How good/elite is the University of St. Andrews? Watch

ImNewHere123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Hello everyone,

I have a really hard time understanding the prestige/ranking/status/etc. of the University of St. Andrews (both in the UK and internationally).

On some accounts, it is ranked very well overall, like in the Guardian ranking where it is only trailing Oxbridge [1].

On the same ranking, it is #1 in Politics, #2 in Philosophy and #1 in Physics. Other specialised rankings seem to confirm this, as it is ranked third in the most relevant philosophy ranking [2]. Based on this, one might think it to be a/the prime place in the UK for these fields (and potentially more).

But on some world rankings, it barely scratches Top 100 [3], while on others it is in the Top 400 [4] and on even others Top 50 overall [5]. While a good place, it does not seem that outstanding on these metrics.

But St. Andrews is second worst in admitting low-economic status students [6] and with Prince William having studied there, it has been called an elite university (or a university for the elite) [7] while others think it is, in US-UK comparison terms, more like Brown [8]. So it seems to be rather elite in at least some respects.

So what type of university is St. Andrews? Only a good place for philosophy/politics? Is it a elite university or rather just a good one? What could one best compare it with in the US? How would you generally think about St. Andrews?


Thank you so much for your input in advance!




[1] https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ue-tables-2019
[2] https://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall-rankings/.
[3] https://www.topuniversities.com/univ...-rankings/2019
[4] http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2018.html
[5] https://www.timeshighereducation.com...asc/cols/stats
[6] https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...itist-12311588
[7] http://www.thesaint-online.com/2013/...for-the-elite/
[8] https://www.quora.com/What-college-i...ms-of-prestige
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by ImNewHere123)
Hello everyone,

I have a really hard time understanding the prestige/ranking/status/etc. of the University of St. Andrews (both in the UK and internationally).

On some accounts, it is ranked very well overall, like in the Guardian ranking where it is only trailing Oxbridge [1].

On the same ranking, it is #1 in Politics, #2 in Philosophy and #1 in Physics. Other specialised rankings seem to confirm this, as it is ranked third in the most relevant philosophy ranking [2]. Based on this, one might think it to be a/the prime place in the UK for these fields (and potentially more).

But on some world rankings, it barely scratches Top 100 [3], while on others it is in the Top 400 [4] and on even others Top 50 overall [5]. While a good place, it does not seem that outstanding on these metrics.

But St. Andrews is second worst in admitting low-economic status students [6] and with Prince William having studied there, it has been called an elite university (or a university for the elite) [7] while others think it is, in US-UK comparison terms, more like Brown [8]. So it seems to be rather elite in at least some respects.

So what type of university is St. Andrews? Only a good place for philosophy/politics? Is it a elite university or rather just a good one? What could one best compare it with in the US? How would you generally think about St. Andrews?


Thank you so much for your input in advance!




[1] https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ue-tables-2019
[2] https://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall-rankings/.
[3] https://www.topuniversities.com/univ...-rankings/2019
[4] http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2018.html
[5] https://www.timeshighereducation.com...asc/cols/stats
[6] https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...itist-12311588
[7] http://www.thesaint-online.com/2013/...for-the-elite/
[8] https://www.quora.com/What-college-i...ms-of-prestige
St.A's does exceptionally well in student satisfaction (possibly the highest in the UK?), and very well in all other metrics.

However, it doesn't quite have the international presence as other unis with perhaps the exception of the US East Coast (the reasons for this can be debated). It doesn't attract that many internationals compared to some other unis, it doesn't send a disproportionately high % of ppl into high-paying jobs, it doesn't top the research league tables. Nor does it benefit indirectly by being a STEM-only uni (like Imperial and ETH Zurich).

I'd say that St.A's is the UK equivalent of an East Coast liberal arts college like Williams.

