Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Personal Statement "Blinders" Ignored?

Scroll to see replies

HCD

Well, after all this ridiculous build-up, I'd feel like a bit of a tit... Making this thread was a mistake, and my posts since the first were damage control.

when blinded with so much 'uniqueness' I'm sure nthe admissions officer is unphased :p:

everyone will try to put in something 'different', i think the only thing that would give you merit is if you expressed a particular interest in the specific area which the main admissions tutor for your dept was researching.

What was your blinder then HDC?

Reply 21

HCD

Maybe they didn't seem visibly impressed, but they were just keeping a diplomatic face on and actually were impressed? My Imperial interviewer was impressed by the simple word "thermodynamics" on my PS, but didn't touch on things that were generally more "impressive". :s-smilie:

Reply 22

Drogue

HCD

Maybe I should stick my head in a blender? :biggrin:

No, but seriously, it is something that would merit not so much discussion as just a general question. It's not exceptionally significant, but it's a "nice little thing" to have, I think, and would increase my chances marginally. The significance of that margin really depends on how close cut the decisions process is, but the point is, it could make a difference. "Blinder" is too strong a term and I wouldn't call it that; that's a gross exaggeration. It's more of a tidbit that could add to my chances slightly.. Bear in mind the first post was made at 3am, so I wasn't at my most coherent. :top2:

It's certainly no embarrassment, nor is it completely irrelevant. (I know the vagueness isn't helping me here.) It is very much academic, and relevant to the subject. (It's not something I did for my personal statement, it's something I did before I'd even thought about writing it!). I realise I sound like a partially-sane conspiracy theorist by not mentioning any details, which doesn't do wonders for my credibility. Everyone in the school process who scrutinised my PS asked me about it, and encouraged me to detail it further, but characters are so precious! I'd hoped that the extra detail could come out in interview instead. Still, the way I worded it in the Statement skimmed right over it, and it's highly likely it's been skipped over. After all, admin tutors have hundreds of Statements to look at. I've also heard that Oxbridge interviews have little to no reference to Personal Statements. Ah well... now where's that blender?

My guess is that, as Good bloke mentioned, what you and your school think is important isn't so much to a tutor. The vast majority of most PSs isn't important, and while I had the same when I was applying, the whole "there's not enough characters" just isn't true. There's more than enough. I've seen PSs that in their first paragraph say all they need to, and the latter two might have a nice to have bit, but nothing necessary. If you have something interesting, spend the time and characters on it. Strip the rest down to it's bear bones and spend the bulk of the statement talking about a couple of interesting things. You'll show more insight into how you think and why you'd be a great student.

Yes, PSs are a prompter for interviewers, but never expect them to ask about things, as they may feel the PS said all there was on the matter. If it's important, spend the characters to develop it a little.

My interviews were a nice mix of problems they gave me and things from my PS, and they covered most that was important. But these were all for Oxford. The things I thought were great they touched on, but were more interested in things behind them, academic things.

We really can't say more unless you tell us what it is though, so we can give some input on whether it was because it wasn't important, because there wasn't much extra to ask for, or that they just missed it.

Reply 23

HCD

FlyingIsis

when blinded with so much 'uniqueness' I'm sure nthe admissions officer is unphased :p:

Alright, alright, if you keep insisting... can't hurt now, I guess. Just remember it's not actually a "blinder" as such - that was 3am vocab! Let's call it a tidbit. :rolleyes:

Basically... well, I'll give some background. Antoine Suerez is the man behind this. He is the leading proponent of modern indeterministic quantum mechanics, and non-local, non-temporal causality. (Quantum stuff happening regardless of time and space essentially.) He was a contemporary of John Bell, famed for his inequalities theorem which seemed to rule out "hidden variables" interpretations of quantum mechanics, by experimentally and mathematically ruling them out. (This has now been challenged by none other than an Oxford postdoc). "Hidden variables" interpretations are analogous to the phrase "A wizard did it". Perhaps "A ninja did it", because these variables are really stealthy, hence "hidden". Bell would probably have gotten a Nobel were it not for his tragic death the very year I was born, 1990. I digress... Antoine has ties with CERN, various other Swiss institutions, and moves in the same circles as Nobel Laureates, such as Gerard 't Hooft ('t Hooft is a Nobel Laureate and is the leading proponent of deterministic QM, so he and Antoine have had discussions.*) The point I'm trying to make is: he's a pretty snazzy guy. Since reading one of his research papers in early Summer, I've been in regular contact with him, discussing QM-y things, amongst other topics. He has invited me to a seminar in London about such topics as QM in January, and has said that if I am able to attend, he wishes to "arrange a chat". (Said invitation for a physical one-to-one discussion came only recently, or I would probably have slipped it into the Statement.)

