The unfairness of Oxbridge Admissions Consultancies

........Dijon?

In summary your argument would appear to be that they should give offers to candidates who consider they have potential rather than base it either on the paper record or on the interview. I can see that working well.

Gosh, having read through this thread, I feel I should probs rush to the defence of myself and my colleagues who work for one of these mock interview service providers

(To provide a bit of context: I went to a bog-standard, somewhat dodgy comprehensive school which was under Oxford's access scheme, which was at that time run by Oxford students, providing personal statement help and interview preparation sessions for free! My school signed us Oxbridge hopefuls all up to one of the more extortionate Oxbridge interviewing service providers and we were all asked to pay some of the amount, whilst the school would pay the rest. I missed the deadline for replying and so wasn't allowed to go. I was the only person who didn't go for the paying services and conversely, the only one who went to the free Oxford Uni access stuff. I was the only person to get into Oxbridge from my school in a four-year period. Make of that what you will I missed my grades for Oxford but got in anyway, and spent my three years doing a lot of different access initiatives to give other people the same chance of help that I had been provided with when I was applying.)

OK, so now that I've explained the context and given I went to a bog-standard comp and given I am a militant comp-educated leftie with a huge chip on my shoulder about the schooling I had, what on EARTH am I doing working for one of these firms?!?!

1) The company I work for is a social philanthropic one. What does that mean in practice? It means the private school "clients" (be it an entire private school's Year 13 cohort, or someone from a private school applying for interview practice as an individual, apart from their school cohort) pay an exortionate amount for interview prep/practice, enabling state school students to get FREE interview prep/practice. I do not get any "blood money" or "fee": my "earnings" from these interviews go to a charity of my choice Last year I raised just over £2000 for a Saturday school centre that teaches music to refugee children

Now, being a militant comp-educated leftie, do I really care if the private school applicants are paying extortionate amounts for my services? Sounds harsh but no I do not. If you/your parents/your school are stupid enough to think that interview prep/practice with me makes a SIGNIFICANT difference to your Oxbridge chances (I like to think I make a small difference at the very least ), that is not really my problem and there is not much I can do about that However, if your stupidity permits someone from a state school to get some interview prep/practice with me (bearing in mind that said state school may not have any teachers from the Oxbridge system, or have much experience in Oxbridge interviews), will I take your money and run away with it? Of course

I love the Robin Hood-nature of my company Each year, more and more state school students are getting free interview prep/practice and last year a huge milestone was achieved, in that two people attended the extortionate summer school for free


2) All the above said about private schools aside for a moment: it's worth noting that private schools can be just as bad as state schools in preparing their candidates for Oxbridge interviews, but in a very different way. Every year I come across people who definitely have Oxbridge potential but whose school have run them down into the ground in various ways (usually by repeatedly insisting that said person is not good enough for Oxbridge. To said person's face ). It is very sad to see people's lack of confito hear people say things like "my school says I'm not good enough/that I'll never get in". I feel it's worth mentioning this because some of the more militant state-schooled among us (me included) often grow up thinking that private school students have it easy/in the bag/have all the support in the world.

If I can help boost someone's overall self-esteem with one half hour interview and 20 mins feedback, I think that's not necessarily a bad thing.



3) Completely separate from confidence issues, the worst candidate I have seen (and I've been with my company a long time. Longer than it's manager, mwahaha) was from a very good, monied West London private school. I was completely aghast at how bad she was There is no chance in hell that she would ever get a place at Oxbridge (I, sadly, wasn't allowed to tell her that). So does giving a private school student REALLY give them a leg up? I would argue no. If someone is not going to get in anyway, no amount of interview prep from me makes a real difference. Equally if someone is really good, my giving them a half hour interview is not gonna change that at all either or increase their chances any further.


4) Finally, my personal reason for joining this company and working for it for five years thus far (and I have NO intention of stopping any time soon)? It's no secret I had a bad time at Oxford If I can use my three years there for some kinda greater good, then that makes me feel my hellish time there wasn't in vain


TL/DR: Us people who work for these companies aren't complete monsters, and interview prep has less impact on getting in that it may seem

Equally, no tutor would want someone with a huge chip on their shoulder, hence why I usually try to hide mine

........Dijon?

