interviews are as good as tossing a coin

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.

Don't know where your getting your figures from - last year 12 people (in first year) got firsts in law at Cambridge out of 250, which is less than 5%. Even if the figure was 15% what university is giving less firsts than this? It's especially harsh considering these are generally the best law applicants in the country (a point which applies across the range of subjects).

As for 'tossing a coin', Steven Schwartz couldn't find his ass with both hands - he has nothing to say thats worth listening to.

Schwartz is at Brunel.

yes, but Lawzzzzz is at Oxford. You're a bit slow today!

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

If you care to notice, he is actually at Oxford.

To those dissing the article, can I draw your attention to this part:

I don't know how big that group was or how rigorous their process, but that seems like some reasonably strong evidence for the coin-tossing procedure! I don't like the idea of coin-tossing, not one bit - who would? But if interviewing really doesn't serve any purpose in picking the best candidates, it seems that it's essentially the same thing - except that coin-tossing prevents people who've had interview preparation from gaining an unfair advantage.

Actually, it was more a practice of "I've no idea about the legitimacy of their techniques, so I'll assume they've made a valid point until somebody provides an effective counter-argument." Nobody had done so thus far. You now have, thank you very much.

The American research is so distant from this as to be irrelevant.

In truth, I'd go as far to say that even at Oxbridge the interview stage isn't as central as people like to make out. I've always been of the belief that a fair proportion of interviewees could go into the interviews safe in the knowledge that as long as they don't completely cock up, they're basically in. Certainly from my experience, if a candidate was go to in with excellent written work and grades, along with a good personal statement and reference (though I would consider both minor factors in admission); that place is their's to throw anyway.

To those dissing the article, can I draw your attention to this part:

I don't know how big that group was or how rigorous their process, but that seems like some reasonably strong evidence for the coin-tossing procedure! I don't like the idea of coin-tossing, not one bit - who would? But if interviewing really doesn't serve any purpose in picking the best candidates, it seems that it's essentially the same thing - except that coin-tossing prevents people who've had interview preparation from gaining an unfair advantage.

I think you're right

I should add...

That doesn't mean interviews aren't important - they are - but it's a fallacy to suggest you need to pull out an abolute stormer of a performance to get offered a placed; because you don't. Other factors aren taken into account - not everybody starts the interview process "equal".