Tests instead of interviews

Phil23

Thats what i hate! people who have so much money in their asses, they can go and pay people to trin them! I got this stupid letter in the post, from oxbridge applications! £800 for interview training weekend! - please - do they did teh majority of the public are made of money or what! Also, Oxbridge are after the smartest, not some trained people! :mad:

Does anyone, other than me feel, that being coached for interviews/tests is just wrong! One should work themselves to succeed! People that get excessive help are just thick, and cheaters!

Phil

Don't feel so sorry for yourself. It's never going to be an entirely level playing field. It's understandable to resent those in a position to get extra help, but it is a bit childish.

Reply 22

OP

d750

Don't feel so sorry for yourself. It's never going to be an entirely level playing field. It's understandable to resent those in a position to get extra help, but it is a bit childish.

I wouldn't say anyone who is annoyed by social injustice is "childish". I hardly think this philosophy lends itself greatly to "righting the wrongs".
Nobody is saying it will ever be an "entirely level playing field"; if you think that then you aren't grasping the (very simple) point: some people are at an unfair advantage, ergo admissions are not fair. There is nothing complicated in this notion, nor is there anything childish in pointing it out. In fact, I think this comment adequately surmises that the state v private fight is far from won.

Reply 23

WhatFreshHell?

some people are at an unfair advantage, ergo admissions are not fair

You could also argue that some people are naturally more intelligent than others, and that also puts them at an unfair advantage. Admission to a university, or success in any kind of competition, is never completely fair. IMO, the best way to fight it is to rid the country of its Oxbridge obsession. The admissions tutors at Oxford and Cambridge do make mistakes...they are only human...but it seems that every year, lots of the mistakes they make are blown completely out of proportion by the media and leave loads of schoolchildren more upset than rejection from any other university.

As for the state/public school debate, that's entrenched in the English philosophy, "You get what you pay for". This country has a long way to go before it's rid itself of that.

Reply 24

WhatFreshHell?

I wouldn't say anyone who is annoyed by social injustice is "childish". I hardly think this philosophy lends itself greatly to "righting the wrongs".
Nobody is saying it will ever be an "entirely level playing field"; if you think that then you aren't grasping the (very simple) point: some people are at an unfair advantage, ergo admissions are not fair. There is nothing complicated in this notion, nor is there anything childish in pointing it out. In fact, I think this comment adequately surmises that the state v private fight is far from won.

Social injustice? The fact that some people are richer than others and hence can afford more than others can? :hahaha:

You're not grasping the very simple point that some people are at an advantage, but all advantages aren't necessary unfair advantages. It may admittedly be easier for some people to get into Oxbridge because their parents can afford a private education or extra coaching, but how do you plan to solve that? Abolish private education, outlaw money? Now that would be childish. Some people will have to work harder to get what they want. Don't throw your hands up in the air and wallow in self-pity. JUST WORK HARDER. It worked for me. :wink:

Reply 25

OP

Squishy

You could also argue that some people are naturally more intelligent than others, and that also puts them at an unfair advantage. Admission to a university, or success in any kind of competition, is never completely fair. IMO, the best way to fight it is to rid the country of its Oxbridge obsession. The admissions tutors at Oxford and Cambridge do make mistakes...they are only human...but it seems that every year, lots of the mistakes they make are blown completely out of proportion by the media and leave loads of schoolchildren more upset than rejection from any other university.

Again, the point is being missed. Whether a candidate has above average intelligence or not is entirely irrelevant in the "access" debate: that is the variable admissions tutors are meant to test! Whether a candidate has had unfair advantage over another by virtue of their postion/background, or not, is entirely relevant to the access debate.
People "of position" (ie those at an advantage (private schoolers, children of admissions tutors or what have you)) are not any more intelligent than other people by definition, yet this is not reflected in admissions statistics.

