huge mistake for Cambridge to hold entrance interviews online
interesting take on online interviews
It is a huge mistake for Cambridge to hold entrance interviews online
"In my eyes, the university’s decision to move away from in-person interviews is a step forwards into the digital age, but two steps backward in terms of accessibility.
But in-person interviews aren’t the norm anymore – they haven’t been since before the pandemic in 2019. The only college offering face-to-face interviews is Trinity. For everyone else, it’s online interviews, which are thought to be more convenient for the student. But getting students to face-to-face interviews was never a problem before the pandemic. I know my college offered me free travel and overnight accommodation. And online interviews were an option anyway: it was just rarer and predominantly targeted at international students.
One of the biggest problems, however, lies in the actualities of online interviewing. I spent my second term at Cambridge at home and had to join my seminars and supervisions through online calls. I live in a rural area, in a family of five, and my dad was working from home too. So obviously, this was not ideal. Calls were interrupted by noise and poor internet, supervisions were delayed, and seminars were abandoned. The same can be said for interviews. Some students will have the luxury of better wifi, an office to call from, or being an only child. Others will have it much worse than I did.
The argument that students feel more comfortable calling from home than in an unfamiliar city is of course contingent on being comfortable at home, and having the time, space, and bandwidth to do the interview. A large number of applicants, however, do theirs from headteachers’ offices, or worse still in common rooms. This is no more comfortable than it would be in Cambridge itself.
Logistics aside, there is an important social aspect of in-person interviews: I like to tell myself I’m really good at interviews, but I hate speaking on video calls. There’s apprehension because you never know if the other person is about to start speaking.
The static nature of video also helps those who have done lots of interview prep the most. The interviewer asks a question. There is a pause. Student answers. In-person, conversation flows and meanders more, allowing for a little creativity in answers. This would be fine if the rehearsed nature of a video interview didn’t unfairly benefit privately educated kids, who have likely been spoonfed the right kind of answers by teachers. And if it didn’t stifle personalities, either.
Then there’s the issue of presence. Before my interview, I had never been to my college and Cambridge was unfamiliar to me. But private schools are more likely to organise trips to the city, and privately educated children are more likely to attend one of the university’s many expensive summer schools, or even just visit fairly regularly. This familiarity grants an understanding of Oxbridge (especially if your school routinely sends more than a few kids there a year) and an eagerness to get there. If you’ve never been before, and you’re suddenly offered an online interview, Cambridge remains in the abstract and seems less accessible than if you’ve walked the university’s corridors already. You may just not bother with the whole thing as it seems too out of reach.
I do not believe that it is some conspiracy to shoe-in private schoolers, or a financial hustle to save money, but rather just a sheer lack of thinking. But by holding interviews online the university risks diminishing an interviewing process that has worked for decades; a process that is only strong because it throws everyone in the deep end, and all applicants are treated equally on the strength of their mental character.
In my eyes, the university’s decision to move away from in-person interviews is a step forwards into the digital age, but two steps backward in terms of accessibility."
It is a huge mistake for Cambridge to hold entrance interviews online
"In my eyes, the university’s decision to move away from in-person interviews is a step forwards into the digital age, but two steps backward in terms of accessibility.
But in-person interviews aren’t the norm anymore – they haven’t been since before the pandemic in 2019. The only college offering face-to-face interviews is Trinity. For everyone else, it’s online interviews, which are thought to be more convenient for the student. But getting students to face-to-face interviews was never a problem before the pandemic. I know my college offered me free travel and overnight accommodation. And online interviews were an option anyway: it was just rarer and predominantly targeted at international students.
One of the biggest problems, however, lies in the actualities of online interviewing. I spent my second term at Cambridge at home and had to join my seminars and supervisions through online calls. I live in a rural area, in a family of five, and my dad was working from home too. So obviously, this was not ideal. Calls were interrupted by noise and poor internet, supervisions were delayed, and seminars were abandoned. The same can be said for interviews. Some students will have the luxury of better wifi, an office to call from, or being an only child. Others will have it much worse than I did.
The argument that students feel more comfortable calling from home than in an unfamiliar city is of course contingent on being comfortable at home, and having the time, space, and bandwidth to do the interview. A large number of applicants, however, do theirs from headteachers’ offices, or worse still in common rooms. This is no more comfortable than it would be in Cambridge itself.
