Does St Andrews deserve its reputation?

[Malcolm]

I know this is going to get flamed off the face of God's Earth, but here goes.

My mum went to a school reunion on Saturday and met one of her old friends, who lectures at Aberdeen. They got talking about the whole business and my mum mentioned what things were like at St Andrews. As you've already seen, I've put in for a transfer due to various cock-ups.

The interesting thing is this; the Aberdeen lecturer told my mum that St Andrews actually isn't very popular with other Scottish Universities, that is to say that the other Scottish universities can't believe the way we do some things, or the attitude towards the students (pile 'em high, treat those who do well like royalty and punish the lesser achieving by forcing them out or do the General), or the old adage that our regulations make no sense whatsoever, and that St Andrews is seen as being weird and just being arrogant in its refusal to toe the same line as everywhere else. She found the whole "~11 for Honours or go fuck yourself" mentality both bizarre and appalling, and there's a good reason why; we're seemingly the only University that have that policy. Other "good" and "highly respected" universities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen itself don't have anything of the sort; you're 99.9% guaranteed Honours entry unless you're expelled, a drop-out or killed before then. I checked the regulations of the other universities meticulously to ensure I can't fall into the old St Andrews trap once I make my transfer (not telling you where I'm going, either). Guess what? The trap is unheard of elsewhere. Dundee you need to pass second year with the bare minimum to gain Honours entry, and Edinburgh you don't even need to pass all your modules at all first time round, just keep on picking up the credits until you get enough to graduate.

Also, the concept of BSc/MA General is apparently seen as a total joke. Again, very few (if any) of the other universities in Scotland do this; the closest you'll most likely get is Honours without a classification or a degree specifically in your chosen subject but simply without Honours (which may result in itself from failing to meet the standards for a Third). But at least you get a degree worth its salt, unlike the General which is seen as not being at all useful and has a stigma surrounding it. On a more personal note, I think it's appalling that your chances of getting into Honours are randomised and seemingly dependent on luck, the weather, the department you're in and what regulations are picked for bending on any given day. There's no standardisation, I've got friends missing their 11s left, right and centre in a myriad of different subjects and it genuinely appears that your Honours entry depends solely on the leniency of the department and the numbers involved. Where is said standardisation? If you can get kicked off Psychology with a 10.7 and a 15, why can you get into Physics with an 8 and a 9.5? That's not representative of ability at all, perhaps the 10.7 Psychologist picked the wrong question and could have had a 13.

I personally think St Andrews should sort these things out, there's no reason for it to be different. And as the oldest University in Scotland it's had 600 years to iron out the wrinkles. New students run the risk of not seeing the potential pitfalls until it's too late; I didn't even know what a General Degree was before I was told it was my only option (I, like others, thought it was simply my original degree but without Honours), never at any time did my adviser warn me of the consequences of bad module decisions, and I was never advised to my decisions being dodgy (which proved to be my undoing). We were never explained all of this before we started, and it's never mentioned to prospective new students being shown around either unless it's by word of mouth from current students, which often gets ignored for the prospectus anyway. It seems the University's keen to sucker you in by oversubscribing everything and not being stringent with the entry requirements (a schoolfriend of mine got in without any of the required grades from his Highers and no special circumstances), make the regulations et al. so ambiguous that your position becomes unclear and dangerous if things go wrong, instead of offering you a viable alternative like Edinburgh etc. do.

Rant over. It's not my University any more so I shouldn't really worry about it, but I don't really feel St Andrews deserves the reputation it has. The general consensus is that St Andrews is seen as up-itself and resistant to change. It's not sour grapes from me either, it's an honest opinion. I wonder why it's so highly regarded when, on the whole, there are other institutions with top-notch educational standards (and better; remember St Andrews doesn't get 5/5 for everything) but also with better facilities and a fairer path to the degree you want. I would be interested to see how the University's reputation and standing would be affected if people looked more closely at the faults rather than being seduced by name alone. Not to mention the University's desperately short of money but is prepared to do anything to cling onto the top spot. My big thought is, should St Andrews have the top spot?

