<p>Sorry for the late reply, forgot all about this thread only :p</p>
<p>And, btw Oxford uses the Provisional Shortlisting Index (PSI) to determine whether or not you’ll get an interview. The PSI is a linear combination of your MAT score and GCSE/Grade 10/equivalent grades, with MAT carrying more weight. If you attain a certain threshold, you’re given an interview. The interview is rated on a scale of 1-9. They also factor in more holistic factors like the Personal Statement and Reference. Based upon all this, an offer is made.</p>
<p>Here are some observations about St Andrews:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Students from Canada and the U.S. “represent around fifteen per cent of the student population” at St Andrews. As a result, American students comprise a subset of an important, but relatively small part, of a diverse university that maintains a distinctive British identity even as it draws students from “more than 120 nationalities.” See, [International</a> students | University of St Andrews](<a href=“http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/admissions/ug/int/]International”>http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/admissions/ug/int/).</p></li>
<li><p>The fact that the future king and queen of England attended St Andrews several years ago may give it a higher name recognition in the U.S. than less well known British universities. But that name recognition in the U.S. is extraneous to St Andrews’ academic reputation in Britain. </p></li>
<li><p>According to the 2014 rankings of both the London Times and the Guardian, St Andrews is the fourth best university in the U.K. with the fifth most difficult admission standards. Hence, it is behind only Cambridge, Oxford, and the London School of Economics in terms of the overall quality of the educational experience it offers. And only Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial College, and the London School of Economics have more demanding admission standards than St Andrews. </p></li>
<li><p>As the London School of Economics and Imperial are specialized universities, these rankings name St Andrews as the third best multi-faculty university in Britain with the third most difficult admission standards in that cohort. </p></li>
<li><p>St Andrews “accepts slightly fewer (sic) than one of every ten applicants it receives.” [Is</a> St Andrews an elite university, or a university for the elite? ? The Saint](<a href=“http://www.thesaint-online.com/2013/10/is-st-andrews-an-elite-university-or-a-university-for-the-elite/]Is”>http://www.thesaint-online.com/2013/10/is-st-andrews-an-elite-university-or-a-university-for-the-elite/). While the admission standards are somewhat less stringent for Americans, getting admitted to St Andrews remains a crap shoot even for very well qualified American applicants. In my experience, many students who think they will be accepted get rejected, and some students who probably should be rejected get accepted. </p></li>
<li><p>St Andrews attracts American students because it is a remarkably beautiful 600 year-old university. It also offers a flexible curriculum that allows students to study three subjects their first two years before concentrating in one or two subjects their final two years. This is a big plus for Americans who want to attend university in Britain but are not ready to commit to the study of one or two subjects their fresher year.</p></li>
<li><p>As St Andrews provides limited full financial aid to foreign students, poor or lower middle class American students typically do not attend St Andrews. </p></li>
<li><p>However, if you are an American, you don’t have to be rich to attend St Andrews. It is about $25,000 or $30,000 less expensive than a private American university. Plus, it offers international scholarships up to about $8,000 and administers Stafford Loans for American students. The net result is that St Andrews is a good fit for American students who would otherwise receive substantial financial aid if they attended a private American university.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>You mean the King and Queen of the United Kingdom, not England. You are right that for British people this makes no difference at all, in fact most people don’t know that William and Kate went to the same university let alone the name of the place. The only reason William went to St Andrews was because it was isolated and far away from prying eyes, anybody who says otherwise is kidding themselves. St Andrews has cashed in on William’s attendance and used it to sell itself to gullible Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What rubbish. In terms of overall quality of education many universities eclipse St Andrews. Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, Imperial, Durham and Edinburgh are all generally better or as good. Specialist universities like the LSE, SOAS and the Courtauld all blow St Andrews out of the water in their respective academic disciplines. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t be ridiculous. UCL is easily the third best multi-faculty university in Britain. UCL have far more RAE rated excellent departments than St Andrews. The Times said UCL was the best multi-faculty university in the UK after Oxbridge. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not yet come across an American student who applied to St Andrews who did not get an offer. It is laughable to suggest that it is difficult to get a place when every year I see less than qualified students get in just because they pay international fees. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It attracts them because St Andrews has shamelessly undertaken a course of self-promotion in the US because it wants their international fees. The only reason that I can see why so many Americans apply to St Andrews is because it is perceived to be the most American and least British of all UK universities. Lots of universities are as flexible or more flexible than St Andrews. Aberdeen I think is the most flexible of any British university.</p>
<p>I will echo nordicblue’s comments - within the UK, St Andrews really isn’t considered to be all that amazing. It’s generally seen as being on a par with the likes of Durham and Bristol - not Oxford, not LSE, not UCL. </p>
<p>I suspect that the stat about the admissions rate has become somewhat mangled along the way through bad journalism. It’s probably that they receive 10x more applications than they have places, not that they receive 10x more applications than receive offers. They will give out several times more offers than they have places, because
- some people will choose to go elsewhere
