huge mistake for Cambridge to hold entrance interviews online

"enable school leavers to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge in the same application cycle."

I think that would be one almightly mess - I'm unsurprised that they have no interest in anything where that's part of the proposal.

Why would it be an almighty mess? The current 'rule' that candidates may only apply to one or the other only dates from the 1980s. If you delve into the reasoning behind the rule, it essentially boils down to the interviews! Let's look at what one blog says on the subject:

"Both universities know that they are going to receive a huge volume of applications, so by allowing people to apply for both institutions, it would create an even larger number of applicants to assess for a limited intake at each. Additionally, it can lead to both universities conducting interviews with applicants who could ultimately only attend one, so it is done largely for efficiency’s sake."

https://ukstudenthouses.com/why-cant-you-apply-to-both-oxford-and-cambridge-in-the-same-year/

Doing away with the interviews would solve this problem. It is also possible that holding interviews solely online might alleviate it.

Imagine a scenario where sixth form students applied to university after they received their A level results. (Leave aside for the moment the question of how this would work and within what timescale.) Departments and colleges could then set minimum entrance requirements with confidence; these could still be adjusted for contextual factors and extenuating circumstances. This would, in practice, limit applications to those who had achieved the very highest standards while taking into account the disadvantages that some applicants had faced. Realistically, given grade inflation, no one with less than say A*A* A would be eligible to apply, although I suspect the problem of grade inflation would be mitigated in a PQA system. Prospective Oxbridge applicants would also take entrance exams, similar to the old S level or the current Oxford subject specific tests. These would be open to all university applicants. Crucially, these papers are designed to test academic potential and do not involve extra teaching; moreover, it is extremely difficult to coach for such tests.

Successful applications would thus rest on gaining the highest marks in both academic attainment and academic potential. Like you, I don't have a great deal of faith in personal statements or references. What matters is that candidates can objectively demonstrate both achievement and potential, not what they do in their spare time or what others think about them.

Reply 21

username5995364

19

Ayo anyone in this thread ever heard of ping pong? It's an amazing game, you can play it with a friend, or by yourself by folding half the table up. It's a lovely way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Reply 22

Supermature

11

Original post by ROTL94 3

Ayo anyone in this thread ever heard of ping pong? It's an amazing game, you can play it with a friend, or by yourself by folding half the table up. It's a lovely way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Brilliant response! :biggrin:

But this is a debating forum and there is a debate to be had! :wink:

Reply 23

Supermature

11

Original post by ROTL94 3

Ayo anyone in this thread ever heard of ping pong? It's an amazing game, you can play it with a friend, or by yourself by folding half the table up. It's a lovely way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Or you could just go down to the pub, which is what I'm going to do now... :biggrin:

Reply 24

Supermature

11

Original post by aaq1

People have put robust, logical counter arguments time and again. But you have simply chosen to put blinkers on to perpetuate your biased views. You provide examples and anecdotes from anons to support your flawed assertions. But have demonstrated distinct incapability to take on board and digest logical counter arguments posted here.

I suggest you read my posts a little more carefully.

I have been at pains to point out that the views I am expressing are not mine alone. The prevailing opinion in the academic and research community is that there is no evidence that interviews are a good way of assessing academic potential but there is much evidence that they are notoriously prone to conscious and unconscious bias. That is not the same as saying that interviews should never have a part to pay in university admissions, as one respondent in this thread erroneously inferred.

Rather than relying on anecdotes, I have referred to a report on university admissions by the UCU and a journal article from the Oxford Review of Education to reinforce these arguments. I have even pointed out that Oxford University itself has chosen to move to online interviews, in part to make those interviews less 'daunting'. In another thread on a related topic (to which you have contributed) I have cited a blog from an Oxford academic that calls the whole process into question. I named the academic and provided a link: hardly either anecdotal or anonymous.

How can this be construed as, to borrow your words, making "flawed assertions" or "putting on blinkers to perpetuate my biased views"?

I recognise that there are counter arguments and have granted those arguments the respect that they deserve, even though I disagree with them. I can also see why some would-be applicants might feel unsettled or let down by the prospect of the interviews being online when they had hitherto been led to believe that attending in person was an essential part of the process.

I would therefore ask that you respond to this comment by answering a simple question. Do you accept that the position I have taken on the issue of Oxbridge interviews reflects a widespread concern in the academic community and beyond, or do you still believe that this is some strange obsession that is mine and mine alone? If you do not respond to that question with a reasoned reply I will take it that you have understood and accepted all the points that I have made in this particular post.

Reply 25

skylark2

18

Don't you think there might be a bit of a gap between "I've found a few people who think interviews are bad/wrong/useless and have written about it" and "a widespread concern in the academic community and beyond"?

