Finally got your Oxford feedback??

This is mine:

'All of the interviewers at X college thought you were very articulate. ... answered questions very well indeed and with clarity.... coped incredibly well with all questions (goes onto specifics) ... overall, we firmly decided that you displayed all of the qualities to make an exceptional doctor... etc

'BUUUUT , very unfortunately, when we ranked all Oxford applicants post interview (1/3 invited to interview, 152 offers given to 452 interviewees), according to these 5 factors: academic grades, reference, personal statement, interview performance and finally the BMAT scores, you came at the top of the middle group, very narrowly missing out on an offer. (goes onto mention that 'top' group given offers, middle group is just below them, then the 'bottom group', etc)

'Please do not be discouraged at all as you are an incredibly worthy candidate, with all of your qualities unanimously judged to be of a standard clearly above the average of Oxford interviewees this year. ... I'm so sorry to write with this news....'

I like to research and over-prepare 2012 it is

I'm 5 weeks in after requesting feedback, and I'm still waiting...I've received four emails saying that they will 'pass my request on to the correct department', but I'm kind of doubting now whether I'll ever hear anything!

People say this so often, and generally with a certain sense of pride, but surely doing your research so much in advance that your findings are likely to be outdated and useless by the time you actually get there, is a bit of a pointless waste of time?

Yup. It's like the old chestnut interview question "what is your biggest weakness?". A surprisingly large number of people think that saying you are a perfectionist is a clever answer, and don't understand that perfectionists are not popular with managers who have deadlines to meet and who want staff that know when a task has been completed to a satisfactory standard.

Then again, they're probably well aware that all those applicants aren't really perfectionists, they're just pretending to be because they believe that's what their prospective employers will want to hear. I wonder whether it's even a useful question to ask in interviews, considering you're never going to get a truthful reply anyway...

Ah, but that's the point! You can spot a truthful answer and it identifies a candidate that is confident, honest, self-analytical and keen to self-develop, whatever the weakness identified. These are positive attributes that are ought by employers in general.

Ah, but you're not seriously telling me that if I were to tell you that I have a tendency to put myself in stressful situations, even when it wouldn't perhaps be strictly necessary, because I know I work best when under pressure and I try to make sure that I have that pressure, you'd take that as a positive thing? You'd conclude that I probably couldn't cope and that my working style was inefficient (which isn't actually true - or at least it's only a very skewed version of the truth).

The initially given answer is only the beginning of the story. Then come the subsidiary questions which explore such issues as those you mention in order to better get at the truth - do you really believe what you have stated or are you trying to wriggle, do you understand the implications of what you have said, does the stated weakness have underlying causes, is it a cause for concern, what steps have you taken to develop away from it, would you like to offer a different answer etc?

More probing questions to turn up even more weaknesses, you mean? Oh dear.

It's more about discovering the full picture - strengths and weaknesses - at least for a strong interviewer. A candidate might be weak in some areas, but have balancing strengths in others - nobody is perfect.