The term 'elite' is notoriously vague and is usually applied inconsistently by people who wanna include their uni in said category. My preferred interpretation is that Oxbridge are probably the only all-rounded 'elite' (and uncompromised) institutions in the UK, with others being 'elite' in certain areas (e.g. student intake, research, grad prospects). Feel free to disagree, it's an arbitrary demarcation.
1
reply
Capricancer
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report 11 months ago
#3
(Original post by JohanGRK)
St.A's does exceptionally well in student satisfaction (possibly the highest in the UK?), and very well in all other metrics.

However, it doesn't quite have the international presence as other unis with perhaps the exception of the US East Coast (the reasons for this can be debated). It doesn't attract that many internationals compared to some other unis, it doesn't send a disproportionately high % of ppl into high-paying jobs, it doesn't top the research league tables. Nor does it benefit indirectly by being a STEM-only uni (like Imperial and ETH Zurich).

I'd say that St.A's is the UK equivalent of an East Coast liberal arts college like Williams.

The term 'elite' is notoriously vague and is usually applied inconsistently by people who wanna include their uni in said category. My preferred interpretation is that Oxbridge are probably the only all-rounded 'elite' (and uncompromised) institutions in the UK, with others being 'elite' in certain areas (e.g. student intake, research, grad prospects). Feel free to disagree, it's an arbitrary demarcation.
Just wanted to confirm/contextualise a few things you've said.

One of the reasons why St As does so well in national ranking is because of student satisfaction being a ranking input, it's been ranked 1st for overall course satisfaction ten times in the past 12 years. This year, 94% of students were satisfied, the next second best (Buckingham) had 91% and the average across UK institutions was 83%. It also better in other national ranking metrics such as student:staff ratio and the average entry score of undergraduate students.

I would disagree with your point about US East Coast, St As has the absolute highest and proportionally highest number of Americans and hosts students from every state. It's particularly popular amongst prep schools in the states and is one of the only UK universities Americans apply to in major numbers. I would say that it's probably the most well known in the US after Oxbridge and LSE.

Proportion wise, 45% of students are from outside of the UK so it attracts a fair number of internationals.

It's well regarded by high paying industries such as Finance, Consulting and Law so I'm not sure about your point about high paying jobs.. its grads do relatively well for earnings.

And I'll agree with your last point, would say that Oxbridge is probably the only all round 'elite' university in UK.
1
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 months ago
#4
edinburgh > st andrews
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 months ago
#5
Undergraduate degrees at St Andrews are 4 years like the US, instead of the usual 3 years in the rest of the UK.
That is really off-putting for a lot of students and is probably the main factor in many choosing to study elsewhere.
I hear that the temperature is quite cold, weather can be awful and nightlife isn't too exciting.

My best friend considered applying but decided against because she found the atmosphere a bit strange and didn't want to be on her own in Scotland.
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 11 months ago
#6
(Original post by Capricancer)
Just wanted to confirm/contextualise a few things you've said.

One of the reasons why St As does so well in national ranking is because of student satisfaction being a ranking input, it's been ranked 1st for overall course satisfaction ten times in the past 12 years. This year, 94% of students were satisfied, the next second best (Buckingham) had 91% and the average across UK institutions was 83%. It also better in other national ranking metrics such as student:staff ratio and the average entry score of undergraduate students.

I would disagree with your point about US East Coast, St As has the absolute highest and proportionally highest number of Americans and hosts students from every state. It's particularly popular amongst prep schools in the states and is one of the only UK universities Americans apply to in major numbers. I would say that it's probably the most well known in the US after Oxbridge and LSE.

Proportion wise, 45% of students are from outside of the UK so it attracts a fair number of internationals.

It's well regarded by high paying industries such as Finance, Consulting and Law so I'm not sure about your point about high paying jobs.. its grads do relatively well for earnings.

And I'll agree with your last point, would say that Oxbridge is probably the only all round 'elite' university in UK.
- Yes, the point about student satisfaction was made about as well as it could have been made.

