Anyone whose DD or DS had a disastrous Oxbridge interview....

[Supermanspants]

..... and managed to get an offer?
Hideous interview today. Grilled on a topic she hasn't even covered in her A level course and based purely on a 7 page academic article she only got half an hour before the interview.
She is so down about it all.

I wonder how much is due to perception.What to one person might seem like a lively debate, to another might feel like a roasting?

yes, that too

There's also a difference between the sort of reasoning skills used in science and science based subjects and what the tutors are looking for in a linguist say, or a historian.

Given the style of teaching at Oxbridge, different from other universities, the tutors need to ensure that the people they select will be people that thrive in that environment and they want to meet with for three years.
So you could be the 'brightest' etc with glowing academic record, but just not suit that type of study.

Ensuring that students will be 'people... they want to meet with for three years,' sounds just a tad discriminatory, don't we think?

why? why would you choose people you thought would be dull when you have to meet with them for three years?

I don't think it's discriminatory. Some DCs will do very well on exams sitting at the back of the class. Some are enthusiastic to be up front. The teaching at Oxbridge is in tutorials and the back-of-the-class DCs would not enjoy the verbal jousting and tutors would be dragging reluctant students along.

To get into Oxford or Cambridge you need to have the right academic record. What I assume both places (and all the other universities) do is look at the percentages of each gender, ethnic group and so on getting the right level of qualifications and then at whether they are getting similar stats on their intake. If they aren't, the obvious work to be done is (a) outreach work with groups who aren't applying; (b) review success rates of applicants by group to see if there is any bias in the interviewing process.

If interviewers are choosing people they think they will get on with for three years and managing at the same time to avoid any prejudice against any particular group, that's not discriminatory in any unacceptable way. They have to discriminate in the literal sense of the word because they can't give everybody a place.

Yes to the lively debate/roasting perception differences. Dd is used to that sort of thing from school, and likes to dissect everything. I'm sure there's stuff in the description of the Oxford interview process about them looking for people who will benefit from, and bring plenty to, tutorials. Maybe not - maybe it was in the feedback that dd got after her interview.

And as for the Durham thing - which has been a rumour for thirty years or more! - well, one can easily get round it these days by applying to Oxford/Cambridge before 15th October, and then adding more unis to your form after the 15th. Any university now that has applicants with high predicted grades has to consider the possibility that they have also applied to Oxbridge or any other high profile university.

I'm dubious about some aspects of trying to improve access: by the time kids get to the applying to university stage the job is largely done/not done. But - in the case of confidence under fire, I think that is something that can be learnt or improved upon. AtiaoftheJulii says her "dd is used to that sort of thing from school" - but many very able applicants have not had the chance to experience or be trained in lively debate/roasting but could easily learn to like it. It would seem very unfair to only choose highly confident (bumptious, even) students who may turn out to be full of hot air whilst overlooking tortoises who may after an immersion in tutorial techniques speed past the hares.

why would Durham care whether a candidate has applied to Oxbridge or not?
I know with maths this year at least they have stated they offer places purely on the basis of UMS.

But Durham is not as over-subscribed for maths as it is for other subjects. Top students will typically choose Warwick, Imperial, UCL or even Bath over Durham for maths. (In tables which include research Durham typically lies between 10th and 20th for maths.)

It really is worth looking at Rusbridger's blog for how the Oxford economics with management selection has worked this year.

I think Durham sent dd something to say they make offers to 40% of applicants and would choose by ranking applicants in ums order.having said that I know of several competent but not-too-marvellous mathematicians who got in from ds1's year ie missing FM A*

On threads like this I always link to this article about the Cambridge decision-making process. Fascinating.

That's really interesting thanks for the link!

I think what I was trying to suggest above is that using interviews to decide on the 'right type' of personality/character is an uncertain business.

As RhodaBull has suggested the process will tend to favour confident extroverts and disadvantage shyer introverts. (However, I don't think most of us believe that extroverts are more intellectually gifted.)

Vague criteria about 'people who will fit in,' or 'people who I'd like to have round for the next three years' are inherently dodgy because of the issue of unconscious bias.

Historically the UK's oldest universities - like the country itself -have been run and staffed-by independently educated white men. There is a tendency for people to not just feel comfortable with those who are like themselves, but to favour them - and to attribute higher qualities to them.

Which is one of the reasons why institutional change is rather a slow process.

It was good to read the article Gasp0de had linked to, once more.