I'm not who you were asking - but no, I don't think there's a widespread concern. I think there are a few people who noisily don't like interviews, probably because they themselves aren't very good at them, so how can they possibly be useful for anything? Not least because if there was a widespread concern, it would be getting put before Congregation and voted on!

Reply 26

Reality Check

22

I rather wish we had more interviews, not fewer. Certainly at my institution, where we only interview for medical/healthcare/AHP courses, plus 'non-standards' and a few others, it does give those departments the opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Reply 27

toxicgamage56

Universities Forum Helper

19

Surely with online interviews, you could "cheat" by having a bunch of model answers written out. Or even someone writing out a model answer for you on a projector or something? I haven't described the best ways to do it, but surely it is a possibility?

Reply 28

skylark2

18

Original post by toxicgamage56

Surely with online interviews, you could "cheat" by having a bunch of model answers written out. Or even someone writing out a model answer for you on a projector or something? I haven't described the best ways to do it, but surely it is a possibility?

There's no way you yould know what questions they would ask - and if it becomes apparent that someone knows the answer to a question they just ask another one. It's not about what you've been spoonfed, it's about whether you can think for yourself.

I think it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone would be able to take prompts from another person without it being blindingly obvious to interviewers that something dodgy was going on. One of my kids had an online job interview recently and they had to wave the camera round the room to demonstrate that they didn't have someone else there, crib sheets etc. - I don't know if Oxford do that but I wouldn't be surprised.

Reply 29

Supermature

11

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

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 :yep:

My apologies for not acknowledging this response earlier; I have only just noticed it.

In your previous post you said:

"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."

Does this mean that you think it is a good idea to move the interviews online permanently, as Oxford appears to be considering doing? Or do you just think you might have been unlucky and had an unusually unpleasant experience?

I ask this because it seems from the positive response to the quotation in the opening post in this thread, that there are those who feel something is being lost if the interviews are not in-person, as is exemplified in the comment:

"...by holding interviews online the university [in this case Cambridge] risks diminishing an interviewing process that has worked for decades; a process that is only [my emphasis] strong because it throws everyone in the deep end, and all applicants are treated equally on the strength of their mental character."

Whoever wrote this obviously believes that the interviews are intended to be a test of "mental character", however that might be defined. I would be interested to know whether you felt that was part of their purpose?

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 30

Reality Check

22

Original post by toxicgamage56

Surely with online interviews, you could "cheat" by having a bunch of model answers written out. Or even someone writing out a model answer for you on a projector or something? I haven't described the best ways to do it, but surely it is a possibility?

There isn't a 'model answer' to any of these questions, because they're designed to walk with you in the garden of academia. If you answer the question 'correctly', they just ask a harder one...and they keep doing that to stretch you to your limit. That's the whole point of it: seeing how well you can think though a problem or issue. It's not a pub quiz.

Reply 31

The_Lonely_Goatherd

20

Original post by Supermature

My apologies for not acknowledging this response earlier; I have only just noticed it.

In your previous post you said:

"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."

Does this mean that you think it is a good idea to move the interviews online permanently, as Oxford appears to be considering doing? Or do you just think you might have been unlucky and had an unusually unpleasant experience?

I ask this because it seems from the positive response to the quotation in the opening post in this thread, that there are those who feel something is being lost if the interviews are not in-person, as is exemplified in the comment:

"...by holding interviews online the university [in this case Cambridge] risks diminishing an interviewing process that has worked for decades; a process that is only [my emphasis] strong because it throws everyone in the deep end, and all applicants are treated equally on the strength of their mental character."

Whoever wrote this obviously believes that the interviews are intended to be a test of "mental character", however that might be defined. I would be interested to know whether you felt that was part of their purpose?

Np. I am undecided as to whether it's a good idea to permanently make the move to only-online interviews. I think, in the grand scheme of how long these unis have been around, it's way too early to make an informed assessment/judgement. I agree that there are things lost by erasing face-to-face interviews - my post was not contesting this at all. I was merely trying to reassure what seemed like a state school applicant from feeling they were being hugely disadvantaged by the online interviews. I just wanted to reassure them that, imho, there are positives to online that level the playing field for some state school applicants at some level. I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both in-person and online, and there are no easy solutions :nah:

I don't think I was particularly unlucky: I imagine my experience happens a fair bit in my specific subject, at any "good" uni that interviews their music applicants. Things like Classics aside, it doesn't get more middle-class (and often upper middle-class) than a music degree :tongue:

That said, what I have noticed (from my own interview experience in 2006, and from ushering at Oxford music interviews/ferrying music applicants around in 2008, and from talking to various dons in my subject) is that the type of people who were giving me issues during the interview period rarely get in - for my subject, at least :nah:

Reply 32

The_Lonely_Goatherd

20

Original post by Supermature

My apologies for not acknowledging this response earlier; I have only just noticed it.

