The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
St Salvators Quad, University of St Andrews
University of St Andrews

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

St Andrews University: A Warning

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Okorange
You must be living in 2005 because St Andrews has been top 5 for 10 years. Look at the rankings.


UK league tables are a marketing tool for universities to deceive the ignorant and uninformed. These rankings do not measure prestige or reputation. Students should be choosing a university based on the good name it has had with employers and academia for decades.
(edited 9 years ago)
St Salvators Quad, University of St Andrews
University of St Andrews
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
UK league tables are a marketing tool for universities to deceive the ignorant and uninformed. These rankings do not measure prestige or reputation. Students should be choosing a university based on the the good name it has had with employers and academia for decades.


Well, St Andrews has 5 Nobel Prize winners, the first minister of scotland, edward jenner, john witherspoon and john napier. It is also obviously the oldest in scotland and the 3rd in the uk.

If that doesn't ring prestige then something is wrong with you. I know a lot about Edinburgh alumni believe me, I've even added a good chunk of them to the wiki and yes Edinburgh has more famous alumni, but it is also a bigger university. I agree that Edinburgh is a top uni, maybe the best in scotland, but its not indisputably the best in Scotland like it was maybe 30 years ago. St Andrews has definitely joined the fray like it or not.

Besides, those who argued it is all to do with the Prince had an argument 5 to 10 years ago, sure it could've just been a blip. Except, St Andrews has managed to turn the temporary fame it had from the Prince into a permanent long lasting thing.

Did you know that the University of Chicago 10 years ago had an acceptance rate of 40%? Now its closer to 10%. Chicago has had a good research reputation for years but it was also not well known and undesirable place for undergrad until recently. There is nothing stopping St Andrews from being any different. I rarely hear this rap against Durham, which itself has 0 nobel prize winners, and fewer famous alumni than St Andrews. Guess what, the Prince chose St Andrews, now if you can stop being so bitter about it just accept it. Anyone who attended St Andrews after the Prince came, applied to a very competitive school and got in, its just a fact now.

For every year that St Andrews maintains its high league table ranking and its high UCAS tariff, your argument gets weaker and weaker. You are living in the past.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
UK league tables are a marketing tool for universities to deceive the ignorant and uninformed. These rankings do not measure prestige or reputation. Students should be choosing a university based on the good name it has had with employers and academia for decades.


I like that you have the final word on how students should pick a university.
Original post by Slumpy
I like that you have the final word on how students should pick a university.


Setting high expectations is of paramount importance.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
Setting high expectations is of paramount importance.


And reputational standings from the past decade are woefully out of date for setting expectations.
Original post by Slumpy
And reputational standings from the past decade are woefully out of date for setting expectations.


The reputation of a university is not made or broken over a decade, but over half a century at least, ideally longer. The best universities, as judged by business and academia, have long since been set in stone, and are as follows:-

1) ''G5'' universities: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL

2) Russell Group universities

3) Other traditional universities

4) Ex-poly universities

This hierarchy of universities will never be broken, no matter what UK league tables say. International rankings are also much more important for the global reputation of a university.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
The reputation of a university is not made or broken over a decade, but over half a century at least, ideally longer. The best universities, as judged by business and academia, have long since been set in stone, and are as follows:-

1) ''G5'' universities: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL

2) Russell Group universities

3) Other traditional universities

4) Ex-poly universities

This hierarchy of universities will never be broken, no matter what UK league tables say. International rankings are also much more important for the global reputation of a university.


Whatever you may believe, that can easily be well out of date about where you can get the best education, which oddly is why some people still go!
Original post by Slumpy
Whatever you may believe, that can easily be well out of date about where you can get the best education, which oddly is why some people still go!


Each university has it's own mission and strategy in being a university. Manchester doesn't care so much about teaching in small groups, they simply want to rake in the money teaching enormous undergraduate numbers and re-investing the revenues back into the university and it's research power for international status. St Andrews takes virtually the opposite direction, being less interested in research power and international rankings.
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
Each university has it's own mission and strategy in being a university. Manchester doesn't care so much about teaching in small groups, they simply want to rake in the money teaching enormous undergraduate numbers and re-investing the revenues back into the university and it's research power for international status. St Andrews takes virtually the opposite direction, being less interested in research power and international rankings.


