to be well-known institutions within and outwith the Russell Group and so forth. When it came to making a choice from my offers, St Andrews was by far the most well-known institution amongst my US colleagues.

    Has your son visited St Andrews yet? While I would say that it is comparable to Dartmouth and many of the other institutions mentioned in this thread, he will have a very different experience at St Andrews versus, say, Chicago. A visit may well help to clarify his thinking.

    Tristan Henderson (in a personal capacity rather than as a St Andrews Admissions Tutor)
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by War and Peace)
    I know quite a few people who've studied at both Harvard and St Andrews. I know fewer who've studied at both Yale and St Andrews, but this is likely due to the fact that I have far more interaction with Harvard people. Also, it might be because Yale isn't particularly well known for graduate study so it's less likely that St Andrews undergraduate alumni would go there. If your point is that some of the best universities in the US don't often share students with St Andrews, then I'd have to disagree. Albeit a purely anecdotal example, I went to a top 5 university in the US and then did graduate work at St Andrews. The decision was not at all viewed as strange by my friends/colleagues and I met plenty of people from other elite US universities studying at St Andrews.

    I don't think it's wise to lump together all Ivy League universities when making these sorts of comparisons. St Andrews might not have much in common with Harvard--a giant, multi-faculty research institution. However, it is very similar to Dartmouth and Brown in size, scope, emphasis on teaching, and selectivity.
    Firstly, on W&M: I wasn't trying to mischaracterise the linkup. I was taking issue with the 'clearly they have a linkup because they are of equal standing' that the OP seems to be preoccupied with, hence why I showed that there's lots of cases (in the three minutes I had) of linkups where they think highly of each other.

    Secondly, on the student movements. Clearly it happens, I didn't say it did not. The insinuation seemed to be however that St Andrews is so highly regarded that going to St Andrews means Harvard and Yale will prize St Andrews graduates over others allowing a greater regularity of them attending these places. I don't think that's the case- as many apply and very few are accepted (that's not just St A, it's Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow, Edinburgh, UCL, Manchester wherever too). The LinkedIn stats below are mainly students going from America to St Andrews, which is the reverse of what I'm saying. That Harvard and Yale students can get into St Andrews isn't exactly shock of the century. For graduate study, they're two of the only universities with more PGs than UGs (and Yale College borders on a joke at times), so if Yale really is known for UG mainly, then it's really going down the pan.

    I have to echo what Tristan says here, this has to be about types of university rather than unquantifiable 'prestige'. If you want to go to somewhere with 7,000 students in a town of 18,000 in a setting like there, there's no point comparing Texas at Austin, or Chicago, or UCLA. There are tons of good reasons to go to St Andrews, and it's a well known and well regarded place. But it's not for everyone.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warlock)
    Au contraire, I understood your argument just fine, but you utilised a 'generalistic' concept applied to a singular university in your bid to foreground how St Andrews graduates are "not so clever". Nothing that even the best of the marquee universities are mired with the good on paper, nothing between the years syndrome. Making an example of STA is speaks of animosity to me, because you've referenced it with the "quality" of students.

    On your "well off" students remarks. Wake up please. St Andrews is hardly the only university accused of luring the rich whilst neglecting the poorer. It's even worse in the US with the best universities where the ivies student population is predominantly from a wealthy background. Should we right them off now? Cambridge & Oxford are hardly any different where ~95% of all students are white. Universities like Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Bristol also have low intake of poorer applicants. Yet again example is being made of St Andrews.

    Stop twisting my words I said "Historically speaking, every university has its ups and downs.". You're again pointing the finger at St Andrews, specifically!



    I don't much care for league tables or 'prestige', because these are subjective. The entry requirements are something else entirely. So I fail to see how someone with Oxford, LSE, Imperial, UCL, Warwick credentials is "clever', but if he goes to St Andrews, not so much considering the admissions criteria is about the same.
    That's funny- I've read you saying 'lower ranking' ('I'm going to spurn my offer for a lower ranking university', I believe) before. Must be my imagination. You fail to see, because I didn't say it. MY POINT IS THIS (it's a difficult one, so read it carefully): St Andrews isn't immune to these problems simply because one thinks it's 'prestigious', which is often argued on TSR ('students there will be better than at Manchester', about three weeks ago). It's ironic that you go on about my 'not so clever' point in this way, and then you pick up students from Harvard going to St Andrews as proof that clever students do. Tell me, are they clever because they go to Harvard, and shall we just forget what you said about Oxford earlier on? Pick one viewpoint, and stick to it. If you've been to Oxford, Harvard or Yale as a point of comparison, please do feel free to correct me. They're either intelligent (or not) independently of university, or they aren't. Eh, 'Sorry to disappoint'.

    I'm also sorry for twisting your words. It is now clear what you meant. Namely, that a 600 year old university has had 'its ups and downs' at least twice in the last 19 years since league tables were invented. Christ, better hope it isn't on a downer when you try to use that degree.

    There is one thing you are correct on though: Entry requirements are something else entirely from league tables. They're driven by supply and demand. St Andrews, being in a small town and a small university, has lots of demand for limited supply. Manchester, on the other hand, has six times the number of places available and not as much demand per place (but three times the number of applications). This clearly makes St Andrews the better choice. Secondly, the entry requirements are usually applied to undergraduates, which applies to neither you or the OP.

    This thread is on St Andrews. I made points which undoubtedly apply to St Andrews. Because I didn't then qualify this with 'but these are also problems at some universities your son isn't applying to' has set you off on a mission. There isn't a witch hunt here.

