<p>Simon21, again, if you will remove the SATISFACTION RATING from the criteria, StA would not make it to top 6. It is not a top 6 Uk uni, let alone top 4, as you were claiming. It certainly is not superior to Warwick, UCL, and most especially, LSE.</p>
<p>
But the best students in the UK would break an arm to get into IB. That’s why the best students always aim for the better UK universities, namely: Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, LSE, UCL and Warwick. They are quite solid in that respect.</p>
<p>I think this thread is a bit sad, especially considering the fact that most of the universities mentioned are considered elite and differentiating between them is an exercise in splitting hairs. Maybe Ill respond to a few points as someone with experience at some of these universities and a current graduate student. I have studied at Stanford and St Andrews, and am currently a graduate student in International Relations at the LSE. Ive also done research related to International Relations at Cambridge. My observations are in reference to undergraduate education, which is likely the primary focus for those on this forum.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>St Andrews does have very high satisfaction ratings, which is a good thing. Why would you want to look down on a place that provides high quality undergraduate education and develops very satisfied students? Im confused why, at the undergraduate level, this would be something less worthy than high research scores or research funding. Further, many other universities in the UK top 10 also have high student satisfaction scores (Oxford and Cambridge, for example). Why not critique their results in the same way?</p></li>
<li><p>Some people talk about access to IB as though its some sort of indicator of quality. Writing from the LSE, let me tell you I know about IB. Many institutions dont focus on areas that feed IB, nor would many highly capable students be interested. Based on some of the logic in this thread, those at the most competitive liberal arts schools in the US, which dont tend to feed IB, should somehow be viewed as less capable. Thats not the case. LSE does IB preparation very well and St Andrews prepares students for success in other areas (though some people do go into IB). The idea that the best students go into IB is flawed.</p></li>
<li><p>Based on my admittedly anecdotal experience, many of my peers in the UK seem to rate St Andrews rather highly. Ive talked with many people at LSE and Cambridge and most tend to place it just below LSE/Imperial. In my field, International Relations, its ahead of Cambridge and close to LSE and Oxford. At the international level, people often compare St Andrews with Brown, Dartmouth, Princeton, and Georgetown. I think overall it compares well with the first two and in my field is very similar to Georgetown.</p></li>
<li><p>As a final observation, some people on this forum (often English) seem to aggressively critique St Andrews more than any other UK university. Im not sure of the reason, but in most cases it comes off as some sort of chip against what is viewed by many people worldwide as a great university. Maybe those from competing universities want to downplay the success of their competitors, but these strained explanations of why St Andrews doesnt deserve the success and prestige it has achieved sound a bit hollow after awhile.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>PS: If anyone is interested in International Relations programs in the US or the UK, don’t hesitate to PM me.</p>
<p>Something that tends to confuse me on CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Something that tends to confuse me is why people tend to immediately link any school they can to the ivies. Especially when they are undergraduate focused they immediately equate them to: Princeton, Dartmouth and Brown.</p>
<p>Why not Tufts or Rice or Vandy or Emory or Wake Forest? These are all similar sized school as St Andrews and undergraduate focussed. Its straight to Brown and Dartmouth lol because they have Ivy status.</p>
<p>I’m not sure if you can even equate StA with Rice. Wake Forest or Boston College, yes. But Rice is a major research university, richer and have better students based on stats. </p>
<p>The best unis in the UK require A<em>AA if not A</em>A<em>A. Oxbridge often require A</em>A<em>A</em>. That’s triple A<em>!!! The standard entry requirements for StA is AAB. (Prince William had ABC.) Only a few programs at StA require AAA. It does not even have a program that requires A</em>A<em>A. Warwick, for example, has many programs that require A</em>A*A or AAAB/AAAb. LSE and Imperial require even higher entry standards. </p>
<p>And the employment prospects of StA is abysmal. Look at the latest data – it’s not even in the top 20. How can an alleged top 3 uni couldn’t crack in the top 20 for employment success rate? StA is the first uni in the world to have done it so.</p>
<p>StA’s International Relations program is good. But that’s just it. The rest of the programs they offer is hardly top 5 in the UK.</p>