- Fair enough on the US side, even though your evidence doesn't prove or confirm the regional distribution of these prep schoolers. Which prep schools are they coming from? It doesn't really matter at the end of the day, but whatevs, I'm procrastinating here, I might as well learn something new. I don't think that St.A's has anywhere close to a similar level of popularity in other parts of the world, but I'm willing to be proven to be wrong, I can only speak from a continental European perspective.

- Is the 45% for undergrad or postgrad or both? Does that 45% consist of students that hail from a genuinely diverse range of countries, or purely Americans?

- Re salary data - take a look at the DLHE 5-year figures. St.A's performs somewhat less admirably in them. It clusters around the £29-31k threshold with another 20 universities when 5-year earnings are looked at. Far below the 'tail end' of top-earning institutions that it is otherwise compared to: https://www.economist.com/britain/20...duate-salaries. I'm sure that subject mix affects this outcome.

- Re the City: St.A's tends to fall behind Oxbridge (and LSE/Imperial) in terms of how targeted it is for finance. It doesn't have a presence in Citylaw, although that's expected given its location, student composition and the fact that it doesn't have a law faculty. I'm sure that, in the most abstract sense, it's well-respected, but it doesn't stand out among other regional unis on any metric. Definitely not unique or elite in that regard.
1
reply
Treldeham
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 months ago
#7
(Original post by JohanGRK)
St.A's does exceptionally well in student satisfaction (possibly the highest in the UK?), and very well in all other metrics.

However, it doesn't quite have the international presence as other unis with perhaps the exception of the US East Coast (the reasons for this can be debated). It doesn't attract that many internationals compared to some other unis, it doesn't send a disproportionately high % of ppl into high-paying jobs, it doesn't top the research league tables. Nor does it benefit indirectly by being a STEM-only uni (like Imperial and ETH Zurich).

I'd say that St.A's is the UK equivalent of an East Coast liberal arts college like Williams.

The term 'elite' is notoriously vague and is usually applied inconsistently by people who wanna include their uni in said category. My preferred interpretation is that Oxbridge are probably the only all-rounded 'elite' (and uncompromised) institutions in the UK, with others being 'elite' in certain areas (e.g. student intake, research, grad prospects). Feel free to disagree, it's an arbitrary demarcation.
I noticed a lot of girls on tinder on the east coast of the US go to St. Andrews. Any idea why this is?
1
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 months ago
#8
(Original post by Treldeham)
I noticed a lot of girls on tinder on the east coast of the US go to St. Andrews. Any idea why this is?
No idea ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
0
reply
richardsmith
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 months ago
#9
Tbh St Andrews is really good and some of its courses are extremely competitive such as IR but it is not on par with the Golden Triangle Unis on an International scale. World rankings are also much more reliable than domestic ones as the latters take into account the «*student experience «* which means that a Uni like loughborough can trump UCL because people go to party.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
Capricancer
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 months ago
#10
(Original post by JohanGRK)
- Yes, the point about student satisfaction was made about as well as it could have been made.

- Fair enough on the US side, even though your evidence doesn't prove or confirm the regional distribution of these prep schoolers. Which prep schools are they coming from? It doesn't really matter at the end of the day, but whatevs, I'm procrastinating here, I might as well learn something new. I don't think that St.A's has anywhere close to a similar level of popularity in other parts of the world, but I'm willing to be proven to be wrong, I can only speak from a continental European perspective.

- Is the 45% for undergrad or postgrad or both? Does that 45% consist of students that hail from a genuinely diverse range of countries, or purely Americans?

- Re salary data - take a look at the DLHE 5-year figures. St.A's performs somewhat less admirably in them. It clusters around the £29-31k threshold with another 20 universities when 5-year earnings are looked at. Far below the 'tail end' of top-earning institutions that it is otherwise compared to: https://www.economist.com/britain/20...duate-salaries. I'm sure that subject mix affects this outcome.