(prepares flameproof suit)

[Odysseus]

Quoting Malcolm from 19:38, 12th Jun 2007
It's not sour grapes from me either, it's an honest opinion. I wonder why it's so highly regarded when, on the whole, there are other institutions with top-notch educational standards (and better; remember St Andrews doesn't get 5/5 for everything) but also with better facilities and a fairer path to the degree you want. I would be interested to see how the University's reputation and standing would be affected if people looked more closely at the faults rather than being seduced by name alone. Not to mention the University's desperately short of money but is prepared to do anything to cling onto the top spot. My big thought is, should St Andrews have the top spot?

(prepares flameproof suit)

I have several friends who have absolutely legitimate reasons for having to take a year out or repeat. The Students support service seems to do its best in helping the students who want to stick in. If you're a quiter (or just too much of a pisshead/druggie/wastrel) then that's your problem. Gotta seperate the wheat from the chaff somehow!

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

[LonelyPilgrim]

My experience at St Andrews has left me extremely bitter toward the university. I don't know what other Scottish universities are like, but my impression of St Andrews was of a greedy, cold, uncaring, and anachronistic institution. I loved the school of IR, but the university as a whole has earned my undying enmity.

I can echo most of Malcolm's complaints - especially the utter lack of any advising done by my 'advisor' who I only met once, and the complete lack of any orientation regarding the degree structure.

However, my chief complaint is this: my student loan checks from my US bank would arrive at the Cash Office and require endorsement by both myself and the university before they could be deposited in the university account. In theory, the checks arrived twice each year, and I was to receive a percentage refunded to me by the university in order to cover my living expenses.

In practice what would happen is that the university would receive the checks and not inform me, at times for months, until the exchange rate had moved against the dollar (the currency the checks were made out in). Then when I would be called in to endorse the checks, I had to fight with them ever first semester to get my refund (since the first check would not cover all tuition expenses and they would initially refuse to acknowledge that I always had a second check of the same value coming). Sometimes it would take weeks to get my refund, and often the dollar would AMAZINGLY drop against the pound just when they decided to give in and issue the refund money to me.

The end result of all of this over a four year period is that I spent two years practically starving, not for a lack of cash in my budget, but for a lack of cash in my hand. I also figured that I ended up paying the university over $15,000 more than I would have done had they processed everything speedily as they should have done.

But, even disregarding my financial difficulties with the university, had I known what I know now about how the university organises its degrees and the manner in which it operates on a "the undergraduates will figure out on their own how things work" Darwinian basis of natural selection, I would never have left the US to attend university. Especially since I opted to go to St Andrews on the basis that it seemed to be cheaper than a Harvard or a Yale on the surface, while still being nearly as prestigious. My error.


[hr]

Arma virumque cano...

[exnihilo]

Just one observation for now - Glasgow offers exactly the same notion as a General, they just call it an Ordinary. I think that's true of most of the other Ancients, too.

[novium]

I've known a few fair people screwed over by the system here. Some of them may share their stories. I think the most extreme example was the person who was kicked out of honors for submitting something late, due to illness. Despite the fact that they had cleared it with them earlier (proof of being sick, etc).

Personally....well. This year has opened my eyes to a few things. For sure I was treated much better as a JYA than as an mlitt. It often seemed to me that the standards and regulations in my department were completely arbitrary. Most of the arbitrariness stems from how randomly they are enforced. And you could never pin down exactly what you were supposed to do. e.g. they'd say that the point of an assignment was X and should be in Y fashion. Then, in the feedback, they would seem to be bewildered by the fact that students had done X and Y. And then there was all this anxiety over word limits. ON the one hand, the regulations say there are penalties for going over the word limit. On the other hand, we were actively encouraged to so exceed the word limit that the finished product would bear little resemblance to the original assignment.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[novium]

I've known a few fair people screwed over by the system here. Some of them may share their stories. .

