How prestigious is St. Andrews university ?

you're not picking the uni based on which one you like the most?? they're all good unis.

It really depends on what experience you want. St Andrews is in the countryside, far away from the hustle and bustle of London. I'd imagine the kind of friends you make and the experience you have could be drastically different between LSE/UCL and St A/Warwick.

If you are the ambitious type, career oriented, want to make a good income and make it big in your career, I would definitely be picking LSE/UCL/Warwick over St. A. Those schools have more keeners and more of an atmosphere and opportunities to help motivate you and give you opportunities to succeed in that way. Being in London will be huge, the amount of competition and drive in that city will give you opportunities, at the same time you will lose out on a bit of the idyllic life.

If you are looking for a school that is more well rounded, maybe a bit less competitive, might help you grow as a person, or you aren't sure exactly what you want to do in life yet and don't want to be pigeon holed or you aren't necessarily interested in being on the right track to a top finance job, you probably would like St Andrews. Its in a small town locked away on the east coast of Fife. You'll be focused more on learning, making friends and having fun. You can be career focused but you won't feel the pressure or the competition like you might elsewhere.

If you are sort of in between or you are ambitious, career oriented but don't like the idea of living in London for undergrad Warwick might be the best compromise.

That's the way I see it, but I haven't been to those other schools. I really think as a "whole" these schools are in the same league, but in finance/econ I would wager that LSE has a bit more international rep than the others. In the end, does it matter? Probably not, but if you are gungho on finance, I could see that a school like LSE/UCL/Warwick might give you a bit of a leg up over others.

Good morning everyone!

I'm an international high school student from France, and I got offers to study Mathematics at King's, Warwick, UCL, LSE and St. Andrews. As you can imagine, I'm not sure about which one is THE most prestigious as all I heard about in France was Oxbridge.

St Andrews' student experience is by far the one that I like the most but I heard that refusing an offer from LSE would be stupid, as they offered me a place in their Mathematics with Economics degree.

What do you all think ?
I would really appreciate your help !

If your grades were really high and prestige is important to you why not take a gap year and apply to Oxbridge?

Actually, I’m planning on applying to Oxbridge after doing a year at one of these five unis. I’m kind of afraid of being rejected after a gap year and having to start from the 1st year at St. A / LSE...

The most challenging and esteemed maths course of these is probably Warwick by some margin. King's is probably the least esteemed of these. (with UCL and St. Andrews probably being quite similar) That said - if you are less so concerned about the challenge and depth of your degree and are more looking at the entire picture, you may prefer St. Andrews as it is known for a great student experience. There seems to also be plenty of networking opportunities available. (a lot of rich internationals [particularly americans] with good connections go there)

If you want to do maths but want to do a bit of economics on the side - it is possible to do some economics modules during your Warwick degree, for degree credit. If you want to do it as more than a side thing - you may prefer it at LSE. (though I think Warwick's and LSE's department are about the same quality)

Yeah I heard that Warwick was great for maths but St. A was placed higher for this particular subject in 3 or 4 national rankings..

By the way, are you saying that Warwick > UCL for maths ?

You are very lucky to get an economics offer from lse, which in many ways is as hard to get into as oxbridge. The oxford economics courses are insanely difficult to get into too and if you give up your lse offer you may not get it second time round. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Don’t forget high grades are only the start of the road to Oxford. You would need to score high marks in the tsa admissions test and do a lot of extra research, maybe with no offer at the end of it. If you were my son or daughter, I would advise you to stick with lse.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I should probably think some more about LSE.

Actually, I’m planning on applying to Oxbridge after doing a year at one of these five unis. I’m kind of afraid of being rejected after a gap year and having to start from the 1st year at St. A / LSE...

I would not take a gap year just to apply to Oxbridge. There is no guarantee that you will get in and additionally, the one year lost is really not worth it in the grand scheme of things. The way I see it, if prestige is important (and you will find it becomes less so as you get older) I would do like you said, choose one of these schools and if you want, apply to Oxford in 1st year, if you don't get in, I would just study hard, aim to graduate with a first, and if at the end of your degree you still want to, you can apply to do a masters at Oxbridge. I've looked at a number of resumes and linkedin CVs over the years and honestly, apart from the occasional rooting for your own school, no one really sees universities in anything other than general tiers and any of the universities you mentioned above would give you the opportunity to succeed to your full capacity, you really don't need Oxbridge to do it. If there ever is a difference, it may come in the form of networking and the relationships you build at university, but again the difference even between Oxbridge and the others is in my opinion not worth taking a gap year to take a chance on.

Another thing, don't fret too much over your choice of school. It seems like a big deal right now, and it is, but there are so many other ways to distinguish yourself. Your internship, awards, scholarships, extracurriculars all play as big if not a bigger role and each year you step away from university the less and less your university matters.

It really depends on what experience you want. St Andrews is in the countryside, far away from the hustle and bustle of London. I'd imagine the kind of friends you make and the experience you have could be drastically different between LSE/UCL and St A/Warwick.

If you are the ambitious type, career oriented, want to make a good income and make it big in your career, I would definitely be picking LSE/UCL/Warwick over St. A. Those schools have more keeners and more of an atmosphere and opportunities to help motivate you and give you opportunities to succeed in that way. Being in London will be huge, the amount of competition and drive in that city will give you opportunities, at the same time you will lose out on a bit of the idyllic life.

If you are looking for a school that is more well rounded, maybe a bit less competitive, might help you grow as a person, or you aren't sure exactly what you want to do in life yet and don't want to be pigeon holed or you aren't necessarily interested in being on the right track to a top finance job, you probably would like St Andrews. Its in a small town locked away on the east coast of Fife. You'll be focused more on learning, making friends and having fun. You can be career focused but you won't feel the pressure or the competition like you might elsewhere.

If you are sort of in between or you are ambitious, career oriented but don't like the idea of living in London for undergrad Warwick might be the best compromise.

That's the way I see it, but I haven't been to those other schools. I really think as a "whole" these schools are in the same league, but in finance/econ I would wager that LSE has a bit more international rep than the others. In the end, does it matter? Probably not, but if you are gungho on finance, I could see that a school like LSE/UCL/Warwick might give you a bit of a leg up over others.