Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    So I was right!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks everyone. And yes internet research would have given me the answers....but......*runs out of thread*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Yes - hence why I said Oxbridge want the 'best' canidates.
    But why wouldn't other highly regarded universities want the 'best' candidates. Surely every university would benefit from Oxford and Cambridge's approach to selection. You appear to be intimating that Oxford and Cambridge select the 'best' candidates so there is either, no point the other universities interviewing candidates as all the 'best' candidates have gone or, when it comes to those students who aren't accepted into Oxford or Cambridge, it is possible to differentiate between the more able and less able candidates on the basis of a paper application.

    The point I am making is all the massively over-subscribed Universities would benefit from an interview process if it is a useful means of distinguishing candidates.

    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Obviously... i.e. Sheffield example of 4 times amount of offers than places.
    So it doesn't follow from the rationale for making offers that Universites are making offers to people they don't 'want'. They are making offers to more people than they have places for because they realise these people may not want them. Notwithstanding the fact that these other Universities are making more offers than they have places they are still rejecting many more. They are still having to make a choice between very similar candidates on paper. In fact, those who have applied to Oxford and Cambridge have most likely also applied to places like UCL, LSE Kings etc (no particular order and list is not exhaustive). So why wouldn't these Universities benefit from an interview as part of their selection process?



    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Again this is obvious... I was making the point that Oxbridge want the 'best of the best' (which is easier to determine at interview than by looking at a UCAS form) .
    Well 'best of the best' is a subjective statement to some extent although the extent to which it is objective an interview wont help much. Interviews do, however, reveal who would be the most suitable for their methods of teaching. That isn't necessarily the same as 'the best'.


    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Oxford interviewed a lesser proportion of candidates for Law than ever before (in recent years) in 2004. As I said before, the LNAT is mitigating the need for interviews - and as such I don't think Oxford are likely to interview more people. This idea you have about the need to seem aesthetically fair is not something which most people would consider particularly important - Oxbridge interview most applicants because THEY THEMSELVES consider this fair, given the monotonous similarity in paper applications.
    As above as far as the monotonous similarity of applications.

    Not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done and there is far greater pressure on Oxford and Cambridge to prove (especially to Government) that their selection process is fair. There is no doubt in my mind that this pressure influences their decision to interview so many candidates especially in the light of what I have been told by someone involved in the selection process.
    It is a superficial understanding of an inherenty politicised process to say that it is all to do with selecting the 'best of the best'. This, in my opinion, is why Oxford and Cambridge continue to interview so many candidates whereas other universities don't. I am not denegrating the selection process by making these comments and I certainly don't intend to imply that those selected haven't made a fantastic achievement by doing so.



    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Yes, I do undertand this! The poster doesn't want to know *why* some unis interview - he just asked *which* unis interview - which is all I commented on.
    However, in your response to my reply you commented on why universities interview which I believe justified a response.

    And I read in one of your earlier posts that you liked a good debate so I thought you would welcome my comments.

    Regards

    z
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zeek)
    However, in your response to my reply you commented on why universities interview which I believe justified a response.

    And I read in one of your earlier posts that you liked a good debate so I thought you would welcome my comments.

    Regards

    z
    Oh I do welcome anyone's comments; I was just adding my own. Anyway, at least Sami C has an answer! x
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sami C)
    Thanks everyone. And yes internet research would have given me the answers....but......*runs out of thread*
    Hey - TSR is internet research

    It's like asking your mum how to spell a word, instead of going to the dictionary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onearmedbandit)
    Hey - TSR is internet research

    It's like asking your mum how to spell a word, instead of going to the dictionary.
    Yeah but my mum always told me to 'look in the dictionary' so I gave up in the end.