- Re the City: St.A's tends to fall behind Oxbridge (and LSE/Imperial) in terms of how targeted it is for finance. It doesn't have a presence in Citylaw, although that's expected given its location, student composition and the fact that it doesn't have a law faculty. I'm sure that, in the most abstract sense, it's well-respected, but it doesn't stand out among other regional unis on any metric. Definitely not unique or elite in that regard.
- you did not convey your point with much confidence, therefore I provided hard figures. Would hardly say it was as well as it could have been

- If you click on the link I provided, you would find the link to the spreadsheet which includes the names of the schools, but here it is. You would need to have an idea of what prep schools are prestigious in the US to have a better understanding though. I don't think other british universities are particularly known for being popular in one region so I just assume that St Andrews has the same standard of popularity with other countries (as other british universities have),

- For both. No. Americans constitute around 15% of that figure, with Germany, China, Canada and India being the next most popular.

- You literally linked me to the data and then proceed to state false figures from the same? I'm confused why you would do so.


It's £31.7k and sure it's below Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial by far but it's hardly far below the rest. And yeh as you said, given that we do not have a clinical medical school, vetmed, dentistry, architecture, any engineering degrees or (as you're aware) a law faculty - I think the figures are pretty good considering we also offer (typically lower earning) degrees such as Art History, Anthropology and Film Studies.

- I never claimed that it was a target university for investment banking as Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial are. But it's still a semi-target and well regarded. On your point about law firms, this is where I have to disagree with you. Pretty much all the magic circle law firms hold recruitment brunches/dinners here at St Andrews and attend our law fair, S&M even sponsor our Economics society.
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 months ago
#11
(Original post by Capricancer)
- you did not convey your point with much confidence, therefore I provided hard figures. Would hardly say it was as well as it could have been

- If you click on the link I provided, you would find the link to the spreadsheet which includes the names of the schools. You would need to have an idea of what prep schools are prestigious in the US to have a better understanding though. I don't think other british universities are particularly known for being popular in one region so I just assume that St Andrews has the same standard of popularity with other countries (as other british universities have),

- For both. No. Americans constitute around 15% of that figure, with Germany, China, Canada and India being the next most popular.

- You literally linked me to the data and then proceed to state false figures from the same? I'm confused why you would do so.


It's £31.7k and sure it's below Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial by far but it's hardly far below the rest. And yeh as you said, given that we do not have a clinical medical school, vetmed, dentistry, architecture, any engineering degrees or (as you're aware) a law faculty - I think the figures are pretty good considering we offer (typically lower earning) degrees such as Art History, Anthropology and Film Studies.

- I never claimed that it was a target university for investment banking as Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial are. But it's still a semi-target and well regarded. On your point about law firms, this is where I have to disagree with you. Pretty much all the magic circle law firms hold recruitment brunches/dinners here at St Andrews and attend our law fair, S&M even sponsor our Economics society.
Ooo, it's turned personal, me like

- We must have different standards as to what arguing with confidence means. I guess that you can't establish a university's high student satisfaction conclusively until you prove that it's higher than that of Buckingham. You did implicitly show the clustering of NSS scores, but that's another story.

- 1/3rd of your internationals (and by extension 1/6th of your student body) coming from a single country would seem to be pretty undiverse to me, but, again, we clearly have different understandings as to what certain words mean. Particularly when your Home/UK body is what it is.

- Apologies, you're right, you earn a whole 1000 pounds more than I thought you do when I made the previous post, I should have read the ranking more closely.

Now, going onto the material stuff:

- If you plot the grad salaries on the chart, you'd see that St.A's is nowhere near the 'elite'. It's clustered with all the other good regional unis, and some conveniently located crappy unis (City, Reading). You're not a tail-end uni. This graph shows the big picture.

- Re subject mix: Go through the Economist list I sent ya and click on the different subjects. St.A's barely appears in the top ten (again, a long way away in absolute and percentage terms from the 'tail end' of top earners), if it appears in the first page at all (check out the Psychology earnings).