Personally....well. This year has opened my eyes to a few things. For sure I was treated much better as a JYA than as an mlitt. It often seemed to me that the standards and regulations in my department were completely arbitrary. Most of the arbitrariness stems from how randomly they are enforced. And you could never pin down exactly what you were supposed to do. e.g. they'd say that the point of an assignment was X and should be in Y fashion. Then, in the feedback, they would seem to be bewildered by the fact that students had done X and Y. And then there was all this anxiety over word limits. ON the one hand, the regulations say there are penalties for going over the word limit. On the other hand, we were actively encouraged to so exceed the word limit that the finished product would bear little resemblance to the original assignment.


[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[exnihilo]

I can't say I'm all that sympathetic, because for every person "screwed over by the system" I can think of several who played the system and got away with it. Many of those people who ended up with Generals or whatever might well have been able to hang on in, if they'd just fought a little harder or worked the system a little more. Perhaps many of the other lot should have been kicked out, but they made the effort to not be, even if not to actually do the work.

[Bizarre Atheist]

Q. Does St Andrews deserve it's reputation as one of the highest-quality Universities?

A. Well, let's see. All the graduates are of the highest quality because the wasters/morons are weeded out early on. Methinks this is how St Andrews gets to be good - it's tough to get in and tough (though not very) to graduate.

Should it be commended that a University lets all its students graduate, irrelevant of their academic performance? No, not in my book. You also make reference to others giving out 'degrees worth their salt'. I would suggest that these are just low-quality degrees disguised as good degrees, which isn't commendable either.

Finally, maybe the current system does represent 600 years' of evolution. I'm sorry that it seems to have caught you out, but that's how it is in this crazy old grey toun.

Go on, where are you transferring to?

[hr]

http://www.charities-campaign.org.uk

[Nymphomanic]

I understand that the modular system does not suit some people, but

In defence of St Andrews

I had a lot of problems in academic year 05-06 and these led to me walking out of all my exams without writing anything. The university were perfectly sympathetic and allowed me to take leave of absence and repeat the year. Student Support have been really understanding actually.

Also - this may be unpopular with some people - but surely promoting excellence means that the university does have to test and challenge students to some extent. Okay some people struggle with the eleven barrier (I was okay this time thank goodness) but I have friends who have failed to meet the requirements and still been allowed into honours.


[hr]

I read most of the night and go south in winter - wasteland

[[James]]

Quoting Bizarre Atheist from 20:51, 12th Jun 2007
[Entire post]

I agree entirely with all of the above. Excluding instances of special circumstances, if you fail to get an 11 in 2nd year (and let's be honest, it's not a particularly tall order) what on earth makes you think you could graduate with a degree 'worth its salt'? I'd argue that although the University certainly has its faults and inter-departmental discrepancies, it is the very system in question that sets us apart from other Scottish universities in the quality of our graduates. It acts as quality control.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it could do with being tougher. The low requirements in sub-honours have certainly damaged the work ethic I had when I left school, leading to a great deal of complacency. Especially in the second semester of this year, I often handed in coursework late, missed tests and never went to a single one of my non-compulsory tutorials.

And yet, I'm into honours. I'm not lazy when it comes to working hard to perform at my best, but I see little point in doing so until it matters.

[Mr Comedy]

To be honest, the 11 for Honours is a really good idea. If you cannot get an 11, you won't handle the step-up to Honours, when the work-load substantially increases and the learning is self-induced (e.g. more reading) rather than taught (e.g. lectures).

In this regard the university is actually being fairly merciful here - it's much better to get out 2 years in with a general than it is to wait 4 and get an ordinary.
Both will fuck up your career equally, but the St Andrews option saves you 2 years of student loan repayments.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[Thalia]

What annoys me, personally, is the way they chop and change the rules according to the department.

If the rule is that you have to get an 11 then there should be no exceptions except in exceptional circumstances. It's not fair to those of us who work to get those 11s if people can get in without them - i was recovering from glandular fever in the first semester of my second year and I still managed to get a 12.6. What was the point in me bothering if someone else could just turn around and say, 'oh, well, i'll work hard next year. Let me in anyway, kthx.'