- some people will miss their offer on results day
Having had a quick look at university.which.co.uk it would seem that depending on course, anywhere between a fifth and two thirds of applicants get a place. </p>
<p>Furthermore, those paying international fees tend to find it easier to get a place at British unis than their UK counterparts, because
a) they’re paying higher fees, and
b) their numbers aren’t capped by the government, so they can take as many as they have the capacity for. </p>
<p>League tables are a load of nonsense that is to be ignored (please remove the asterisks mid-URL - CC blocks links to that website) <a href=“http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1096372[/url]”>www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1096372</a></p>
<p>And on a nit-picking side note, Catherine will be Queen Consort, not Queen ;)</p>
<p>(Okay people, William is indeed second in line (after his father) to the throne of the United Kingdom. But since it is a UNITED Kingdom, it has component parts such as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The monarch of the United Kingdom is the monarch of England, and of Scotland, and so on. There is nothing inherently wrong with saying ‘Elizabeth II is the Queen of England’, because she is. In addition to all her other dominions. She is also the Head of the Commonwealth, and the monarch of a number of countries outside of the United Kingdom, such as Canada. And William is in line for all of those thrones as well.)</p>
<p>(And the British have always called the wife of a king “the Queen”. If we need to make a distinction we can say “Queen Consort” but the British generally don’t say that in normal conversation. If you find some old news stories about Queen Elizabeth’s mother, you will see she was called “The Queen” while her husband George VI was alive (and after he passed away, she became known as “The Queen Mother”))</p>
<p>KEVP</p>
<p>TheRealKEVP you are completely wrong. Yes, there is something wrong with it. England, Scotland, Wales etc are not sovereign states so they do not have a separate queen. The United Kingdom is one country and has one queen, if you’re going to use her title do it property or not at all. It’s like saying the Queen is not the Queen of Canada but is the Queen of Ontario… ridiculous.</p>
<p>nordicblue,</p>
<p>The 2014 rankings of both the Times and the Guardian name St Andrews as the third best multi-faculty university in Britain with the third most difficult admission standards in that group. You respond by arguing that many universities eclipse St Andrews. Then you undercut that contention by listing six universities that are generally better or as good as St Andrews. If some of these universities are as good as St Andrews, they obviously dont eclipse St Andrews. </p>
<p>Let me untangle the web you weave. Based upon the rankings in the Times and the Guardian, Cambridge and Oxford eclipse St Andrews in the same way Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford trump all other American universities. Reasonable individuals can quibble about the ranking of St Andrews in relation to the other four multicourse universities you mention. Nevertheless, the rankings from the Times and Guardian have strong probative value because each uses different methodology to affirm St Andrews standing as an excellent university. </p>
<p>You state, I have not yet come across an American student who applied to St Andrews who did not get an offer. You also argue that it is laughable to suggest that it is difficult to get a place when every year I see less than qualified students get in just because they pay international fees. As you lack omniscience and omnipresence, I am sure you understand the logical error of drawing sweeping generalizations from incomplete statistical data. Hence, your hasty generalizations reveal more about the limitations of your anecdotal knowledge than the admission practices at St Andrews. </p>
<p>I can understand why a British student might resent American students taking coveted spots at British universities. Thus, I concede that preferential admission benefits some Americans and provides them an extra incentive to apply to St Andrews. But, the fact that some American students are less qualified than their British counterparts at St Andrews does not mean that many, if not most, American students do not have academic qualifications on par with their British peers at St Andrews. Statistics, not sweeping generalizations, will resolve this question.</p>
<p>You accuse St Andrews of shameless [ ] self-promotion in the US and conclude, The only reason that I can see why so many Americans apply to St Andrews is because it is perceived to be the most American and least British of all UK universities. It certainly is not shameless for St Andrews to attend college fairs at the most elite U.S. prep schools or to allow Americans to use the Common Application. And Americans choose St Andrews because it is a good academic and social fit for them. If they wanted to attend an Americanized university, they would just stay home. </p>
<p>Lets agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I knew you would leach on to the “as good” remark to avoid my overall point, all I meant was that St Andrews does have some very good departments but they’re not any better than many other university departments. Speaking in general terms about universities as a whole however, St Andrews is not that good, all of the unis I mentioned and a few others are better.</p>
<p>I really do not care what this years rankings say about St Andrews, we both know that one should not, can not give much credence to what they say - they change wildly every year and their formula is just plain silly. The TSR link boomting posted explains it very well. The Sunday Times said UCL is the best multi-faculty university after Oxbridge, and most people tend to agree with that. I’m not prepared to get into an argument about pointless rankings lists, it is clear that you want to put St Andrew on a pedestal (no doubt because you go there), but you aren’t fooling anyone. </p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence is still relevant. In recent years St Andrews has developed a reputation for taking anyone who can pay the international fees. You might choose to ignore these rumours but they are based on observation, and I have observed really quite unqualified candidates getting in.</p>