- Being visited by an MC isn't a big feat. They visit the greatest number of UK universities out of all law firms - up to 30 a year (as you can imagine, this includes plenty of unsavoury institutions that St.A's would turn its nose up at like Kent and Essex). Attracting smaller top tier English firms, or, even better, some of the US giants, would be considered a feat by the relevant careers people who organise these events. But then again I can't fault you for lacking connections to a field for which you can't educate undergrads.

Of course, I'm sure that there are responses to be made to the above. You can say that salary isn't the greatest measure of success, or that it doesn't matter when you're the son of a wealthy Anglo/American landowner, or that St.A's still got old school history/prestige/wealth as an institution (which exists independently of its student body). That's great, but all these excuses apply to other regional universities to varying degrees.

Going back to my original analysis, St.A's is definitely elite in its teaching-related outcomes (NSS, student ratios), and probably elite in terms of its selectivity (the 'probably' comes from the offer rate). But I struggle to see how it distinguishes itself from other good-but-not-elite regional unis. Is it ultimately all about its age and location?
0
reply
Capricancer
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#12
Report 11 months ago
#12
(Original post by JohanGRK)
Ooo, it's turned personal, me like

- We must have different standards as to what arguing with confidence means. I guess that you can't establish a university's high student satisfaction conclusively until you prove that it's higher than that of Buckingham. You did implicitly show the clustering of NSS scores, but that's another story.

- 1/3rd of your internationals (and by extension 1/6th of your student body) coming from a single country would seem to be pretty undiverse to me, but, again, we clearly have different understandings as to what certain words mean. Particularly when your Home/UK body is what it is.

- Apologies, you're right, you earn a whole 1000 pounds more than I thought you do when I made the previous post, I should have read the ranking more closely.

Now, going onto the material stuff:

- If you plot the grad salaries on the chart, you'd see that St.A's is nowhere near the 'elite'. It's clustered with all the other good regional unis, and some conveniently located crappy unis (City, Reading). You're not a tail-end uni. This graph shows the big picture.

- Re subject mix: Go through the Economist list I sent ya and click on the different subjects. St.A's barely appears in the top ten (again, a long way away in absolute and percentage terms from the 'tail end' of top earners), if it appears in the first page at all (check out the Psychology earnings).

- Being visited by an MC isn't a big feat. They visit the greatest number of UK universities out of all law firms - up to 30 a year (as you can imagine, this includes plenty of unsavoury institutions that St.A's would turn its nose up at like Kent and Essex). Attracting smaller top tier English firms, or, even better, some of the US giants, would be considered a feat by the relevant careers people who organise these events. But then again I can't fault you for lacking connections to a field for which you can't educate undergrads.

Of course, I'm sure that there are responses to be made to the above. You can say that salary isn't the greatest measure of success, or that it doesn't matter when you're the son of a wealthy Anglo/American landowner, or that St.A's still got old school history/prestige/wealth as an institution (which exists independently of its student body). That's great, but all these excuses apply to other regional universities to varying degrees.

Going back to my original analysis, St.A's is definitely elite in its teaching-related outcomes (NSS, student ratios), and probably elite in terms of its selectivity (the 'probably' comes from the offer rate). But I struggle to see how it distinguishes itself from other good-but-not-elite regional unis. Is it ultimately all about its age and location?
Not exactly sure how you interpreted this to be personal, but okay. But seeing as you're now using "your" and "St Andrews' interchangeably, I can see your attitude to this has changed.

- "St.A's does exceptionally well in student satisfaction (possibly the highest in the UK?)" - your words, I merely clarified that there was no need for the ? mark and now you're taking it personally. By adding the ? mark, I inferred that you were not confident about this statement.

- You claimed that St Andrews doesn't attract that many internationals, I stated that 45% of its student body is from outside of the UK. Now you're raising this point about diversity when the original point was whether St Andrews had many international students. When you contextualise the number of international students at St Andrews against other UK universities, the proportion of international students is high and one of the highest.