English Old boy. English

(And thanks for the kind comments. Very reassuring.)

Vincrows is an old girl...

Posted from TSR Mobile

English Old boy. English

(And thanks for the kind comments. Very reassuring.)

Eh......did I hear you said 'old'?

Vincrows is an old girl...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Not sure if you're genuinely misinterpreting what I meant by 'nothing to do with' or just picking on it for the sake of argument, but if it's the former case, this is what I meant.
Those companies are not associated with or affiliate of Oxbridge in any business, financial or legal terms as an organisation. That's what I meant.
Hope this made my point clear.

Edit: for additional info on what Cambridge regard this companies, please read the excerpt for from their website @Colman quoted in the post above .

I commend what you're doing and do not/did not wish to attack those who work at similar companies - after all I actually think that many like you are in it for the very purpose of helping disadvantaged pupils and that in itself is a laudable thing to praise. However obviously there is the downside in that not all of these companies are philanthropic and as such one is more likely to find someone who has paid for this help than they are to find someone who has access to help for free. And while this interview preparation isn't in itself particularly helpful, I genuinely think that local-income background students benefit more than high-income background students in that this is one of the only opportunities they may have to have some kind of practice with someone knowledgeable about their subject.

Just like we cannot prevent the private sector from provide and charging for a service (i,e, in the case of private schools), I will make no attempt to suggest that private interview training consultancies such be shut down. However in so far as Oxbridge admissions tutors attempt to assess genuine academic potential, it is clear that such organisation can cloud their judgement to a great extent.

surely after you have been at Oxford it is now double fried and dusted with sea salt and served (in a regrettably small portion) in one of those silly pots?

You can do that analysis if you want - but even if that was the case it would merely confirm a higher correlation for TSR participants vs non-participants. Which would re-inforce the point that TSR helps applicants more than paying outfits like Oxbridge Admissions.

I commend what you're doing and do not/did not wish to attack those who work at similar companies - after all I actually think that many like you are in it for the very purpose of helping disadvantaged pupils and that in itself is a laudable thing to praise. However obviously there is the downside in that not all of these companies are philanthropic and as such one is more likely to find someone who has paid for this help than they are to find someone who has access to help for free. And while this interview preparation isn't in itself particularly helpful, I genuinely think that local-income background students benefit more than high-income background students in that this is one of the only opportunities they may have to have some kind of practice with someone knowledgeable about their subject.

Just like we cannot prevent the private sector from provide and charging for a service (i,e, in the case of private schools), I will make no attempt to suggest that private interview training consultancies such be shut down. However in so far as Oxbridge admissions tutors attempt to assess genuine academic potential, it is clear that such organisation can cloud their judgement to a great extent.

yeah, thats what I said people on TSR forum cared enough to create an account for the admission process or already had an account. I never said Oxbridge admissions are useful at all.

Sadly not. I spent the whole time trying to prove that comp students could be just as able as anyone else (one tute partner was from a grammar school, the other being from a private school) but only got a 2.2, so I feel I let the comp side down. Easier to maintain chip on shoulder and pin it on my inferior secondary education, than blame myself for my own failings

...What did your grammar- and privately-schooled tute partners get?

2.1s. Though they were both "meant" to get Firsts. We all slid down a grade from what was Meant To Happen. Apparently that was all my fault

I basically conceded that it is fair that they rejected me and that I would not be suited to their course. I am not advocating any change to their admissions process and I never said they should have given me an offer, just that I doubt that their process estimated my abilities correctly (if maths operated like all the other subjects,with fewer offers, I wouldn't think this, considering that objectively speaking I would have found making their STEP offer very challenging and so a rejection on the basis of me having dubious potential would be in line with the actuality). Given the information that they had, rejection makes sense; all I'm saying is that it isn't a perfect system for assessing how well someone is going to do at A Level (and STEP for that matter). Of course there is no such perfect system so perhaps this comment is redundant but it's all I was saying.

Wait, so you got accepted to Cambridge for Math on the basis of a step and then got rejected because you didn't meet your offer? Or did they not give you an offer?

If they didn't give you an offer, it may not be because of your potential, there are other reasons such as your teach rec/ ps/ grades.