<p>Though Cambridge and Oxford are exceptions, most universities in the UK do not require A<em>AA across degree programs. Few universities in the UK have even adopted the A</em> standard (Oxford just made the change and I don’t believe any university in Scotland has done so). At universities that have adopted the standard, only a few programs list it as a requirement.</p>
<p>St Andrews require AAA for roughly half of their degree programs. Based on current figures, St Andrews falls just below LSE/Imperial and just above Warwick for average entry tariff. St Andrews doesn’t have professional schools (law, engineering, clinical medicine), which tend to boost career prospects. Nor is it located in a large metropolitan area, which boosts prospects. However, figures show that it still falls within the top 15 in the UK for career prospects. </p>
<p>Source: <a href=“http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/Degrees%20and%20Entry%20Requirements.pdf[/url]”>http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/Degrees%20and%20Entry%20Requirements.pdf</a></p>
<p>Source (Sort by entry tariff and career prospects): [University</a> guide 2012: University league table | Education | guardian.co.uk](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012]University”>University guide 2012: University league table | Education | theguardian.com)</p>
<p>Based on your post history it would likely be difficult to change your opinion of St Andrews, as it seems rather set in stone. Perhaps it would be good to reflect on why you would spend so much time trying to refute nearly every positive data point on St Andrews presented in this thread. I and dare it be said most others are more interested in celebrating our own universities that diminishing others. Such critique makes it look like you have an unnecessary chip. Feel free to PM me if you want to respond privately.</p>
<p>St Andrews doesn’t have professional schools (law, engineering, clinical medicine), which tend to boost career prospects.</p>
<p>St Andrews does have a medical school and accepts students straight from A Levels. Medicine is the only program in the UK which we can all honestly say, an A-Level booster for entry standards. [School</a> of Medicine](<a href=“http://medicine.st-andrews.ac.uk/prospectus/entry.aspx]School”>http://medicine.st-andrews.ac.uk/prospectus/entry.aspx)</p>
<p>Warwick’s medicine, I believe, is only offered to those who already have an undergraduate degree, pretty much like the US’ system. [Warwick</a> Medical School - MB ChB Graduate Entry](<a href=“http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/study/ugr/]Warwick”>Medicine (MB ChB))</p>
<p>
That report is actually a misnomer. When I checked the entry standards of StA (which I will post the link to it below), I found out that many programs don’t really have high entry requirements. Even if we do a comparison with Warwick’s in areas where they’re also offered at StA, it would appear that Warwick, which has 1 place for every 11 applicants, is harder to get into. (I am using Warwick as a comparison since it’s the only uni amongst the top 6 where you have a hard time accepting to be rather a superior uni.) </p>
<p>
That is NOT true at all. Look at the data and see for yourself if those programs that require AAA is about half of the whole programs that the university has.<br>
<a href=“http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/Degrees%20and%20Entry%20Requirements.pdf[/url]”>http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/Degrees%20and%20Entry%20Requirements.pdf</a></p>
<p>Now, compare that to Warwick’s: [2011/12</a> Entry Requirements | Undergraduate Study | University of Warwick](<a href=“http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/apply/entry/2011/#history]2011/12”>http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/apply/entry/2011/#history)
Warwick has several programs that require A<em>A</em>A and AAAB. On the other hand, not a single program at St Andrews requires even just an A*AA. </p>
<p>Again, don’t get me wrong on this. I believe StA is a great uni. Like I said, i almost went there. But to say it is a top 3 or top 4 UK uni is just a stretch. It is a top 10 uni, for sure. But certainly not a top 6. The top employers in the UK do not consider it as a top uni as well. To say StA is a top 3 UK uni is like saying Brown is a top 3 school in the US, which obviously isn’t true. But that is not to say Brown is not a great school.</p>
<p>To be clear this will be my last exchange on this matter. I’ve seen too many people waste time going around and around with you when it’s clear that any facts that challenge your opinion will be labeled as “misnomers” or there will be some “common knowledge” into which you’ve happened to tap. </p>
<p>My comment on the lack of clinical medicine was in reference to career prospects not entry standards. Any bump St Andrews would get from medical school entry tariffs would be minimal due to the fact that the medical school is absolutely tiny—one of the smallest in the UK. I can’t speak to Warwick’s medical program because I’ve never been there, but based on their website they might not do undergraduate medicine. Regardless, this point of yours is a great example of you bending over backwards to come up with some reason to diminish St Andrews in relation to other universities, in this case Warwick.</p>
