To think universities should state separate entry criteria for Indies?

[Wacamole]

DD who is on track for 3A*s at A’level, thought she’d give Oxbridge a go after being encouraged by her teachers. All very excited, doing super curriculars etc. Only just been told she doesn’t meet minimum entry criteria that would be expected from an Indy, which is straight 9s. She doesn’t have straight 9s, she has straight 8s (couple of nines), not only that, the course she wanted to apply for at Cambridge doesn’t require Maths at all, but school has advised they won’t even look at her if she doesn’t do Maths AND Further Maths. She is doing neither. Apparently an EPQ is also mandatory even though none of this is mentioned on Cambridge website.

All this second guessing, reading between the lines has been really confusing.
I have no issue with universities asking for higher entry criteria for students from indies for obvious reasons but wish they would be more transparent and state this on their ‘Entry requirements’ same way they state contextual offers?

@mids2019

So....the point of the interviews is to identify who will thrive in a particular education system which is perfectly understandable from a university perspective.

However given the doors opened through oxbridge degrees should the process award those that have consistently performed through their academic career (e.g. top of cohort, exemplary qualifications) or those that 'shine' at interview?

I think this is relevant as I expect a motivation for high achievers through secondary school is that hard work, application and endeavour will give a realistic chance of oxbridge entry as just reward.

Seriously anyone who gets an interview (especially at Oxford who only interview about 50% of applicants) is already a high achiever otherwise they wouldn't be in a position to make an application.

@SeasonFinale

I agree we are dealing with very fine margins and obviously all applicants will be at the top end of things.

However a significant number of pupils now are achieving the grades that would put them in contention.

My thoughts are does the current entrance system have potential to 'miss' people with reliance on interview?

Does that mean in future more interviewing as applications increase?

I think the slightly troubling term here is having a 'punt' as that implies something of a lottery.

I would say don't overlook the importance of the interview. Most of the people called up for interview will look pretty similar on paper. Dons will be looking for a) people who will thrive in the more hands off learning style on offer - especially important for arts subjects where the essay and tutorial system is very much the main teaching - it doesn't suit everyone no matter how clever they are/good their grades are and b) whom they'd like to teach. DH was at an admissions meeting where one college basically said they were turning down the top performer in the aptitude test because they were very arrogant at interview and there were other people who they would far rather teach. Might not happen often but do remember that interview prep is really helpful - if school don't offer it can you find a friend of a friend who might be prepared to put her through her paces - ie a very challenging discussion - can she hold her own whilst also being polite and flexible in her debating?

If the dons don't think that she will be able to benefit from the tutorial system the chances are 7*s and and EPQs won't get her in.

@crosstalk

FWIW I remember a very talented linguist from my private school back in the Seventies who had 8 GCSES at A* (all that could be taken) and 3 A grades. She didn't get into Oxbridge and intimated it was because she was interested in language and linguistics not literature. She became a highly paid translator at the UN and EU after a degree in what really interested her and wasn't on offer at Oxbridge.

I wish people could get over Oxbridge. Go for the degree that interests you wherever in this country or the world it is. Or don't go to university at all. One of my DCs shouldn't have bothered and is doing something unrelated to their course.

Back in the day I filled in my own UCAS forms and got myself to my own interviews aged 16 by train and bus. Yes, I did get to Oxbridge (in the days they did interviews post entrance exams after A level).

There was no such thing as A* in the 1970s.

@Londonmummy66

I entirely see the point of taking students you wish to teach and would do well under a tutorial system.

However could you not argue the high performer you mentioned deserved a place even though there was a personality clash with the supervisor.... OK he didn't quite get with a person on the day but he had a portfolio of academic achievement to show he was worthy of a place.

Does the interview not lend to unconscious bias?

Gel

people who will thrive in the more hands off learning style on offer
‘Hands off’ is the opposite of what Oxford and Cambridge provide.
The learning style does involve more scrutiny and high essay throughput for many subjects but with that comes more hand holding from all those very small group tutorials. As I said any bright student will improve more rapidly and therefore benefit from that system just as they would benefit from the small class teaching provided at say Eton or Westminster. Of course some may find it harder work than they would like.