    No harm in asking for advice on here though as people are more than willing to give it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zeek)
    But why wouldn't other highly regarded universities want the 'best' candidates. Surely every university would benefit from Oxford and Cambridge's approach to selection. You appear to be intimating that Oxford and Cambridge select the 'best' candidates so there is either, no point the other universities interviewing candidates as all the 'best' candidates have gone or, when it comes to those students who aren't accepted into Oxford or Cambridge, it is possible to differentiate between the more able and less able candidates on the basis of a paper application.
    Of course other unis will want the best candidates. That ws nothing to do with my argument. I was saying that Oxbridge strive to pick out the very best applicants, and they find that interviewing is the best means of doing this.

    I did not and will not ever insinuate that there is 'no point on other univerisites interviewing candidates' or 'all the 'best' candidates have gone'! Of course, in an ideal world, every Uni would interview - but this is NOT possible or practical. My point was that other top unis aside from Oxbridge find it MORE difficult to distinguish between candidate X with AAAA and candidate Y with AAAA; and hence give out MORE offers - partly because the candidates are inherently less likely to accept their offer than those in receipt of Oxbridge offers; and partly because the university itself regards all candidates of that ability as suitable for their degree. (Oxbridge, on the other hand, regard only the 'best of the best' as suitable for their degrees).


    (Original post by zeek)
    So it doesn't follow from the rationale for making offers that Universites are making offers to people they don't 'want'. They are making offers to more people than they have places for because they realise these people may not want them.
    I never said unis make offers to people that they do not want! Simply; universities generally make offers to far more people than they can afford to take, because they can predict the proportion of acceptances given a range of different factors.

    What is certain however, is that Oxbridge will NEVER make an offer to a candidate who is slightly below par; whereas other universities may do so. Therefore, the result is one whereby Oxbridge could be seen to have a narrower approach; with applicants to other universities perhaps receiving offers because such unis adopt a 'wider' approach.


    (Original post by zeek)
    Notwithstanding the fact that these other Universities are making more offers than they have places they are still rejecting many more. They are still having to make a choice between very similar candidates on paper. In fact, those who have applied to Oxford and Cambridge have most likely also applied to places like UCL, LSE Kings etc (no particular order and list is not exhaustive). So why wouldn't these Universities benefit from an interview as part of their selection process?
    Of course top unis reject people! Do you think I'm stupid?! It was ME who said that it is difficult to determine between candidates of similar ability on paper - that was my whole argument about why interviews are employed by some universities (as against your argument that it is a menthod of social and political fairness).

    I never, ever stated or suggested that other unis would not benefit from an interview process. Of course, they would benefit in terms of having more 'evidence' of a candidate's abilities; and therefore one would assume could make fairer decisions regarding the results of applications. This is completely irrelevant, however, to the debate here - we're not going to argue the pros and cons of interviews for every Uni - I would have thought this would be as obvious to you as it is to me.


    (Original post by zeek)
    Well 'best of the best' is a subjective statement to some extent although the extent to which it is objective an interview wont help much. Interviews do, however, reveal who would be the most suitable for their methods of teaching. That isn't necessarily the same as 'the best'.
    The reason I have stated 'best' in quotation marks throughout my posts is because I realise the subjectivity of this measure. I do not need someone to tell me that 'suitable' isn't necessarily the same as being the 'best' - and I never made an argument to the contrary, in any event.


    (Original post by zeek)
    It is a superficial understanding of an inherenty politicised process to say that it is all to do with selecting the 'best of the best'. This, in my opinion, is why Oxford and Cambridge continue to interview so many candidates whereas other universities don't. I am not denegrating the selection process by making these comments and I certainly don't intend to imply that those selected haven't made a fantastic achievement by doing so.
    It is not superficial in any way to view the Oxbridge process as one of picking the 'best of the best'. As you have stated previously, the term 'best' is one of complete subjectivity; in which case it simply cannot be superficial, since it is synonymous with whatever criteria Oxbridge dons use in selecting applicants.