<p>According to you data on entry tariffs and asking rates that show the competitiveness of St Andrews are always misnomers or otherwise skewed in some fashion. St Andrews has hovered between 10 and 12 applicants per place for years, very similar to Warwick. By the way, I quickly calculated the percentage of degree programs with an AAA requirement at St Andrews using information in the linked course listing. Guess what…49%. </p>
<p>The fact that Warwick or any other university offers some A* courses doesn’t tell us much. My last posting of median entry tariff ranking was based on actual UCAS data (the Guardian isn’t just making an educated guess on these matters). UCAS data show that St Andrews and Durham (separated by one point) fell just below LSE/Imperial last year, and ahead of Warwick and UCL. We could quarrel about the degree of separation, but you are unwilling to accept the basic data that indicate the competitiveness of St Andrews. It’s not about a few courses that require A<em>, Scottish universities to my knowledge have not adopted the new A</em> mark, but rather the average across the university. In this case only a few universities best St Andrews and Warwick, which like UCL is an elite university, is not far behind.</p>
<p>Debates between top 4 and top 6 are pointless. The league tables and many people on the street seem to think St Andrews falls into one of these two categories. You do not, which is okay. I’m not really sure why you care and for that matter why you go to such great lengths, arguing against nearly every piece of evidence presented by multiple posters, to express your seemingly unfounded opinion on the matter. It makes me wonder why a Cambridge graduate, who enjoys such high career prospects, would spend so much of the day on this forum responding to posts about a university they didn’t attend. It also makes me wonder why a Cambridge graduate would care so much about cheerleading for Warwick at the expense of St Andrews and a few others. Maybe I’m just confused, or maybe some things/people aren’t what they seem to be. Also, there are plenty of problems with your Brown example, but I need to get back to work.</p>
<p>ANOBSERVATION, just admit it that StA is NOT a top 6 uni and we’re alright. You don’t need to be too personal on me. Just accept the fact that StA isn’t superior to Warwick, UCL, and more so, LSE and Imperial. </p>
<p>BTW, your calculations are wrong, and I wouldn’t want to go to that length again just to refute you. </p>
<p>Nobody here is saying StA is not a great university. It is. I said that so many times in my previous post, in case you missed them so many times too. lol</p>
<p>StA was arguably ranked number 4 by some league tables because of the SATISFACTON RATINGS, which constitute the highest weighting in the overall criteria. Without that segment of the survey, it would hardly make it in the top 6, let alone, top 4. </p>
<p>StA is a great university. But it isn’t superior to UCL, Warwick, and most especially, LSE and Imperial. In fact, it has many more top 15 rankings than top 5 rankings. Hardly anyone in the UK would rank it a top 6 university, let alone, top 3 like what ANOBSERVATION is claiming. </p>
<p>And, lastly, the reason why StA does not ask for A* because they can’t afford to ask such high requirement from their applicants. Those that have A* usually go to the top 6 or Durham and Bristol. StA is probably even more popular in the US than it is in the UK. The top students do not wish to go there for college. And that somehow was reflected by the low ranking placement they gained from the UK’s top employers.</p>
<p>So I said last exchange, but a few points of clarification need to be made and I can’t help myself.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to get too personal, but your post history and form of argumentation seem odd for someone who graduated from Cambridge. The reason why people, myself included, are not giving in to you is because your argument is flawed and by most accounts St Andrews appears to be in the top 6 (not that this is some magic number). As an aside, I don’t really care what anyone thinks as long as the arguments are well founded. </p>
<p>My calculations aren’t wrong. Do the math…it’s 49% (though just to make you happy I’ll tack on a +/- 3 percentage points).</p>
<p>I’m not discussing what everyone here is saying about St Andrews, just what you’re saying. A thin veneer of half-hearted compliments (nice location, great traditions, etc.) doesn’t adequately conceal your central argument against St Andrews, which is poorly substantiated at best.</p>
<p>St Andrews has on average placed in the top 5 across the combined domestic league tables for the past five years. This isn’t a matter of a few random tables, biased towards student satisfaction. Furthermore, other top-rated universities have high student satisfaction (including Oxford and Cambridge) so why single out St Andrews?</p>