Besides that though, i don't really understand what's so positive about the fact that 99.9% of students at other universities can get into honours. A degree is supposed to be an achievement after all, not something that just everyone should be able to walk in and get.

[hr]

You've been nothing but an angel every day of your life and now you wonder what it's like to be damned...

[romantic]

Quoting [James] from 21:06, 12th Jun 2007
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it could do with being tougher.

I couldn't agree more.

[Thalia]

Quoting romantic from 21:30, 12th Jun 2007

Quoting [James] from 21:06, 12th Jun 2007
In fact, I would go so far as to say that it could do with being tougher.

I couldn't agree more.

I've thought the same, specifically for psychology, considering that we have a JH class of around 80 and no proper seminars or tutorials in which to get proper contact time. The class just seems too big to me. A stricter entry requirement would mean they only got the best and could then teach them better too.

[hr]

You've been nothing but an angel every day of your life and now you wonder what it's like to be damned...

[exnihilo]

I can very much see a situation in the future with a lot more streaming in sub-honours classes (as certain other institutions do already (with a "hard" and a "not so hard" version of the course), and a lot more people taking General/Ordinary degrees and only the top ones going on to Honours.

[[James]]

Quoting Thalia from 21:33, 12th Jun 2007
[In psychology] we have [...] no proper seminars or tutorials in which to get proper contact time

You might be interested to know that psychology started doing tutorials this year, but they were non-compulsory and only once every three weeks (or at least I think they were - I never went). Tutorial attendance and performance is referred to in cases where students have narrowly missed the grade in a module, e.g. getting a 15 in PS2001 and a 10.5 in PS2002. Those who get 11s are still guaranteed admission to honours.

[Thalia]

There were tutorials in my second year too, but i was meaning in JH - there are no tutorials or seminars then. The best you get is that the lab classes are split into three different groups by some lecturers.

[hr]

You've been nothing but an angel every day of your life and now you wonder what it's like to be damned...

[mackie]

Ironically, the OP has just explained exactly how St Andrews has the reputation it has. A reputation, that is, of excellence and consistent high standing amongst other universities in Scotland. The system merely separates those capable of achieving honours, and those incapable or barely scraping by.

[OhhMy]

Quoting exnihilo from 21:37, 12th Jun 2007
I can very much see a situation in the future with a lot more streaming in sub-honours classes (as certain other institutions do already (with a "hard" and a "not so hard" version of the course), and a lot more people taking General/Ordinary degrees and only the top ones going on to Honours.

Isn't that how things used to be at St Andrews? Back in the old days wasn't it considered a great achievment to even get into honours let allone get a first.

My own opinion is that the 11 should be required in both first and second year. It would help people keep their momentum from the moment they arrive and make honours oh so much easier.

(Appologies for bad spelling etc)

[David Bean]

I do think Malcolm made some good points regarding consistency between departments. That's something student officers (myself not included, because I never really did much representation) have fought about for years, and although the university could legitimately argue that the relative independence of the schools and departments makes this kind of thing very difficult, it can only be seen as a failure of senior leadership that they haven't been able to knock the heads together (no pun intended) and sort the issue out. I've yet to hear a defence of things being as they are in this regard.

As far as everything else goes, I agree with the majority in that it doesn't seem credible to argue that anyone accepted to the university should graduate with a 'good' degree irrespective of the work they put in. But St Andrews isn't much different to the others. On top of what exnihillo wrote about other Ancients offering 'Ordinary' degrees, the difference between a General and an Honours without classification, from an employer's perspective, is pretty much moot: if an employer just wants a graduate, they'd be fine, whereas most graduate programmes ask for a degree of some specific class (usually 2.2 or 2.1 or above), and if you don't have one from either of those reasons, you aren't qualified to apply. I don't know of a employer that asks for an Honours degree of any class or none, because to do so wouldn't make sense owing to exactly what we're talking about (the differing ways different universities deal with this situation).

[hr]

Psalm 91:7