<p>Ok this is my "updated" list of universities in the UK for IR:
(Oxford and Cambridge don't have IR, and I'm not really interested in Politics, Philosophy and Economics)</p>
<p>England: LSE, Essex, York
Scotland: Edinburgh, St Andrews
Wales: Aberystwyth</p>
<p>What do you think now?</p>
<p>St Andrews is regarded as academically second-rate in the UK. It is not an international research powerhouse like Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial and the LSE.</p>
<p>Octafish: I'm unaware of your background and don't mean to offend, but you clearly are confused about St Andrews. St Andrews and the LSE are probably the two best IR programs in the United Kingdom. Many, though, view St Andrews to be what the LSE was in the 1980s: on the cutting edge within the field. Conservatively, the two institutions could be viewed as equals. Just a few points: </p>
<ol>
<li> St Andrews is more selective then the LSE, drawing some of the top students from throughout the world.<br></li>
<li> St Andrews' faculty has nearly doubled in the past three years, while the LSE's has grown relatively little. Both are two of the largest groups of leading IR academics in the UK, if not Europe.</li>
<li> The quality of St Andrews' research is world-class. In this respect, St Andrews and the LSE are equals.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>If anyone has specific questions on IR programs or research institutions in the UK, please feel free to PM me.</p>
<p>St Andrews' overall research reputation is nothing like world class, see THES' rankings, or its RAE scores. Thus from my perspective as an English post graduate, St Andrews can't touch the LSE's overall reputation.</p>
<p>I don't know what specific claims you're making for St Andies but you're completely wrong that it's more selective at undergraduate level. The average LSE undergraduate has 30 more UCAS points than their St Andrews counterpart. By their own admission, St Andrews only ask for AAB to read IR.</p>
<p>A few points in response:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We're not talking about "overall" reputation for research or the university in general. We are talking about the reputation of IR programs in the UK and in this area, St Andrews and the LSE are viewed by many as equal.</p></li>
<li><p>A comparison of the research assessment exercise (RAE) scores shows the LSE at 5* and St Andrews at 5. This assessment was done in 2001 and as I noted earlier, since then St Andrews faculty has doubled in size and brought in many leading academics in the field. In all likelihood, both will be rated at 5* in the 2008 RAE.</p></li>
<li><p>The LSE does have a better reputation than St Andrews in a number of subjects other than IR. For example, their economics department can't be touched.</p></li>
<li><p>Institution-wide, the LSE has higher admission requirements than St Andrews. For IR, St Andrews is second only to Oxbridge. Though they may list AAB (to keep the applications coming), the vast majority of IR undergraduates have AAA.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I offer this information as an IR postgraduate who has studied at what are considered to be premier IR institutions in both the US and the UK. Within the community (both UK and abroad), St Andrews is viewed as the new "place to be" in the world of UK IR.</p>
<p>PS: I know that last line sounds cheesy, but I hear the quote often.</p>
<p>I accept most of what you say as you clearly have access to information I don't. However, the applicant needs to consider how much reputation in IR (which they weren't dead set on anyway) counts against the overall reputation of the university at undergraduate level.</p>
<p>In that I agree...</p>
<p>What can you tell me about the IR departments of Essex, York, and Edinburgh? How good are they?</p>
<p>Reading back through the thread, I do have experience of Durham University... I an originally from a city ten minutes away from Durham and a member of my family is a senior member of faculty at Durham. The university prides itself on its imitation of the Oxbridge experience but I'm personally dubious about it... For the grades it asks (very high), it's no academic big-hitter. Furthermore, I havel reservations about the kind of person who wants to go to somewhere which actively promotes itself as old-fashioned elitist... The city itself is old if you like that but it's not too hot, there's pretty much bugger all in it and I don't quite understand the American obsession with proximity to Scotland. I rejected University College Durham at undergrad so I don't know... maybe in some respects my experience with a particular college is colouring my views.</p>
<p>St. Andrews is definitley a good university. I think it is underestimated because of its size. However, it would never be able to compete with LSE.</p>
<p>It is only Americans who are obsessed with St Andrews. No-one had ever heard of it before Prince William went there. In the US this gives it some amazing prestige despite the fact that Prince William didn't actually get very good A-level grades (ABC) and was very unhappy there to start with. I suspect that 50% of the students there are actually American so you would feel at home. Probably this 'prestige' would help you get a job in the US. </p>
<p>My parents now live near Durham. Is is known as the "Oxbridge reject uni". In other words, people who apply to Oxbridge put it as their second choice because it is very like Oxbridge in that it has old colleges, but the entry level is lower. Unlike Oxbridge there is central admission, not decided by the colleges. Durham is a big player in the UK university scene and very prestigious but seems to be almost unheard of outside the UK. I turned it down for Cambridge. the town is very small. Much, much smaller than either Oxford or Cambridge. the nearest big city is Newcastle, which is only 20 mins away by train but on another planet (and that's planet party) compared to quiet little Durham. Durham is also cold for England and high up on a hill. It's gorgeous and pretty though. As for being "close to Scotland", Scotland is about 100 miles away and that's considered pretty far in UK terms (about 1.5hrs to Edinburgh on the train direct). </p>
