<p>
[quote]
St. Andrews has 1,230 Americans among its 7,200 students this year, compared with fewer than 200 a decade ago. </p>
<p>The large American enrollment is no accident. St. Andrews has 10 recruiters making the rounds of American high schools, visiting hundreds of private schools and a smattering of public ones. </p>
<p>With higher education fast becoming a global commodity, universities worldwide — many of them in Canada and England — are competing for the same pool of affluent, well-qualified students, and more American students are heading overseas not just for a semester abroad, but for their full degree program.
<p>
[quote]
Donniell E. Silva's first choice for college was Georgetown University. But when she didn't get in, she took stock of her options...St Andrews, she adds, "is a work hard, play hard kind of place."</p>
<p>But it was neither sports nor balls that her friends in California most often asked about when she entered St Andrews in 2004. They wanted to hear about Prince William, second in line to the British throne, who was finishing his last year there as a geography major.</p>
<p>The presence of the crown prince added considerable cachet to St Andrews's reputation. Applications from all students shot up 44 percent the year the prince announced his decision to study there. Says Ms. Silva, who has a double major in international relations and art history: "If it was good enough for Prince William, it's good enough for me."
<p>I realize that you aren't really interested in the perceptions of UKsian schools in academia, but I feel that they awarded a remarkable amount of prestige by Americans (at least in the biomedical sciences). Cambridge, Oxford, University College of London are held in the same esteem as Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Whether it is warranted or not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I realize that you aren't really interested in the perceptions of UKsian schools in academia, but I feel that they awarded a remarkable amount of prestige by Americans (at least in the biomedical sciences). Cambridge, Oxford, University College of London are held in the same esteem as Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Whether it is warranted or not.
<p>I think a lot of the prestige of St Andrews in US is due to marketing. I have a friend at Warwick and she says in UK it is considered the same or better than St Andrews, but in US it is hardly known at all.</p>
<p>On the other hand, she says that Warwick has many students from China and India and they think it is only a little bit behind Oxford and Cambridge in prestige, sort of on a level with Imperial and LSE. But Warwick does much more marketing in China and India than it does in US.</p>
<p>She was told by Warwick that overall it sees itself as a peer to schools like Duke and USC, so I would guess St Andrews would be seen in the same way there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think a lot of the prestige of St Andrews in US is due to marketing. I have a friend at Warwick and she says in UK it is considered the same or better than St Andrews, but in US it is hardly known at all.</p>
<p>On the other hand, she says that Warwick has many students from China and India and they think it is only a little bit behind Oxford and Cambridge in prestige, sort of on a level with Imperial and LSE. But Warwick does much more marketing in China and India than it does in US.</p>
<p>She was told by Warwick that overall it sees itself as a peer to schools like Duke and USC, so I would guess St Andrews would be seen in the same way there.
[/quote]
Warwick and UCL normally share the 5/6th spot in UK rankings. The top 6 (Oxbridge, imperial/LSE, Warwick/UCL) are somewhat like the Ivies in the US with a sizeable no. of people getting into investment banking. St. Andrew is not in there and is not as good as Warwick in Britain. </p>
<p>In fact it will be quite surprising if a Scottish school enters into the top 5 in UK, given that almost everything that's great in Britain is done by the English. :p:</p>
<p>I'd think that attracting Chinese/Indians are quite a good long term strategy. Warwick is probably not as good as Duke overall. However sometimes I struggle to figure what is Duke famous/good for.</p>
<p>The idea that St Andrews is not a top five university is total rubbish; they're ranked in the top five by most of the league tables. The Times, sort of the UK equivalent to USNWR, views St Andrews as "the main rival in the UK to Oxford and Cambridge."</p>
<p>
[quote]
The idea that St Andrews is not a top five university is total rubbish; they're ranked in the top five by most of the league tables. The Times, sort of the UK equivalent to USNWR, views St Andrews as "the main rival in the UK to Oxford and Cambridge."</p>
<p>Link: St Andrews earns a high five - Times Online</p>
You should look across all the tables and over the years to come to a conclusion. No doubt St Andrews is a very good university, but it is definitely behind Oxbridge and Imperial/LSE. That means if St Andrews is in the top 5 it will need to be "better" than both UCL and Warwick, which I find it very doubtful. I find the idea that St Andrews is better than UCL quite inconceivable. </p>
<p>The fact that it is being called the "main rival to Oxbridge" is probably because they are both heritage universities with a long history. Imperial/LSE (almost always 3rd or 4th without fail) are just focused science and humanities colleges. UCL is a city university and Warwick is just too young.</p>
<p>2 Cambridge<br>
1 Oxford
3 Imperial College
4 London School of Economics
6 Warwick
8 Durham
5 St Andrews
7 University College London
18 Edinburgh</p>
<p>St Andrews has placed in or around the top five across the main tables (Times, Sunday Times, Guardian) for the past three or four years. The term better is difficult to define, but as far as the subject rankings are concerned comparing St Andrews to Oxbridge, Imperial, and the LSE is a mixed bag. In some subject areas, St Andrews comes out on top; in others, not so much. Again, better isnt very precise, but according to the rankings St Andrews has often come out on top of Warwick and UCL. No offense, but whether you find it inconceivable does not really matter.</p>
<p>The article is quite clear. St Andrews is viewed as the main comprehensive university (both science and arts faculties) to rival Oxbridge; heritage, location, or age have nothing to do with it. Of course, in their areas of specialization, Imperial and LSE compete well with Oxbridge and St Andrews. </p>
<p>Im not really sure why you provided the ranking out of order, but the Good University Guide (Times) is one of the best. If you follow your link, the top five are:</p>
<p>A UK university that I have not heard mentioned on CC is University of Manchester. My first co-worker graduated from University of Manchester with a Phd in Engineering and I thought it's a pretty good school for computer engineering. I believe the Turing machine was used to decode German's messages during WW.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Before World War II, Turing showed that an idealized machine (a universal Turing machine) using a few simple operations can calculate the values of all functions that a mathematician can compute. Despite this, Turing proved that some mathematical results remain beyond calculation. During the war Turing was instrumental in building a machine that decoded enemy messages, a prototype for electronic computers. After the war Turing developed such computers. Turing's 1952 study of the mathematics of fluid interactions helped biologists show how organisms develop and helped chemists analyze fluids with periodic properties.
