UCL vs St. Andrews

1

Hi

I'm completely stuck with my university choice, I have offers for English from St. Andrews and UCL but can not decide between the two. I was hoping for some outside opinions :smile:

I'm afraid St. Andrews is too isolated, but at the same time, I feel like I'd be missing out on the close-knit community of St.A if I went to UCL...

Any and all opinions much appreciated :biggrin:

Reply 1

simon-leeds

Have you been to both? Bear in mind that Dundee and Edinburgh are within fairly easy reach of St Andrews.

Reply 2

M_E_X

14

Original post

by Leenz

Hi

I'm completely stuck with my university choice, I have offers for English from St. Andrews and UCL but can not decide between the two. I was hoping for some outside opinions :smile:

I'm afraid St. Andrews is too isolated, but at the same time, I feel like I'd be missing out on the close-knit community of St.A if I went to UCL...

Any and all opinions much appreciated :biggrin:

I'd definitely visit both; St Andrews is a small town in Scotland, UCL is in the biggest city in the UK. They are very different.

Visit both and you'll certainly know which one is more suitable for you.

note: I'm at StAs and I absolutely love it, I got offered by ICL and KCL in London and rejected them both to come here (after visiting), and I don't regret it at all. But you're not me - please, please visit both and make your own mind up. Spending one afternoon visiting is well worth it, to make the right decision about somewhere you will spend 3+ years of your life!

Reply 3

therealOG

2

UCL > St. Andrews

They are both very good uni's, but UCL has definitely got the edge when it comes to prestige and employability. UCL's English department is very highly regarded and is considered above Oxbridge by some.

Do you want to live in the heart of the UK's capital, or do you want to live in an isolated town? That's what it boils down to.

Edit: Who called all the St. Andrews fanboys over?

Reply 4

Ivanka

16

I would recommend visiting both St Andrews and London and having a close look at the course structures, etc.

I was in a similar position to OP a few months ago, a couple of months after I had sent my application. I didn't like the idea of living in Scotland and I didn't like the course structure, so I withdrew. Now I have an offer from UCL which is my firm. Therefore in my particular case I'd pick UCL over St Andrews, but each to their own according to their preferences.

Reply 5

xxxchrisxxx

11

i'd go to ucl

Reply 6

TurboCretin

20

Original post

by therealOG

UCL > St. Andrews

They are both very good uni's, but UCL has definitely got the edge when it comes to prestige and employability.

Do you want to live in the heart of the UK's capital, or do you want to live in an isolated town? That's what it boils down to.

After living in London for three years, I'd definitely appreciate some time in a small town. People are different. Besides, St. Andrews is hardly isolated; as another poster has said, Edinburgh is easily accessible.

Reply 7

therealOG

2

Original post

by TurboCretin

After living in London for three years, I'd definitely appreciate some time in an isolated town. People are different.

Exactly. Mans are different. I'd feel so isolated and "out of the game" if I went to St. Andrews.

Reply 8

limetang

19

They are in some ways the antithesis of each other. UCL is in the biggest city in the UK, St andrews is a fairly small town, I wouldn't say it's isolated though.

It's up to you. I mean what do you want. Do you want a big city or do you want a small town.

Reply 9

Leenz

OP

1

Thank you all so much :smile:

I guess visiting would be great, but I live in Russia and I have IB exams up until my ucas deadline, so I can't visit St. Andrews... But I've heard so many lovely things about it! Does anyone know if the job prospects are good for St. Andrews?
Thank you again, you've all been so wonderful!

Reply 10

Planar

15

Original post

by Leenz

Hi

I'm completely stuck with my university choice, I have offers for English from St. Andrews and UCL but can not decide between the two. I was hoping for some outside opinions :smile:

I'm afraid St. Andrews is too isolated, but at the same time, I feel like I'd be missing out on the close-knit community of St.A if I went to UCL...

Any and all opinions much appreciated :biggrin:

May be worth noting that UCL is sometimes considered the best place in the UK for English(better than Oxbridge).

Reply 11

muh123

9

I say go Cambridge I heard it's and OK Uni.

Reply 12

simon-leeds

Original post

by therealOG

UCL > St. Andrews

They are both very good uni's, but UCL has definitely got the edge when it comes to prestige and employability.

I'd say that's become very hard to argue in the last 5 years.

It really depends on what your idea of "boring" is. I'd say if you need to be out clubbing every night then you generally are a boring person.

