huge mistake for Cambridge to hold entrance interviews online

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.

there is no evidence to support their effectiveness in identifying academic potential.

what are the Objective and evidence based needsfor these privileges ?

I don't think anyone in their right mind/on this thread would claim ability to benefit from the tutorial/supervision system is a "supposedly rare ability", tbh. Think you're extrapolating that a bit too much

I do have to disagree with you there!

First of all, almost everyone can benefit from an enhanced teacher to pupil ratio, whether they be very bright students or children with learning difficulties. That's why some parents engage private tutors and one reason why others send their children to private schools with small classes.

I would argue that just about any A*A*A student who was hard working, highly motivated and had demonstrated academic potential in an entrance test would benefit from sessions with one teacher and one or two other students. Whether they would prefer that way of working is another matter - but they're certainly not going to find that out in one or two interviews, particularly if they are held online.

Oxford and Cambridge do claim that they only select on the basis of academic potential. Choosing entrants because they will 'get on with each other' is disingenuous to say the least, on top of which it's a bit of a leap in the dark.

And therein lies the danger in these interviews: too much temptation to go for the faces that fit!

I've just pointed Supermature at the differences in dropout rates between Oxbridge and elsewhere; it's the same answer for you,

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.

Oh dear, Supermature, you really are very forgetful today, aren't you? You've completely forgotten about the massive difference between the dropout rates at Oxbridge and other universities again, haven't you? Even though you've been reminded about it in this very thread. Oops.

Aside from your last line, I fail to see where I've disagreed with you in my post? Perhaps you misread

You can actually tell a LOT about applicants in a single 20 minute Oxbridge interview, in my experience. I know this from 10 years of volunteering with a mock Oxbridge interviews firm



OK, so here I can see I was not clear in explaining. It's not choosing entrants solely/mostly for the purpose that they will "get on with each other". But where my tutor decides he wants to take 10 applicants (as he did in the year I applied. He was not allowed to choose 10 for his college, surprise surprise ), he then picks his particular 3-4 for his particular college based on many factors, two of which are "can I put up with this student for 3 years?" and "which students might make good tutorial partners?" You don't seem to have raised an issue with my stating the former before, and I don't see how the latter is much different or "worse" than the former?

Once again, you have responded with great clarity and courtesy.

I think we probably will need to agree to differ on two points.

First, I don't believe that there exists a particular type of student who can benefit from the tutorial method, as some supporters of the Oxbridge admissions process have claimed. I think any highly motivated, hard working A*A*A calibre student would adapt to that method, though it might not be their preferred way of learning.

Secondly, given that the stated policy is to select on the basis of academic potential and nothing else, I don't believe it is possible to assess that in a short interview and I fear that leads to other desiderata creeping into the process, such as " Can I put up with this student for 3 years". They're really not supposed to do that! It's bias, is it not?

You say, "You can actually tell a LOT about applicants in a single 20 minute Oxbridge interview, in my experience. I know this from 10 years of volunteering with a mock Oxbridge interviews firm." I absolutely respect your opinion here but I just wonder whether ' a LOT' goes beyond the stated policy of assessing academic potential?

Certainly there are other Oxbridge insiders who take the opposite view and feel that interviews cannot reveal academic potential. In another thread I have referred to a blog by Simon Wren-Lewis on this very point. Research shows that tutors really do struggle to be objective. Take this, for example, from an Oxford tutor quoted in the research paper I cited earlier in this thread:

"The problem that you have is when you start to engage with somebody, inevitably when
you are dealing with human beings you are going to have rapport with some people, and
you’re going to have less rapport with other people. Okay? And that is to me, that’s irrelevant
for getting into Oxford. This is a place that should be taking people on the basis of intellect
and merit—right? And whether I, I have a rapport with a person or not, I think is largely
irrelevant. I mean, not entirely irrelevant because it’s a tutorial system and if we hated each
other it’s going to be a pretty strained tutorial. But, you know, in general you are not going
to find someone you take an instant dislike to. You are going to find people that—some
people that you have more rapport with than others. And it is just an inevitable part of being
a human being. Right? And what I discovered in the past is that I really have to try and
force myself [when there is] somebody that I seem to like, not to be biased by the fact that
we are engaging with each other…. That person shouldn’t get into Oxford University just
because they happen to have a manner and a personality that I have cottoned on to."

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with interviews. They are almost unavoidably subjective - even when they're not supposed to be. That's fine if the aim is to select on the basis of personality or other non academic factors - but not if the policy is to select on academic achievement and potential alone.

Strange way of settling debates and drawing conclusions. I won't be engaging any further. I am convinced that you are just a 'click baiter'

sorry that is not a justification unless you can provide evidenceof direct causal link...

drop out rates for Oxbridge much more likely to be related to the grades of the applicants than anything else, especially given the some of the worst HEIs for drop out rates were the oenes which are former FE colleges which thoughtthey could become general universities i nthe post 92 rush

In bed and broken thumb hurting badly - I hope it's OK for me to reply tomorrow at some point. Quote me if I forget, as I have 2-3 important points to make in respomse to this. Thanks!

Once again, you have responded with great clarity and courtesy.

I think we probably will need to agree to differ on two points.