<p>To the OP - has your daughter been to the UK in winter? I am happy here but it is very different when it's dark at 4pm and raining all the time, to doing a trip round stonehenge in July. it is also very different being here with a group of Americans as opposed to being the only US student in your college (which could happen. Some colleges have only 70-100 students). Real life is NOTHING like Harry Potter. That is a story book.</p>
<p>It's not only Americans who are attracted to St Andrews. For subjects like international relations, which is what the OP seems to be asking about, St Andrews receives nearly 25 applications per space. St Andrews has one of the highest percentages of international students, nearly 30%, in the UK. Only 15% come from the US, though, while the rest are draw from over 120 countries. Most of the student body is made up of some of the brightest students in the UK. These are split roughly 40/30% in favor of the English over the Scottish and the average requirement is between AAA and AAB. International relations is nearly impossible without AAA. </p>
<p>I think that the reference to Prince William is old news. He entered university nearly seven years ago and graduated in 2005. In his case grades don't matter. He could have attended any university in the UK, but chose St Andrews. I think this is if anything an indication of its quality. For 2008 entry, application numbers and entry requirements are the highest they've been in five years. St Andrews has one of the highest retention rates and the highest student satisfaction in the UK. Also, it has the highest research ranking in Scotland and consistently places as a top UK university (10th and 4th in the two most current Sunday Times and Guardian rankings). I think it's safe to say that all of this is not simply attributed to one former student.</p>
<p>I'm a Canadian and several students from my high school applied to St Andrew's specifically for IR. There is a high % of international students, which adds alot of value to the program. It's not easy to get into as it's highly ranked and very popular, so your daughter will need to have a plan B. Our school is in the IB system, and my best friend had 40 total points and was accepted, another with 39 was not. (equivalent of 5's in AP courses I think).
She absolutely loves it at St Andrew's. Very different educational system than US uni's. You are expected to think for yourself, not be spoon fed. She loves the interactive tutorial sessions, and had loads of reading to do but is a real bookworm and loves it. The university is also steeped in alot of traditions, they've had all sorts of events that she's sent me photos of. Even secret societies - basically just fun stuff. Older classmates just finished at St Andrew's and was accepted to Cambridge for post grad, the other to Harvard.
I wanted to attached the doc that our guidance councilor gave to us re: St Andrew's but I don't think cc allows attachments.</p>
<p>cupcake is exactly right. St Andrews is an Oxbridge reject university that had the luck to enroll Prince William. That isn't to say it's a bad university, but to compare it to an academic powerhouse like LSE is inaccurate. </p>
<p>To base one's perception of a university on its selectivity is silly, for several reasons. The average Oxbridge acceptance rate is around 20%, across all subjects. This looks high, but the stats are misleading because the pool is extremely self-selecting and due to the annoyance of attending compulsory interviews, sending in supplementary essays and so on, people do not tend to throw in an application 'just to see what happens'. This cannot be said for St Andrews and most other universities. </p>
<p>Secondly, since UK universities require you to apply directly for a specific course, acceptance stats are useless unless you have them for the entire range of courses available. One course may have an acceptance rate of 40% whereas another may have a rate of 14%. The fact that the overall rate is 27% is fairly irrelevant. </p>
<p>As for Durham... I am massively biased against Durham because the year I applied there to study Chinese, they sent me a letter a few weeks before my interview informing me they were closing down their Asian studies department. They had clearly known about this is advance, so why did they even register themselves on UCAS to accept applications for Chinese? They seemed very disorganised, but I may just have had the bad luck to be dealing with a inefficient department. Durham itself is really beautiful, although very small. But the university does try to make up for this with lots of student events. </p>
<p>I second the advice to look at Warwick for IR. Great university, with a very active student body.</p>
<p>Would anyone on this board like to explain just how UK universities work for a North American...? A very broad question, and I know that the English system differs from the Scottish... But if anyone could give some sort of rough outline, regarding tuition/the process of getting a degree/how classes are structured, I'd much appreciate it!!</p>
<p>I can't really say much that hasn't already been said here about most of the schools that have been mentioned, but I do have a friend at St Andrews. She loooooooves it there. She's from the US and had been a high school exchange so had experience living overseas before she went, however it seems like St Andrews does a really good job of including international students. Each incoming student is assigned an academic "mom" or "dad" who is an older student and introduces the student to the campus, traditions, and so on. From what she's said, it sounds like it's an ongoing relationship throughout the whole first year, although I would imagine that could vary based on the match. </p>
<p>She's really liked her classes and professors so far too. I think that she's majoring in classics and is happy with her decision, thus far. She's also really enjoyed the traditions on campus and has joined a couple of organizations.</p>
