Edinburgh vs. St. Andrews vs. Glasgow (in biosciences)?

The problem here is that there are a number of people aspiring to/holding offers from/attending St Andrews and most of them will not shut up about how everyone they know in places you haven't been to think it's just the dogs *******s. Since TSR is obsessed with the unquantifiable concept of 'prestige', what you actually get is 'places where the students most closely resemble Oxford and Cambridge students', in other words, lots of privately educated folk with clipped accents.

In academic circles, St Andrews doesn't turn heads. Down the riding club in Surrey where the parents are probably secretly embarrassed that their son didn't do quite as well as the rest of his school year at Eton who got into Oxford/Cambridge and the Ivy League, apparently it's so much better than everywhere else except Oxford and Cambridge. I find that reasoning...understandable, given the circumstances. The fact of the matter is, most people on TSR aren't like most people everywhere else, and the one thing they don't have a lot of is university experience. People who have got as far as graduation on here are rare.

Glasgow has a high proportion of Scottish students (but more international students in absolute terms than St Andrews) and a lower proportion of privately educated students compared to the other two (but high compared to the general makeup of society)- and only a tiny minority of TSR hails from Scotland. Thus, not many teenagers rave about Glasgow on here- but it's the most applied to university by Scots, so I would argue that prestige strongly depends on who you ask, and it's no surprise to me that on TSR, where a certain demographic is grossly over-represented, the most 'prestigious' also happen to be those with the most well-off students: Exeter, Durham, Bristol, St Andrews. Personally, I think Glasgow and Edinburgh are much of a muchness with each other- one is ahead in some areas academically and behind in others. I think St Andrews reputation stems from entirely different factors. But, if equating the Prince with eliteness is your thing, consider this: 15 years ago (out of a university that's 600) it asked for Cs, and couldn't fill its courses. A guy with the best of the best of education could only manage average grades (BBC I think) and because he goes somewhere that'll let the underachiever in, it becomes elite. I find that reasoning bizarre.

Oh, and no, on my US campus, no one in any conversation I've ever had academically has ever brought up St Andrews as 'elite' whatever that's supposed to mean. Must be everywhere else they're talking about it then. I think the nail has already been hit: It's good, but behind Oxford and Cambridge, it's no better, if undoubtedly posher, than the next 25 places. If you want to go there, by all means go: I know people that love it, you'll get a good education and a valuable degree. But if you like the others more, don't think for a second they'll hinder you in the job market or offer a poorer standard of teaching or student experience.