<p>How do you know that “hardly anyone in the UK would rate it [St Andrews] a top 6?” Nearly all the league tables rank it top 6 and is has some of the highest entry standards in the UK (so many of the best prospective students seem to think so as well). You must have access to some inside sources or means to poll the wider population that others have missed.</p>
<p>There are plenty of reasons why St Andrews doesn’t use the A* mark, namely the fact that it’s a Scottish university whose primary credential is the Scottish Higher. You keep missing the fact that St Andrews has basically the same median tariff scores as Durham and higher scores that Warwick, UCL, and Bristol (just to hit those that you’ve mentioned). Of course St Andrews could ask for the A* if they adopted the mark; on average, St Andrews students have slightly better credentials than most of the universities that use A*.</p>
<p>Okay, I’m done…I promise this time. To be honest I’m a little embarrassed for getting into this debate, but seeing some of the misinformation and poor argumentation evidenced in this thread forces one’s hand sometimes.</p>
<p>ANOBSERVATION, you mean StA should be #3 in the UK because some league tables say it so? Is that how an allegedly educated person create his logic? If this was an exam, sorry; but I’d flunk you immediately. </p>
<p>The league table says that Lancaster is superior to Imperial College. Really??? As a self-confessed educated person, would you really assert that Lancaster is superior to Imperial? I guess not. But here you are fighting “tooth and nail” for StA as a university superior to Imperial for the sole reason that your (same) source, which was the league table, says so. It is very clear to me then that you are particularly biased to certain universities, specifically those with which you have an affiliation. Therefore, your view and opinion about this shouldn’t be taken seriously.</p>
<p>
Ahh… That’s a very arrogant statement. I rarely say those things to a university. In fact, I’m not even sure if I couldn’t say that to more than 10 universities. I could say those words for Oxbridge and HYPSM. But I’m not sure if I could say the same words for other universities aside from StA. I couldn’t even say those things for Warwick, UCL and ICL – the universities I’m arguing to be superior to StA academically. So, in short, you are being presumptuous. And, your biases towards StA are overbearing to the point that you’d be willing to twist facts and lie just to please your ego. </p>
<p>There is also a reason why some universities in the UK haven’t asked for A*. It’s not just because it is a Scottish law or some wild reasoning that suddenly floats in your mind. Show me the link to the Scottish law which would support your absurd claim and I will shut up at once. You can’t show it to me, can you? And I know why you can’t. Because there isn’t such a law. Such law exists only in your imagination. lol…</p>
<p>
If only you’re a bit resourceful to seek out the things that you supposedly find them interesting, such as this kind of information, you would have known the answer to your own question. I will PM you the answer to this because CC does not allow links to websites not duly accredited or approved by the forum admin. But rest assured that you will receive a PM from me.</p>
<p>
I believe the tariff scores are incomplete and therefore, inaccurate. That explains why certain league table reports different tariff scores. And, tariff scores alone would not really tell a complete comparison of the level of difficulty between universities. Let me show you an example. </p>
<p>According to the tariff scores for law as reported on the link that I will provide below, LSE has 536 tariff points whilst Oxford has only 528 points. That’s a difference of 8 points. Now if we would follow your logic, it would appear that it is harder to get into LSE Law than Oxford Law. ARE YOU SERIOUS???! You’ve got to be kidding yourself if you believe it to be so. </p>
<p>[Law</a> - Top UK University Subject Tables and Rankings 2011-2012 - Complete University Guide](<a href=“http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Entry&s=Law]Law”>http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Entry&s=Law)</p>
<p>Now, that doesn’t happen to law program only. It does happen to a lot of programs too. Take a look at the tariff scores for economics. StA has 515 points whilst UCL has only 508. (It had less than 500 last year, btw.) Yet everyone knows that it is SUBSTANTIALLY harder to get onto the economics program at UCL than it is to get onto StA’s. Again, you are only fooling yourself if you believe that StA’s economics is more selective than UCL’s. Ask anyone who has applied to both so you’d be informed. </p>
<p>Now, let’s leave StA for a while and take a closer look at other universities in the UK if they too are guilty of such “crime”. I’m sure you’ve heard of the acronym, COWI. It was coined by a mathematics researcher who tried to established the best universities in the UK for maths. His research led him to Cambridge, Oxford, Warwick and Imperial. The acronym became popular and widely accepted in the UK and the top students and scholars often refer them as the absolute unis for maths. Consequently, these 4 unis have attracted the best students too, and maths, as a major is a ridiculously popular program in the UK. </p>
