Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Northumbria definitely interviews the majority of its applicants. They have several interwiew days, which you are invited to, where you have a tour, mock lecture and then after a free lunch you have a very short 'interview' (nothing more than a chat, but it is one-to-one).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryan342)
    Northumbria definitely interviews the majority of its applicants. They have several interwiew days, which you are invited to, where you have a tour, mock lecture and then after a free lunch you have a very short 'interview' (nothing more than a chat, but it is one-to-one).
    Haha... I declined their interview and they still gave me an offer, no way I was travelling 300 miles there and 300 miles back for a free lunch!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Haha... I declined their interview and they still gave me an offer, no way I was travelling 300 miles there and 300 miles back for a free lunch!
    mmm, free lunch. :eating:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Of course, in an ideal world, every Uni would interview - but this is NOT possible or practical.
    Why isn't it possible for other universities to interview, bearing in mind you believe they have the resources?

    (Original post by Lauren18)
    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.
    The reason non-Oxbridge universities give out more offers than places is solely because only a proportion will accept.

    They still have to distinguish between candidatesunless they just give a set amount of offers to the first lot of candidates with suitable results/predicted results and they claim not to do that. You can't say that Oxford and Cambridge want the best candidates and all others will be happy with whoever is suitable.

    (Original post by Lauren18)
    (Oxbridge, on the other hand, regard only the 'best of the best' as suitable for their degrees).
    I disagree with this as they probably only regard the top 20% of there students as being the 'best of the best' however even if we accept that Oxbridge want only the 'first' best students it follows that the next batch are going to want the 'second' best and so on. How do these universities distinguish between the 'second' best and 'third' best when all the applicants have outstanding actual and predicted results?

    (Original post by Lauren18)
    I never said unis make offers to people that they do not want!
    From ealier post, see below.
    (Original post by Lauren18)
    They give offers to ONLY the people who they want at the Uni; whereas most other Unis don't interview because they give out far more offers.
    If, by 'want', you meant Oxbridge offers = Oxbridge places and Other offers, far exceed places then fair enough. However this doesn't support the argument that there is less need for interviewing in non-Oxbridge universities unless you are saying the volume of interviews would be much greater at non-Oxbridge universities but you have already stated that these universities have the resources, it just isn't a 'priority' for them.


    (Original post by Lauren18)
    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.
    There is a presumption here that Oxford and Cambridge are only prepared to take those they believe are the best but other universities are prepared to take a risk by making offers to those they don't think are good enough. Why would they do this? These universities still have far more applicants than they need to make the necessary offers in order to get their places filled. To take your example (perhaps not a good one). Sheffield offer 1000 people places but probably have far more applicants, all of which have similar actual and predicted grades. How do they decide between who will be made an offer and who wont and how could they not benefit from interviewing as Oxford and Cambridge do?


    (Original post by Lauren18)
    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.
    None of the arguments you have put forward show that Oxford and Cambridge need to use interviews more than other top universities. They are all presented with exactly the same problem of distinguishing between apparently identical applicants on paper. This is the crux of the debate. Whether you are Oxbridge trying to sort out 'first best' from 'second best' or whether you are another university trying to sort 'second best' from 'third best', on paper they all look the same.

    The question remains then, why do Oxford and Cambridge still interview so many applicants when others don't? I reiterate that a prime consideration is that these universities need to be seen to be acting fairly; far more so than other universities.


    (Original post by Lauren18)
    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.
    The question still remains if, as cited ,it is completely subjective, why don't the academic staff of other universities interview in order to satisfy their subjective view of who is suitable for their particular institution. Why do they rely on the more objective criteria of a paper application?

    To say that decisions are made without any political motive is superficial ( i thought this would be a more pleasant expression than 'naive' but hopefully you see my point. Neither are words that people are likely to take kindly to). The political motive for Oxbridge interviews is to convince everybody that their criteria for selection are based purely on academic potential and do not favour any particular kind of education. There is nothing wrong in doing this. In fact it is commendable that they go to so much trouble. It also doesn't mean that interviewing isn't an effective means of achieving this, it is just there is more pressure on Oxford and Cambridge to interview the vast majority of applicants than there is on other universities.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Zeek, I can't even be bothered to reply to that. I'm not trying to argue with you over whether certain Unis should interview, why they DO interview, or why they don't... I don't give a f*ck to be honest.