- Now I can see you're taking this very personally. You stated that St Andrews was on the 29-31k mark, again I just corrected this using the absolute figure provided in the graph. Again, you previously claimed that St Andrews doesn't send students to high-paying jobs, I merely stated that it does by providing a table which placed St Andrews within the top 15 of UK universities. The table you linked confirmed this as well. I'm aware that the differences are negligible at this point, and I acknowledge this as well. Not sure why you quoted 'elite' in the context of earnings, all I have ever claimed is that St Andrews does send students to high earning jobs and that it was well regarded by high-paying industries. It seems that you only deem Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial to be a 'tail-end' university.

- "(as you can imagine, this includes plenty of unsavoury institutions that St.A's would turn its nose up at like Kent and Essex)" - not sure why you're adopting such a snobbish attitude and trying to project it onto St Andrews. You just seem immature now. Given that you want to put down St Andrews, is it very common for MC law firms to sponsor non-law societies at universities which don't offer law then? Looking up the sponsorship lists of some of the societies of other top 30 universities, it's not. Neither have I heard it being very common to for law firms to be having dinners and brunches with 30 universities, it's usually concentrated at a smaller number.

These law firms visited us for our law fair, it doesn't include the others which visited for dinners or presentations. You'll notice some of the US firms you place on so much of a pedestal.
Spoiler:
Show

Allen & Overy; Baker & McKenzie; Bristows LLP; Burges Salmon LLP; Clifford Chance LLP; DLA Piper LLP; DWF LLP; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Herbert Smith Freehills; Hogan Lovells LLP; Jones Day; Norton Rose Fulbright LLP; Slaughter and May; Travers Smith LLP; White & Case


St Andrews can claim to be elite in its selectivity of undergraduate students. Not just because of the offer rate, but because the average entry tariff is consistently in the top 5/10 and the applicants to places ratio is one of the highest in the country.

I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore after this comment given the, frankly pathetic, number of condescending passive aggressive comments. You've tried to make this personal, but I'm not going to bother with this. Whether you regard St Andrews to be elite or not does not concern me, I commented on this thread to correct and contextualise the points you made. Not to join in on this typical TSR thread on whether a university is elite or not.
0
reply
Princepieman
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 months ago
#13
This thread is like arguing whether blue cheese is actually cheese or not.

Posted from TSR Mobile
2
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 months ago
#14
(Original post by Capricancer)
Not exactly sure how you interpreted this to be personal, but okay. But seeing as you're now using "your" and "St Andrews' interchangeably, I can see your attitude to this has changed.

- "St.A's does exceptionally well in student satisfaction (possibly the highest in the UK?)" - your words, I merely clarified that there was no need for the ? mark and now you're taking it personally. By adding the ? mark, I inferred that you were not confident about this statement.

- You claimed that St Andrews doesn't attract that many internationals, I stated that 45% of its student body is from outside of the UK. Now you're raising this point about diversity when the original point was whether St Andrews had many international students. When you contextualise the number of international students at St Andrews against other UK universities, the proportion of international students is high and one of the highest.

- Now I can see you're taking this very personally. You stated that St Andrews was on the 29-31k mark, again I just corrected this using the absolute figure provided in the graph. Again, you previously claimed that St Andrews doesn't send students to high-paying jobs, I merely stated that it does by providing a table which placed St Andrews within the top 15 of UK universities. The table you linked confirmed this as well. I'm aware that the differences are negligible at this point, and I acknowledge this as well. Not sure why you quoted 'elite' in the context of earnings, all I have ever claimed is that St Andrews does send students to high earning jobs and that it was well regarded by high-paying industries. It seems that you only deem Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial to be a 'tail-end' university.

- "(as you can imagine, this includes plenty of unsavoury institutions that St.A's would turn its nose up at like Kent and Essex)" - not sure why you're adopting such a snobbish attitude and trying to project it onto St Andrews. You just seem immature now. Given that you want to put down St Andrews, is it very common for MC law firms to sponsor non-law societies at universities which don't offer law then? Looking up the sponsorship lists of some of the societies of other top 30 universities, it's not. Neither have I heard it being very common to for law firms to be having dinners and brunches with 30 universities, it's usually concentrated at a smaller number.