    Listen, I'm really, truly, sorry that the best you managed with your qualifications was a St Andrews MLitt or LSE which lets everyone that can pay in. But it's not my problem to make you feel better about yourself, and this thread isn't about you, or me. I can help you brush up your English though, and help you understand what a cliché is, or correct usage of definitions, or, hell, even the difference between write and right. We have completely different viewpoints of the university sector though, and I don't see that one changing any time soon.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeschylus)
    Agree on one point - that St. Andrews actively seeks out US students, but all anecdotal experience I've heard about St. Andrews has been negative. This has surprised me because St. Andrews is quite similar to, use your example, Warwick - quite isolated, relatively 'presitigious' in the league tables, though St. Andrews is a few centuries older. The complaints I continuously hear from friends who attend St. Andrews is the paucity of social life, a culture of indifference and incompetence among the staff, poor sporting facilities if you don't like rugby, and a snobby atmosphere that makes it Surrey-on-Leuchars (to borrow a friend's term). It also has a reputation of being an 'English' university in that most Scottish people my mum has been helping through Higher/Advanced Higher applications actively don't want to go there (and Edinburgh too surprisingly for me)

    This is just anecdotal experience and I am certain St. Andrews is a great university and that many people enjoy attending it. But the conformity and unwavering unamity of the criticism did, as I have said, surprise me
    Now now, we can't talk of anecdotes here. We have the much more quantifiable and comparable notion of prestige at hand, after all. Anecdotes are simply not OK for what you're saying. 'Everyone I know in America rates St Andrews highly' on the other hand...
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    To give my opinion briefly: St Andrews is 'very prestigious', but by no means amongst the icing on the UK university cake.

    For example a friend of mine turned down a St Andrews language course for Queen's Belfast because they didn't fancy living in Scotland, and another is going there for Maths only due to Oxford, LSE and Durham rejections. St Andrews is a fantastic university, I would not doubt that, but aside from a small few degrees there are slightly more prestigious opportunities available.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I would say it is a very prestigious university.

    The fact that the Duke of Cambridge went there probably helps as well
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    ...
    I'm going to accept your condescending tone as a sign of you losing this argument which in my view you've never managed to quite keep coherent.

    (Original post by 0404343m)
    MY POINT IS THIS [sans the condescending bit] St Andrews isn't immune to these problems simply because one thinks it's 'prestigious', which is often argued on TSR
    I never said, implied or suggested STA is immune. Why do you keep grinding on that?

    You make a point which may or may not have a relation to the argument or it is unclear as to what part of the point you make has any bearing to the argument in question. This type of conversation is difficult to maintain unless we go completely off-topic in which case we might as well start talk about the weather.

    You reading my posts in other threads in a puny attempt to get a better read on my situation, my qualifications and so on is pathetic and misguided, but most of all it's inaccurate and incomplete. Your extrapolation attempts aren't working at all, but I have to admit I enjoy your efforts. I'm chuckling here.

    Many Ivy League graduates chose St Andrews, but you've very conveniently ignored the fact that some St Andrews graduates went to the Ive League of which you said "I know of no St Andrews students at Harvard or Yale".

    You're not just twisting words, you're twisting facts too.

    You appear to be minority here, and it's not just because you're 'righting' in the St Andrews section of the forum. Sadly, this argument has turned into pettifoggery.

    (Original post by 0404343m)
    We have completely different viewpoints of the university sector though, and I don't see that one changing any time soon.
    One thing we can agree upon.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prickler)
    I am a student of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews. The University and its environment holds about as much interest as a spindle fashioned from excrement on a Fixie bicycle. There is an indubitable dearth of innovation (with the exception of a recently established course in Harry Potter studies, which is compatible with it's retrograde image to American eyes). It is a place to regurgitate knowledge that has already been assessed, and recited by death and to death's pet rat. The professors simply ingeminate the work of the Greats. I am a working-class lass from a school of dirt. I worked my ass off to pay for the opportunity to sit my exams because I attended a 'vocational' school. Entrance to St Andrews university was unprecedented! The culture shock drowned me. There are so many vacuous, wealthy people who pay hundreds of pounds to have their essays proof-read. I am relinquishing the home-county culture of rah rah girls for Glasgow where I can obtain pizza crunch, some dry mirth and originality.

    This is a slight exaggeration but not a huge one. I'm also a Glaswegian with a fondness for pizza crunch (damn pizza connection for closing down). It does seem to be a worse with Art subjects than science subjects (as a broad generalisation) - I'm a scientist who is heavily involved in Theatre so I see all the Arts students as a group and all the science students as a group.
    • 42 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJ99)
    This is a slight exaggeration but not a huge one. I'm also a Glaswegian with a fondness for pizza crunch (damn pizza connection for closing down). It does seem to be a worse with Art subjects than science subjects (as a broad generalisation) - I'm a scientist who is heavily involved in Theatre so I see all the Arts students as a group and all the science students as a group.
    Get to Dolce Vita and get your pizza crunch :yep:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ecosse_14)
    Get to Dolce Vita and get your pizza crunch :yep:
    Dolce Vita? What is this Dolce Vita?
    • 42 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJ99)
    Dolce Vita? What is this Dolce Vita?
    Chippy on Tom Morris Drive, next to the Spar. Just along from Aldi.
    There's a Chinese takeaway there too.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ecosse_14)
    Chippy on Tom Morris Drive, next to the Spar. Just along from Aldi.
    There's a Chinese takeaway there too.
    Ah the bad lands chippy. It's ok but there pizza crunches are a tad dry.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The quality of st. Andrews is ****. Not even comparable to the top 100 unis in the u.s. Tell the kid to stay in the u.s.
Updated: August 2, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.