All unis in the US interview- you either interview with admissions on the campus or with an alumni interviewer. It doesn't carry the weight of an Oxbridge interview and doesn't include academic testing but can influence the decision for a marginal candidate. Top American universities go miles out of their way to scout out talent and create diverse student bodies. Sometimes to a comical degree- Disabled transgender Half Native American/Pacific Islander from a one room school in North Dakota with a B+ average= Welcome to Harvard! My impression is that Oxbridge is working hard to effect institutional change but can't take students who won't cope due to previous poor education. This is a huge problem at American unis. I saw fellow students flounder hopelessly and then drop out (even with a lot of extra support from professors) because they were so underprepared at school.

DD and her friends (uber high achieving indie) have certainly got the message that they are actually at a disadvantage and need to be academically flawless to stand a chance.

BTW- I know a fair few Oxbridge people who you would never discribe as extrovert and one or two who surprise me that they can put their trousers on the right way round.

Historically the UK's oldest universities - like the country itself -have been run and staffed-by independently educated white men.

But of course in many departments the majority of staff are currently not even British (let alone white privately educated): academia is international these days. Our education system means that we under-produce top researchers in at least some subjects and are thus more likely to hire non-UK academic staff at top institutions.

I always find it laughable when people suggest that academic staff are going to be biased in favour of privately educated candidates: in my department not only were most staff not educated at private schools but many weren't even educated in the UK. Very few of my British colleagues were educated at private schools either.

Unconscious gender bias is a whole different issue: in any department/field where the majority of staff are one gender it's very likely there will be unconscious bias in favour of that gender. This issue is very relevant for the under recruitment of women in certain STEM subjects.

"Top American universities go miles out of their way to scout out talent and create diverse student bodies. Sometimes to a comical degree- Disabled transgender Half Native American/Pacific Islander from a one room school in North Dakota with a B+ average= Welcome to Harvard!"

We were told that this also happens to a certain degree at top UK schools - that multilingual DC educated in a different country with eccentric backgrounds have an advantage over graduates of the usual feeder schools. What do you think? I would appreciate your thoughts.

Perhaps if I speak more personally. I went to a high-status mixed college -at a time when the majority of colleges were single sex - within a high-status university. All the people who supervised me in my chosen subject were white independently educated men.

A significant proportion of the student body were independently educated and they, I think, found college life a little easier to negotiate. The college was run rather like a progressive boarding school. (The Senior Tutor was an old Etonian.)

Anyway for whatever reason it tended to be a higher proportion of those who were independently educated who went on to do research degrees at the same university and/or gain Fellowships there.

I absolutely accept that academic life has become increasingly international. (It's also clear from my visits to see my daughter, who's at a similar nearby place, that the student body is more diverse.) So I'm sure that there are many academics from top American universities there now, as well as others from similarly elite institutions all over the world.

Nonetheless if I look at my old College there are still an astonishing number of a) staff who were young academics when I was there and b)fellow students from my time there who are now academics.

I also have academic friends in Russell Group universities who have said that their own student and academic background makes it unlikely they'd be offered an Oxford or Cambridge Fellowship.

If institutions can be international yet - simultaneously - insular, I think it's likely that Oxford and Cambridge manage to combine those two qualities.

Does this affect how candidates from a variety of backgrounds are perceived at interview? Hard to say...

I also have academic friends in Russell Group universities who have said that their own student and academic background makes it unlikely they'd be offered an Oxford or Cambridge Fellowship.

Plenty of RG educated people get permanent positions in Oxbridge. Many won't, but because they are not working at the required level, not just because of where they were educated. If you aren't a world leader then you won't get a position in a world leading group, whether it is Oxbridge or another university in the UK.

Anyway for whatever reason it tended to be a higher proportion of those who were independently educated who went on to do research degrees at the same university and/or gain Fellowships there.

In STEM the opposite is true: many independently educated students absolutely reject research/academia because the pay is far lower than they want.

Cote - IMVHO it is not true that the diversity criteria beloved of US universities are appreciated by UK universities, unless those diversity criteria provide a direct and clearly demonstrable academic advantage for the course of study under consideration.

Want to study Italian and German at Oxford? If you are trilingual French/English/Spanish by family background and have done German and Italisn at school to a high level, you are more attractive than a similarly academic applicant who is monolingual British and has learned two MFL in a UK school. But being trilingual won't compensate for less than stellar maths if you want to read Economics.