<p>jwagner, agree that the Times guide is probably the best ranking of British universities with the most accurate statistics. The "out of order" ranking that I've provided is the ranking of British universities by "Admission standards", as measured in UCAS points (for A-levels, IB, etc) </p>
<p>With a bit of push St Andrews may become the fifth, but to say that it is anywhere near Oxbridge/Imperial/LSE is quite a stretch. </p>
<p>And I'd like to inform you that entry standards are quite consistent over the years. </p>
<p>Science biased universities like Cambridge and Imperial always get hammered on criteria such as completion and good honours. It's not unlike to saying that Caltech is worse than Georgetown because more Techers drop out and the average graduating GPA is lower.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A UK university that I have not heard mentioned on CC is University of Manchester. My first co-worker graduated from University of Manchester with a Phd in Engineering and I thought it's a pretty good school for computer engineering. I believe the Turing machine was used to decode German's messages during WW.
[/quote]
Manchester used to be very good at computing back in the 70s (world renowned), but for whatever reasons it has dropped quite a bit in the recent years within the UK. The top computing students in the UK now go to Cambridge or Imperial. </p>
<p>I think there's a "first computer" (not too sure about this part) on display at the Science Museum (in London) and it is donated by Uni of Manchester. </p>
<p>Manchester's strength now lies in its business school, although even that it is not near LBS, HEC, Insead, etc.</p>
<p>Though rankings are generally consistent, there are fluctuations. Oxbridge do tend to consistently have the highest admissions standards, but this is not necessarily true of Imperial and the LSE. For example, last year St Andrews was ranked fourth for entry standardsahead of Imperial and well ahead of UCL.</p>
<p>The water gets even murkier when looking at specific programs. For example, St Andrews IR program is ranked as one of the top three in the UK. It has entry standards just below Cambridge and significantly higher than the LSE. To say that St Andrews, based on entry standards, isnt anywhere near Oxbridge, Imperial, or the LSE is untrue. In some cases St Andrews standards far exceed the other universities that you are praising.</p>
<p>Columbia_student: A Turing machine is a thought experiment. An abstract concept of a simple symbol manipulating device. The quote is confusing it with the Turing-Welchman bombe (an actual electro-mechanical device) used to decrypt messages encrypted by the German Enigma machine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Alan Turing: codebreaker and computer pioneer: B.J. Copeland and Diane Proudfoot recall the contribution to the war effort in 1939-45 of the British computer scientist, whose death fifty years ago has recently been commemorated.(Frontline)
From: History Today | Date: July 1, 2004| Author: Copeland, B.J.; Proudfoot, Diane | COPYRIGHT 2004 History Today Ltd. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information) Copyright information </p>
<p>IN 1936, MATHEMATICIAN ALAN TURING dreamed up the principle of the modern computer--the idea of controlling its operations by means of a program of coded instructions stored in memory. Yet his idea was not turned into a reality for more than ten years--during which Turing made a vital contribution to the Allied victory in the Second World War. </p>
<p>Before the start of war Turing turned to the problem of breaking Enigma, the coding machine adopted by the German navy in 1926, followed by the army in 1928 and the air force in 1935. The Enigma operator typed the plain message at the ...
<p>jwagner, you have a point there. I appreciate that. In the UK however, the Cambridge-Oxford | Imperial-LSE |Others hierarchy is pretty established in many people's minds. That's how employers target the UK universities for recruitment. I'm just alluding to that fact. </p>
<p>A graduate from St Andrews just won't enjoy as much opportunities as a graduate from Imperial or LSE. It's just like a grad from Georgetown will on average not have as much opportunities as a grad from Penn even though Georgetown has excellent IR/politics/government courses. </p>
<p>There are some subjects like literature that are not offered in both Imperial (only science and engineering) or LSE (humanities or social sciences). This posts another interesting situation.</p>
<p>May be I'm just plain biased against a Scottish school.</p>
<p>With the exception of Oxbridge, how good a university is totally depends on what you are studying. That's where British universities vary so much from American ones.</p>
<p>And don't for a second think that getting into Harvard is more difficult than Cambridge. I'd pick the application process for the former over that of the latter any day...</p>