St Andrews University: A Warning

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

That is what lecturers are paid to do, and non-scottish students pay 9k a year to get taught properly.

The PhD students get paid to do it too, and they can do it just as properly as a lecturer can.

I was taught by Professors and Senior Lecturers only in my degree, and anything less and I would walk out of the University and transfer elsewhere.

That sounds incredibly stuck up. Why do you even think PhD students don't know how to teach _undergraduate_ material? And if you never let PhD students teach, exactly when are future lecturers supposed to learn how to teach?

They can teach on a limited basis if they are post-docs.

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

That is what lecturers are paid to do, and non-scottish students pay 9k a year to get taught properly.

As above really, lecturers often don't like teaching.

Also, I had supervisions with PhDs or post-docs at least a few times during university, and the odds of you being at a better university than I went to are low.

Really? I have already graduated from Nottingham. I am now at UCL part time for a masters, having turned down St Andrews, Imperial and Bristol. I failed to get into Oxbridge, however, but being a part time student made things much easier financially anyway.

Incidentally, only in very, very few professions does going to a prestigious university actually matter. Adds nice eye candy for the CV and the ego though.

Yep.

But it doesn't change the fact top unis have postgrads/PhDs running supervisions.

Such a shame really.

Really? I have already graduated from Nottingham. I am now at UCL part time for a masters, having turned down St Andrews, Imperial and Bristol. I failed to get into Oxbridge, however, but being a part time student made things much easier financially anyway.

Incidentally, only in very, very few professions does going to a prestigious university actually matter. Adds nice eye candy for the CV and the ego though.

So you basically are Mansun's second account. Well anyways, you also did a masters in Birkbeck which you left out. Besides, in terms of "prestige" you don't really have much. A masters degree at UCL is absolutely not prestigious as masters degrees in most fields (let alone a masters at Birkbeck and a ug at notts) with the exception of finance and a few others are just cash cow degrees for universities and are not competitive whatsoever.

. A masters degree at UCL is absolutely not prestigious as masters degrees in most fields (let alone a masters at Birkbeck and a ug at notts) with the exception of finance and a few others are just cash cow degrees for universities and are not competitive whatsoever.

I don't agree on the above at all. You need a 2.2 from an elite university, or a 2.1/1st from a lesser university, to get into a masters course at UCL. For some courses you will need a 1st realistically to get in.

Likely not for yours. 2.2 is a pretty bad grade, a 2.1/1st means the majority of students anyways considering how watered down a 2.1 is these days.

So if the majority of students at a lesser university are able to get into a masters program at UCL, that to mean means not very prestigious...

Most masters degrees are cash cows for universities like I said before. Only a few actually lead to meaningful increases in job prospects/income.

A 2.2 from a top 20 university is not pretty bad, it is still decent. But a 2.2 from a top 40 uni would be more questionable in value. I guess UCL look at your application as a whole, and which university and course you did previously. I seriously doubt they'd take on graduates from Bolton or London Met, and all those at the bottom end of the spectrum. They only want the graduates from the good to elite universities, and places are limited.

Only Oxbridge present truly formidable requirements to get in, which is a very high 2.1 from a Russell Group uni.

I'm hoping my MSc from UCL will propel me into a career in politics, which is full of graduates from elite universities. What's wrong with Notts? It is seen as one of the best multi faculty universities after UCL, somewhere in the UK top 11-15 and World top 75 region overall. If that isn't prestigious, then you do set very high standards indeed. Are you from Stanford or Harvard?

I'd say UCL edges Nottingham for overall academic power and prestige with employers, but others like St Andrews and Durham certainly don't.

I just find it really ironic that you are talking academic elitism when your own educational background isn't particularly that "elite".

Come on, is Nottingham and UCL not good enough to be considered elite, given that I am a scientist in training? Are you ok? No problem with the drink?