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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    They take the best, which tends to be people rich enough to have had a sh*t tonne spent on their education. Hardly surprising
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    (*) And of course, impossible to simulate that you don't know the interviewer, you're in an unfamiliar environment, and this is probably the most important interview of your life (so far).
    ^^ And this is, in a way, what makes it so daunting particularly for people without any practice (and even if you do have practice, it's nowhere near the real thing). There's something to be said for not stressing too much - may as well just treat it as an interesting intellectual discussion and enjoy it as far as possible and then if you get an offer or not it will have been a nice experience.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)
    How so? Everyone goes through the same admissions process. Do you think they should skip some steps for underrepresented students or something?



    I believe they are currently both running at a deficit, but I agree it would be good to expand these schemes further.
    As has been suggested earlier, expanding its foundation year courses and opportunities would be a good start.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    Just because someone is able to get through the interview without the need to burst into tears when asked a question doesn't automatically mean they will display "arrogant bluster".

    But I suppose it all doesn't matter. None of this discussion will change anything; if Lammy casts a spotlight on the admissions system that is a good thing. But I wish he'd realise that it is the lack of scrutiny and accountability which lies at the root of the problem rather than inherent racism: if he did I think most people would agree with him.
    Sigh. That wasn't what I said. The "arrogant bluster" candidate was in reference to the prior example from J-SP.

    So for your benefit let's say you have 3 candidates: one shy and potentially tearful but demonstrating good potential, one arrogantly blustering their way through but clearly not understanding the concepts, and one calmy and clearly conducting themselves and engaging with the process, then the first and third would be preferred over the second.

    No lack of transparency. It's pretty straightforward.
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Long thread, can't be bothered to read it all. Is there a problem with diversity (geographic, economic, ethnic etc) at Oxbridge? Yes, absolutely. Is that Oxbridge's fault? Mmm, probably not.

    I was dismayed to hear politicians say on Any Questions that they think Oxbridge admissions should be school-blind, that would surely only result in even less state school students getting offers.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    David Lammy is very consistent at talking complete crap.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    Long thread, can't be bothered to read it all. Is there a problem with diversity (geographic, economic, ethnic etc) at Oxbridge? Yes, absolutely. Is that Oxbridge's fault? Mmm, probably not.

    I was dismayed to hear politicians say on Any Questions that they think Oxbridge admissions should be school-blind, that would surely only result in even less state school students getting offers.
    When my other half was an interviewer, she said they were school-blind on a practical lever (lots of interviewees, more important things to focus on in limited time). However, its extremely obvious who has been extensively coached to do an oxbridge interview and who isn't, and that they had to adjust for that a lot to make it fair. She thinks they did a good job.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    Long thread, can't be bothered to read it all. Is there a problem with diversity (geographic, economic, ethnic etc) at Oxbridge? Yes, absolutely. Is that Oxbridge's fault? Mmm, probably not.

    I was dismayed to hear politicians say on Any Questions that they think Oxbridge admissions should be school-blind, that would surely only result in even less state school students getting offers.
    Oh it almost definitely would what idiot suggested that.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know if this data can be accessed anywhere? I'm interested in reading some of the detail.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NamesAreEffort)
    Does anyone know if this data can be accessed anywhere? I'm interested in reading some of the detail.
    Which data? Oxbridge already published a lot of data which didn't require an FOI from Lammy.


    Cambridge (note the PDFs on the side)
    https://www.undergraduate.study.cam....ply/statistics

    Oxford (this is a summary page - there's more available)
    https://public.tableau.com/views/UoO...showVizHome=no
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Which data? Oxbridge already published a lot of data which didn't require an FOI from Lammy.


    Cambridge (note the PDFs on the side)
    https://www.undergraduate.study.cam....ply/statistics

    Oxford (this is a summary page - there's more available)
    https://public.tableau.com/views/UoO...showVizHome=no
    Ethnicity data, more specifically ethnicity data by college.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NamesAreEffort)
    Ethnicity data, more specifically ethnicity data by college.
    If you are using it to select a college don't bother

    For one, there's a roughly 20-25% chance any offer will be from a different college anyway.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    If you are using it to select a college don't bother

    For one, there's a roughly 20-25% chance any offer will be from a different college anyway.
    Oh no not at all, my college choice is done and dusted I'm perfectly happy with it. I'm just curious that's all.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Sigh. That wasn't what I said. The "arrogant bluster" candidate was in reference to the prior example from J-SP.

    So for your benefit let's say you have 3 candidates: one shy and potentially tearful but demonstrating good potential, one arrogantly blustering their way through but clearly not understanding the concepts, and one calmy and clearly conducting themselves and engaging with the process, then the first and third would be preferred over the second.

