Ah yes, look at this truly outstanding correlation of 0.078 between medicine interview score and Tripos performance. Note especially the slight negative correlation between male students' interview scores and Tripos performance.
(Compare that to the 0.38 correlation between AS UMS and Medicine Tripos performance.)
And this ...
"The low association between Interview Scores and achievement is also very evident here, especially for males, for whom negative correlations are the norm rather than the exception."
Sorry, I may have drifted off topic. I think Vincrows made the point that the interviews were good for weeding out the obviously coached specimens. It suddenly occured to me that I have seen lots of correlations between UMS or GCSE's and final degree performance but nothing on interviews.
The problem is that the interviews might be weeding out much more than that. Why should females have a better correlation than males?
So I thought I'd ask.
At any rate, now that Cambridge can no longer use the UMS system it would probably be an appropriate time to consider whether the interview system is fit for purpose.
Sorry, I may have drifted off topic. I think Vincrows made the point that the interviews were good for weeding out the obviously coached specimens. It suddenly occured to me that I have seen lots of correlations between UMS or GCSE's and final degree performance but nothing on interviews.
The problem is that the interviews might be weeding out much more than that. Why should females have a better correlation than males?
So I thought I'd ask.
At any rate, now that Cambridge can no longer use the UMS system it would probably be an appropriate time to consider whether the interview system is fit for purpose.
Why does the unavailabity of UMS mean interviews are not fit for purpose? If anything they become more important, not less. If Cambridge isn't receiving public exam info at the point of application (no AS-levels) then the interview provides an additional check point to evaluate the candidate's academic progress and suitability for the course.
Why does the unavailabity of UMS mean interviews are not fit for purpose? If anything they become more important, not less. If Cambridge isn't receiving public exam info at the point of application (no AS-levels) then the interview provides an additional check point to evaluate the candidate's academic progress and suitability for the course.
No, no, not causal. Coincidental.
But if there is no correlation between interview score and degree outcome, why do them?
If there is no correlation then it is not doing the things you say even if it appears obvious that it does.
Occurring at the same time but not causally related.
Anyway, the data above was only for medics. Show me data for the other 26+ courses.
I can't. But that just proves my point.
And, as I said, Cambridge must see a value in doing them otherwise they wouldn't invest all the time and expense in holding interview rounds.
That's why I assumed they must have evidence. So far, all we have seen is medicine (and veterinary science) and as Chief Wiggums has pointed out it is not exactly inspiring. Do you think the other 26+ might be even worse?
Occurring at the same time but not causally related.
I can't. But that just proves my point.
That's why I assumed they must have evidence. So far, all we have seen is medicine (and veterinary science) and as Chief Wiggums has pointed out it is not exactly inspiring. Do you think the other 26+ might be even worse?
Thank you for the link. I will probably have to. Still wondering why they haven't put it up already. There's a lot of stuff on UMS.
Interview scores are much on personal judgement and relative. One colleges 7 is another 8 etc. It will vary alot hence why actual written notes can't be analysed and hence why other colleges read the notes of an interview etc. So if data does cone back it will have a general trend but will not be accurate. Remember interviews also test surpervision criteria and how they work under the Cambridge system not just purely academic criteria. Although this would count as one of them, being teachable.
Interview scores are much on personal judgement and relative. One colleges 7 is another 8 etc. It will vary alot hence why actual written notes can't be analysed and hence why other colleges read the notes of an interview etc. So if data does cone back it will have a general trend but will not be accurate. Remember interviews also test surpervision criteria and how they work under the Cambridge system not just purely academic criteria. Although this would count as one of them, being teachable.
If interview score has a negative correlation against degree outcome I think it means that the higher the interview score the lower the degree outcome.
It doesn't really matter about supervision criteria. No point being well suited to the Cambridge system and getting a third.
If interview score has a negative correlation against degree outcome I think it means that the higher the interview score the lower the degree outcome.