First, I don't believe that there exists a particular type of student who can benefit from the tutorial method, as some supporters of the Oxbridge admissions process have claimed. I think any highly motivated, hard working A*A*A calibre student would adapt to that method, though it might not be their preferred way of learning.

Secondly, given that the stated policy is to select on the basis of academic potential and nothing else, I don't believe it is possible to assess that in a short interview and I fear that leads to other desiderata creeping into the process, such as " Can I put up with this student for 3 years". They're really not supposed to do that! It's bias, is it not?

You say, "You can actually tell a LOT about applicants in a single 20 minute Oxbridge interview, in my experience. I know this from 10 years of volunteering with a mock Oxbridge interviews firm." I absolutely respect your opinion here but I just wonder whether ' a LOT' goes beyond the stated policy of assessing academic potential?

Certainly there are other Oxbridge insiders who take the opposite view and feel that interviews cannot reveal academic potential. In another thread I have referred to a blog by Simon Wren-Lewis on this very point. Research shows that tutors really do struggle to be objective. Take this, for example, from an Oxford tutor quoted in the research paper I cited earlier in this thread:

"The problem that you have is when you start to engage with somebody, inevitably when
you are dealing with human beings you are going to have rapport with some people, and
you’re going to have less rapport with other people. Okay? And that is to me, that’s irrelevant
for getting into Oxford. This is a place that should be taking people on the basis of intellect
and merit—right? And whether I, I have a rapport with a person or not, I think is largely
irrelevant. I mean, not entirely irrelevant because it’s a tutorial system and if we hated each
other it’s going to be a pretty strained tutorial. But, you know, in general you are not going
to find someone you take an instant dislike to. You are going to find people that—some
people that you have more rapport with than others. And it is just an inevitable part of being
a human being. Right? And what I discovered in the past is that I really have to try and
force myself [when there is] somebody that I seem to like, not to be biased by the fact that
we are engaging with each other…. That person shouldn’t get into Oxford University just
because they happen to have a manner and a personality that I have cottoned on to."

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with interviews. They are almost unavoidably subjective - even when they're not supposed to be. That's fine if the aim is to select on the basis of personality or other non academic factors - but not if the policy is to select on academic achievement and potential alone.

Hello,

I think yes, we will have to agree to disagree on certain points (not least because my broken thumb is getting more swollen/painful as days go by and typing is becoming a pain!) A few final points from me though:

1) To be an annoying pedant for a moment, "any highly motivated, hard working A*A*A calibre student" is a particular type of student because you're excluding people without those grades and those who are not hard-working! So yes, the system only benefits "certain" students though I agree with you that some people (generally speaking, not in this thread) do believe/purport this to be a much smaller group than is often the case

2) I think you are putting Oxbridge's interview processes on a pedastal that it has never itself claimed to be on (nor would any person in their right mind claim it to be on). I've never seen either institution advertise its interview process as objective - if you can prove wrong with screenshot evidence, I am happy to retract this. As you have rightly pointed out, it is not an objective process but (unlike what you seem to think) it is not supposed to be! As the don you have quoted rightly notes, "you are dealing with human beings". Human beings are incapable of being objective. No interview process or selection process - be it for Oxbridge, any other uni, or a job in a workplace, or selecting who gets government benefits and who doesn't - can be truly objective. All you can do is strive and train people to be less narrow-minded and to lean more towards objectivity, so far as one can. Oxford at least are making attempts to do this through unconscious bias training (I can't speak for Cambridge, but I'd assume they're doing similar or not far off doing that).

So I'm confused as to why you think this is attainable or should be the case I don't see any way around this issue, save for having a computer just syphon off anyone who hasn't got 3 A*s at A Level and then pick random names out of a hat, so to speak (By the way, such a process, even if it WERE half-decent/sensible, would exclude yours truly from being eligible to study at Oxford - so of course I'm not advocating for that ).

3) The quote you have stated (thanks for including that btw) does not dispute about the interview process being able to gauge academic ability, suitability, or potential. And as I've stated, I've done near-identical interview processes (albeit mock ones) myself for 10 years. So I know how much information - predominantly academic, which is the main concern for everyone, but some personality-based and pastoral as well, obviously - can be gauged in this time. You can tell a lot about a candidate, including:

- whether they are as intelligent as their PS may or may not indicate
- whether they have been spoon-fed or have natural ability, or the potential
- whether they are shy/nervous/tongue-tied and that's why they're quiet/getting things wrong - or whether they genuinely don't have the right level of intelligence/potential to thrive in that environment

As Reality Check says, it separates the wheat from the chaff - and that is helpful and important for everyone concerned.

Since I did not come here to debate - only to make a post to offer comfort/reassurance to someone from my background - all I can suggest is you put your concerns directly to Oxford and Cambridge admissions, or start a petition. Like you said, we are not going to change the admissions overnight - though already the admissions have changed quite a bit from when I was applying, which is encouraging

Wishing you a good rest of weekend!

Just for clarity, I stand firmly with my assertions that you are alluding to in your post above. Anyone interested can read my relevant posts and draw their own conclusions.

This is a very innovative way of respecting other side of the debate. And yes, I would not be drawn into the debate or rather the pingpong yet again.

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."

The arguments against online interviews because of poor internet/distractions are silly. If a student cares about their university place then they will make sure that everything is perfect, which could mean going somewhere else with better wifi or making sure everyone is out of the house.