<p>According to Warwick, you’d need A* (Maths) A* (Further Maths) A plus 2 in STEP / Distinction in Maths AEA. To get a distinction is maths AEA or 2 in STEP is incredibly hard. Meanwhile, Durham only asks for A* (Maths) A (Further Maths) A. Anyone familiar with this would know that Durham’s requirements are obviously a much easier than Warwick’s. Yet according to your very source: Durham 550 points. Warwick 541 points. Where is justice in that??? [Mathematics</a> - Top UK University Subject Tables and Rankings 2011-2012 - Complete University Guide](<a href=“Mathematics Rankings 2024”>Mathematics Rankings 2024)</p>
<p>Do you think I made that up? Then check these:
[Department</a> of Mathematical Sciences : Undergraduate Admissions - Durham University](<a href=“http://www.dur.ac.uk/mathematical.sciences/undergraduate/]Department”>Undergraduate Study - Durham University)
[2011/12</a> Entry Requirements | Undergraduate Study | University of Warwick](<a href=“http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/apply/entry/2011/#maths]2011/12”>http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/apply/entry/2011/#maths)</p>
<p>No offense, but your responses are becoming more comedic by the minute. FYI…I never said St Andrews should be ranked in the top 3 (look back at my posts). I’m not even all that crazy about St Andrews, though it was a rewarding experience. In my view, both LSE and Imperial are superior institutions (especially for postgraduates). I’ve got a feeling you don’t understand how the tariff system works because this part of your post makes no sense. On COWI…so a few universities have great math programs and St Andrews isn’t one of them…big deal. I won’t follow your lead in to ad hominem, as my point has already been made and me getting personal would only lend you credibility. </p>
<p>I feel like I’m in the Godfather Part III…“Just when I thought I was out, they keep pulling me back in!”</p>
<p>^ Stop saying “this will be my last post…” You keep coming back and posting anyways. lol</p>
<p>Which part of the tariff points you think I did not understand? </p>
<p>And, instead of talking nonsense and being melodramatic, why won’t you address the points directly? Veering away from the subject is a sign of defeat. lol</p>
<p>RML - St Andrews entry tarrifs are held back by the fact it is a Scottish University and therefore makes the majority of its offers on the basis of Highers, which hold fewer UCAS points than A-levels. As ANOBSERVATION said, it lacks any proffesional school other than Medicine, but even then that does nothing for graduation prospects because you do not graduate from St Andrews with your MBChb, you graduate with a BSc (Hons) and then progress to Manchester, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen or Glasgow for the clinical section of the course. Also, how is it a bad thing for students to be satisfied with the course/teaching? You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with attacking an institution you have never been to or have any connection with. And none of us are saying it is set in 3rd/4th, ANOBSERVATION is saying it is 5th (generally) and I am claiming it is impossible to separate St A, LSE, Imperial and UCL.</p>
<p>Could any of you answer my question…?
When applying to University of Edinburgh, must all AP results/scores be reported?</p>
<p>RML:</p>
<p>I would have sent this via PM, but your box is full. Quick question…do you happen to know a guy by the name of Michael L. Roxas?</p>
<p>No. The (full) name does not ring a bell. </p>
<p>However, I do have several friends with Michael as their first name.</p>
<p>BTW, I’ve emptied my boxes, so you can send messages there. Alternatively, you can send off topic posts through Visitor Messages.</p>
<p>
But the fact remains that StA accepts students with A Level qualifications. And, medicine is an A-Level booster. Whether or not the students would eventually receive a StA diploma is irrelevant to this discussion. </p>
<p>
I didn’t say it is a bad thing. But when it is used in a ranking especially when given higher weights, it screwed the ranking results. Look at what happened to Imperial and LSE. They dropped out of the top 5. Imperial dropped out of the top 8. Does that makes sense to you?</p>
<p>RML - It is relevant when it concerns what I’m talking about, which is graduate prospects figures. I’ve already dealt with the issue of results tariffs with the Scottish issue in that Highers are worth fewer UCAS points than A-levels.</p>
<p>Yes, it does make sense. I’ve heard bad things about Imperial when it comes to students not liking the course, not being able to talk to lecturers etc. When it comes to Undergraduate study these things are far more important than research figures etc. The people making these tables have decided what they believe is important when working out their factors, whether you agree or not doesn’t change the facts.</p>
<p>Simon21, by your logic Lancaster is a superior university to Imperial College. Does that makes sense to you?</p>