    Regards!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sami C)
    And yes internet research would have given me the answers....but......*runs out of thread*
    (Original post by Onearmedbandit)
    Hey - TSR is internet research

    It's like asking your mum how to spell a word, instead of going to the dictionary.
    Oh yeah I wasn't having a go at the original poster when I made that dig about internet research. Rather, it was aimed at that idiot underdog who posted a load of nonsense, which he could have avoided doing if he had checked his facts before hand by simply taking a look at the admissions pages for those colleges he named.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lottelo)
    And its equally impressive that he managed to include a university (Bath) that doesn't even teach law!

    Oh, and to clear one thing up, it seems UCL interview for law with a language courses only.
    I predicted that I would return to this thread some hours later, to find Underdog's post completely dismantled by the law forumites.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The reason why oxbridge can interview so many applicants (as in nearly ALL the suitable ones) and others cant ie. KCL, LSE even UCL is because oxbridge runs on a collegiate system. Each college only has to interview a handful of ppl, and there are a lot of colleges (the work load is spread between them). Places like KCL, LSE and UCL only have one set team with a small handful of ppl to do ALL the interviewing and so it would be down right impossible to match oxbridge.

    Im on a gap year, but im pretty sure UCL dont "interview nearly all applicants" (as they say they do) since for two years running ive had an offer from them to do law without one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wings_cp)
    Each college only has to interview a handful of ppl, and there are a lot of colleges (the work load is spread between them). Places like KCL, LSE and UCL only have one set team with a small handful of ppl to do ALL the interviewing and so it would be down right impossible to match oxbridge.
    Oxbridge colleges have to interview on average 400-500 applicants each year - it's hardly 'a handful of people'!

    Places like KCL *could* interview - they have around 50 academic staff in the Law Dept for example; but it isn't as much of a priority as it is at Oxbridge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Oxbridge colleges have to interview on average 400-500 applicants each year - it's hardly 'a handful of people'!

    Places like KCL *could* interview - they have around 50 academic staff in the Law Dept for example; but it isn't as much of a priority as it is at Oxbridge.
    Firstly, 400-500 isnt a lot. Think about it. Theres around 20 colleges(or maybe just under) at Oxford or Cambridge, and half the applicants are automatically rejected because theyre delusional, which means each college gets a mean average of about 10- 14 applicants that have to be interviewed (which, i believe, was the exact number at pembroke last yr who were interviewed).

    Less ppl apply to oxbridge, more at LSE, UCl , KCL. Since uni's such as LSE, KCL and UCL can act as as the top of one's choices if they dont think theyre Oxbridge material, or as a backup because they HAVE applied to Oxbridge.

    fact. UCL received 2500 applicants for 130 places in the llb course.

    BTW the academics at Kings, a highly prestigious university for law, would have FAR FAR better things to do than wade through all those applications. In truth only a handful of ppl decide whether ull be accepted.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wings_cp)
    Firstly, 400-500 isnt a lot. Think about it. Theres around 20 colleges(or maybe just under) at Oxford or Cambridge, and half the applicants are automatically rejected because theyre delusional, which means each college gets a mean average of about 10- 14 applicants that have to be interviewed (which, i believe, was the exact number at pembroke last yr who were interviewed).

    Less ppl apply to oxbridge, more at LSE, UCl , KCL. Since uni's such as LSE, KCL and UCL can act as as the top of one's choices if they dont think theyre Oxbridge material, or as a backup because they HAVE applied to Oxbridge.

    fact. UCL received 2500 applicants for 130 places in the llb course.

    BTW the academics at Kings, a highly prestigious university for law, would have FAR FAR better things to do than wade through all those applications. In truth only a handful of ppl decide whether ull be accepted.
    Certainly at St. Hugh's there were well over 100 interviewees...