So you're saying St Andrews is superior for undergrad? You don't half like the non-sequiturs.
Original post by Slumpy
So you're saying St Andrews is superior for undergrad? You don't half like the non-sequiturs.


St Andrews my well provide a better teaching experience, provided the courses are taught by lecturers, and not postgraduates.
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
St Andrews my well provide a better teaching experience, provided the courses are taught by lecturers, and not postgraduates.

As I've said before in this thread, I applied to university more than 30 years ago (35, to be precise) and St Andrews was my insurance choice after Oxbridge because it had a very strong academic reputation. I cannot understand where this impression has come from that it has suddenly leapt up the rankings from nowhere, nor the idea that it is not research-focused. In the 2008 research assessment exercise, it was ranked 12th in the UK - above most Russell Group universities and Durham (which was not in the Russell Group at the time, incidentally). And in the latest complete university guide St Andrews ranks 11th in the UK for graduate employment prospects. Oxford is 14th....
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
The reputation of a university is not made or broken over a decade, but over half a century at least, ideally longer. The best universities, as judged by business and academia, have long since been set in stone, and are as follows:-

1) ''G5'' universities: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL

2) Russell Group universities

3) Other traditional universities

4) Ex-poly universities

This hierarchy of universities will never be broken, no matter what UK league tables say. International rankings are also much more important for the global reputation of a university.


That ranking applies only to England, certainly does not factor in Scottish unis. Nobody knows what the RG is outside the UK, just like nobody knows what the U15 is.

I bet you that you had to look that up.

That is what everyone who isn't on TSR does for the RG.

All you really need to know is that St Andrews has a top teaching reputation, I have never had a teacher who was not a professor or a lecturer and our school is highly selective. That is all that is required of a good undergraduate uni. The material is the same around the country, its how its taught, whether the students are satisfied, and whether or not the university is selective that really matters.

For post-grad, St Andrews is "selective" in how it applies its research. It won't be the next Oxbridge overnight because it only has 2k postgrads. It is quite selective in its research focus, it targets excellence in a few minor fields in each subject. For those minor fields, St Andrews is quality.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Okorange
The material is the same around the country, its how its taught, whether the students are satisfied, and whether or not the university is selective that really matters.



Not really true (not even for medicine IIRC).
Original post by Slumpy
Not really true (not even for medicine IIRC).


I don't know about other subjects but generally they do teach similar things. For medicine it is generally the same, all curriculum is checked by the GMC to ensure that the quality of doctors produced by all UK medical schools is good. Lives are at stake.
Original post by Okorange
I don't know about other subjects but generally they do teach similar things. For medicine it is generally the same, all curriculum is checked by the GMC to ensure that the quality of doctors produced by all UK medical schools is good. Lives are at stake.


That doesn't mean the material is absolutely identical though. It just means they all have to meet a minimum standard.

I would be reasonably confident (to use one example) that St Andrews teaches more detailed anatomy to its medical students than several other medical schools.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
St Andrews my well provide a better teaching experience, provided the courses are taught by lecturers, and not postgraduates.


Can I ask what you mean by this?
Original post by la_banane_verte
Can I ask what you mean by this?


Only students at the university can confirm if they are being taught by lecturers all of the time or PhD students.
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
Only students at the university can confirm if they are being taught by lecturers all of the time or PhD students.


Are you talking about lectures? Tutorials? Examples classes? Lab work? What is the difference that you're implying there is between a lecturer and a PhD student?
Original post by la_banane_verte
Are you talking about lectures? Tutorials? Examples classes? Lab work? What is the difference that you're implying there is between a lecturer and a PhD student?


Non-lab classes: lectures, seminars, tutorials.
Original post by Hollywood Hogan
Non-lab classes: lectures, seminars, tutorials.


Ok, and so why would St Andrews provide a better experience if these classes were taught by lecturers?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you