The part of my Statement mentioning this was a fleeting: "Recently, I read Antoine Suerez's paper 'On 't Hooft's Deterministic Quantum Mechanics', by following a link in the New Scientist, also reading 'Entanglement and Time'. I have since enjoyed stimulating email correspondence with the author."

That's it. Like I said, just a tidbit. Like I said, I now look like a tit. :ridinghor

*Such as this:

Antoine

You may be interested to know that I met Gerard ‘t Hooft two weeks ago:
He was in Zürich for a conference. We had a good discussion, because I share his view that it is impossible to have a wavefunction of the whole universe. Then I asked him why not to develop a description of the world combining both, determinism and non-determinism. The answer was most interesting:
“You can do it. But one cannot do all, one has to make a choice: I have chosen to work a deterministic picture.”
So we come again to what I already said in a previous mail: either you are for freedom or not, and this is a matter of free choice…
A main assumption of his conference was that Nature to be perfect has to be deterministic and completely predictable: “Why Nature should not be perfect?” he asked. I remember your statements in a previous mail…

Reply 24

CarneLevare

HCD

(This has now been challenged by none other than an Oxford postgrad student!). "Hidden variables" interpretations are analogous to the phrase "A wizard did it". Perhaps "A ninja did it", because these variables are really stealthy, hence "hidden". :

Who are you thinking off here?

I'm not sure that's really a very fair way to characterise hidden variable theories...the main point is to show that the formalism of QM doesn't necessary imply indeterminism. It doesn't need to be explicitly based on experimental evidence to do so(and, of course, there's nothing to stop future results proving/disproving them).

Reply 25

HCD

The "wizard did it" thing was just a joke. :wink:

Who am I thinking of? This fella. Postgrad student was wrong, though. I meant postdoc. My bad.

Reply 26

Good bloke

Name dropping is seldom a good idea. Your interviewer or admissions tutor may know the name and may or may not get on with him. He may even be him, and if your name drop is a teensy-weensy bit exagerated it may come back to bite you.

Reply 27

HCD

I'm fairly (100%) certain that it's NOT him, given that firstly he's not on the list of tutors and secondly that his permanent residence is in Geneva, and thirdly that he's not a professor attached to any university - his projects are usually privately funded, from what he's told me. I can't see what I wrote in my PS as an exaggeration by any terms - to the contrary, in fact! Whether or not any of the tutors know him/ like him is a different matter, but I don't think it could reflect negatively on me if they simply don't like the chap.

Reply 28

Good bloke

I was making a general point - not commenting on your situation. Most people don't know where any author works.

Reply 29

HCD

Good bloke

I was making a general point - not commenting on your situation. Most people don't know where any author works.

I'd laugh if someone applied at New College, Oxford for something like Biological Science and wrote something about Richard Dawkins in their PS, then got interviewed by him! The hilarity would be added to if they didn't even recognise him, and halfway through the interview he asks something about his books (i.e. "So, I hear you've read the Selfish Gene... what do you think of such and such from it?"). Better yet if the hypothetical candidate then criticises the book. Then, Dawkins asks "Have you ever met Dawkins?" They reply no. He takes his glasses off (just a general dramatic-ish gesture), and says "You have now." The look on hypothetical candidate's face: priceless.

Reply 30

thomasjtl

If i were a tutor, i would probably assume that it was exhaggerated like most things in PSs and spare you the embarrassment of actually having to explain how what you really meant is that you sent him a brown-nosing email and he gave you a quick response. Alternatively, the interviewer knows the guy, and how he likes to make a point of replying to 'fan mail'.

Clearly, that wasn't the case here, but how's an admissions tutor to know?