    Oxbridge do interviews for a few reasons:
    1. It separates them from other uni's, helping them to maintain a gap between the chasing pack - UCL, Durham, LSE etc
    2. They can afford it.
    3. Their unique tutorial systems make it vital that they have students who the lecturers will enjoy teaching. Interviews will be a good indicator of this.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wings_cp)
    The reason why oxbridge can interview so many applicants (as in nearly ALL the suitable ones) and others cant ie. KCL, LSE even UCL is because oxbridge runs on a collegiate system. Each college only has to interview a handful of ppl, and there are a lot of colleges (the work load is spread between them). Places like KCL, LSE and UCL only have one set team with a small handful of ppl to do ALL the interviewing and so it would be down right impossible to match oxbridge.

    Im on a gap year, but im pretty sure UCL dont "interview nearly all applicants" (as they say they do) since for two years running ive had an offer from them to do law without one.
    No you're right, they won't usually interview a non-mature candidate applying for straight law. But I think they interviewed a lot more before the cheaper, more efficient (although more flawed) LNAT came along.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    On average colleges dont get over 100 though, and it depends whether its at Cambridge or Oxford. At Cam you only get one college whereas at Oxf u get ur choice plus another which is allocated to you (hence double the work load of each college).

    I guess St Hughes is a popular college, I know Downing and Jesus at Cam had quite a lot too. (whereas i doubt Churchill had any, its horrible!) lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wings_cp)
    Firstly, 400-500 isnt a lot. Think about it. Theres around 20 colleges(or maybe just under) at Oxford or Cambridge, and half the applicants are automatically rejected because theyre delusional, which means each college gets a mean average of about 10- 14 applicants that have to be interviewed (which, i believe, was the exact number at pembroke last yr who were interviewed).

    Less ppl apply to oxbridge, more at LSE, UCl , KCL. Since uni's such as LSE, KCL and UCL can act as as the top of one's choices if they dont think theyre Oxbridge material, or as a backup because they HAVE applied to Oxbridge.

    fact. UCL received 2500 applicants for 130 places in the llb course.

    BTW the academics at Kings, a highly prestigious university for law, would have FAR FAR better things to do than wade through all those applications. In truth only a handful of ppl decide whether ull be accepted.
    Lol... I meant 400-500 people PER OXBRIDGE COLLEGE (for all subjects). I know the Cambridge college I applied to interviewed almost 600 people last year (60 something just for Law - 7 offers given)).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wings_cp)
    On average colleges dont get over 100 though, and it depends whether its at Cambridge or Oxford. At Cam you only get one college whereas at Oxf u get ur choice plus another which is allocated to you (hence double the work load of each college).

    I guess St Hughes is a popular college, I know Downing and Jesus at Cam had quite a lot too. (whereas i doubt Churchill had any, its horrible!) lol
    I don't think so. I made an open application and got put there, so if anything it must be one of the least popular colleges! But it's one of the largest, granted.

    Even so, on my visit to Corpus Christi I definitely met at least 20 interviewees... and that was only for a few subjects!

    *looks up* Ah, I see Lauren has made the point for me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    WOW, in 2003 when i was interviewed at Pembroke, i was told by the interviewer that they had around 15 to interview that yr (for just law, i have ONLY been talking about law).

    Lauren, u should make ur post clearer that u meant ALL colleges together interview 400-500 ppl, and that u didnt just mean for law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wings_cp)
    Lauren, u should make ur post clearer that u meant ALL colleges together interview 400-500 ppl, and that u didnt just mean for law.
    Oh my apologies Sir, I just thought it would be obvious what I meant, since it could not apply to just Law accross the colleges (because Oxbridge each receive about 2000 applications).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onearmedbandit)
    *looks up* Ah, I see Lauren has made the point for me.
    Sorry Mike! I've revised for about 80 hours this week; so my reactions are very quick at the mo. Hope you're OK - not on MSN much cos of exams; but I know it's your birthday and toenail op soon - hope both go well! x
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,012

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. Keele University
    General Open Day Undergraduate
    Sun, 19 Aug '18
  2. University of Melbourne
    Open Day Undergraduate
    Sun, 19 Aug '18
  3. Sheffield Hallam University
    City Campus Undergraduate
    Tue, 21 Aug '18
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.