    All you've done in the above post is basically repeat my previous arguments but twist them slightly - there's no point in going if there isn't a proper debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craigy_Boy)
    As others here have pointed out your advice is utter falsehood. It really annoys me when people post s h i t like this because it defeats the whole purpose of this board - the free exchange of clear, useful and accurate advice.

    For god's sake, a simple bit of internet research would have revealed the following about the universities which you (in many cases wrongly) claim interview law students:

    UCL : "We interview all mature applicants, most law with European legal system candidates and all candidates identified as requiring particular consideration to whom we are contemplating making an offer." http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-stu...at/index.shtml

    King's: "All applications are considered without interview with the exception of applications from mature students (those who are 25 years of age or over at the date at which they propose to begin their course at King’s)." http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ugp06/school.php?getid=6

    Warwick: "Do you interview? No. We have too many applications to do it properly. We normally only interview mature applicants." http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/la...faq/#interview

    LSE: "We do not normally interview applicants. Usually, interviews before decision are for mature students or those with unusual qualifications, or where the School needs more information to help in making a decision. Interviews may be more widely used for some degrees with smaller numbers of applicants." http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/under...howToApply.htm

    Manchester: "In view of the large number of applications for the course we interview only a small proportion of candidates." http://www.law.manchester.ac.uk/unde...ssions/llb.htm

    Bath: doesn't have a law school you cretin.

    Birmingham: "We occasionally interview before making an offer for Law with French and Law with German. For the main LLB programme and Law with Business Studies we interview only a minority of applicants". http://www.undergraduate.bham.ac.uk/.../law-intro.htm


    So unless you fall into a special category (i.e. have special educational needs, have unusual qualifications, are a mature student, or are applying for a law with foreign law degree), it is unlikely you will be interviewed for law anywhere other than Oxford or Cambridge.
    interviews have been scrapped at brum.theyve finally realised the amount of subjective bias that comes into interviews- the interviewers pick people most in tune with their own beliefs or personalities, hobbies etc.well, this is what i was told when i went to brums law open day.the lnat has been introduced to stamp out this bias- we dnt need interviews anymore.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lauren18)

    And yawn, you are extremely unlikely to be interviewed by four of your six choices unless you are a mature student (over 25). You can only apply to Oxford OR Cambridge; and there are not three other universities who routinely interview candidates for Law.
    Duh! My mistake - I have looked at the thread title and realised it related only to Law.

    I would like to take the opportunity to confirm that other subjects might require the interviews as I stated however.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Haha... I declined their interview and they still gave me an offer, no way I was travelling 300 miles there and 300 miles back for a free lunch!
    Would you have travelled 600 miles round trip if an interview was mandatory?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I would just point out that I wasnt interviewed for Law at UCL, but I know a lot of candidates [and more importantly, stronger candidates] who were. Thus, the process is quite mystified. Of the most competitive unis, only Cambridge and Oxford interview every HEU they are actively considering.

    Outside of Law, you will find that aside from Medicine, Dentistry and Vet Med, Primary Education and more practical courses (and even with exceptions inside these courses) there are very few courses where universities have rigid interview policies; Warwick despite its international prestige does not interview all English candidates, and so on. Newcastle doesn't even interview all of its medical students.

    Personally, I think interviews are over-rated at 18- especially for Law. Obviously some people will think this is just because I didn't get into Cambridge, but I have always had deep seated concerns about the entire process (in the context of Law). Firstly, legal knowledge is clearly an asset and there is no escaping this. Beyond this, it seems incredibly daft to focus a conversation on something where knowledge is obviously going to be superficial. I would much rather have had something similar to that used by Magdalen College; where one interview is based around an A Level subject. This would enable the student to provide evidence of learning acquired from at least 15 months studying a subject.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren18)
    Zeek, I can't even be bothered to reply to that. I'm not trying to argue with you over whether certain Unis should interview, why they DO interview, or why they don't... I don't give a f*ck to be honest.

    All you've done in the above post is basically repeat my previous arguments but twist them slightly - there's no point in going if there isn't a proper debate.
    I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to your assertions.

    As for not wanting to argue, it was you who responded to my original post apparently correcting it and you have continued to argue that my assertion is incorrect.

    Others have put forward other possibilities such as availability of resources and wanting to distinguish themselves however you haven't put forward an argument to support your assertion other than 'they want the best of the best students' which doesn't really tell us anything.

    I'm sorry you feel this way but it isn't for one party to define the parameters of a debate.