In your previous post you said:

"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."

Does this mean that you think it is a good idea to move the interviews online permanently, as Oxford appears to be considering doing? Or do you just think you might have been unlucky and had an unusually unpleasant experience?

I ask this because it seems from the positive response to the quotation in the opening post in this thread, that there are those who feel something is being lost if the interviews are not in-person, as is exemplified in the comment:

"...by holding interviews online the university [in this case Cambridge] risks diminishing an interviewing process that has worked for decades; a process that is only [my emphasis] strong because it throws everyone in the deep end, and all applicants are treated equally on the strength of their mental character."

Whoever wrote this obviously believes that the interviews are intended to be a test of "mental character", however that might be defined. I would be interested to know whether you felt that was part of their purpose?

I forgot to answer this last part. I'm a firm believer that the interviews are an important part of a holistic Oxford and Cambridge undergrad admissions process. I am also a firm believer in the whole "mock tutorial/supervision" suggestion. I think it tests a lot of things about an applicant, including mental strength/character, and suitability to the teaching process. It also lets the don know whether they feel they want to be stuck with that student for 3-6 (depending on course) years, and whether a particular student will gel with other top applicants being shortlisted for places. I know my own college tutor was very particular in choosing 3-4 people who he thought would get on with each other :yep:

Reply 33

InArduisFouette

21

Original post by aaq1

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."

how much are 55 Tufton St paying you to post this utter guff ?

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 34

InArduisFouette

21

Original post by skylark2

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.

Oxbridge needs to justify why other than Med/ Dent/Vet it NEEDS the early cuff off..

Reply 35

InArduisFouette

21

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.

what are the Objective and evidence based needsfor these privileges ?

Reply 36

Supermature

11

Original post by skylark2

Don't you think there might be a bit of a gap between "I've found a few people who think interviews are bad/wrong/useless and have written about it" and "a widespread concern in the academic community and beyond"?

I'm not who you were asking - but no, I don't think there's a widespread concern. I think there are a few people who noisily don't like interviews, probably because they themselves aren't very good at them, so how can they possibly be useful for anything? Not least because if there was a widespread concern, it would be getting put before Congregation and voted on!

A few people? I don't think you can call the UCU with over 120,000 members "a few people". Of course, there are no doubt those in their ranks who will favour Oxbridge style interviews, just as there are those such as myself who are not members but follow the position outlined in their report on university admissions, which I have cited several times in this thread alone.

This is not a matter of interviews being, as you put it, "bad, wrong or useless". It is simply a question of whether they can be justified in the context of Oxbridge admissions when there is no evidence to support their effectiveness in identifying academic potential. If Oxford and Cambridge were private universities, like Harvard for example, and were not part of the UCAS process there would be less of an issue.

It would appear that both Oxford and Cambridge are moving towards online interviews, though I understand no final decisions have been taken. That represents - as the title of this thread suggests - a huge change and one which supporters of the traditional in-person format will find it difficult to accept, given that one of the principal justifications for the interviews is that they are meant to provide a taster for the Oxbridge experience.

(edited 1 year ago)

Reply 37

Thisismyunitsr

20

Some people like in person interviews, some hate them.

Reply 38

Supermature

11

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

I know my own college tutor was very particular in choosing 3-4 people who he thought would get on with each other :yep:

That's a very significant revelation. It may be an understandable basis for selection - but it is not what is supposed to happen, is it? Both Oxford and Cambridge claim that they are selecting on academic potential alone, although that is sometimes conflated with a supposedly rare ability to benefit from the distinctive tutorial or supervision method of teaching.

Thank you again for your very helpful and well thought out comments; I am sure that many of those taking part in this debate will agree with you in saying that the interviews are valuable, but will prefer to reserve judgement on whether they are best held in-person or online.

Reply 39

BarnabyK

15

Some very interesting points on here. As someone hopefully about to have an interview for Modern Languages, I can say that I'm feeling rather conflicted by the fact that I won't be heading up to Oxford in-person for interview.

I feel like I'd benefit from in-person discussion and the opportunity to explore the place, if not just to experience what it might be like. At the same time, if I were rejected, I wouldn't have that experience of "what it could be like" had I gotten in (which I think would be easier in moving on?)

However, short of actually being there in person, I question what quantifiable difference there is for candidates. Sure, there's always the odd-person who performs better in either scenario, and the idea of being able to stay in an Oxbridge college for the night is an amazing thing, but really just a fancy on the most basic level. If anything, it makes more financial/logistical sense and its unsurprising that they've come to this point.

huge mistake for Cambridge to hold entrance interviews online

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you