To think that high stakes uni entrance exams (e.g. TMUA) are killing innovation

[justalittlethought]

Just wondering, after reading about the relentless pressure on A-level students, whether this constant drive to work all hours for top scores is ultimately killing creativity and innovation.

I came across a discussion on another post suggesting that TMUA scores might have been miscalculated for a particular sitting. Others claimed that the high number of applicants from, for example, China (who’ve sat the Gaokao exams) are pushing marks upward, skewing the bell curve and results.

But isn’t that worrying? Anecdotally, I know so many bright students who’ve become anxious wrecks after working themselves to the limit for A-level A*s and top Oxbridge entrance test scores. Yet I also know equally talented, curious students who take a more balanced approach - perhaps more like students did 20 or 30 years ago - studying seriously but not obsessively, and still getting excellent results (perhaps 90%, not 100%) but not enough to get into Oxbridge perhaps.

So, are we really capturing the most genuinely bright minds at Oxbridge? Or are we selecting students who’ve mastered intense exam technique and mark schemes - tools that weren’t readily available “back in the day” - but may already have reached their performance ceiling? Of course they will be very bright, but are we truly getting the best across the board?

Interestingly, countries with the highest levels of innovation and scientific breakthroughs aren’t necessarily those with intense academic pressure. Often, they’re the ones that allow students time to mature and explore ideas freely.

We don’t just want “academic robots” who can only grind for marks. Yes, Oxbridge has always been high-stakes, but isn’t there value in slowing down to allow reflection and curiosity to develop? It feels like that’s becoming harder, especially in STEM fields now dominated by applicants from Asian or Asian-influenced education systems or parental heritage. Perhaps there’s an argument for setting clearer quotas between UK and international places?

I'd love to hear people's views!

PS - including a ranking of countries seen as top innovators (yes, I'm sure there are other views on this but many of these tend to pop up regularly):
Switzerland
United States
Sweden
Singapore
Finland
Netherlands
South Korea
Israel
Germany

Well with Oxbridge, the interview process is designed to winnow out the exam bots as you have to think on your feet. Ideally it would happen more, but it is so resource intensive that most universities can't do it.

Interesting first post OP. For the record, I'm an Oxbridge academic and absolutely no-one here meets your definition of "academic robots"- whether they are UK or a foreigner...

I do see wealthy internationals gaming the system for the Ivy League not so much, Oxbridge.

A levels in various languages where a student is effectively mother tongue etc, but it’s not obvious. Engineered since birth by parents. Leaves extra bandwidth for super curricular etc.

Public schools, UK, pandering perhaps to families with the most ££ which advantages some students. I remember listening to an ex head of Eton who said as long as a boy met the basic academic requirements he might look more favourably at a family offering £ over another. It then meant he could help others re: scholarships etc.