Logistics aside, there is an important social aspect of in-person interviews: I like to tell myself I’m really good at interviews, but I hate speaking on video calls. There’s apprehension because you never know if the other person is about to start speaking.
The static nature of video also helps those who have done lots of interview prep the most. The interviewer asks a question. There is a pause. Student answers. In-person, conversation flows and meanders more, allowing for a little creativity in answers. This would be fine if the rehearsed nature of a video interview didn’t unfairly benefit privately educated kids, who have likely been spoonfed the right kind of answers by teachers. And if it didn’t stifle personalities, either.
Then there’s the issue of presence. Before my interview, I had never been to my college and Cambridge was unfamiliar to me. But private schools are more likely to organise trips to the city, and privately educated children are more likely to attend one of the university’s many expensive summer schools, or even just visit fairly regularly. This familiarity grants an understanding of Oxbridge (especially if your school routinely sends more than a few kids there a year) and an eagerness to get there. If you’ve never been before, and you’re suddenly offered an online interview, Cambridge remains in the abstract and seems less accessible than if you’ve walked the university’s corridors already. You may just not bother with the whole thing as it seems too out of reach.
I do not believe that it is some conspiracy to shoe-in private schoolers, or a financial hustle to save money, but rather just a sheer lack of thinking. But by holding interviews online the university risks diminishing an interviewing process that has worked for decades; a process that is only strong because it throws everyone in the deep end, and all applicants are treated equally on the strength of their mental character.
In my eyes, the university’s decision to move away from in-person interviews is a step forwards into the digital age, but two steps backward in terms of accessibility."
Scroll to see replies
Original post by McGinger
Its MUCH fairer and far less intimidating for the less confident state school students.
Worikng with a low achieving Sixth Form during covid, we got 8 kids to Oxbridge who would never had made it through otherwise,
Worikng with a low achieving Sixth Form during covid, we got 8 kids to Oxbridge who would never had made it through otherwise,
This calls into question, yet again, the value of holding these interviews in the first place. In another debate elsewhere in this forum supporters of the Oxbridge entrance process would often argue that the real purpose of the interview was not just to assess academic potential but to pick out those supposedly rare candidates most likely to thrive under the rigors of the tutorial or supervision system.
Apart from the fact that almost all highly intelligent and well motivated students would benefit from the exceptionally favourable staff to student ratios enjoyed by Oxbridge, how can it be said that an online interview replicates that 'unique' tutorial experience?
Of course an online interview is much less intimidating. Whether or not it is actually fairer is another matter. Moving the interview online exposes the reality that it is just another filter, much like personal statements and references. But in this instance it is a filter that applies to only two universities that are accorded procedural advantages within the UCAS system.
Interviews make perfect sense when selecting candidates on the basis of how they might contribute to the sporting or cultural life of a college or for admission to specific vocational courses such as Medicine but there is no evidence whatsoever that they are any good at assessing academic potential. Entrance tests are far better at that.
These interviews are best known for being quirky, intimidating, time consuming and stressful. So in-person or online, why bother?
Interesting that of the three posts so far, one says online interviews are more intimidating and two say they're less intimidating. I'll be answer four and even up the numbers - I would much, much rather do an in person interview than an online one. The additional worry that technology won't work properly is a big deal for me.
For people who live hours from Cambridge, the on-line interviews have been great.
Regarding the value of the interviews, these will show which people can hold their own in supervision discussions and not crumble under stress/academic questioning.
Regarding the value of the interviews, these will show which people can hold their own in supervision discussions and not crumble under stress/academic questioning.
Original post by Supermature
Moving the interview online exposes the reality that it is just another filter, much like personal statements and references. But in this instance it is a filter that applies to only two universities that are accorded procedural advantages within the UCAS system.
I get that you feel strongly that Oxford and Cambridge shouldn't be allowed to have a different application system in any way, but you do need to stop casually lying when it suits your agenda. The interview system is not a filter that applies to only two universities. There are lots of universities which interview for lots of courses, and no university needs to be given special consideration to be allowed to do so. What's more, far from being an Oxbridge special which could only work for them, interviewing used to be the norm - when I applied for university in the late 1980s, every university interviewed for every course. Any university/course which wants to use that filter again can do so whenever it wants. (Well, it would need to go in their prospectus and on their website - they couldn't do it this year having advertised that they don't. From the next application cycle.)