Original post

by Leenz

Thank you all so much :smile:

I guess visiting would be great, but I live in Russia and I have IB exams up until my ucas deadline, so I can't visit St. Andrews... But I've heard so many lovely things about it! Does anyone know if the job prospects are good for St. Andrews?
Thank you again, you've all been so wonderful!

Then you'll have to decide from what you've heard. Just so you know St Andrews is not, as some would have you belive, the tiniest village in the most remote part of Scotland. It is small, but, probably because of the Uni/Tourism has more shops/coffee shops/restaurants etc. than you would expect from a place of its size. Also, it's the best place in the world if you are a golfer (or would like to have a go)! You're welcome :smile:

. Make sure you think it through carefully!

Reply 13

therealOG

2

Original post

by simon-leeds

I'd say that's become very hard to argue in the last 5 years.

Not really. Just take a look at the world rankings. UCL is ranked 4th and 21st/22nd. Where is St. Andrews? You'd be very deluded to think that St. Andrews has a greater domestic and international reputation than UCL. It doesn't help of course that it's situated far from any world leading knowledge clusters.

It really depends on what your idea of "boring" is. I'd say if you need to be out clubbing every night then you generally are a boring person.

Are you implying that UCL, which is situated in the very centre of the UK's capital city, has less to offer in terms of cultural, social, political and historical opportunities than St. Andrews? Major lolz.

Reply 14

mooniibuggy

14

I'd go to UCL for the opportunities.

Reply 15

simon-leeds

Original post

by therealOG

Not really. Just take a look at the world rankings. UCL is ranked 4th and 21st/22nd. Where is St. Andrews? You'd be very deluded to think that St. Andrews has a greater domestic and international reputation than UCL. It doesn't help of course that it's situated far from any world leading knowledge clusters.

Or you could use UK league tables where for the past 5 years St Andrews has finished above UCL in 13 of the 17 tables published during that time and joint in one. Small, rural Universities always suffer in International rankings beceause of ridiculous factors like "Number of International Staff Memebers". Are you really also arguing that Birmingham and Sheffield are also better than Dartmouth aswell as both St Andrews and Durham? If UK league tables are flawed International ones also are on ridiculous levels.

Reply 16

Captain_Rhodes

6

It's really up to you. If you really like golf and don't mind that the weather can be atrocious during the winter then St Andrews may be the place for you. I have friends up there and they all enjoy it.

I'm at UCL and love the atmosphere and cultural side of London.

Reply 17

therealOG

2

Original post

by simon-leeds

Or you could use UK league tables where for the past 5 years St Andrews has finished above UCL in 13 of the 17 tables published during that time and joint in one. Small, rural Universities always suffer in International rankings beceause of ridiculous factors like "Number of International Staff Memebers". Are you really also arguing that Birmingham and Sheffield are also better than Dartmouth aswell as both St Andrews and Durham? If UK league tables are flawed International ones also are on ridiculous levels.

They're all flawed to some extent because it's extremely hard to rank universities accurately as the weightings of the criteria are subjective.

I can equally counter your argument by saying that domestic rankings place stupid emphasis on student satisfaction - this is 100% subjective and will differ from person to person. At least the proportion of international students and staff members is 100% objective, and gives you an idea of how well the university's reputation attracts the world's best international academics.

The world rankings place large emphasis on academic citations (i.e. research strength) and on employer reputation (i.e. how impressive this will look on a CV, the "brand name") - areas that UCL far outperforms St. Andrews.

Then you have the reality of things, on the streets. Ask people, students, teachers - 9 out of 10 will say that UCL is a better university than St. Andrews. At my school (which sends around 25 people to Oxbridge annually), UCL is seen as 1st or 2nd choice for top students, whereas as far as I can tell, no alumnus has ever gone to St. Andrews. It's just not on the radar.

UCL is part of the golden triangle and the G5 group (Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Imperial). The Times has stated that UCL is the best multi-faculty university in the UK after Oxbridge. The fact that it's ranked 4th in the world by QS must indicate something to you. You'd be deluded otherwise...

And a final point, UCL is regarded as having the best English department in the UK, above Oxbridge in fact.

Reply 18

notepad

10

Original post

by therealOG

They're all flawed to some extent because it's extremely hard to rank universities accurately as the weightings of the criteria are subjective.