<p>My friend hasn't graduated yet, so I can't comment on the marketability of the degree in finding a job, but she did land an internship with the UN World Food Programme in Rome last summer, so I'm guessing the outlook is decent.</p>
<p>Laylah: Perhaps "Oxbridge reject university" needs to be better defined. It seems that Oxbridge undergraduate admission requirements are higher than those at St Andrews, but why does this make St Andrews a haven for Oxbridge rejects? Students accepted at Oxbridge have passed for St Andrews. Many St Andrews graduates go on to do postgraduate work at Oxbridge, as do many Oxbridge grads continue at St Andrews. Again, how does this make St Andrews a place for Oxbridge rejects?</p>
<p>Oxbridge has higher requirements than both Imperial and LSE, but you haven't labeled them in the same way as St Andrews. This is surprising, as for subjects such as international relations St Andrews has higher requirements than the LSE (granted for economics the LSE's requirements are significantly higher). I've spent time at both the LSE and St Andrews, and I would say they are different, but of the same standard for international relations. What makes you think differently?</p>
<p>My personal opinion is that labeling universities as "reject" institutions is not very helpful. Following that path, if we say that St Andrews attracts Oxbridge rejects then perhaps we should also recognize that Stanford, lesser Ivies, etc. attract HYP rejects. Not too many people, though, would characterize these schools as places for rejects. In reality these are all top institutions that will help students to achieve.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I can't really say much that hasn't already been said here about most of the schools that have been mentioned, but I do have a friend at St Andrews. She loooooooves it there. She's from the US and had been a high school exchange so had experience living overseas before she went, however it seems like St Andrews does a really good job of including international students. Each incoming student is assigned an academic "mom" or "dad" who is an older student and introduces the student to the campus, traditions, and so on.
[/QUOTE]
So exactly the same as Oxbridge and most other UK collegiate unis then.
I just think St Andrews is nothing special in any way. It is comparable to many small UK unis such as York and Warwick, but because Prince William went there (and it IS because of him. if you search the internet for any mentions of the place in the press before he attended, you can't find much other than the usual UK league tables) Americans believe it is the highest pinnacle of education. Of course they will take all the internationals that apply. You are going to pay.</p>
<p>jwagner: 'Oxbridge reject university' means exactly what it says on the tin - many of the people who attend were rejected from Oxbridge. I reiterate, I'm not saying St Andrews is a bad university because of this, I'm saying that this means there's a large number of students there who are English, wealthy, privately-educated, middle class, and rejected from Oxbridge. This gives a certain feel to the student body, that can be found at other universities as well, such as Durham and Bristol. This is totally irrelevant to the issue of post-graduate students - most universities have significantly different compositions of post-grad students to the ones they have at undergrad, because the pool is more self-selecting, more international, and far more focused on the research interests of the professors. </p>
<p>I don't think that St Andrews is significantly worse than the LSE for IR. I said that to compare St Andrews to an academic powerhouse like the LSE is inaccurate. There are factors beyond the immediate course offerings that are worth taking into account - library collections, proximity to think-tanks, links with international organisations, government and so on. These are all of prime importance to students of IR, and LSE has an edge simply by being in London. </p>
<p>joshua007: firstly, it's irrelevant to talk about what people who aim to attend St Andrews are like, since I'm talking about people who <em>don't</em> aim to go there and ended up there by default. Secondly, given the first point, it is entirely reasonable to talk about St Andrews being an Oxbridge reject university, since those who don't aim to go there and end up there anyway are necessarily rejects from somewhere. </p>
<p>People need to stop thinking that 'Oxbridge reject' equals 'total failure and doomed to a life of poverty and obscurity'. It doesn't. All it means is that you failed to get into Oxbridge, together with the vast majority of other people who applied. </p>
<p>I'll echo cupcake's point above: "I just think St Andrews is nothing special in any way."</p>
<p>Laylah: Your argument seems to be predicated on the notion that a large number of students at St Andrews applied and were rejected by Oxbridge. Do you have any facts to support this claim? Further, do you have any data that shows how many students were accepted by Oxbridge, but rejected by St Andrews? </p>
<p>People don't necessarily think that 'Oxbridge reject' equals 'total failure and doomed to a life of poverty and obscurity'. The problem is that you are starting from a position that assumes students would rather go to Oxbridge than other universities, including St Andrews. For some subjects people will choose Cambridge, for others Oxford, and still others St Andrews. Your view is like thinking students at lesser Ivies would really rather be at HYP. Not true. </p>
<p>Perhaps you view St Andrews as a lesser institution than Oxbridge, but others view it as an alternative. Some students likely applied and were rejected by Oxbridge, while others were accepted by all the above and chose St Andrews. Also, I would assume quite a few never even applied to Oxbridge because either they wanted to attend St Andrews or another university.</p>