I know you are aware of this already because we had this discussion the last time you made the claim. Please stop lying about it - it really doesn't do anything for your arguments except to make anyone who knows the truth (and a whole lot of people know full well that lots of places interview) discount everything you say, even where your points have some merit. Never mind this one point on this one site, behaving like this will come back to bite you in real life.
Lol, did Supernature really just claim only Oxbridge interviews candidates?? Surely it must be a troll??
I personally find in-person interviews much better, there’s something about actually being there, seeing the environment and speaking to the tutors face to face that in my opinion makes the experience “fuller”. I hate online meetings and whatnot, they’ve sucked the humanity out of so much and I find they’re a lot less engaging that real life gatherings. Online interviews should of course remain for internationals and other students who may have accessibility problems but I think it’s a little far that they’ve apparently reinstated them for everyone and every subject. I really enjoyed my Oxford interview and travelling to the city and wandering around the college was part of the experience, I can’t imagine having done the interview on zoom…it would have felt so soulless and empty for me.
I personally find in-person interviews much better, there’s something about actually being there, seeing the environment and speaking to the tutors face to face that in my opinion makes the experience “fuller”. I hate online meetings and whatnot, they’ve sucked the humanity out of so much and I find they’re a lot less engaging that real life gatherings. Online interviews should of course remain for internationals and other students who may have accessibility problems but I think it’s a little far that they’ve apparently reinstated them for everyone and every subject. I really enjoyed my Oxford interview and travelling to the city and wandering around the college was part of the experience, I can’t imagine having done the interview on zoom…it would have felt so soulless and empty for me.
Original post by Son of the Sea
Lol, did Supernature really just claim only Oxbridge interviews candidates?? Surely it must be a troll??
I personally find in-person interviews much better, there’s something about actually being there, seeing the environment and speaking to the tutors face to face that in my opinion makes the experience “fuller”. I hate online meetings and whatnot, they’ve sucked the humanity out of so much and I find they’re a lot less engaging that real life gatherings. Online interviews should of course remain for internationals and other students who may have accessibility problems but I think it’s a little far that they’ve apparently reinstated them for everyone and every subject. I really enjoyed my Oxford interview and travelling to the city and wandering around the college was part of the experience, I can’t imagine having done the interview on zoom…it would have felt so soulless and empty for me.
I personally find in-person interviews much better, there’s something about actually being there, seeing the environment and speaking to the tutors face to face that in my opinion makes the experience “fuller”. I hate online meetings and whatnot, they’ve sucked the humanity out of so much and I find they’re a lot less engaging that real life gatherings. Online interviews should of course remain for internationals and other students who may have accessibility problems but I think it’s a little far that they’ve apparently reinstated them for everyone and every subject. I really enjoyed my Oxford interview and travelling to the city and wandering around the college was part of the experience, I can’t imagine having done the interview on zoom…it would have felt so soulless and empty for me.
I don't think they're a troll, but they do have a complete bee in their bonnet about how bad and wrong it is that the Oxbridge selection system isn't exactly the same as everyone else's (i.e. early deadline, only being allowed to apply to one) and that the interviews can't possibly play any useful part in selecting candidates who will do well. That's their reality; facts get twisted to fit it.
Original post by skylark2
I don't think they're a troll, but they do have a complete bee in their bonnet about how bad and wrong it is that the Oxbridge selection system isn't exactly the same as everyone else's (i.e. early deadline, only being allowed to apply to one) and that the interviews can't possibly play any useful part in selecting candidates who will do well. That's their reality; facts get twisted to fit it.
An Oxbridge reject perhaps?
Just wanted to confirm as a non-Oxbridge uni, we certainly do interview for a few subjects. it's up to the academic dept as to whether they have capacity and find value in it.