I can equally counter your argument by saying that domestic rankings place stupid emphasis on student satisfaction - this is 100% subjective and will differ from person to person. At least the proportion of international students and staff members is 100% objective, and gives you an idea of how well the university's reputation attracts the world's best international academics.

The world rankings place large emphasis on academic citations (i.e. research strength) and on employer reputation (i.e. how impressive this will look on a CV, the "brand name") - areas that UCL far outperforms St. Andrews.

Then you have the reality of things, on the streets. Ask people, students, teachers - 9 out of 10 will say that UCL is a better university than St. Andrews. At my school (which sends around 25 people to Oxbridge annually), UCL is seen as 1st or 2nd choice for top students, whereas as far as I can tell, no alumnus has ever gone to St. Andrews. It's just not on the radar.

UCL is part of the golden triangle and the G5 group (Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Imperial). The Times has stated that UCL is the best multi-faculty university in the UK after Oxbridge. The fact that it's ranked 4th in the world by QS must indicate something to you. You'd be deluded otherwise...

And a final point, UCL is regarded as having the best English department in the UK, above Oxbridge in fact.

Bias.

I recognise that UCL has great Economics and English departments and a great medical school, but apart from that UCL is incredibly over-rated. The sole reason why UCL has sky-rocketed to number 4 was because, due to excess funding, they've upped their research - a lot. A lot of the league tables nowadays are very research heavy. I must say that outside those three departments, I would not consider UCL world class at all.

Yes, the best multi-faculty university outside of the UK because you're not including Imperial (and probably LSE, too).

Everyone knows that UCL is not consider number 4 in the world, it's considered number 4 in the UK, though (Oxbridge, Imperial ~). The majority of the Ivy League universities are much better than UCL; realistically, it's in the world top 20-25.

EDIT: I'm not anti-UCL or anything, but it's a little annoying about how over-rated it is :P 50% of the factors making up the QS ranking are Student Faculty; International Faculty; and International Students! I'm not going to base where I pursue my studies on those statistics (and that's the another major reason why it overperformed, here, beating MIT; Oxford; Imperial; Princeton; Stanford ... you kidding me??)

EDIT 2: Although I was wrong about the 50% thing, UCL is still over-rated and my other points still stand. All of you know it.

EDIT 3: :fan:

Stupid UCLers negging me (joke) :aetsch:

=P

(edited 14 years ago)

Reply 19

simon-leeds

Original post

by therealOG

They're all flawed to some extent because it's extremely hard to rank universities accurately as the weightings of the criteria are subjective.

I can equally counter your argument by saying that domestic rankings place stupid emphasis on student satisfaction - this is 100% subjective and will differ from person to person. At least the proportion of international students and staff members is 100% objective, and gives you an idea of how well the university's reputation attracts the world's best international academics.

The world rankings place large emphasis on academic citations (i.e. research strength) and on employer reputation (i.e. how impressive this will look on a CV, the "brand name") - areas that UCL far outperforms St. Andrews.

Then you have the reality of things, on the streets. Ask people, students, teachers - 9 out of 10 will say that UCL is a better university than St. Andrews. At my school (which sends around 25 people to Oxbridge annually), UCL is seen as 1st or 2nd choice for top students, whereas as far as I can tell, no alumnus has ever gone to St. Andrews. It's just not on the radar.

UCL is part of the golden triangle and the G5 group (Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Imperial). The Times has stated that UCL is the best multi-faculty university in the UK after Oxbridge. The fact that it's ranked 4th in the world by QS must indicate something to you. You'd be deluded otherwise...

And a final point, UCL is regarded as having the best English department in the UK, above Oxbridge in fact.

I didn't know that what lecturers at other universities thought was more important than what students at the university thought. There is a good Times article on the issue of International vs. UK rankings and in fact mentions how smaller universities suffer in International tables: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/sunday_times_university_guide/article6866395.ece

Really? Someone should have told the people who make the league tables. 9 out of 10 people could quite easily be convinced that Thames Valley is considered to be better than LSE for economics. And we've already established that UCL is in London. The Sunday Times also said the same about St Andrews. The fact that St Andrews has finished above UCL in 76% of the domestic league tables published in the last 5 years must indicate something to you. You'd be deluded otherwise...

I would also like to add that I'm not anti UCL at all either. I belive UCL and St Andrews are almost impossible to separate in the UK top 6 along with Imperial and LSE and that both belong firmly in the top 25 in the world. I just want to tackle the clear London bias that is present on TSR.

UCL vs St. Andrews

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated