This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Hypothesis testing
- Stats Help
- Specialisation of fellows
- Picking between two offers
- Advice for which uni to place as insurance please
- Magdalen or ChCh?
- Sixth form/ college open days
- A Level combination
- Help with a level stats question
- How do I pick the right guy?
- creative story for edexcel english lang
- Imperial no reply=rejection?
- Help Choosing a Sixth form/college ASAP
- boy help
- I’m in love with two girls and not sure what to do
- Choosing Between Biomedical and Microbiology
- rooms in uni house
- Who should get the bigger room?
- Medicine at 22
- Best Coins in your Collections
interviews are as good as tossing a coin
Hey there
with the interview season upon us I just thought Id see what people thought about this page on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4042353.stm
with the interview season upon us I just thought Id see what people thought about this page on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4042353.stm
Scroll to see replies
Ralfskini
That's complete 
s. The guy who wrote that is a blatant oxbridge reject.
s. The guy who wrote that is a blatant oxbridge reject.I wouldnt say that. In fact I have heard a quote from an admissions tutor who said that the process was like having to pick one out of a pile of £20 notes, and throw the others away.
Having said that - I think it is wrong to characterise the interview process as pure chance. It involves some tough decisions, and indeed, may involve some incorrect ones - but it does provide another basis for determining who is accepted and who is rejected.
After all its all very well to criticise the system, but you have to provide an alternative. This MP is talking about flipping a damn coin - what a moron.
Plus he seems to imply there is some sort of shady bias involves - as he wants a more transparent process. However the US study showed that there was no eventual difference between those accepted on the basis of a test, and those accepted on the basis of interview. As such there is no evidence that those who avoid an interview are of higher quality.
Until someone comes up with a better way of deciding (perhaps they should consider making A levels harder??? just MAYBE?) then the interview process is as good a method as any.
well if you didn't already have the wind up you, ladies and gents, here's ANOTHER thing to discredit achievement and dishearten you all. craptacular!
Well yeah I didn't see any point to my interview at Southampton, they even said before the interviews that we'd all be getting offers. So I didn't really understand why I was there, had a nice chat though. Would have been better if they'd given me coffee to chat with 
One of my cam interviews was properly structured and one wasn't as much because it was based on the parts of A-level physics I'd covered and that would have been different for different syllabuses.
Alaric.
One of my cam interviews was properly structured and one wasn't as much because it was based on the parts of A-level physics I'd covered and that would have been different for different syllabuses.
Alaric.
notyourpunk
Hey there
with the interview season upon us I just thought Id see what people thought about this page on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4042353.stm
with the interview season upon us I just thought Id see what people thought about this page on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4042353.stm
To be honest, almost all the people who apply to Oxbridge are worthy of a place there. The interviewers have to try and work out who will get the most out of it. They usually choose the ones they think they will enjoy teaching; I think that that is probably the best criterion.
OldMan
To be honest, almost all the people who apply to Oxbridge are worthy of a place there. The interviewers have to try and work out who will get the most out of it. They usually choose the ones they think they will enjoy teaching; I think that that is probably the best criterion.
I don't quite agree with that - even of the people who are accepted, which you have to admit are at least on average better than most of those who are rejected, many struggle to cope with the degree; very few get 1sts, and some even drop out entirely. So I think almost everyone who applies is a bright, talented student; but to say everyone is worthy of an Oxford place is exagerating, in my view.
H&E
I don't quite agree with that - even of the people who are accepted, which you have to admit are at least on average better than most of those who are rejected, many struggle to cope with the degree; very few get 1sts, and some even drop out entirely. So I think almost everyone who applies is a bright, talented student; but to say everyone is worthy of an Oxford place is exagerating, in my view.
Very few get firsts? What is the % for your course? At undergrad level for law, its about 15% - not that rare really. Its a lot hihger than other top unis.
I would totally agree that not all those who apply will be worthy of a place - there are just too many applications.
yes, but considering everyone who is admitting is said to have "the potential to obtain a first", 15% is a pretty low outcome.
granddad_bob
yes, but considering everyone who is admitting is said to have "the potential to obtain a first", 15% is a pretty low outcome.
Well I wouldn't agree that everyone admitted has that potential. And even so - potential is nothing - 15% is high compared to other universities and courses.
that's the official university stance; everyone giving an offer has the potential to obtain a first - heard it at more open days than i wish to remember.
Lawzzzzzz
I dont doubt they say it - I just doubt the veracity of it.
from experience, i think that unless you're just totally amazing at your subject and will get a first anyway, that the trend is that people who work really hard tend to get firsts, and the people that do a reasonable amount of work get 2.1s. although i know a couple of people who worked hard and got 2.iis etc, i still think that basically the difference between a 2.i and a first is the extra effort needed to improve your essay-writing skills or knowledge - so maybe everyone admitted has the potential to get a first provided they put the necessary work in, and most people do lots of other things aside from work and get 2.is?
H&E
I don't quite agree with that - even of the people who are accepted, which you have to admit are at least on average better than most of those who are rejected, many struggle to cope with the degree; very few get 1sts, and some even drop out entirely. So I think almost everyone who applies is a bright, talented student; but to say everyone is worthy of an Oxford place is exagerating, in my view.
The drop out rate is extremely low.
Ben
amateurish
from experience, i think that unless you're just totally amazing at your subject and will get a first anyway, that the trend is that people who work really hard tend to get firsts, and the people that do a reasonable amount of work get 2.1s. although i know a couple of people who worked hard and got 2.iis etc, i still think that basically the difference between a 2.i and a first is the extra effort needed to improve your essay-writing skills or knowledge - so maybe everyone admitted has the potential to get a first provided they put the necessary work in, and most people do lots of other things aside from work and get 2.is?
There is an element of truth in this - in that I think a far larger proportion of people COULD get firsts. However, I think it’s a bit presumptuous to claim that everyone (or even a majority) of those accepted into Oxford could attain a first.
Its not a question of getting a first on one essay, or one mod - its a matter of consistency. Having said that I can only talk about law - but the fact is that some areas of it are difficult enough, that not everyone will be able to grasp the concept at a level necessary for a first. Indeed, some of the topics are tough enough that it can be beyond Junior members of the faculty.
amateurish
from experience, i think that unless you're just totally amazing at your subject and will get a first anyway, that the trend is that people who work really hard tend to get firsts, and the people that do a reasonable amount of work get 2.1s. although i know a couple of people who worked hard and got 2.iis etc, i still think that basically the difference between a 2.i and a first is the extra effort needed to improve your essay-writing skills or knowledge - so maybe everyone admitted has the potential to get a first provided they put the necessary work in, and most people do lots of other things aside from work and get 2.is?
I don't think that's the case, although it may depend on the particular subject. A first isn't something you can get by hard work alone, and there are plenty of people who work very hard and don't get one.
Related discussions
- Hypothesis testing
- Stats Help
- Specialisation of fellows
- Picking between two offers
- Advice for which uni to place as insurance please
- Magdalen or ChCh?
- Sixth form/ college open days
- A Level combination
- Help with a level stats question
- How do I pick the right guy?
- creative story for edexcel english lang
- Imperial no reply=rejection?
- Help Choosing a Sixth form/college ASAP
- boy help
- I’m in love with two girls and not sure what to do
- Choosing Between Biomedical and Microbiology
- rooms in uni house
- Who should get the bigger room?
- Medicine at 22
- Best Coins in your Collections
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Applying to Oxford after completing a year at a US universityLast reply 2 weeks ago
How much of a disadvantage will I be at at Oxford and LSE as a resit candidate?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Got into Oxford despite missing a grade. I feel like I don't deserve to be thereLast reply 3 weeks ago
A*A*A* predicted (Maths, Further Maths & Computing) - Rejected by all universities