Original post by skylark2
I don't think they're a troll, but they do have a complete bee in their bonnet about how bad and wrong it is that the Oxbridge selection system isn't exactly the same as everyone else's (i.e. early deadline, only being allowed to apply to one) and that the interviews can't possibly play any useful part in selecting candidates who will do well. That's their reality; facts get twisted to fit it.
I can assure you that I am not a troll and you can safely use the pronoun 'he' when referring to my posts!
I fear that you are misinterpreting my stance on this issue. I have never said that interviews cannot possibly play any useful part in selecting candidates. Indeed, in my above post at #4 I wrote, ' Interviews make perfect sense when selecting candidates on the basis of how they might contribute to the sporting or cultural life of a college or for admission to specific vocational courses such as Medicine...' but then I went on to say that there was no evidence that they were of any use in assessing academic potential. Not only is this my view, it is the majority view in the academic and research community. That majority is represented by the University and College Union (UCU). I am not a member but broadly agree with their views on the reform of university admissions. Their position on interviews is this:
'...there is voluminous evidence regarding the extent of bias inherent in interviews as a form of selection in both the labour market and education. Such bias can exist despite the best effort of the interviewer. A transparent, uniform contextual admissions process with relation to examination grades is vital to widen access to more competitive courses. However, such an approach will be of limited value if we persist with using interviews as part of the admissions process for such courses.'
As you rightly point out, Oxford and Cambridge are not the only universities that hold interviews. They are, however, the only universities that insist on a particular interview format that most successful candidates for all their undergraduate courses must undergo. This interview format is notoriously time consuming and stressful for both the interviewers and candidates. The fact that these interviews are now going online does call into question whether they are really necessary, or whether some other means could be found to select students for these two universities. I suspect there would be many Oxbridge insiders who would really like to see them go and I have cited one such example elsewhere in this forum.
The essential point I am making here is that it's not just me! As you say, back in the 1980s, interviews were far more common. If for no other reason, sheer weight of numbers precluded most universities from interviewing other than a small number of candidates. But that was not the only reason why they were dropped. I think you need to ask yourself why Oxbridge still persists with an admissions process that lays it open to such widespread accusations of bias from both ends of the political spectrum.
Original post by McGinger
Its MUCH fairer and far less intimidating for the less confident state school students.
Worikng with a low achieving Sixth Form during covid, we got 8 kids to Oxbridge who would never had made it through otherwise,
Worikng with a low achieving Sixth Form during covid, we got 8 kids to Oxbridge who would never had made it through otherwise,
can you expand what at advantage it gave? as a state school hoping for an oxford interview i see it as a disadvantage
Original post by Yk295
can you expand what at advantage it gave? as a state school hoping for an oxford interview i see it as a disadvantage
Hope you don't mind me butting in (as a comp-educated Oxford alumna!) to answer this from my own perspective
I had in-person interviews in 2006 and whilst clearly I did well enough to get the offer/place, I think a real advantage for state schoolers (particularly those from low-income backgrounds, or not-so-great comps) with the online interviews would be not being aware of who you're competing against. When interviews are in-person and you're staying in Oxford overnight for a few days, it's WAY too easy to get thrown by the grandeur/unfamiliarity of the setting, and by the calibre/attitudes of your fellow applicants. I had a lot of private school/music school (I applied for music) candidates for my course be very condescending to me during those 2 days about my lack of knowledge/cultural capital and 'inferior' grades 
Thankfully it didn't throw me enough to make me over-anxious/muck up my interview and cost me a place - but I imagine for some people, it really would!