Blimey, @cinnamonjellybeans, I don't really recognise my own experience there. Though I did indeed come from a pritt-stick-lusting-and-hurling comp.

@IfYouCantSeeMyMirrors what do you mean? What bit don't you fit into?

FWIW I remember a very talented linguist from my private school back in the Seventies who had 8 GCSES at A (all that could be taken) and 3 A grades. She didn't get into Oxbridge and intimated it was because she was interested in language and linguistics not literature. She became a highly paid translator at the UN and EU after a degree in what really interested her and wasn't on offer at Oxbridge.

...

There was no such thing as A in the 1970s.

Or GCSEs, come to that.

I think the slightly troubling term here is having a 'punt' as that implies something of a lottery.

MN posters use the term lottery a lot. Of course it's not a lottery.

Yeah, I was going to moan about that, but I was quite moany this morning and wanted to limit myself. It feeds into the idea that the places are not earned.

Yes it completely feeds into that CJB.

This year has been much more embittered than previous years I think, which has been unpleasant.

I think the slightly troubling term here is having a 'punt' as that implies something of a lottery.

I don't think it's just a lottery, but if we're truthful about it, it's a combination of talent and luck. For example, in one of my Cambridge interviews, I was asked to comment on 4 poems and pick out my favourite. I did so, and was asked whether I had ever come across anything quite like that poem before. I compared it to something else that I had read by a very obscure poet that most people had never heard of. It turned out that the poem I had picked was by the same author.

There was an element of merit in that -clearly, I had read widely enough around my subject to have come across said obscure poet, and I also had the sensitivity to be able to recognise the similarities between what I'd read and what I was presented with at interview. However, there was also a huge dose of luck involved, not only in the fact that I had chanced upon this poet previously, but also because I discovered two years later that the poet in question was the lifelong obsession of the academic who had interviewed me. I don't know what the other two interviewers thought of me, but I'm pretty sure that that particular academic fought like mad for me to have my place.

Admissions isn't a scientific process, and there will always be an element of luck involved. To be honest, though, I think luck runs throughout the education system in so many different ways - some kids are fortunate enough to have supportive parents, some are lucky enough to go to better schools, others might be lucky that particular questions come up in an exam etc etc. You can never remove this from the process entirely, you can only do what you can to make the process as fair as possible.

And acknowledging the fact that there is an element of luck involved doesn't mean that the places aren't earned at all. I'm sure that the kids who get in are genuinely deserving. It simply means that there are probably other equally deserving candidates who don't quite make it.

@alexshutup. Your piece of poetry may have been luck but I daresay the any decent school and certainly the high fee paying schools do prime Oxbridge applicants to research the academics who may interview them.

I overheard one of my dds tutorials (not Oxbridge) and her tutors brief to the students who would be doing a presentation to another lecturer was to research the other lecturer and know his specialisms because he was likely to cross reference to their individual topics. Therefore they could preempt any questions he may ask.

Totally agree with all of that, Alexa. I think an element of luck is part and parcel of most interviews, not just for university, and involves the sort of complex interplay of different factors that you describe so well.

I believe that my son who got an Oxford offer (I also have one who didn't) was genuinely lucky that his school screwed up the online interview arrangements they'd supposedly made for him, and he spent the minutes leading up to the interview racing around trying to find a laptop and spare office.

He's quite shy, was very anxious about the interview, and 20 minutes twiddling his thumbs waiting for it to start might honestly have affected his performance sufficiently adversely for him not to be offered a place. He got an open offer so wasn't one of his college's top choices. Who knows what sways it when there are so many strong candidates?

@AlexaShutUp

I dont think there is one ideal way of selecting successful candidates in any system .

I think what is to be debated is whether Oxbridge should be selecting on 'shining' on the day.

It may be that a very good applicant has a poor interview (it happens) and it seems harsh in my opinion to dismiss an academic career and teacher opinion just on that one element.

There is opinion that luck has nothing to do with it but that assumes a certain infallibility of the admissions tutors (which is debatable).

I am sure all successful applicants deserve their place but equally unsuccessful applicants are not unecessarily unworthy of a place and this is going to become ever more apparent.

With more and more applicants with great A level predictions the interview becomes more of a deciding issue and more highlighted. ... I think this is where the 'lottery' reputation deservedly or undeservedly comes in.

If the admissions procedure gets a reputation of a lottery then I think this is a bit of a problem.

At least oxbridge interview (or have the resources to do so) It remains a question how other universties do this.

They ask (depending on subject) for good grades and predictions, examples of school work, a decent reference, a PS, good performance in entrance tests AND ability during interview.

Still some element of luck, though, as demonstrated by the many excellent candidates who get turned down.

DD was asked for an example of what she was currently reading. Turns out that though interviewer 1 hadn’t heard of the book she rather wildly came up with, interviewer 2 liked to lecture on it in year 2.

Maybe they thought she was impressively well prepared?

@SandSeaBeach

If you have a highly academic child then you’re better off applying from a state school. Achieving a 7 in a state school class of 30 versus an indie class of 5-15 is the equivalent of a grade 9. If you’re getting grade 9s at the former you’re in another class entirely and admissions across the country are now acknowledging this.

Is this correct?

Or does it only apply if the state school fits deprived criteria?

Many years ago Oxford and Cambridge moved away from taking the brightest students to taking the most deserving. Deserving students are ones that stand out in the background that they have been brought up in.

As a result both universities turn away thousands of students each year with perfect academic track records who would have undoubtedly gone on to get a first at either Oxford or Cambridge. Meanwhile a quick glance at the latest Norrington table reveals about 5% of Oxford students get 3rds and over 50% get 2is. Deserving students are given the leg up in life that an Oxbridge education can provide, but only hard work and brilliance will get them a first.

As an example, this link shows the array of abilities admitted for classics at Oxford - in 2016, only 7 of the top 20 performers in the Classics Aptitude Test were given an offer. The university take the view that if you've been taught Greek and Latin from the age of 13 and excel at them by 18 then that is simply a function of your privileged upbringing. 38.5% in the aptitude test can count for more than 90% in the admissions tutors' minds. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/494896/response/1252118/attach/2/Benham%20Data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

There are similar issues with interviews for jobs - loads of people could do the job so it just about always ends in some kind of lottery of the best of the best for the higher paid jobs. Some interviewers now are not told your university to avoid bias although you would have to have high enough A level grades and a 2/1 or higher to be in the running. I had 25 interviews in 1981/82 whilst at university afetr applying to 139 law firms (we had much worse unemployment than now - 3m out of work (on a smaller population than today), highest number in 50 years in 1982. So what happened in interview 25 compared with number 1 that meant I got the job? I suppose I had got more used to what they might ask but I do think it came down to luck. Even in the interview where the interviewer spoke to me in German (I have A level) and I did very well back - still did not get the job. There were just loads of people looking.

On the whole people from a range of the harder to get into universities tend to get reasonable jobs in the end so it just about all pans out okay wherever you are from if you are very hard working and very good at what you do.

Just about none of my 5 children had interviews for university and none tried Oxbridge so it was all down to exam grades really and if they had picked a popular subject etc.

@CinnamonJellyBeans: I think it was the bit about 'rainman' that didn't really seem to fit! I was/am very good at the subject I studied. But not 'rainman-level good'. I think what I was was just very, very interested in my subject. I loved it. I wanted nothing more than to discuss it with friends and tutors for three years - and that was (with a few exceptions) true of the other people I met on my course at Cambridge too.

I didn't go to the kind of school where (had such things existed) I could have achieved straight 9s. I'd never heard of an EPQ before I read this thread. But I was good - and I was fascinated, entranced, obsessed by my subject. I think that made the difference for me.