Reply 31

thomasjtl

i suspect dawkins doesn't concern himself with /isn't allowed to be involved with interviewing students for obvious reasons.

Reply 32

Good bloke

What are these obvious reasons?

Reply 33

Helenia

thomasjtl

i suspect dawkins doesn't concern himself with /isn't allowed to be involved with interviewing students for obvious reasons.

And even if he did, I'm guessing you'd know the names of your interviewers.

But yeah, I'm not really surprised they didn't ask you about that on your statement. Either they don't think this guy's that good, or they don't think your personal e-mail correspondence with him is that relevant to your skills at your subject.

Reply 34

HCD

thomasjtl

That was actually one of my thoughts - they assumed it was pretty much bull or all hyped-up, so thought they were doing me a favour by "pretending not to see it". That, or they'd assumed I sent a token email as a Personal Statement booster - even though I began correspondence long before I even thought about personal statements (September is when I acknowledged the existence of UCAS, July is when I started discussing stuff with Antoine).

To Helenia above:

It's not about my "skills" in the subject at all, more about my interest in it - that I'm lame enough to do such things. :wink:

Reply 35

Helenia

HCD

To Helenia above:

It's not about my "skills" in the subject at all, more about my interest in it - that I'm lame enough to do such things. :wink:

Yes, but to them, it is nearly all about your skills in the subject.

Reply 36

HCD

Well, to be honest, to the UCL interviewer it wasn't even that. We were told before interviews we were all getting offers. The guy was great though, and I quite enjoyed my chat... er, "interview" with him! I see where you're coming from now - in fact, it makes perfect sense:

- The Imperial interviewer asked about a book I'd mentioned reading because it led to an academic question to test my "skills"
- He asked about a particular maths module - M3 - for the same reason
- The UCL interviewer likely skimmed the statement, picking up on the book because he enjoys scientific literature (we discussed it and he recommended books)

Thanks, Helenia! :smile:

It makes more sense looking at it from a fresh perspective - after all, who wants to give an an academic offer to someone who'd readily give their life for scientific progress, but can't do one plus two? (Clear exaggeration, yes, but you get the picture... I hope.)

Reply 37

Drogue

Actually, I think that's partly the interviewing messing up. Someone puts something that blatant a flag on a PS, it's the perfect thing to ask what they thought of it. I'm not sure about physics, but it's quite common to look a book someone has said they've read and ask for their opinions, since what ideas they formed from the book are far more important than what they've actually read. After mentioning that, asking for your opinions would seem like a very good question. Interviews want to get the best out of you, and since it's something you're clearly interested in, it's likely to give them the best impression of you.

Having said that, there are many interviewers who'd want to ask the same questions of all applicants, for fairness reasons, and so present applicants with similar problems rather than asking about personal things. Even so though, I'd imagine a couple of questions about you as a person wouldn't hurt, and that on a PS should flag it as something major to ask.

The main reason, I'd imagine, is simply that the tutor wasn't too interested. Many tutors will specialise in something entirely unrelated, won't really be up to speed on the latest developments, probably wouldn't be able to lead a discussion on a single person's theories, and most importantly, it probably bears little relation to the actual course. However even given all that, motivation is a huge factor in how well people do at university - if you're willing to work hard, it tends to pay off - so assessing motivation is often a part of an interview.

Reply 38

HCD

Good points, thanks. The implication there, then, being that different tutors may press me on such a point? My interviewing tutors, I'm sure, will be [URL-] here. None of their interests seem to be hugely related, but Dr Walczak does work for/at CERN, so there could be a connection there. (With over 4000 staff at CERN, it's not exactly highly probable, but stranger things have happened.) Dr G Smith is somewhat of an enigma - see the results when you try to search him in Wikipedia. See the top link. :p:

Reply 39

thomasjtl

What are these obvious reasons?

Someone popularly known as thinking religious people are stupid is bound to attract accusations of bias. Whether or not he actually would be descriminatory, there's a case to be made that it'd be unnecessarily intimidating, which goes against the interview guidelines.

It's just easier for everyone if dawkins is allowed to continue working on his latest polemic, new don't have defend accusations of unfair practices (cf. Laura Spence) and christian/muslim/etc. candidates don't get stressed about whether their interviewer is gonna launch into a tirade against them the moment they step through the door.