These law firms visited us for our law fair, it doesn't include the others which visited for dinners or presentations. You'll notice some of the US firms you place on so much of a pedestal.
Spoiler:
Show



Allen & Overy; Baker & McKenzie; Bristows LLP; Burges Salmon LLP; Clifford Chance LLP; DLA Piper LLP; DWF LLP; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Herbert Smith Freehills; Hogan Lovells LLP; Jones Day; Norton Rose Fulbright LLP; Slaughter and May; Travers Smith LLP; White & Case




St Andrews can claim to be elite in its selectivity of undergraduate students. Not just because of the offer rate, but because the average entry tariff is consistently in the top 5/10 and the applicants to places ratio is one of the highest in the country.

I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore after this comment given the, frankly pathetic, number of condescending passive aggressive comments. You've tried to make this personal, but I'm not going to bother with this. Whether you regard St Andrews to be elite or not does not concern me, I commented on this thread to correct and contextualise the points you made. Not to join in on this typical TSR thread on whether a university is elite or not.
Alright, quick response on the relevant bits, against, for 'completeness'.

A lot of this post seems to be very personal indeed, so I'll skip those bits.

- Oxbridge et al. are not the only tail-ends - UCL is too, depending on the course, as can be KCL and Durham. The point is that some universities have a distinct salary difference from the 'bulk' - one that is goes up to 50% or more depending on the course. That's a difference, that's as good a point as any to draw the elite/non-elite line, St.A's never goes above that line (if anything, a lot of its courses have bare average earnings), ergo, it's not elite in this regard.

- Plenty of non-elite unis get corporate sponsorships for generic societies that don't have a clear path. By the way, do keep in mind that getting a sponsorship from Slaughters for your Econ society isn't equivalent to, say, Bristol getting the same. Bristol has a proper LawSoc, St.A's (as far as I know), doesn't. Slaughters only has to resort to sponsoring a non-law society because it can't sponsor a law one.

- Bakers is a bare average mid-market US firm that pays below-market UK rates. HL and NRF are transatlantic post-merger children, they're not US. Your lack of awareness as to the legal sector is showing. The only two US firms I see are W&C (good catch), and Jones Day (erm... you really want to boast about having that shop?). That's it. Where are the Kirklands and the Lathams? Off to Exeter, probably.

- You haven't provided any details as to all of these wonderful dinners and brunches you're apparently having, so I assume that you've heard of a couple happening and you're exaggerating to make yourself sound like a second Oxford.

- Applicants to places doesn't mean **** if you give out offers to 50% or more of your applicants. If anything, the two bits of data, taken together, expose the possibility of a rather low yield (i.e. you're struggling to fill up the intake). Again, not great for an elite institution.

- Coming from outside the UK doesn't automatically make you an international. It could make you an EU citizen. Actually, a quick Google showed that the % of internationals at St.A's is around 27%. https://www.thecompleteuniversitygui...by-university/. Before correcting someone, make sure that you're comfortable with the most elementary of admissions terminology.
0
reply
notespad
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 11 months ago
#15
It's is an old institution. Historically, rich, White families sent their kids there (and still the case now). Socially, amongst upper-middle class groups, it is seen as acceptable to send their offspring here because of that. Old alumni then contribute to this. Similar thing with Durham etc.

They're really not that big of a deal.
0
reply
A Rolling Stone
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 months ago
#16
(Original post by ImNewHere123)
Hello everyone,

I have a really hard time understanding the prestige/ranking/status/etc. of the University of St. Andrews (both in the UK and internationally).

On some accounts, it is ranked very well overall, like in the Guardian ranking where it is only trailing Oxbridge [1].