So I actually disagree with some of the things being said in the article, in the sense that the absolute opposite rings true for me and my particular background/applicant profile/circumstances. Everyone is different though 
Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd
Hope you don't mind me butting in (as a comp-educated Oxford alumna!) to answer this from my own perspective I had in-person interviews in 2006 and whilst clearly I did well enough to get the offer/place, I think a real advantage for state schoolers (particularly those from low-income backgrounds, or not-so-great comps) with the online interviews would be not being aware of who you're competing against. When interviews are in-person and you're staying in Oxford overnight for a few days, it's WAY too easy to get thrown by the grandeur/unfamiliarity of the setting, and by the calibre/attitudes of your fellow applicants. I had a lot of private school/music school (I applied for music) candidates for my course be very condescending to me during those 2 days about my lack of knowledge/cultural capital and 'inferior' grades
Thankfully it didn't throw me enough to make me over-anxious/muck up my interview and cost me a place - but I imagine for some people, it really would! So I actually disagree with some of the things being said in the article, in the sense that the absolute opposite rings true for me and my particular background/applicant profile/circumstances. Everyone is different though
I had in-person interviews in 2006 and whilst clearly I did well enough to get the offer/place, I think a real advantage for state schoolers (particularly those from low-income backgrounds, or not-so-great comps) with the online interviews would be not being aware of who you're competing against. When interviews are in-person and you're staying in Oxford overnight for a few days, it's WAY too easy to get thrown by the grandeur/unfamiliarity of the setting, and by the calibre/attitudes of your fellow applicants. I had a lot of private school/music school (I applied for music) candidates for my course be very condescending to me during those 2 days about my lack of knowledge/cultural capital and 'inferior' grades Thankfully it didn't throw me enough to make me over-anxious/muck up my interview and cost me a place - but I imagine for some people, it really would!
So I actually disagree with some of the things being said in the article, in the sense that the absolute opposite rings true for me and my particular background/applicant profile/circumstances. Everyone is different though Thank you for this very valuable contribution to what is becoming an interesting debate on the Oxbridge admissions process, and on the role of interviews in particular. No doubt @Yk295 will find it helpful, as will others who are considering an Oxbridge application.
I hope you don't mind my highlighting the point you make that sometimes the atmosphere at these in-person interviews can be very unpleasant. In my research, I have logged numerous instances of candidates - including those who have been successful - ending up in tears. It is much to your credit that you kept your composure and earned a well deserved place.
Applicants to Oxbridge should be aware that, as one source puts it, "by the time you are sitting in front of your interviewer, your chances of success at Oxford are around 1 in 3 – and about 1 in 4 at Cambridge." I am not suggesting for one moment that this fact should put people off applying. Nor am I suggesting that applicants will always have negative experiences of Oxbridge interviews. But it does, yet again, raise questions about the validity of holding these interviews as a key component of the application process.
I have been accused, in this thread, of lying or twisting the facts. But the reality is that very many members of the academic and research community, including Oxbridge insiders, have serious concerns about these interviews and the effect they have on UK university admissions in general. There is one fact of which we can be certain: there is no evidence to show that interviews are any good at assessing academic potential; but there is much evidence to show that interviews can be both unreliable and subject to both conscious and unconscious bias.
As the source I mentioned above goes on to say: "The truth is that some deserving applicants with apparently good chances miss out on places each year, whereas others who apply to Oxbridge as a ‘long shot’ are given places". Of course, no application process is ever perfect but I cannot call to mind any other UK university that would intentionally fail between two thirds and three quarters of the applicants that it puts though such a gruelling process. I am not going to provide a link to the source because it is one of the many organisations that charge substantial fees for consultations led by senior members of the Oxbridge applications teams.
At the end of the day, people either have faith in these interviews or they do not. Provided that potential applicants are fully apprised of what is involved then it is purely a matter of choice whether or not to press ahead. But now that the interviews are being held online, it is difficult to uphold the claim that they are 'mini tutorials' that accurately replicate either the Oxbridge ambience or the teaching style that successful candidates will encounter.
Original post by Supermature
I have been accused, in this thread, of lying or twisting the facts. But the reality is that very many members of the academic and research community, including Oxbridge insiders, have serious concerns about these interviews and the effect they have on UK university admissions in general. There is one fact of which we can be certain: there is no evidence to show that interviews are any good at assessing academic potential; but there is much evidence to show that interviews can be both unreliable and subject to both conscious and unconscious bias.
Anyone wishing to gain insight into the long-standing controversy over Oxbridge admissions within the academic and research community might like to take a look at the following article, available free of charge on the Internet:
Fairness and undergraduate admission: a qualitative exploration of admissions choices at the University of Oxford
Anna Zimdars, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 36, No. 3, June 2010, pp. 307–323
(edited 1 year ago)
"there is no evidence to show that interviews are any good at assessing academic potential"
Remind me what the dropout and failure rates are at Oxford and Cambridge, with comparison to any other university you care to name? There is evidence that the Oxbridge admissions system is good at assessing academic potential every single time someone graduates from Oxbridge.