There seems to be great apathy among those whom the system favours to just say "oh well, the system isn't fair, so that's that." NO! If the system isn't fair, change the bloody thing until it is as damn close as it can, and don't stop there either! Lots could be done to level the playing field, but those in the position to do so just can't be bothered, because it would disadvantage them and like them. And not only that, they prevent those who try, telling them to "get their tanks of Oxford's lawns". It smacks of entrenched elitism, and that is the kind of thing, as it were, up with which we shall not put!

Squishy

As for the state/public school debate, that's entrenched in the English philosophy, "You get what you pay for". This country has a long way to go before it's rid itself of that.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and it also means anyone who tries shouldn't be resented for doing so.
And by the way, its not specifically "english" philosophy, either.

Reply 26

OP

d750

Social injustice? The fact that some people are richer than others and hence can afford more than others can? :hahaha:

You're not grasping the very simple point that some people are at an advantage, but all advantages aren't necessary unfair advantages. It may admittedly be easier for some people to get into Oxbridge because their parents can afford a private education or extra coaching, but how do you plan to solve that? Abolish private education, outlaw money? Now that would be childish. Some people will have to work harder to get what they want. Don't throw your hands up in the air and wallow in self-pity. JUST WORK HARDER. It worked for me. :wink:

Aristocrats thought like this in the 18th century.

I can't believe this notion that it's somehow OK to just buy yourself extra points. If Oxbridge want the best, they have to wake up to the notion that the best aren't necessarily those who've had the best opportunity to show they are.
How about the admissions tutors realise that well-educated candidates have had the facilities to enable them to show they're intelligent, while others haven't. Does that sound like something out of Fantasia to you? Is it totally off-the-wall? Hardly.

I disagree with private education in principle, but the west won the cold war, so i can't just abolish private education, (but I do get starbucks, so it's not all bad). That doesn't mean the system can't ever change.

Reply 27

WhatFreshHell?

Whether a candidate has had unfair advantage over another by virtue of their postion/background, or not, is entirely relevant to the access debate.

Would you argue, then, than any advantage is an unfair advantage? That would lead you into a great deal of difficulty. If birth can give an unfair advantage, should someone born into a rich family be penalised in order to provide a supposedly level playing field? Presumably you'd say yes. And presumably you'd justify that by saying that no one's birth should be a disadvantage to them. But then you get into the situation in which you argue that "high" birth (for want of a better term, apologies if this sounds patronising) should be penalised and "low" birth should be compensated. How is that any fairer? It has the double disadvantge of being artificial and no better than the state of things as they are now.

Reply 28

OP

d750

Social injustice? JUST WORK HARDER.

They used this argument against introduction of the NHS, the Welfare State, and the Liberal Reforms. I think we can all agree that on balance those were a good idea.
This kind of elitism makes your argument look ridiculous.

Reply 29

WhatFreshHell?

They used this argument against introduction of the NHS, the Welfare State, and the Liberal Reforms. I think we can all agree that on balance those were a good idea.
This kind of elitism makes your argument look ridiculous.

It may look ridiculous to someone who disagrees with it, but that's not entirely unexpected. :wink:

Reply 30

WhatFreshHell?

Again, the point is being missed. Whether a candidate has above average intelligence or not is entirely irrelevant in the "access" debate: that is the variable admissions tutors are meant to test! Whether a candidate has had unfair advantage over another by virtue of their postion/background, or not, is entirely relevant to the access debate.

I don't think it is missing the point. Genetic factors are a part of a candidate's background, as much as his or her schooling. In reality, both the quality of a person's education and their natural abilities (and various other factors) determine whether a person gets in, and while public schools probably do give their students an advantage in the Oxbridge admissions process, I don't think it's necessarily greater than what natural brilliance gives you. Some public schools are academically selective on entry in any case. Again, I know the system is not perfect, but I still argue that the best way to deal with it is not to take it (Oxbridge) so seriously, rather than stressing about how it has to be absolutely perfect. I support the Access initiatives, but there's only so far it can be taken, and I don't hold out any hope that it will ever be entirely fair.

This isn't meant in an offensive way, but I think the notion that life should treat everyone equally is probably the most childish one of all. Besides, in a truly equal world, Oxford and Cambridge would have no more status than any other university.