It doesn't really matter about supervision criteria. No point being well suited to the Cambridge system and getting a third.
I wonder how they'll do it considering every specification is slightly different.
Will they have an exam dependent on which specification you are doing or will they create their own specification that people will have to learn separately over summer.
I wonder how they'll do it considering every specification is slightly different.
Will they have an exam dependent on which assessment you are doing or will they create their own specification that people will have to learn separately over summer.
Maybe find where all the major soecifications overlap! Or like MAT C1-2 basic knowledge but they make it very intersting or like PAT stuff.
But what's a better way of investigating the effectiveness of something?
Exactly, something will always be wrong. Although medicine is different with strict guidlines etc. For Other subjects I would strongly expect a positive correlation although who knows for sure.
Exactly, something will always be wrong. Although medicine is different with strict guidlines etc. For Other subjects I would strongly expect a positive correlation although who knows for sure.
But surely statistics are a more reliable method than essentially anything else?
Indeed, I wouldn't know what other subjects would show, but I think it would be useful to know. To be honest, I suspect Cambridge colleges may investigate this at a college level.
Unless that guy is a serious maverick trying to kick up controversy, his comments would suggest that at that time, no serious efforts at researching the predictive effectiveness of interviews had been carried out by the university?
Will they have an exam dependent on which specification you are doing or will they create their own specification that people will have to learn separately over summer.
No.
The whole point is they won't require any extra learning.
But surely statistics are a more reliable method than essentially anything else?
Indeed, I wouldn't know what other subjects would show, but I think it would be useful to know. To be honest, I suspect Cambridge colleges may investigate this at a college level.
Unless that guy is a serious maverick trying to kick up controversy, his comments would suggest that at that time, no serious efforts at researching the predictive effectiveness of interviews had been carried out by the university?
Contrast that to Gavin Lowe (Oxford CompSci admissions tutor) who repeatedly said that he considers interviews to be more predictive than MAT or academic history. (This was in the TSR's most recent MAT prep thread.)
The whole point is they won't require any extra learning.
Is this actually confirmed? I suppose it doesn't make too much of a difference as the new A-levels are quite tightly specified so if there is off syllabus material, everyone will have to learn it
Occurring at the same time but not causally related.
I can't. But that just proves my point.
That's why I assumed they must have evidence. So far, all we have seen is medicine (and veterinary science) and as Chief Wiggums has pointed out it is not exactly inspiring. Do you think the other 26+ might be even worse?
Thank you for the link. I will probably have to. Still wondering why they haven't put it up already. There's a lot of stuff on UMS.
One important point. They are NOT doing interview to use it as an indicator for future performance (=Tripos) but BECAUSE it can shed a different light on an applicant in a way other aspects of application (like exam grades, PS/SAQ, reference, etc.) cannot do.
By meeting applicants face-to-face and probing them by interview, they are trying to find if they have ability to 'think' (rather than just being good at remembering what they were taught and at exam techniques), if they have flexibility of mind to accept and absorb new/different ideas on which they can build their own understandings/ideas, if they can engage and benefit from their unique style of teaching = supervisions.
AFAIK A-level grades is the only piece of application aspect Cambridge has been saying they have found quite good correlation to future Tripos performance. But just using it will only tell them that they are 'good at exams.' Interview score is another piece of jigsaw puzzle, along with other aspects of application, which helps the admission people to build a more complete picture of each candidate's genuine ability to 'think' and to see if they can benefit from studying at Cambridge.
If you Google, there're lots of articles with quotations by Oxbridge dons on their interview and what they're trying to find out from it....and you can understand it is NOT a correlation to future Tripos performance they're trying to deduct from interview performance. In a very simple term, they are trying to see how your brain works.
Is this actually confirmed? I suppose it doesn't make too much of a difference as the new A-levels are quite tightly specified so if there is off syllabus material, everyone will have to learn it