Did you forget that this was also pointed out to you last time round, or is it just inconvenient again?
The problem with your argument, Supermature, is that you don't have any better answers. Nobody's saying that interviews are the perfect solution, or that they are 100% unbiased, or that they mean that nobody ever gets admitted who probably shouldn't have been (we all know that lots of people don't get admitted who would have flourished, but that's not because the mean interview system shafted them, it's because if you have 200 places and 400 people who are good enough, 200 good enough people don't get in). They're just a lot better than anything else that's on the table right now.
Remind me what the dropout and failure rates are at Oxford and Cambridge, with comparison to any other university you care to name? There is evidence that the Oxbridge admissions system is good at assessing academic potential every single time someone graduates from Oxbridge.
Did you forget that this was also pointed out to you last time round, or is it just inconvenient again?
The problem with your argument, Supermature, is that you don't have any better answers. Nobody's saying that interviews are the perfect solution, or that they are 100% unbiased, or that they mean that nobody ever gets admitted who probably shouldn't have been (we all know that lots of people don't get admitted who would have flourished, but that's not because the mean interview system shafted them, it's because if you have 200 places and 400 people who are good enough, 200 good enough people don't get in). They're just a lot better than anything else that's on the table right now.
Original post by Supermature
Thank you for this very valuable contribution to what is becoming an interesting debate on the Oxbridge admissions process, and on the role of interviews in particular. No doubt @Yk295 will find it helpful, as will others who are considering an Oxbridge application.
I hope you don't mind my highlighting the point you make that sometimes the atmosphere at these in-person interviews can be very unpleasant. In my research, I have logged numerous instances of candidates - including those who have been successful - ending up in tears. It is much to your credit that you kept your composure and earned a well deserved place.
Applicants to Oxbridge should be aware that, as one source puts it, "by the time you are sitting in front of your interviewer, your chances of success at Oxford are around 1 in 3 – and about 1 in 4 at Cambridge." I am not suggesting for one moment that this fact should put people off applying. Nor am I suggesting that applicants will always have negative experiences of Oxbridge interviews. But it does, yet again, raise questions about the validity of holding these interviews as a key component of the application process.
I have been accused, in this thread, of lying or twisting the facts. But the reality is that very many members of the academic and research community, including Oxbridge insiders, have serious concerns about these interviews and the effect they have on UK university admissions in general. There is one fact of which we can be certain: there is no evidence to show that interviews are any good at assessing academic potential; but there is much evidence to show that interviews can be both unreliable and subject to both conscious and unconscious bias.
As the source I mentioned above goes on to say: "The truth is that some deserving applicants with apparently good chances miss out on places each year, whereas others who apply to Oxbridge as a ‘long shot’ are given places". Of course, no application process is ever perfect but I cannot call to mind any other UK university that would intentionally fail between two thirds and three quarters of the applicants that it puts though such a gruelling process. I am not going to provide a link to the source because it is one of the many organisations that charge substantial fees for consultations led by senior members of the Oxbridge applications teams.
At the end of the day, people either have faith in these interviews or they do not. Provided that potential applicants are fully apprised of what is involved then it is purely a matter of choice whether or not to press ahead. But now that the interviews are being held online, it is difficult to uphold the claim that they are 'mini tutorials' that accurately replicate either the Oxbridge ambience or the teaching style that successful candidates will encounter.
I hope you don't mind my highlighting the point you make that sometimes the atmosphere at these in-person interviews can be very unpleasant. In my research, I have logged numerous instances of candidates - including those who have been successful - ending up in tears. It is much to your credit that you kept your composure and earned a well deserved place.
Applicants to Oxbridge should be aware that, as one source puts it, "by the time you are sitting in front of your interviewer, your chances of success at Oxford are around 1 in 3 – and about 1 in 4 at Cambridge." I am not suggesting for one moment that this fact should put people off applying. Nor am I suggesting that applicants will always have negative experiences of Oxbridge interviews. But it does, yet again, raise questions about the validity of holding these interviews as a key component of the application process.