Oh yeah, and I realise the English are not the only ones who equate money with value (and not all English people do), but some of them have developed snobbery into a fine art form...it's the only reason I made that comment. :smile:

Reply 31

Squishy

This isn't meant in an offensive way, but I think the notion that life should treat everyone equally is probably the most childish one of all.

Definitely

Reply 32

Squishy

This isn't meant in an offensive way, but I think the notion that life should treat everyone equally is probably the most childish one of all.

OK, I just reread that and realised it sounded quite mean. I didn't mean to say that some people should have life easier than others...I think it's quite natural and healthy to resent people who have life too easy, and those people deserve a bit of roughing up...what I meant was that no two people are born entirely equal...and the idea of creating an exactly level playing field for all is a bit silly, because you're still going to have inequalities. You just have to make do with what you have and do the best you can...s'all.

Reply 33

OP

Squishy

You just have to make do with what you have and do the best you can...s'all.

When you think about it, that's an argument that could have been used against the emancipation of women or ending apartheid. Also, it's very defeatist and lazy

Reply 34

WhatFreshHell?

When you think about it, that's an argument that could have been used against the emancipation of women or ending apartheid. Also, it's very defeatist and lazy

It's not an argument to do nothing. I believe that action needs to be taken on a lot of issues and apathy is not a good thing...at the same time, I believe that you're taking the whole level playing field thing a bit too seriously. Life is always going to be more difficult for some people than for others, no matter how hard you fight for equality...you might as well accept that.

Reply 35

H&E

3

WhatFreshHell?:

How arrogant are you? Are you seriously implying that Oxford's too stupid to realise they need to consider background to get the best candidates, but that you, in your inifinite wisdom, have sussed it out? Because that's what you seem to be saying - "If Oxbridge want the best, they have to wake up to the notion that the best aren't necessarily those who've had the best opportunity to show they are." This is an absolute genuine load of *****. I cannot emphasise this strongly enough. If you had any knowledge whatsoever about this matter, and you clearly don't, you'd realise that Oxford spend tens of millions of pounds each year investigating and implementing ways of improving the fairness of its admissions system. You'd also realise it has seen revolutionary changes several times in the last decade or so, all to this end. So you're assertion that it needs to "wake up" is just absolute crap.

As for your suggestion of replacing interviews with tests, that too is cleary nonsense. Firstly, most subjects now have both. Secondly, the whole point about interviews is that they are virtually uncoachable. You may worry about public school interview training and that's up to you, but those of us who are at least partially in touch with reality know that these are largely irrelevant. Your alternative, tests, are, in contrast, very eminently coachable. Whilst it is possible to design exams which test very specific qualities without making them too predictable and coachable, it is very, very difficult to do this for "ability" in general. Previous attempts at it simply failed.

Grr.

Sorry to rant. But your argument is completely fact free and somewhat offensive. Plus I'm in a bad mood coz I'm about to have an essay crisis and my back's in pieces following playing rugby against a team with about 6 Blues.

Reply 36

WhatFreshHell?

When you think about it, that's an argument that could have been used against the emancipation of women or ending apartheid. Also, it's very defeatist and lazy

And Oxbridge admissions is just as important as the emancipation of women and the ending of apartheid? :stupid:

For God's sake take your head out of your arse.

Reply 37

JrW

14

WhatFreshHell?

Given that the interview favours people with more confidence and who have been trained in interview technique, don't you think it would be a better idea to scrap the whole interview procedure and replace them with a series of subject-specific tests?

You argument that interviews favour people with more confidence and interview techinique, the same theory can be applied to tests, some people are more confident with exams and have a good exam technique, therefore you can look at it two ways. That's why for a large proportion of the subjects you have a test as well as an interview, and in some cases written work on top of that.

Reply 38

d750

And Oxbridge admissions is just as important as the emancipation of women and the ending of apartheid? :stupid:

For God's sake take your head out of your arse.

Ahh well, "To call a man an Oxford man is to pay him the highest compliment that can be paid to a human being", and all that.

Reply 39