<p>I think you will find that English people TO THIS VERY DAY will say “The Queen of England” in casual conversation. Even though it hurts the feelings of the Scots and the Welsh. Although technically, legally, the United Kingdom is a single sovereign nation, the people of the component parts still remember when each was a separate kingdom with its own monarch, and each has its own cultural identity. There are even political movements to separate each of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, the folks who support these very much think of Elizabeth II as the “Queen of England”.</p>
<p>Nobody says “Queen of Ontario” because Ontario isn’t a kingdom and never has been. And although the phrase “Queen of Canada” occurs in legal documents, I don’t think I have every heard a Canadian actually use the phrase in conversation.</p>
<p>I am put off St Andrews by the people who want to go there(eg those who post on boards such as this).</p>
<p>They either
a) think they will meet/marry a prince;
b) want to say they have studied abroad but completely avoid any non-Americans and any non-American culture; or
c) both of the above.</p>
<p>The average person in Britain thinks St Andrews is a golf course. The university isn’t that well known outside of US Royalty fans. </p>
<p>They clearly do marketing very well so if you are thinking about it, that’s what I’d suggest you study.</p>
<p>I agree with KEVP on the Queen of England people. She has loads of titles (in the channel islands she is the Duke of Normandy for weird example) but British people refer to her as the Queen and will refer to Catherine as the same (but are less keen on Queen Camilla).</p>
<p>nordicblue,</p>
<p>I’m not a student at St Andrews. But I did quite a bit of research about St Andrews in the college selection process. So, I thought I would share what I found with the CC community.</p>
<p>cupcake,</p>
<p>I’m sure it will come as a surprise to the American students at St Andrews – especially the guys – that they secretly harbor a desire to “meet/marry a prince.” </p>
<p>Your alternative premise that American students attend St Andrews to “completely avoid any non-Americans and non-American culture” is also a source of wonderment. Why would an American student spend four years at St Andrews if this were his sole purpose? Wouldn’t it just be easier to stay home or spend a junior year abroad in Britain? In any event, how could an American “completely” self-segregate himself in a small Scottish town where Americans comprise less than 15 percent of the student body and very few of the permanent residents? </p>
<p>The last time I checked the Times and the Guardian were British newspapers. So their high ranking of St Andrews must be attributable to (a) the desire of their researchers and reporters to marry a royal, (b) their need to separate themselves from British culture, and (c) their confusion that St Andrews is a golf course, not a 600 year-old university. </p>
<p>It’s one thing to have a risible opinion. It’s quite another to conflate that opinion with the facts. </p>
<p>But thanks for the good laugh.</p>
<p>Chinese students seem to segregate themselves quite efficiently at many universities when they comprise a much smaller proportion of the student population, so I see no reason why an American couldn’t do it at St Andrew’s. </p>
<p>I don’t think that anyone is saying that SA is a bad uni, it’s just that it’s not considered to be as good within the UK as it is within the US. </p>
<p>Where I come from (within England), people think that St Andrews is a local suburb long before they remember the Scottish university…</p>
<p>At my local university here in the USA, there are a lot of East Asian students who seem to segregate themselves effectively from the American students. I’m not even sure where they are from–that’s how well they isolate themselves. China or Korea, I think, I would probably recognize Japanese. They are always together with others from their own country, speaking their own language. I think they must live together since I see them getting on and off the bus together. They also have their own restaurants. And they are all over the place, possibly 15% of the student body like Americans at St. Andrew’s. I wonder what they are getting out of living in the United States, when they have more or less created a “Little Asia”.</p>
<p>KEVP</p>
<ol>
<li><p>By American standards, St Andrews does not engage in anything even remotely resembling aggressive marketing. American universities sell themselves as if they were mass marketing kitchen appliances instead of offering a college education. They collectively bombard thousands upon thousands of potential applicants with unsolicited communications ranging from twice weekly e-mails to glossy brochures, etc. Among other things, they offer free t-shirts, application fee waivers, VIP applications, deadline extensions, free campus visits, and special scholarship opportunities. One university even reportedly offers a $1,000 grant to anyone taking a campus tour. By contrast, St Andrews accepts the common application and appears at top prep school college fairs – activities that barely register as marketing in America. </p></li>
<li><p>Many students from East Asia study abroad out of necessity because most of the best universities in the world exist out of East Asia. By contrast, American students typically study abroad by choice because most of the best universities in the world are located in America. </p></li>
<li><p>Some Americans choose to study in Britain because they want to immerse themselves in British culture. Others seek the more intensive academic focus British universities provide. Still others emotionally connect to the universities they attend, whether it is Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, St Andrews, or Edinburgh. While these reasons vary, the opportunity to self-segregate with other Americans is not, in my experience, one of them. Again, if being with other American students were an applicant’s primary motivation, no person would rationally cross the globe to study in Britain. He or she would simply attend an American university. </p></li>
<li><p>I have no doubt that some Americans hang out with other American students whether they attend Cambridge, Oxford, or St Andrews. But my friends and relatives from these schools tell me that this is the exception rather than rule.</p></li>
<li><p>More often than not, name recognition inaccurately serves as a barometer of academic prestige. Sure, the ordinary American knows about HYP just as the average Brit probably recognizes Oxford and Cambridge. But in my experience, most Americans will give you a blank stare if you mention Williams or even Dartmouth outside the narrow confines of New England. So, it doesn’t terribly surprise me that someone in England would associate the name of St Andrews more with a local landmark or a famous golf course than with a 600 year-old university in Scotland.</p></li>
</ol>