How to pass the Oxford interview

You are so lucky, most poor asians are at ex polys

It really is about getting into a habit of actually trying to think things through, rather than expecting to know the answer.

I think going through 'Fermi problems' is another very useful preparation, not so much because you'll be asked them in your interview (although you might)

Be white and privileged

I literally don't know a single successful Oxbridge applicant (myself included) who came out of their subject interview thinking it went particularly well. They're not looking for 'the answer'. In all likelihood, there isn't a single answer. Rather, they're looking for whether you can sit there and logically and intelligently think through a response (which may or may not include an 'answer', and develop a cogent argument

If all you do is regurgitate information to the interviewer, you probably won't get a place.

Being white and privileged has nothing to do with getting accepted into Oxbridge, the interviewers don't care where you are from, they care about if you know how to think.

For the individual, by the time you get to an Oxford interview, this is probably largely true.

I'd love to see the place stuffed with students from less privileged backgrounds, and strongly encourage anyone who thinks Oxford is for them to apply, no matter what their background or identity. However, it is misleading to imply that "being white and privileged has nothing to do with" going to Oxford. Despite the fact that Oxford runs special programmes to encourage applicants from less privileged backgrounds, the stats remain depressing. Just as an example, the county borough where I work is the most deprived in Wales. Total number of successful Oxford applicants in the 5 years 2011-15? Two.

How many applied?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Eighteen. With such low numbers, simple statistical comparisons are a bit pointless.

The point is that the problem lies in much broader issues than how Oxford interviews candidates - for instance, with the (sub-) cultural norms around what these teens and their families see as 'our kind of thing'. A lot of the bright young people I have worked with - and, tragically, the teachers they have, too - would no sooner consider applying for Oxford than they would see themselves aiming for a career training owls to transcribe Proto-Norse runes into Linear B.

Eighteen. With such low numbers, simple statistical comparisons are a bit pointless.

The point is that the problem lies in much broader issues than how Oxford interviews candidates - for instance, with the (sub-) cultural norms around what these teens and their families see as 'our kind of thing'. A lot of the bright young people I have worked with - and, tragically, the teachers they have, too - would no sooner consider applying for Oxford than they would see themselves aiming for a career training owls to transcribe Proto-Norse runes into Linear B.

But the children do need to take some responsibility for not striking out, defying the expectations in their immediate community and give it a go. It does seem a little easy to mollycoddle them in this whole victim mentality of Big Bad Oxford being not for 'them', whoever 'them' actually is. But sometimes you have to take a risk to get a reward.

I entirely agree that Oxford (particularly) hasn't done awfully well in the past at outreach. But they have made strides, and there does need to be some effort on the 'other side' as well.

I had hoped that I hadn't framed it as such a simplistic dichotomy. In any case, we are all fortunate that TSR isn't the place to expand upon my brilliant and incisive analysis/rambling drivel.....

But the children do need to take some responsibility for not striking out, defying the expectations in their immediate community and give it a go. It does seem a little easy to mollycoddle them in this whole victim mentality of Big Bad Oxford being not for 'them', whoever 'them' actually is. But sometimes you have to take a risk to get a reward.

I entirely agree that Oxford (particularly) hasn't done awfully well in the past at outreach. But they have made strides, and there does need to be some effort on the 'other side' as well.

A lot of the bright young people I have worked with - and, tragically, the teachers they have, too - would no sooner consider applying for Oxford than they would see themselves aiming for a career training owls to transcribe Proto-Norse runes into Linear B.

But a fifth of teachers surveyed thought fewer than 20% of students at Oxford and Cambridge were from the state schools, compared with the actual figure of around 60%. Only 1% of teachers overestimated the proportion of state school students at the two universities, while just one in 20 knew the right proportion.

Is that a bad thing?

I've witnessed so many debates about how to get more people applying to Oxford, about how the problem is with the schools, or the parents, or the lack of 'ambition'. I'm all for all opportunities being open to everyone, of course, but... what if they don't want to be at Oxford?

I often wandered what the people we were talking about (in rural Wales or what have you) would say if they saw a video of us talking about how under-privileged they are because they aren't like us. More than that, how they're under-privileged because they don't want to be like us. I think they'd find it hilarious at best. Horrendously arrogant at worst.

Practically speaking I'm not suggesting any change - we need to work harder to ensure everyone has the opportunity. I'm just trying to remind people, particularly those at Oxford or writing the Guardian (new very topical article from today), that some people's dream is to set up their own successful business. Or to raise a happy family. And that's fine. Telling someone that they need to want to be at Oxford, which you've not said but I've witnessed many other people saying, is... bizarre.