    Best wishes
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Would you have travelled 600 miles round trip if an interview was mandatory?
    Probably.. because at that point I don't think I'd had any offers! x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    UCL definitely interview some candidates for straight law, and (I think) most candidates for the 4-year law & french/german/etc courses.
    Maybe most for the 4 year Law at UCL but not all - I was expecting an interview for that but they offered me without it.

    The Law + Lang one I applied for (Notts law and German) didn't interview me either and I did think they might want to test my German ability there but apparently not!

    Apart from Cam, my other choices all offered without interview. I suppose sheer numbers and time/staff/budget limits means it would be impractical to see everyone.

    (Original post by tomcoolinguk)
    I would just point out that I wasnt interviewed for Law at UCL, but I know a lot of candidates [and more importantly, stronger candidates] who were. Thus, the process is quite mystified. Of the most competitive unis, only Cambridge and Oxford interview every HEU they are actively considering.

    Outside of Law, you will find that aside from Medicine, Dentistry and Vet Med, Primary Education and more practical courses (and even with exceptions inside these courses) there are very few courses where universities have rigid interview policies; Warwick despite its international prestige does not interview all English candidates, and so on. Newcastle doesn't even interview all of its medical students.

    Personally, I think interviews are over-rated at 18- especially for Law. Obviously some people will think this is just because I didn't get into Cambridge, but I have always had deep seated concerns about the entire process (in the context of Law). Firstly, legal knowledge is clearly an asset and there is no escaping this. Beyond this, it seems incredibly daft to focus a conversation on something where knowledge is obviously going to be superficial. I would much rather have had something similar to that used by Magdalen College; where one interview is based around an A Level subject. This would enable the student to provide evidence of learning acquired from at least 15 months studying a subject.
    I'm not sure about legal knowledge 'clearly' being an asset, I'd read a little, enough to pick up on the general way of thinking in Law and a few ideas and I think that was plenty. It's not difficult/time consuming to read through a guide or two to Law, and quite frankly if a candidate hasn't bothered to have a look at the subject they are applying for I'd question their seriousness/commitment to Law. However, I got the distinct impression in my interviews that it was certainly not knowledge that they cared about, but how i performed in a supervision/tutorial like environment - ie how I thought my way through problems.

    I would definitely disagree with "it seems incredibly daft to focus a conversation on something where knowledge is obviously going to be superficial" - all the questions were about 'what do you think should happen?' and not would. The problems tended to be one where you were required to think about eg where the blame should lie, how much blame etc, you needed no legal knowledge since it was possible to work out answers from first principles as it were (and I'm not sure that there was always a right answer anyway!). To me it seemed a pretty good way of assessing someone's reasoning and how well they could learn from a tutor.

    If they questioned us on an A level subject they would either have to learn enough about those subjects to do it properly or get in tutors from other subjects surely? And anyway, you don't need interviews to determine knowledge and an ability to learn facts - exam results do that! Interviews IMO are a good way of judging how well a candidate can perfom in a university learning environment, which is different to sixth form (I expect!), and therefore can't be accurately gauged from exam results.

    Btw - HEU??

    Emily x
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emily87)
    Maybe most for the 4 year Law at UCL but not all - I was expecting an interview for that but they offered me without it.

    The Law + Lang one I applied for (Notts law and German) didn't interview me either and I did think they might want to test my German ability there but apparently not!

    Apart from Cam, my other choices all offered without interview. I suppose sheer numbers and time/staff/budget limits means it would be impractical to see everyone.
    I think the obvious geniuses are spared an interview
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emily87)
    I would definitely disagree with "it seems incredibly daft to focus a conversation on something where knowledge is obviously going to be superficial" - all the questions were about 'what do you think should happen?' and not would. The problems tended to be one where you were required to think about eg where the blame should lie, how much blame etc, you needed no legal knowledge since it was possible to work out answers from first principles as it were (and I'm not sure that there was always a right answer anyway!). To me it seemed a pretty good way of assessing someone's reasoning and how well they could learn from a tutor.
    Emily x
    Yeah I'll agree with that, though I was a bit taken aback when in my first interview, the Dr. held up a pencil and asked me if it was a banana :p: I considered saying something straight out of the Matrix: "It is a banana if you want it to be" but then I thought to myself that was a load of crap and just said "No, it's a pen" He chuckled

    Just thought I'd share.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 20, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

2,544

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 22 Aug '18
  2. University of Buckingham
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Thu, 23 Aug '18
  3. University of Glasgow
    All Subjects Undergraduate
    Tue, 28 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

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.