On the same ranking, it is #1 in Politics, #2 in Philosophy and #1 in Physics. Other specialised rankings seem to confirm this, as it is ranked third in the most relevant philosophy ranking [2]. Based on this, one might think it to be a/the prime place in the UK for these fields (and potentially more).

But on some world rankings, it barely scratches Top 100 [3], while on others it is in the Top 400 [4] and on even others Top 50 overall [5]. While a good place, it does not seem that outstanding on these metrics.

But St. Andrews is second worst in admitting low-economic status students [6] and with Prince William having studied there, it has been called an elite university (or a university for the elite) [7] while others think it is, in US-UK comparison terms, more like Brown [8]. So it seems to be rather elite in at least some respects.

So what type of university is St. Andrews? Only a good place for philosophy/politics? Is it a elite university or rather just a good one? What could one best compare it with in the US? How would you generally think about St. Andrews?


Thank you so much for your input in advance!




[1] https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ue-tables-2019
[2] https://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall-rankings/.
[3] https://www.topuniversities.com/univ...-rankings/2019
[4] http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2018.html
[5] https://www.timeshighereducation.com...asc/cols/stats
[6] https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...itist-12311588
[7] http://www.thesaint-online.com/2013/...for-the-elite/
[8] https://www.quora.com/What-college-i...ms-of-prestige
st andrews is very elite for undergrad. not so elite (but not bad either) for research/postgrad.

which matters more to you?
0
reply
ImNewHere123
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 11 months ago
#17
(Original post by CollectiveSoul)
st andrews is very elite for undergrad. not so elite (but not bad either) for research/postgrad.

which matters more to you?
Both, as I want to understand the picture as broadly as possible. Why would it not be elite for postgraduate study?
0
reply
A Rolling Stone
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 11 months ago
#18
(Original post by ImNewHere123)
Both, as I want to understand the picture as broadly as possible. Why would it not be elite for postgraduate study?
I'd say it's the 12-15th most prestigious uni for postgrad.

it's a small university and without the research pedigree of somewhere like Edinburgh (eg. for animal biology it has the Roslin Institute responsible for Dolly the Sheep). That said, st andrews is very elite for research in it's specialities such as Marine Biology, International Relations and Medieval history etc.

but for undergrad, everyone knows how difficult it is to get into and you're surrounding yourself with the very crème de la crème of Oxbridge rejects

for the US I would compare it with maybe Amherst or Swarthmore.
1
reply
la_banane_verte
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 11 months ago
#19
(Original post by JohanGRK)
- Re salary data - take a look at the DLHE 5-year figures. St.A's performs somewhat less admirably in them. It clusters around the £29-31k threshold with another 20 universities when 5-year earnings are looked at. Far below the 'tail end' of top-earning institutions that it is otherwise compared to: https://www.economist.com/britain/20...duate-salaries. I'm sure that subject mix affects this outcome.
Wee bit of context on salary figures - St Andrews gets screwed over on its medics because they graduate from here (so get counted in salary figures), but then still have 3 years to go until they actually start working. I think there's also lots of people going on to do postgrads rather than trying to get super high paying city jobs?
0
reply
A Rolling Stone
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 11 months ago
#20
(Original post by la_banane_verte)
Wee bit of context on salary figures - St Andrews gets screwed over on its medics because they graduate from here (so get counted in salary figures), but then still have 3 years to go until they actually start working. I think there's also lots of people going on to do postgrads rather than trying to get super high paying city jobs?
it sounds a bit right tbh. st andrews offers 2 Arts degree places for every 1 science degree place; doesn't offer Engineering, Pharmacy, Law, Vet Med or Architecture all with high salaries
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,885

people online now

225,530

students helped last year

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (214)
12.6%
Excited (156)
9.18%
Worried (305)
17.95%
Terrified (378)
22.25%
Meh (163)
9.59%
Confused (37)
2.18%
Putting on a brave face (233)
13.71%
Impatient (213)
12.54%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed