Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cambridge University to introduce written admissions tests Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gregorius)
    Oh I think it does. You'd like to control for the rate effect mainly, but chucking in a course effect and a college effect would be fun. My computer is salivating at the thought...
    To clarify: it didn't make much sense to say there isn't a huge amount of data because as you say, there will be lots of data at the course level over time.

    It obviously does make sense to do an analysis at the course/college level. I was thinking you could use that as a proxy for the rating effect, but that would only really work if there is a single consistent interviewer over the period of the study.

    If this isn't making sense, it's because I'm being particularly bad at making my point today, you're not missing anything profound!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    If this isn't making sense, it's because I'm being particularly bad at making my point today, you're not missing anything profound!
    LOL, PRSOM. Makes perfect sense.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    Again, agreed. I am surprised that CAT was so blunt about the problem, because it identifies a fundamental flaw in the admissions process. Unless AT's are (implicitly) allowing for such bias, how can you select the best students for offer?
    They, and the DoS, do allow for those differences.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    They, and the DoS, do allow for those differences.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If that's the case then differences caused by interviewer bias shouldn't be material, hence the analysis can be applied? Also, for the pool to work effectively, cross-college scores should be consistent. Hence, theoretically, this wouldn't impact any such study?
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    If that's the case then differences caused by interviewer bias shouldn't be material, hence the analysis can be applied? Also, for the pool to work effectively, cross-college scores should be consistent. Hence, theoretically, this wouldn't impact any such study?
    But the stats wouldn't compensate for it would they...? So in one set of cases it might look like 8s are a good indicator, whereas in another set it might be 7s...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    But the stats wouldn't compensate for it would they...? So in one set of cases it might look like 8s are a good indicator, whereas in another set it might be 7s...
    Well how do they AT's compensate if they don't adjust the interview scores?
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    Well how do they AT's compensate if they don't adjust the interview scores?
    I guess by making the offer or rejection as necessary. There's no specific interview score needed. The interview is just one more set of data for them to consider, it doesn't necessarily make or break a given application.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    I guess by making the offer or rejection as necessary. There's no specific interview score needed. The interview is just one more set of data for them to consider, it doesn't necessarily make or break a given application.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm going to stop derailing the thread. I think we're all basically on the same page; it would be interesting to see how interview performance correlates with degree results, but appreciate that might be hard to determine
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamika)
    I'm going to stop derailing the thread. I think we're all basically on the same page; it would be interesting to see how interview performance correlates with degree results, but appreciate that might be hard to determine
    I wouldn't worry about derailing... it's established it's own branch line that would have Beeching turning in his grave

    (yes - agreed )
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    I guess by making the offer or rejection as necessary. There's no specific interview score needed. The interview is just one more set of data for them to consider, it doesn't necessarily make or break a given application.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But if the interview score was the prime reason for (a) rejecting an applicant or (b) accepting an applicant would you say it's reliable despite the absence of scientific evidence?

    (I'm guessing here that there is an absence of scientific evidence).
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pars12)
    But if the interview score was the prime reason for (a) rejecting an applicant or (b) accepting an applicant would you say it's reliable despite the absence of scientific evidence?

    (I'm guessing here that there is an absence of scientific evidence).
    There's rarely a single prime reason, they consider everything.

    Anyway, ask an AT, not me
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    There's rarely a single prime reason, they consider everything.

    Anyway, ask an AT, not me
    You are still doing it. "They consider everything".

    Are they gods who do not have to conform to evidence-based reasoning?

    Also, I don't know what an AT is.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pars12)
    You are still doing it. "They consider everything".

    Are they gods who do not have to conform to evidence-based reasoning?

    Also, I don't know what an AT is.
    Admissions Tutor.

    They use evidence based reasoning hence the use of UMS, GCSE, TSA, etc. And now with the addition of these tests. They don't afaik use interviews to perform that function.

    Also I'm sure this has been linked before but I'll link it again so you can see the evidence based methods they use:
    http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/spec...sion-study.pdf
    (there are other papers too, but that one is a good start).

    And to reiterate, this thread wasn't created about interviews - it is about the tests. If you want to continue to question Cambridge's use of interviews ask them in the Cambridge CAO (Central Admissions Office) thread
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3830287
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vincrows)
    One important point.
    They are NOT doing interview to use it as an indicator for future performance (=Tripos) but BECAUSE it can shed a different light on an applicant in a way other aspects of application (like exam grades, PS/SAQ, reference, etc.) cannot do.

    By meeting applicants face-to-face and probing them by interview, they are trying to find if they have ability to 'think' (rather than just being good at remembering what they were taught and at exam techniques), if they have flexibility of mind to accept and absorb new/different ideas on which they can build their own understandings/ideas, if they can engage and benefit from their unique style of teaching = supervisions.

    http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.a...rviews-involve

    http://www.schools-online.co.uk/linl...interviews.pdf

    AFAIK A-level grades is the only piece of application aspect Cambridge has been saying they have found quite good correlation to future Tripos performance. But just using it will only tell them that they are 'good at exams.'
    Interview score is another piece of jigsaw puzzle, along with other aspects of application, which helps the admission people to build a more complete picture of each candidate's genuine ability to 'think' and to see if they can benefit from studying at Cambridge.

    If you Google, there're lots of articles with quotations by Oxbridge dons on their interview and what they're trying to find out from it....and you can understand it is NOT a correlation to future Tripos performance they're trying to deduct from interview performance. In a very simple term, they are trying to see how your brain works.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...interview.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...explained.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...interview.html


    I google quite a lot.

    I have seen lots of statements saying how necessary and useful interviews are but nobody appears to have evidence.

    To my way of thinking the necessary requirement of the selection process is the final degree outcome. If it is not we are right back into the region of grade 8 flute with distinction [passim].

    I accept that they cannot track applicants who were rejected but they do have data on applicants who were academically weaker but performed strongly at interview.

    If this data is too complicated to interpret then I suggest that all claims about how essential the interview process is are scientifically unsubstantiated.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pars12)
    Occurring at the same time but not causally related.
    (Original post by jneill)
    I know what coincidental means...
    I was asking what factors you think were coincidental.
    You didn't answer me; which factors do you think are coincidental?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Why does the unavailabity of UMS mean interviews are not fit for purpose?.
    It doesn't and that's not what I said

    If anything they become more important, not less. .
    Yes. Exactly right.

    So what if interviews were unreliable in a significant number of cases? Well we do scientific research to show that they are a good indicator. We document our research and we publish it and everyone has confidence that nepotism and privilege are a thing of the past at Oxbridge.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pars12)
    It doesn't and that's not what I said



    Yes. Exactly right.

    So what if interviews were unreliable in a significant number of cases? Well we do scientific research to show that they are a good indicator. We document our research and we publish it and everyone has confidence that nepotism and privilege are a thing of the past at Oxbridge.
    Tbh I personally would doubt that a lack of evidence for interviews is due to nepotism/privilege. More likely to be that Oxbridge dons overweight their own ability at assessing someone's academic ability, in my opinion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pars12)
    So what if interviews were unreliable in a significant number of cases? Well we do scientific research to show that they are a good indicator. We document our research and we publish it and everyone has confidence that nepotism and privilege are a thing of the past at Oxbridge.
    I agree in principle, but just to add: can you name me a university, college, school, employer or indeed institution of any kind which actually does this? Not that that should ever inhibit innovation but just saying: it would be pretty revolutionary.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I agree in principle, but just to add: can you name me a university, college, school, employer or indeed institution of any kind which actually does this? Not that that should ever inhibit innovation but just saying: it would be pretty revolutionary.
    I have no idea, but I'd have thought it would be common sense for institutions to research whether the selection methods they employ (often at great expense) actually work. :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Admissions Tutor.
    Thank you

    They use evidence based reasoning hence the use of UMS, GCSE, TSA, etc. And now with the addition of these tests. They don't afaik use interviews to perform that function.

    Also I'm sure this has been linked before but I'll link it again so you can see the evidence based methods they use:
    http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/spec...sion-study.pdf
    (there are other papers too, but that one is a good start).
    Yes, I have seen this. I have even quoted from it. There is nothing about interviews in it. But interviews are a make-or-break part of the selection process.


    And to reiterate, this thread wasn't created about interviews - it is about the tests. If you want to continue to question Cambridge's use of interviews ask them in the Cambridge CAO (Central Admissions Office) thread
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3830287
    And to reiterate, my question was simply whether there was any scientific evidence that interviews are effective. You could have just said "no".
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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