    No lack of transparency. It's pretty straightforward.
    Of course no-one could argue with the scenario you present.

    It's simply the point there would be apparently no record of the interview in your scenario and no independent scrutiny of the decision according to that FOI request which I now wish I'd never come across tbh.

    And, out of interest, I searched other FOI requests for other subjects and colleges and none seemed to show the same apparent anomaly.

    And, btw I have now read the entire article on the 'burst into tears' interview and it would seem the interviewers did get it right as the girl did well with an incredible 5 A levels and 2 at A*!
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    Of course no-one could argue with the scenario you present.
    And yet you did. Anyway let's move on.

    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    And, out of interest, I searched other FOI requests for other subjects and colleges and none seemed to show the same apparent anomaly.
    It's not an anomaly. You are drawing a conclusion based on (very) incomplete information.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    And yet you did. Anyway let's move on.



    It's not an anomaly. You are drawing a conclusion based on (very) incomplete information.

    "And yet you did "

    You only presented that scenario once and I said no-one can argue with it: I don't follow your logic.

    "It's not an anomaly."

    I said it was an apparent anomaly.

    "Anyway let's move on."

    Agreed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    When my other half was an interviewer, she said they were school-blind on a practical lever (lots of interviewees, more important things to focus on in limited time). However, its extremely obvious who has been extensively coached to do an oxbridge interview and who isn't, and that they had to adjust for that a lot to make it fair. She thinks they did a good job.
    I wonder in practise how effective the 'coaching detector' reliably is. I suspect the people weeded out for 'over-coaching' (presumably because the view was that their ability didn't show through as much as the coaching) were the low hanging fruit. I am confident that coaching helps with getting in (it definitely did in my case) and equally confident that the filter also tunes well for genuine ability. It's kind of a combination in many cases.

    What we can't get round is the clear and undisputed fact that a number of leading schools reliably gain significant percentages of Oxbridge undergrad intake. Unless there is some kind of hidden corruption going on, then the most plausible explanation is that they offer a splendid and encouraging education, push students to aim high and obtain success and (here goes!) *coach* their pupils to victory.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    You only presented that scenario once and I said no-one can argue with it: I don't follow your logic.
    You argued when I first compared a knowledgeable shy person with an ignorant blusterer. (Because you didn't pay attention to the earlier introduction of the blusterer by J-SP.)

    Good
    • Community Assistant
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    When my other half was an interviewer, she said they were school-blind on a practical lever (lots of interviewees, more important things to focus on in limited time). However, its extremely obvious who has been extensively coached to do an oxbridge interview and who isn't, and that they had to adjust for that a lot to make it fair. She thinks they did a good job.
    Perhaps, but it is important to know what school an applicant is coming from if only to put their grades in context. Someone from a state school in a deprived area with AAA is perhaps more deserving of an offer than someone with A*AA from Eton. :dontknow:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    You argued when I first compared a knowledgeable shy person with an ignorant blusterer. (Because you didn't pay attention to the earlier introduction of the blusterer by J-SP.)

    Good
    Sorry, you cannot just accuse me of saying things I have not done or said without expecting a reply.

    "(Because you didn't pay attention to the earlier introduction of the blusterer by J-SP.)"

    I believe you were the first person to introduce the term 'arrogant bluster' in your post #311. So I did not miss it in J-SP's post. And now I see you refer to 'ignorant blusterer' which is an entirely different thing anyway. (I have met many people in my time who could be described as arrogant who were far from ignorant: hospital consultants sometimes fall into this category, for example).

    "You argued when I first compared a knowledgeable shy person with an ignorant blusterer."

    I'm sorry but you did not make this comparison. In response to someone who said the interview was all-important, I had given an example of a successful candidate who had burst into tears and whose mind had gone blank in the interview when quizzed about their PS.

    You said in #311:

    "The fairness is in finding the potential in the "emotional" candidate and seeing through the arrogant bluster in the other candidate to find they didn't have the same potential. "

    You did not describe the emotional candidate as knowledgeable nor the arrogant candidate as ignorant. You restricted yourself to two types of candidate implying that if a candidate is not emotional (as the candidate we had been discussing up to that point) then they fall into the category of arrogant.

    I argued that just because someone was not an emotional candidate did not automatically make them an arrogant candidate.

    You then said in #324: "Sigh. That wasn't what I said. The "arrogant bluster" candidate was in reference to the prior example from J-SP. " (As stated above, there was no prior reference to the term 'arrogant bluster' other than your own, but I just let it go).

    I joined the TSR this week to find out about Oxbridge and other university admissions. I am now more confused than ever.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.