Would you prefer if all university admissions had interviews?

No I wouldn't. A university degree should be a purely academic qualification in the subject, as that is what it says it is on your certificate. I'm already unhappy with the irrelevance of parts of my course to the degree we will receive. People who like people and are sociable already have an advantage in the job market. I believe university should be purely academic and degrees should be purely academic qualifications. It's upsetting for less sociable people who are potentially very good academically to **** up an interview or communication based aspect of their course, and then have this tarnish their academic record, as then they're viewed as "stupider academically" as well as being "less socially skilled" than their peers.

If you want to show people you're academic but don't have good grades, I suggest writing a really good personal statement, doing lots of competitions in your subject e.g. essay contests. An interview just introduces bias.

Very few universities currently have an interview as a main aspect of the admissions process. I was just considering the fact that quite a few top universities completely disregard personal statements, and for those who are beyond passionate in regard to their chosen subject but do not hold the 10A* etc qualification standard, they are at an immediate disadvantage.
I'm not talking just in regard the Oxford caliber - I'm talking also about UCL / Kings / Bristol / Warwick / Bath / Edinburgh and more. You could have been through unfortunate circumstances during the exam periods / bloomed late / been bored / or simply not been able to learn the exact method to score marks - which are over precise in many papers and exam boards.
Perhaps it's time for a Rehaul? I mean when do you ever apply for a job and do not sit an interview? As univeristy has become more expensive I believe my point becomes ever more valid. People are paying A LOT of money to go to univeristy and have put a lot of effort and time going through important, sometimes irrelevant, but above All complete boredom during the Christmas and April/May months to pass exams.

Whats your opinion on this matter?

A students grades will reflect how academic they are. The interview will demonstrate how much passion the student holds for the subject.

A students grades will reflect how academic they are. The interview will demonstrate how much passion the student holds for the subject.

No I wouldn't. A university degree should be a purely academic qualification in the subject, as that is what it says it is on your certificate. I'm already unhappy with the irrelevance of parts of my course to the degree we will receive. People who like people and are sociable already have an advantage in the job market. I believe university should be purely academic and degrees should be purely academic qualifications. It's upsetting for less sociable people who are potentially very good academically to **** up an interview or communication based aspect of their course, and then have this tarnish their academic record, as then they're viewed as "stupider academically" as well as being "less socially skilled" than their peers.

If you want to show people you're academic but don't have good grades, I suggest writing a really good personal statement, doing lots of competitions in your subject e.g. essay contests. An interview just introduces bias.

Yes. I would think it would reduce drop out rates too.

Yes. I would think it would reduce drop out rates too.

I believe there should be interviews because too often will you be judged on just a few letters and a quick snapshot. The process will be much fairer with interviews.

Although some people are not good with this sort of thing, myself included, I do think that it would make some good practice for the real world.

I see what you're saying.

Here's some thoughts.

Do you need to be passionate about what you're applying for to do it? Obviously you do for courses like med, vet med, dentistry, law, nursing but what about for something like accountancy? Surely nobody finds that an interesting subject (no offence accountants, just an example), but if you're good at it, does that mean you shouldn't be able to get into accountancy?

and should somebody who is naturally gifted and gets better grades but is not really excited about a subject, be considered for less than somebody who gets worse grades but is really enthusiastic about that subject?

do you see how it's not as easy as that?

One person might have passion for a subject but not be able to communicate it. Some people have more charisma than others.

You could show passion without an interview, for example by doing a maths olympiad and getting the relevant books to prepare for it and writing about that in your personal statement.

I think you'd have to look at the exam and how it was graded before judging whether it reflects how academic the student is.

If half of a maths course was graded on presentations and communication skills, and half on a rigorous exam on the academic content of the course, and you had one student who got full marks for presentations and communication skills and then got 40% for the rigorous academic exam, that'd give them 70% and a first. If another student hated presentations and communicating with people, so just missed all the presentations, but then got 100% in the purely academic exam, they'd come out with 50% and a 2:2 overall (I think). So people would think that the student who got the first was better at maths, since their qualification would just say "Mathematics First Class Honours", while the other guy's would say "Mathematics 2:2 Honours" (or something). That's an extreme example, but lots of degrees now aren't purely judged/dependent on your ability in the subject you study.

Why do you think that is? I don't really see that myself.

No, the application process is already stressful and long-winded as it is. I'm sure the university staff would LOVE the extra workload of interviewing several thousand students, though.



In what way?

But because you aren't good at it don't you think that you'd be at an unfair advantage? You not being good at interviews doesn't reduce your suitability for that degree.

There's a time and a place for practice, uni application isn't one of them.

I don't think it is at all.

Isn't it an unfair advantage for those who are charismatic can't use their gift to help them get where they need to be rather than just a few letters?

University is an adult location and that's why I believe this is the time and the place for this sort of thing.

I don't think it is at all.

Isn't it an unfair advantage for those who are charismatic can't use their gift to help them get where they need to be rather than just a few letters?

University is an adult location and that's why I believe this is the time and the place for this sort of thing.

For courses like accountancy the interview would be based around mathematical questions, and the interviewer seeing how the way they think. Some people find things like maths interesting and they would be able to show why.
Depends upon if the admission tutor or interviewer thinks they will be able to cope with the course it will be up to the student to demonstrate this.



Interviewers take into account people are nervous and not the best at communicating. You don't necessarily need to talk in an interview, for example the interview can consist of mathematical questions and the interviewer assessing how you work through them.

I wouldn't say it is an unfair advantage if they can't use their charisma, because it doesn't have a negative impact like it would if you were awful at interviews.

I think university should be kept purely about what it is meant for, an education, to learn, I don't think charisma and social skills should affect your right to a university.