I have been accused, in this thread, of lying or twisting the facts. But the reality is that very many members of the academic and research community, including Oxbridge insiders, have serious concerns about these interviews and the effect they have on UK university admissions in general. There is one fact of which we can be certain: there is no evidence to show that interviews are any good at assessing academic potential; but there is much evidence to show that interviews can be both unreliable and subject to both conscious and unconscious bias.
As the source I mentioned above goes on to say: "The truth is that some deserving applicants with apparently good chances miss out on places each year, whereas others who apply to Oxbridge as a ‘long shot’ are given places". Of course, no application process is ever perfect but I cannot call to mind any other UK university that would intentionally fail between two thirds and three quarters of the applicants that it puts though such a gruelling process. I am not going to provide a link to the source because it is one of the many organisations that charge substantial fees for consultations led by senior members of the Oxbridge applications teams.
At the end of the day, people either have faith in these interviews or they do not. Provided that potential applicants are fully apprised of what is involved then it is purely a matter of choice whether or not to press ahead. But now that the interviews are being held online, it is difficult to uphold the claim that they are 'mini tutorials' that accurately replicate either the Oxbridge ambience or the teaching style that successful candidates will encounter.
Brief response as broken thumb: to clarify/erase any doubt for you or anyone else, I'm hugely in favour of Oxbridge interviews and think they play a hugely important and valuable role in admissions
Original post by skylark2
The problem with your argument, Supermature, is that you don't have any better answers. Nobody's saying that interviews are the perfect solution, or that they are 100% unbiased, or that they mean that nobody ever gets admitted who probably shouldn't have been (we all know that lots of people don't get admitted who would have flourished, but that's not because the mean interview system shafted them, it's because if you have 200 places and 400 people who are good enough, 200 good enough people don't get in). They're just a lot better than anything else that's on the table right now.
Good morning!
First of all, I hope that you will at least acknowledge (for the first time) that it's not just me making the argument!
The views I have expressed are broadly in line with those of the UCU, which represents the majority of academics and researchers in the UK.Secondly, as well as being accused of lying, I have also been branded an 'Oxbridge hater'. Nothing could be further from the truth and if users care to read my posts in other threads they will see that I have expressed my admiration for Oxford and Cambridge numerous times. I just think they are going about selecting their students in a way that often subjects them to unnecessary distress and that repeatedly leads to accusations of bias. It would appear that the universities themselves are coming round to this way of thinking. A part of the justification for moving interviews online (as well as the obvious cost and logistical advantages) is to make them less 'daunting':
"The online format minimizes the potential stress of being in a completely new environment, meeting new people, throughout the interview period. Candidates do not have to deal with this added pressure, which makes it a less daunting experience for many."
https://cherwell.org/2022/08/28/interviews-to-be-held-online-for-third-year-running/
And, yes I do have 'better answers': those expressed in the UCU's paper on post-qualifications admissions, which if implemented would provide a level playing field and enable school leavers to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge in the same application cycle.
I think we would both agree that the vast majority of Oxbridge students in the modern era are exceptionally highly motivated and hard working, and I suspect that is what accounts for the low dropout rate. After all, you don't put yourself through such a tortuous application process only to then squander the opportunity. Of course what really makes these two universities special is the the unparalleled staff to student ratio they can offer and the fact that their financial resources are greater than all the other UK universities put together. I would imagine that almost any A*A*A student would thrive in such circumstances.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Maths gap year applicant advice
- Mediocre GCSEs for Oxbridge Medicine Application
- Are my gcses good enough for cambridge?
- Predicted grades (IB)
- EEE offers
- Oxbridge mathematics supercurriculars, 2025 entry
- applying for maths (uni)
- I did bad in my iGCSE's.
- Have my GCSE grades messed up my future plans?
- uni advice for comp sci?
- Oxbridge math and ukmt/other math challenges
- Uni of Manchester Appeal
- What to do for a competitive application for Mathematics at top universities.
- Can I get into Cambridge or Imperial engineering without doing well in olympiads?
- Physics math Fm and English for CS degree at Cambridge and Imperial
- Oxford - how important are the entry requirements?
- Cambridge Demystified - Applying as a Mature Student
- St John's College (Cambridge) 2023 Applicants Thread
- Imperial college questions
- Does further maths help with maths entrance exams?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
